Musing on Mab

One has to wonder why Disney didn't use Queen Mab for the name of their fairy queen in their recent Tinker Bell expansions. They call her Queen Clarion.

Not that I am surprised, nor am I complaining. I'm quite glad that they did not, since it keeps Barrie's distinctive from their version. Not to mention my extensions of Barrie, for Mab is an important character in Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between.

Then again, Barrie's not responsible for creating Mab. She's first seen in print by Shakespeare in Romeo & Juliet. (Curiously, though, Shakespeare also names the fairy queen as Titania in A Midsummer Night's Dream and there she is the wife of Oberon the Fairy King. ) Queen Mab has made the rounds in other stories and literature since then. Why, then, did Disney not use her? (Again, it's a relief that they did not!)

Know what else is curious?

In Barrie's world (of Peter Pan) there is no fairy king. At least not by name. We only have this passage, which does not seem to relate very well to the rest of the tale [in that there's no other mention of him and it comes suddenly in the text]: They went through the form of thanking her—that is to say, the new King stood on her body and read her a long address of welcome, but she heard not a word of it. Naturally, I have my own theory regarding the Fairy King of Barrie. I can't help but note a word in that passage. The word? 'new' Why would Barrie point out that he is a 'new' king? Perhaps because he, well, is new? As such, to give a little away as to my own take on it, I suggest that Queen Mab reigns eternal and thus has a new king every so often. Of course, given Barrie's line in Peter and Wendy - I expect he was right, for fairies don’t live long, but they are so little that a short time seems a good while to them, there must be a way around that fact in order for that to be so. Well, since Queen Mab is not Barrie's own invention and she permeates literature and art throughout history, I am confident that she is an exception to Barrie's rule. But in order for that to be so, there must be a reason for it in Barrie's world, no? Of course, and I aim to make that reason known, eventually.

I have a slight hint of her immortal status in Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between, but in the tradition of Barrie it raises more questions than it answers. Don't worry... it will be brought up again one day -- in a forthcoming NeverWorld book. Yes, Queen Mab will show up in that series as well. It seems Peter Pan's 'true' fairy Denny will face his own light starting to dim and need to unravel the riddle of her perpetuity if he's to remain by Pan's side. [His quest will be a side story within the novel in which it appears, which I'm thinking will be in Book 3.] And for those who think I might be clogging up the works with too much filling-in... I assure you the answer is very simple.

Perhaps I've said too much already?

Queen Mab on Wikipedia
Illustration of Queen Mab by Arthur Rackham

Taking Notes

Back during the dealings of this post, I had decided I'd better take another gander at Barrie's notes to see what, if anything, could be useful for the situation. I didn't find anything on that subject, but I did look twice at quite a bit of it.

Interestingly, some of the ideas Barrie had about the eternal boy can no longer be a part of his adventures. Either the story now negates the tidbits he jotted down or they're just wayside material that no longer fits.

However, I should be able to work in some of the notes into Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between. And even if not, there are certainly some chunks that I can recycle for further adventures on the NeverWorld, a concept to which the magic planet itself would smile upon.

I also found extra 'justification' for the behavior of Peter Pan in Hook & Jill by Andrea Jones. Not that it didn't already coincide with Barrie's Pan, but it's nice to know his notes indeed bolster her depiction.

If you ask me, it's always good to incorporate Barrie's own musings as much as possible. It shall be quite exciting to whip up a story around them...

Call of the Wild...

I'm a werewolf person.
By which I mean I much prefer werewolves to vampires. (See this post.)

I recently discovered that one of the best werewolf flicks came from a book. Yep, The Howling began as a novel by Gary Brandner. It's a series, in fact. Well, given that a remake of The Howling is coming (and yes, despite my feelings on remakes, this one seems warranted) I decided I should read the book just in case they actually go to the source material for inspiration. Oh, who are we kidding... I'd want to read it anyway.

As it seems to be as scarce as a real wolf-man, I procured a used copy of it and it just came in the mail. I'm pretty darn excited.

