Scan barcode
A review by bookish_jules
Peter Pan in Scarlet by Geraldine McCaughrean
3.0
While I respect Geraldine McCaughrean’s writing style to attempt to mimic or flow with J. M. Barrie’s own writing, the writing style in this book didn’t live up to the original “Peter Pan”. There were some changes to the personalities that went against the source material and weren’t well done in some areas. Rather than a brave, fearless leader, Peter came across as whiny. Yes – the dreams leaking out of Neverland can account for Peter’s change in personality, but I would’ve thought it would’ve made his personality stronger or more adamant to keep in line with J. M. Barrie’s Peter Pan. (There’s leeway in a slight tweaking of personalities when it comes to retellings, but readers should feel that the characters are still themselves at their core with this authorized sequel.)
This story started out as a fun way to introduce beloved characters (such as the Lost Boys) as adults & expanding on their personality. As the characters went on to Neverland to save Peter Pan & Neverland, the writing seemed to become more childish. (Whereas “Peter Pan” was a beautifully written and magical story about a childish boy who never grows up.)
Ravello’s addition to the plot line wasn’t my favorite. He’s a little too… overly obsessed with Peter Pan throughout the tale. Calling Peter things like “His Supreme Highness” was a bit much considering McCaughrean’s change in Peter’s personality. I don’t care that his true identity (behind the Ravello mask) is part of the plot point at the end of Chapter 17
Peter Pan “becoming” Hook after finding the treasure chest & Ravello being the supposed-to-be-dead Captain Hook from the original tale is a plot point I don’t like.
I did love that Pan and his crew were referred to as “The League of Pan”, “The Company”, or “The Explorers” while they were in Neverland. And Peter Pan’s continued dislike of talk about mothers remaining the same was refreshing!
I hate the added “oh no you can’t fly without your shadow!” plot point to the book. It’s a massive stray away from the source material.
A cute story, even if I’m a firm believer the writing could’ve been better. The premise itself is intriguing enough, though I had higher expectations for this book as an authorized sequel. Though it’s not the worst retelling/sequel to “Peter Pan” I’ve read.
This story started out as a fun way to introduce beloved characters (such as the Lost Boys) as adults & expanding on their personality. As the characters went on to Neverland to save Peter Pan & Neverland, the writing seemed to become more childish. (Whereas “Peter Pan” was a beautifully written and magical story about a childish boy who never grows up.)
Ravello’s addition to the plot line wasn’t my favorite. He’s a little too… overly obsessed with Peter Pan throughout the tale. Calling Peter things like “His Supreme Highness” was a bit much considering McCaughrean’s change in Peter’s personality. I don’t care that his true identity (behind the Ravello mask) is part of the plot point at the end of Chapter 17
Peter Pan “becoming” Hook after finding the treasure chest & Ravello being the supposed-to-be-dead Captain Hook from the original tale is a plot point I don’t like.
I did love that Pan and his crew were referred to as “The League of Pan”, “The Company”, or “The Explorers” while they were in Neverland. And Peter Pan’s continued dislike of talk about mothers remaining the same was refreshing!
I hate the added “oh no you can’t fly without your shadow!” plot point to the book. It’s a massive stray away from the source material.
A cute story, even if I’m a firm believer the writing could’ve been better. The premise itself is intriguing enough, though I had higher expectations for this book as an authorized sequel. Though it’s not the worst retelling/sequel to “Peter Pan” I’ve read.