Revising MySELF & My Work...

What have I been up to?

Lots, actually.

I’ve been rather busy in both the areas of pleasure and work.

First off, I suppose I should talk about the drawing here.  Obviously it’s just the ‘cartoon’ of me from up on the left tweaked to reflect my new haircut.  I didn't seem know what to do with it these days, and I’d been letting it grow out.  A few months back the joy of it became a chore and -sinp- cut.  I'd rekindled my passion for hats.  Since then, I’ve made a new friend, Darling.   He suggested I go shorter.  As I said, I didn’t have any particular way I wanted my hair to go at this point, so I ventured.  I like it. I don't use the hats anymore, at least not right now.   I’ll change the upper left picture eventually.

So some of my time is filled hanging out with Darling, and that, coupled with the general wonder, events and surprises one encounters in Life accounts for the pleasure I spoke about.

On the “work” side I re-read two of my novels.  Is that work?  Sure, when your intention is polishing and revising.  A bittersweet sort of work.  I of course, then, needed the queries to go with them.  One never knows and it’s easy to get too close to it, but I feel them to be solid.  Many approaches, angles and the like.  Special thanks to Doodles who took an axe to one of them.  So much better!   And so, I am now ready begin the grueling process yet one more time.  I already have, in fact.  Did the required homework and I’ll be submitting any day now.

I’ve also been working on, for a lack of a better term, a special edition of Peter Pan’s NeverWorld.  It will include annotations, other artwork & more.  It’s often on the backburner.  But I do return to it.  Right now I’m focused on the querying.

And in the category that’s a little of Column A & a little of Column B, Darling and I had become mildly obsessed  for a time with “Princess Alice” – a character from a serious psychological study by Jesse Bering.  It’s designed to examine how children’s behavior is affected by an invisible person watching over them. The Princess Alice Effect shows that children are less likely to cheat when they believe in an invisible figure looming over them.  There's more to the study than that, as it also explores  at what age and how  complex cognitive processes form.

Anyway, given my penchant to wonder and immerse myself, Darling and I have been pontificating about the nature of the character.  We enjoy over-analyzing the sparse information we have about Princess Alice, trying to glean the nuances of her psyche, powers and the like.  It also yields deep probing into the nature of reality.  Please understand that it’s all for amusement and yet we mean no disrespect to Bering, his work or the study.  On the contrary, we were rather taken with it, hence our desire to expand & create with it. Darling’s lightly considering composing a piece inspired by Princess Alice and I hope to write out the notes and ideas we have as an essay, with the citation/justification for the claims of her highness.  Maybe one day for both projects!

After all, the chatter of other characters is never (thankfully!) turned off.  Always plunking away at the other books in my head, too… more tales of the NeverWorld and other books’ sequels.  I’m leaning toward one in particular.  In fact, it would be book three of the very book I’ll be submitting.  I found some writing scraps lost in the shuffle and it rather got me thinking…

By the way, here’s a link to how the study appeared on Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman.

A Little Inky

I just might have come up with the title for my on-again-off-again "ghost story" novel.  I have it in quotes because it's not your typical entry into the genre.  Many parts of it have been or are elusive for me.  Some have been solved, others explored - yet the title has always been not even a ghostly vapor.  But I think the Muses have granted me what it shall be called.  Maybe I'll revisit what I've got on virtual paper for that book.

Speaking of revisiting, I've also been on the NeverWorld.  I had a re-read of what currently amounts to Book Two.  I had begun writing it too many moons ago.  So many that counting in moons makes no sense.  I'd probably not seen it for a decade.  I'd put it down when the window shut.  Since then I've had some ideas for it and the next book (and other beyond three).  I also, of course, reworked my original writings of Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between.  But I'd actually been writing both of them at the same time.  I'd bounce back and forth from the mid-past to the far-future from the story that began on stage.  Well, a little while ago I felt an itch to bounce (Calm down, Pogocat!) back onto the magical planet.

