JMBarrie
JMBarrie => Peter Pan => Topic started by: Robert Greenham on March 18, 2005, 08:23:37 AM
-
Someone who definitely believes that there is no literary case for a sequel to Peter Pan, and that Peter Pan is complete in itself, is Tim Luckhurst who wrote an interesting piece in the Thunderer column of The Times on Wednesday 16 March:
Sequels are not for fairies:
Access http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ and then search for the article by searching for 'Peter Pan' or 'Tim Luckhurst'. You'll need to search a second time when presented with a choice of where to search - Search the site, not search the web.
-
GOSH began their search for a sequel author last September, after Disney published their own Pan prequel, Peter and the Starcatchers, without the hospital's permission. Peter Pan has been GOSH's #1 source of income ever since Barrie gave them the play. Despite the presumably huge, yet unknown, sum of money they've earned from it, "the hospital says privately that it is a hard-pressed charity," and though it considered suing Disney over the prequel, it simply couldn't take on such a multinational monster. Disney must not mind taking away from sick children, because they insist that Pan is public property and are already planning another prequel, Peter and the Shadowthieves, to accompany the first. (I've summarized this whole mess rather badly, but follow the below link for more.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/09/nmausch09.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/09/ixhome.html
With all this in mind, I think Mr. Luckhurst's attack on the GOSH-authorized sequel is misguided. I agree that no one can ever recreate the magic and longevity that Barrie did with Peter Pan. The work was simply too tied up with his personal life -- his brother's death, his mother's stories, his games with The Five -- to be duplicated by another, but Luckhurst seems to imply that GOSH is getting greedy, and that the hospital should be content that it "will not lose income when copyright expires." It's more likely need than greed that's driving GOSH to create this book. Says Jane Collins, the hospital's chief executive: "With half our beds in a bed dating back to the 1930s, any little help from the sequel will be very welcome." I'm as much a Pan purist as anyone (I didn't even visit Kensington Gardens until I had a 1902 copy of The Little White Bird), but if the money from this book helps out a few sick kids, well, what's there to get upset about, really?
Oh, and here's something interesting from the AP article:
"I think JM Barrie would have liked her [Geraldine McCaughrean's] style -- if I'm wrong, he'll be back to haunt us," said David Barrie, a great-great-nephew of JM Barrie who was on the judging panel.
Did this David even know JMB? Oh dear, I don't know how this post got so long, but I would like to here what others on this board think.
-
I completely agree with you Rebecca. No one can duplicate Barrie's style -and name me a worthwhile author who would want to, even if they could. I'm sure Geraldine McCaughrean has considered all the dangers, but she's an excellent writer and if she has the courage to undertake such a project on behalf of the hospital, we should be wishing her all the magic going.l I already like the sound of it from her opening page - the Lost Boys, now grown up and living in London.....
-
I haven't heard anything new about the GOSH vs. Disney feud, but I recently came across this article about GOSH's reaction to the "Lost Girls" Series and I thought I'd share it here.
Hospital with Copyright Objects to Books. By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer, Fri Jun 23, 12:59 PM ET. LONDON - A London hospital that holds the copyright to "Peter Pan" has questioned the appropriateness of a series of books that portrays the character Wendy exploring her sexuality...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_en_ot/books_lost_girls
-
This has been said before, so at the risk of overdoing, I still believe no one, cept Barrie, can capture Peter (though there are those who've met and played with him, and had quite a game!). These days I never come to these ghastly simpiflied versions with sequals and prequels (Starcathers, Hook, whatever), but Geraldine McCaughrean's own take sounds interesting, and I think I'll be tempted to take a look at it when it comes out. Hmm...
Yet these 'Lost Girl' things, in my worthless opinion, sound really...not good!
Oh, well, again, in the end, the youth always escapes anyway, so..."there's Peter still."
