Peter Pan Syndrome

[Stormig]

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/paperboy.cfm?id=11942004

 

 

print close

Mon 5 Jan 2004

 

Revealed: The dark side of Peter Pan

 

TRACEY LAWSON

 

 

FOR a century he has enchanted children with his adventures in Neverland and his gang of Lost Boys. But Peter Pan was a less charming child to readers who loved Wendy Darling, the girl whose heart he won and cast aside.

 

Now the fatal attraction of the Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up is the subject of a new novel which explores his dark legacy to five generations of women in Wendy’s family.

 

The Lost Girls, by Laurie Fox, uses J M Barrie’s hero as the inspiration for an angst-ridden tale of Wendy’s female descendants, as they are whisked off one by one to Neverland.

 

Set in modern-day California, the book has been seen as a dire warning for women who fall in love with men who have "Peter Pan Syndrome". The term was coined by psychologist Dan Kiley to describe men whose refusal to grow up is manifested by their reluctance to take on the common responsibilities of adult life.

 

But Fox says her new work does nothing to destroy the magic of one of Scotland’s greatest literary creations, which celebrates its centenary this year.

 

"My book is a Valentine to the Peter Pan Barrie created," said Fox, as she prepared for the publication of The Lost Girls in the United States today.

 

"Barrie’s original work is full of dark psychology, and the story of Peter is as relevant today as it was when he wrote it a hundred years ago.

 

"It’s dangerous to play around with classic elements, but women I spoke to were thrilled at the idea of this book. I think men might be less interested in reading it."

 

Although Fox says The Lost Girls is not a sequel to J M Barrie’s classic tale, it continues the story of Wendy Darling, the young girl into whose nursery Peter Pan fell and whom he whisked off to Neverland where she became the mother figure to the Lost Boys.

 

At the end of Barrie’s tale, Peter finally returns to London after several years absence to ask Wendy to return to Neverland to do his spring cleaning. But he has been gone so long that Wendy has grown up and has a daughter of her own, Jane.

 

Despite her own years of waiting in vain for Peter, Wendy allows him to take Jane back to Neverland. Once Jane has grown up and been forgotten by the boy who won her heart, she allows her own daughter, Margaret, to fly away with Peter. "And thus it shall go on," Barrie concludes.

 

The implication of generations of women following the same fruitless emotional journey of their mothers inspired Fox to imagine the legacy of Peter Pan Syndrome on real women. Her protagonist is Wendy Darling Braverman - the original Wendy’s great-grand-daughter - who, like three generations of her family before her, believes she was whisked off to Neverland by Peter Pan.

 

Although Peter never grows up in the new book, he does move with the times, appearing in various guises, including that of a 1960s hippie. But when Berry, the original Wendy’s fifth generation descendant, gets her chance to fly, things go disastrously wrong.

 

Fox, 51, who is based in Berkeley, California, told The Scotsman: "There is an epidemic of Peter Pans out there - men who do extreme sports, who are reckless with their bodies, will not grow up. I wanted to explore what happens to the girls who love them."

 

However, news of The Lost Girls has been welcomed in Barrie’s home town of Kirriemuir, Angus, where he was born to a Scottish weaver in 1860. Wendy McDonald of the National Trust for Scotland, which runs the Barrie’s Birthplace museum in the cottage where the author was born, said that she was happy to hear that Peter Pan was inspiring writers a century after he first whisked Wendy off to Neverland in 1904.

 

Ms McDonald said: "Barrie is greatly undervalued as a writer around the world, and anything which helps bring attention to his work and life is welcomed by us. The original work is full of psychological depth and contains very dark themes. Peter Pan syndrome does exist - many women around the world will pay testament to that."

 

 

This article:

 

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=11942004

[bellthecat]

"It’s dangerous to play around with classic elements, but women I spoke to were thrilled at the idea of this book. I think men might be less interested in reading it."

Or as thrilled as much as any dried-up, post menopausal female could be.

