Talk:The Little White Bird

merge proposal for Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens
For reference, there is an article merge proposal here: Talk:Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens --Linda 07:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

sequel or adaption or...
Regarding this edit summary in the article history:

04:21, 2 December 2007 (the play and novel were sequels to TLWB, not adaptations) -

This is something that would need a reference to support it. I have not seen any authors refer to Peter and Wendy (the novel), or Peter Pan, or the Boy Who Would Not Grow Up (the play) as a "sequel" to Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens. They are related mostly by the presence of the Peter Pan character, and the structural plot device of a short segment in London followed by a longer story in a fantasy world, followed by a short return to London. Other than Peter Pan, the characters and settings are different and there is no consistent backstory that connects the two stories. For example, in Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens, the narrator says that Peter Pan never ages, yet in Peter and Wendy, Peter Pan is portrayed as several years older. There are many more examples.

There is clearly a literary progression between the stories, but they are not sequels and also are not adaptations. (The later novel is however, an adaptation of the play, as stated by references).

Either way though, it's not up to us to decide, we can only describe the relationship between the stories as it is reported by references. If we don't have the references, all we can say is that the later stories include literary development of the character of Peter Pan, the boy who would not grow up, introduced in the earlier story; and his adventures with human children in a fantasy world. To go beyond that and call it a sequel or adaptation, we would need references to support that idea. --Linda 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're correct that "sequel" isn't the right word. My point was to correct the implication in the article that TLWB was simply an earlier version of the story in the play. I didn't call it a "sequel" in the article itself, and I think it's a bit much to ask for footnotes to comments made only in edit summaries.  Whether the two stories are mutually compatible is in fact a valid subject for debate; the continuity differences are arguably no greater than those between the original Star Trek pilot and Enterprise. :) - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Later work(s) – unclear
The closing paragraph, whose subject is the lightly revised extract Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens (1906):
 * Although sometimes described as a prelude or (less correctly) prequel to the play and novel about Peter Pan, there are inconsistencies between the two. Most significant is the character of Peter Pan himself, who is said to be only seven days old, and there isn't "the slightest chance of his ever having [a birthday]"; in the later work his physical age is never specified, except that he has his baby teeth and is portrayed as if he were school age.

The play was earlier, the novel later, and together they make three not two. We do say earlier, of the 1904 play in contrast to the 1902 novel and original PP, "The later version of the character has been the basis of all popular adaptations and expansions of the material."

If all subsequent works --except 1906, which was only a lightly-revised extract of 1902-- do simply follow the 1904 play in all respects under discussion, we should repeat that in the closing section and say something like "there are inconsistencies between the 1904 play and the 1902/1906 material".

By the way, it isn't clear whether Barrie participated in this 1906 revised publication of extracts. I tagged it [clarification needed]. --P64 (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The play and novel are one story (in two formats), written later than the story found in LWB and PPIKG. I've revised the article to state it more clearly.
 * JMB was certainly involved in the publication of PPIKG. The changes to the text were trivial, just enough to allow the excerpt to stand on its own without referring to the surrounding story. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)