Comma Down...

Yet

another

wonderful

example

of

the

power of punctuation.

A similar dilemma:
It's Maddening...

DISenchanted? Gracious No!

Well, if you haven't already heard, Disney is moving forward with a sequel to Enchanted.

I loved Enchanted, as is evident in this post. But even as much as I loved those characters and situations... I don't think I need more of them. Let it stay nicely packaged and pefect. It seems a shame to create more havoc for all the happy endings there, doesn't it?

But I've love to be proven wrong in this case... perhaps it's of the Pixar caliber and they've been able to take it to the next logical level. They're striving to reassemble the original cast, so there's some hope. And after all, Giselle would want us to have hope!

A Day for Pans (Again)

Not to be repetitive, but ditto on this post for today.

It's hard to believe he's 21, isn't it?

Now he's reached Michael Pan, too.

DISappointedNEY

Well, I've been thwarted by Disney.

Production is underway for

Jake and the Never Land Pirates.

It's an animated show for preschoolers about the title character and his pirate friends who emphasize team work. They'll be outwitting Captain Hook and Smee. (Insert "SIGH" here.)

Once again Hook is made out to be a bumbler, which is a real pity. (Oh well, I guess there's something to be said about keeping consistent with their own version.)

One of the other pirate kids is named Cubby. Seriously, what is it with Disney and this name? ("Cubby" had been a Mousekeeter as well as the replacement name of one of the Lost Boys in their animated movies. [Curly])

It's not just the comedization [to coin a word] of Hook that is getting my goat... but the name Jake.

You see, that happens to be my favorite name and I am using it in Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between. And not for a minor character either. "My" Jake is a rather important boy who factors quite heavily into the riddle of Pan's past. WHY did they have to name THEIR character Jake in association with the Neverland?

So, I put forth to anyone who cares to comment (and please don't do so anonymously - be creative):
Should I be 'worried' about my character Jake in the Neverland being forever hereafter associated with this new Disney character?

[GEE, I love being paranoid!]

Thanks and Thinkings

I may have already done so, but it bears repeating:

I want to thank those whose discussions, comments and/or "point outs" have helped in the writing of Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between.

Most notably are reader/commenter Anon and Andrea Jones, author of Hook & Jill.

Tidbits here and there have worked their way into story, making it not only better but much more exciting for me to compose.

Still going well. In fact, yesterday I had another instance of a scene appearing on the page for which I don't feel I may claim responsibility. Peter Pan and some fairies took hold of my pen (er... keyboard) and soon I had a fun incident with a great image, providing just what had been needed as a transition into the next part (where I did know what would happen.) I never tire of this phenomenon.

I've already exceeded the length of Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens (approx. 21,850 words.) I'm currently around 31,690 words. Since I've thrown out a set of characters and their scenes (which would only convolute the already fantastical tale) and I've gotten further along, I am wondering at what length this story will turn out to be. I don't have a sense of that yet - especially when the characters are taking the reins! I did have this thought, though: Perhaps it shoud be a word count which would be (ahem!) betwixt-and-between Barrie's two tales about Pan. Peter and Wendy weighs in at circa 47,190. The median would then be (Good grief! Math! Argh!) 34,520. Well, the dream of it being exactly in-between lengths must vanish, for I don't feel as if I can tell the rest of this story in only 3000 words. But I shall at least try to keep it under Peter and Wendy. Then again, that would technically classify it as a novella. Not that it matters, as Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens is a novella (when dealt with separately from The Little White Bird.) Just a lame lament that it wouldn't actually be a "book." I'll just keep going, and see what happens...

The Excitement Overshadowed

It's GROUNDHOG DAY!

Uh... wait, should we even be excited?


Is this not one of the strangest "celebrations" ever?

My mother always asked how it could NOT see its shadow what with all the media lights and circus surrounding it, to say nothing of being scared back into its burrow regardless of catching sight of it. And me? I'd always thought how ridiculous it all seemed, especially when the groundhog most likely must be roused for the occasion (i.e. as if it acutally awoke on that date every year like clockwork [especially when the calendar is screwy anyway].)

Are we this desperate for entertainment or for the Winter to end?

Talk about concocting stories, eh?