 

It is little wonder that most of the inventions, most of the great literature, and music, and poetry has been produced by men. Creativity needs imagination, imagination needs the ability to play around with things, to experiment, to be willing to make mistakes but still continue, and to be both serious and light hearted at the same time. All of which most women don't seem capable of, since as soon as they reach 20 most women seem to think that they have to start behaving like they were over 50.

 

Reminds me of a TV documentary I saw a few years ago - it was about these two climbers (the ones that climb without the aid of ropes or pitons - free-climbers I think they are called) a man and a woman. After working together in competitions and so on for many years they decided to get married. A big mistake. Within a couple of months she had turned from being a daring adventuress into a frumpy, typical "Stepford wife", interested only in cooking, having children, buying things for her new suburban house and similar "common responsibilities of adult life". Not surprisingly, the marriage didn't last. Huh, maybe she is the author of this book!

 

Steve

[THOTH]

Glad you have expressed to us your high opinon of women....(no need to) wonder what they would say about you...LOL

 

And as usual you miss the point entirely of this book (which I think is on the mark in many cases - or seems to be)...and instead you go off on an unlrealated diatribe of your own making...so typical...

[Stormig]

That’s a sad way to look at it, because throughout history women have been assigned roles and they have accepted these willingly (that’s the thing that’s wrong! no crime in that, though, anymore than the Jews were guilty of being passive when the Nazis carried them away). Women’s entrance into the realm of science, more recent than literature, has been doing well. Still not enough – you have to look at the way the world is to see it. Why, even on this forum where everyone has had exposure to Western culture in one way or another, people talk about assigning secondary roles to women for the sake of “prettiness,” from driving cars to goodness knows what else. Additionally, I really think there is a greater standard deviation of a lot of things in males – we females have a stronger mid-section (and perhaps “biological superiority” points to this). Doesn’t really tell you much if males have more geniuses yet also more idiots (both self-chosen and born) among them.

I would pay particular attention to the first paragraph, at the end of which you have two crucial words, “cast aside.” When I read these, I thought the piece ought to be about the player in males (this is probably what she alludes to by the mention of “men who have Peter Pan Syndrome”) and why girls like them – there was a discussion recently on the forum as to why girls prefer guys that are stunning and daring and yet treat them like crap or sometimes like they’re not there over those that are willing to pay them attention and treat them well in general.

Men would be less interested in reading it not because they are light-hearted and it is too heavy and boring for them, but because quite a few are what they call “clueless”/self-absorbed and just don’t care and/or haven’t cared to know what makes women tick. Coupled with the self-absorbed women out there, they create a frenzy that has the women yalping about how men aren't romantic enough and ends in "Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars"...

I don't know about that couple and just how "bad" the woman turned out, but I think the man was taking marriage a bit too lightly. I mean, marriage - what was he thinking? Pretty clueless if you ask me - or they weren't able to relate to each other well enough and hadn't discussed what they wanted or might expect from marriage - fastlove, I say. And I think it is banal to cut the line like that, about the women turning into mammas - I know guys who go total suckers over kids and frown when I call them stinkpiles. In fact, I know quite a few ladies in mid-age who are cooler than guys, yet they are almost all mothers.

Most men and women are equally close to their instincts - men are all arms and legs, and women are programmed toward security and breeding - and even if in the past they got into this thing with "saving" themselves for their husbands, marriage for many even today is the indisputable line. The reason why you have the image of the brooding or at the other extreme the sailor-with-a-sweetheart-in-every-port male and the female jumping up and down around it - I mean, him - is because inasmuch as men are self-absorbed, women want to know and are able to relate better. Men who know how to treat women properly will tell you it is not the imagination of the female. It perhaps also holds light to how men treat each other as well as opposed to how women are with each other.

