JMBarrie
JMBarrie => Peter Pan => Topic started by: AlexanderDavid on June 02, 2009, 05:02:14 AM
-
Has anyone here heard of a book by Peter Von Brown called Peter Pan's NeverWorld? Apparently it came out last year, and from what I've heard of it, it's supposed to be closer to Barrie's original vision (including his own never-explored idea for a sequel to Peter and Wendy) than any other derivative work, including Peter Pan in Scarlet.
I've never seen his book available anywhere, and don't even know if it is available other than online, but if anyone here has read it, I'd like to know what you think. Obviously I can't speak for it, but I didn't care for Peter Pan in Scarlet myself--the ending was, in my opinion, bad story-writing. It had its good points, and some parts actually impressed me as being Barrie-ish (if not Barrie), but the ending of a book is the last chance it has to make a lasting impression, and that wasn't the way to do it.
Anyway, the one primary way in which Peter Von Brown's book appears to live up to its claim is that it actually features Peter Pan's younger brother Michael Pan, something which I definitely find fascinating and want to know more about.
So--anyone read it? Liked it? Disliked it?
-
I wasn't aware of it until I read your post, so thank you for that.
There's some blurb on it here:
http://www.play.com/Books/Books/4-/6062006/-/Product.html?searchstring=Peter+Pans+NeverWorld&searchsource=0
Unfortunately £23.49 is more than I'm prepared to spend on a book I know little about. But maybe when a cheaper softback version comes along..
-
I wasn't aware of it until I read your post, so thank you for that.
There's some blurb on it here:
http://www.play.com/Books/Books/4-/6062006/-/Product.html?searchstring=Peter+Pans+NeverWorld&searchsource=0
Unfortunately £23.49 is more than I'm prepared to spend on a book I know little about. But maybe when a cheaper softback version comes along..
;D
I've never heard of it being called a "softback"....
Anyway, that's another reason I thought to mention it on these forums--I didn't know how many people knew about it, even here (since I hadn't heard anyone mentioning it in any forum thread here). I found it by doing a search for "Michael Pan."
-
This book is self-published i.e. the author has paid to get it printed - which is probably why it's expensive and why it's only offered online (bookshops don't usually stock self-published books). I suspect any reviews would have been posted by friends of the author, and not by professional book reviewers or critics. It's also therefore unlikely to come out in paperback (or softback, as it's called in the US).
-
This book is self-published i.e. the author has paid to get it printed - which is probably why it's expensive and why it's only offered online (bookshops don't usually stock self-published books). I suspect any reviews would have been posted by friends of the author, and not by professional book reviewers or critics. It's also therefore unlikely to come out in paperback (or softback, as it's called in the US).
Um...I'm American and I've never heard them called "softbacks"....
But thank you for the information. That's kind of a shame, though.... I'd rather hear reviews I could trust to be more objective--or at least, enough reviews that I could make up my own mind about it. There are only two on amazon.com.
-
US publishers refer to paperbacks as softbacks, but perhaps that's just in the trade, and not used by the general public? (I work in publishing, so I hear and read about softbacks all the time when dealing with my American counterparts.)
-
US publishers refer to paperbacks as softbacks, but perhaps that's just in the trade, and not used by the general public? (I work in publishing, so I hear and read about softbacks all the time when dealing with my American counterparts.)
I suppose that's possible. I've only ever called them "paperbacks" myself.
-
Even for a book, it sounds a little too hollywood/disney movie sequel like to me... Neverland showing up on radars...someone has the power to to "destroy magic"??? Think it kind of misses the point of Peter and Neverland, and gives the kid adult problems, but I haven't read it, so can't say anything, especially nothing against the author's style, which may be great.
According to Andrew Birkin (pg 157 of his book):
"Barrie was also making numerous notes on Michael. Some of these appear to have been for a sequel to Peter Pan about Peter's brother 'Michael Pan'. It never got much further than the title, perhaps because by this time Barrie had begun to incorporate elements of Michael's character into Peter Pan himself as he developed the book, Peter and Wendy"
Indeed you see lashings of Michael throughout the book, probably the best example being that the boy had nightmares. JM Barrie's idea of Peter Pan was filled with sequels on its own as the lad was always developing in the new versions. At one point, Wendy was Peter's sister! The book mentioned is not a story I'd read, but a brother of Peter sounds interesting, though I've already met him through Barrie's notes and stories as well as his own life.
-
Even for a book, it sounds a little too hollywood/disney movie sequel like to me... Neverland showing up on radars...someone has the power to to "destroy magic"??? Think it kind of misses the point of Peter and Neverland, and gives the kid adult problems, but I haven't read it, so can't say anything, especially nothing against the author's style, which may be great.
Yeah, that's kind of why I would prefer to know what I can expect before doing something drastic like spending money on it.
It sounded odd to me too, and it still does, and if it weren't for the mention of Michael Pan I might not even have much interest in it at all--even there, it's depicting Michael as vengeful and villainous (not something I would have expected--I would have hoped for a character more like Michael Llewelyn Davies).
On the other hand, the claim about being truer to Barrie than any other derivative Peter Pan work is a VERY bold statement to make, which is why I want it to be true--but I want to be sure it IS true rather than get suckered in. Only being available online, not being able to find out much about it even online, and being expensive all worry me.
Anyway, what would probably do it for me would be if one or more Barrie buffs such as the members of this forum who'd read it were to say what they thought. Two reviews on amazon.com (likely not from such Barrie fans) is not enough, especially since they don't include synopses of the story.
EDIT: Well, I've looked at his blog, which is promising. He certainly seems to be a Peter Pan buff, if not a J. M. Barrie buff, and is a self-described "purist" when it comes to Peter Pan (not unlike myself, though we disagree on some matters). Being so into Peter Pan myself I can vouch for some of his comments therein (Peter's shadow doesn't move when detached, the pirate ship doesn't fly, etc.), and so I feel a bit more comfortable seeking out his book. Of course, if I turn out not to like it, well.... I didn't like Peter Pan in Scarlet either, and I do have the Barrie books.
Incidentally, I found out that Von Brown is currently writing an "interquel" (though he doesn't like to use that word) set between Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens and Peter and Wendy. It's to be called Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between. I can see where there's room for a story between those two, and if I get NeverWorld and enjoy it I might see about that one as well. If not, well--I'll have learned my lesson by the time the "interquel" is published....
-
Sorry about the double post....
Read the book, and OH MY GOD it is amazing! ;D It easily comes closer to the "feel" of Barrie's original than anything I've ever heard of, and it IS based on Barrie's idea for a sequel! It's not quite Barrie (understandable) and it's not quite perfect--but MAN, it comes close, and I HIGHLY recommend it! Peter Von Brown captures the marriage of whimsical narration and sophisticated themes, and of external and internal conflicts, that were in the original, but he actually goes further and makes Peter a protagonist in (the only) way that works--and Michael Pan is as interesting as any other character in the Peter Pan universe! I'm sold!
-
Sorry about the double post....
Read the book, and OH MY GOD it is amazing! ;D It easily comes closer to the "feel" of Barrie's original than anything I've ever heard of, and it IS based on Barrie's idea for a sequel! It's not quite Barrie (understandable) and it's not quite perfect--but MAN, it comes close, and I HIGHLY recommend it! Peter Von Brown captures the marriage of whimsical narration and sophisticated themes, and of external and internal conflicts, that were in the original, but he actually goes further and makes Peter a protagonist in (the only) way that works--and Michael Pan is as interesting as any other character in the Peter Pan universe! I'm sold!
I wonder why the officially commissioned sequel by GOSH didn't go by the storyline Barrie was originally interested in doing for a sequel?
-
I wonder why the officially commissioned sequel by GOSH didn't go by the storyline Barrie was originally interested in doing for a sequel?
