Fantasy as Antifantasy: 1 Transformation of Fantasy and Irony

　The genre called fantasy, which constitutes a subcategory that has the characteristic of “describing events that are not generally considered to be possible”, in the literary activity of “describing fictional events,” is a paradoxical thing in itself, no less than the precarious concept “fiction,” and it was a parameter that could cause great interference to both coordinate system called “fiction,” and another coordinate system called “reality.” Moreover, in recent years, the concept of “metafiction,” designating the “fictional existence beyond fiction,” has been introduced, and as a result of its interaction with conventional fantasy literature, postmodern fantasy works that are ascertained to have a higher degree of deviation from the realist world picture, are being generated one after another.
It is not surprising that the factor of irony must be noted as an opportunity for the activation of space-time in metafiction as a variation of fantasy. The fact that the literary expression of fantasy was introduced as one of the manifestations of the desire for a religious substitute or universal religion in the midst of the collapse of the traditional view of the universe, can be pointed out with various concrete examples. The case of George McDonald’s creative motivation was typically one of these. The literary expression of fantasy was sought as an alternative to traditional Christian beliefs that could no longer be trusted in literally, that is, as a means of constructing a psychological metaphysics that could provide a modern world formula, fully supported by scientific and rational intelligence. In the case of the German Romantics, irony was introduced as an effective means of dialectical endeavor to overcome the conflict between the desire to “believe” in the existence of eternal and unchanging principles and values, and the hopeless realization that no conventional teaching or knowledge could be “believed” literally anymore. The spirit of irony contains a dynamic mechanism that creates a new space-time while incorporating the opposite operating factor of nihilism, which denies and destroys the world of one’s own thoughts by subverting the very act of “believing” inherent in the thought process. It is unintentionally equivalent to the contemporary awareness of the problem that Attebery counted as another definition of fantasy. The result of the description of thought attempted in this way was the substance of the fairy tale (Maerchen) created by the writers of the German Romantics. There is a subtle mental attitude in which the two poles of faith and disbelief are seamlessly united. Sometimes faith came to the surface, and sometimes disbelief came to the surface, as the result of fluctuations and oscillations. Typical examples of the former may be Wilhelm Heinrich Wackenroder and Novalis, while examples of the latter may be Clemens Brentano and E. T. A. Hoffmann. Belief in the unnameable unknown has often been called by the name of Romanticism, but it is often forgotten that disbelief in what has been inherited and the ingenious expression of immanent disbelief in what is now being spoken of itself, is also another face of Romanticism. (note)

note:
This mechanism of German Romantic irony is noted by G. R. Thompson, in Poe’s Fiction: Romantic Irony in the Gothic Tales, the University of Wisconsin Press, (1973.) Thompson discusses in detail the relationship between irony and “transcendentalism,” which later came to be adopted by Jackson and others in order to derisively call Tolkien’s theory of the creation of fantasy literature, in a subtle relationship between Poe and the German Romantics.

In this study, I would like to highlight such a nihilistic aspect as a method of presenting the world of the fictional work, and survey the ironic mechanism that is actively introduced in fantasy.

"Identity and Individuality of Derivative Fictions", shared on Academia

I have finished the translation of "Identity and Individuality of Derivative Fictions". Modified version of this study is shared on Academia divided in 4 segments. Please refer to the links below.

https://www.academia.edu/114744009/Identity_and_Individuality_of_Derivative_Fictions_Fictional_Archetype_and_Equivalency_of_a_Movie_to_the_Original_Novel_1

https://www.academia.edu/114922302/Identity_and_Individuality_of_Derivative_Fictions_Fictional_Archetype_and_Equivalency_of_a_Movie_to_the_Original_Novel_2

https://www.academia.edu/115238897/Identity_and_Individuality_of_Derivative_Fictions_3

https://www.academia.edu/115450956/Identity_and_Individuality_of_Derivative_Fictions_Fictional_Archetype_and_Equivalency_of_a_Movie_to_the_Original_Novel_4


My next post will be Fantasy as Antifantasy, a study of the inception of fantasy literature, in which Peter and Wendy and The Last Unicorn are to be discussed for their metafictional peculiarities, based on the consciousness function against the background of Holarchy Universe and the implication of fictionality in it.


