IN TO HIS HEAD!

Just wanted to say that Tim Burton's Alice has yet to leave me. I listen to the enchaunting* theme by Danny Elfman at least once a week, if not a dozen times. I still want the Cheshire Cat to live with me. Bart still quotes some of his favorite lines from the Queen of Hearts.  I keep hearing one of Alice's speeches in my head.  Not so long ago Buttercup said she wanted to watch it again. I last saw it two weekends ago when my best friend Laughter had been in town. He'd only seen it once and took his kids, so his attention had been divided. How mesmerized he sat! Being a set designer, he takes a special interest in the artistry. I have now seen it seven times.

I've taken to saying "Fairfarren" as a salutation. I'd been getting bored with my usual "goodbye" words anyway.  Screenwriter Linda Woolverton coined Fairfarren. It means "May you travel far under fair skies." It fits perfectly into the world(s) of Lewis Carroll.

Note the paranthesis around the S there. Carroll brought Alice to two distinct places. The movie combines Wonderland and the Looking-Glass World. It seems like something that should ruffle my feathers. But I find myself loving it. Of course, I'd been warmed up to the idea by the "Mad Hatter and March Hare Connection" derived from Carroll's words and Tenniel's drawings. Plus, American McGee's Alice video game exploited this "through-hole" with expert ease. But in the case of Woolverton/Burton's, there is ever so much more interaction and intermingling of both places that it ultimately becomes one place, different regions.

In my last post love letter to this film, I mentioned that I'd been disappointed that the Mock Turtle and the Griffin had not been in the movie.  Technically they are in it - as a grand portrait and part of mural respectively.  Their fates are easily detemined, too.  The Griffin is shown fighting the Jabberwock.  Fairfarren, Griffin.  The Mock Turtle must have ended up as stew as per the Red Queen's statement of loving caviar.  My only "Aw, shucks" that prevents it from being 103% perfect for me comes in the scene of the White Queen's kitchen.  It seems a shame to have the March Hare be the one cooking.  Why not the use the character of the Cook here?  Although I do see the importance of showing the Hare having fled to the Queen.  An addendum to this is Alice remarking that it needs more salt.  Perhaps this is a nod to the There's certainly too much pepper in that soup! line in the original.  But I would have preferred she say "Needs more pepper" to have another indication of her grown-up tastes.  Other than that, just the title.

I've spoken to three people recently who were a little put off or confused by the title of the movie. As I mentioned in the other post, it is mis-titled. It's not a direct adaptation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland nor even Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There.  All three of them had thought it would to be.  See?  It needs a different title.  (Watching the film should make you aware of that title.)

* Enchaunting - at once haunting & enchanting

Fairfarren, all.

Staging the Past

Just came across this one...
A theatre company, PuppeTyranny!, is doing an adaptation of Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens this weekend in Philadelphia.  Wish I could go out and see it.  Puppetry, when done right, is quite effective.  Here's a link to their site.  I've got the image of it below, though, since it's likely to no longer show up in the future (as it is on an "upcoming" page.)  I like that they say "forgotten prequel."  And that there is a male fairy on his shoulder, who incidentally, looks (correctly!) mauve.  I do have one question, though:  Giant invisible goat?  Umm...

Closing the Book on Hook

Captain Hook.
He's an enigma, that's for sure.
Take this passage from Peter and Wendy, for instance:

Hook was not his true name. To reveal who he really was would even at this date set the country in a blaze; but as those who read between the lines must already have guessed, he had been at a famous public school; and its traditions still clung to him like garments, with which indeed they are largely concerned.

Barrie gives us quite a bit of information about his pirate. We know he's the only man that Long John Silver feared. We know he served under Blackbeard. We know that school to be Eton.  We're given a bunch of other sundry details. But as for his past and his real name?  I bet you can believe I've tried to decipher the riddle. But every time a piece of the puzzle locks into place, another pops out. The identity of of Hook and his personal history is too convoluted, it would seem. I've pored over the details, but always come up short. Recently I had a revelation, one that I brought to the attention of Barrie guru Andrew Birkin. We discussed it a little bit, but even Birkin is unsure, or perhaps unable, maybe unwilling to hammer out the truth. And I don't blame him one bit.

I don't normally think about Hook. For most intents and purposes, he's dead to me. Since he met his demise in Peter and Wendy, I didn't have a need to over-explore him when writing Peter Pan's NeverWorld. Barrie gave me enough to remember and chew on with the rest of the characters, and a great deal of it has to do with the eternal boy alone.

I've often toyed with the idea of presenting the past of this infamous sea captain. But so far I've had no real need to do so. I've yet to come up with a compelling storyline or reason to compose such a history. And even if I did, I'd still be faced with the challenge of interlocking all the componets.

