JMBarrie

JMBarrie => Peter Pan => Topic started by: AlexanderDavid on August 21, 2009, 08:09:39 PM

Title: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on August 21, 2009, 08:09:39 PM
Has anyone heard about a new book--just came out this year--called Hook & Jill by Andrea Jones?

I haven't read it (or even been able to locate it--amazon.com says it's temporarily out of stock, and there's not even a "look inside" option), but I was wondering if anyone here has heard of it, or better yet, has read it.  From what I know about it, it looks interesting: basically a unique interpretation of Peter and Wendy that focuses on the usually-neglected darker side of the Neverland and the entire story as Barrie told it.

The title obviously comes from the 2003 film where Wendy calls herself "Red-Handed Jill", and from the looks of it the book may take more inspiration from that film, again further exploring what it only touched upon.

Anyway, has anyone heard of/read this book?
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: Moira_Lewelyn on September 01, 2009, 03:30:13 PM
Peter Von Brown has posted about it a few times on his blog. I haven't see any reviews anywhere else...
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: Robert Greenham on September 01, 2009, 04:40:44 PM
I think your best bet, at the moment, is to see the publisher's page:
http://www.reginettapress.com/hookandjill/

The book is currently avaliable in the US from Amazon.com, and from other sellers (albeit at inflated prices).
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 17, 2009, 08:32:35 AM
I've read the book, and I enjoyed it!  Definitely more adult than Barrie's original (or rather, I should say it BECOMES so--the book rather "grows up" as you read), but still faithful to his style of writing, including making use of his own life and relationships.  I see it as the Peter Pan that Barrie could not and would not have written himself.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: TheWendybird on September 17, 2009, 03:50:18 PM
I've read the book, and I enjoyed it!  Definitely more adult than Barrie's original (or rather, I should say it BECOMES so--the book rather "grows up" as you read), but still faithful to his style of writing, including making use of his own life and relationships.  I see it as the Peter Pan that Barrie could not and would not have written himself.

Hmm I'm half scared....could not and would not have written it? What the heck is in this book? lol
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 17, 2009, 09:36:01 PM
I've read the book, and I enjoyed it!  Definitely more adult than Barrie's original (or rather, I should say it BECOMES so--the book rather "grows up" as you read), but still faithful to his style of writing, including making use of his own life and relationships.  I see it as the Peter Pan that Barrie could not and would not have written himself.

Hmm I'm half scared....could not and would not have written it? What the heck is in this book? lol

There is sex (but tasteful and appropriate--this isn't pornographic garbage, and there's no pedophilia either), but what I mean is, since Barrie was apparently asexual and couldn't have an adult relationship with his wife, he couldn't have written this kind of story.  And he wouldn't because it probably would have made him think of Mary leaving him for Gilbert Cannan.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: Peter Pan on September 17, 2009, 11:39:52 PM
I've read the book, and I enjoyed it!  Definitely more adult than Barrie's original (or rather, I should say it BECOMES so--the book rather "grows up" as you read), but still faithful to his style of writing, including making use of his own life and relationships.  I see it as the Peter Pan that Barrie could not and would not have written himself.

Hmm I'm half scared....could not and would not have written it? What the heck is in this book? lol

There is sex (but tasteful and appropriate--this isn't pornographic garbage, and there's no pedophilia either), but what I mean is, since Barrie was apparently asexual and couldn't have an adult relationship with his wife, he couldn't have written this kind of story.  And he wouldn't because it probably would have made him think of Mary leaving him for Gilbert Cannan.

The summary sounds like it's grossly unfair to Peter. Some have suggested he's the villain of the original story, but this seems to make him out to be pure evil rather than just "dark." And it also suggests a very strong "anti-childhood" message.

The only thing I derived from it that I find intriguing, is that Peter Pan has that hint of mother-obsession in it. So it's interesting that someone has decided to take that tale and show the flipside, this time it being about fathers. (I'm assuming that Hook's connection with Mr. Darling hasn't been ignored)
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 17, 2009, 11:49:14 PM
The summary sounds like it's grossly unfair to Peter. Some have suggested he's the villain of the original story, but this seems to make him out to be pure evil rather than just "dark." And it also suggests a very strong "anti-childhood" message.

The only thing I derived from it that I find intriguing, is that Peter Pan has that hint of mother-obsession in it. So it's interesting that someone has decided to take that tale and show the flipside, this time it being about fathers. (I'm assuming that Hook's connection with Mr. Darling hasn't been ignored)

You'd be wrong--which I'm glad for.  Anyway, Barrie never meant there to be a connection, remember?  Mr. Darling isn't even in this, and thank GOODNESS Hook has nothing to do with him (not spoiling anything)....