Fantasy as Antifantasy

1 Transformation of Fantasy and Irony

It is only towards the end of the 20th century that the literary genre of fantasy seems to have gained its rightful citizenship in the field of literary research. For example, it is precisely because Brian Attebery actively evaluated the existence of fantasy literature as one of the established methods of literary expression, that he tried to trace the trajectory of such a thing as “the tradition of fantasy literature in the United States”, in The Fantasy Tradition in American Literature: From Irving to Le Guin, (1980). As the subtitle of this study suggests, the scope of the “tradition” covered by this book goes back to Washington Irving, and after Nathaniel Hawthorne and Herman Melville, with L. Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz, published in 1900, as a turning point, he traces the existence of Ray Bradbury and others after Oz, in the line of “Baum tradition”. By acknowledging the existence of Ursula K. Le Guin’s works as one of the most complete forms of fantasy in modern times, the study completes the course of the development of fantasy literature in the United States up to 1980.
　Prior to this, there had been several research books that dealt with fantasy works, but they took the form of genre criticism rather than trying to evaluate the literary value of the works themselves, and regarded the existence of fantasy as a cultural phenomenon, deeming it an object of psychological study. It is an undeniable fact that those who tried to deal with fantasy were doing the job within the framework of social phenomena analysis.
It is true that there have been arguments in defense of fantasy for a long time. C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien adopted the term “sub-creation” to evaluate the significance of creative activity as a means of positive escapism to observe the real world. But it is safe to say that their arguments were not strictly literary theories based on systematic arguments by literary scholars, but rather were made from the subjective standpoint of those actually involved in the creation of fantasy literature. (note)

note:
Tolkien himself did not use the word “fantasy” to refer to his works. In his lecture “On Fairy-Stories” (1938), in which he defended his literary career, he used the term “fairy-story” to refer to his ideal work. This is probably in line with George McDonald’s adoption of the term “fairytale” in “The Fantastic Imagination,” which also describes his motivation for creation. Incidentally, Tolkien’s comrade C.S. Lewis used the term “science fiction” to describe the specific genre, but the adjective “fantastic” is also used in his essay. He divides what is commonly referred to as science fiction into several subcategories, some impeaching and others defending, but he cites some of the works published in the American magazine Fantasy and Science Fiction as examples of what is of particular interest to him. It has elements that depict supernatural subjects imaginatively. (“On Science Fiction”, in Other Worlds, 1975. p. 67）
The Oxford English Dictionary also lists the first occurrence of the word “fantasy” as “a genre of literary composition” in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, published in1949. And its further examples include M. F. Rodell’s, “Mystery belongs to the vast category of escapist novels of Western romance, historical fiction, and fantasy other than Satire”, (Mystery Fiction ii. 4, 1954), and F. Brown’s “Fantasy deals with things that don’t and can’t exist, and science fiction deals with things that can exist and will appear someday.” (Angels & Spaceships 9, 1955).


The trend in literary criticism was to dismiss such views as archaic and inappropriate, expressed in such research as Rosemary Jackson’s Fantasy: The Literature of Subversion (1981), applying Freudian psychology to them, or to analyze them as social phenomena by structuralist theory, as Tsvetan Todorov did, in The Fantastic (1975).
In particular, Jackson did not try to evaluate Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings (1954-5), which was the beginning of the modern fantasy literature trend, and in the case of Todorov, it can be said that the existence of this work was not at all in his sights. Moreover, what Todorov called “the fantastic” and discussed under the definition of “the hesitation that a person who knows only the law of nature feels when confronted with a seemingly supernatural phenomenon” was not works of fantasy in the general sense, but psychological horror novels that were once popular in France. It was a group of works with very limited specific tendencies, and he chose it as a conclusion, that they tended to disappear sooner or later. This prophecy came off spectacularly, and although it took a somewhat different form from what was the subject of his study, the so-called “fantasy” survived and flourished, and, like Ateberry, there are so many keen researchers who are trying to forcibly unearth the “tradition of fantasy in the United States,” which is in fact somewhat dubious as to whether it exists or not. Fantasy has become a central body in literary trend in the second half of the 20th century.
　In many respects, Attebery’s The Fantasy Tradition in American Literature: From Irving to Le Guin, was a landmark study. He regarded Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings as the epitome of fantasy literature and sought to positively evaluate contemporary fantasy works under direct influence of this creation. Whether accept Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings or not as a valuable work of literature, will be an important indicator of the viewpoint of the consideration of fantasy. It is noteworthy that Edmund Wilson refused to acknowledge the literary merit of The Lord of the Rings, which caused the fantasy craze in the United States. (note)

note:
Ref., Edmund Wilson, “Oo, Those Awful Orcs!” Nation 182 (14 April 1956), pp. 312-3