I won't lie.  It's terrible.  But that's only a half truth.  The story isn't terrible.  It's the execution of it.  But then, I'm being hard on myself.  It's a relief to remember it's a mere first draft.  I'd just been unfolding the story onto paper, heedless of craft.  But it's also a fact that I can't help but try and shape it as it should be as I go.  Attempts at emulating Barrie abound but I could see right through them.  It just needs some tinkering there and lots of rewrites and cuts elsewhere.

The story, on the other hand, is still quite fun in my opinion.  It has the same feel as the first book in that many characters are running/flying around engaged in various activities, shifting in and out of the situations which are actually all tied to the main event.  I'm once again borrowing from folklore for this tale.  A really interesting character shows up.  I wish I could say I invented all of the quirks and traits.  But it certainly is a blast playing with them.  I also think it has a grand feel, worthy of the magnitude of the adventure planet.  Yet there's not as much as I remembered.  I'd been saying (and believing) that I'd half written.  It's actually more like one-third. (Stop scowling, Halfway!)  But that's just on paper.  The tale is all there, just needs to be told.

So it looks like it might get a little inky for me in the future.  Plenty to splash onto paper... even if it is sometimes virtual.

Pan-tastic!

Well, folks, my main editor/proofer/test subject beyond the justifiably harsh (yet very satisfied!) critics of Jones and Anon has finished her perusal. Please forgive the length of time it took her to complete the task. I have, without anything ever being there to forgive in the first place. As we know from Wendy’s plight alone, being a mother while trying to accomplish other tasks proves difficult enough. Couple that with another pregnancy and Life throwing curve balls. But even more importantly than the usual round-up of Time-stealing-&-fleeing cues, this proofer went, of her own volition, beyond the call of duty.

Which is to say she read them all!  She could have just read Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between and proofed it. But she opted to read Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens beforehand, so as to better appreciate and understand my interquel novel. Except she didn’t stop there. She also re-read Peter and Wendy. Good thing, too, for the interquel, being such that it connects one book to the other, also uses elements from the well-known Pan adventure. And yet, she read on for another go at Peter Pan’s NeverWorld as well. Thus, she immersed herself in the full scope of both mine and Barrie’s works on the eternal boy.  And truthfully?  Even PPNW connects back to Betwixt-and-Between. {Naturally - it's meant to be a "set."}

And her verdict? LOVED IT!!!!!!!

Other quotes from her:

You have made an excellent bridge between Kensington Gardens and Peter and Wendy! When I read PPIKG, I was definitely not left with the concept of the Peter I have come to know. You so excellently brought him out of the Thrush's Nest boat and into the rather scary/sociopathic egomaniac I am coming to love.

PHENOMENALLY done! (Spoken about a particular handling of a subject.)

You have a gift - thank you for sharing it with me.

That last line really got to me. The validation of my efforts always means a lot, you know?  Especially when it comes from a voracious reader such as her. She’s no stranger to books and editing, you see. She ran a bookstore in the past (which sadly had to close via circumstances beyond control) and has helped many an author polish to perfection. In this case, she didn’t find much to change (as it has been through the proofing process a few times before with different eyes) but what she did find will bolster the book quite well given her suggestions. Nothing story-wise jarred her, thank goodness.  She even gave her helpful two cents regarding the illustrations.  I'll be sure to attend to them.

So, there you have it. Another person has adored my extra back history to Peter Pan. Any reservations I’ve had with it while writing it (...perhaps you recall I’d originally been wary of one part of the storyline...) have completely disappeared at this point. I’m prouder than ever, and cannot wait for you all to experience it. I’ll try lighting a fire under the final pair of eyes for the book.

So to all who have been incredibly patient: I am grateful. Just a little longer.
Apparently it’s worth the wait.

Pan Suit

I came across this when tangled up in the World Wide Web.

It's an original costume for Peter Pan.  As in the 1911 production.

I don't remember seeing it in my London travels  – my word is there SO much to see!  But I did see the original flying harness.

Special thanks to (Chris)Topher Clark, who posted it online amidst other great shots of his own London trip.  You can find that posting here.  Sir, should you find this post and wish me to delete it, just say the word and I will do so.  But I certainly hope you allow me to share your wonderful find/photo!

