Thursday 29 May 2008

Peter Pan

I'm afraid I never liked Peter Pan much as a child - in spite (or because?) of  it having been inspired by my grandfather Jack and his four brothers - J.M. Barrie, in a much-quoted comment, said that he 'rubbed together'  the five boys to make a 'spark' (of fire) that ended up as his most famous play.  

I remember going to see the play  in the theatre one Christmas when I was around eight, with my mother.  I don't recall her saying what she thought of it (I suspect maybe I was telepathising her reservations about it - I was a very osmotic child, like many children). Anyway I recall loathing Tinkerbell.  And my attitude to the bit where she was going to die if children didn't clap their hands to show they believed in fairies was 'pass me the bucket'!  

Of course I always wanted to fly like a bird - who doesn't? - but I was sniffy about Neverland, full of boys playing Indians etc.   An odd reaction, when I was totally obsessed with  wanting to visit 'otherlands',  such as C.S. Lewis's Narnia and the parts of the past etc where E. Nesbitt's, 
Edward Eager's and Philippa Pearce's fictional children landed up.  

Later I reread the play - I thought Wendy was sappy, not a rivetting character (probably always did think exactly that) and Mrs Darling her mother seemed on the  yukkily sentimental side...  Sexism?  Well, er, double sexism actually -  poor Mr Darling is portrayed as a bad-tempered wimp and, if I recall aright, most of the pirates are pretty thick.  And then of course there's the crashingly appalling Captain Hook.

Yes, I know the whole point is that Barrie was being deliberately 'ageist' - only children could do any right.  But Peter Pan himself?  GHASTLY CHILD I always thought.  One step further and he'd be up there with  the terrifying psychopath child characters cooked up by William Golding in 'Lord of the Flies' and Susan Hill in  'I'm the King of the Castle'.     

In the play's favour, I did  like the concept of losing one's shadow (as when Peter's had to get sewn back on -  by self-sacricing 'little mother' Wendy - urgghh!), and it's obvious that the play has many clever sly observations about life and Captain Hook has some really great lines (but then we all know the devil always has all the best ones). 

 Please,  if people have got any thoughts about  'Peter Pan', do comment!  


 

7 Comments:

At 1 June 2008 at 23:25 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Henri,
I know what you mean, in the book Peter is far from the sweet character that Disney made ( the one I grew up with I am afraid). many years ago I read the original and was like you aghast at how terrifying a character he is - but then again - there is a wild pagan streak to Peter Pan ( hence the name perhaps and the Pan the greek god association with the pan pipes), maybe the un-tameable or the un-socialised element in children ( the part that can make them sometimes cruel). Perhaps he is Trickster?

Also directed a few scenes of it with children actors a few years ago, and the girls ( primary aged) were none to happy about Wendy being little mother....

As you can see on my blog, I am kind of interested in astrology in relation to fiction too - if so, what sign do you think Peter Pan would be....?

 
At 2 June 2008 at 15:55 , Blogger Henri Llewelyn Davies said...

Hi Gondal-Girl, Thanks so much for your comments. It's true what you say about the untameable Pan streak in Peter. I'm not certain what sign he is, but maybe a Gemini or Sagittarian, and funnily enough I've been meaning to put something on my blog that says he's a Gemini (which I think matches your mention of Trickster): a short story I once wrote - in a satirical way - continuing the story of Peter Pan post the official ending. Re-reading that recently, I have a vague memory that Barrie said somewhere that Peter was probably born in the Summer (I may be wrong).
(Or he might be Moon Gemini!)
Your blog looks really interesting.

 
At 2 June 2008 at 17:36 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Henri - Gemini (joke playing, androgeny, not growing up, flirtatiousness) or Sagittarius( adventure, hunting, call of the wild) make sense - but then there may be Cancerian streak somewhere in there...all that mention of mother replacements or maybe that is Wendy that Cancerian...she does remind me of my sister somewhat ( who is that homebody, organise everyone, tell everyone what do in the family Cancerian - poor triple water sign!)

 
At 3 June 2008 at 15:04 , Blogger dovegreyreader said...

I have a strangely benign and sentimental view of Peter Pan as all Gt Ormond St nurses do.The Barrie bequest was so much a part of the heritage of the hospital we were all taught to look on it most reverently and if you got to work on Peter Pan Ward (4AB in those days I think) it really felt special.

 
At 3 June 2008 at 16:50 , Blogger Henri Llewelyn Davies said...

gondal-girl: absolutely - to everything you've said. Wendy in my opinion is a CARTOON of a Cancerian - those Moon children can be such a fascinating bunch, many-layered characters, full of perceptiveness.

dovegreyreader: That's really interesting that you worked at Great Ormond Street - as a child I always enjoyed going to donate my old toys there, it was kind of a fun day out.
And later (in the 70s or so) my retired nannie, who had looked after me for many years, worked there one day a week. I think it really gave her life meaning at that time, she loved it - though she also said it was agonising as she seemed to see a lot of really ill children. (I think she was mostly giving the kids their tea and stuff).
I'll write on my blog sometime about how my grandmother and that whole generation were hopping mad that our family didn't get the Peter Pan money Barrie had promised the boys - they said. I don't think the younger generations of the family had an issue with this piece of ancient history, I always thought it was totally right that Great Ormond Street should have the money.

 
At 5 June 2008 at 04:01 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did my nurse training there Henri from 1972-1976 and what a remarkable place it was! Unique traditions handed down from one generation of nurses to the next, some of which I suspect went right back to the early days. I also wonder whether the hospital would have survived without the Barrie bequest? The amount always kept a secret of course at JMB's insistence I understood, and now I'm wondering whether that was a clause added by him to spare the family further anguish about the amount of money they'd missed out on? The other side of all that had never even occurred to me so I shall look forward to your post.

 
At 6 June 2008 at 08:24 , Blogger Henri Llewelyn Davies said...

That's an interesting thought about a secrecy clause, dovegrey-reader. I read somewhere that Barrie earned millions of pounds per year back in nineteen hundred and something (impossible! - but he was always called the richest writer in England at the time. I've seen Daphne du Maurier labelled the same in her time, too, true or not).

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home