Peter Pan

I confess, I really liked it.

I say "confess" because Peter Pan includes those "of its time" issues: sexist stereotypes and racist expressions that make one wince today. Rightly so.

It can be a dilemma for readers.

I resolve the dilemma by judging a book by its heart. If a book (looking at you A Princess of Mars) has a violent, lurid message of racial and male superiority that might once have seemed, um, harmless, and that is its primary message, then I am not going to hold back my critical disdain of it. Regardless of its "time."

On the other hand, I don't feel like the issues are its heart in Peter Pan. I feel Barrie's story is intended to revel in a child's naturally wild as well as fearful sensibilities, done so wittily and tenderly show more that I forgive his inability to fly into the future to see how we would view phrases like "red skins" and "Great White Father," and the relegating a female's function to motherhood (except Tink, who is equally as wild and unapologetic as Peter). The dilemma lies in what you believe was his intention, don't you think?

As to its banning in some locations of the U.S., it is with utter respect that I believe it is the parents responsiblity to decide for themselves if this remains appropriate for their children. Banning has always been ridiculous and, thankfully, ineffective. And now, with the Internet, even more ridiculous and ineffective.

And bad reviews, some verging on loathing for this story? I heartily agree with them! What I'm agreeing with, though, is my distaste for oppressions, then and now. I am offended by it, but that doesn't change that it once was so, and continues. That continuation is likely why the story is offensive, since plenty of classic literature is rife with what we find intolerable now. Are we offended today by Pride and Prejudice with its focus on desperate husband-hunting? Generally speaking, no, because our Western society has gone beyond that and so it has little power to be offensive.

Reading now just for my own self (and I'm also of my time, as we all are), I recognize there are books that can transcend their time while still being of their time. Peter Pan has done that, in spite of those parts of itself, much like fairy tales have.

It remains timeless...

"...so long as children are gay and innocent and heartless." show less

A lot darker than the Disneyfied version, Neverland is half nightmare and Pan much more of a capricious and immoral god of his realm. The appeals to courage being couched in terms of a british spirit have also been lost to time in modern adaptations. While the indians were actually part of the Disney movie, they've been quietly excised since.

Of course, I'd seen the Disney version many times before reading the original. I'd also read the delightfully adventurous Peter Pan and the Starcatchers series by Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson. No surprise that the original from 1911 was quite different from either - especially in the character of Peter Pan himself. In the original he is portrayed as much younger, more naive, selfish, and unable to focus on anything of import for more than a few minutes... just like a five or six year old child generally is. Wendy's portrayal seems slightly misogynistic by today's standards, as even in Neverland, she seems happy to stay home darning the boys socks while they go off on adventures. And the racist portrayals of the "redskins" is atrocious. show more Nonetheless, I was surprised to find a few tears slipping down my cheeks as I read the last couple of chapters. The book is, after all, about both the joys and the tragedy of growing up, and losing the magic of childhood. show less

The first time I read Peter Pan, I was seventeen and a freshman in college. I remember being charmed, enchanted. That was the period in my life where I discovered Alice in Wonderland as well, and I was enraptured by the whimsy of the story. Thirteen years later, I still understand what appealed to me. But I also have grown older and wiser and more aware, and there are a lot of cringy moments.

I want to discuss those first, because I believe it's smart to rip off the band-aid and have done with it.

As a whole, Peter Pan is racist and sexist. There's no talking around it - it's quite glaring and abhorrent. The language used to describe native peoples is inappropriate. Tiger Lily and her tribe are grossly characitured. There is nothing, show more absolutely nothing redeeming that can be said for the story in this respect. It is honestly awful.

As far as sexism goes, we have six female characters here. In Neverland, we have Tinkerbell and Tiger Lily. In England, there is Mrs. Darling, Liza, Nana, and of course between both worlds we have Wendy. Tiger Lily's entire role is to be rescued by Peter. Mrs. Darling, Liza, Nana, and Wendy all exist to be housekeepers and caregivers. The importance of a mother is a strong theme in this book, and while that is sweet in some ways, this book very clearly lays out that the role of the woman is to keep house and have babies. Um!? The character with the most potential of spirit and individuality is Tinkerbell, and while she has never been a favorite before, I think I have a begrudging respecter her now.

Except, of course, that all the young ladies are desperately in love with the clueless Peter Pan, and everything they do, they do for love of him. Excuse me now.

This is such a waste, because removing the problematic elements, Neverland is so wonderful. The voice in which this story is told is charming and exciting, like a story being told to you, something you can treasure close to your heart. Of course Peter Pan has captured the hearts of so many - it's easy to see, what with the wonderful possibility of a secret adventure, shared childhood memories, and also - how lovely would it be to fly? The world itself is disarmingly wonderful. Except for the racism and sexism. Oh why, oh why, J. M. Barrie. Why.

There is an addendum in the audiobook cautioning that the words in this book are not the opinions of the narrator, and are a product of the time of publication, 1906. Even Audible knows there's some sketchy sketchy nope stuff.

It's really a shame because Neverland is such a presence, and I want its magic to endure. And I think in modern retellings, it does! I'd skip the Disney adaptation, but later plays and retellings do a wonderful job taking the magic in this story, and stripping it of its harmful elements. Still, those harmful elements do exist in the source material and because of them, we need to be cautious about perpetuating the story. It's a complicated moral decision to make.

Story-wise, I really like the cyclical feel of it, the way things rotate and change so quickly, and the strange and perfect balance of roles and the blurry line between good and evil. I wasn't altogether crazy about the group dynamics, but I did like individual characters. Toodles and Smee, of course, are precious. And I really like the voice this story was told in (the narrator was good too, but I mean the writing voice in this case). Peter, or course, is the absolute worst, but I think I liked that about him too, because it made human interesting character. Seriously though - what a brat.

You will have to make your own choice about Peter Pan. On the one hand, I enjoyed the magic in this storytelling a lot. But the racism and sexism drew me out of the story, so I had a really mixed experience. The good elements are so, so good, but the bad elements are quite bad. This story is so deeply entwined in our cultural consciousness, though, that you, dear reader, probably know the magic of it without needing to read the book. show less

Although the story was very familiar to me, I don’t recall ever reading the book before. I saw the Mary Martin version on TV as a child. It struck me this time around how odd the plot is, with everyone expecting Wendy to assume the role of mother to Peter and the Lost Boys. Things have changed in the century since this book was written. Infant and child mortality was a lot higher in the early 20th century than it is now. Women’s mortality from childbirth (or other causes) was also a lot higher then. Children who had lost their mothers, or who had friends or relations who had lost their mothers, might see themselves among the motherless children of Neverland. The story may not resonate with 21st century children in the same way, and show more that’s a good thing. show less

What a bizarre and surprising little book! As did many people, I grew up on Disney’s Peter Pan, so reading Barrie’s original at the age of 48 was quite the shock. Peter is cocky, heartless, tragic, and rather fiendish (Barrie’s words, not mine), vaguely malevolent as well as irresistibly charismatic. Tinker Bell is stout and inclined to call people “silly asses,” and Captain Hook is obsessed with the traditions of his public school (private school in the U.S.). This ain’t Walt’s Neverland.

It is a meditation on childhood and the meaning of leaving it behind. As well as the inevitability of death and the realization (both disturbing and reassuring) that there will always be another generation to take our place.

The opening show more passage sets the stage: “All children, except one, grow up. They soon know that they will grow up, and the way Wendy knew was this. One day when she was two years old she was playing in a garden, and she plucked another flower and ran with it to her mother. I suppose she must have looked rather delightful, for Mrs. Darling put her hand to her heart and cried, ‘Oh, why can’t you remain like this for ever!’ This was all that passed between them on the subject, but henceforth Wendy knew that she must grow up. You always know after you are two. Two is the beginning of the end.”

Ironically, you must be adult to appreciate the best moments of Peter Pan for its not until you’ve passed through childhood that you can understand all that “Two is the beginning of the end” entails. show less

"All children, except one, grow up," declares the narrator of this classic children's fantasy, in an opening line that has become - like the novel's elfin hero, his piratical adversary, or the fantastical land in which he lives - almost a byword for the enchantment of youth and the make-believe of childhood. Who doesn't know the eternally young Peter Pan, his child-mother Wendy, or his melancholy enemy, Captain Hook? Who hasn't heard of Neverland, that magical island to be found somewhere out there in the Milky Way, if one flies in the direction of the "second star to the right, and straight on till morning?"