As Mr. Clark points out - it's not green.  Imagine that!  ;)

What I want to point out is the cape-like element of it.  Extra proof (not that it had been necessary) of part of my rationale for giving the eternal boy a "capelet" in Peter Pan's NeverWorld.  Have the Cape and Read It, Too

It's also interesting to me that Barrie changed it for the book so that Pan wears "skeleton leaves" for his outfit.  Just one of many alterations he crafted in the process of making the play into a novel.  There are definitely leaves at the top of it, though!

Hope you enjoyed seeing this bit of history, folks!

At first I had it listed as the 1904 suit as in THE original, but some named Persinette on the web corrected me in the comments.  Actually, Persinette corrected Mr. Clark, whose info I trusted and should have looked into further.   That's what I get for being too excited and kicking myself for not remembering seeing it.  Thanks, Persinette!  I thought the cape looked a little thin!  See here, which is a photo from the 1904.  Interesting, though - the cape possibly gets thinner as time went on, until it disappeared.  Of course, it also seems like it's attached to just the arms in this...

A Capital Idea

There is a small difference between Barrie’s Pan tales and mine by way of some capitalization. Specifically the Native American characters as a race and Pan’s “gang.” i.e. Redskins & Lost Boys.

It’s true, Barrie does not have them with capital letters. Yet I do. Am I being inconsistent, against what I claim? I suppose on one level, yes. But on another, no. (Could have expected that, right?)

Why do I make them proper nouns instead? In the case of the “Redskins” I just think it entirely disrespectful toward the Native Tribes of the Americas that we don’t give them such a distinction. After all, it’s not exactly the nicest way to refer to them. Yet I cannot have them listed as something other than what’s in the original text. (And I give a reason as to Barrie's motives for doing so in my Foreword.)  Thus, I’ve tried to rectify the situation a little by giving them a shred of dignity as per their moniker.

As for the boys... well, they’ve become quite iconic since Barrie first introduced them, no? It’s my belief that we tend to think of them as a “tribe” in their own right, and so I’ve capitalized them now as well. Within the world of Pan [story-wise], tales of the eternal boy are retold and passed down... so who is to say that they haven’t acquired “proper noun” status by the time the events of Peter Pan’s NeverWorld roll around?

I can just hear someone with a counter-argument using this notion [i.e. that the story is passed down over generations] in the sense of being able to therefore disregard any of what’s in the story by chalking it up to being altered by oral tradition. Consider, though, this text from the Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens : ...if you ask her whether he rode on a goat in those days, she says she never heard of his having a goat. Then is it to be believed? Of course it is. For the Narrator goes on to say: Perhaps she has forgotten, just as she sometimes forgets your name and calls you Mildred, which is your mother's name. Still, she could hardly forget such an important thing as the goat. Therefore there was no goat when your grandmother was a little girl. This shows that, in telling the story of Peter Pan, to begin with the goat (as most people do) is as silly as to put on your jacket before your vest.

Therefore, the establishment of certain elements of Peter Pan’s history can’t be ignored or forgotten. We have the cannon text. It [a la the Narrator] obviously knows what from what and when from when, so we have to follow strictly. Something as trivial as whether or not “Lost Boys” is capitalized, though, well, that’s subject to change - either in thought or in the text as per how much importance one winds up placing on them. And as I’ve said, the Lost Boys, in my opinion, have earned the right to be given proper credit with a proper noun.  And the Native People?  Let's give them the respect they deserve, too.

Gee, I’m not too hyper-speculative or anything, am I?  ;)

Betwixt-and-Between Proofers

So where the heck is

Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between?

I know, I know, I'm sorry.  The best laid plans of mice & fairies...

I'm in that proverbial waiting game right along with y'all.

I've got a couple more people scouring it for errors.  The typo kind, not [I hope!] the story-logistics kind.  So far story-wise hasn't been an issue at all.  That is not including the initial run-through and suggestions made by Anon*.

So, I'm at the mercy of others.  Not any sort of complaint.  After all, they're doing me a huge favor by proofing it.

I want you to be able to have it as soon as possible.  So just hang in there.

The day WILL come...