I do have hints of Hook in my interquel Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between. So, for those of you wondering (or expecting) to see the first encounter between the flying boy and a Hook with two hands, sorry to disappoint you, but no, he's not seen in that novel. Why? Because it's simply not that story. Captain Hook meeting Peter Pan (or vice-versa) is a tale that takes place after the events of the novel.

The other day, while referring back to Peter and Wendy in order to make revisons to PP:BaB, I re-read the exchange between John Darling and Peter Pan. A red flag went up and I shared the new-found dilemma with my #1 fan, Anon, who also thought it utterly curious. In a nutshell, John seems to know Hook by name and reputation, but not the fact of Pan cutting off his (fore)arm and that it became replaced with an iron claw. How is that possible if Hook is not his true name? I knew I'd be seeing Andrea Jones, author of Hook & Jill in a couple of days (at the time) so rather than type it to her online, I got to present it to her in person. It rattled her for a moment or three. But she came up with a solution mighty quick. A plausible one at that. (I don't think it's my palce to share it.) Thank goodness, though, since it really did plague me.

At any rate, I told her that I came to a decision. Other than the semi-cryptic mentions in Betwixt-and-Between and the little bit that will arise in the third book of NeverWorld (no, I don't have Hook resurrected or anything of the sort) I am dropping my pen when it comes to James. Why? A few reasons.

1) The above mentioned "impossibility" of pinning down his past.
2) As I said, I've no story worth telling about him and given reason 1 and the amount of years I've had to think on it,
I don't foresee one coming up.
3) Andrea Jones already has a handle on him. She does such an excellent job bringing us more of the wonderfully wicked character of Barrie's that there is no need for me to do so. She's a pirate and I'm a Lost Boy, so to speak. I should note here that she has a backstory on Hook worked out. A small part of it appears in Hook & Jill. But then, her Hook is technically not quite the same as Barrie's. As I said in my review of her novel, she's earned the right to timeline tinkering. She owns a very magnificent alternate Peter Pan universe and I'm looking forward to seeing what unfolds. (Her solution to the "John Darling Problem" works in both universes.)

So, there you have it.
To the best of my knowledge, I won't be writing about Captain James Hook other than referentially.

Following Suit

You know, I seem to often forget that Disney's Pan's outfit is derived from stage productions of it. My apologies. I tend to focus only on the literary adaptation of it, since it's the place where Barrie could 'finalize' and include what he actually wanted to, both in terms of story cotent and color commentary. Plus the fact that I like to deal in terms of books. Shocking, eh? ;) Nevertheless, it has taken quite a hold on the Pan perception as opposed to the description in the book. Shown on the left is Maude Adams.

Oh well.

Now if we could just get people to stop saying "star" in the directions to the Neverland...

Howl Is It Done?

Then she heard it.
The howling.
I've been having fun with those lines. Yes, it is a quote from the book The Howling. I've shared it with just about everyone I've come into contact with since reading it. It gets at least a chuckle every time.

To be fair, I'm taking it out of context. Hence, the comedy aspect. Immersed in the actual scene, it is indeed creepy. I mean, hey, if you were in bed with your honey in a cabin in the middle of a woodsy nowhere and you heard a preternatural howling you'd be unnerved, too.

So... did I like this book? I'm sorry, but I have to give a wishy-washy answer: Yes and no.

First off, I'll say it's nicely done. It's very straightforward writing, with just the right amount of details and a good pace. I admired the chapter structure. Each one is quite short, while still creating a setting and mood, but as compact as it needs to be to deliver the punch of its events. Also, the novel is peppered just right with hints as to the identity of the werewolf so as to keep you guessing the entire time and switches your mental gears for second guesses. Of course, I knew the answer to this question having seen the movie. (And yes, the "answer" is the same in the book.)

But that's partially why it didn't fully grab me ― I knew what would come next. My fault, I know. However, shouldn't the book deliver the same thrill and terror? Well, possibly, but that brings me to another reason it fell slightly flat. It's one thing to read about hands becoming paws and another to see them do it. Truth is, I'm not much of horror reader. The same "revelation" came with Clive Barker's The Hellbound Heart which became the movie Hellraiser. I immediately understood why they made the film. No matter how well an author will craft the words and set the mood, there's always just that much more in visual form for such things as transformations and guys with no skin. I'm not belittling anyone's skills. As I said, Gary Brandner does a good job of bringing the horror to mind. But for me... well, I don't want to read about werewolves, I want to see them.

There'd been way too much explicit sex in the novel for me. (And no, that doesn't count as a I'd rather watch than read ― not a bit!) I'm not saying the sex scenes had been gratuitous either. Certainly they worked alongside and with the plot. But one whole chapter is, essentially, wild (literally wild) sex. Just not my cup of tea. Upon hearing this remark, Bart pointed out that the book had been written in 1977. Kind of goes with the era.