-
This has been said before, so at the risk of overdoing, I still believe no one, cept Barrie, can capture Peter (though there are those who've met and played with him, and had quite a game!). These days I never come to these ghastly simpiflied versions with sequals and prequels (Starcathers, Hook, whatever), but Geraldine McCaughrean's own take sounds interesting, and I think I'll be tempted to take a look at it when it comes out. Hmm...
Yet these 'Lost Girl' things, in my worthless opinion, sound really...not good!
Oh, well, again, in the end, the youth always escapes anyway, so..."there's Peter still."
-
Sorry for the double post...don't know how I did that!
-
Sorry for the double post...don't know how I did that!
-
I understand james Barrie also "borrowed" ideas from writers he admired, like for instance the Pirates from Stevensons, Terasure Island. he recreated them but many charachters were the same. i believe if it truly is to help the kids, Barrie would have no argument, it was his prime objective as well.
I am curious to see what exactly McGraghran (spell???) had proposed in her orignal story line of Captain Pan...scared me cause it appeared as though peter grows up. though in this one Peter Pan in Scarlett(I do't liek the title...GWTW images) I understand she brings the Darling children and the lost boys back to Neverland as adults a full 20 years after the frist voyage. The driving force perhaps would be to save thier children????
Either way, i just hope that she stays true to Barrie's vision.
I wonder what happened to all the other authors that were turned away...did they have to sign an agreement not to produce and publish thier stories??? who's to say what will appear in 2007 after the Copyright law is no longer an issue?
-
On Friday July 11, 2006, The Times (London) published an article by Anjana Ahuja about Geraldine McCaughrean which may interest some members of this forum. Ahuja had visited Geraldine McCaughrean at her home in Berkshire, England, as a result of the children's author having been chosen to write a Peter Pan sequel. Titled 'Peter Pan? It's like rewriting the Bible', the article may be read at:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27869-2263730.html & http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27869-2263730_2,00.html
-
The GOSH official sequel to JM Barrie's Peter Pan, Geraldine McCaughrean's Peter Pan in Scarlet, will be released on October 5, 2006 (my birthday!). You can read more about it at GOSH's website:
SCARLET FEVER SPREADS IN COUNTDOWN TO LAUNCH OF PETER PAN IN SCARLET
29 August 2006
As the launch date approaches of Peter Pan in Scarlet, the offical sequel to Barrie's classic, author Geraldine McCaughrean has revealed a few tantalising details...
http://www.gosh.org/news/2006/PPIS.html
-
On Saturday September 30 The Times ran a feature written by Geraldine McCaughrean titled Shadowing Peter Pan. It may be read here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,30769-2379786,00.html
-
Whether one approves of the principle of writing sequels to other authors' creations or not, especially when they are attempted in the style of the originator, there's no getting away from the fact that the official sequel to Peter Pan, commissioned by Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, has hit the headlines in the British literary world and the BBC. The consensus among UK reviewers seems to be that Geraldine McCaughrean's book is a great success in literary terms. But what do the Barrie enthusiasts think?
Without wishing to condone what has been done to Barrie and his most popular work, I give some current information and weblinks which, short of actually reading the sequel, provide opportunities to discover more of what the fuss is about.
Various audio and video recordings are accessible online via the BBC's website:
1 Ending today at about 6.15pm GMT, there is an opportunity to hear a review on http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/frontrow/past_programmes.shtml (click on 'Wednesday' in the Listen Again panel. Once playback starts, zip forward about 9 minutes).
2 You have more time to explore other relevant recordings, including a video interview with McCaughrean, via
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?tab=all&go=homepage&q=Peter+Pan+in+Scarlet&Search.x=18&Search.y=10&Search=Search&scope=all
Two BBC broadcasts are imminent:
1 A radio dramatisation of Geraldine McCaughrean's Peter Pan in Scarlet will be broadcast by BBC Radio 4 on Saturday October 14, 2.30 - 4.00pm. You may listen live, and/or for up to seven days afterwards, via http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/index.shtml?logo
2 The anticipated publication of Peter Pan in Scarlet also prompted the making of a television arts programme - Following Peter Pan - the first in a new series of 'Imagine ...', which is to be screened on BBC1 TV on Tuesday October 17, 10.35 - 11.25pm. This programme 'seeks out the spirits of Barrie and Pan in diverse locations around the UK', and Andrew told us in August that he was interviewed by Alan Yentob for this.