 

When it comes to the actual subject matter, I think that it might have to do with individual freedom vs. what it was like in the past. In the past, a daring, brave man was a hero because people operated in collectives and these were values sought in the army, in government, etc. - and then you have the tales and stories of women going nuts over these types. Today, though, we are more interested in self-actualisation - and, whereas the heroism of the Old didn't say much about his personality either, today there is no pressure for him to be a responsible-looking public figure. He just gets around and smokes pot quite a bit until settling down. (Maybe the Old, like Vava characterised the kid on the farm who didn't have time to do recreational drugs, had no other choice for the advancement of his position in society, career, etc.) And it is tolerated. Even if someone were to raise a hand and object, "But Marquis de Sade...," I would only have to point out to you that the social class he came from secured his life and future, as ours is secured today with our opportunities and rights – even the marquis’ uncle, when not preaching morality to the laymen, filled up his residence with prostitutes.

We are experiencing increasing freedom and individuality. I really think that even if women let go, it still runs somewhat contrary to their nature, at least some of the time for most. In the meantime, it works well for the males. I mean, don’t take my word for it.

Just my take on the matter.

[THOTH]

My how diplomatic of you Stormy - and how unlike you in response to this typical piggish type of rant.

 

Do you really accept that women have no creativity or immagination? That they cant be serious and light hearted at the same time - etc etc? I certainly don't and I find such claims appauling - and not at all real world - based on my experience and observations.

 

And you accept that these are the reasons that most "great literature, and music, and poetry" has mainly been produced by men. I guess thats why men are most represented as race car drivers, politicians and in every other career field or endevor as well - wome are just INFERIOR - face it!

 

And as for this climber story - are we supposing that this lady should be expected to climb cliffs without ropes into her 90s? Well - of course not - everyone (well every normal person) goes through phases in their lives. You do things when you are young and when you get older you move on to other things (like maintaining a houshold and having a family)...so what is wrong with that? - these are nornmal things...I mean just why did they get married? It is this guy who perhaps has refused to grow up - who can think of nothing else worthwhile in his life but climbing a rock. Who is so narrow in his interests that he can only pursue such - at the expense of any kind of normal personal relationship. In fact it is her who should have dumped him - as he obviously wasn't really ready to commit himself to another person - to give of himself - and treat this other person with love and respect...but of course many (men mostly) never learn this - do they...they continue on with their pursuits and by the time they realize there might be more to life they have never learned how to give and how to really live (outside of soem very narrow and uncahnging defintion of such) - and they are certainly no good for anyone else...and then they wonder why they are all old and bitter...

[bellthecat]

Glad you have expressed to us your high opinon of women....(no need to) wonder what they would say about you...LOL

 

And as usual you miss the point entirely of this book (which I think is on the mark in many cases - or seems to be)...and instead you go off on an unlrealated diatribe of your own making...so typical...

So are we to assume that you have read this book, and read Barrie's script, and the surviving fragments/notes of his novel for adults on which it was based?

 

Unless you have, then you have no clue what points I have missed or have not missed.

 

I know of your high opinion of women. Perhaps you should make yourself known to a certain M. Jackson: he'd be fascinated to learn how you can persuade women that it is OK for you to sleep with them and think there is nothing sexual in it.

 

Steve

[THOTH]

Its your expressed views that I comment on - though it did not escape me the parrallels (of the book) with you - no wonder you reacted so crossly - the only way you basically know how anyway..old and bitter (and unchanging) as you are...LOL

 

And please - don't talk to us about sex - a subject that indeed you know nothing about!

[bellthecat]

We are experiencing increasing freedom and individuality. I really think that even if women let go, it still runs somewhat contrary to their nature, at least some of the time for most. In the meantime, it works well for the males.

Ouote: "but women I spoke to were thrilled at the idea of this book". Not a lot of female individuality being allowed for there is there? Half the world (the female half) is supposedly for her book, half (the male half) against it. So if there is any stereotyping, it is the author who is doing it!