Anyway, I don't see it as entirely unfair to Peter.  One scene was rather...disturbing...but for the most part he's the same old Peter, we're just seeing his dark side this time around.  And it's NOT anti-childhood--it's anti-STAYING in childhood.  Peter's the only one who does, and others shouldn't be forced to do likewise, especially since they can't.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: Peter Pan on September 18, 2009, 12:40:40 AM
The summary sounds like it's grossly unfair to Peter. Some have suggested he's the villain of the original story, but this seems to make him out to be pure evil rather than just "dark." And it also suggests a very strong "anti-childhood" message.

The only thing I derived from it that I find intriguing, is that Peter Pan has that hint of mother-obsession in it. So it's interesting that someone has decided to take that tale and show the flipside, this time it being about fathers. (I'm assuming that Hook's connection with Mr. Darling hasn't been ignored)

You'd be wrong--which I'm glad for.  Anyway, Barrie never meant there to be a connection, remember?  Mr. Darling isn't even in this, and thank GOODNESS Hook has nothing to do with him (not spoiling anything)....

Anyway, I don't see it as entirely unfair to Peter.  One scene was rather...disturbing...but for the most part he's the same old Peter, we're just seeing his dark side this time around.  And it's NOT anti-childhood--it's anti-STAYING in childhood.  Peter's the only one who does, and others shouldn't be forced to do likewise, especially since they can't.

I guess I should've been more specific on that... regarding staying in childhood. I suppose in the context of the book standing on its own it makes sense. But I certainly wouldn't think that it's something that remains true to Barrie's work. Peter & Wendy may be a bit vague the way its described, but suggests growing up wasn't unavoidable in Neverland and that some of the lost boys could have been there for many years.

JMB also saw growing up as being tragic, not something to raise up on a pedestal (though yeah, nobody should be forced to remain child-like OR be forced to grow up). But even if Peter is the only one who can, how interesting it is that there's this Ahab-like character obsessed with scratching this anomaly out of the universe. In this context, wouldn't Hook be the status quo, trying to force everyone to conform to accepted social norms?

I'm probably just thinking far deeper than this story dares to go though.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 18, 2009, 12:47:34 AM
I guess I should've been more specific on that... regarding staying in childhood. I suppose in the context of the book standing on its own it makes sense. But I certainly wouldn't think that it's something that remains true to Barrie's work. Peter & Wendy may be a bit vague the way its described, but suggests growing up wasn't unavoidable in Neverland and that some of the lost boys could have been there for many years.

JMB also saw growing up as being tragic, not something to raise up on a pedestal (though yeah, nobody should be forced to remain child-like OR be forced to grow up). But even if Peter is the only one who can, how interesting it is that there's this Ahab-like character obsessed with scratching this anomaly out of the universe. In this context, wouldn't Hook be the status quo, trying to force everyone to conform to accepted social norms?

I'm probably just thinking far deeper than this story dares to go though.

Maybe you could just read the book and decide for yourself?  ;)

Anyway, it seems to me that Barrie didn't put either growing up OR not growing up on a pedestal--he, like Peter Pan, was a "betwixt-and-between," a child among adults and an adult among children.  Therefore I think it's fitting that the other side gets its turn this time around.

I don't think you are thinking deeper than the story goes, to be honest.  I don't recall the book dwelling on that, but I think it did at least scratch the surface.  Hook's a very complex character in this, as is Wendy, and Peter.  There's no "black and white," but "shades of black" as the book itself says....  You really have to read the book to understand what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: TheWendybird on September 18, 2009, 12:48:22 AM
Peter Pan-Therein lies the real connection to Mr Darling even if unintentional....they are both representing the status quo. That being said...as you've said to me before in our discussions here at home...sometimes characters take on a life of their own and you have no idea how things developed the way they did. I think the Hook and Mr. Darling parallels are pretty neat even if unintentional...I think it fits. Especially since Wendy doesn't return till the croc has swallowed him up...as if that Pirate in Mr. Darling has been killed and he can act like a loving father with his children. That's how it always hit me.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: TheWendybird on September 18, 2009, 12:54:16 AM

Anyway, it seems to me that Barrie didn't put either growing up OR not growing up on a pedestal--he, like Peter Pan, was a "betwixt-and-between," a child among adults and an adult among children.  Therefore I think it's fitting that the other side gets its turn this time around.

Well we definately know what betwixt-and-between would be being adults who play like children all the time...but one of my favorite quotes from Barrie is:

"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."