-
Further to my previous post, I wish to clarify the times of the imminent broadcasts mentioned. The times I stated are local times for the UK, ie. in British Summer Time. For GMT or WET please DEDUCT 1 hour from the stated times.
Sorry for any confusion.
-
Has anyone read the sequel yet? I have read it twice already. I don't know what to think and know less as to how the critics are vieiwing it as such an outstanding success.
Warning info on the book will appear here so if you want to read the sequel yourself, please do not read any further.
I will try to state my point without giving much of the story away. The underlying theme of Peter Pan in Scarlet seems to be that you are what you wear. At the start the adults, lost boys and Wendy and John need to get back to Neverland to stop dreams from seeping into the realworld. They do so by wearing their children's clothes and becoming children again. In the book another situation occurs where the wearing of another's clothes morph's the person to the owner of the clothing.
The book is jammed packed with adventurous scenes, fantastic battles and creative story line. But there is something missing. It did not seem as dark as Barrie's, nor as deep. There is no connection between Wendy and Peter and there are a few lovable and meaningful charachters that don't appear. Two appear at the very end.
Overall I think McCraughren has an adventurous spirit, which plays through clearly in the book, but the depths of Barrie is lost. It seemed that she had not touched upon Barrie's life to understand Peter Pan which in my mind, both are inseperable.
I know that the book will do well because most people now believe that Johnny Depp is James Barrie, (as is Captain Hook thorugh Jack Sparrow) and for that success I am ecstatic for the Hospital and most especially the children. But as a Barrie enthusiast, I feel sad that the magic, complexitites and brilliance of his persona is lost.
-
I couldn't agree more... let's hope the book is a resounding success for the sake of Great Ormond Street's sick children, but it seems about as close to Barrie's complex creation as J Depp did to his creator. I've never read Harry Potter, but I assume the styles are none too different. But any criticism seems churlish, given the sequel's aim = to make pots of dosh for GOSH = let's just hope it does!
-
I can't add much to Makaira and Andrew's posts, except to say that I was also very disappointed by the book. I got the impression that McCaughrean tried to imitate Barrie's style, but whereas JMB's Peter Pan is dark, hers is simply depressing. And as an avid fan of Harry Potter, I see no similarity there, either. Once you start reading Harry Potter, you can't stop turning the pages, but this book was so long and depressing that I could barely finish it (and I don't understand how children could).
Has anybody else heard rumors that they're making a movie out of it?
-
The rumors are not rumors anymore, yes the movie rights have been bought. I haven't heard anymore about a screenplay and whathave you but i am not surprised. although in the beginning when the sequel first came out there were raving reviews, lately i have read some reviewswhich are not so good. There are even websites for parents which don't recommend the book because the story line is too complex for young kids and too dull for young adults.
Rebecca, would you be interested in another sequel story line? ...or anyone else for that matter. I delved deeply into Barrie's life utilizing Andrew's biography and others to establish a clear understanding of his characters and moreso of his play and book. I started writing my book before even knowing there was a commissioned one, but I was complelled to write it anyway, finishing it inless than 3 months...much more psychological than the Scarlet one and a completely different story. it's targeted to young adults. any takers to read a few scenes????
-
any takers to read a few scenes?
Sure! And thanks for the info about the PP in S movie. I'm quite surprised that the movie rights were bought so soon after publication. Although I wasn't a big fan of the book, I look forward to seeing the movie someday - sometimes the movies actually turn out better than the books. (Mary Poppins and Lord of the Rings are two good examples.)