 

There are probably pages and pages of books on the concept of the "Hero" and the "Adventurer", and probalby quite a lot also on how devalued that concept has recently become - take, for example, the miss-application in America of the word "hero" being applied to sportsmen just doingtheir job, or even to people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (9/11 victims for example). (This reminds me a bit of the misuse of the word "martyr" in Islam, where anyone who dies an accidental death is now considered to be a martyr).

 

And, yes, you are right that, historically, adventurous individuals have mainly been male figures, though with exceptions. But this author seems to be want to continue the stereotyping and self-limiting of women by implying that women should not be adventurous because being adventurous is not "growing up", and by denegrating those that are adventurous. I'm not saying that those who are "adventurous" are by implication "heroic" - indeed those "men who do extreme sports, who are reckless with their bodies" are probably just trying to fill a rather empty life with cheap thrills. But it was her tagging on "who will not grow up" that is most revealing of her motivation. These days, the most limiting factor restricting the expression of the personal individuality of women, are women like this author.

 

Steve

[bellthecat]

And please, Thoth, stop your overuse of the shorthand "LOL", especially since it is almost never intended to be sincere. I know you don't know much about the concept of sincerity - but even you must know that you wished anything but "lots of laughs" when you used LOL just now.

 

Steve

[bellthecat]

Men would be less interested in reading it not because they are light-hearted and it is too heavy and boring for them,

Sorry, I just noticed this bit - you are not understanding what I meant by being "serious and lighthearted at the same time". In fact, I can't right now explain it exactly like I would want to - so I'll just leave it. But it wasn't the meaning that you have put on it. Also, for "Stepford Wives" - do a movie search for it if you don't know the reference.

[THOTH]

LOL - "Laughing out Loud" - something in fact I do quite a lot of (unlike certain negative sourpusses we know) - most scincerely...

[Stormig]

Ouote: "but women I spoke to were thrilled at the idea of this book". Not a lot of female individuality being allowed for there is there? Half the world (the female half) is supposedly for her book, half (the male half) against it. So if there is any stereotyping, it is the author who is doing it!

 

There are probably pages and pages of books on the concept of the "Hero" and the "Adventurer", and probalby quite a lot also on how devalued that concept has recently become - take, for example, the miss-application in America of the word "hero" being applied to sportsmen just doingtheir job, or even to people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (9/11 victims for example). (This reminds me a bit of the misuse of the word "martyr" in Islam, where anyone who dies an accidental death is now considered to be a martyr).

 

And, yes, you are right that, historically, adventurous individuals have mainly been male figures, though with exceptions. But this author seems to be want to continue the stereotyping and self-limiting of women by implying that women should not be adventurous because being adventurous is not "growing up", and by denegrating those that are adventurous. I'm not saying that those who are "adventurous" are by implication "heroic" - indeed those "men who do extreme sports, who are reckless with their bodies" are probably just trying to fill a rather empty life with cheap thrills. But it was her tagging on "who will not grow up" that is most revealing of her motivation. These days, the most limiting factor restricting the expression of the personal individuality of women, are women like this author.

 

Steve

She says that the women she spoke to showed interest. The women SHE SPOKE to, the people she is likely to associate with, which could be either a broad or a narrow band, not all the women in town or all the women in the world for that matter. Hers is a sample, not a whole population. She doesn't force anything on any woman's individuality, it is FEEDBACK to her.

And that she THINKS that men will show less interest - she doesn't CLAIM such, she just thinks so, because she hasn't spoken to any/many. And I am inclined to think she might be right. Could be wrong, nothing criminal about that. With such sweeping generalizations about how men are and how women are coming from yourself, though, I don't understand what beef you have with this author's supposed approach to individuality, which it is not about in the first place.

The author does not claim to be in the position to tell whether women should be adventurous or not. She says that women like adventurous; however, these are the types that are less likely to commit to them. As usual there are exceptions to the rule. And yes, not growing up shows signs of something wrong. What woman in her right mind would want children out of another child, a mere schoolboy who is incapable of being another human one can depend/rely on, a friend at the very least?