Peter Pan sequel commissioned by GOSH

[Robert Greenham]

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.

[Rebecca]

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.

[andrew]

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.....

[Rebecca]

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

[Hannah High]

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."

[Hannah High]

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."

[Hannah High]

Sorry for the double post...don't know how I did that!

[Hannah High]

Sorry for the double post...don't know how I did that!

[Makaira]

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?

[Robert Greenham]

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

[Rebecca]

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

[Robert Greenham]

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

[Robert Greenham]

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.

[Robert Greenham]

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.

[Makaira]

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.