Groundhog Day Wiki [Be sure to scroll down to "Groundhog Day in popular culture"]


Now... where else have I seen a shadow playing a major part in a story? ;)

Suspension Strength Speculation

In my previous post about Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium, I mentioned I wanted to bring up another topic related to it.

Let me start by saying that I do not have an answer or a decision on this issue. (Which is kind of funny, given what it’s about.) I’m just bringing it up for discussion, as it were. I’d love to be able to figure it out, but alas, I have not yet been able to do so. Any theories you’d like to present would be great.

I don’t mean to be picking on this movie. As I have said, I enjoyed it as a fun flick. It’s just that this issue came to me once again while watching it, so I’ll be using it as an example.

The problem, in a nutshell, is exposition. Or in another term: explanation.

It would rather appear that Mr. Magorium is a magical entity. He says to another character (Henry Weston [Jason Bateman]): I've been inventing toys since the 1770's. Weston then calculates: You know, that would make you at least 240 years old, sir. Besides his longevity, Magorium seems to have other magical powers at his disposal - or at least is surrounded by magic: objects (toys) and doors/rooms of the shop. It’s quite delightful - except for one bit. I’d like to know the wherefore of it all.

Now, it certainly could be (and probably is) just me. For I asked Bart (who also enjoyed it but didn’t deem it stellar either) and he said that he didn’t mind not knowing about Mr. Magorium. He took him at face value, as some sort of magical being, and that’s that. That’s fine, it can (and for some) does work as such. But not for me. At least…not here.

What’s interesting is that there have been similar cases in other stories where not having some sort of explanation of a character’s attributes or abilities didn’t bother me at all. A very good example is Willy Wonka. He’s got a “magical thing” going on - as well as the longevity factor. I never wanted to question it - he’s Willy Wonka, damnit. You’ll also find a post in which I say that in Burton’s version of it I am put off by the addition of an explanation of sorts (i.e. a backstory.) I even got into a discussion about it with someone in the commentary. I should state, however, that Burton’s “past” for Wonka doesn’t give an explanation of his magical qualities. So that bewonderment is intact.

So the question is: Why am I readily able to accept Willy Wonka’s oddity but not Mr. Magorium’s?

One explanation (HA!) might be that I first viewed Willy Wonka as kid. Had I been less discriminating as a child? A good theory, but I don’t think that’s it. For I’d been the type of kid who found the plot holes. I still am. [Incidentally, I wrote a novel based on a particular fairy tale, spawned out of the plot holes I wanted to fix as a kid.] And yet… sometimes, it just doesn’t concern me. Take for instance, the beloved character with whom I am all too familiar: Peter Pan. As a kid I’d been fascinated by and accepting of the nonsensical in it. I’m STILL willing to suspend my disbelief (rather interesting choice of words for that story) however - it should be obvious at this point that I’m also “concerned” about it. After all, I’m writing a novel that helps explain some of its mysteries. By the same token, I am not trying to eliminate the mysterious either. I’m working within the boundaries of what’s established by Barrie to do it. A betwixt-and-between of rational and irrational elements.

I also recently posted about Disney’s Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty. I talk about how she’s just a bad egg, inherently evil for the sake of it - and somehow… somehow this is okay in that particular story. Usually when a character is evil “just because” it does not make for a good tale. Villains are “people,” too… and in general we need to know what makes them tick. How is Maleficent so charming and perfect just the way she is without having to know why?

Back to Mr. Magorium. As I also mentioned in the first post, the movie is written and directed by Zach Helm. Now, in another of his works [also mentioned prior], Stranger Than Fiction, we are expected to swallow the idea that a character and author are linked in the real world. Inexplicably. And yet… I not only swallow it, I eat it up with a spoon. Okay, this one might be able to be chalked up to the fact that I often tell people I “talk” to characters. But even so, it’s a fancilfully written story, and it works, sans explanation. Case in point, I found a “hole” in that story that readily has a self-contained solution. I’d been bothered by that hole until I figured out how it’s not one at all… but still, there remains no reason given why the aforementioned “link” occurs. It just does. And I’m fine with it. Interesting, since both of these stories are written by the same man.

So I put forth: When and why does “it just is” work? What makes an explanation moot? Is it the quality of the rest of the tale? Is it a compelling enough characterization? What’s the tensile strength of disbelief when stretched?

Does anyone else fall victim to this sometime-curiosity?