So to use a christian phrase....I think he was in the world but not a part of it. If that makes sense?
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 18, 2009, 01:13:53 AM
Peter Pan-Therein lies the real connection to Mr Darling even if unintentional....they are both representing the status quo. That being said...as you've said to me before in our discussions here at home...sometimes characters take on a life of their own and you have no idea how things developed the way they did. I think the Hook and Mr. Darling parallels are pretty neat even if unintentional...I think it fits. Especially since Wendy doesn't return till the croc has swallowed him up...as if that Pirate in Mr. Darling has been killed and he can act like a loving father with his children. That's how it always hit me.

Heh--that's not the way I interpret the story, but that's the great thing about the tale, is that you can interpret it however you want.  I personally see it that Wendy, Peter, Mrs. Darling, and Hook are all archetypes of (respectively) girls, boys, women, and men.  Wendy's relationship with her mother is cyclical (as evidenced by when she grew up and had her daughter Jane), while Peter's relationship with Hook is mirrored (apparently opposites, the two have a lot in common, but a barrier separates them).  Plus, Mrs. Darling, Peter Pan, and Captain Hook ALL want Wendy, and I see that as driving the story--she starts out as "the MacGuffin" but ends up making her own decisions based on what she's learned from each.  That's why I considered her non-relationship with Hook a deficiency in Barrie--he could have explored that, as the 2003 film did, but he didn't.

Well we definately know what betwixt-and-between would be being adults who play like children all the time...but one of my favorite quotes from Barrie is:

"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."

So to use a christian phrase....I think he was in the world but not a part of it. If that makes sense?

I like that quote as well, and what you say DEFINITELY makes sense, as I feel the same way very much.  I've always felt like an outsider, observing rather than participating, and like I'm "pretending" to be me rather than actually "being" me.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: Peter Pan on September 18, 2009, 01:16:28 AM

Maybe you could just read the book and decide for yourself?  ;)

Anyway, it seems to me that Barrie didn't put either growing up OR not growing up on a pedestal--he, like Peter Pan, was a "betwixt-and-between," a child among adults and an adult among children.  Therefore I think it's fitting that the other side gets its turn this time around.

I don't think you are thinking deeper than the story goes, to be honest.  I don't recall the book dwelling on that, but I think it did at least scratch the surface.  Hook's a very complex character in this, as is Wendy, and Peter.  There's no "black and white," but "shades of black" as the book itself says....  You really have to read the book to understand what I'm talking about.

I'm thinking about it... though I don't know if I could possibly stomach a sex scene between Hook and Wendy. Just the thought is pretty traumatizing.

And I think what you're describing is relativism. That Hook & Peter are on opposing sides of the social equivalent of a religious crusade.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: TheWendybird on September 18, 2009, 01:17:50 AM
I've read the book, and I enjoyed it!  Definitely more adult than Barrie's original (or rather, I should say it BECOMES so--the book rather "grows up" as you read), but still faithful to his style of writing, including making use of his own life and relationships.  I see it as the Peter Pan that Barrie could not and would not have written himself.

Hmm I'm half scared....could not and would not have written it? What the heck is in this book? lol

There is sex (but tasteful and appropriate--this isn't pornographic garbage, and there's no pedophilia either), but what I mean is, since Barrie was apparently asexual and couldn't have an adult relationship with his wife, he couldn't have written this kind of story.  And he wouldn't because it probably would have made him think of Mary leaving him for Gilbert Cannan.


Forgot to address this...this might be taboo to most and perhaps in conflict a little with Barrie's perception of it i'm not sure....I think sexuality is rooted in us since we're babies...I don't think it's something that adults purely understand..I remember being a little girl and somehow understanding it though not knowing exactly how the act took place..if this makes any sense? LOL

I will have to use myself and my boyfriend as an example here as this is all I have to go on....we as a couple kinda relate more to the 2003 movie representation of Peter and Wendy because in that one they did love each other and it's obvious....Barrie on the other hand..I'm not sure if he was trying to say Peter actually did love Wendy but couldn't understand it because all he really knew was mothers....I do however kinda like to believe Barrie does believe in childhood love because in Little White Bird Peter wants to marry Maimie and she was the forerunner/foreshadowing of Wendy..also if you read some of the notes on this website that Barrie kept..he seemed to have ideas of Wendy being able to return to Peter and marry him etc....

Now I'm not saying children should go and have sex lol Just that sexuality..if this makes sense...is ingrained in us since we were small...and I am one to believe children can fall in love. Like I said due to the thing in Little White Bird I like to think Barrie thinks so too but at the same time like you said...he had a hard time with his love life....perhaps it wasn't that no one would have been good for him just that he needed the right kind of person in his life...and Mary wasn't into that sort of thing perhaps (child-likeness)? Perhaps someone could answer that question if they know?