I recently showed the original movie of The Howling to Buttercup. She liked it very much, and agreed that it's one of the best lycanthropy flicks. It's been a great while since I saw it. Thus, my perceptions of it had gotten a bit skewed. For instance, I didn't remember that some parts (one of which had been my favorite of the entire film) were accomplished back in the day [1981] via animation! That's not to say there isn't miraculous and deliciously horrifying special effects otherwise. What's more, said favorite part doesn't look like I remember. Still cool, though. (If you're wondering, it's a very brief shot toward the end when we see a trio of werewolves, kind of in shadow.)

I've read up on it, and apparently the movie has some noticeable differences from the book. (Imagine that!) So it will be very fun to see how it all plays out from the mind of the one who originally conceived it. Apparently the movie called Howling IV: The Original Nightmare is not so much a sequel than a more faithful adaptation of Brandner's novel. I did not see any of the movies beyond the second, for which the term "abomination" is too generous. It's possible I saw clips of others.
At any rate, I'm ready to let the fur fly and delve into the real story of The Howling. Maybe, just maybe, Hollywood will do it justice. And if not, chances are it will be one hell of a ride no matter what. I'm hoping they have a similar design for the werewolves, for the 1981 film's remain my favorite and are still how I picture werewolves to this day.

Leaf It Alone?

I've just been doing a little thinking about how to fix a particular event in Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between. I had the suspicion that something had been wrong with the playing out of it. Anon flagged it as well, and also pin-pointed exactly why it didn't work. I gave a suggestion back, and Anon deemed the idea better. Well, I've expanded on it a little bit since then... and as I said, I'd moments ago been tinkering with it.

What is it? It's Peter Pan's outfit. He essentially comes to be naked in Kensington Gardens. Yet we know he wears leaves in the Neverland. I believed I'd bridged the gap. Then, I went poking around on Neverpedia and I came across this line: 'In the play, Peter's outfit is made of autumn leaves and cobwebs.' I must have caught Peter Pan's forgetfulness, as that detail seemed new to me. (I tend to concentrate on the novel since I am working in that medium and it's Barrie's 'fixed' form of the story.) Yes, I did then recall it as part of the play, but could not shake off the "hmm." So I hunted the novel. Nope. No mention of cobwebs. (And for the record, it's now "skeleton leaves.") No reference to cobwebs in Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens either. As in the word itself does not appear in both books.

Chalk it up to another of Barrie's own tinkerings. But it got me to thinking... could I, or even should I, use cobwebs as part of the story in Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between? To be honest, cobwebs give me the creeps. And the thought of wearing them...eech. But then, Pan is not my second name, and he's the one who would be sporting the spider spun spats. (Okay, they wouldn't be used as spats but I love a good alliteration.) If I do use it, it will serve as an extra bridge, no? To the play in addition to the two books. When it makes sense to do so or can provide helpful information, I like to incorporate the play or screenplay.

And while I'm on the subject of his outfit... I find it a pity that most people equate Peter Pan with a tunic, tights and a hat with a feather. A suit of leaves with juices that ooze out of trees (and cobwebs?) is much more intriguing.

Anyway, I've give the scene a little more thought...

The photo is a close up shot of Jeremy Sumpter's costume in the P.J. Hogan movie.
The other is a Disney costume. [They have (or had) several versions of a 'Peter Pan' outfit, most of which don't look like their cartoon.] I do like the rather large leaf aspect of the costume shown, though.

Oh Captain, Our Captain...

Yesterday I mentioned that I found something interesting regarding Peter's first nemesis, Captain Hook, in relation to him appearing in Peter and Wendy.

No, it's not some arcane extra tidbit that will unlock the riddle of his past. Rather it's just an unexpected truth. It seems that "Captain Hook" only appears once in the novel! By which I mean those two words together. And it's not even called out during a battle scene or some similar grand part. It comes at the end, when Wendy is trying to get Peter Pan to remember their (The Darlings') great adventure. Otherwise he's just refered to as Hook, or James Hook (or, of course, Jas. Hook) Hmmm.

