Barrie had lost one of his older siblings to an accident as a child, and he remembered how his mother tried to keep him in her memory as he once was. That was a partial inspiration for Peter- the Llewellyn Davies family helped fill out the rest.
The Disney version does have problems (e.g. the whole "What Made The Red Man Red?" thing), but Disney at least respected Barrie's staging and casting decisions for accuracy. Whereas when Steven Spielberg made the sequel film "Hook" in the 1990s, there wasn't entirely the same fidelity to the text.
Yes, there's lots of conversation in the book about the relationships between the children and their memories of their mothers, which would make sense given what you mentioned.
Your comment made me look more into the filming process - it does seem like Disney was trying to keep true to the experience he felt from the play, which is encouraging to see. I haven't watched the film in a long time, but I'm sure it's not exactly as memory keeps it.
I teach this book to 11th graders and I’m intrigued by your opening judgement of it as “awful”! I think your interpretation is spot on, but is a book about the value of growing up inherently bad? I also think what sets Wendy apart is she’s the only one who both remembers the valuable things from childhood imagination and also matures into adulthood - that’s the core for me. Wendy is the primary admirable character for that reason.
Wendy remains admirable both in the source and in nearly all adaptations. It was the story's (positive) legacy and the story of how Barrie wrote it and the famous Disney adaptation's rendition of Peter that conflicted with what I found in the story itself, and the difference was awful. I didn't intend to give the idea that the message of growing up was bad - I thought showed my appreciation for it near the end, though maybe it was lumped enough with the criticism of Peter and Neverland to muddle the two.
I also got the impression that 1) if it were acted out, it wouldn't feel quite as sinister since made up adventure stories tend to involve getting into fights and dying and new people somehow replacing them, but in writing, it feels much more permanent, and 2) the narrator gets across the perspective of a child, which is rare for a children's book. When I was a kid, I couldn't get past the first few chapters of E. Nesbit's The Magic Castle because it sounded like she was trying to explain to children how children tended to act, but this book didn't have that. In Peter and Wendy, the good events are assumed and the bad events are more notable.
But long story short, most of the sense of "awfulness" comes from the expectation caused by Peter's still-ongoing legacy, and from Peter himself.
Thank you for your comment! I'm interested by your teaching it to 11th graders and would love to know if you have any other thoughts on the material or this response.
Perhaps I overdetermined your position based on your opening! A lot of my students are kind of disturbed by Peter's violence, but it all feels very make-believe to me, in the way that generations have played "cowboys and indians" with pop-guns before the last couple of generations became so very violence-averse. I think Peter isn't admirable, but it's less because of his style of play and more because he refuses to leave childishness behind. I agree, the narrator is excellent at conveying a child's perspective. We actually have it as a summer reading book between 10th and 11th and most of the students really enjoy it (for one thing, it's a classical school, so they have spent years reading Homer, Virgil, and Dante, and this is one of the first basically modern novels they have read since 6th grade - they read Frankenstein going into 9th but most of the rest are classical or medieval. Peter and Wendy feels very easy to them).
“He is youthful, yes, and full of ideas and playfulness and acting grown-up when he is inclined to. He is also heartless and selfish and cruel. He doesn’t realize the extent of his actions or any notion of responsibilities; he may be innocent in a sense, but he flies against the notion that children are a representation of purity.”
Very well said. I’ve had similar inclinations about the story as a whole and you put it perfectly. I also love your stance about being glad children aren’t Peter Pan - it’s bold and ballsy!! Excellent piece!!
Barrie had lost one of his older siblings to an accident as a child, and he remembered how his mother tried to keep him in her memory as he once was. That was a partial inspiration for Peter- the Llewellyn Davies family helped fill out the rest.
The Disney version does have problems (e.g. the whole "What Made The Red Man Red?" thing), but Disney at least respected Barrie's staging and casting decisions for accuracy. Whereas when Steven Spielberg made the sequel film "Hook" in the 1990s, there wasn't entirely the same fidelity to the text.
Yes, there's lots of conversation in the book about the relationships between the children and their memories of their mothers, which would make sense given what you mentioned.
Your comment made me look more into the filming process - it does seem like Disney was trying to keep true to the experience he felt from the play, which is encouraging to see. I haven't watched the film in a long time, but I'm sure it's not exactly as memory keeps it.
I teach this book to 11th graders and I’m intrigued by your opening judgement of it as “awful”! I think your interpretation is spot on, but is a book about the value of growing up inherently bad? I also think what sets Wendy apart is she’s the only one who both remembers the valuable things from childhood imagination and also matures into adulthood - that’s the core for me. Wendy is the primary admirable character for that reason.
Wendy remains admirable both in the source and in nearly all adaptations. It was the story's (positive) legacy and the story of how Barrie wrote it and the famous Disney adaptation's rendition of Peter that conflicted with what I found in the story itself, and the difference was awful. I didn't intend to give the idea that the message of growing up was bad - I thought showed my appreciation for it near the end, though maybe it was lumped enough with the criticism of Peter and Neverland to muddle the two.
I also got the impression that 1) if it were acted out, it wouldn't feel quite as sinister since made up adventure stories tend to involve getting into fights and dying and new people somehow replacing them, but in writing, it feels much more permanent, and 2) the narrator gets across the perspective of a child, which is rare for a children's book. When I was a kid, I couldn't get past the first few chapters of E. Nesbit's The Magic Castle because it sounded like she was trying to explain to children how children tended to act, but this book didn't have that. In Peter and Wendy, the good events are assumed and the bad events are more notable.
But long story short, most of the sense of "awfulness" comes from the expectation caused by Peter's still-ongoing legacy, and from Peter himself.
Thank you for your comment! I'm interested by your teaching it to 11th graders and would love to know if you have any other thoughts on the material or this response.
Perhaps I overdetermined your position based on your opening! A lot of my students are kind of disturbed by Peter's violence, but it all feels very make-believe to me, in the way that generations have played "cowboys and indians" with pop-guns before the last couple of generations became so very violence-averse. I think Peter isn't admirable, but it's less because of his style of play and more because he refuses to leave childishness behind. I agree, the narrator is excellent at conveying a child's perspective. We actually have it as a summer reading book between 10th and 11th and most of the students really enjoy it (for one thing, it's a classical school, so they have spent years reading Homer, Virgil, and Dante, and this is one of the first basically modern novels they have read since 6th grade - they read Frankenstein going into 9th but most of the rest are classical or medieval. Peter and Wendy feels very easy to them).
Thank you! I agree with your point about it emulating a played-out tale. Your reading curriculum sounds very useful and interesting.
“He is youthful, yes, and full of ideas and playfulness and acting grown-up when he is inclined to. He is also heartless and selfish and cruel. He doesn’t realize the extent of his actions or any notion of responsibilities; he may be innocent in a sense, but he flies against the notion that children are a representation of purity.”
Very well said. I’ve had similar inclinations about the story as a whole and you put it perfectly. I also love your stance about being glad children aren’t Peter Pan - it’s bold and ballsy!! Excellent piece!!
Thank you so much!