...meanwhile, the days of the hardcover Peter Pan's NeverWorld are now numbered.  Soon only the paperback version will be available.  So if you want the extra pictures by way of the dust jacket, now is the time to order one!

* Barrie enthusiast and my faithful reader and #1 fan

Note: Notes to Note!

Another great reader/fan sent along something to my attention.
My Heart in Company: The Work of J.M. Barrie & the Birth of Peter Pan
by Timothy G. Young

I ordered it just about right away.  How does a compilation of Barrie's notes sound?  Top drawer?  Yeah, for me too.  I wonder how many and which ones I'll remember... as in what and which will coincide with the notes I'd had at my disposal back in college when I composed Peter Pan's NeverWorld from his very musings.  I'll surely let you know once the book comes my way.  Here's a link.

As a bonus, this reader/fan (who generally goes by Z or ZZ) has a site up.  A rather nice one, in fact.  Yes, you guessed it.  It deals with the infamous eternal boy.  Please do have a gander.  I especially like what she's written about Peter Pan on the home page.  I just had more of a chance to poke around a little more... there are some essays that are intriguing.  Must get to them - if only I didn't have to go out in a little while.  Knowing me, I'll have a lot of 2 cents to throw in... Anyway, there's a good list (with pics) of Peter Pan books, both story and Barrie-biography related, like the book she sent my way.  I also really love the depiction of Pan on it, too.  Heavily influenced by Fox's Pan, but then, she's got a whole section about that terrific cartoon series.   And if you can bet I'm a fan of a little cape for him!

So please, click on over. Oh - and thanks, ZZ, for the site, the book and having links to me!

P.S. - Buttercup hasn't shown up quite yet, so I had a chance to look through the essays.  Good thoughts all around.  I do have some differences of opinion, but that's all they are, for as ZZ points out, much of the world of Pan is speculative.  I do have some answers to the queries posed - addressed in the seemingly-ever-upcoming (but will be worth it!) interquel of mine Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between.  Not that I have the definitive truths, but rest assured they're tinkered into the 'world' with utmost care.  But enough about me... go visit Fandomzz and get ZZ's thoughts too!

Pan Pack

The move went as easily as flying to the window...
with the help of some professional movers.
Thanks guys!

Why, yes, yes I am enjoying the new place.  It's the little things, such as the "guesstimate" made about the DVD towers and corner-designed shelving unit fitting snugly in a certain spot.  They do.

I've gotten quite a bit done in terms of unpacking.
But something I haven't gotten around to unboxing yet (and this may shock you) is my Peter Pan related materials.  That picture on the left?  Yep, that's my pile of Pan.  The plastic container included.  There's some Peter Pan's NeverWorld paperbacks, 'obscure' hardcovers and postcards in there.

Why does it remain unopened?  I must find the perfect place for it, but of course.  It's really more of a display than just a shelving.  Oh, not seen in the photo are my posters: a framed original LIFE Magazine spread about Disney's at its premiere (given to me by Lemonie), small [but not too small!] prints of Arthur Rackham illustrations from Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens, a similar sized Hogan film poster and a frame shot of Michael Llewelyn Davies as Peter Pan (the one I used to create the shadow on the cover of PPNW)

All right...better get back to unpacking...

P.S. - Andrea Jones playfully pointed out that her novel Hook & Jill is not seen as well.  'Tis in one of those boxes, milady!

Talking Tink...

Assuming her alive at the time you found her, would you be able to carry on a conversation with Tinker Bell? I’m guessing you’re inclined to say “no” because she speaks in the sound of little tinkling bells. No doubt your rationale for this comes from the passage:

“You don’t hear her, do you?” and they both listened.

“The only sound I hear,” said Wendy, “is like a tinkle of bells.”

“Well, that’s Tink, that’s the fairy language. I think I hear her too.”

Some of you might be so inclined as to believe you cannot understand the fairy language. Hearing it the first time, really how could you? Would you be able to understand Swahili when it first entered your ear? (I’ll venture to guess no.) And there’s rationale for this from the book as well:

“Tink,” said Peter amiably, “this lady says she wishes you were her fairy.”

Tinker Bell answered insolently.