On an unrelated note, today I convinced my screenwriting professor to let me do my final project on different movies about Peter Pan. I plan to include ... the 1924 silent Peter Pan, Disney's Peter Pan, Hogan's Peter Pan, Spielberg's Hook, Andrew's The Lost Boys, Finding Neverland, (possibly) filmed versions of the stage play, and (hopefully) a 2003 indie film Neverland, that I've heard some very interesting and strange things about. I don't think I've ever looked forward to a school project so much!
Oh, and my prof also invited me to consider movies "Peter Pan-esque" themes. Any suggestions would be really appreciated.
-
Wow sounds like an interesting project! Are you becoming a screenwriter?
Would love to share, but can you send me an email address...my email is in my profile. don't want to divulge info on public site.
I did a similar analysis of Pan related books, I can also send you summaries o the various books out there on the market...
I have to se that Neverland film...sounds very intriguing.
As to other similar films or themes, I've always wondered if Neverland was the first "other land" like Wonderland, Narnia, even Neverending Story...there are many similar themes...look at bridge to Terebithia which his currently out.
Although completely unrelated to Peter Pan, I have hear that Pan's labyrinth is a masterpiece, it deals with a young girl finding a new land while escaping the harsh cfruelty of her father's rule of her country.
I don't know what exactly you are focusing your project on, but I'd be happy to help in any way I can.
Please send me an email so I can give you my notes as to Pan related literature.
Best of Luck,
Annie (AKA Makaira)
-
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.
-
I don't know if I read the same book....
I hated it.
Okay, I didn't hate it all throughout, there were some parts I liked, and some I even thought worked sequentially from the original, but that only further served to disappoint me with all the problems. Sloppy writing, for one thing--I never felt like I'd been taken back to the same world with the same characters.
And the ending was just plain unforgivable--looked like someone tacked on an ending and didn't care how they came to it. Makes me think the author was writing the ANTI-Peter Pan with this book. The ending is the part I hated, but that's the last chance the author has to make a lasting impression. And quite frankly, I am not impressed.
-
There are many fans of -Peter Pan- I've met who didn't like Scarlet at all. I mostly hear what you've said above: it's not the same. The story is melancholy; the characters are more brittle than the original; the Neverland isn't what it was in Barrie's book. But, from how I understand it, that was McCaughrean's intent.
-Peter Pan in Scarlet- is, at least for me, a rather moving book for a novel intended for children. I empathize with Ravello, that tragic character who longs for the past but is powerless to wish it back; a character who has experienced horrific trials and instead of running from them, faces them, broken, but defiant. Ravello listens out and listens in...much like me.
And Pan. Peter's metamorphosis and eventual fall into the abyss of despair shows us something Barrie really didn't: Peter's humanity. As much as many fans of the One-and-Only-Child probably won't like to hear this, I really do like how McCaughrean took Peter's immortality away. She gave Peter weakness, thus giving her plot depth; her characters life.
I don't believe this sequel is the Anti-Peter Pan so much as a wake up call. McCaughrean's Neverland is dangerous, even deadly. It's a gritty world much like our own, where all of our decisions and actions have consequences; where the test of courage is weighed heavily upon our shoulders; where we often look ahead to brighter times - the peaks of mountains - but sometimes find nothing but memories of a distant past, haunting, ever haunting, and despair. In -Peter Pan in Scarlet-, McCaughrean took Barrie's dream-world of a child's ideal reality and washed a bit of the real world into it. Yes the story may be grim and dark, the language choppy and clipped, but it has much to say about the world in which we live.
In regard to the epilogue, however, I must say I don't believe it was entirely necessary. McCaughrean must have tacked it on for some reason other than this, but I have a creeping suspicion she only put it there because the novel "needed" a clean, happy end. Without the epilogue, the story would have ended on a rather dark note, something that is simply unheard of in most children's literature. Though it does wrap the story up, it wasn't entirely necessary and is thus awkward.
