Peter Pan in Scarlet
I am a Peter Pan purist. It is my favorite children’s book, although I didn’t read it until I was legally (and practically) an adult. To my mind J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan stands with the greatest works of world literature. It is a brilliant book, but even more importantly it subtly takes on an incredibly large number of themes in wonderful and imaginative ways: the nature of time, mortality, violence, and love, while dealing with childhood’s inborn innocence, arrogance, and cruelty, as well as the fear (and ridiculousness) of adulthood. It is a comedic, tragic, and adventure-filled book. It insists on life’s impermanence, but through the sprite, trickster, or near-god Peter Pan, it believes in immorality.
It is not just the themes of Peter Pan that allow it to shine so brightly, but the characters. Peter is as powerful as a demi-god, as petty as a Greek God, and as childish as a child. He is full of arrogance, petulance, confusion, and unbridled joy. Everything is forgotten by him, yet he loves everything in its moment. Paired with Pan is one of literature’s greatest villains: Captain Jas Hook. How does one describe such a personality? He possesses the complexity of a character out of Shakespeare or Dostoevsky, yet remains still a rugged piratical children’s villain. He kills without conscience, yet goes to elaborate lengths to steal Wendy to be his mother. He is obsessed with time, appearance, and power, but mostly he desires to stand by the code of his early days in British boarding school. He can be a foppish clown and a brilliant adversary. J.M. Barrie does not shy away from making him sympathetic, as well as ridiculous. Yet with all his dualities one still believes in him fully, in fact he seems even more real through his contrasts; he is not allegorical—like Peter representing childhood—but a full-fledged larger-than-life persona persisting in a children’s book.
Finally, Peter Pan is a dark, violent, and morbid book. Our first view of Neverland includes every group—lost boys, pirates, Indians, and beasts—pursuing the other with intent on bloodshed. And blood is shed. Hook kills a member of his own crew on his opening; Wendy is shot by a very real arrow. Later, there is a great war between the Indians and pirates that results in several casualties, and Peter has no moral difficulty killing pirates one by one. Finally, when Peter confronts his own mortality, he proclaims: “To die will be an awfully great adventure!” If only we could all have this view. Hook’s more adult response to death is to go into the gaping jaws full of egotistical love and self-righteousness by proclaiming, “Bad form!” as his last words. The darker tones of Peter Pan usually finds its way OUT of adaptations—very unfortunately. As a culture we believe children don’t, or shouldn’t, think about death. Moreover we do not want to recognize the callousness and cruelty of children.
I hope in proclaiming the various reasons why I love this book so well, I am not making more of Peter Pan than is warranted. I hope I am not bullshiting (as is susceptible to English majors), for this is a book that should bring joy not overtly analytical triteness. This is a fun book to read, never numbing or trying.
With my love and admiration for Peter Pan declared, I came to reading its first ‘official’ sequel with some expectations. I came with hope, though not necessarily confidence, that it would preserve the spirit of Peter Pan—I had heard Geraldine McCaughrean on NPR and was impressed—but I also preserved a hefty amount of doubt. I pretty much figured it would dumb down the content of Peter Pan and bastardize the characters as every rendition/sequel/offshoot of Peter Pan does, from Disney’s beloved film to Spielberg’s Hook, from the popular musical to the most recent live action film.
Geraldine McCaughrean came to write this sequel through unusual circumstances. The children’s hospital which owns the rights to Peter Pan (given them by Barrie) held a contest, which Ms. McCaughrean won against innumerable other writers based on an opening chapter and a rough outline. From this first chapter it is immediately obvious why Ms. McCaughrean won. She displays an uncanny knack for resurrecting both the style and tone of Peter Pan. It is quite remarkable. Of course, there are times in the book when one can see that McCaughrean is trying altogether too hard to make the book Barrie-ish, but for the most part her style represents his well. I found this unexpected; I was surprised a children’s publisher would be open to a style so witty, intelligent, and wry, so full of truths hidden in fantastic images and ideas. Many children’s books today are written in straightforward, simplistic, action-oriented language that this throwback to the turn-of-the-century was a relief.
I don’t want to give away too much about the book, in case you have a mind to read it. But the first few chapters—pre-Neverland—are hilarious. McCaughrean captures the ridiculous in adults facing childhood, and I love that instead of the Lost Boys they are now the Old Boys. As well, her use of a children playing dress-up is employed extremely well (a theme throughout this novel). The action in Neverland I will not comment on too greatly, so as not to give away much, but I will say that her use of Neverland is wide and varied, and, of course, as with every sequel she creates new places to visit. Some of these feel too stretched from Barrie’s original, others fit perfectly.
What about the characters? With much relief, I discovered that McCaughrean cared greatly for Barrie’s originals. The plot she creates is fully wrapped around the personalities of Peter and Hook; in fact from the arrival in Neverland to the end of the novel there is no turn that doesn’t involve these adversaries. Peter Pan’s journey—with the Lost Boys and Wendy—is extremely interesting, because McCaughrean is able to produce temporary change in the unchangeable boy, and she does it without breaking any rules (namely: Peter Pan doesn’t grow old and doesn’t change of his own will). Her characterization of Peter throughout is well done; I felt it wasn’t always as strong as it should be, but still proved admirable.