Peter Von Brown said that the point of the sequel was to bring back all the characters to renew the copyright, or some stupid reason. :P What a way to stifle one's creativity.... Besides, it didn't bring back Michael Darling....
Anyway, Peter Pan in Scarlet isn't the worst Peter Pan out there but I give it a lot of flack because of its ending, which couldn't have been worse if the author tried.... >:(
-
I wonder why the officially commissioned sequel by GOSH didn't go by the storyline Barrie was originally interested in doing for a sequel?
Peter Von Brown said that the point of the sequel was to bring back all the characters to renew the copyright, or some stupid reason. :P What a way to stifle one's creativity.... Besides, it didn't bring back Michael Darling....
Anyway, Peter Pan in Scarlet isn't the worst Peter Pan out there but I give it a lot of flack because of its ending, which couldn't have been worse if the author tried.... >:(
hmmm I read the wiki article..I'm not sure I'm understanding...I already knew they needed their shadows or something....is it the fact his shadow hasn't grown back that annoys you? I havn't read the book. Scared to honestly.
-
hmmm I read the wiki article..I'm not sure I'm understanding...I already knew they needed their shadows or something....is it the fact his shadow hasn't grown back that annoys you? I havn't read the book. Scared to honestly.
First of all, needing a shadow to fly contradicts Barrie's canon (how did Peter get in Wendy's window to look for his shadow?), but even worse, that's done to artificially create a last minute flip-flop of an idea that I personally thought was good and "Barrie-ish" until the author turned it upside down (and committed blasphemy to do so), and thus she ruined it for me.
-
hmmm I read the wiki article..I'm not sure I'm understanding...I already knew they needed their shadows or something....is it the fact his shadow hasn't grown back that annoys you? I havn't read the book. Scared to honestly.
First of all, needing a shadow to fly contradicts Barrie's canon (how did Peter get in Wendy's window to look for his shadow?), but even worse, that's done to artificially create a last minute flip-flop of an idea that I personally thought was good and "Barrie-ish" until the author turned it upside down (and committed blasphemy to do so), and thus she ruined it for me.
Ah yes that is quite the contradiction isn't it. I remember reading about the shadow thing and I didn't like it. How on earth did that get commissioned? I always thought of the shadow as a piece of ones soul...i like to think Wendy in sewing that shadow back on gave back a part of Peter that was represented by the shadow...ie having no mother or female companionship etc
-
Ah yes that is quite the contradiction isn't it. I remember reading about the shadow thing and I didn't like it. How on earth did that get commissioned? I always thought of the shadow as a piece of ones soul...i like to think Wendy in sewing that shadow back on gave back a part of Peter that was represented by the shadow...ie having no mother or female companionship etc
:D
Read Peter Pan's NeverWorld. Now. You learn a LOT about shadows....
-
*raises an eyebrow in a way she cannot do in real life* lol Is my theory right? Or is there something really super interesting that's popped up about them in there?
-
First of all, needing a shadow to fly contradicts Barrie's canon (how did Peter get in Wendy's window to look for his shadow?), but even worse, that's done to artificially create a last minute flip-flop of an idea that I personally thought was good and "Barrie-ish" until the author turned it upside down (and committed blasphemy to do so), and thus she ruined it for me.
All it takes is faith, trust, pixie dust, and... shadows?
Note to self, don't ever try flying in diffuse lighting conditions.
-
*raises an eyebrow in a way she cannot do in real life* lol Is my theory right? Or is there something really super interesting that's popped up about them in there?
Read the book....
Read the book....
Read the book....
-
*raises an eyebrow in a way she cannot do in real life* lol Is my theory right? Or is there something really super interesting that's popped up about them in there?
Read the book....
Read the book....
Read the book....
LOL
ok...
ok...
ok...
LOL
-
Glad to hear the book is a great read - if it ever comes to the UK, I might be tempted, reading your praise! I wonder why it was never picked up by a publisher, rather than being self-published? But perhaps it will at some point...
I must pick a bone with Peter Von Brown ::) if he really "said that the point of the sequel was to bring back all the characters to renew the copyright..." GOSH commissioned the sequel (by competition, open to everyone with an agent or publisher) but would never have claimed it would renew the copyright to the characters. - they (and their lawyers!) would be aware this couldn't happen - what they did say was that the sequel would allow them to own a new work and therefore a new copyright which would benefit them for many more years after Peter Pan's copyright expired in Europe after 2007.
BTW, I do think Peter Pan in Scarlet is weak in parts (including the end!) but I had to remind myself it's aimed at children, not adults (which I think PP's NeverWorld and Hook & Jill do?) - and a lot of children seemed to have enjoyed Geraldine McCaughrean's book. After all, GOSH is a children's hospital so they had to choose something suitable for a younger audience... even if Barrie's story was dark in parts (something mostly forgotten nowadays, since Disney's cartoon and all those pantos...). It's still more imaginative than Somma's After the Rain, or Adair's PP and the Only Children...
:)
-
Glad to hear the book is a great read - if it ever comes to the UK, I might be tempted, reading your praise! I wonder why it was never picked up by a publisher, rather than being self-published? But perhaps it will at some point...
I must pick a bone with Peter Von Brown ::) if he really "said that the point of the sequel was to bring back all the characters to renew the copyright..." GOSH commissioned the sequel (by competition, open to everyone with an agent or publisher) but would never have claimed it would renew the copyright to the characters. - they (and their lawyers!) would be aware this couldn't happen - what they did say was that the sequel would allow them to own a new work and therefore a new copyright which would benefit them for many more years after Peter Pan's copyright expired in Europe after 2007.
BTW, I do think Peter Pan in Scarlet is weak in parts (including the end!) but I had to remind myself it's aimed at children, not adults (which I think PP's NeverWorld and Hook & Jill do?) - and a lot of children seemed to have enjoyed Geraldine McCaughrean's book. After all, GOSH is a children's hospital so they had to choose something suitable for a younger audience... even if Barrie's story was dark in parts (something mostly forgotten nowadays, since Disney's cartoon and all those pantos...). It's still more imaginative than Somma's After the Rain, or Adair's PP and the Only Children...
:)
I couldn't remember exactly what he said, all I remembered was that it was a dumb reason that stifles one's creativity--apparently he actually entered that contest but didn't win for that reason. I think what you said is what he said, something just got lost in translation when I tried to repeat it (didn't have his exact quote on hand).
I don't think Peter Pan's NeverWorld is aimed exclusively at adults, not in the way Hook & Jill is. I think the former is a lot closer to Barrie's original in terms of tone and intended audience. (And Peter Von Brown mentioned how awful "After the Rain" was.... :P)
But I'm glad you sound interested! :D
-
I must pick a bone with Peter Von Brown ::) if he really "said that the point of the sequel was to bring back all the characters to renew the copyright..." GOSH commissioned the sequel (by competition, open to everyone with an agent or publisher) but would never have claimed it would renew the copyright to the characters. - they (and their lawyers!) would be aware this couldn't happen - what they did say was that the sequel would allow them to own a new work and therefore a new copyright which would benefit them for many more years after Peter Pan's copyright expired in Europe after 2007.
What doesn't make any sense about that though is, what was the rush? Peter Pan is public domain anyway, so you're right... there was really nothing to "renew." I do remember reading something to that effect in the newspaper when info about Scarlett first hit. It's like... why did they have to rush? Why not give it the time and effort it deserved instead of pushing it from first draft to binding as quickly as possible?
I'm guessing it didn't do them much good anyway. Disney's prequel stories are probably stomping all over Scarlett... even though the content in those books is even more ludicrous.