All in all though, I really enjoyed the book for its gritty messages and dark themes. It contrasts with Barrie's original, but in a tasteful, welcome way (to me, at least). But, as always, to each his own!
-
Considering that it's meant to be a Peter Pan sequel, I don't think that "that was the author's intent" is enough of an excuse for some of what she did.
The ending in particular: she took what had originally been a really neat and Barrie-esque idea, and then completely destroyed it to tack on the phony ending that also goes against the canon of the first story and makes it impossible for them to belong in the same universe at all. Whether she's to blame or the publishing company is, or whoever is to blame, that ending deserves to be torn out and incinerated.
-
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.
-
It was just too hard for me to get into it as a story with characters--I ended up reading it more like an editor than a book audience, which is not a good sign.
I still prefer Peter Pan's NeverWorld by Peter Von Brown as a sequel, especially since that was actually based on Barrie's own idea for a sequel, and since it was written well and drew me in as a story.
-
That's too bad...I've read a few books like that, and it's wretched. Ah well.
I've never heard of Peter Pan's Neverworld...I'll have to look into it. I've gotten a lot of suggestions for Peter Pan related books, I just have to buy them.
-
That's too bad...I've read a few books like that, and it's wretched. Ah well.
I've never heard of Peter Pan's Neverworld...I'll have to look into it. I've gotten a lot of suggestions for Peter Pan related books, I just have to buy them.
Well, if you do read it I hope you like it. :) Apparently it was entered into the contest and obviously lost, for some reason I can't fathom.
-
I've read Peter Pan in Scarlet and agree with some of the points from both Alexander David and SingsWithRavens. The plot does seem over-convoluted and the ending contrived, but I liked the way the author got Peter's cocky and selfish ways. Plot aside, I like her style of writing and I think she's captured a little of Barrie's voice, especially the dark side.
I haven't read Peter Pan's Neverworld, but have to admit I am prejudiced against self-published books, and probably won't read it. I've dipped into the author's blog and found his tone somewhat too self-satisfied without much sense of humour or irony, and quite hard to take in. He obviously sees himself as self-appointed heir to Barrie, because he claims to have taken Barrie's own idea for a sequel. All credit to him for developing that seed of idea, but if it is as good as he claims, why has he not been able to find a 'real' publisher?
I suspect however that whatever book was chosen as the official sequel, opinion would be divided...
-
I haven't read Peter Pan's Neverworld, but have to admit I am prejudiced against self-published books, and probably won't read it. I've dipped into the author's blog and found his tone somewhat too self-satisfied without much sense of humour or irony, and quite hard to take in. He obviously sees himself as self-appointed heir to Barrie, because he claims to have taken Barrie's own idea for a sequel. All credit to him for developing that seed of idea, but if it is as good as he claims, why has he not been able to find a 'real' publisher?
Peter Von Brown has responded with the following information:
"When I completed my book, I had no intention to publish. I wrote out of compulsion upon finding Barrie’s ideas for more. As the Centennial of Pan approached, I dusted it off and tried my luck. At first luck smiled. An agent with Sterling Lord Literistic deemed it brilliant and fought to see it produced. Little, Brown and Company showed interest. However, the complex proceedings regarding Peter Pan at the time rendered publication impossible. Even with the connections of Sterling Lord himself. When the “official” sequel emerged, I quickly became disenchanted. Once able, I ventured forth again. After more submitting and much deliberation, I decided Lulu to be the best option for this particular novel. A “special case,” as it were, like Peter Pan. I wanted to provide an adventure derived from Barrie. I fully understand and appreciate the clout and achievement of hooking an agent with a query letter and landing a “real” publisher. I thank you for your well wishes, as I am gearing up to pitch an original novel via the proper channels. Good luck in your endeavors as well. And thank you for allowing me to present my viewpoint."
-
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.