One can be asexual seeming until they find someone who really sparks their interest....without getting too personal....I know my life changed drastically with the entrance of Chris (Peter Pan on here) into my life.

My thoughts are getting jumbled on this subject now I think lol I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think it's necessarily an "adult relationship" thing...or something? I dunno...not necessarily by the act itself but by the feelings one has for another being something ingrained since our earliest years.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 18, 2009, 01:43:06 AM
I'm thinking about it... though I don't know if I could possibly stomach a sex scene between Hook and Wendy. Just the thought is pretty traumatizing.

And I think what you're describing is relativism. That Hook & Peter are on opposing sides of the social equivalent of a religious crusade.

Yeah, that's something that's going to divide readers--you just have to read it and decide whether you think it's justified or not.  I will say one thing--Wendy is certainly "of age" before anything like that happens....

And that's not quite what I meant at all....  I think of it as though Peter and Hook are two "halves" of the same individual--but they got severed between childhood and adulthood.  Peter is his childhood, never able to grow up and die of old age (thus never able to make use of his unlimited potential by progression), and Hook is his adulthood, never having been a child and having such potential at all (thus locked into his unwanted role as a pirate captain, unable to be anything but, and having nothing but the ticking crocodile to look ahead to).

And Wendybird, not to worry--you make PERFECT sense to me.  ;)  I was the same way--even when I was very little I felt "stirrings" but had no idea what they were or what to do about them.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: TheWendybird on September 18, 2009, 01:44:03 AM
For the record..and I feel the need to state this now after how MLD acted toward me...I am totally not arguing against other peoples views...just stating my own and having healthy debate lol

Also I forgot to add some have thought Barrie was simply impotent and it wasn't anything to do with not feeling like he could emotionally have had it with someone. Not sure if there is any truth to the impotence thing I've heard or not though. Or maybe it's like what I said I have no idea lol
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 18, 2009, 01:45:18 AM
For the record..and I feel the need to state this now after how MLD acted toward me...I am totally not arguing against other peoples views...just stating my own and having healthy debate lol

Also I forgot to add some have thought Barrie was simply impotent and it wasn't anything to do with not feeling like he could emotionally have had it with someone. Not sure if there is any truth to the impotence thing I've heard or not though. Or maybe it's like what I said I have no idea lol

I don't know if he was or not--I think the main evidence cited is that he tried to have children but never conceived.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: TheWendybird on September 18, 2009, 01:45:44 AM
I'm thinking about it... though I don't know if I could possibly stomach a sex scene between Hook and Wendy. Just the thought is pretty traumatizing.

And I think what you're describing is relativism. That Hook & Peter are on opposing sides of the social equivalent of a religious crusade.

Yeah, that's something that's going to divide readers--you just have to read it and decide whether you think it's justified or not.  I will say one thing--Wendy is certainly "of age" before anything like that happens....

And that's not quite what I meant at all....  I think of it as though Peter and Hook are two "halves" of the same individual--but they got severed between childhood and adulthood.  Peter is his childhood, never able to grow up and die of old age (thus never able to make use of his unlimited potential by progression), and Hook is his adulthood, never having been a child and having such potential at all (thus locked into his unwanted role as a pirate captain, unable to be anything but, and having nothing but the ticking crocodile to look ahead to).

And Wendybird, not to worry--you make PERFECT sense to me.  ;)  I was the same way--even when I was very little I felt "stirrings" but had no idea what they were or what to do about them.

That is an interesting take on it i will say :) I don't see it that way but I can see how someone could and it's quite interesting thanks for sharing that!
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: TheWendybird on September 18, 2009, 01:46:27 AM
For the record..and I feel the need to state this now after how MLD acted toward me...I am totally not arguing against other peoples views...just stating my own and having healthy debate lol

Also I forgot to add some have thought Barrie was simply impotent and it wasn't anything to do with not feeling like he could emotionally have had it with someone. Not sure if there is any truth to the impotence thing I've heard or not though. Or maybe it's like what I said I have no idea lol

I don't know if he was or not--I think the main evidence cited is that he tried to have children but never conceived.

Awww..so he did apparently try and they just never bore any? That's depressing..wow :(
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 18, 2009, 02:55:44 AM
That is an interesting take on it i will say :) I don't see it that way but I can see how someone could and it's quite interesting thanks for sharing that!

You're welcome!  ^_^  Thanks for the compliment!