C. N. Manlove, the author of the study of fantasy literature, Modern Fantasy (1975), even though he devoted a chapter on Tolkien, he was completely dismissive of the literary value of this work. Tolkien was either gained ardent fanatical followers, completely ignored, or fiercely criticized. In light of this, Attebery, who tried to dig up the ground in this line, represents one of the perspectives of the acceptance of fantasy in the United States, a country where fantasy has not taken root, who has not only discussed the significance of the American fantasy literature that came to fruition in Le Guin, but also dared to consider the “fantasy tradition” in the United States before Tolkien’s influence, by placing Tolkien’s existence as the core of fantasy literature and taking up the works of fantasy writers such as Ray Bradbury up to 1980.
　To put it simply, however, though Attebery accepted fantasy favorably, he misunderstood the essence of it. That is, though Attebery was attempting to discuss fantasy in the broadest sense of the term, he failed to grasp the phenomenon revealed as fantasy in the most subtle and strict sense of its literary genre.
　In the first place, it is a fact that is often pointed out that the term fantasy is a very difficult thing to give a definition. Attebery himself later wrote a new book, Strategies of Fantasy (1992), in which he begins his argument as follows:

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS:
　　　　
1. Fantasy is a form of popular escapist literature that combines stock characters and devices—wizards, dragons, magic sword, and the like—into a predictable plot in which the perennially understaffed forces of good triumph over a monolithic evil.
　　　　
2. Fantasy is a sophisticated mode of storytelling characterized by stylistic playfulness, self-reflexiveness, and a subversive treatment of established orders of society and thought. Arguably the major fictional mode of the late twentieth century, it draws upon contemporary ideas about sign systems and the indeterminacy of meaning and at the same time recaptures the vitality and freedom of nonmimetic traditional forms such as epic, folktale, romance, and myth.
p.1


And Attebery is prepared to make an equally convincing defense for both of these contradictory definitions. This is what the term fantasy means to Attebery at this point, and they are the two ends of its spectrum. And it goes without saying that this tolerance is the quality that should be most evaluated of Attebery as a critic. But when he wrote The Fantasy Tradition in American Literature: From Irving to Le Guin, Attebery thought he would never talk about it again. However, in 1992, he was forced to reconsider the problematic nature of this genre while keeping in mind the concepts of postmodernism and metafiction with these as the main subject of fantasy. This would have been a change in the times since the 1980s, and it would have also been the development of Attebery’s own understanding of fantasy literature. However, what if we say that the literary genre that we now call fantasy has had such a problematic character from its very inception? Attebery rightly traces the emergence of fantasy literature from the fairy tales of German Romanticism. Certainly, there is a close relationship between German Romantics and fantasy movement, as is asserted in Marianne Thalmann’s The Romantic Fairy Tale (1964). It was the British fantasy writer George MacDonald, who became widely known thanks to Lewis’ evaluation, who influenced both C.S. Lewis and Tolkien, who were the catalysts for the revival of fantasy in the 20th century. MacDonald was directly influenced by the German Romantics, and succeeded in opening up his own horizon in his works, which could be called the source of modern fantasy literature. Thalmann discussed the literary fairy tale movement (Kunst Märchen) attempted by the German Romantics, in the context of the reconsideration of Romanticism in the modern era and its influence on surrealism. In fact, wasn’t it the fantasy works represented by McDonald’s that have taken a more modern form, including the problematic nature of these philosophical speculative thoughts? McDonald should be considered the founder of what is called “fantasy” in modern days. In addition to the manifestation of the transcendental fantasy inherited by Tolkien and Lewis, whose main goal was to create other worlds as sub-creation, there must have been another extremely ironic mechanism hidden in the presentational mode of fiction that must not be overlooked.

Identity and Individuality of Derivative Fictions -- concluded

This line was spoken by the main characters both in the original Peter and Wendy and in the movie Peter Pan, and it was directed at Peter Pan.
　In the concluding scene of the movie Peter Pan, each of the Lost Boys returns to the real world and is given a happy ending. There’s even a very convenient episode depicted in which the treasure of the pirate ship that Michael has stolen will support the Darling family’s finances, which have increased the number of dependents. The voice of the narrator concludes the story as follows:

There could not have been a lovelier sight. But there was none to see it… except a strange boy who was staring in at the window. Peter Pan had countless joys that other children can never know. But he was looking at the one joy from which he must be for ever barred.