-
Mmmh... I don't remember any rush. The competition was launched in 2004, the winner announced in Spring 05 and the book published in October 06 - so, about 2 years. I wouldn't call that rushed. Peter Pan was actually not in the public domain then - at least in Europe - and GOSH were the only ones allowed to publish a sequel so it was in their interest to get it out before the end of 07 otherwise I guess everyone else would have jumped in - and they would have lost out. It was a shame Peter and Starcatchers came out before, l but in the UK at least, PP in Scarlet did better.
-
Mmmh... I don't remember any rush. The competition was launched in 2004, the winner announced in Spring 05 and the book published in October 06 - so, about 2 years. I wouldn't call that rushed. Peter Pan was actually not in the public domain then - at least in Europe - and GOSH were the only ones allowed to publish a sequel so it was in their interest to get it out before the end of 07 otherwise I guess everyone else would have jumped in - and they would have lost out. It was a shame Peter and Starcatchers came out before, l but in the UK at least, PP in Scarlet did better.
Maybe it's just a case of slim pickings as far as "finding the right author" goes. Any idea how many "serious" submissions they received? It saddens me to know that GOSH couldn't find an author who actually agreed with JMB. That to me is far more important than someone who can approximate his writing style.
-
Mmmh... I don't remember any rush. The competition was launched in 2004, the winner announced in Spring 05 and the book published in October 06 - so, about 2 years. I wouldn't call that rushed. Peter Pan was actually not in the public domain then - at least in Europe - and GOSH were the only ones allowed to publish a sequel so it was in their interest to get it out before the end of 07 otherwise I guess everyone else would have jumped in - and they would have lost out. It was a shame Peter and Starcatchers came out before, l but in the UK at least, PP in Scarlet did better.
Maybe it's just a case of slim pickings as far as "finding the right author" goes. Any idea how many "serious" submissions they received? It saddens me to know that GOSH couldn't find an author who actually agreed with JMB. That to me is far more important than someone who can approximate his writing style.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "who actually agreed with JMB"....
-
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "who actually agreed with JMB"....
Somebody who actually thought the way he did. It's probably quoted in other articles too but I doubt I'd ever be able to find the one I read since it was just a local city paper. It quoted McCaughrean as disagreeing with Barrie on things he believed in, things which may or may not have been intentionally inserted as messages in Peter Pan.
-
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "who actually agreed with JMB"....
Somebody who actually thought the way he did. It's probably quoted in other articles too but I doubt I'd ever be able to find the one I read since it was just a local city paper. It quoted McCaughrean as disagreeing with Barrie on things he believed in, things which may or may not have been intentionally inserted as messages in Peter Pan.
I believe that about her, that she disagreed with Barrie about things.... :P The end of her book proves it.
-
Just another example of how everyone looks at it as some unimportant cash cow that you don't need to worry about the message of it....like *cough*disney*cough* as much as I enjoy disney they are known for messing up fairy tales....tho they still turn out fun and all the depth is usually gone.
-
Found something on it. Doesn't seem quite as anti-Barrie as what I remember, but this might not be the same exact quote.
From: http://www.kidsreads.com/authors/au-mccaughrean-geraldine.asp
"What was your inspiration for the story of PETER PAN IN SCARLET?"
"I badly wanted to be true to Barrie's original book. Not to the cartoon version or the pantomime or the last movie, but to the 1911 book. So I read and reread PETER PAN AND WENDY, and tried to soak up something of Barrie's style and sense of humor and quirky style. I also wanted to create something distinctly my own. So what I went for was a literary counterpart --- the matching bookend --- same world, but somewhat altered. You see, I don't really share Barrie's gloomy take on life: That we are born happy and dwindle down to unhappiness as we get older, and that life is perfect at three, but sadder with each passing year. Nor do I think grown-ups are an altogether bad thing."
Sounds at least a little bit like McCaughrean should've been writing Hook & Jane. When I read "Literary counterpart", I somehow keep seeing "Counterpoint."
-
Found something on it. Doesn't seem quite as anti-Barrie as what I remember, but this might not be the same exact quote.
From: http://www.kidsreads.com/authors/au-mccaughrean-geraldine.asp
"What was your inspiration for the story of PETER PAN IN SCARLET?"
"I badly wanted to be true to Barrie's original book. Not to the cartoon version or the pantomime or the last movie, but to the 1911 book. So I read and reread PETER PAN AND WENDY, and tried to soak up something of Barrie's style and sense of humor and quirky style. I also wanted to create something distinctly my own. So what I went for was a literary counterpart --- the matching bookend --- same world, but somewhat altered. You see, I don't really share Barrie's gloomy take on life: That we are born happy and dwindle down to unhappiness as we get older, and that life is perfect at three, but sadder with each passing year. Nor do I think grown-ups are an altogether bad thing."
Sounds at least a little bit like McCaughrean should've been writing Hook & Jane. When I read "Literary counterpart", I somehow keep seeing "Counterpoint."
Do you mean Hook & Jill? If so, I hope you mean that she should have been writing something more along those lines than what she actually wrote, because she doesn't strike me as being even a very good writer--I spent a LONG time wondering what happened to Michael Darling before they finally said he died in World War I.... :P I certainly DON'T think Hook & Jill specifically should have been written by her....
-
Found something on it. Doesn't seem quite as anti-Barrie as what I remember, but this might not be the same exact quote.
From: http://www.kidsreads.com/authors/au-mccaughrean-geraldine.asp
"What was your inspiration for the story of PETER PAN IN SCARLET?"
"I badly wanted to be true to Barrie's original book. Not to the cartoon version or the pantomime or the last movie, but to the 1911 book. So I read and reread PETER PAN AND WENDY, and tried to soak up something of Barrie's style and sense of humor and quirky style. I also wanted to create something distinctly my own. So what I went for was a literary counterpart --- the matching bookend --- same world, but somewhat altered. You see, I don't really share Barrie's gloomy take on life: That we are born happy and dwindle down to unhappiness as we get older, and that life is perfect at three, but sadder with each passing year. Nor do I think grown-ups are an altogether bad thing."
Sounds at least a little bit like McCaughrean should've been writing Hook & Jane. When I read "Literary counterpart", I somehow keep seeing "Counterpoint."
Do you mean Hook & Jill? If so, I hope you mean that she should have been writing something more along those lines than what she actually wrote, because she doesn't strike me as being even a very good writer--I spent a LONG time wondering what happened to Michael Darling before they finally said he died in World War I.... :P I certainly DON'T think Hook & Jill specifically should have been written by her....
Yeah, sorry, brain fart on the title. I'm not saying literally that story, but her intent seems much more along those lines, than a sequel. Frankly, I really wouldn't mind if there were official novels that show the flip-side of Barrie's Peter Pan perspective, but that should be a spinoff rather than the sequel.
Being able to remain true to Barrie's writing style to do a sequel is meaningless unless you can also remain true to his heart.
McCaughrean might've done better with it if she'd thought not only about Barrie's outlook on life, but more importantly why he saw it that way. It seems she failed to acknowledge that Barrie, as an adult was a one-of-a-kind creature, and as such, was burdened with a form of loneliness that very few ever experience.
-
It doesn't help that "Peter Pan" means something entirely different for most people.... I don't think Barrie DID idealize childhood--I think he was as Peter Pan himself, a "Betwixt-and-Between," a child among adults but an adult among children. That's the sense I got from The Lost Boys. And who else could have written a story that on the surface appears to be a fantastic children's story but hides deeper, more adult themes beneath the surface, and marries the two so deftly that it doesn't come across forced or sledgehammered?
That's why I love Ian Holm's line as JMB in the docudrama: "All children grow up--that is their tragedy--except one. That is his."
