the descendants. kaui hart hemmings.

i picked up kaui hart hemmings' "the descendants" at the beale library book sale for $1.  i am not one for movie cover books but figured for a $1, i'll give it a go. i am glad i did.

i didn't see "the descendants" the movie in theaters but i wanted to, especially after all of the awards it won.  i did see it a couple of weeks ago and loved it.  i was surprised by how sad it was, i was in tears at the end.  the trailer was misleading making it seem like a comedic drama with clooney running to his friends house and the little sister in the older sister's underwear.  but it wasn't.  but it was still a wonderful movie and i couldn't wait to read the book.

and of course the book did not disappoint.  it gave more depth to the story and characters but the movie was a great adaption and did the book justice.  i will add that i enjoyed the added bonus of reading it in george clooney's voice since he played matt king.  and random little note, loved how in the book, scottie wore a mrs. clooney shirt which matt did not understand.  i wish they put that in the movie.

of course like any book turned film, i enjoyed the book more, primarily because i enjoyed king's narrative.  he was witty, wise, and utterly clueless at time about how to get his life together.  he was so honest about life, family and love that his faults were endearing instead of tragic.  i enjoyed reading about his dealing with his daughters.  i'm not parent but it must difficult to raise kids today.  i found it sweet yet comedic    how he read up on the blogs and googled for the best child-rearing/dealing with teens methods.  i can imagine myself doing this as a parent and hope that most parents do because let's face it, all parents are clueless.  kids don't come with instruction manuals. he wanted to give his daughters the best and though his methods were odd ie the banana game, letting alex smoke and teaching scottie how to flip off people; he wasn't the worst parent or guardian, i have ever read about. 

 

though i will add that i was worried about scottie.  she just seemed too mature for her age.  i don't know if it was due to her older sister alex or the fact that kids nowadays are exposed to too much sex.  but i was shocked by what came out of her mouth.   i have a 10 year old brother and can not imagine him knowing or saying anything that scottie did.  it was sad that she though she was 10, she wasn't really a child.  i also worried about scottie's desperation for a good story.  her man-o-war story was unbelievable and scary, but then again she had a mother that demanded attention and can lead one to be delusional about life.  i felt bad but was grateful that matt was on track to giving her a more stable environment.

a character i liked more in the books was sid.  i did enjoy reading about his stoner philosophic ramblings in the car but there was a lot more depth to him than in the movie.  we discover that though his father had died he saw it as a blessing because his father had molested his friend.  his ability to forgive his dead father is one of the factors that helps matt forgive his wife for cheating.  even as young as he is, he understands you can't hate the dead but you also can not be ignorant of how they really were.   as a result, in the novel, it is sid that contacts brian's wife to tell her what happen.

it's interesting because though he seemed like silly stoner kid, sid really did help matt through all of this tough time.  what an unlikely source for wisdom on life and death but he provided it.

in the end, matt forgave his wife for her infidelity and was ready to begin a new chapter with his daughters.  i won't go into anything more because hopefully you have seen the movie.  if not, you should and definitely check out the book.

i will add this novel totally made me wish i was in hawaii.  it also gave me a craving for malasadas.  

   

the impossible lives of greta wells. andrew sean greer. (128)

a week after learning about "life after life" by kate atkinson, i received an email from barnes and noble (i think) highlighting "the impossible lives of greta wells" which was also about a woman living multiple lives.  i figured maybe quasi-reincarnation was the new literary trend so decided to check it out.

(*i really enjoyed this book and if you haven't read it, stop here and go read it.  this is your spoiler alert if you decide to continue on.)

i have to start off by sharing that it is nothing like "life after life", while ursula would die and return to the same life, greta time-travelled to her own life in a different era.  we meet greta in 1985, her twin brother, felix, had just died of AIDs, her lover left her because she had neglected him and due to these events, she fell into a depression.  to treat her depression, greta begins electroconvulsive therapy (a milder form of electric shock therapy).  it is through these electriconvulsive treatments that she time-travels to 1918 and 1945.  greta discovered that she always travels in sequence and as a result of the other gretas having the same treatment.