“What does she say, Peter?”

He had to translate.

And then: What she said in her lovely tinkle Wendy could not of course understand...

So there we have, right? Only Peter Pan can understand Tinker Bell...

Now hold on a moment! Don’t go zipping to conclusions. Here’s a bit of text regarding the Lost Boys:

“Hullo, Tink,” cried the wondering boys.
Tink’s reply rang out: “Peter wants you to shoot the Wendy.”
It was not in their nature to question when Peter ordered. “Let us do what Peter wishes!” cried the simple boys.

A-ha! So the boys make sense of her bell-voice, too. Before you go arguing that the boys are wont to say such a thing anyway as they are devoted to Peter’s wishes, surely you don’t forget they actually do shoot Wendy down, just as Tink says Peter commands. Obviously it’s not just a regurgitation of an ingrained desire (to obey Pan’s wishes.)

So why is it that the Boys can comprehend her as well as Pan?  Perhaps it’s because they’re in the Neverland and therefore just do?  No, that’s not it.  Good guess, though.  Perhaps they’re magical like Peter himself?   Oh no, that can’t be it.   They’re just not.  Well, then, why?

For the answer, we’ll have to (but of course) look to Barrie’s words again:

“You silly ass!” cried Tinker Bell in a passion.

She had said it so often that Wendy needed no translation.
“I almost agree with her,” Wendy snapped.

When does this occur in the story? Just about the time Wendy is trying to get Peter to declare his real feelings for her. When “playing house” needs to be much more real for her than it seems in the Home Under the Ground. Okay, but how about a more concrete image story-wise?  Surely.  It’s after Pan rescues Tiger Lily. Unlike a play or movie version of the story which must have a rapidity to the adventures the children have on the island, we know that a they’re there for a long time, so the saving of the Redskin princess wouldn’t have been toward the beginning of their trip.

And so we arrive at the simple answer. If you’ve been around Tink for quite some time, would you understand her then?  Yep.

It seems that the fairy language is something that humans can pick up on, if they have enough exposure to it. Which certainly explains why the Lost Boys have no trouble.  For who knows how long they’ve each been on the island?  But we can bet it’s been a while.

Knowing that I’d need the first girl to visit NeverWorld to be able understand Denny (Peter Pan’s ‘new’ fairy) right away in my book, I had to make sure I included a passage about how this could be so.

Of course, Amy could not be described as a normal child, for she understood the fairy language perfectly. She had heard it so many times while passing through Kensington Gardens and in the twilight of slumber that she knew it quite well. Thus, she did not need a translator to converse with the fairy who just spoke to her.

Another easy solution. You see, I happen to know (of course I would) a little about the backstory of Miss Amy Alexis Richards.  In the relevant nutshell, she’s been hunting for fairies and Peter Pan since age five, and does so with more conviction than most summon up [for anything] their whole lives.  It took her a while to finally track down the Darlings’ house, but that’s another story and I digress...

At any rate, talking to Tink is no great feat.  It’s just a matter of paying attention and prolonged exposure. Not unlike any other language, oui?

So why is it that there’s the misconception that only Pan can talk to Miss Bell? That when (erroneously) Captain Hook speaks with her in cahoots, she must pantomime to help get her point across? [Thank you, Disney. (Said with an eye roll.)] Why is it that she rarely talks in the few movies of the tale?  Do we really have an aversion to hearing her speak?  Possibly so, since many protested her being heard in the Disney films about her... and the script drafts of it bounced back and forth as to whether or not she had a “voice.” (Yes, certainly it also had to do with maintaining the Disney animated feature as well.)  And yes, I know a certain actress played Tink and spoke freely in a certain movie named for the priate captain, but I so very pretend that movie doesn't exist.

It baffles me, then, why P.J. Hogan preserved the “silent” pantomiming Tinker Bell as well. Although I do recall learning in the ‘extras’ on the DVD that Hogan (and all) had been entranced by Ludivine Sagnier's facial expressions and clowning as such without words.  But as cute as they may have been, I’d preferred they left the marvelous expressionism as such to Peter Pan, for as I’ve said before, no one makes faces like Jeremy Sumpter!