-
It doesn't help that "Peter Pan" means something entirely different for most people.... I don't think Barrie DID idealize childhood--I think he was as Peter Pan himself, a "Betwixt-and-Between," a child among adults but an adult among children. That's the sense I got from The Lost Boys. And who else could have written a story that on the surface appears to be a fantastic children's story but hides deeper, more adult themes beneath the surface, and marries the two so deftly that it doesn't come across forced or sledgehammered?
That's why I love Ian Holm's line as JMB in the docudrama: "All children grow up--that is their tragedy--except one. That is his."
I dunno if betwixt & between necessarily means he doesn't idealize childhood. I idealize it but i'm 26 and quite the big kid ;) Not sure hrmm I think he idealized it but it was hard on him because he was in a grown up world. But I can tell you how that is...but i still idealize so i dunno heh
-
It doesn't help that "Peter Pan" means something entirely different for most people.... I don't think Barrie DID idealize childhood--I think he was as Peter Pan himself, a "Betwixt-and-Between," a child among adults but an adult among children. That's the sense I got from The Lost Boys. And who else could have written a story that on the surface appears to be a fantastic children's story but hides deeper, more adult themes beneath the surface, and marries the two so deftly that it doesn't come across forced or sledgehammered?
That's why I love Ian Holm's line as JMB in the docudrama: "All children grow up--that is their tragedy--except one. That is his."
"I wish that the universe were radically different, since the world as it is is not just tragic, it is for me an impossibility. To be completely human--with its full range of both practical and imaginative potentialities--and to grow up; these are in a sense contradictories. By growing up, by co-operating in social order, living, one has to curtail the imagination; by doing this one is obliged to give up so much that one becomes an inacceptably diminished person."
I think this sums up Barrie's feelings about growing up. He clearly doesn't see it as an even trade by any stretch of the imagination, almost as if growing up were a form of de-evolution.
He also identifies growing up with conformity. Once we enter the adult world, we are more or less forced to conform on greater and greater levels. In childhood, the worst punishment for non-conformity is usually bullying. Big deal. Name-calling. In adulthood, it influences everything. Careers and jobs are the biggest control-mechanism. Step out of line with the social norm then, and you may not know how you're going to afford your next meal. This absurdity is exemplified in the first nursery scene in which preventing the entire Darling Family from falling into poverty seems to be riding on George's ability to get a tie, a meaningless fashion trend, to fit properly around his neck.
Even without this threat, the older we get, the more concerned we become with what everyone else's opinion of us is.
Peter Pan's tragedy, isn't that he can't grow up. It's that nobody else "can't" grow up. The tragedy isn't eternal childhood itself, but the byproduct of loneliness that it creates.
-
It doesn't help that "Peter Pan" means something entirely different for most people.... I don't think Barrie DID idealize childhood--I think he was as Peter Pan himself, a "Betwixt-and-Between," a child among adults but an adult among children. That's the sense I got from The Lost Boys. And who else could have written a story that on the surface appears to be a fantastic children's story but hides deeper, more adult themes beneath the surface, and marries the two so deftly that it doesn't come across forced or sledgehammered?
That's why I love Ian Holm's line as JMB in the docudrama: "All children grow up--that is their tragedy--except one. That is his."
"I wish that the universe were radically different, since the world as it is is not just tragic, it is for me an impossibility. To be completely human--with its full range of both practical and imaginative potentialities--and to grow up; these are in a sense contradictories. By growing up, by co-operating in social order, living, one has to curtail the imagination; by doing this one is obliged to give up so much that one becomes an inacceptably diminished person."
I think this sums up Barrie's feelings about growing up. He clearly doesn't see it as an even trade by any stretch of the imagination, almost as if growing up were a form of de-evolution.
Peter Pan's tragedy, isn't that he can't grow up. It's that nobody else "can't" grow up. The tragedy isn't eternal childhood itself, but the byproduct of loneliness that it creates.
Yeah! What you said :P
-
It doesn't help that "Peter Pan" means something entirely different for most people.... I don't think Barrie DID idealize childhood--I think he was as Peter Pan himself, a "Betwixt-and-Between," a child among adults but an adult among children. That's the sense I got from The Lost Boys. And who else could have written a story that on the surface appears to be a fantastic children's story but hides deeper, more adult themes beneath the surface, and marries the two so deftly that it doesn't come across forced or sledgehammered?
That's why I love Ian Holm's line as JMB in the docudrama: "All children grow up--that is their tragedy--except one. That is his."
"I wish that the universe were radically different, since the world as it is is not just tragic, it is for me an impossibility. To be completely human--with its full range of both practical and imaginative potentialities--and to grow up; these are in a sense contradictories. By growing up, by co-operating in social order, living, one has to curtail the imagination; by doing this one is obliged to give up so much that one becomes an inacceptably diminished person."
I think this sums up Barrie's feelings about growing up. He clearly doesn't see it as an even trade by any stretch of the imagination, almost as if growing up were a form of de-evolution.
Peter Pan's tragedy, isn't that he can't grow up. It's that nobody else "can't" grow up. The tragedy isn't eternal childhood itself, but the byproduct of loneliness that it creates.
Yeah! What you said :P
I don't agree, though. Yes, a large part of the tragedy is that Peter Pan is alone, but even just in general he's unable to progress--he can't even learn from his own mistakes because he can't even REMEMBER them. He just keeps doing the same things over and over again--and clearly he needs stimulation, since he'll often switch sides for a lark if victory seems too easy. He's trapped in childhood, and I think that on some level he knows it--his desire never to grow up is only his greatest pretend. It's sour grapes.
I think the real ideal as I understand Barrie's words isn't to stay a child, but to keep the well of potential and the view of the world and the hopes, dreams, and wishes that COME with childhood and never lose them even as you DO grow up. Then you can combine the best of both worlds and be better than either a child or a conforming adult.
Anyway, I very much doubt that Peter Pan would have been so popular if he'd merely followed the trend of idealizing childhood begun in the Victorian age....
-
I don't agree, though. Yes, a large part of the tragedy is that Peter Pan is alone, but even just in general he's unable to progress--he can't even learn from his own mistakes because he can't even REMEMBER them. He just keeps doing the same things over and over again--and clearly he needs stimulation, since he'll often switch sides for a lark if victory seems too easy. He's trapped in childhood, and I think that on some level he knows it--his desire never to grow up is only his greatest pretend. It's sour grapes.
I think the real ideal as I understand Barrie's words isn't to stay a child, but to keep the well of potential and the view of the world and the hopes, dreams, and wishes that COME with childhood and never lose them even as you DO grow up. Then you can combine the best of both worlds and be better than either a child or a conforming adult.
Anyway, I very much doubt that Peter Pan would have been so popular if he'd merely followed the trend of idealizing childhood begun in the Victorian age....
That would even be more of a curse than just staying a child though. The loss of memory thing is almost more like being unaffected by change at all. But I don't think the lack of growing up is what causes Peter's memory loss. As for the anti-grownup sentiment being a pretend, are you saying that Barrie was also just playing make-believe, pretending to despise adulthood but deep down is wishing to embrace it?
Anyway, your interpretation of his quote, does seem right, but in most cases, to let go of those things, are so often the definition of growing up. This is why the phrase "grow up!" is used against people who continue to embrace crazy dreams, imagination, and eccentricities beyond teenagehood.
I don't know too much about the "Cult of Childhood" though I've heard of it. But I also don't think it ever actually became that widespread. At the very least, it was certainly never big enough to the point that remaining child-like was more socially-acceptable than growing up.
-
I would like to point out that with "The Nutcracker and the Mouse King" E.T.A. Hoffman seemed to believe the same things as Barrie.....just a thought....I don't think it really means anything if idealizing childhood was popular or not. Perhaps idealizing it was but actually living it out was not. Cause otherwise I don't see why people would have found Barrie to be an odd character.