Seeing Wendy and the others have returned safely, Peter, who is left alone, mutters.

To live would be an awfully big adventure.

This line, in which Peter, the existence of divine phase that transcends life and death, tells the joy of mortal beings, was not in the original work. It was an all-too-famous reversal of the line that he spoke, for Wendy, the film’s protagonist who is both a human and a girl. As Peter is about to leave alone, Wendy says goodbye to him and asks him to come see her again. Peter vows to never forget her. However, the final scene of the movie Peter Pan concludes with the following narration:

But I was not to see Peter Pan again. Now I tell his story to my children. And they will tell it to their children. And so it will go on. For all children grow up… except one.

In this final scene, it is revealed that the narrator of the film was grown up Wendy. This film was one of the stories told by Wendy, a grown-up storyteller, about Wendy, a girl who likes story-telling. However, the description of the concluding part of the original Peter and Wendy contains peculiar inflections and deviations that do not allow the reader to easily find peace of mind. In fact, this eerie tendency as a dark fantasy was an important element that became a basic condition for establishing its identity as a fictional work, depicting the eternal child Peter Pan. It had already been hinted at in the scene just before Wendy and her two brothers returned to the Darling family. In the children’s room, Mrs. Darling began to play the piano at Mr. Darling’s request, and Mr. Darling had just fallen asleep.

… and she went into the day-nursery and played, and soon he was asleep; and while he slept, Wendy and John and Michael flew into the room.
Oh no. We have written it so, because that was the charming arrangement planned by them before we left the ship; but something must have happened since then, for it is not they who have flown in, it is Peter and Tinker Bell.


As has been shown in several previous scenes, in the original Peter and Wendy, the narrative that constructs the story world is presented through multiple parallel descriptions, making use of the author’s role as a narrator. (note)

note:
Typical parallel description that alludes to the branching stories introduced in the original Peter and Wendy was as follows:

In introducing the various adventures undertaken by the children in Neverland, the narrator says that he has prepared several episodes. However, the author says that it is impossible to tell all of them without a thick book of the size of an English-Latin dictionary or a Latin-English dictionary. (p. 119) After listing some of the possible episodes to be told, the narrator continues:

... but we have not decided yet that this is the adventure we are to narrate.... （p. 120）

Then, as if the narrator is still undecided, he brings up the idea of telling a story about how the pirates baked a cake to trap the children, or how Peter saved his friend bird’s nest when it fell into the sea. However, the episode that the narrator actually tells the reader is thus arbitrarily determined.

Which of these adventures should we choose? The best way will be to toss for it. I have tossed, and the lagoon has won. （p. 121）


The substance of the narrative world was given in the form of an amorphous picture that allowed the thoughts of the narrator and the listener to selectively determine the framework of the story. This trait should also be regarded as a meta-characteristic that defines the genus of the original Peter and Wendy as a fictional entity. And in the story, which is said to have been re-chosen by the author with the introduction of the above scene, Peter preemptively plans to close the windows of the Darlings’ house and brutally prevent Wendy from returning. (note)

note:
In the movie Peter Pan, this episode, which was told in the original story with an emphasis on the impression of parallel descriptions, is used as the main story. Shortly after his initial breakup with Wendy and his denial of his feelings of “affection,” Peter goes to the Darlings’ house alone and plots to close the window which Mrs. Darling kept open, so that Wendy can never return.


Peter was an ideal image that everyone admired, and it was a paradox that could never be formed by embodying a definite personal figure. (note)

note:
This kind of indeterminacy discovered in the character images is discussed in the author’s study of the identity of fictional existences; “Figure, Fiction and Identity: Ceci n’est pas une figurine”, included in Existence, Phenomenon and Personality: Individuality in Figurines, Anime and Game; Bokka-sha, (2014); centered on the fictional character Hatsune Miku and several other figures, through figurines modeling study.


