Peter Pan's NeverWorld

[AlexanderDavid]

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?

[smiles]

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..

[AlexanderDavid]

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'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."

[Westh76]

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).

[AlexanderDavid]

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.

[Westh76]

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.)

[AlexanderDavid]

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.

[Hannah High]

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.

[AlexanderDavid]

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....

[AlexanderDavid]

Sorry about the double post....

Read the book, and OH MY GOD it is amazing!     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!

[TheWendybird]

Sorry about the double post....

Read the book, and OH MY GOD it is amazing!     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?

[AlexanderDavid]

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.    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....   

[TheWendybird]

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.    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.

[AlexanderDavid]

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.

[TheWendybird]

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