1985 greta was not exactly in the greatest state of mind prior to the treatment and time-traveling must be overwhelming and scary.  however, greta discovered that her 1985 family and friends are her family and friends in 1918 and 1945.  and of course, she is always greta.  also, luckily for greta, her eccentric aunt ruth (who i absolutely loved) had a open mind in 1918 and 1985, and believed greta was time-traveling and became her confidant.  the stress of time traveling was less because greta time-travelled to familiar settings.

in 1918, greta's twin brother, felix, came back from the dead, figuratively.  her aunt ruth is still has wild as ever, filled with that fitzgerald-esque flair for partying.  and her lover, nathan, that left here in 1985, is her husband but he is away at war.  she also has a lover, leo.

in 1945, greta's twin brother, felix, is a live and married with a child.  her aunt ruth is dead. ruth died in an accident, at the fault of greta, and greta's treatment is a result of the trauma from the accident.  nathan is her husband and they have a child named for her brother, felix.

it appears that all three gretas are leading very different lives but actually their lives are very similar, the only real difference is the era they live in.

for example, greta's brother is gay in all three eras. in 1985, felix was out and had a partner, alan.  in 1944, he was married with a son but was seeing alan on the side.  it was sad to see them having to masquerade their love with a friendship but at least they were able to be together.  then, felix was caught in a gay bar and as a result his wife leaves him.  in 1918, felix was a bachelor and about to marry a senator's daughter.  greta attempted to set up alan and felix by having them meet at a party like they did in 1945.  however, her scheming was pointless because they had already met.  it made my heart smile when greta realized because it proved felix and alan's love to be true because they always found each other in every era.  sadly though, because it was 1918, their affair was brief and alan ended things.  

i appreciated greer's representation of homosexuality as something innate and not the product of a time period.  how often, homosexuality is painted as a modern epidemic when homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time.  it was heartbreaking yet inspiring to see felix's changing attitudes towards his sexuality.  in 1918, he is ashamed and full of self hate but in 1985, he is out and proud, demonstrating that it is and will get better.  the only thing that i found frustrating was 1985 greta's desire to force her brother out of the closet in 1918 and 1945.  even though she was accepting of his sexuality, he had not accepted it.  and in all my years of being the straight girl BFF to gay boys, i have learned you have to let people come out when they are ready and simply shower them with your support when they do.  

the lives of greta were also tainted by infidelity.  1985 and 1945 nathans were both unfaithful to greta, proving once a cheater, always a cheater.  however, in 1918, it is greta that has the affair with a younger man named leo.  granted it is 1985 greta that eventually slept with leo, it is quite obvious that 1918 greta loves him because she searched for him in 45 and 85.  as a reader, i kept on wondering why 1985 greta didn't seek him out in 1985, he was so in love with greta, maybe he was her true love not nathan.  also 1918 leo gave me some insider scoop on new york.  leo took greta to a secret chamber in the washington square arch!  (i googled to see if it was true and it is!  if you want to read more here is a curbed post.)  but it was interesting to note that nathan and greta's relationship was plagued by infidelity.  i have never been in a relationship in which someone cheated on me so i can't speak from experience, but i can imagine it is easier to cope with infidelity if it's an inevitable part of your relationship versus your failure as a partner.  i am not trying to let cheaters off of the hook, i think individuals need to be honest about their lost of feelings but i do feel that greer is trying to demonstrate that some relationships are just doomed.  

