Burton Weltman, the author of this article, is a humorless old man, who plays an old game of reframing whimsical and fantastical in cynical terms, but he doesn't do it for comedic effect, no he plays it straight! Mr Weltman has at least two things going against him, he's an old bore (he was a history professor for 20 years, god help his students) so his imagination and whimsy faculties have entirely atrophied, and before that he was a deputy attorney general for the state of New Jersey, so it's a safe bet he didn't have imagination and whimsy faculties to begin with. Reading this article is a literary equivalent of approaching an old man at a dinner party expecting a lively conversation, but the man starts telling you how we should outlaw kids, because they are noisy and rambunctious and make messes wherever they appear, and you think that it's a jest, until you realize with horror and pity that the man is dead serious and is in the early stages of senility. As you attempt to flee you hear his last attempts at your attention, something about hitler being a kid once.
That doesn't address any of what he said, though. It's just a personal attack on the author with a dismissal that is essentially like the glossing over he talks about.
I've addressed what he said for exactly one sentence in the beginning of my review: reframing fairy tales or children's tales in cynical terms is a whimsical pastime, rather than a serious literary criticism. The rest of my review is necessary, because I don't otherwise understand what would compel a grown man to engage in such an activity with a kind of serious fervor. From this perspective addressing him point by point is a waste of time, his entire approach is at fault.
First, I'll say that I find this characterization of Weltman to be relevant to understanding his intended point.
Second, I'll say that Weltman seriously misunderstands children's literature. The point has been made by many famous children's writers that kids love comic gruesomeness. When J.M. Barrie wrote Peter Pan, Britain had just ended the Victorian era, when children's literature was serious, morally upright, and deadly dull. Peter Pan upended that and became a smash hit, possibly even bigger than Harry Potter has been.
I think addressing child's inner world on its own terms was attempted by the victorians to begin with, they had the whole cult of child thing, lewis carol serenading a prepubescent girl. but I think j.m. barrie did it with gusto, recognizing the symbolic and the gruesome, like you said. the grab bag of sword fights, scalps, pirates is an old time-y equivalent of going "and then the transformer shot his laser at the dinosaur, and the whole thing EXPLODED!!!"
the deliberately constructed world is essential to the various actual points of the story. it strongly delineates peter pan's world of childhood imagination and whimsy, from the various intrusions into it: Wendy as a romantic partner and a mother figure, the various lost boys accidentally growing up, etc. this is not a complicated idea, and Jim hart and nick castle have a field day with it in their Hook adaptation. like the amazing food fight scene.
Kinda like how Mark Twain wrote The Adventures of Tom Sawyer as a parody of Horatio Alger's moralizing novels. Tom is the opposite of an Alger hero: instead of succeeding through hard work of his own, he succeeds by manipulating others.
Aw, I liked the article. It repeats itself a bit, but framing a beloved childhood character as a narcissistic serial killer is fun; with a bit of work this could be onion-level satire.
“I am old, Peter. I am ever so much more than twenty. I grew up long ago.”
“You promised not to!”
“I couldn’t help it. I am a married woman, Peter.”
“No, you’re not.”
“Yes, and the little girl in the bed is my baby.”
“No, she’s not.”
But he supposed she was; and he took a step towards the sleeping child with his dagger upraised. Of course he did not strike.
Of course?
Big Little Panther, a brave of so many scalps that in his present position they somewhat impede his progress
Lines like this are funny, because kids don't think too hard about what a scalp is. Like raping and pillaging it's good exposure to adult topics in a fun way (David Mitchell on raping and pillaging - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJqEKYbh-LU)
I think the only reason pen's gratuitous violence stands out is because the tropes and the narrative structure are outdated. a trigger happy scrapper is played for laughs in children's cartoons today, but the joke is telegraphed so that there's no confusion. j.m. barrie instead relies on the reader's ability to keep context in long form.
It's actually interesting how Peter Pan is portrayed. I can't actually think of any other characters like him. Obviously there are many who kill hundreds of people (or thousands? who knows how long Peter Pan has been at it for), but unless it's some weird edgelord thing there's at least a story reason for it, even if it's not commented on by anyone in the story. The near-zero edge in combination with the repeated complete omissions of a reason is very uncommon if not unique.
So I'm mostly unfamiliar with the story, and it's always bugged me, never my favorite. I don't know if I've seen the complete "classic" productions, like Mary Martin's or Disney's. I've definitely been through the wringer of the ride at Disneyland though. Not a fave.
Anyway, I was rather shocked and amazed at this revelation about Peter's murders, and so I peeked at the Wikipedia synopsis, and the Fandom one too. The former almost barely mentions the murders, but it really soft-pedals this, and so you don't get an impression that it's a big deal, because they said it's very ambiguous.
So I'm surprised that this article plays it up to that extent. I suppose I could finagle a copy of the original novel with its intricate copyright status, if I were that much interested. But it's a morbid curiosity; I don't think I care much for J. M. Barrie as a person (I read his biography first, that's where you get the most insight about an author's milieu and motivations, and the dude is still a question mark for me.) I am probably distantly related to him, unfortunately; I can think of much better Scots to be in my family.