I’ll tell you... if I’m ever responsible for the mini-series version that rattles around in my head, the way I’d handle Tink’s speech is as follows:  She’s just heard as the jangling at first. But throughout the show, each time she speaks, a whisper of actual words will gradually become louder, almost imperceptible until it’s clear as a well, bell.  Naturally the tinkling sound will always accompany her, but it will be softened and weaker.

So there you have it.

Tinker Bell talks. Why else would she have lines with quotes around them in the book?

Opposite Orphans

Quite often I see that people have a tendency to think of Peter Pan and the Lost Boys as orphans.  I guess I can understand that notion, but only if one's knowledge of the story comes from not having read the book.

Peter Pan, esepcially, is not an orphan, folks.

In fact, thinking that he is undermines the very heart of the tale.  It pulls the punch of the gut-wrenching tragedy that is the events of the story.  It's not that Pan doesn't have a mother & father and thus flew away to the Neverland.  Quite the contrary, he sort of "oprhaned" his parents!  He's the one who went away suddenly and without warning, leaving them to pine for their lost boy.

So what about the Lost Boys?  It's the same with them.  They "abandoned" their parents, not the other way around.  I suppose it can be argued that the heart-strings aren't pulled as much as with Peter Pan, since Pan made a conscious choice to leave his home.  The Lost Boys, in a sense, are just that:  boys who are lost.  As Barrie puts it they:  fall out of their perambulators when the nurse is looking the other way. If they are not claimed in seven days they are sent far away to the Neverland to defray expenses.  So you see, it may or may not be the case that the boys of the Neverland (or NeverWorld, for that matter!) meant to be separated from their original family.  Barrie's boys tend to talk about their mothers and long for a "life" on the mainland (as evidenced by their interest in Wendy's stories of the mundane) so it's more likely that they didn't intend to end up as Lost.

Either way, it's another misconception of the story of Peter Pan.  Orphaning implies a sentimental outpouring for his loss.  Instead we are to be horrified by the loss Pan created in the other direction.  And for those who've read Peter Pan's NeverWorld, we know who else felt hurt by his decision to leave, now, don't we?

Why is it people tend to "soften" the blow of the tragic and disturbing elements in the tale of Peter Pan?

(A link to more misconceptions is in the sidebar)

Lovely? Happy? No worries!

Here’s another bit from Peter Pan’s NeverWorld that one might construe as a discrepancy.

From Peter and Wendy:

“You just think lovely wonderful thoughts,” Peter explained, “and they lift you up in the air.”

Said by Pan in PPNW:

“Now think happy thoughts and wriggle your shoulders.”

Happy thoughts? Shouldn’t it have been “lovely wonderful thoughts”?

Well, perhaps.  I’ll let you in on my rationale for this one.

We know from Barrie that Peter Pan can be quite scatter-brained and also that he’s prone to saying whatever comes into his head. Thus, we cannot necessarily rely on him to repeat the same exact phrase.

And that’s a factor, too... repeating Barrie’s exact phrasing of those two modifying words for ‘thoughts’ would seem a little over-the-top, no?   Maybe even stilted.   Thus, I don’t have Peter Pan saying the same thing verbatim.   It just wouldn’t happen.

Why, then, does he say “happy” when it’s become the standard in pop culture’s thinking about how one flies in the world of Pan? Well, precisely for that reason. You see, it’s not just in our own real life that Pan is known throughout by young and old alike. It’s within the world of the Barrie’s stories of him as well. Tales of Pan are passed down for generations... and not just via the Darlings’ descendants. Here’s the beginning of the chapter titled for the boy in The Little White Bird:

If you ask your mother whether she knew about Peter Pan when she was a little girl she will say, "Why, of course, I did, child," and if you ask her whether he rode on a goat in those days she will say, "What a foolish question to ask, certainly he did." Then if you ask your grandmother whether she knew about Peter Pan when she was a girl, she also says, "Why, of course, I did, child," but if you ask her whether he rode on a goat in those days, she says she never heard of his having a goat. Perhaps she has forgotten, just as she sometimes forgets your name and calls you Mildred, which is your mother's name.  Still, she could hardly forget such an important thing as the goat. Therefore there was no goat when your grandmother was a little girl. This shows that, in telling the story of Peter Pan, to begin with the goat (as most people do) is as silly as to put on your jacket before your vest.