But this aspect of dark hero “deviation” about Peter occupied the essential part and claimed special attention in the original Peter and Wendy. (note)

note:
This mechanism of the generation of the dark side of the heroic figure is discussed in the author’s study of video game, “Identity of Summoned Heroes: Aspects of Psyche and Phases of Persona in Fate/stay night”, included in Existence, Phenomenon and Personality: Individuality in Figurines, Anime and Game; Bokka-sha, (2014). The derivative phase of a fictional character revealed as its shadow has been studied through the idea of “materialization of the dark side”, centered on the heroic character of King Arthur and its shadow self, described in Fate/stay night, in the author’s responsible course “Culture Today”.

There are versions in which a character becomes several “dark ones”. Saber becomes “Black Saber,” and in various Fate series, the persona of “Saber” is assumed by Arturia, Nero, or Mordred. And the same example can be applied to Hatsune Miku as well.

Please refer to the link below, for the record of the entire lecture on the fictional characters and their phases of representation.

Culture Today:
https://twitter.com/mackuro3/status/1260209979920773122



Reflecting this fact, the appearance of Peter Pan in front of Wendy, who returned to the real world, which was told as a later story, is described as follows in the original Peter and Wendy.

She had looked forward to thrilling talks with him about old times, but new adventures had crowded the old ones from his mind.
“Who is Captain Hook?” he asked with interest when she spoke of the arch enemy.
“Don’t you remember,” she asked, amazed, “how you killed him and saved all our lives?”
“I forget them after I kill them,” he replied carelessly.
When she expressed a doubtful hope that Tinker Bell would be glad to see her he said, “Who is Tinker Bell?”
“O Peter,” she said, shocked; but even when she explained he could not remember.
“There are such a lot of them,” he said.  “I expect she is no more.”


Peter is an echo of uncertain utopia that never truly fills people’s hearts with satisfaction until the end, that always leaves some kind of discomfort. The rebirth of the pagan god Pan did more than contribute to the liberation of the human spirit from the obstinate Christian dogma, it also brought about the destruction of the Logos of Greek civilization that human culture had succeeded to establish. And the concluding part of the original Peter and Wendy, which is a dark fantasy full of pitfalls that has a theme even more severe than any realistic fiction, is narrated by the author as follows:

As you look at Wendy, you may see her hair becoming white, and her figure little again, for all this happened long ago.  Jane is now a common grown-up, with a daughter called Margaret; and every spring cleaning time, except when he forgets, Peter comes for Margaret and takes her to the Neverland, where she tells him stories about himself, to which he listens eagerly.  When Margaret grows up she will have a daughter, who is to be Peter’s mother in turn; and thus it will go on, so long as children are gay and innocent and heartless.


The theme of the phenomenalization process of ideas embodied through the narration of stories, which was a characteristic style of writing pioneered by the original Peter and Wendy, has been faithfully reflected in the psychological battle employed by the strategist, Captain Hook, as an intellectual manipulation identified with the game world mechanism of make-believe, which was Peter’s specialty, in the movie Peter Pan. Instead, the film’s concluding part seemed to depict a typical happy ending by showing the Lost Children returning to the happy real world. Interestingly, however, the DVD version of the movie Peter Pan contains some extra footage. And here are some parallel scenes presented, that were not in the main body of the movie. One of the scenes seems to correspond to the description of the ending of the original Peter and Wendy. It is an additional episode named “Another Ending”.
Wendy, who has become a mother, is shown talking about Peter Pan to her young daughter, Jane. Wendy tells. “That was the last time I saw him.” When Jane asks if she minded very much, Wendy replies: “No, I knew he would forget. He has many adventures.” Jane falls asleep when Peter enters the children’s room through the window. However, Wendy and Peter’s reunion after a long absence is quite awkward. Peter refuses to acknowledge Wendy as a grown up, and even pulls out a dagger and tries to stab her daughter to death while she sleeps in bed. Jane wakes up and asks Peter a question. “Boy, why are you crying?” In this way, the same scene as the night Wendy first met Peter is repeated, and the episode ends with Wendy standing by the window and watching Peter and Jane fly out of the window into the sky. As a result of the isolated destruction of the main body, Hook, the opportunity for the unification of the personality, which had been separated and generated as a shadow, was also lost, and his fellow Lost Boys returned to the “banal and ugly” real world, and the story of the deity, the remnants of utopia, which had to be sealed in people’s minds in a barren “Eternal Recurrence”, is thus told in “parallel description” using the gimmick of the DVD.
　The metafictional description that embodied the attempt to describe the protoplasmic state in anticipation of the yet unformulated quantum interpretation of existence, reflecting the congested zeitgeist on the eve of the publication of Einstein’s theory of relativity, at the beginning of the 20th century, at the time of the publication of the original Peter and Wendy; is now adopted in various animation and game works in the 21st century. Moreover, it has come to form a completed norm of fictional presentation. It was the story of Peter Pan, which branched and phenomenalized in two ways, into the original story and the movie version, that was supposed to illustrate the origin and completion of the fictional description adopting the world-formula of Totality Universe and Archetype, applying quantum logic.