But it was her portrayal of Hook that surprised me most. When I heard on NPR that she would be bringing Hook back for the sequel I scoffed. The man was eaten by a giant crocodile! I imagined she would have him reappear wit a flimsy excuse like: “he threw me up” or “I never actually fell in its mouth, it just looked like I did” or “the crocodile didn’t want to eat me; it just wanted to play”. I thought it would be better to leave Hook as was (dead) and recreate some new adversary. But, I was very wrong. I still marvel at how she did it. Hook returns and slithers his way into the story, and when we finally discover how it is that he has survived, it is a moment of great believability and completely coherent with the darker natures of Neverland. McCaughrean’s Hook is a marvel. He has lost some of the ridiculousness and pomposity he has in Peter Pan (i.e. he has grown up a bit), but he keeps the obsessions, the grim self-centeredness, and the pathetic inadequacies; he retains both his villainy and his sympathy. Incredibly, McCaughrean not only preserves Hook (amazing in itself), but also matures him through suffering. Hook plays such a role in the plot of Peter Pan in Scarlet that the book becomes almost more about Hook than Pan. This is surprising again, but just as well: Hook is rich enough to carry the novel. And his ultimate demise (or is it?) proves so poignant, so perfect that one feels as though J.M. Barrie whispered it in McCaughrean’s ear.
Finally, as shown by Hook's ressurection, Peter Pan in Scarlet does not shy from Neverland’s dark side. It is a grief ridden island, still filled with pointless violence and bloodshed. Still perfectly dangerous while perfectly adventurous. McCaughrean brings a new element to Neverland’s darkness, however; she brilliantly brings post-World War I England into the story, touching its tragedy and allowing No Man’s Land to run into Neverland. One of the most moving moments is one line in the middle of nowhere regarding one of the original characters.
I read this book in three days while staying in a cabin in the Minnesota north woods. To get to the cabin we had to walk across a frozen lake, which every morning sported new wolf tracks. Snow blanketed the ground and shadowed the trees. Cinnamon-colored squirrels chased one another competing for seeds. It was a beautiful place in which to read any book. But a perfect place for the first quality depiction of Neverland since Barrie's original.
It is not just the themes of Peter Pan that allow it to shine so brightly, but the characters. Peter is as powerful as a demi-god, as petty as a Greek God, and as childish as a child. He is full of arrogance, petulance, confusion, and unbridled joy. Everything is forgotten by him, yet he loves everything in its moment. Paired with Pan is one of literature’s greatest villains: Captain Jas Hook. How does one describe such a personality? He possesses the complexity of a character out of Shakespeare or Dostoevsky, yet remains still a rugged piratical children’s villain. He kills without conscience, yet goes to elaborate lengths to steal Wendy to be his mother. He is obsessed with time, appearance, and power, but mostly he desires to stand by the code of his early days in British boarding school. He can be a foppish clown and a brilliant adversary. J.M. Barrie does not shy away from making him sympathetic, as well as ridiculous. Yet with all his dualities one still believes in him fully, in fact he seems even more real through his contrasts; he is not allegorical—like Peter representing childhood—but a full-fledged larger-than-life persona persisting in a children’s book.
Finally, Peter Pan is a dark, violent, and morbid book. Our first view of Neverland includes every group—lost boys, pirates, Indians, and beasts—pursuing the other with intent on bloodshed. And blood is shed. Hook kills a member of his own crew on his opening; Wendy is shot by a very real arrow. Later, there is a great war between the Indians and pirates that results in several casualties, and Peter has no moral difficulty killing pirates one by one. Finally, when Peter confronts his own mortality, he proclaims: “To die will be an awfully great adventure!” If only we could all have this view. Hook’s more adult response to death is to go into the gaping jaws full of egotistical love and self-righteousness by proclaiming, “Bad form!” as his last words. The darker tones of Peter Pan usually finds its way OUT of adaptations—very unfortunately. As a culture we believe children don’t, or shouldn’t, think about death. Moreover we do not want to recognize the callousness and cruelty of children.
I hope in proclaiming the various reasons why I love this book so well, I am not making more of Peter Pan than is warranted. I hope I am not bullshiting (as is susceptible to English majors), for this is a book that should bring joy not overtly analytical triteness. This is a fun book to read, never numbing or trying.
With my love and admiration for Peter Pan declared, I came to reading its first ‘official’ sequel with some expectations. I came with hope, though not necessarily confidence, that it would preserve the spirit of Peter Pan—I had heard Geraldine McCaughrean on NPR and was impressed—but I also preserved a hefty amount of doubt. I pretty much figured it would dumb down the content of Peter Pan and bastardize the characters as every rendition/sequel/offshoot of Peter Pan does, from Disney’s beloved film to Spielberg’s Hook, from the popular musical to the most recent live action film.
