Though Barrie explicitly tells us (the readers) what Neverland is, he hints at other, implicit, meanings and definitions.
Barrie himself seems to stand on unstable ground on the topic of the Neverland: "it is all rather confusing, especially as nothing will stand still." There are multiple theories out there (it just goes to prove how persistent adults are at over-thinking things C: ), one of which suggests that Neverland is the afterlife/heaven.
One of my close friends and I actually had a discussion on Neverland and whether or not it is a "shared space" (if it were real) in the minds of all children. We discussed how if we were to both visit Neverland, would the trees be the same? Would the landscape appear differently to each of us? What if I see two mountains and she sees only one? If the Neverland is a dreamscape representing a child's ideal reality, no doubt one child's paradise would differ from another's - contrary to the idea that the Neverland, in being a 'shared space', does not change; there is no variation from child to child.
In short, is Barrie's Neverland a preexisting place that does not change (a "shared space"), or does it appear differently from child to child? These two arguments both appear in the novel, but obviously contradict one another, bringing up the notion that this was Barrie's intent; a child projects his or her reality unto the real world, filling it with the mundane as well as the fantastical. The world, in a sense, does not change, but a child's imagination does, filling his reality with that which suits his concept of paradise. The world becomes the Neverland to a child, and though the landscape of the world does not change (as it is a shared space), the child colors it vibrantly with his mind (making it an ideal reality).

~~On a less scholarly note: I think I managed to type "reality" and "child" about 50 times. Just goes to show you what happens to one's vocabulary at 11:30 PM. C: (goodnight!)

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.

Peter Von Brown has responded with the following information:

I can relate to Brown's described disenchantment. Although I've never published, I'm currently working on a novel and understand the insane amount of work it takes to not only write, but also seek a publisher (let alone an editor). In particular with writing -Peter Pan- sequels, prequels, etc., one can feel greatly disheartened when another author's work is released...I know I was shocked when I learned of -Peter Pan in Scarlet-. Because -Peter Pan- is such a well-known story, it's frustrating as an author to have your very own, personal interpretation - one to which you may have ground quite close - be "scrambled about", as it were, by another. But really, when writing anything -Peter Pan- related, one's bound to hit more than a few snags, discover multiple hoops through which to jump, and have great difficulty deciding to which audience one should write...difficulties associated with writing most any novel.

Perhaps. Some of the errors she made are a little ridiculous, or even thick-headed (not being able to fly without a shadow? What about Pan in the first book loosing his?)...but I still don't think these errors completely take away from the sequel air (aside from the pointless epilogue, which makes no sense on a literary standpoint).
For me, the continuity issues are outweighed by the novel's symbols/motifs (of Time, dreams, and the Past), underlying messages, and occasionally poetic language. I really enjoy reading books with symbolic depth and fluid, consistent themes - hence my enjoyment of Scarlet. But really, as I said before, each person likes to see - or prefers to not see - different things in each book they read.
 

I've read McCaughrean's book upwards twenty times, and discover new things each time I read it. To be brief, it is a marvelous book in my opinion, written with startling fluidity and grace. It has depth of plot, wondrous twists and turns, and really does allow my imagination to run wild. Despite rather weak characterization and a few plot holes, I believe McCaughrean did justice to Barrie's original, keeping the language light, but the meaning deep. 
I'm quite excited to see how the movie will turn out...let alone who will be casted.

WOW! Responses! So exciting. C:
AlexanderDavid:
It is difficult to change Barrie's play for exactly the reason you stated. Because I'm appealing to (mainly) a college student audience, certain aspects of Barrie's messages would be highlighted while others would remain in the background. Most, if not all of my classmates understand that one message of -Peter Pan- is that of youthful joy in remaining young at heart. But other, usually darker themes, such as that of 'memento mori' ("Remember you must die") and  "The readiness is all" (courage in accepting death), are less obvious. It is my wish that in editing, I'll be able to highlight these themes, and so appeal to my adult audience. Very, very little of the play will actually be cut. In fact, I'm technically expanding the play, keeping a close eye on sustaining Barrie's tone and meter.
What Hook says is what I'm mainly concerned with. I plan to take away much of his pirate jargon, swaying more toward the collegiate intelligence I personally prefer and we all know he possesses. Hook's character highlights most of the darker themes of -Peter Pan-, and so I'd like to expand on the idea that he's not a villain, but a man..."a solitary enigma" a tortured soul. The lighthearted air of the play will still remain, but Hook's personality - represented through his quotes - will accent darker themes, and so give a little more depth to the play than what my classmates expect.
Specifically, I'd be giving Hook a few soliloquies (maybe in Act II and possibly Act III/IV) in which he'd probably reflect on the crocodile a little more and question the righteousness (form) of what he is doing. I do plan to put in a few latin phrases, possibly a small section of "Carmen Etonense" (in which case I'd need to contact Eton College.), and one or two -Hamlet- quotes.
Also, in our rather critical times, the "primitive" language of the Indians could be taken as an affront to many in the audience, so I would be changing the way in which they speak (I have them speaking 'regular' English). This would, I imagine and hope, keep the audience's mind from wandering. "Wow. That's racist!", is a thought I'd rather not have cross anyone's mind, so I'll avoid that altogether.

If you have any other questions or suggestions, just add them

Christine:
I live in the United States. I'll shoot you an email from my school mail.
AH! That's quite a relief...about the copyright.
Barrie purists are what I'm a little nervous about, but because my school is fairly small (about 15,000 in a state where most public colleges are around 25,000 to 45,000 students), I really don't think I'll come across anyone as critical over the play as me.
Thanks for the info!

Dissecting this play and novel is amazing. It opens up soooo many possibilities, it's insane.
I really like when authors are 'in' their books, but in a rather discrete way; it makes for such an interesting read, and the characters seems so much more rich.

AH! That makes a lot of sense! Thanks for the info C: