JacketFlap connects you to the work of more than 200,000 authors, illustrators, publishers and other creators of books for Children and Young Adults. The site is updated daily with information about every book, author, illustrator, and publisher in the children's / young adult book industry. Members include published authors and illustrators, librarians, agents, editors, publicists, booksellers, publishers and fans. Join now (it's free).
Login or Register for free to create your own customized page of blog posts from your favorite blogs. You can also add blogs by clicking the "Add to MyJacketFlap" links next to the blog name in each post.
Blog Posts by Tag
In the past 7 days
Blog Posts by Date
Click days in this calendar to see posts by day or month
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: peter pan, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 25 of 27
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: peter pan in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
I watched those as a child and saw magic of Peter Pan as a child: the wonder, the adventure, the fear and avoidance of what growing up would mean. That Peter was played by a woman barely registered in terms of text or subtext.
Growing older, growing up, meant learning more about Peter Pan and J.M. Barrie, the man who invented him. I'm not going to get into that -- there is plenty out there about it. While the origins, inspiration, and evolution of Peter Pan are fascinating right now I'm writing more about viewer response, and one viewer in particular: me.
I love Peter Pan. Watching it as a child was magical. And I got it: Wendy and the boys went, had adventures, and when they had had enough, they went home.
I want to give a nod to three subsequent versions of Peter Pan I adored:
Hook (1991), which said that growing up doesn't mean losing touch with one's childhood. Traditionally, Peter Pan views growing up as either/or, with growing up a putting away and forgetting of "childish" things. Hook said that becoming an adult can be a good thing, but it doesn't mean a rejection and forgetting of childhood and that Peter doing so wasn't healthy. It was just as unhealthy as rejecting adulthood.
Peter Pan (2003), which gave us an age-appropriate boy, Jeremy Sumpter (born 1989) playing Peter Pan. This meant that when Pan said he was a child who hadn't grown up, the viewer saw an actual child. The other children were also played by children of the right ages for the text; Rachel Hurd-Wood was born in 1990. It captured the magic of Peter, the desire for adventure, and kept it child-centered. It's practically perfect.
As a lover of Once Upon a Time (TV series), I have to also mention their version of Peter Pan. Robbie Kay (born 1995) played Pan in 2013. Pan was played by an older teenager, and Kay clearly wasn't an adult but he also wasn't a child. This take -- spoilers -- was perhaps the darkest one yet, in which Peter Pan was not a child who refused to grow up but rather an adult who refused to remain a grown up. Once that adult was offered the chance to become a child again, he not only took it, he was willing to kill to stay a child. For this version, being a child was not about being "innocent" but was about refusing responsibility.
As an adult, how I view Peter and Wendy is more complex. The recent TV version, NBC Peter Pan LIVE, got me thinking about Peter Pan and childhood and how we view that, and I'm not sure if they intended it to be that way. Except for the roles of Michael and John, all the actors were adults. Wendy, Peter, the Lost Boys: all grown ups. Seeing adults say the lines about being a child, pretending, not growing up, just made me really think about those lines and what was, or wasn't going in the play.
As I think about it, I realize that the hero is, and always has been, Wendy -- it is Wendy who goes on the adventure to Neverland, it is Wendy who is faced with the conflict of her "let's pretend" being challenged by those around her as not good enough, it is Wendy who realizes that playing by someone else's rules gets tiring, and let's just all go home now, OK? It is Wendy who later realizes she cannot deny that same pretending to her own daughter, just because Wendy herself is older and wiser.
Because of the age of the play, much of Wendy's choices are presented in some very old-fashioned ways, and many of us watching wished mightily for a feminist retelling of Peter Pan. But as I write this up, and with the acknowledgement that the play is over 100 years old -- really, what's so wrong with wanting to play house or play school, as Wendy does? She also wants Peter's version of adventures, but what is so wrong with her manner of pretending, and why won't the boys play along with her? The problem is not in Wendy's desires, but it's in Peter's denial to recognize her dreams as being as valid as his own, and wanting to keep Wendy in a box of "mother." That's not just because the play is old -- it's because Peter is a child and that's how children think. Only their own dreams matter; other people exist only in the child's own reality. (Ask any child who is shocked to see a teacher in a store, outside of school.)
Part of the problem is that it is Wendy's adventure in Peter's world. Emily Asher-Perrin has a brilliant analysis of Peter, and how Peter himself is hardly a hero, in Peter Pan's "Greatest Pretend" is Heroism at Tor. As she explains, "Here’s the thing about Neverland—it is Peter’s playhouse. He is like the guy who owns the casino; the house always wins and he is the house. Everything in Neverland is set up so that it caters directly to his whims." Most children, myself included, would not pick up on that because the whims of children can be so similar so it's not obvious to younger viewers that this is Peter's playhouse, not any child's playhouse.
As Asher-Perrin concludes at her article at Tor, "as Barrie states, Pan will always come back to steal our runaways and lost boys, and will continue to do so as long as children are “Innocent and heartless.” The genius of Pan’s tale, is that innocence does not automatically denote goodness. Instead, it makes a child’s lack of experience a very frightening thing after all." These things happening to children, by children, as in the 2003 version, make sense. Peter played by a child has it make sense, even if the child has lived years and years as Peter has. As adults, we recognized that children are, well, children, and excuse or understand.
Now, suddenly, have adults say those lines? Do that pretend? Refuse to grow up?
The NBC version is no longer a brilliant and honest look at childhood and growing up; instead, it is a look at those adults who avoid growing up, even as they physically grow and mature, and it shows that this resistance to adulthood is not charming - it's creepy as hell. Holding onto childhood and avoiding responsibility or making decisions is neither innocence nor goodness. It's creepy.
And that creepiness? Is why yes, I still love Peter Pan. Because it gives one thing to the child viewer and another to the adult viewer. Because it's willing to say that children and childhood aren't perfect; and are not something to idealize. Growing up is not a bad thing; refusing to do so, fighting against it, isn't a good thing.
Amazon Affiliate. If you click from here to Amazon and buy something, I receive a percentage of the purchase price.
Over the weekend, Heather (a reader of AICL) wrote to ask if I'd seen a Salon article about changes made to music and lyrics in the version of Peter Pan that NBC is going to air in December. Though I knew about the production, I didn't know about these changes. Thanks, Heather, for letting me know. In a nutshell, NBC hired Jerod Tate, artistic director of the Chickasaw Chamber Music Festival. He's Chickasaw but I don't know anything else about him other than what his bio (linked with his name) says. With his assistance, the song "Ugg-a-Wugg" was changed. Ugg-a-Wugg is a duet sung by Peter Pan and Tiger Lily. If either one is in trouble, they'll call on the other for help. The code word they'll use as a signal is ugg-a-wugg. If Tiger Lily needs help, she'll use that code word and Peter will come to save "the brave noble redskin." And if Peter Pan needs help, Tiger Lily will help him. They will be "blood brothers to the end." I think it was/is ludicrous but people love it. Do you remember it? Here. Take a look:
Enter Jerod Tate. Here's what he said, in the Salon article, about that song:
And then the really big thing that we worked on was the replacement of [the lyrics] “ugg-a-wugg.” Just a little background: In general, what we all know is that the Indian tribe that’s represented in Peter Pan was influenced by knowledge of Northeast Indians of the United States. So we’re talking Iroquois, Huron, Wyandotte, Algonquin, these kinds of cultural regions. So what I did was I set out to find a replacement word for “ugg-a-wugg” that was literally a Wyandotte word.
Tate won't say what the word is, but he does say it means "come here." The interviewer asked him if he also worked on the costumes, but he said he only worked on the music and lyrics for the songs. He thinks the change is great, because the phrase is accurate. I disagree. The show and story will always be one in which the point of view is of Indians as exotic and detribalized. In chapter ten of Barrie's book, the Indians prostrate themselves in front of Peter Pan, calling him "the Great White Father." That point of view is the foundation for Barrie's story. Now let's look at the new film from Warner Brothers. The trailer for the new movie due out next year has a scene where Pan is on the floor, spears aimed at him. It looks like he's about to be killed, but an older man (which I imagine the script says is an elder or maybe Tiger Lily's dad) stops them. In his hand is a necklace of some sort that Peter was wearing. The man says:
"The little one. He wears the pan."
Here's a screen capture of that scene in the trailer:
The trailer cuts to Tiger Lily, played by Rooney Mara, who says:
"The Pan is our tribe's bravest warrior."
Here she is in that moment:
Her line (Pan is our tribe's greatest warrior) points right at the foundation for Barrie's film. Indians who worship whites. That's not ok. It was't ok then, and it isn't ok to give that racist garbage to kids today. Right? Some of you know that there was a lot of discussion when Rooney was selected as the actress for the part. Many people said that a Native actress ought to be cast instead of Rooney. I disagree with that idea, too. Fixing the words in the song, and/or casting a Native person in that role does not change the point of view(s) on which the story rests. These are, through and through, "the white man's Indian." There is no fixing this story or any production of it so that the Native content is authentic. Attempts to do so remind me of the many schools that sought/seek to make their Indian mascots more "authentic" so that they could keep objectifying Native people, using their ideas of who Native people are for their own purposes. Can we just let that stuff go? Wouldn't we all be better off with a major studio production of a story written by a Native person? One that shows us as-we-are (or were if it is in the past), as human beings who do not say things about how we worship a "great white father" or a white guy who is our "greatest warrior"? By remaking this story, and/or by staging it in schools and theaters, we're just recycling problematic, stereotypic, racist images. Why do it?! Here's an irony. NBC released a promo featuring Allison Williams talking about the production. There's a part near the end where Williams is singing "it never never ends" as Tiger Lily drops to the stage:
I want it to end. Don't you?
0 Comments on How 'bout we all pan NBC's PETER PAN and Warner Bros PAN, too. as of 11/26/2014 1:54:00 PM
"So long as children are gay and innocent and heartless."
Those are the closing words of Peter Pan. It's interesting that 'heartless' is the very last word, as that's the word that has been unspoken throughout the book and is uncomfortably central to it. Children will have dangerous adventures. Children will grow up and leave. They must. Peter Pan is a freak, and real children aren't like that. They are, instead, like Wendy and John and Michael. They will torture their parents by going off and doing stupid things with no thought for their parents' suffering, putting themselves in danger and just thinking it's jolly good fun. And - worst for parents - that's how it should be. Because children are 'gay and innocent and heartless.' And it's both delightful and unbearable.
I read a very interesting blog post by Clementine Beauvais last week which was really about open-access academic articles, but it described an article she had written some time ago (not much time ago, as she's very young for someone so accomplished!) The article discusses the power children have or don't have in literature, and how children have a particular type of power because they have more potential than adults: they have more life ahead of them, can do more stuff than we will be able to, and will be around after we are dead (in the usual run of things). She is clearly right - this is an extremely important part of the power dynamic between adults and children. I'm not sure it's one that finds much expression in children's books, though - but perhaps Clem can point me in the right direction. It's rather undermined in the dead-kids genre currently in vogue.
Another important source of the child's power is that they can destroy the adult's life at a stroke, just by choking on a peanut, falling under a bus, getting diphtheria or walking through a wardrobe into a non-existent land. Adults are scared of their children because the children hold ALL the important power. And children are at least subliminally aware of it. Children's literature plays with that dynamic to a greater or lesser degree depending on the perspicacity and courage of the writer.
In the nineteenth century, children's books (and children in adult books) generally end up being absorbed into 'normal' (thank you, Clementine) adult society - what would we could call an aetonormative resolution if we wanted to be jargonish about it (thank you, Maria Nikolajeva for that word). But today we tend to write books that leave the future more open for children, perhaps because the real future looks so uncertain (although futures have always been uncertain). Or perhaps because we don't like to endorse a 'normal'.
When we, as writers, exclude parents from the picture - sending them to work, killing them off, making them neglectful, leaving them asleep in the cave, or whatever - we give the stage to the child characters. I think most of us do it, if we think about it, to free the child to act. In Arthur Ransom's day, it was fine to give your kids some sandwiches and stick them in a leaky boat, not expecting to see them for a few days. Now it's not. To do so (in a book) would be to make an issue of irresponsible parenting. So we need another way to give children the freedom to have adventures. But why ever we might think we do it, one of the undeniable results is that the parents, once out of sight, are out of mind. And not just the reader's mind. I'm writing something set in the late 19th century at the moment. The hero is an orphan, with an abusive guardian. No one cares what he does. But, perhaps more importantly for me as writer, whatever he does can't harm anyone who loves him. I can have him chased by a murderous villain, threatened with drowning, cut to ribbons by a slasher robot, and not have to worry about a grieving or angst-ridden parent behind the scenes.
I'm struggling to think of a children's book in which loving parents are present and respond realistically to the dangerous exploits of their children. Children don't want to see that, of course - it's either not interesting to them, or would detract from the joy of the story, depending on the child. But neither do we want to write it. We don't want to think about it. There's a terrible tension at the centre of exciting children's books, as in real-life parenting, between wanting the child to have exciting adventures and not wanting them to die. Every parent draws their own line of acceptable/unacceptable risk. Every story-teller pushes the risk and harm as far as they can/want and usually stops just short of death (if we exclude Edward Gorey from the mix). And they are freest to remain gay and innocent and heartless if we don't have to think too much about their parents as we write.
There was a time when I worked in the main branch of NYPL with the big old stone lions out front. No longer. These days I work at BookOps, a dual entity that encompasses both NYPL and Brooklyn Public Library. And in my workplace there is a great and grand and massively impressive sorting machine. It’s very Charlie and the Chocolate Factory-esque. I give tours of it all the time. It sorts and assigns all the holds and returns of the system, so you know it’s gotta be cool. Now, thanks to drone technology, you get to see not just where I work (visually stunning this part of Long Island City is not) but the kickin’ sorting machine as well. Feast your eyes!!
Speaking of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I kinda like it when Al Roker gets pissed off. Makes for better TV watching. And besides, the man has a point.
In 1996 a bunch of Monty Python guys made The Wind in the Willows. It gets better. Steve Coogan was Mole. Stephen Fry was The Judge. This is not to be confused with a very similar looking version starring Matt James in 2006, of course. Still I’m quite shocked I hadn’t seen it until now. Fortunately there is such a thing as YouTube. Here’s part one:
Thanks to Tom Angleberger for the link.
I sort of adore kids. Allie Bruce at Bank Street was kind enough to show a bunch of them rewriting Battle Bunny / The Birthday Bunny (a book born to be taken and adapted) in their own unique visions.
They do love their poop.
Man. It’s a bummer when someone popular online has your name. It’s even more of a bummer when they’ve rabid fan bases. Meghan McCarthy created a short film to separate her from the other Meghan McCarthys. Can you blame her?
For the record, the only Betsy Birds I know of out there are an Arizona artist and a Muppet. The day I beat that Muppet in Google search results was a happy one indeed.
And for our final off-topic video. This one’s almost on-topic Remember the film Hook? With its Peter Pan link? And the character of Rufio? Well I can’t say this any better than i09 did, so I’ll just quote them verbatim: “Baby Rufio Cosplay Validates The Entire Concept Of Procreation”.
1 Comments on Video Sunday: “I’m a Reno Sweeney bunny!”, last added: 8/10/2014
The Plot: Six months ago, Wendy's younger brothers disappeared. Everyone is convinced they are dead. Not Wendy. She doesn't care what the police, her parents, or her best friends think.
John and Michael loved surfing; and when Wendy meets Pete, a surfer, her instinct tells her following Pete may lead her to her missing brothers. She'll do whatever it takes to find John and Michael, including leaving home to join Pete and his band of carefree surfers.
The Good: Of course it's a retelling of Peter Pan!
I love the story of Peter Pan and what it has to say about embracing and rejecting adulthood and growing up. Sheinmel doesn't shy away from her source material: Wendy Darling is looking for her missing brothers. She has a dog named Nana. Pete's name, is, well -- Pete. Pete's girlfriend is Belle. And Pete's nemesis is Jas.
Surfing is the stand in for flying away to Neverland. Michael and John, like Pete and his friends, believe that the only thing that matters is the next wave. Wendy, the good daughter and good student -- she's on her way to Stanford after graduation -- didn't share her brothers' obsession and passion. In trying to find out what happened to her brothers, she enters their world -- and Pete's world.
Jas is the local drug dealer, dealing in "fairy dust", and Wendy's journey, her following in her brothers' path, brings her into Jas's world. Pete and Jas used to be friends, but the friendship ended when Jas started selling drugs.
As I said, I love the story of Peter Pan. I adore the 2003 film. I also love what Once Upon a Time did with their Peter Pan retelling: making Peter the villain, full stop. For the most part, thought, I've stayed away from sequels and retellings because of some of the elements of the original story, particularly Tiger Lily. Sheinmel's version avoids those problems by using Peter Pan as an inspiration, not a blueprint, and omits those parts of the story.
The essential part of the story is about growing up, yes -- and Second Star explores what it means to grow up, to embrace adulthood. Pete and Jas and the others have decided that there is only one particular way of moving forward, and that is to build their world around surfing. For Pete, that's living in abandoned homes and stealing to eat; for Jas, it's dealing drugs to buy surfboards and get money to travel.
Wendy is in search of her missing brothers, but she's also in search of herself. There is the pathway she has always been on, the one leading to Stanford. She jumps into Pete's world, into the world of her brothers -- and finds she loves surfing. Later, she finds herself with Jas, and finds herself falling for him, as she fell for Pete, and is confused by her emotions and desires. She's seeing two different pathways for her future, and has to figure out what is right for her, not her parents, not her brothers, not Pete and Jas. Those struggles are complicated, of course, and not simple -- and it's not as simple as "be a boring grown up" or "be self indulgent."
What else? There is a lot about surfing in this book. It's not just a device; it's a critical part of the story. I love that the "pirates" are drug dealers. Addiction and mental health issues are also touched on, especially as it becomes unclear how much of Wendy's search is real and how much is wish fulfillment.
Last week my son was in a school production of Peter Pan. It was a wonderfully colourful and often humorous production which left many of us adults feeling nostalgic for childhood and its gift of imagination. It also had me immediately reaching for Finding Neverland, a film about J M Barrie’s friendship with the Llewelyn Davies family which was the inspiration for the play of Peter Pan. We watched it as a family last weekend to prolong the magic we had enjoyed while watching the play.
While watching the film, my daughter made a comment to me about writers and how they get their ideas. There is a scene where Sylvia Llewelyn Davies’s mother bends down to talk to Peter and his brothers, a coat hanger in her hand, which she points at the boys, emphasizing her opinion. The link with Captain Hook is clear, as we see the old lady through Barrie’s eyes. She leans into Peter, seeming to brandish the coat hanger aggressively, much as the Pirate Captain uses his hook to threaten Peter Pan.
My daughter whispered to me at this point in the film: “Is that what it’s like when you are writing – you see something like the hook in the sleeve and it makes you think of what to write?”
Of course, it is not always like that: most writing is an uphill climb with pitifully few flashes of inspiration such as the one in the film, and who knows how J M Barrie really pieced all the images together into a finished product? However, I have had a couple of eureka moments, and they have come when I was least expecting them – often when I have not consciously been thinking about a story at all.
The most recent occasion was nearly two years ago (which goes to show just how infrequently they happen!) when I was listening to an old friend talk about a terrible disaster she had suffered. Her house had burnt down. As she told me the incredibly strange circumstances surrounding the fire and the events that followed, I felt a shiver run down my spine. She was giving me the perfect missing link to a story I was struggling with. Everything she said was offering me answers to plot problems. As I drove home I could not believe this had happened. There was no other way of looking at this: it was a gift.
I wrote it all down the moment I returned to my desk – and it worked! Everything fell into place. I immediately felt guilty that I was robbing my friend’s life to fix my story, so I phoned to tell her what had happened and to ask her permission. Luckily she was thrilled and even said it was wonderful to think something good had come out of her misfortune. Of course I changed a few details to make her story fit with mine, just as J M Barrie changed things, turning Peter’s grandmother into a male pirate (so the film leads us to believe).
Writing, to paraphrase Peter (not to mention the name of this blog) is an “awfully big adventure”. A writer never knows where ideas will come from; they can come at us sideways, from an unexpected source. The trick is to keep our eyes and ears open at all times. And always to believe in fairies.
Anna Wilson
www.annawilson.co.uk
www.acwilsonwriter.wordpress.com
0 Comments on To Write is an Awfully Big Adventure – Anna Wilson as of 5/29/2014 3:57:00 AM
What are the odds of the first three books waiting to be listed this morning all having the name Peter in the title? Each was chosen at random, and it was only as I listed book number three that realisation dawned. Was it a coincidence or should I be looking for a hidden meaning?
And finally, Peter Pan and Wendy, maybe I really am going to be flying off somewhere!Or perhaps the universe is trying to tell me I'm away with the fairies : )
Once I started thinking about the name Peter, I realised just how many times it appears in children's books. This is one of my favourites, although the name doesn't appear in the title;
Did you know? A peck is a unit of dry volume, equivalent to 2 gallons or 8 dry quarts or 16 dry pints. Two pecks make a keening, and four pecks make a bushel.
A quick look through my stock produced a surprising number of ‘Peter Books’ these are just a few;
The Peter Stories - Peter and the animals - a series of little stories told by a boy named Peter. The picture in the centre is taken from Peter a Cat O' One Tail published in 1892 with illustrations by Louis Wain. The World of Uncle Peter - The paper dragon - when Uncle Peter sits down to draw strange things begin to happen.
Three of the most famous 'Peter characters' are probably Peter Pan by J. M. Barrie, Der Struwwelpeter (or Shockheaded Peter) by Heinrich Hoffmann and Peter Rabbit by Beatrix Potter. Can you think of any more?
0 Comments on A Peck of Pepper and other books about Peter as of 3/21/2014 12:17:00 PM
On Wednesday, March 6th, I spoke at Cal State Polytechnic University in Pomona. The next day (March 7th, 2013), I spent the day at Redlands University and Sherman Indian School. My hosts at Redlands were Heather Torres and Nora Pulskamp of the Native American Student Programs office. Here we are at the end of the day:
In the morning, I gave a guest lecture to a Women's Studies class at Redlands University. I talked about depictions of Native women in the media and children's books. The students were engaged and engaging. I showed them "What Makes the Red Man Red" from Disney's Peter Pan. Their response was similar to the ones I get when I ask teachers and librarians to read aloud from selected passages of Little House on the Prairie. Surprise, that is, at how racist the depictions are, and that they do not remember those depictions from when they viewed/read these two items as children. We focused on the sexualization of Tiger Lily, and talked about the Violence Against Women Act.
From there, Heather and Nora drove us out to Sherman Indian School where I spent an hour with Native students. I talked with them about mascots, showing them photos of "Chief Illiniwek" (the former mascot at the University of Illinois) and stereotypes in children's literature. They were very attentive. When I showed them the photo of "Chief Illiniwek" doing the splits in mid-air, they exclaimed aloud at how ridiculous it is.
I also talked about the need to have books about American Indians, written by Native authors. My favorite example is Cynthia Leitich Smith's Jingle Dancer. I love showing that book to Native students, no matter how young or old they are. I was delighted that it slowly made its way through the group of 30 or so students, as they pored over the pages. Clearly, Cynthia's book touched them in a good way. After class was over, one young woman approached me to say she wants to be a writer. Her English teacher was also there and praised her work.
I was inspired by the students on both campuses. From them, I gained a strong sense of optimism and hope for the future.
The public lecture on campus last night reminded me that certain segments of society will not welcome them or the work they wish to do. That lecture drew Native people who live in the Redlands area, and Redlands students who tutor Native youth. All took note of the woman who entered the lecture hall wearing a "Chief Illiniwek" jacket. When she took her jacket off, I noticed she had one of the newer shirts fans of "Chief Illiniwek" wear. When the mascot was retired at Illinois, private vendors designed and sold several different kinds of shirts, including the one she wore. It has the word CHIEF in large bold letters across the front of the shirt. The woman sat alone and quiet throughout the lecture, but at the end, told us she is a Fulbright scholar who studies cultural genocide, and that "Chief Illiniwek" is not a violent mascot like the one at Florida State. She was belligerent and loud and said in her 30 years of being at Illinois, she never saw anything violent about it.
Her decision to be there, to dress as she did, to proclaim her credentials, and argue as she did, was puzzling to me. What motivated her to do that? Hate? Privilege? Both?!
Though I'm certain there are administrators at the University of Illinois who wish the mascot was still there, I think they would have been embarrassed at the behavior of this woman. She is, whether she realizes it or not, the embodiment of racism.
The students at Redlands and Sherman Indian School will encounter people like her. Change--for the better--will happen. It is never easy work, but change does happen. "Chief Illiniwek" no longer dances at Illinois because Native people and our allies fought to get rid of it. I leave California with the faces of the students in my head, inspired by each one of them.
2 Comments on Inspired by Students at University of Redlands and Sherman Indian School, last added: 3/10/2013
Wonder why on earth the mascot-fangirl focused on whether or not the image is "violent"? Thirty years at Illinois, and a Fulbright scholar who studies cultural genocide? It would be interesting to see some of her scholarship. Maybe. Or maybe not.
Hey, I was at your presentation at the University of Redlands, and I really enjoyed it! Glad you mentioned that woman in your post. That was incredibly embarrassing to listen to, and I'm sorry she behaved like that.
In honor of the release of the 60th Anniversary edition of Peter Pan, here's a brief Disney supplied sildeshow highlighting some of the concept art by the great Mary Blair.
0 Comments on Have some Mary Blair Peter Pan concept art as of 2/6/2013 12:02:00 AM
You find yourself in front of seven identical doors. A voice from above tells you, "These seven doors lead to seven different places: Narnia, Neverland, Wonderland, Hogwarts, Camelot, Middle Earth, and Westeros." Which door do you go through? Why that door? What happens?
I would go through the door to Wonderland without hesitation. I have always loved Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and count it as one of my top ten books of all time. The character of Alice and I have a lot in common, beginning with our curiosity and continuing with our adoration of cats, a thirst for knowledge, and sheer determination. I would love to wander through Wonderland and interact with different characters from the books, especially the White Rabbit, the Gryphon, and the Cheshire Cat. I'd rescue the hedgehogs from the croquet games and delight in the chess game. Plus, I really love the hallway of doors in Wonderland.
Rumors have been swirling that The Hunger Games director Gary Ross was lured away from Catching Fire‘s director’s seat by another kidlit project; a film adaptation of Peter & the Starcatchers by Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson.
MTV reported that Ross (pictured with actress Jennifer Lawrence, via) is currently talking with Disney about helming a movie version of the first book in the Peter Pan prequel series. The movie studio has already signed up The Prince screenwriter Jesse Wigutow to pen the script. Who would you cast as the Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up?
Here’s more from The Hollywood Reporter: “The Peter Pan fantasy, a prequel of sorts, follows a young Peter who befriends Molly, a shipmate he meets on the Never Land ship headed toward King Zarboff. Molly tells Peter of a mysterious trunk filled with magical starstuff that must remain out of the hands of the pirate Black Stache (who will lose his hand and become Captain Hook). Peter and Molly lead an effort to recover the trunk, which takes them on a treacherous journey.”
As kids today are increasingly tech-savvy (marketers must reach them in creative and complex ways. Often this is through online games with virtual worlds, social media campaigns, and in-store attractions, but are kids being bombarded too much by... Read the rest of this post
Here's a quiz: which of these three things could you purchase for £1?
The answer is not that particular candle or that pair of reading glasses, but rather Moat Brae in Dumphries, Scotland.
That was the sum for which The Peter Pan Moat Brae Trust paid for this beautiful, dilapidated Georgian villa. But as anyone who has ever bought an old house can tell you, it's the cost of repairs that really get you. A fundraising effort, spearheaded by Joanna Lumley, has succeeded in securing a grant from Historic Scotland but the effort continues with the eventual goal of turning the site into a national centre for children's literature.
While J.M. Barrie never lived in this house he did spend significant time there as a child and was to later say of the place:
When the shades of night began to fall, certain young mathematicians shed their triangles, crept up walls and down trees, and became pirates in a sort of Odyssey that was long afterwards to become the play of Peter Pan. For our escapades in a certain Dumfries Garden, which is enchanted land to me, was certainly the genesis of that nefarious work [Peter Pan].
I've always had an interest in writers houses; I like to think of the leopard print carpet on the stairs of Edith Wharton's house The Mount and I would like to live in something like the house Robison Jeffers built. But somehow even more interesting are the houses that inspired novels. The House of the Seven Gables in Salem, Mass. is a living monument to the novel of that name and it's nice to know it may soon be possible to visit
0 Comments on Enchanted Land as of 1/1/1900
The Children’s Literary Salon at the Children’s Center at 42 nd Street is pleased to announce our event on Saturday, March 12th at 2:00 p.m. Please note the date!!! We’re having two in one month, which is just nutty, but this is just too cool to pass up.
From Page to Stage: Two Peter Pans and Their Creators
Take advantage of this chance to meet the creative minds behind two different plays about Peter Pan showing here in New York: Peter and the Starcatcher and Peter and Wendy . Sit down and have an in-depth conversation with Julie Archer, co-creater and designer and Liza Lorwin, co-creator, director and producer of Peter and Wendy along with Rick Elice, author of the new play Peter and the Starcatcher and Ridley Pearson, one of the authors of the original book .
Peter and the Starcatcher , an imaginative new play by Rick Elice ( Jersey Boys, The Addams Family ) and directed by Roger Rees ( The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby ) and Alex Timbers ( Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson ), is based on the New York Times best-selling novel by Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson. Peter and the Starcatcher performs now through April 3 at New York Theatre Workshop.
Peter and Wendy , a beloved adaptation from world-renowned experimental theater company Mabou Mines, tells the story of Peter, Wendy and the Lost Boys through original Celtic music, breathtaking bunraku-style puppetry and the OBIE Award-winning performance of Karen Kandel. From the creative team of adaptor Liza Lorwin, designer Julie Archer, director Lee Breuer and composer Johnny Cunningham, Peter and Wendyperforms May 6 – 22 at The New Victory Theater.
The Children’s Literary Salon is a monthly gathering of enthusiasts of children’s literature. This program is for adults only.
This event will take place in the South Court Auditorium.
See the trailer for Peter and Wendy here:
Read this glowing review of Peter and the Starcatcher from The New York Times.
New York Public Library
42nd Street and 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Contact: [email protected] for questions or to join our mailing list.
0 Comments on Children’s Literary Salon: Peter and Peter from Page to Stage as of 1/1/1900
I know I’m going to get myself in hot water with this one. Books are so personal, and movies are so personal (but in a different way). There are films of children’s books that I should have seen but haven’t – The Secret of Moonacre (The Little White Horse) for instance, or How To Train Your Dragon (which I am desperate to see, but I’m having to wait for the DVD).
I think it’s harder with children’s books than it is with adults’ to find a movie that’s better than the book. Is that an indication of the higher quality of children’s books? I like to think so. At any rate, I can think straightaway of many adult movies that are better than the book – The Godfather, Jaws – but that very rarely applies to children’s books-to-movies.
I can, though, think of lots that are just as good but different. I actually think the different is important. I'm not crazy about films that are true to the book, which is why you won’t find any Harry Potter movies on my list – for me they are too faithful to the books and (with the exception of the third) don’t really have their own identity as films.
I don’t mind one bit when films take reasonable liberties with a book, because they need to be good in their own right, not just exact translations of page to screen. I want to be transported by movies and books in entirely different ways. I’m swept away far more by Inkheart the novel than Inkheart the movie. But (if I’m allowed to count abridged versions as children’s favourites) I’m far more enchanted by Last of the Mohicans (1992) and Tarzan (1999) as movies than as books.
I seem to have gone for five very recent movies (sorry, Bambi, I did want you). And I wanted more than five. I wanted Stuart Little, too, and Shrek, and Stormbreaker, and The Black Stallion, and I desperately wanted The (supremely quotable) Princess Bride, and... oh, that’s cheating. Get on with it.
Each of the five had to pass a simple test: do my children – one girl one boy – ask to watch it over and over again?
Peter Pan (2003)
A Peter who is ‘the personification of cockiness’ and whose American accent only makes him more otherworldly. Lost Boys you don’t want to throttle. Terrifying mermaids and thoroughly sinister pirates. A scheming, naughty, funny Tink. Jason Isaacs as a deliciously wicked and handsome Captain Hook - but ‘not wholly evil’. A soaring soundtrack. Scenes that make my spine tingle no matter how many times I watch them – Mr and Mrs Darling running home in slow motion, only just too late! Bankers and strict aunts and sleeping children chanting that they DO believe in fairies, they DO, they DO! Ah, I love this movie.
Completely agree with Stardust, Coraline and that version of Peter Pan which came closest to capturing the relationships between Wendy, Pan and Tink. Found Nanny McPhee awfully boring (despite Colin Firth) but will give it another go as you like it. Also think Babe and The Nightmare Before Christmas should be on the list. I enjoyed How To Train Your Dragon much more than the usual hollywood kid's fare though it annoyed me that the kid characters spoke with american accents and the rest of the Vikings were Hollywood Scotch, but it was a fun movie though not as quirky as the books. I also liked the movie version of the Golden Compass though it is not even close to being in the same class as the novel. The brilliant story still shone though.
Totally with you on Stardust - it's a fabulous film. I would add the first Twilight film although I confess I've only read the first few pages of the book (over the shoulder of my daughter who then told me to go away). I found the setting and the way it was filmed terrifically atmospheric and then, of course, there's Robert Pattinson in all his brooding loveliness...
I don't think you've missed much by not seeing The Secret of Moonacre. I read the book as a child and it was totally magical - the film just wasn't, for an adult. I'd have to include The Secret Garden - the version with Maggie Smith as housekeeper. I think it might be the walled garden that fascinates me but Lizzie loved it too when younger.
Gillian, I think we may have been separated at birth. Inkheart, check - the film was the cinematic equivalent of a five-year-old's repainting of the Mona Lisa. Peter Pan, check - whisper it quietly but I was never that fussed about the written version anyway. Stardust, check - the brilliance, deftness and economy of the plotting came over just as well, if not better, on screen (why can't more screenplays be like that?), and you're right about Bob de Niro too. Fellowship, check - the film captures and expands on the character dynamics that raise that book above the sequels, for all their epic derring do. However, as two out of five seems excessive, even for one of Mr Gaiman's godlike genius, I'd replace Coraline with Jurassic Park. Like LOTR, not a children's book, but not only did the film have dinosaurs (DINOSAURS!), it redefined kids' expectations of monster movies. Priceless.
I absolutely love both LOTR and Stardust, but I'm afraid the purist in me has to discount both of them as neither are children's books (check out the sex scene in Stardust - I hope that's not aimed at kids). Sooo...
1. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe - minor historical inaccuracy forgiven (the children would probably have been evacuated before the bombing actually started, but that scene is perfect, such a good way to explain their situation to children unfamiliar with the history and the whole theme of war is brillinatly handled) 2. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - which I think is better than the book, having lost all the padding and focussed on the story. It's also my favourite Harry Potter film. 3. The Secret Garden (the one with Maggie Smith) - just perfect. 4. Disney's Alice in Wonderland 5. Hook. I know it's got a terrible reputation, but I saw it as a child and loved it.
Honourable mention to the Muppet's Christmas Carol, also ineligible as not based on a children's book!
Cold Comfort Farm (not sure if that should really count. Teen, maybe?)
I loved the recreations of Hobbiton and Moria in The Fellowship of the Ring- perfect, and by far the best of the three films I agree. (Thought Rivendell looked a bit damp).
Oh oh oh! Loved Stardust - didn't know it was adapted by Gaimon - explains a lot - haven't seen Coraline am scared I'll hate it as I loved the book. Inkheart possibly the worst film I've ever seen - didn't even make it to the end was so irritated by it...this is a ll a bit unfair though because I know How to Train Your Dragon would be in your top 5 if you'd seen it - not at all like the book but brilliant none-the-less - and the black dragon in it is just like my dog ( only not as smelly)...Funny though - I hated the LOTR films. Bored senseless, too boring even to do the ironing too - I realise this means there is something wrong with me.
Kathy - I think the script for Stardust was written by Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughan, but adapted from the Neil Gaiman book. Stardust is an interesting choice actually, because it is adapted quite liberally but works really well as a film. The climax in particular is a wonderful bit of imaginative action, but completely invented for the film.
Have to agree with Juliette's choice of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - a great film in it's own right and very likely to be my favourite Potter film unless David Yates pulls his finger out on the last two!
ha, watched Stardust AGAIN, last night. Love Nanny McPhee and Coraline and Stormbreaker. Would also have to add to the list: the Spiderwick Chronicles (I suspect a lot has to do with Freddy Highmore being so cute and who could not love Hogsqueal and Thimbletack!) and Matilda, Billy Elliot, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (though it took a while to get used to the Johnny Depp version) and Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
I loved Stardust but then I haven't read the book. It is a film I can watch again and again. I also loved Fellowship of the Ring. I love the whole hobbitness of it all. I agree about Inkheart. The film was appalling. The book was good. Same with City of Ember. I love the book but the film was at best mediocre. Again same with Percy Jackson but then I am a HUGE Camp Half Blood fan.
Wow, thanks for all the comments - I just knew they'd be interesting!
Jo, I forgot about Babe (how could I?) - yes, that has to be a contender. And Elen, same with The Railway Children - probably not in my top five but I do always blub at that ending.
Rachel, hi! Yes, I liked the Twilight movie much better than the book - I watched it on Keren David's recommendation and she was right, it had a nice dark indie feel.
Ben, good point about Jurassic Park - not a children's book at all, but with a lot of changes it made a terrific kids' movie (and that's another one my children watch over and over). It still looks good, years later!
Juliette - I know what you mean but I allowed Stardust in on the same grounds I allowed FOTR - it's an adult read that's easily & frequently enjoyed by quite young teens, and I think it's definitely a movie for children as well as adults. For that reason I'd definitely count Hilary's Cold Comfort Farm, too!
Tracy (and Juliette, unless you meant the earlier animation?) - Alice in Wonderland is one that seems to divide people down clear lines, isn't it? I have friends who absolutely adored it, but it left me completely cold and unmoved (especially Johnny Depp, which is definitely against all precedent). But it did look very beautiful.
Lynda - I would have liked to include Holes because I adore that book. It's one of my favourites. But (hides head in shame) - I have never seen the movie, so I couldn't. But I will, one of these days SOON.
Katherine - do you mean Claire Danes? WOW!! Seriously, I have an almost-crush on her!
I loved Stardust, and FOTR, Matilda and Nanny McPhee. Not seen Coraline yet, but intend to and Loved the book Holes but like you Gillian, I've not seen the film. Yes, must include Cold Comfort Farm 'cos there's something wicked in the woodshed...!
I adore The Princess Bride, but it fell at that all-important hurdle of being one that my children want to watch over and over again. They enjoy it, but it isn't a favourite. I suspect it has a lot of 'adult' appeal.
And I do agree, it's an argument for authors adapting their own work - but there are so many other arguments for the opposite! Most authors are not screenwriters, and it shows. In saying this I am of course baiting fate, in the hope that someone will some day want to adapt one of mine... ;-)
Gillian, I love your choices, and for me I would include The Secret Garden, Holes, The Little Princess, The Railway Children, Jungle Book and The Wizard of Oz...
Imagine pitching the following story, aimed at the pre-teen market, to a publisher:
A girl and her two brothers, left alone while their parents are at a party, are enticed from their home and taken to a faraway island by an amoral and egocentric stranger. No sooner do they arrive than the stranger’s accomplice attempts to have the girl murdered by enticing another child to shoot her.
The girl survives, and she and her brothers join the community there - a community entirely made up of abandoned children (of whom the stranger is the leader), surviving without adult assistance. After many adventures the girl and her brothers decide to return home, but before they can do so the entire community is captured by a band of criminals.
The criminals attempt to murder the children, but the tables are turned, and the children slaughter the entire gang, stabbing most of them to death one by one. The girl and her brothers return home.
If all this isn’t enough to put the publisher off, add in the descriptions of the parents at home, lamenting the loss of their children, and follow it with the eventual death of the kind and beautiful mother. And, just to confuse them, throw in a fairy or two.
Now: is any publishing house in their right mind, in the present day and age, going to publish such a story?
As you might have gathered, I’ve just finished reading Peter Pan to my kids. My goodness, but it’s dark.
Not unremittingly - far from it. There’s a lot of humour: some of it poignant, some of it merely well-observed. But there are enough threads of darkness running through it to terrify any modern editor looking for a potential best-seller for the young reader.
Not only that, but the language is not always easy. On a single page (263, if you’re interested) we encounter a bountiful selection of words including: industrious, essence, commonplace, pathetic, infinitely, fount, unconscious, bulwarks, miasma, prone, mechanically, unfathomable, tabernacle, bellied, elation, gait, sombre, profoundly, dejected.
What’s my point? I’m not entirely sure; except perhaps to say that it’s easy to set rules for what will and will not do in children’s fiction - and that in doing so, you may miss out on a classic.
8 Comments on Sense and sensibilities - John Dougherty, last added: 6/26/2010
Very well observed John and we could probably apply this to so many children's books : don't get me started on Alice, which is why there are no rules and our job is just to write the book we want to read. Thanks for a great post.
Yes, and look at Enid Blyton books. I was looking in a bookshop yesterday at books for 5-8 year olds, and there are masses of Enid Bs. I strongly suspect that The Castle of Adventure etc wouldn't be accepted nowadays. You're right, John - rules always need to be questioned!
I was amazed when I read Peter Pan for the first time a few years ago. It's all you said and more. Who knew that Tinkerbell made a habit of attending orgies? How many children (other than David Cameron's) are going to pick up on the jokes about Eton? And that slippery narrator, changing his mind about the plot and the characters every two seconds! A remarkable book - and, as you say, one that would send contemporary publishers running.
I'm not sure A.A. Milne would be published today. Grimm's Fairy Tales are often very dark, too. Then there are novels which do get published, frequently to critical acclaim, but which are not successful until forty years later, if ever.
Interestingly I re read Peter pan a while ago when I was given a lovely hardback edition alongside a copy of Scarlett, as a present. I realised that I hadn't actually read the story since I was young and I was dismayed by the underlying tone, the voice, it was... not sure how to express it other than that it felt uncomfortable. I felt as though Barrie was angry and miserable underneath it all and I was quite pleased to get to the end.
Rules about writing are usually pretty useless and as soon as someone says there is a RULE about writing someone else comes up with a good reason for doing the absolute opposite. But most of what we know as classics, which were written years ago, would probably never get published today. I'm not sure if that is because of the way they were written or because the world was a quite different place and so very much less PC! But is it also because these books might not be quite so commercial or have such a wide appeal if there wasn't the nostalgia surrounding them that makes parents want to buy them for their kids?
I haven't read Peter Pan since I was a child but it was a huge favourite then, one of the first books I read (and reread) alone. I loved the book but Peter scared me; he was so capricious and downright dangerous. I shouldn't have been so surprised, maybe, to realise the main character in my first novel for kids (I'm a pic book writer/illustrator) is a version of Peter, and I was busy trying to 'fix' him...the book had obviously gone deep into my psyche!
I had the same reaction as Charlie when I read the unabridged Peter Pan for the first time a few years back - I absolutely loved it, though. That ticking crocodile! Best metaphor for death ever.
Friday, April 23rd, The Globe and Mail published an article in the Arts section. Written by J. Kelly Nestruck, the article is titled "Sensitivity Training in Neverland."
It opens with Nestruck posing this question: "Are the Neverland Indians of Peter Pan going the way of the Beothuk in Canada?"
Given that the article is about getting rid of stereotypical images of Indians in Peter Pan, I imagine that Nestruck thought he was being clever by comparing the fictional Indians in Peter Pan with the Beothuk. The Beothuk, according to a quick look-see of research, are a tribe that no longer exists. However! I'm not inclined to believe that they vanished. I've heard that "vanished" story before. I'll check into it, by talking to First Nations people. (If you're First Nations and have info that can help me with this research, let me know.) Some may think Nestruck's playful opening is clever. I don't think it is clever at all. Regular readers of American Indians in Children's Literature know that I think it is important to examine where people situate American Indians. We're often in the same sentence as wild animals, and in the case of "Sensitivity Training in Neverland" fictional stereotypical Indians.
The first full paragraph says that the Peter Pan that will be on stage next week in Halifax and Stratford, will not have any references to "Indians" or "redskins" in the script. Next, Nestruck tells us, that Tiger Lily's tribe is in both productions, but, that "its members no longer bear any resemblance to North America's aboriginal peoples."
Obviously, someone (Nestruck? Producers? Playwrights?) think the Indians in J. M. Barrie's play did, in fact, bear resemblance to North America's aboriginal peoples. Which ones?! We do not (and did not) all look alike....
Fourth paragraph, Nestruck says the "beloved" story has been "causing controversy of late." Of late? Maybe it is news to Nestruck that we (indigenous people) don't like the way we've been portrayed for a long time. Take, as one example, what William Apes, a Pequot man, said in 1829 in A Son of the Forest:
[T]he great fear I entertained of my brethren was occasioned by the many stories I had heard of their cruelty toward the whites—how they were in the habit of killing and scalping men, women, and children. But the whites did not tell me that they were in a great majority of instances the aggressors—that they had imbrued their hands in the lifeblood of my brethren, driven them from their once peaceful and happy homes—that they introduced among them the fatal and exterminating diseases of civilized life.
Fifth paragraph, Nestruck reports that George Pothitos and the theatre in Halifax "found itself in hot water" when it sent out a casting call for "Pirates/Indians." The artistic director was contacted by "angry artists" and apologized for the oversight, "not realizing how offensive that might be to some first-nations people." So then Nestruck goes into the Land of Offense. (My term, not his.)
He says that "if" Indian is now considered derogatory "in some circles" now, the word "piccaninnies" is "much more problematic." Here's paragraph eight:
In Peter and Wendy, Barrie's 1911 novelization of his earlier play, the Scottish author describes these “redskins” on the warpath with their tomahawks not as an imaginary people, but as just another group of North American Indians. “Strung around them are scalps,
3 Comments on PETER PAN in Canada: Two steps forward, and then two steps back again, last added: 4/26/2010
And what a parallel: in a discussion about Gaiman on my LJ a few days ago, a British author talked about how little is known about "Indians" in Britain (just from American Westerns?), and my basic response was "Peter Pan."
i appreciate your thorough dissection of the globe and mail piece so much. i, too, was immediately thrown off by the beothuk quip, but knew i had to go forth with a sense of how little ground i feel we're able to cover when trying to work with the press. in late '08 and into '09 a theatre company in toronto (native earth performing arts) tried to make inroads with another newspaper when they referred to a metis playwright and her characters as "indians". for the most part, in canada, we don't employ this term unless it's amongst ourselves - when there is no hatred in the word, it's a different animal, isn't it? the toronto star (the offending paper) acknowledged our communications and made a watery commitment to look into altering their style guide which was what they asserted had given them permission to call our metis playwright and her characters "indians".
the learning curve is steep, and it is endless work to try to shine light on the indigenous perspective. i feel much bolstered to learn of your own activism, having been referred here by a friend.
the positive in all of this is that, in spite of j. kelly nestruck's wince-worthy (on a worse day it would be weep-worthy, mind you) verbiage, he had the insight to see that this story was worth writing about. baby steps...
Janet Maslin spills all kinds of juicy gossip in The New York Times about J.M. Barrie in For Starters, A Satanic Svengali, a review of J. M. Barrie, the Du Mauriers and the Dark Side of "Peter Pan" by Piers Dudgeon. But the line "But his real evil, in Mr. Dudgeon’s view, was more satanic than sexual, and “Neverland” goes into overdrive when it unveils Barrie’s cloven-hoofed side" left me going, "Which was? What? What was it?"
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the SCBWI Houston Editor’s Day, where five editors — Simon & Schuster’s Alexandra Penfold, Beach Lane Books’ Allyn Johnston, Golden Books/Random House’s Diane Muldrow, Egmont USA’s Elizabeth Law and Sleeping Bear Press’ Amy Lennex — talked about what they look for when they’re considering a book to publish, and the theme that came out of the day was books that resonate. Everyone seems to want books that kids will want to read over and over again, even when they become adults.
So what are these books that resonate? CNN yesterday posted an article offering some excellent examples: Children’s books: Classic reading for fans. The article talks about The Very Hungry Caterpillar, Dr. Seuss’ Cat in the Hat, the Madeline books and Where the Wild Things Are.
The interesting thing is, the article says that often these books weren’t shoe-ins to publication. Dr. Seuss, perhaps one of the most famous picture book writer, was rejected 25 times before his first book, And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, was picked up. And Where the Wild Things Are, although a Caldecott Medal winner, was controversial for its artwork.
For all of you who have gotten rejections, remember, DON’T GIVE UP.
If you have a story that you love with all your heart, even if it’s a little unorthodox for the genre — within reason, of course, in the case of children’s books — don’t let rejections get you down. Keep sending it out. One day, you’ll find the right editor and/or agent who will be the book’s champion, just like these books did.
Another interesting point of the CNN article is a quote by Alida Allison of the San Diego State University, who says all these classic books describe stories that follow a pattern of “home, away, home.” hmm Here are some other classic books that follow that pattern: Peter Pan; The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (in fact all the Narnia books); and Wizard of Oz. Maybe there’s something in that.
In the CNN article, Allison says: “If you think of all those stories, there’s a loving parent … allowing a transgressive kid a leash to investigate the world and come back.” And through the child’s eyes, parents find their sense of wonder renewed, she adds.
When I was a kid — and still now, I have to admit — any book is exactly that: an opportunity to investigate the world, any world, and come back.
I'd moved around a lot by the time I reached eighth grade and that year, once again a new person in a school about to graduate clans of kids who'd known each other forever, I tried out for the school play, The Sound of Music. I won the role of Elsa based on my alto rendition of "No Way to Stop It" and the fact that my brother, sister, and I had grown up singing that soundtrack along with countless others (Windjammer, The Music Man, Peter Pan). I thus stood in line to kiss the guy who many (it seemed) considered highly kissable.
There was one small problem: I was ice skating at the time, competitively. There weren't enough hours in the day. "You'll have to choose," my mother told me, and I went with skating, but sometimes now I wonder what sort of first YA novel I'd have written if I had gone with the school musical instead.
I've loved school productions ever since—the stunning enthusiasm of the performers, the risks they take, the unfolding and uprising set designs, the costumes, that final moment when the entire cast swaggers out onto the stage for a last, congregating bow. One of my favorite final memories of my mother is of the night I took her and my father to the high school's rendition of The Music Man—of watching the look on her face as those 76 trombones swept down the aisle. The songs brought it all back—the house in Delaware, the room with the wall-length mural, the couch upon which my brother stood to conduct my sister and me. That night my mother, so often in pain, was happy.
This past week I took my father to the middle school production of Peter Pan (the same school where I might have been Elsa, only the building is new), where my friend's daughter was starring as the boy who won't grow up (and oh, can Alison Mosier-Mills sing), while Captain Hook was a perfectly roused-up menace, and Wendy was soulful and sweet, and Tinker Bell was a dazzling zipper of green light. Then yesterday we took our friends to the high school's Kiss Me, Kate, where Michael Browne, a snappily fantastic kid with whom my husband and I had traveled to Juarez, took on the starring role of Fred Graham. Michael might have been a gymnast but he fell in love with theater. He wanted to act, so he learned to sing. And does he ever entertain us.
I am left today in awe of young people who can imbibe those roles and stand up there fearless and give us everything they've got.
Don't stop.
14 Comments on High School Musicals, last added: 3/2/2009
Awww, I have fond memories of High School Musicals too. Though I never performed I often worked on the crew painting etc. And after I graduated from college and my little sister was in one, I actually got hired as their graphic designer/set painter/sound person. That was a fun few months :)
I can say, looking back, that those of us in the pit orchestra (in my case, wearing black tuxes with orange ruffled shirts - shudder) were just as wowed as those in the audience by the wonders up on stage.
My high school didn't do musicals, which was very disappointing to me :(
We did more classical things like Jane Austen, Shakespeare, but it wasn't so bad. So long as I have good memories of them, I don't really mind which plays we did :)
The school I went to always put on a Christmas cabaret, and at the age of 14 I took part for some ridiculous reason - watching the video back almost 20 years later is priceless. For all the wrong reasons!
Because Erin dared us, (and also because we wanted to make her smile,) my son and I auditioned for our first musical theatre show a couple of years ago. When all three of us were asked to be in the production, Beauty and the Beast, there was no way she was letting us out of it. :) Sweet memories. *Maybe* I'll do it again someday. But for now, my favorite place is sitting upfront,alongside other proud moms, watching.
Thanks for sharing a bit of the fun performances you saw this weekend.
I've worked with high school singers for 15 years, and been involved with just as many musical producetions. Their courage and talent always brings me to my knees, and each year when I think it can't possibly get any better, it does.
This was lovely to read (especially as I'm in the midst of musical season yet again :)
I got to be Cinderella's wicked stepmother my senior year of high school. It was mostly a fantastic experience, and I was very sorry I'd chosen not to be involved in my freshmen and sophomore years, as well. (My junior year they also did The Sound of Music; I was part of the chorus. And the lady who wouldn't stop bowing at the show.)
But the best high school musical I've seen was my alma mater's production of Guys & Dolls, a few years after I graduated. I liked the high school production better than the movie, and let me tell you, that's saying something. The talent of those kids thrilled me all the way to my toenails--and I got to go back the next night to see it again.
Theater always amazes me. And musicals especially. As someone who always sings out of tune, I marvel at the people that can sing in front of hundreds of people and get every note right. Miss Erin is one of those theater people and I'm in awe of her.
Last week I read Peter Pan as part of Jacqui Robbin's Remedial English Lit Summer Project. We're reading 15 classics in 15 weeks. I had never read Peter Pan, so I figured this was a good time. Here's my cocky, young Peter.
I drew the kids in my sketchbook as quick pencil sketches, then scanned them, resized them in Photoshop, added the background, and shaded them using Photoshop brushes. So this is mostly a digital illustration. I plan on using it in my chapter book/middle grade illustration portfolio.
Children's bookstore. A woman enters carrying her dog, four year old son in tow. All are wearing designer clothes. The sales associate greets them.
"Do you have any classic Peter Pan?" The woman asks.
The woman follows the sales associate but pauses as they reach the books in a spinner rack. The associate continues on toward the Classics section. She looks at the several editions available,
2 Comments on Redefining the Classics, last added: 6/12/2007
What a selfish woman --- never a thought that maybe her little dog too wanted something to read?
Katie said, on 6/10/2007 11:17:00 PM
I deal with customers like that pretty regularly. A lot of people get it, which is awesome, but then you get a few who just don't. The worst part is, usually it's fairly obvious that the kid can barely read anyway, so even if you found a version that was simple enough the story wouldn't really get across unless the kid was being helped. It always makes me sad. Especially since often those
I enjoy reading bloggers with enthusiasms for childhood icons of children's literature. For some it is Oz or Alice but for me it was (and is) Peter Pan.
I do not have a distinct memory of seeing Disney's version as a child but I did have the LP (we had all of them) and I loved that album. Head Mouseketeer, Jimmy Dodd narrated the story and, like the other LPs in the series, the story with pictures from the movie, was bound in to the album cover in book fashion. (Wikipedia says Dodd wrote the theme song for Zorro. I did not know that!)
I have vivid memories of my pre-k self "flying" around our living room, bouncing from one piece of furniture to the next. Gosh, my mom was tolerant!
I know I saw Mary Martin fly across our TV screen and the idea of "flying" caught my imagination again. As an older child I was treated to a performance of the musical at a theater in Anaheim, Calif. It was across the street from Disneyland I think Jane Powell was Peter.
When my kids were very young I tried to get tickets to a nearby high school's production of the musical Peter Pan but to my dismay discovered the tickets were sold out -- a high school show sold out! This school's theater program was very ambitious. They were "flying" the actors.
I still keep up with all things Peter. I enjoyed the movies, Finding Neverland, Hook and the 1993 version of Peter Pan. I still have to read Peter and the Shadow Thieves and I have Peter Pan in Scarlet on my mp3 player. I listened to J.V. Hart's Capt. Hook and thought it was long but interesting.
I was reminded of my ongoing enthusiasm as I embarked on a search for music for a young mezzo soprano. This is the time of year when singers begin a study of Broadway music. Ingenue songs are more frequently written for sopranos so finding songs for the lower range of the mezzo which also fit the musical maturity of a young singer is challenging.
Sorry, I just can't see a 16 year old with the gravitas to carry off "I'm Still Here" from Follies.
I am also a curmudgeon about current Broadway musical stylings and young voices. The current style of musical belting (either on American Idol or Broadway) does not showcase young voices IMHO nor does it bode well for the long term survival of the musical pipes.
But what do I know?
All this led me to rediscover Mary Martin. Peter Pan is still available (and in my car now) and I-tunes has her recording Hi-Ho available. Her Annie Get Your Gun is pure gold.
What a talent.
As I pointed out to the young mezzo, every note is pure and every lyric is crystal clear. I heard Frederica von Stade refer to Martin as an "operatic" broadway singer on a local program recently. It is probably too much to hope I will hear "Never Never Land" at the recital at the end of the year, but I can hope.
Great posting -- my family grew up on the Mary Martin Peter Pan, and my sister would run around the house singing "Captain Hook!" Recently I heard the "rediscovered" Leonard Bernstein music for Peter Pan. It's nice, but very classical, almost operatic.
Last November, the NPR program To the Best of Our Knowledge had a great show on children's books called Lions, Witches and Wizards, where they interviewed Peter Pan in Scarlet author Geraldine McCaughrean (as well as Eoin Colfer and Matthew Skelton.) It's worth a listen.
Camille said, on 3/16/2007 10:41:00 PM
I will dial that program up. I love the NPR archives! I just finished my first McCaughrean book, Cyrano.
I have loved listening to my "new" recording (Mary Martin's Peter Pan.) The opening strains of the overture brought tears to my eyes, it was so lovely and familiar at the same time.
gail said, on 3/17/2007 3:24:00 PM
McCaughrean's Peter Pan in Scarlet stirred up my own Peter Pan obsession. I was never too into the music, just the story.
Oh -- I thought I had my website linked to my profile, but I guess it disappeared. You can find it there now. :)
Becky said, on 3/19/2007 2:00:00 PM
I am so happy to find another Peter Pan lover. I grew up obsessed with the Mary Martin version of Peter...which I still consider to be the only *real* version of it. It was a very happy day indeed when I discovered Amazon had the Mary Martin Peter Pan cd...
Becky said, on 3/19/2007 4:35:00 PM
As far as my kids are concerned, Mary Martin is Peter Pan. Our library has had for years a grainy VHS video of the old b/w broadcast, and it's more magical for my three than anything in color with modern special effects...
The kids have asked the librarian that if she ever plans to get rid of the video to set it aside for them.
Jackie said, on 3/26/2007 12:39:00 PM
Have you ever heard This American Life's story about a Peter Pan production? Hysterical.
This weekend, as part of my Peter Pan binge (which is more of a long, dragged out obsession than a true binge), I saw Hook. It was very interesting seeing it so soon after having read the original book. I got a lot more references than I would have trying to recall the play from second grade.
While the original Peter Pan had a very definite mother obsession thing going on, this one is an Ode to Dad. It's a very painful story of Peter growing up to be a yuppie who hasn't got time for his kids. Peter ends up fighting Hook, not for anything so petty as life or death, but for the love of his son.
I've read that some think Peter Pan is actually about the fear of death. First you grow up, and then you die. (If you're lucky, it goes in that order.) This version definitely plays that up. The line about death being a great adventure is used three times, once by Peter and twice by the old man, Hook. And this version of the Pan story definitely made me think differently about the clock. Sure Hook was afraid of the sound because it meant the alligator that had swallowed it was coming to kill him. Death! But all clocks measure the passing of time, the dwindling away of our lives. Death!
Though it doesn't seem to have gone over very well with reviewers, Hook is interesting for people who are into Peter Pan. It's also very much a movie for adults, with some pretty heavy (and not very subtle) messages. Don't ignore your kids. Growing up is awful. Being an adult stinks. Being elderly means loosing your marbles like Tootles.
I imagine that back in 1991 there were theaters full of mystified kids sitting next to parents who were sobbing through most of the picture.
3 Comments on A Pan For Fathers, last added: 2/27/2007
In 1991 I was 13, just on the edge of my childhood. I was quite partial to "Hook" back then. The sets were awful. Just terrible soundstages that the more recent live action "Peter Pan" really put to shame. Still, I remember having the clock = death metaphor explained to me. And I liked Dustin Hoffman.
gail said, on 2/27/2007 12:41:00 PM
Dustin Hoffman was incredible. I didn't have a clue it was him until about halfway through the movie when I thought to take a look at the video case to see which English actor was playing Hook.
Michele said, on 2/27/2007 1:39:00 PM
Oh I'm glad someone else enjoyed Hook ! I'm not that much of a fan of Peter Pan and its many variations (having come to it so late), but I enjoyed Hook as I like Robin Williams...
.jpg?picon=107)
.jpg?picon=1806)
by 
.jpg?picon=590)
Rumors have been swirling that The Hunger Games director Gary Ross was lured away from Catching Fire‘s director’s seat by another kidlit project; a film adaptation of Peter & the Starcatchers by Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson.
.jpg?picon=1400)
There’s a Betsy Bird in John Crowley’s Little, Big. Her son is Robin.