Geraldine McCaughrean came to write this sequel through unusual circumstances. The children’s hospital which owns the rights to Peter Pan (given them by Barrie) held a contest, which Ms. McCaughrean won against innumerable other writers based on an opening chapter and a rough outline. From this first chapter it is immediately obvious why Ms. McCaughrean won. She displays an uncanny knack for resurrecting both the style and tone of Peter Pan. It is quite remarkable. Of course, there are times in the book when one can see that McCaughrean is trying altogether too hard to make the book Barrie-ish, but for the most part her style represents his well. I found this unexpected; I was surprised a children’s publisher would be open to a style so witty, intelligent, and wry, so full of truths hidden in fantastic images and ideas. Many children’s books today are written in straightforward, simplistic, action-oriented language that this throwback to the turn-of-the-century was a relief.
I don’t want to give away too much about the book, in case you have a mind to read it. But the first few chapters—pre-Neverland—are hilarious. McCaughrean captures the ridiculous in adults facing childhood, and I love that instead of the Lost Boys they are now the Old Boys. As well, her use of a children playing dress-up is employed extremely well (a theme throughout this novel). The action in Neverland I will not comment on too greatly, so as not to give away much, but I will say that her use of Neverland is wide and varied, and, of course, as with every sequel she creates new places to visit. Some of these feel too stretched from Barrie’s original, others fit perfectly.
What about the characters? With much relief, I discovered that McCaughrean cared greatly for Barrie’s originals. The plot she creates is fully wrapped around the personalities of Peter and Hook; in fact from the arrival in Neverland to the end of the novel there is no turn that doesn’t involve these adversaries. Peter Pan’s journey—with the Lost Boys and Wendy—is extremely interesting, because McCaughrean is able to produce temporary change in the unchangeable boy, and she does it without breaking any rules (namely: Peter Pan doesn’t grow old and doesn’t change of his own will). Her characterization of Peter throughout is well done; I felt it wasn’t always as strong as it should be, but still proved admirable.
But it was her portrayal of Hook that surprised me most. When I heard on NPR that she would be bringing Hook back for the sequel I scoffed. The man was eaten by a giant crocodile! I imagined she would have him reappear wit a flimsy excuse like: “he threw me up” or “I never actually fell in its mouth, it just looked like I did” or “the crocodile didn’t want to eat me; it just wanted to play”. I thought it would be better to leave Hook as was (dead) and recreate some new adversary. But, I was very wrong. I still marvel at how she did it. Hook returns and slithers his way into the story, and when we finally discover how it is that he has survived, it is a moment of great believability and completely coherent with the darker natures of Neverland. McCaughrean’s Hook is a marvel. He has lost some of the ridiculousness and pomposity he has in Peter Pan (i.e. he has grown up a bit), but he keeps the obsessions, the grim self-centeredness, and the pathetic inadequacies; he retains both his villainy and his sympathy. Incredibly, McCaughrean not only preserves Hook (amazing in itself), but also matures him through suffering. Hook plays such a role in the plot of Peter Pan in Scarlet that the book becomes almost more about Hook than Pan. This is surprising again, but just as well: Hook is rich enough to carry the novel. And his ultimate demise (or is it?) proves so poignant, so perfect that one feels as though J.M. Barrie whispered it in McCaughrean’s ear.
Finally, as shown by Hook's ressurection, Peter Pan in Scarlet does not shy from Neverland’s dark side. It is a grief ridden island, still filled with pointless violence and bloodshed. Still perfectly dangerous while perfectly adventurous. McCaughrean brings a new element to Neverland’s darkness, however; she brilliantly brings post-World War I England into the story, touching its tragedy and allowing No Man’s Land to run into Neverland. One of the most moving moments is one line in the middle of nowhere regarding one of the original characters.
I read this book in three days while staying in a cabin in the Minnesota north woods. To get to the cabin we had to walk across a frozen lake, which every morning sported new wolf tracks. Snow blanketed the ground and shadowed the trees. Cinnamon-colored squirrels chased one another competing for seeds. It was a beautiful place in which to read any book. But a perfect place for the first quality depiction of Neverland since Barrie's original.
**My copy (in photo) is entitled Peter and Wendy (Barrie's original title in 1911), but now it is almost always published under Peter Pan.
Borrowed from the library.
Peter Pan in Scarlet
By: Geraldine McCaughrean
Margaret K. McElderry Books, 2007
Hardcover, 310 pages
1416918086
Labels: Children's Literature, Fantasy
posted by Jeremy Leon Hance at 7:45 PM
1 Comments:
I know this if off topic but I'm looking into starting my own blog and
was curious what all is needed to get setup? I'm assuming having a blog like
yours would cost a pretty penny? I'm not very web smart
so I'm not 100% positive. Any recommendations or advice would be greatly appreciated.
Kudos
Feel free to surf to my website ... jasmine Live
Post a Comment
<< Home