To think... one of my favorite bits of P.J. Hogan's movie version is when Peter Pan flies in a swooping arc toward the Jolly Roger cooing out "Oh Capatain HooOO00oooOOK!" right as he's about to taunt him by zipping about and causing general mayhem. No, the scene isn't specifically in Barrie's novel, but none can say such a moment doesn't belong or didn't happen at some point in the rivalry between the famous foes. Sure, I knew the scene had been added, but I didn't necessarily realize that Pan calling out "Captain" along with Hook is 'less correct' as per the novel. For the record, I also really enjoyed such scenes as played out in Fox's Peter Pan & the Pirates.

I hope I'm not the only one who finds this a little fascinating. We're all so quick to say "Captain Hook" when in reality it's more likely that he's just referred to as Hook.

(My picture is of Hook as played by Jason Isaacs since he's by far the best [on screen.])

Worth the Pryce

Just a little shout out about excellent actor Jonathan Pryce. He's currently playing the role of Captain Hook in Peter Pan the Show, which is the touring production of the new adaptation that began in London as Peter Pan at Kensington Gardens. (You might recall Bart and I went to London to see the historical stage show.) While I would not have thought of Mr. Pryce right off the bat to play Barrie's fearsome pirate lord with a claw, he's certainly got the talent and the power to do it. Especially given the presentation of Hook in this production.

Jonathan Pryce is always great in films and plays in two I especially like: The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl.* He's in lots more worth seeing as well. And I am currently enjoying his singing. Yes, really. He played Guido in a concert performance of Nine, and you can bet that Bart has it. (I rather like "Guido's Song.")

So HOORAY for Mr. Pryce as the infamous Captain Hook, break a leg, sir!

Two side notes:

#1 My niece and nephew went to see Peter Pan the Show in San Francisco, where the touring of the U.S. began. The general consensus is that they liked it. However, I found it rather satisfying that they, too, were annoyed at the visible puppeteers (for Nana and other creatures.) Nice to know kids do have discriminating tastes. For as I mentioned in my review, although there is a time and place for the operators to be seen without ruining the 'magic' on stage (such as Chicago's Redmoon Theatre Company), it just seems to kill the mood in a showing of Peter Pan.

#2 I'd gone to Peter and Wendy to search for a fun description of Peter's first nemesis... and discovered an interesting bit of trivia instead. I'll let you in on it tomorrow.

* Yes, he also plays Governor Weatherby Swann in other PotC films. But let's face it, the first one is so far the best.

Panana?

Perhaps you remember me hinting about Peter Pan's NeverWorld showing up in an unlikely spot for sale?

Well, I now reveal that spot as Bananas Foster Café. It's a fabulous restaurant in my neighborhood. Bart and I have been going since it first opened, and it never fails to bring us back. Whether it's the delectable, innovative and delicious dishes or the fun, friendly and cool staff who make it a treat to be there, I'm not sure. Does it matter? Nope, just that it's all true.

OH. Right... you simply must try the Bananas Foster. I mean, come on, the place is named that. You know they're going to make that damn well... and they certainly do! Get ready for bliss.

I even went with Andrea Jones (Hook & Jill) when she visited. If I remember correctly, I made sure she tasted the Hot Cakes. (You need to taste them, too.)

A special thanks to the owner, John, for the opportunity. It's especially nice considering it's not a bookstore, nor even a coffee house in the traditional sense. So to have a book on sale is a little out of the ordinary. Thus, I appreciate it muchly.

John is from the UK, so you'll find quite a bit of English meals and foods on the menu. I especially enjoy the Bubble & Squeak, and their fish and chips is not to be missed. When Bart and I went to London last year, John gave us wonderful advice on things to do and places to see.

Right now (unless one sold since) there are actually only five copies available at Banasas Foster Café. It just might progress that there will be more later - and John also spoke of a book signing! Time wil tell...

So, if you're in the Chicago area, you owe it to your taste buds to visit Bananas Foster Café. It's at the corner of Broadway and Granville. (And see if you can pick up a "ticket" back to the Neverland!)

Like the dust jacket cover of the hardcover of Peter Pan's NeverWorld says, Bart and I love going to brunch. Maybe we'll see you there one day!