Awww..so he did apparently try and they just never bore any? That's depressing..wow :(

Yeah, it particularly cut him when she threatened to say they never consummated the marriage--in order to get an annulment when he wouldn't let her have a divorce....

But yeah, I imagine that's why he wrote The Little White Bird--"Timothy" never came to him....
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: TheWendybird on September 18, 2009, 04:54:20 AM
That is an interesting take on it i will say :) I don't see it that way but I can see how someone could and it's quite interesting thanks for sharing that!

You're welcome!  ^_^  Thanks for the compliment!

Awww..so he did apparently try and they just never bore any? That's depressing..wow :(

Yeah, it particularly cut him when she threatened to say they never consummated the marriage--in order to get an annulment when he wouldn't let her have a divorce....

But yeah, I imagine that's why he wrote The Little White Bird--"Timothy" never came to him....

Gosh..makes you wonder more so why so many people thought it odd he wanted to be around children...not only was he a child himself but he wanted a child too...I would imagine if I wanted to have kids but couldn't I'd probably become close with friends and relatives who had kids I could spoil and play with!
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 18, 2009, 05:23:57 AM
Gosh..makes you wonder more so why so many people thought it odd he wanted to be around children...not only was he a child himself but he wanted a child too...I would imagine if I wanted to have kids but couldn't I'd probably become close with friends and relatives who had kids I could spoil and play with!

I also think, in Barrie's case, the boys (at least Michael and possibly George) were his "significant others" so to speak--not in a romantic or a sexual way, but effective "soul mates."  In The Little White Bird, I find it interesting that Captain W is jealous and resentful of David's MOTHER, not his father.  Plus he acts almost like part of a love triangle.  And yet Mary A knows that he really does love her, even if he doesn't--but not in a romantic or sexual way.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: TheWendybird on September 18, 2009, 05:29:56 AM
Gosh..makes you wonder more so why so many people thought it odd he wanted to be around children...not only was he a child himself but he wanted a child too...I would imagine if I wanted to have kids but couldn't I'd probably become close with friends and relatives who had kids I could spoil and play with!

I also think, in Barrie's case, the boys (at least Michael and possibly George) were his "significant others" so to speak--not in a romantic or a sexual way, but effective "soul mates."  In The Little White Bird, I find it interesting that Captain W is jealous and resentful of David's MOTHER, not his father.  Plus he acts almost like part of a love triangle.  And yet Mary A knows that he really does love her, even if he doesn't--but not in a romantic or sexual way.

Oh yes soul mates do not have to be romantic. I am convinced before my 12 year old cousin started mimicking her parents too much that we were soul mates too. Not that we're not now..just she has changed a lot but from the time she was a baby she was drawn to me...no more than a year old she'd come up to me all the time wanting hugs and kisses and putting her arms around my neck. She was much more attached to me than the rest of the non immediate family (non-immediate meaning not her brother or parents). So I can definately see where you are coming from on that. I honestly wonder if i knew my cousin in a prior life (if you believe in that ;) )..but that's the kinda feeling it has regardless. Same thing with my boyfriend. There are very few people that I can say that about but it's wonderful when you find them. Even if me and my cousin were to grow apart I know it will always have been special.

Mary A knows that he loves her just not romantically is that what u mean? So in the story that character is asexual?
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 18, 2009, 05:41:21 AM
Oh yes soul mates do not have to be romantic. I am convinced before my 12 year old cousin started mimicking her parents too much that we were soul mates too. Not that we're not now..just she has changed a lot but from the time she was a baby she was drawn to me...no more than a year old she'd come up to me all the time wanting hugs and kisses and putting her arms around my neck. She was much more attached to me than the rest of the non immediate family (non-immediate meaning not her brother or parents). So I can definately see where you are coming from on that. I honestly wonder if i knew my cousin in a prior life (if you believe in that ;) )..but that's the kinda feeling it has regardless. Same thing with my boyfriend. There are very few people that I can say that about but it's wonderful when you find them. Even if me and my cousin were to grow apart I know it will always have been special.

Mary A knows that he loves her just not romantically is that what u mean? So in the story that character is asexual?

I believe in that to an extent, but I don't believe it's an exact "previous life-current life-next life" thing, but that we're more like Frankenstein hybrids.  On that note (sorry to go off-topic), in the movie Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the creature plays a flute in front of his creator and asks something to the equivalent of "which part of me knew how to do that?"