Identity and Individuality of Derivative Fictions -- continued

In the movie Peter Pan, Wendy will also play an important role in the rest of the story. As a final grace for the dying, Wendy asks Hook for permission to give her precious “thimble” to Peter. Wendy lies alongside to Peter on the deck and talks to him.

Peter. I’m sorry I must grow up. But this is yours.

The kiss-thimble exchange description introduced through the conversation between Wendy and Peter, at the beginning of the film, was supposed to serve as an underplot for deceiving Hook in this climactic scene. Hook arrogantly allows Wendy to give her “thimble” to Peter.

It is just a thimble.
/ How like a girl. By all means, my beauty, give Peter Pan your precious thimble.

Wendy gives Peter her “thimble”. But John and Michael know that what Wendy is trying to give Peter is really a kiss.

This belongs to you, and always will.
/ That was no thimble. / That was her hidden kiss.

Thanks to the kiss Wendy gave him, Peter is able to regain the power he had lost. The offense and defense are reversed through Peter’s wit, and the psychological battle that cleverly exploits the effects of melancholy and despair that Hook started, becomes a make-believe game that focuses on the melancholy that restrains the mind of a reflexive, self-conscious educated person ingrained in Hook himself, who introduced this tactic. And at the end of the battle, the materialization of the phenomenon by consciousness is supposed to dominate everything. It is a result of transformation trial of Hook’s self-consciousness, described in an inverted picture.

I have won! / You are old. / But I won! / Old. And alone. / Alone. No! I won! I won! I… / Done for. / Happy thoughts. Happy thoughts. Ripping! Killing! Killing! Choking! Lawyers! Dentists!

In his predicament, Hook thinks of various atrocities and struggles to come up with something that will restore his sense of pleasure. However, all that comes to his mind at this point is pain and suffering. Unlike Peter, Hook has a sober self-consciousness that demands him objectively look at himself just as he is.

Old! Alone! Done for! / Killing! Pus! Chidren’s blood! Puppy’s blood! Bunny’s Blood. Disease! / Old! Alone! Done for! / Kittens dashed on spikes! No! Spiders, cockroaches, snakes. Venom and pox. White death. Black death! Any death! A nice cup of tea!

As a rebel who seeks to resist the regime, Hook can only think of the horrible pain he inflicts on others, as something that will bring him pleasure. However, when he finally says. “A nice cup of tea!”, his raison d’être as a traitor collapses. Hook finally accepts his own destruction as an objective fact.

Old! Alone! Done for! Old! Alone! Done for! / Old. Alone. / Done for! / Done for.

In the movie Peter Pan, the children coldly shout “Done for!”, when Hook is about to meet his end and swallowed by a crocodile after suffering a miserable defeat in the battle against Peter. Wendy, who had once been enamored by Hook, joined in on this cruel proclamation, chanting in unison with the other children. However, in the original Peter and Wendy, the hostile word of curse, “Done for!” was used by the narrating author, as a merciless summary of the children of Neverland who had returned to the real world. It is a particularly striking fact that the author’s curse is not only directed at all the children, but also on Mrs. Darling, who was once the object of the author’s preference. Let’s take a look at an interesting epilogue from the original Peter and Wendy, which was omitted from the movie Peter Pan.

All the boys were grown up and done for by this time; so it is scarcely worth while saying anything more about them.  You may see the twins and Nibs and Curly any day going to an office, each carrying a little bag and an umbrella.  Michael is an engine-driver.  Slightly married a lady of title, and so he became a lord.  You see that judge in a wig coming out at the iron door?  That used to be Tootles.  The bearded man who doesn't know any story to tell his children was once John.
Wendy was married in white with a pink sash.  It is strange to think that Peter did not alight in the church and forbid the banns.
Years rolled on again, and Wendy had a daughter.  This ought not to be written in ink but in a golden splash.
She was called Jane, and always had an odd inquiring look, as if from the moment she arrived on the mainland she wanted to ask questions.  When she was old enough to ask them they were mostly about Peter Pan.  She loved to hear of Peter, and Wendy told her all she could remember in the very nursery from which the famous flight had taken place.  It was Jane's nursery now, for her father had bought it at the three per cents. from Wendy's father, who was no longer fond of stairs.  Mrs. Darling was now dead and forgotten.