And let us not forget this passage about Wendy’s mother in Peter and Wendy:

At first Mrs. Darling did not know, but after thinking back into her childhood she just remembered a Peter Pan who was said to live with the fairies. There were odd stories about him...

... which just go on and on.

There you have it. I hope you’re happy with the lovely way I’ve manipulated the wonderful world of Pan.

Tree-son Against Barrie?

At the end of Peter and Wendy, Peter Pan says where he will now live:

“With Tink in the house we built for Wendy. The fairies are to put it high up among the tree tops where they sleep at nights.”

So why isn’t he living there in Peter Pan’s NeverWorld? Is this a glitch in the novel? No. What Barrie wrote is (but of course) true... and stayed true for quite some time. But as with many things, it had to come to an end. Why? What’s the rationale for that?

Simple. First off, there is quite an extensive amount of time between the events of Barrie’s conclusion and my novel. (We’re talking decades!) That alone should be (and is) a factor. Peter Pan would most likely get bored with living in the same simple and small place, espeically when remembrance of Wendy isn't fresh in his mind.  Yet that’s but a mild reason among those that exist.

Here's another:  Crowding issues. Since Lost Boys are always coming to the Neverland, eventually there’d be one too many of them trying to fit in the Wendy House.

Also, the Wendy House atop the trees is not as well hidden as say, a home under the ground. Think about it... there are other nasty shenanigans going on around the magical isle besides pirates. Would it behoove Pan to stay out in the open? He’s smarter than that.

The way I figure it... on one of Peter’s daily adventures in the Neverland, he came across the Home Under the Ground and found it again for what he believed to be the first time. Whichever Lost Boys were with him would delight in such a place as well.  Perhaps whichever mother had been with him would poo-poo the idea, but then, sometimes there’s no arguing with Peter Pan!  Having re-found it, he’d also (re?)realize what a boon the hideout proves to be. After all, Barrie didn’t think it up for nothing!

That’s why you’ll find Peter Pan, Denny and the Lost Boys living in the underground house on the island.

And yet...I didn’t want to replicate the very same idea for his adventures on NeverWorld. It’s certainly possible and plausible that he'd live under the ground again, sure. At the very least one of the kids who helped dream it up could have even placed an exact copy of it someplace on the planet. [In fact, that just might have been done!]  However, from a standpoint of storytelling, it would also feel utterly rehashed.

So I decided on a solution that would refer back to the very same Wendy House that he’d “supposed to be” living in at the end of the novel. Thus, they live in a house on the trees.

But as with everything in Peter Pan’s NeverWorld, the stakes are raised. As an example, Mothers are without a doubt an important key factor in the tales of Peter Pan. Raised a level, that becomes Mother Earth/Planet. So when the Wendy House is considered, an upgrade from a house is none other than a mansion, or to be exact: ...a multi-level tree house with more rooms than necessary.

You might be thinking that an even bigger “Wendy House” is therefore an even bigger sight that could attract unfriendly and unwanted guests. What’s more, the novel says: It did, however, lack one thing – a ladder. They could keep enemies away who didn’t have the power of flight. Why can’t “baddies” just climb up, you might be wondering? The tree is rather daunting, I tell you. Honest. In my mind, it’s a very thick, hearty tree that’s able to support such a grand house atop itself. Not to mention it’s quite high up indeed. Not the sort of bark stalk that’s either inviting or particularly easy to climb. Oh, sure, I suppose it could be done if need be.  But to use the opposite direction - that’s like saying you could jump off a cliff if you really wanted to do so.  Or maybe it's better to say it's like scaling a cliff.  Suffice to say, it’s no effortless task to clamber up their tree!

So there, you see, I strove for a blending of the old and new. Barrie wanted him in a Tree House. So I gave Pan the greatest Tree House of them all!