-
I don't agree, though. Yes, a large part of the tragedy is that Peter Pan is alone, but even just in general he's unable to progress--he can't even learn from his own mistakes because he can't even REMEMBER them. He just keeps doing the same things over and over again--and clearly he needs stimulation, since he'll often switch sides for a lark if victory seems too easy. He's trapped in childhood, and I think that on some level he knows it--his desire never to grow up is only his greatest pretend. It's sour grapes.
I think the real ideal as I understand Barrie's words isn't to stay a child, but to keep the well of potential and the view of the world and the hopes, dreams, and wishes that COME with childhood and never lose them even as you DO grow up. Then you can combine the best of both worlds and be better than either a child or a conforming adult.
Anyway, I very much doubt that Peter Pan would have been so popular if he'd merely followed the trend of idealizing childhood begun in the Victorian age....
That would even be more of a curse than just staying a child though. The loss of memory thing is almost more like being unaffected by change at all. But I don't think the lack of growing up is what causes Peter's memory loss. As for the anti-grownup sentiment being a pretend, are you saying that Barrie was also just playing make-believe, pretending to despise adulthood but deep down is wishing to embrace it?
Anyway, your interpretation of his quote, does seem right, but in most cases, to let go of those things, are so often the definition of growing up. This is why the phrase "grow up!" is used against people who continue to embrace crazy dreams, imagination, and eccentricities beyond teenagehood.
I don't know too much about the "Cult of Childhood" though I've heard of it. But I also don't think it ever actually became that widespread. At the very least, it was certainly never big enough to the point that remaining child-like was more socially-acceptable than growing up.
I think it couldn't be more obvious from his life--Andrew even pointed out as much in J. M. Barrie and the Lost Boys. Writing for Barrie was an acceptable outlet for his fantasies that he wished were realities--and his frustrations that they weren't real. But I wonder what you think is responsible for those things if NOT the fact that Peter Pan is stuck in childhood.... I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm enjoying the conversation--I'm just curious....
As for the "grow up" stuff--that's just the point, it SHOULDN'T have to be that way. People should NOT have to give up their identities just to be accepted as "grown up," even if physcially, growing up is inevitable. I think Barrie didn't think the kind of "growing up" that meant leaving childhood things behind WAS inevitable, just prevalent (and tragically so).
And I suppose you're right, although my point is that it was a trend in children's literature, as I think TheWendybird was trying to say. It really started as long ago as Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland in 1865.
And Wendybird, I'm not as familiar with that story as I might be, but what you've said has got me curious. Could you enlighten me? :)
-
I think it couldn't be more obvious from his life--Andrew even pointed out as much in J. M. Barrie and the Lost Boys. Writing for Barrie was an acceptable outlet for his fantasies that he wished were realities--and his frustrations that they weren't real. But I wonder what you think is responsible for those things if NOT the fact that Peter Pan is stuck in childhood.... I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm enjoying the conversation--I'm just curious....
As for the "grow up" stuff--that's just the point, it SHOULDN'T have to be that way. People should NOT have to give up their identities just to be accepted as "grown up," even if physcially, growing up is inevitable. I think Barrie didn't think the kind of "growing up" that meant leaving childhood things behind WAS inevitable, just prevalent (and tragically so).
And I suppose you're right, although my point is that it was a trend in children's literature, as I think TheWendybird was trying to say. It really started as long ago as Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland in 1865.
And Wendybird, I'm not as familiar with that story as I might be, but what you've said has got me curious. Could you enlighten me? :)
Memory has always been a pretty tricky thing, and not just for mysterious immortal little boys. In Peter's case though, it seems more like a defense mechanism. Particularly surrounding death, the mind has a tendency to switch things off. It has been said that aged people who have had depressing lives are much more likely to develop altzheimer's than people who have had happy ones. One of the most obvious ways in which a life would be more depressing is by the loss of numerous friends to death (and even growing up would be viewed by Peter as "dying"). Add to that the fact that no child could ever mentally handle murdering potentially hundreds of people. When he says "I forget them after I kill them", doesn't seem like an accident to me, but an intentional forgetting. It is perhaps the only way he can live with things that he's done. Nobody would have more experience with loss than an immortal. Every single Lost Boy who had ever grown up would be eating away at him, along with the loss of Tink. And keep in mind this memory loss isn't complete. Wendy always stood out in his mind, even if only at certain times. He also obviously CAN remember things. He learns skills and those skills stay with him (I certainly wouldn't think he became a swordmaster BEFORE he went to Neverland).
I think we're on the same page with the grownup argument. You're saying the definition of growing up should be different, and I'm saying that growing up is the wrong route to take, but both are saying the exact same thing. I just tend to think that it would be easier for one to say "I'm against growing up" than try to convince society to change the definition of "growing up." One might as well try and tell the world that rainbows aren't gay (which they aren't, but you'll never get anyone to accept that).
Regarding Children's Literature, I think it may be more widespread in terms of art in general. Anti-establishment is somehow VERY common in the artistic world, because art is the very embodiment of self-expression. True artists aren't afraid to say what they really think. And because the social norm is to keep your mouth shut and get in line with everyone else, art almost automatically encourages these radical kinds of messages. Many aren't Barrie's form of rebellion, but are still similar, because they all represent some kind of internal struggle against "the system".
-
I don't agree, though. Yes, a large part of the tragedy is that Peter Pan is alone, but even just in general he's unable to progress--he can't even learn from his own mistakes because he can't even REMEMBER them. He just keeps doing the same things over and over again--and clearly he needs stimulation, since he'll often switch sides for a lark if victory seems too easy. He's trapped in childhood, and I think that on some level he knows it--his desire never to grow up is only his greatest pretend. It's sour grapes.
I think the real ideal as I understand Barrie's words isn't to stay a child, but to keep the well of potential and the view of the world and the hopes, dreams, and wishes that COME with childhood and never lose them even as you DO grow up. Then you can combine the best of both worlds and be better than either a child or a conforming adult.
Anyway, I very much doubt that Peter Pan would have been so popular if he'd merely followed the trend of idealizing childhood begun in the Victorian age....
That would even be more of a curse than just staying a child though. The loss of memory thing is almost more like being unaffected by change at all. But I don't think the lack of growing up is what causes Peter's memory loss. As for the anti-grownup sentiment being a pretend, are you saying that Barrie was also just playing make-believe, pretending to despise adulthood but deep down is wishing to embrace it?
Anyway, your interpretation of his quote, does seem right, but in most cases, to let go of those things, are so often the definition of growing up. This is why the phrase "grow up!" is used against people who continue to embrace crazy dreams, imagination, and eccentricities beyond teenagehood.
I don't know too much about the "Cult of Childhood" though I've heard of it. But I also don't think it ever actually became that widespread. At the very least, it was certainly never big enough to the point that remaining child-like was more socially-acceptable than growing up.
I think it couldn't be more obvious from his life--Andrew even pointed out as much in J. M. Barrie and the Lost Boys. Writing for Barrie was an acceptable outlet for his fantasies that he wished were realities--and his frustrations that they weren't real. But I wonder what you think is responsible for those things if NOT the fact that Peter Pan is stuck in childhood.... I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm enjoying the conversation--I'm just curious....
As for the "grow up" stuff--that's just the point, it SHOULDN'T have to be that way. People should NOT have to give up their identities just to be accepted as "grown up," even if physcially, growing up is inevitable. I think Barrie didn't think the kind of "growing up" that meant leaving childhood things behind WAS inevitable, just prevalent (and tragically so).
And I suppose you're right, although my point is that it was a trend in children's literature, as I think TheWendybird was trying to say. It really started as long ago as Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland in 1865.