In the original Peter and Wendy, the author describes the actions of all the characters, including Mrs. Darling, by feigning aloof cynicism, but the only person whom the author is sympathizing with is actually Captain Hook, a rebel who defies the regime as a martyr of aesthetics. However, in the climax of the movie Peter Pan, the villainous captain of a pirate ship is supposed to be depicted as a comical old man who has lost everything.
However, behind the children, who were relieved to be convinced of the destruction of their menace, Hook, suddenly the voice of Hook, who should have been swallowed by a crocodile earlier, echoes.

Brimstone and gall. Silence, you dogs, or I’ll cast anchor in you.

The startled children turned around and saw that the eerie voice was Peter. For Peter, there is never a moment when he should miss an opportunity for mischief. Impressed by Peter’s usual wit, Wendy exclaims.

Oh, the cleverness of you!

However, these words of admiration uttered by the girl who is the main character were also spoken in a completely different scene in the original Peter and Wendy, and it was by Peter himself. Though Peter was able to sneak into the children’s room and finally get the shadow back, when he was sitting on the floor crying because he couldn’t put the shadow on his body, Wendy helped him and sewed the shadow to Peter’s feet with a needle and thread, and Peter involuntarily screamed thinking he had done it all by himself.

Oh, the cleverness of me!

This line was spoken by the main characters both in the original Peter and Wendy and in the movie Peter Pan, and it was directed at Peter Pan.

Identity and Individuality of Derivative Fictions -- continued

And this dramatization method is even more efficiently twisted in this derivative work, resulting in the creation of a peculiar vanishing point that determines the unique perspective of the fictional work. In response to Hook’s attempt to forcibly intervene in the middle of Wendy’s story and demand to divulge Peter Pan’s secrets, Wendy proceeds with the story.

He liked my stories. / What stories? / Cinderella. Snow White. Sleeping Beauty. / Love Stories? / Adventures in which good triumphs over evil. / They all end in a kiss. A kiss. He does feel. He feels about you. You told him stories. He taught you to fly. How? / You just think happy thoughts. They lift you into the air. / Alas, I have no happy thoughts. / That brings you down. / How else? / Fairy dust. You need fairy dust.

Wendy and Hook are trying to make a two-way reference to the fictional world, but they are actually trying to establish a future vision of their reality. Instead of Wendy, who refuses to answer Hook’s question, which is an important matter that determines the progress of the story, her brother, who feels that he is in danger, tells Hook an important secret. Thus, Wendy has allowed Peter’s enemy, Hook, to learn the secret to flying that Peter taught her. As a result, the movie Peter Pan introduces a new scene that depicts Hook’s flight, which was not described in the original story, and how the cunning tactician captain plots to gain an advantage in the battle by giving Peter a “sad feeling” that the boy never originally knew. It was Wendy’s words that gave Hook this idea, and it was Wendy’s presence that inspired him to put that idea into action.

What of Pan? Will unhappy thoughts bring him down? /He has no unhappy thoughts. / How if his Wendy walks the plank?

Shortly thereafter, during the battle with Peter, who appears on a pirate ship, Hook is bathed in Tink’s fairy dust and levitates himself in the air after Peter’s teaching. This is a new development that was not mentioned at all in the original story, but it is supposed to brilliantly illuminate the relationship between Peter and Hook, who are contrasting, but maintain a rather solid identity in their natures, centered on Wendy’s presence. This is because a plan will be carried out to pass on the melancholy that has been ingrained in Hook’s mind to Peter.(note)

note:
Please refer to the author’s article “Goodform and Reflection: Captain Hook's Melancholia”, included in Fantasy as Antifantasy; Kindai Bungei-sha, (2005), for the argument of melancholia, the chronicle disease of modern man, represented by the pirate Captain.


Freed from his melancholia for a moment, Hook calls himself in the third person and proudly declares it.