I don't know if the character is asexual in the book, but Captain W is certainly a fictionalization of Barrie himself.  And I don't know if Mary knows he doesn't love her in a romantic sense or not (been awhile since I read it) but she knows he loves her rather than hating her as he pretends to.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: TheWendybird on September 18, 2009, 06:05:54 AM
Oh yes soul mates do not have to be romantic. I am convinced before my 12 year old cousin started mimicking her parents too much that we were soul mates too. Not that we're not now..just she has changed a lot but from the time she was a baby she was drawn to me...no more than a year old she'd come up to me all the time wanting hugs and kisses and putting her arms around my neck. She was much more attached to me than the rest of the non immediate family (non-immediate meaning not her brother or parents). So I can definately see where you are coming from on that. I honestly wonder if i knew my cousin in a prior life (if you believe in that ;) )..but that's the kinda feeling it has regardless. Same thing with my boyfriend. There are very few people that I can say that about but it's wonderful when you find them. Even if me and my cousin were to grow apart I know it will always have been special.

Mary A knows that he loves her just not romantically is that what u mean? So in the story that character is asexual?

I believe in that to an extent, but I don't believe it's an exact "previous life-current life-next life" thing, but that we're more like Frankenstein hybrids.  On that note (sorry to go off-topic), in the movie Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the creature plays a flute in front of his creator and asks something to the equivalent of "which part of me knew how to do that?"

I don't know if the character is asexual in the book, but Captain W is certainly a fictionalization of Barrie himself.  And I don't know if Mary knows he doesn't love her in a romantic sense or not (been awhile since I read it) but she knows he loves her rather than hating her as he pretends to.
Ah okies *nods* gotcha.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: TheWendybird on August 06, 2010, 12:10:36 AM
I just want to say I have read this now and I'm a little taken aback by it. I think it's well written yes....I like some of the stuff between Wendy and Peter and the Lost Boys but toward the middle it gets very twisted and I do NOT like how a scene between a violent Peter and Wendy was depicted. Very shocking. I didn't care for this book. It has it's good moments but...wow....not for me. That being said I was wondering about peoples opinons of romance between Peter and Wendy and I did like the part where she kissed him. I'm however kind of shocked people are more accepting of this idea the way this book was written than they are of the innocent sweetheart love I've personally come to see in Peter and Wendy...I really can't understand that but to each their own.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on August 06, 2010, 02:34:39 AM
I just want to say I have read this now and I'm a little taken aback by it. I think it's well written yes....I like some of the stuff between Wendy and Peter and the Lost Boys but toward the middle it gets very twisted and I do NOT like how a scene between a violent Peter and Wendy was depicted. Very shocking. I didn't care for this book. It has it's good moments but...wow....not for me. That being said I was wondering about peoples opinons of romance between Peter and Wendy and I did like the part where she kissed him. I'm however kind of shocked people are more accepting of this idea the way this book was written than they are of the innocent sweetheart love I've personally come to see in Peter and Wendy...I really can't understand that but to each their own.

I'm sorry you didn't like the book, but I'm not all that surprised.  Peter Pan is a specific kind of story, so it's only to be expected that such an adult reinterpretation isn't going to be for everyone.  (I'm glad you did at least read it once first, though!  ^_^)  And yes, I knew you weren't going to like that scene (I know exactly which one you're talking about--I didn't like it either)....

One thing I will say in the book's defense, though--I have it on good authority that the author wrote it as a metaphor for her own life, which is already a good reason for writing the story since Barrie's original was a metaphor for his.  On top of which, she did respect Barrie's original more than many writers have done, even those who purport to be writing within Barrie's "universe".

I'm a little curious, though, about the last thing you said about people being more accepting....  Could you explain that a bit, and maybe give me an example of what you mean?  I'm curious.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: TheWendybird on August 06, 2010, 03:43:23 AM
Well I know a lot of people out there are totally for and can see the Peter and Wendy "relationshippy" stuff but some people are sooooo into the mother thing they can't see how things like that can double over (not addressing you btw regarding my other post). But I find there seems to be two camps..the "no way peter and wendy would ever kiss" kind of crowd (even though they kiss in the nursery in the book)...who think he felt nothing...and the people who are all for things like the '03 movie and maybe even more. I fall into the '03 movie with a lot more confusion and angst..not that they didn't show it but I think it needed to be addressed more so with the novel and with the confusions about the feelings and what a mother is opposed to other things Peter may have felt as well. So the movie does fall short with that I admit for sure. I've always felt..and I think this author (of Hook & Jill) actually captured it a bit in a few parts and THAT did pleasantly suprise me...the fact there was something Peter felt for her more than a mother. I believe it says when Wendy kissed him there WAS a passion there and I guess i think people need to be more open to the idea that yes he probably could feel that (you can feel it at any age..as i said in another post...we're born that way it really isn't something magical that happens at 13..it's just stronger then) but if he had any knowledge about romantic love he probably feared it meant one automatically grows up and that falling in love equals mothers and fathers and children..which is not necessarily the case. If Peter knew he could remain a boy..have his Wendy and be in love and still have fun...I kinda wonder if he would have been nearly as scared..it seems to be the lack of understanding their own emotions and feelings that seems to drive them apart in the end.

