Hook & Jill

[AlexanderDavid]

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?

[Moira_Lewelyn]

Peter Von Brown has posted about it a few times on his blog. I haven't see any reviews anywhere else...

[Robert Greenham]

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).

[AlexanderDavid]

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.

[TheWendybird]

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

[AlexanderDavid]

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.

[Peter Pan]

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)

[AlexanderDavid]

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.

[Peter Pan]

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.

[AlexanderDavid]

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.

[TheWendybird]

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.

[TheWendybird]

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?

[AlexanderDavid]

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.

[Peter Pan]

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.

[TheWendybird]

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.