Inconsequential
Mar. 19th, 2007 11:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mtvesselJan 2007
Peter Pan in Scarlet - Geraldine McCaughrean - Oxford University Press, 2006
* * *
An odd experience this, reading a sequel by another hand to an original that I haven’t read. The original is of course Peter Pan and Wendy, the book of the play that J.M. Barry donated along with his other Peter Pan-related material to the Great Ormond Street Children’s Charity. This is the first officially sanctioned sequel and as such one must wish it well. Though it has to be said that it is more a respectful homage than a children’s classic in its own right.
The story starts with the former Lost Boys - now grown up, respectable and married - experiencing disturbingly real dreams of Neverland which result in the appearance of cutlasses, loaded flintlocks and pirate hats in their beds. Following the advice of the sensible Mrs. Wendy, they decide to return to Neverland to find out what is going on. This involves a) becoming children again and b) acquiring some fairy dust (McCaughrean is punctilious about obeying the rules of the original book). The former is done by the (mildly disturbing) method of dressing up in their children’s clothes, the latter by making a baby laugh for the first time, which creates a mildly annoying though at least unsentimental fairy called Fireflyer.
Unfortunately, this promising beginning is rather thrown away when the Lost Boys arrive in Neverland and re-encounter Peter Pan. They promptly and conveniently forget their previous lives and embark on another Adventure, which is true to the inconsequential way in which childrens’ minds work but is somewhat unsatisfying from a story-telling point of view.
This is characteristic of the conflict throughout the book between Neverland as a fantasy world based on a strict set of rules that - uniquely in literature - are characteristic of children’s play, and Neverland as an adult’s dream of childhood. This double vision is (presumably) evident in the original but is painfully apparent here where it serves to weaken the plotting.
Peter himself is also a problem. McCaughrean presents what I imagine is a faithful recreation of the original characterisation, but ideas of boyhood moved on since the early twentieth century, and he now comes over as an annoying squirt whom it is difficult to imagine anyone really liking. The sensible, motherly Wendy also seems horribly dated. In fact the whole book feels old-fashioned.
All that said, McCaughrean is a talented writer and captures well the exuberance and goat-footed leaps of the imagination that characterise children at play. A child’s mind darts from subject to subject without much thought for the consequences (that is the wisdom that comes from maturity), so the lack of plot logic and the old-fashioned characterisation will probably not bother them that much. The eccentric style, which I expect is also faithful to the original, will probably appeal as well, though I found it annoyingly whimsical.
A children’s classic is a book that manages to appeal to both adults and children. This one doesn’t quite manage it, but as a sequel to a classic it is a competent job and those not too burdened with a sense of consequence will probably enjoy it.
Peter Pan in Scarlet - Geraldine McCaughrean - Oxford University Press, 2006
* * *
An odd experience this, reading a sequel by another hand to an original that I haven’t read. The original is of course Peter Pan and Wendy, the book of the play that J.M. Barry donated along with his other Peter Pan-related material to the Great Ormond Street Children’s Charity. This is the first officially sanctioned sequel and as such one must wish it well. Though it has to be said that it is more a respectful homage than a children’s classic in its own right.
The story starts with the former Lost Boys - now grown up, respectable and married - experiencing disturbingly real dreams of Neverland which result in the appearance of cutlasses, loaded flintlocks and pirate hats in their beds. Following the advice of the sensible Mrs. Wendy, they decide to return to Neverland to find out what is going on. This involves a) becoming children again and b) acquiring some fairy dust (McCaughrean is punctilious about obeying the rules of the original book). The former is done by the (mildly disturbing) method of dressing up in their children’s clothes, the latter by making a baby laugh for the first time, which creates a mildly annoying though at least unsentimental fairy called Fireflyer.
Unfortunately, this promising beginning is rather thrown away when the Lost Boys arrive in Neverland and re-encounter Peter Pan. They promptly and conveniently forget their previous lives and embark on another Adventure, which is true to the inconsequential way in which childrens’ minds work but is somewhat unsatisfying from a story-telling point of view.
This is characteristic of the conflict throughout the book between Neverland as a fantasy world based on a strict set of rules that - uniquely in literature - are characteristic of children’s play, and Neverland as an adult’s dream of childhood. This double vision is (presumably) evident in the original but is painfully apparent here where it serves to weaken the plotting.
Peter himself is also a problem. McCaughrean presents what I imagine is a faithful recreation of the original characterisation, but ideas of boyhood moved on since the early twentieth century, and he now comes over as an annoying squirt whom it is difficult to imagine anyone really liking. The sensible, motherly Wendy also seems horribly dated. In fact the whole book feels old-fashioned.
All that said, McCaughrean is a talented writer and captures well the exuberance and goat-footed leaps of the imagination that characterise children at play. A child’s mind darts from subject to subject without much thought for the consequences (that is the wisdom that comes from maturity), so the lack of plot logic and the old-fashioned characterisation will probably not bother them that much. The eccentric style, which I expect is also faithful to the original, will probably appeal as well, though I found it annoyingly whimsical.
A children’s classic is a book that manages to appeal to both adults and children. This one doesn’t quite manage it, but as a sequel to a classic it is a competent job and those not too burdened with a sense of consequence will probably enjoy it.