And Wendybird, I'm not as familiar with that story as I might be, but what you've said has got me curious. Could you enlighten me? :)
Well about Alice in Wonderland..one thing we've noticed about her is ...she complains and picks apart everything about that realm...(probably a faerie realm as well)...she doesn't seem to quite ever enjoy it so i'm not sure i'd really use it as so much the same thing but I do get what you are saying...
As for the Nutcracker...
Well first of all do you know the ballet version of the nutcracker at all? Because a lot...kind of like with our dear Peter Pan....has been lost in the various versions of the story. Marie (Clara in the ballet) is a girl living in a time and household that is very....non childhood i guess you could say. Hoffman believed strongly in keeping with our youth..
Actually I will type up something from the forward of my novel on the matter to give you an idea..
I'll write out a couple different parts..
"A gifted musician and writer, Hoffmann certainly woul dhave been pleased by Tchaikovsky's music, but he might have also been disappointed if not upset by the libretto and choreography. Hoffmann sought to revolutionize the fairy-tale genre and wanted his readers to envision the world in a different light from how they normally saw it. His fairy tale was a provocation and a radical attempt to change the genre for children."
"Though most of his life Hoffmann endeavored to break with the propriety and custom of a pretentious class society."
"He was a profound thinker, avant-garde in all that he attempted, and hence suspect in the eyes of the establishment, and especially in the eyes of the "phillistines". That was a common term that Hoffmann and many others at that time used to describe those people who approached life with a utilitarian and rationalistic mentality, who followed life according to arbitrary precepts, and who had a narrow if not uninformed appreciation of the arts. In short, they were superficial and pretentious people who lacked any true appreciation of the imagination and the arts. Hoffmann detested the utilitarian nature of the philistines and mocked them in his tales whenever he could. His concepts of insanity, genius, music, hypnotism, dream, and reality formed a modern aesthetic theory, and he explored his unique ideas in other worlds that, he insisted, could be found in everyone's imagination."
Like Barrie it says he became easily infatuated with young innocent women...but that's just a side note i read in my book I thought I'd mention haha
"Hoffmann was not all that conversant with children's literature at the beginning of the nineteenth century, but he knew from his own experience and from observing the children of proper and decent bourgeois families that their lives were overly regulated, and in keeping with the rationalism of the times, they were "drilled" to behave according to the moral and ethical principles that were to curb their imaginations."
In the ballet Drosselmeier...has been turned for instance..into a character who in the end takes Marie (Clara in the ballet) out of her imagination and sets her feet squarely on the ground again instead of living in the clouds...but the book is much different..here is what the forward has to say about this:
" 'Nutcracker and the Mouse King; is all about igniting the imagination of Marie so that she can act and realize her inner dreams and desires in opposition to a conventional and prescriptive upbringing. It is not by chance the the household in which most of the action takes place is called Stahlbaum, or "Steel Tree". The parents of Marie and Fritz are truly solid and made of steel, and they are somwhat anxious that Drosselmeier, even though a friend, might contaminate Marie's mettle with his toys and foolish stories. He might even break the "steel encasement" in which Marie is placed to learn about proper manners and good behavior. The question that Hoffmann asks in this tale-and also in 'The Strange Child'-is how to infiltrate a good and proper bourgeois home to free the children's imaginations so that they can recognize and fulfill their desires. In this regard, the title of Hoffmann's fairy tale is misleading. The story is not about the nutcracker and mouse king;rather, it is about the curious child Marie and the ambivalent artist and teacher. Hoffmann positions Marie as the learner, who grasps that she must use her imagination to see the world as it really is. Drosselmeier provides the spark for her imagination and tests her through his remarks and stories to see whether she will remain true to her inner desires and imagination before he will help her reconcile what she sees inside herself and around her. From the point of view of Marie's parents and her brother Fritz, and sister Luise, she is delirious and talks nonsense. But Drosselmeier sees Marie differently: he is struck by the way that she associates her visions and imaginings with the world around her and how she combines them to enrich her daily existance."
It goes on to say how the ballet has only faint echoes of the original Hoffmann tale...that it is more or less destroyed after the battle scene.
"Marie is made into a mere spectator, just as children today are more and more expected to remain spectators and consumers of spectacles. Hoffmann's tale has been made into a candy-coated entertainment that wraps up the imagination instead of setting the imagination of audiences free to lead the lives of their dreams."
It also says his tale was looked on in suspcion because it might cause children to think the "wrong" way. It actually has "wrong" in quotes there that wasn't me lol
Likewise I think both Barrie and Hoffmann would agree..this is not only done with children...to think outside the box in the way of imagination and not growing up etc...is to think the "wrong" way by societies standards. I have a 12 year old cousin at the moment who thinks I should stop wearing Tinkerbell t-shirts and wearing even low piggy tails....where are the children today? Not there anymore from what I can see....quite sad.
-
Likewise I think both Barrie and Hoffmann would agree..this is not only done with children...to think outside the box in the way of imagination and not growing up etc...is to think the "wrong" way by societies standards. I have a 12 year old cousin at the moment who thinks I should stop wearing Tinkerbell t-shirts and wearing even low piggy tails....where are the children today? Not there anymore from what I can see....quite sad.
You know you belong in Neverland when...
Even the children are telling you to grow up.
-
I might add with all due respect, that children - real chronological children - tend to want adults to act like adults - in other words: responsible, in control of themselves, taking care of the child. They want to be children themselves, but they don't necessarily want adults joining in. Too many adults today are not responsible, indulge themselves constantly and worst of all in a child's eyes, do not put taking care of the child first. Children are forced to grow up too fast these days partly because adults refuse to accept the boring responsibilities part of adulthood.
I am not here accusing anyone on this board of being like this by the way. However I do know that it was when I became a parent that I realized that growing up and putting someone else first was my adult responsibility. My child had to have the freedom to have her own childhood.
-
I might add with all due respect, that children - real chronological children - tend to want adults to act like adults - in other words: responsible, in control of themselves, taking care of the child. They want to be children themselves, but they don't necessarily want adults joining in. Too many adults today are not responsible, indulge themselves constantly and worst of all in a child's eyes, do not put taking care of the child first. Children are forced to grow up too fast these days partly because adults refuse to accept the boring responsibilities part of adulthood.
I am not here accusing anyone on this board of being like this by the way. However I do know that it was when I became a parent that I realized that growing up and putting someone else first was my adult responsibility. My child had to have the freedom to have her own childhood.
That's if one wants children of their own at all..but that being said..if i had a child I would not neglect that responsibility. But I don't divide the two personally..responsible and childhood..i think one can be both. I think growing up and being adult are different..there is no doubt technically i am an adult for instance but i dont think i'm grown up. (not saying you were saying anything about us just an example) I won't neglect responsibilities but in every other respect I'll be a child...in the way of playing and what not. What my cousin said was based purely on the superficial...it was kind of insulting and I don't know why she did it. Many adults wear disney characters...she never stated anything ironically about how i "act"....I'm not sure why the other thing upsets her. It makes no sense especially when only two weeks ago she got all upset because I wouldn't be here for Christmas and saying how boring and not fun all the other adults are..go figure. But to me all these "children" who are acting older than their age..I mean a lot of them anyhow..are not doing it out of necessity but rather a pressure put on them by grown ups to "grow up" earlier...not necessarily because the parents don't look after them. This cousin of mine is only 12 and has a thing for Edward from twilight , reads the books watches the movies and is a complete conformist with her friends. Then again maybe it is about the parents for allowing such books around in the first place i dunno. I was disturbed to see a picture of her on facebook (something she shouldnt be on at her age anyhow) wearing corona hats with a friend of hers....i dunno if you know what corona is but its a beer. Not saying she drinks beer i was just a little taken aback at this image. It looked like a friggin ad lol
-
I might add with all due respect, that children - real chronological children - tend to want adults to act like adults - in other words: responsible, in control of themselves, taking care of the child. They want to be children themselves, but they don't necessarily want adults joining in. Too many adults today are not responsible, indulge themselves constantly and worst of all in a child's eyes, do not put taking care of the child first. Children are forced to grow up too fast these days partly because adults refuse to accept the boring responsibilities part of adulthood.