It’s Hook! He flies! And he likes it.

In this way, Hook unravels the “riddle of Peter’s existence” in his own way, which has been pending for many years, and grasps the clue to the strategy of defeating this difficult enemy.(note)

note:
In the original novel, Peter’s “riddle of existence” formed an important theme. Peter was described by the author as something akin to the peculiar expression on the faces of unmarried women and young mothers. It is a description that implies that the discourse, which was regarded as a kind of figurative expression, has acquired substantiality, and has embodied in a unique existence endowed with its own will and peculiar physicality. It is an essential attribute of Peter Pan that can be regarded as the product of an ideological play belonging to an abstract speculation, or as a crystallization of a dangerous fancy that barely asserts its implication only in the ideation space. If we solve the riddle by integrating other suggestive descriptions and applying a modern picture based on the idea of quantum theory, we can obtain the solution as “a shadow generated by polarization from Captain Hook, an educated man who is a slave of reflective self-consciousness.”


In the psychological warfare employed by Hook, Wendy’s presence and the storytelling mechanism are to be skillfully utilized. Hook tries to develop this innovative tactic he gained to make it even more effective against Peter. Hook then tells Peter the story in which Wendy plays an important role.

I know what you are. / I am the best there ever was. / You are a tragedy. / Me? Tragic? /She was leaving you, Pan. Your Wendy was leaving you. Why should she stay? What have you to offer? You are incomplete. She’d rather grow up than stay with you. Let us now take a peep into the future. What’s this I see? ‘Tis the fair Wendy. She’s in her nursery. The window’s shut.

Hook introduces the narrative element of the story into the final battle that should be put to rest on the long-standing feud with Peter. The mechanism of accepting thoughts that come to mind in a dream as facts as they are, is the very world of make-believe, which is Peter’s specialty. Hook, who launches a clever mental attack on Peter’s vulnerability, uses the phrase “Let's take a peep into the future” describing Wendy’s virtual appearance as an adult who abandoned Peter. This descriptive invention he adopted, as expected, would have a profound effect on his foe. However, this very memorable line was uttered by Wendy herself, not Hook, in the original Peter and Wendy, in a completely different scene. Wendy’s line “Let’s take a peep into the future” was used to describe themselves in the story after growing up, in the children’s underground house playing the role of the mother of the Lost Boys.

“Let us now,” said Wendy, bracing herself up for her finest effort, “take a peep into the future”; and they all gave themselves the twist that makes peeps into the future easier. “Years have rolled by, and who is this elegant lady of uncertain age alighting at London Station?”


In the movie Peter Pan, the depiction of the final battle between Hook and Peter on the pirate ship will be completely different from the original Peter and Wendy. It’s a psychological battle intellectually promoted by Hook, an implementation of the game of make-believe told through dialogue.

I’ll open it! / I’m afraid the window’s barred. / I’ll call out her name. / She can’t hear you. / No. / She can’t see you. / Wendy. / She’s forgotten all about you. / Stop. Please! Stop it! / And what is this I see? There is another in your place. He is called husband.

Convinced of his victory, through tactics thanks to Wendy’s revelatory information, Hook triumphantly gives Peter an ultimatum.

You die alone and unloved. Just like me.

Hook’s declaration of victory is also an acknowledgement of the identity of the enemy to be defeated with himself to be the winner. This is a brilliant reversal of Hook’s final defeat scene in the original Peter and Wendy. In the original story, Hook receives a revelation in his final moments that divulges both Peter’s identity and the riddle of his existence. It was the fact that Peter is no other than the shadow of Hook, himself generated as a result of polarization, and it led to the harsh realization that Hook would never have the chance to be united with his inner self and that he would have no choice but to accept his spiritual ruin as his destiny. The following description reveals the intense subject of the original novel.

Hitherto he had thought it was some fiend fighting him, but darker suspicions assailed him now. “Pan, who and what art thou?” he cried huskily. “I'm youth, I’m joy,” Peter answered at a venture, “I’m a little bird that has broken out of the egg.” This, of course, was nonsense; but it was proof to the unhappy Hook that Peter did not know in the least who or what he was, which is the very pinnacle of good form.



The obstruction of the psyche, which has trapped him in a somber self-consciousness and will not affirm him any good form, is the basic condition of the identity that defines the personality of Hook, and at the same time, it is the cause of the generation of the inexplicable mystery that is Peter.