For instance in the '03 movie when after the faerie dance wendy asks Peter about his real feelings and what about love...he gets defensive. I've always always wondered....if this was the beginning of the end for Wendy. What if she had been told his true feelings? (Which you can't deny in that version they were there) I kind of think she may not have grown up at all...she wouldn't have given it so much thought...it possibly would have been like it was in Hook & Jill where she would have left her family behind for him you know?

I know there is the camp that says Peter should have grown up for Wendy...but i always wonder why no one says the opposite....perhaps it's because maybe love between children feels impossible or scary to most I don't know...it doesn't happen often but if we were all honest with ourselves...real true love probably doesn't even happen that often in our normal adult world. I just kind of think they could have found paradise together if they had known everything. It's just my thought.

I can appreciate someone basing stuff off their life. I am writing something myself...while also trying to stay in the spirit but a totally different story....it won't change the ending of the original story though. :) It's more of a continuation based on my experiences using those characters. Believe me there were parts I really enjoyed it just kinda left a sour taste somewhere past the mid point :)
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on August 06, 2010, 05:56:17 AM
Ah, I see.

Well, Barrie said in the narration of the book (and the book's events bear this out) that Wendy WANTED to grow up.  What made playing "mother" fun for her was knowing that someday she would BE a mother and do these things for real.  Contrast that with Peter, who only had any interest in playing "father" because it was a new game he hadn't tried before, and he needed constant reassurance that it was only pretend, and not real.

At any rate, I think that kind of ending would have left the Darlings in the lurch.  That wouldn't be nice.

You are?  Neat!  :D  I won't ask further questions, though--I don't know how much you want to tell, but even if you're fine with telling, this thread isn't the place for it.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: TheWendybird on August 06, 2010, 08:55:43 AM
If by that kind of ending you mean because they wouldn't see their daughter again...i guess that's kind of my point...this book gets away with it so i think it's equally possible for it to have happened the other way around.

I can tell you at one point i too wanted to be a mother but there are other ways of being a mother other than literally giving birth...so I guess you could say I know she thought that way but sometimes i feel it could be because of lack of knowledge at that age...the same thing with peter. I look at what Wendy does and I think she could be considered a mother just as much as one that gave birth. Like adoption or being a foster parent. Not saying thats how BARRIE meant it but that I think Barrie wouldn't want us to be all stuck in a cage and not think outside the box. I began to do this because of his fairy notes and little white bird...while they are not the final product of Peter Pan...they are something to think about.

I guess I also wonder if it was possible she might have had regret much later because even after having Jane when Peter comes back to visit...she actually has the thought of "woman let go" to herself.

I guess it's like this special I saw about Robin Hood...and how it starts off as one thing and as the years progressed you could see how the legend took on new things and characters..I'm not opposed to this happening with todays tales either. Especially when the author took them into consideration himself :)
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: SingsWithRavens on September 03, 2010, 05:56:22 PM
Peter Pan-Therein lies the real connection to Mr Darling even if unintentional....they are both representing the status quo. That being said...as you've said to me before in our discussions here at home...sometimes characters take on a life of their own and you have no idea how things developed the way they did. I think the Hook and Mr. Darling parallels are pretty neat even if unintentional...I think it fits. Especially since Wendy doesn't return till the croc has swallowed him up...as if that Pirate in Mr. Darling has been killed and he can act like a loving father with his children. That's how it always hit me.
A fascinating take on the connection between Darling and Hook, one I haven't read before. I've always read the book understanding that there is a connection between Darling and Hook. How couldn't there be? Too many little things are shared between the characters: talking in third person when dejected, a wish to assert dominance (Darling, over his sons/Nana; Hook, over his crew), fear of being looked down upon (Darling, neighbors; Hook, crew again), both having had a 'classical education'.
You do notice a change in Mr. Darling toward the end of the book. He's gained a certain, humility, perhaps...saddened at the loss of his children, he takes to Nana's doghouse. I see a connection between the doghouse and the crocodile, as Mr. Darling states "This is the place for me." and "Full of remorse as ever, dearest! See my punishment: living in a
kennel." But, perhaps I'm taking it too far XD
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 03, 2010, 06:41:22 PM
That's actually an interesting interpretation that I didn't think of.