I am not here accusing anyone on this board of being like this by the way. However I do know that it was when I became a parent that I realized that growing up and putting someone else first was my adult responsibility. My child had to have the freedom to have her own childhood.
There's a difference between acting mature/responsible and acting childish.
Anyway, this is a pretty new phenomenon to me. I've never once gotten any trouble about it beyond, "Aren't you a little old..." And with this kid... it's not that she doesn't someone joining in on her childhood. There's no childhood to join in on. The kid is not yet 13 but already 40 years old. And some of the things she's condemning Wendy for are downright superficial.
-
I might add with all due respect, that children - real chronological children - tend to want adults to act like adults - in other words: responsible, in control of themselves, taking care of the child. They want to be children themselves, but they don't necessarily want adults joining in. Too many adults today are not responsible, indulge themselves constantly and worst of all in a child's eyes, do not put taking care of the child first. Children are forced to grow up too fast these days partly because adults refuse to accept the boring responsibilities part of adulthood.
I am not here accusing anyone on this board of being like this by the way. However I do know that it was when I became a parent that I realized that growing up and putting someone else first was my adult responsibility. My child had to have the freedom to have her own childhood.
There's a difference between acting mature/responsible and acting childish.
Anyway, this is a pretty new phenomenon to me. I've never once gotten any trouble about it beyond, "Aren't you a little old..." And with this kid... it's not that she doesn't someone joining in on her childhood. There's no childhood to join in on. The kid is not yet 13 but already 40 years old. And some of the things she's condemning Wendy for are downright superficial.
40 aside from the 100 pictures of her on facebook doing that same odd hip hop kinda looking pose with her fingers doing that "yo" thing lol Gosh I'll never forget that..pick the best one and use that for god sakes! lol Way too many! lol
Might I add ecb..this is nothing toward you or even your comment..but the term "in control of themselves" kind of makes me laugh since I think most adults today are not. I feel as a "adult child" I have more control than the majority of the society who can't see past that wall/veil to what's really going on in the world....things like falling for advertisements, believing what the news says without question, getting drunk and doing all the lovely things like they show on sex in the city....seems adulthood use to have a lot more innocence about it as a whole than it does today. If that was the type of growing up someone was doing at 12 like my cousin I don't think it would be nearly as horrifying...but its the former that all these kids are in a rush about now.
-
Society has made, the shedding of innocence as quickly as possible, something to be proud of.
-
Like kids encouraging other kids to lose their virginity because its a good thing supposedly. Today it's not even a "everybody's doing it" mind set...it seems more like "this is your right of passage...take control of your life....lose your virginity"...arrggh! This actually goes on!
-
First of all - thank you for realizing that I am not criticizing you - you have the right to live your life as you like :) You have found that which makes you happy and that is a good thing.
Oh yes - I know that many adults are not in "control of themselves" - that's what I said - they are too often self-centered and indulge themselves at other's expense (often any children they might have.) What has happened I think is that it is not true adulthood that is the ideal these days, but eternal adolescence. It is not odd that a 12 year old yearns to be a teenager (though the forms that teenage behavior can take are certainly up for discussion.) What is bad it that 40 year olds also yearn to be teenagers - and try to act as though they are! Life becomes a series of toys - even sex, now completely removed from emotion (or heaven forbid - procreation) becomes just one more toy. No one acts like a grown-up - and that IS bad for real honest-to-God children, who need adults to protect them and give them guidance and yes - even to say NO to them sometimes.
As Noel Coward (who played Slightly in the 1913 production of Peter Pan) once wrote "What's going to happen to the children when there aren't any more grownups?"
-
There's a difference between acting mature/responsible and acting childish.
One of the themes of the book this thread is about. ;) I will say no more on that....
As Noel Coward (who played Slightly in the 1913 production of Peter Pan) once wrote "What's going to happen to the children when there aren't any more grownups?"
Lord of the Flies.
No, I'm just kidding, that wasn't the point of that book.... ;)
But I didn't know he was in Peter Pan, that's neat!
-
But I didn't know he was in Peter Pan, that's neat!
Yep - there's a picture of him in costume in Andrew's book!
-
Sir Alec Guinness once said "Actors are all 14 year olds at heart. Understand that and you'll understand us."
Like everything else in life/death/the universe, I believe the trick is to experience the yin/yang, hot/cold, innocent/mature oscillation between the two - which is NOT the same thing as the average between the two. Hot/cold/hot/cold/hot/cold.... but avoid tepid. Barrie was brilliant at this. "What is genius? To be a boy again at will." Note "at will": a child one moment, a mature adult the next, but at his own choosing.
-
Like everything else in life/death/the universe, I believe the trick is to experience the yin/yang, hot/cold, innocent/mature oscillation between the two - which is NOT the same thing as the average between the two. Hot/cold/hot/cold/hot/cold.... but avoid tepid. Barrie was brilliant at this. "What is genius? To be a boy again at will." Note "at will": a child one moment, a mature adult the next, but at his own choosing.
Couldn't have said it any better. "Averaging" between the two is stagnation, just as much as staying in one extreme to the exclusion of the other. Dynamic is the ideal, not static. Dynamic is more adaptable to various situations--static is stiff and rigid, just like either extreme is.
-
This has kinda been my point about how my cousin is acting about me..yes I'll wear piggy tails...yes I'll wear a Tinkerbell or Thumper top...(i like Disney toons)...I'll play with toys etc....but honestly...when it's come to handling many different situations in my life i have been completely mature about it.
Let me say I have a hard time keeping work because of an anxiety disorder I have..it's been pretty severe since I was really little..the longest job I've held has been for 3 months or so...I've since come to realize that kind of work is not for me anyhow..i'm an artist (into music, drama, writing, painting & drawing etc) and i should go with what I love anyhow....so anyhow my 12 year old cousin starts trying to give me advice on why I should go into a normal day job...ignoring that I keep telling her I have a problem and showing her a link about it.....she tried to say maybe if i dressed differently I'd be able to keep a job to which I replied (feeling quite angry but not yelling at her) that I do NOT dress that way or act that way on a job or job interview and that it was insulting to insinuate that. It's really bloody annoying the way people act about me simply cause I love to be that way when I don't have to be serious about something. They act like because I'm a big kid in one way I can't be mature about things in another. I have seen 12 year olds more mature than some of the adults out there...so it means nothing...you can be mature or immature at any age..I think I'm a mature big kid..if that makes any sense....im mature i'm never mean to people..i mind my own business and play with toys and dress how i want and like the things that i want but at the same time i have the common sense to know there is a time and place to act in such a fashion and on the job would CERTAINLY not be one of them unless lets say..perhaps it were toys r us lol Sorry if I rambled but this is exactly why what my cousin says annoys me....I'm doing exactly what you all are talking about and I don't think SHE even knows what she's saying...I really think she's just repeating stuff her parents have probably said about me. People are way too judgemental...they're not around me 24/7 to see how mature I can be with the things I must be...people just can't understand it.
Andrew- I love that quote! hehe I'm an actor as well so I'm sure that only adds to how I am hehe
I've tried to make my mom understand this yin yang thing before...she saw Finding Neverland so I think she KIND OF gets the idea from that but...eh....she's still unsure what to think of it all.