References to the story of Peter Pan, who first saw light as a character in J.M Barrie's 1902 adult novel, The Little White show more Bird**, before becoming the subject of a 1904 stage play, Peter Pan; or, the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up, and then eventually the hero of his own book, Peter and Wendy (also published over the years as Peter Pan and Wendy, as well as just Peter Pan) in 1911, pop up quite frequently in the world of children's literature, and well beyond. From contemporary sequels like Geraldine McCaughrean's Peter Pan in Scarlet, penned long after the fact, to fantasy series such as Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson's Peter and the Starcatchers, that take the characters from the original story, and create their own world; from film retellings like Disney's 1953 animated Peter Pan, or revisionist live action ones like the 1991 Hook, to the recent Finding Neverland, which examined the story behind the story, it is evident that this character, and his creator, are still very much with us.

All of which makes reading Peter Pan for the very first time as an adult, having grown up thinking that it was a story that I knew, a revelatory experience. Almost immediately, one begins to notice little differences, and to suspect that the various adaptations of the story, down through the years, have also played a role in our perception of it - its presence in our culture. I was surprised to discover, for instance, that the original does not speak of Neverland as lying in the direction of the "second star to the right," a quote used to great effect at the conclusion of Star Trek IV: The Undiscovered Country (which also features some fabulous Shakespearean quotations... but I digress), but rather has Peter mention it as being "second to the right..." Apparently it was Disney who inserted the "star" that made this such a pertinent Star Trek quote - who knew?!! Of course there's also the fact that in the story Peter is simply ad-libbing, and the "directions" to Neverland, such as they are, are never meant to be taken seriously.

On a deeper level, I was completely unprepared for the tone of Barrie's work, and for the elements of tragedy that are apparent, in the character of Peter Pan, and in his interaction with those around him. I had always just assumed, from the way in which this character and his story was presented to me - in adaptations of course, but especially by other readers, and the way they spoke about him - that his was meant to be a joyfully youthful experience. Carefree. Lighthearted and thoughtless, and entirely free from sorrow. And certainly, it is all that. But it's not just that, as I discovered! Peter Pan may live in Neverland, but he also lives in limbo. He is a being who knows pleasure, and experiences some manner of joy, but who, because he cannot change - or perhaps, because he has been too long cut off from others - is forever barred from some of the fundamental experiences that make us human. He cannot form permanent bonds with others, and although he feels intensely in the moment, he eventually forgets even those he loves. There is a deep sadness to the way in which he is portrayed, at times, that was unexpected.

That this melancholy was intentional, in Barrie's characterization, is hinted at by the name Peter Pan itself, I think, with the reference to Pan, the ancient Greek god of the wild. Is Peter's story that of a child who never wishes to grow up, or that of a person who has become separated from the human experience, and cannot find his way back? Or perhaps both? Is the rejection of boring adulthood, of the conventionality of becoming a man, really just a rejection of the human condition, with all its imperfections? Has Peter become, not a boy - who is, after all, a young human - but something inhuman? I'm sure some scholar must have long since picked this theme apart - I will have to look for some good Barrie criticism!

Having finally read the novel Peter Pan, as part of our August discussion, over in The Children's Fiction Club to which I belong, I was left with much to ponder. There were, of course, elements of the story that did not come as a surprise, and were less thought-provoking than they were (sadly) demeaning. The dehumanizing depiction of Native Americans here - somewhere in the vicinity of the Noble Savage, I would say - the many little chauvinistic asides about "women" (which usually, although not always, meant Wendy) just naturally liking certain things, were about what I was expecting. I think that quite a bit of this could do with some in-depth examination - and I'm sure some critic has already done it! - and imagine that Wendy's story would make just as interesting a topic as Peter's. After all, it isn't an accident that the book was originally styled Peter and Wendy. Still, despite noting these issues, in my reading, the largest portion of my attention, when not given over to the story itself, was engaged by this question of Peter's humanity (or lack thereof), and his fate, and the tragic way in which both were depicted. All of which is to say: this wasn't what I was expecting! I mean that in the best possible way...

**The chapters involving Peter, in Barrie's The Little White Bird were eventually extracted, and published separately in 1906, under the title Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens show less