But one question: when did Mr. Darling refer to himself in the third person?  I don't remember him doing that at all....
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: SingsWithRavens on September 03, 2010, 07:20:27 PM
In Chapter 2, when George and Mary are reflecting on the children flying away, George says: "I am responsible for it all. I, George Darling, did it. Mea culpa, mea culpa."
I don't think he says this in the play though...only in the novel :D
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 04, 2010, 12:13:04 AM
In Chapter 2, when George and Mary are reflecting on the children flying away, George says: "I am responsible for it all. I, George Darling, did it. Mea culpa, mea culpa."
I don't think he says this in the play though...only in the novel :D

Oh, right--yeah, no, he didn't say it in the play.  Of course, I never cared for that passage much anyway....  :P
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: SingsWithRavens on September 04, 2010, 01:54:15 AM
XDD It is a rather obscure quote (and not a particularly memorable one, at that!)
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: JAQ on September 04, 2010, 02:09:02 PM
In Chapter 2, when George and Mary are reflecting on the children flying away, George says: "I am responsible for it all. I, George Darling, did it. Mea culpa, mea culpa."
I don't think he says this in the play though...only in the novel :D
(Technically it's not speaking in the third person, just a bunch of first-person pronouns and verbs, and his proper name.  It would only be third-person if he paired his name with a third-person pronoun or verb, e.g. "George Darling, he did it.")
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: SingsWithRavens on September 04, 2010, 06:36:42 PM
@.@ I guess you're right! Thanks so much for the correction (*scratches off similarity from list*)
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: SingsWithRavens on November 24, 2010, 06:16:35 AM
I've ordered -Hook and Jill- from Amazon so it should be arriving next week or so. Based off of many of your comments, it seems like an all around good read...I'm very excited to start reading. Hurrah!
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on November 24, 2010, 07:33:30 PM
I've ordered -Hook and Jill- from Amazon so it should be arriving next week or so. Based off of many of your comments, it seems like an all around good read...I'm very excited to start reading. Hurrah!

Neat!  :D  Hope you like it, then!
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: SingsWithRavens on December 02, 2010, 07:19:07 AM
I always read a book with an open mind, but when the character of James Hook is involved, I become quite jaded. Hook's character, for me, is something that cannot - should not - ever be violated or reduced. To admit, I was a little frightened of what I might find in Jones' book.
I was surprised to the extreme. Reading -Hook and Jill- was remarkable on many degrees, all of which stunned me.
Andrea Jones managed to handle every scene of the novel with refinement and grace, a rarity in fanfiction. The story flowed beautifully. Symbolic motifs reoccured throughout. The development of character was stunning, and I was constantly reminded of why I love Hook's character so much...his elegance, his patience, his sensitivity.
This was an absolute jewel of a book to read.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on December 02, 2010, 06:49:25 PM
I always read a book with an open mind, but when the character of James Hook is involved, I become quite jaded. Hook's character, for me, is something that cannot - should not - ever be violated or reduced. To admit, I was a little frightened of what I might find in Jones' book.
I was surprised to the extreme. Reading -Hook and Jill- was remarkable on many degrees, all of which stunned me.
Andrea Jones managed to handle every scene of the novel with refinement and grace, a rarity in fanfiction. The story flowed beautifully. Symbolic motifs reoccured throughout. The development of character was stunning, and I was constantly reminded of why I love Hook's character so much...his elegance, his patience, his sensitivity.
This was an absolute jewel of a book to read.

Glad you enjoyed it!  :D
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: AlexanderDavid on October 12, 2013, 12:18:02 AM
Just writing to say that I can no longer recommend the book Hook & Jill.  It's too adult and too controversial in parts.  In conception it was a neat idea but...no, I can't recommend it anymore.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Hook & Jill
Post by: Andrea Jones on October 27, 2013, 09:50:40 PM
I'm pleased to see a healthy discussion of my work, "Hook & Jill," which I view as a serious parody of the Peter Pan story, and a respectful tribute to Barrie's masterwork. In "Hook & Jill," I question the premise that it is desirable to remain a child. Perhaps, after all, it's a greater adventure to grow up? One can draw one's own conclusion, but it's "great fun" to explore Barrie's ideas in further depth. "Other Oceans: Book Two of the Hook & Jill Saga" is now available, along with "Hook & Jill," at any bookseller. It takes place upon the high seas on the Jolly Roger. The two books together have won 12 awards, but you be the judge. I'm planning a series of five books in the Hook & Jill Saga.