I also, to be honest, liked the movie a bit better. Not for the visual aspect. There are quite a few differences in the film from the novel. The basic story is just the same, however. But the elements brought to this tale on the screen really enhance it. Instead of being just a regular person tormented in an isolated town, we get a popular news anchorwoman. (And yes, that becomes purposeful in the film.) In the book she is sexually assaulted (again, a little too much description for me) whereas in the movie she meets a guy (a mysterious informant) in a sex booth and has an encounter with him turning into a werewolf. (Sorry to spoil that for you, but I think you would have seen it coming.) The trauma of not knowing how to deal with seeing someone become a wolf before your very eyes and then being attacked by it is, to me, much more engaging than dealing with a rape only. (I'm speaking dramatically and for the purposes of story only. I am certainly not disavowing the terrible ordeal of such a heinous crime.) The two incidents work together in the movie, whereas the attack and the character's "get away and rest" in the book don't click as puzzle pieces quite as well.

Then again, some parts of the book had it over the movie, too. One of the characters (missing in the film) I quite liked. But she also had a touch of the "standard" about her. And the climax (when the secret is revealed) is handled ever so much creepier in the novel. However, it also immediatley goes to "Gee, I'd rather see it."

Did I find it scary? Well... no. But then, I don't find the movie scary either. Werewolves don't frigthen me. You'll probably find me rooting for them instead of their victims. (Yes, coming across one in real life would terrify me as much as the next person.)

I want to watch the movie again now. Fortunately Bart said he'd like to see it again as well. I'm itching to remember/see how the film characters manage a particular situation, one that does not show up in the book. (Well, it does, but not in quite the same way.) Just in general I'd like to a do a compare/contrast.

All told, it's a good story. Both the novel and book follow roughly the same path, though not without horror cliches. But cliches, if crafted well, can work beautifully.

I wonder how the next transformation will go... will the Hollywood remake be a hybrid and create the ultimate tale of werewolves? We'll have to wait and see... and one night

...in the woods not far away, the howling.

Not Just 'Jeopardy!' Loves Peter

I'm a Cash Cab fan.
For those of you who don't know, it's a TV game show. Contestants are surprised at the beginning of their ride by host (and cab driver) Ben Bailey, told that they will win cash money by answering general knowledge trivia along the way to their destination. Three wrong answers and they're kicked out of the cab and lose the money they'd accumulated. They have two "Shout out" options - a mobile call or asking someone on the street. If you haven't seen it, it's a delight (assuming you like trivia shows.)

Peter Pan had been the subject of a question in a recent episode I'd watched. Ben gave the title of an earlier draft of the play, The Boy Who Hated Mothers and wanted to know what it's now known as... Yes, the players answered correctly. Ben then commented, saying thank goodness it had been changed!

It's Panning Out

Last night, (or the wee hours of this morning if technicality is your thing), I finished the minor rewrites to my interquel Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between. Faithful reader and fan Anon had been kind enough to give me not only critiques of the story but editing remarks as well. This sort: combine these sentences, add a comma, please clarify... I’ve gone through all of them now. In most cases I took Anon’s advice and sometimes did exactly as suggested while in others I rewrote the lines entirely. I even cut out whole sentences. There's something quite satisfying about deciding to axe passages.

Now I can move on to the major revisions, the kind that will alter the story structure a bit. Actually, I have already tackled some of these changes along the way. While editing and looking right at a part that is known to be getting an overhaul, it only made sense to plink away at it then. I imagine the minor changes would have gone much more quickly if I didn’t fiddle around with the story aspect as I went along, too. Plus, I had already redone two chief chunks of the tale before handling the little bits.

At any rate, I can already see that it shall be (and is) a much better novel than it had been at first draft. I’d be worried if that were not true! I even managed to strengthen some ties between Barrie’s two books. Anon had wondered why I didn’t include one of Peter Pan’s skills in the mix. I hadn’t wanted to make a one-for-one back history. After all, at least some parts had to remain indigenous to Barrie lest I would ruin their impact, especially the scene where Pan demonstrates that particular skill in Peter and Wendy. But as I revised, I realized that this skill had actually been included all along and apparently neither one of us noticed. I simply re-tooled what had been written so as to subtlely hint at what happens in Barrie’s. As it now stands, Peter Pan will have developed this ability as time goes on… and thus in Peter and Wendy we are shown how well. It also gave Pan a little more fuel to his emotional fires and woes in the Betwixt-and-Between novel.

So all in all, it’s shaping up. Soon enough it will be off to Andrea Jones, author of Hook & Jill. Even though there is no actual appearance of Captain Hook in this tale, she has agreed to take a look at it anyway. (Yes, that's meant as a tongue-in-cheek comment.) What luck to have access to such an esteemed Barrie enthusiast.

Thanks Anon, Andrea, and any who want to read this book!