Quoth Barrie & Me

Well, the test run of the illustration method for Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between turned out quite satisfying.  I also put in one of the characters (though most likely not one that would be expected.)  Thankfully that works rather well, too.  It should be fun to keep working at it.

Rackham
(not the "inspirational" drawing)

This little progress report  came about this way:  I'd been paging through Rackham's drawings for Barrie's Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens story (using this highly recommended book.)  I'd nodded my head, thinking that yes, so far the PP:B-a-B 'drawings' could be construed as sharing a relative kinship to his when I saw a caption underneath one of them.

That caption struck an idea.  It's nothing major, but it will be a nice use of a bit of Barrie.  And so, I need to add it to the novel.  It's not even going to be a new scene, rather a line or two which will tie it into his book a scooch more.  I wouldn't bother except that a particular scene in my book does warrant the callback from Barrie.

Now that I know the pictures will 'work' (and they also have Bart's approval) I suppose I now need to officially decide what the illustrations will be!

To quote Peter Pan's NeverWorld: Wisdom knows finished from done.

Whoa, Bro. No.

Well, more details have been released for the 'origin story' movie Peter Pan Begins. Faithful Pan fans, stop stop holding your breath. For as can (sadly) be expected, they’re ignoring the very work of the man whose story they are using for their own. In it, Peter Pan and Hook are brothers.

This is not so ridiculous a concept, considering that male siblings played a role in the creation of the eternal boy... and that Barrie himself had the idea for Peter’s brother. As you might already know, it had been the basis for more, which I crafted (among other tidbits and facts of and from Barrie) into Peter Pan’s NeverWorld.

And somehow, given the general track record, I don’t think they’re going to be as adept at enhancing and bringing out the inherent themes and symbolism as is Andrea Jones in her marvelous Hook & Jill. In defense, I think it would be much harder to have it part of the design when changing the medium from print to screen.

Why is it, folks? Why is it people (as I see it) have no respect for original literature? It just makes me sad. They’re basically saying (as I see it): “Well, Barrie already had a backstory for his own character, but we don’t like it so we’re making our own.” It’s not their place, nor anyone else’s, to do so. Why is it, then, my place to write a subsequent tale? It’s not, actually. The difference is that I did so without compromising, ignoring or contradicting his work - you know, respectfully. Besides that, Barrie had already come up with the idea. It’s not like it’s entirely my own. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t deign to write a sequel (or prequel) to any other work of any other author - not without their concept for it as a springboard. It’s quite sad that I and Andrea Jones seem to be the ones who understand that. And in the case of Jones, even though she does veer off course, she always remains anchored to Barrie through logical and compelling reasons to tell her ‘alternate’ story. [Elaboration here.]

There is, of course, a chance that they will do so as well. But as for me, I won’t be holding my breath. The mean streak in me (the one that's arguably in everyone) makes me want to try this kind of breathing toward them, instead: he breathed intentionally quick short breaths at the rate of about five to a second. He did this because there is a saying in the Neverland that, every time you breathe, a grown-up dies; and Peter was killing them off vindictively as fast as possible. - Peter and Wendy  [I say that only for the sake of the reference, no more.]

All Dolled Up!

I am quite happy to be able to have permission to repost this picture.  It's a sculpture by an (obviously) talented woman named Lena.

What a WONDERFUL representation of Peter Pan, the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up!  I am very fond of it and wrote Lena telling her as such.  She kindly let me share the picture of her art.

I like it especially because she has Peter Pan wearing something very close to the outfit I gave him in Peter Pan's NeverWorld.  A green "tunic" with brown pants.  Yes, of course, Barrie told us what Peter wears...  and I still have him in leaves.  I just pictured them a little more "woven" and based the clothing on Barrie's own photograph of Michael Llewelyn Davies dressed as Pan.  You see, I figured that Peter's "mothers" across the years had sewing kits at the ready and made him new stuff to wear (as he certainly must wear out 'clothes' with all the rough and tumble he does!)

I'd say he's got a goodly amount of cockiness in this manifestation, wouldn't you?

And I love the extra details of the acorns and his pipes.

BRAVA to Lena!

You can find more on her Peter Pan doll page (and the rest of her site) here.