-
On the other hand, where does society get off forcing people into such a narrow constraint in the first place? Frankly, one should be allowed to go to work dressed as a harlequin if they want. It certainly doesn't mean they're not serious about their work. At one retail place I worked at when it opened, the most outlandish teenager in the whole crowd of employees (neon orange hair, 10 piercings, tattoos everywhere) got the first assistant manager position. So obviously at least some employers knows how not to be superficial. Michael Jackson's kiddie attitude carried him to the rank of the most successful entertainer ever. One would think that says something about society's pre-conceived ideas about what is "good" or "normal." Barrie was certainly right, that growing up, at least by society's definition, makes one a diminished person. The extremes are far too restrictive. How much more ridiculous can the world get, than to be one in which failing to wear a necktie to the office can lead to catastrophic ends?
-
On the other hand, where does society get off forcing people into such a narrow constraint in the first place? Frankly, one should be allowed to go to work dressed as a harlequin if they want. It certainly doesn't mean they're not serious about their work. At one retail place I worked at when it opened, the most outlandish teenager in the whole crowd of employees (neon orange hair, 10 piercings, tattoos everywhere) got the first assistant manager position. So obviously at least some employers knows how not to be superficial. Michael Jackson's kiddie attitude carried him to the rank of the most successful entertainer ever. One would think that says something about society's pre-conceived ideas about what is "good" or "normal." Barrie was certainly right, that growing up, at least by society's definition, makes one a diminished person. The extremes are far too restrictive. How much more ridiculous can the world get, than to be one in which failing to wear a necktie to the office can lead to catastrophic ends?
How about one in which the thing that everyone wants so much that they'll stoop as low as necessary to get it is something that doesn't even exist at all, something whose only value is in giving it away in exchange for something with actual value?
-
On the other hand, where does society get off forcing people into such a narrow constraint in the first place? Frankly, one should be allowed to go to work dressed as a harlequin if they want. It certainly doesn't mean they're not serious about their work. At one retail place I worked at when it opened, the most outlandish teenager in the whole crowd of employees (neon orange hair, 10 piercings, tattoos everywhere) got the first assistant manager position. So obviously at least some employers knows how not to be superficial. Michael Jackson's kiddie attitude carried him to the rank of the most successful entertainer ever. One would think that says something about society's pre-conceived ideas about what is "good" or "normal." Barrie was certainly right, that growing up, at least by society's definition, makes one a diminished person. The extremes are far too restrictive. How much more ridiculous can the world get, than to be one in which failing to wear a necktie to the office can lead to catastrophic ends?
How about one in which the thing that everyone wants so much that they'll stoop as low as necessary to get it is something that doesn't even exist at all, something whose only value is in giving it away in exchange for something with actual value?
Money=evil :P but we need it...gah!
-
If we need it, how did our ancestors get along without it, before it was invented?
-
On the other hand, where does society get off forcing people into such a narrow constraint in the first place? Frankly, one should be allowed to go to work dressed as a harlequin if they want. It certainly doesn't mean they're not serious about their work. At one retail place I worked at when it opened, the most outlandish teenager in the whole crowd of employees (neon orange hair, 10 piercings, tattoos everywhere) got the first assistant manager position. So obviously at least some employers knows how not to be superficial. Michael Jackson's kiddie attitude carried him to the rank of the most successful entertainer ever. One would think that says something about society's pre-conceived ideas about what is "good" or "normal." Barrie was certainly right, that growing up, at least by society's definition, makes one a diminished person. The extremes are far too restrictive. How much more ridiculous can the world get, than to be one in which failing to wear a necktie to the office can lead to catastrophic ends?
How about one in which the thing that everyone wants so much that they'll stoop as low as necessary to get it is something that doesn't even exist at all, something whose only value is in giving it away in exchange for something with actual value?
Money=evil :P but we need it...gah!
If we need it, how did our ancestors get along without it, before it was invented?
Well I mean we need it so long as it isn't let go of by society....i didn't mean it literal haha sorry. Just as it is...we need it.
-
You can't even just live off the land if you wanted to. Someone owns every frigging piece of land on the planet and will expect some kind of compensation for letting you live there.
-
Oops, said my thing in the quote--sorry about that, I corrected my post....
But that's my whole point, it isn't inherently that way, and so it SHOULDN'T be that way.
-
Oops, said my thing in the quote--sorry about that, I corrected my post....
But that's my whole point, it isn't inherently that way, and so it SHOULDN'T be that way.
Agreed..this has bugged me for MANY years..since I was in my teens I always had this wish to escape everything if i wanted to....learn to grow my old food....learn to build..go in the middle of no where...make a life for myself so no one could "own" me. I don't think it exists.
-
Oops, said my thing in the quote--sorry about that, I corrected my post....
But that's my whole point, it isn't inherently that way, and so it SHOULDN'T be that way.
Agreed..this has bugged me for MANY years..since I was in my teens I always had this wish to escape everything if i wanted to....learn to grow my old food....learn to build..go in the middle of no where...make a life for myself so no one could "own" me. I don't think it exists.
I went beyond that--I've wanted for a long time to just be a disembodied spirit, drinking nothing but knowledge from the universal fountain and creating imaginative works based on that, and not really doing anything that would require a corporeal body, like eating, sleeping, or socializing....
Heck, even when I was little I felt less like I was "me" than that I was PRETENDING to be "me"--that makes it very easy to identify with Peter Pan....
-
I went beyond that--I've wanted for a long time to just be a disembodied spirit, drinking nothing but knowledge from the universal fountain and creating imaginative works based on that, and not really doing anything that would require a corporeal body, like eating, sleeping, or socializing....
Heck, even when I was little I felt less like I was "me" than that I was PRETENDING to be "me"--that makes it very easy to identify with Peter Pan....
I don't mind socializing... when it's with people I WANT to socialize with. But on many occasions I've become incredibly frustrated with sleep and food, like its a big inconvenience and a waste of time, taking away from something I'd rather be doing.
-
I went beyond that--I've wanted for a long time to just be a disembodied spirit, drinking nothing but knowledge from the universal fountain and creating imaginative works based on that, and not really doing anything that would require a corporeal body, like eating, sleeping, or socializing....
Heck, even when I was little I felt less like I was "me" than that I was PRETENDING to be "me"--that makes it very easy to identify with Peter Pan....
I don't mind socializing... when it's with people I WANT to socialize with. But on many occasions I've become incredibly frustrated with sleep and food, like its a big inconvenience and a waste of time, taking away from something I'd rather be doing.
Exactly. Why should I have to nourish a body I don't even recognize as "me"? I don't think of my reflection or my voice when I think of "me" anyway. I barely even have a concept of "me" at all....
-
I think me is the soul...we're all just visiting :D These bodies are like those stickers they give you at events so they know you belong lol
-
I think me is the soul...we're all just visiting :D These bodies are like those stickers they give you at events so they know you belong lol
HAHAHA, I hate those.... :P
-
I think me is the soul...we're all just visiting :D These bodies are like those stickers they give you at events so they know you belong lol
HAHAHA, I hate those.... :P
yeah they're stupid hehe
-
Hi. I know the author, Peter Von Brown. I'd like to post a response to this statement:
"I suspect any reviews would have been posted by friends of the author, and not by professional book reviewers or critics."
Half right. They're not professional book reviewers or critics, no. But neither are they friends of the author. Well, at least not in the true sense. They might be "friends" now... but only in the sense of having become fans of the book. They're "real" reviews.
And as for Von Brown not being published in the traditional sense, he almost had been - if not for the complex copyright issues at the time. Even an agent with some connections to GOSH couldn't break through. Eventually, after trying again when he could, Von Brown opted this route to ensure it getting out there, so to speak.
And he's not CURRENTLY working on Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between - but he has begun it. It moved to a back-burner during the "commotion."
The paperback IS on its way... and yes, it will be cheaper. Like $16 (USD)
Enjoy. ;)