since greta's electrotherapy sessions were not forever, greta's time traveling had a deadline.  she was only having 12 procedures and the 12th procedure would restore all of the gretas to their correct era.  but with a interesting twist of fate, 1985 greta decided to stay in 1918.  granted, her love affair with leo did result in her being pregnant with his child, and nathan was very much aware of it.  nathan attempted to make greta and the unborn child sick and as a result, 1985 greta as 1918 greta leaves nathan.  so it makes sense that 1985 greta decided to stay in 1918, she had created a world in which she was only greta equipped to survive.  1918 greta, after leaving nathan (something 1918 would have never seem fathomable), was a single mother and 1985 greta was the only one thanks to her era was capable of the independence required.  furthermore, in 1918 she had her brother felix and her aunt ruth.  consequently, 1945 greta stayed in 45 where she would live happily ever after with nathan and 1918 greta would stay in 1985 where she could seek out her one true love, leo. that clever greta even hunted him down!  

i was shocked at first for the novel ending this way but realized it made sense and couldn't end any other way.  life is too fluid for our self identities to be so stagnant.  we sometimes fail to see the many selves that we have.  as a gemini, i have always felt like i have multiple selves for example the krisha i am with my friends is not the same one that my co-workers see or even my family.  but there are traits that are very much me, just like all the gretas were alike but not alike.  

as greer wrote:

perhaps one day they will invent a camera to capture the fleeting self--not the soul, but the self---!: we can truly see how we were on any particular day and mark the shifting of lives we lead that we pretend belongs to one person alone.  why is it impossible to believe:  that we are many headed as monsters, as many armed as gods, as many hearted as the angels?

we do have multiple lives that belong to different people.  it makes us all sound like we have disorder but in actually it's how we survive.  in order to make our impossible lives possible we have to grow as an individuals and become the best person for whatever life throws at us.  just as greta did.  (granted she had time travel to aid her with her mission.)

before i close i also have to share this wonderful quote:

morning had awakened like a girl in a tantrum who will wear nothing but her party dress, and unseasonal warmth spread over things.

i just loved that simile!

oh and one last note, read on huffington post that madge just got the movie rights for this book!  i am not one for novels to movies but madge did call him personally! how cool!!

hello i must be going.

i forgot what i was watching but when i saw a preview for "hello i must be going" i had to see it. i've been a fan of melanie lynsky ever since she played the adopted mother of those "sound of music" singing kids in "away we go". there is something sweet and likable about her. but what i was most excited was that charlie from "girls" was in it! (random "girls" note but amy's (lynsky) brother looked oddly familiar, i imdb-ed him . . . and it was jessa ex! the one she sexed with shosh still in the room!) since i didn't see it in theater, i checked it out.

the film is about amy, a thirtysomething divorcee. her world has fallen apart due to mentioned divorce. she moved back home and when we mert her, hasn't left the house in 3 months (ridiculous and sad). but things change when she meets jeremy (aka charlie!). he's nineteen and her dad's potential business partner's stepson. they hang out and have sex and eventually fall in love. and from
their secret relationship, amy learns a valuable lesson about love and jeremy learns how to live for himself and do what he wants in life. it's sweet.

the film has a great supporting cast. my favorite was jeremy's mom, who is a psychologist so is open to everything. she believes that her son is gay, though he isnt. and when she finds amy and jeremy skinny dipping buys the story that is a firm of therapy. it's silly but would be nice to have such a support parent though at time she is naive.

there was also a great analogy about love. amy's old high school friend tells her “love isn’t a prize you get at the carnival for squirting water in a clown’s face the longest. if someone loves you, they just love you. love just happen." at the time it seem profound as a future thirtysomething looking for love it's comforting to think love not as a reward for your hard work. but more as something that will just happen. but love is work so i kinda don't agree with it though i think love at first is random but love in a relationship requires work. oh and i love when amy drunkenly butchers this analogy by telling her mother, "it’s not like coming in the clowns face at a carnival.” lol

also the soundtrack was amazing. it was all music by laura veir and the saltbreakers. check her out.

and check out the movie, it was a grand jury selection at sundanese. and also hot sex scenes with charlie! who can say no??!?!

ps the title comes for a groucho marx song. amy and her dad used to watch his films late at night when she was a kid.

palo alto. james franco. (127)

i read online that james franco was doing a fundraiser, kinda like kickstarter but not, to turn his collection of short stories, "palo alto" into a movie.  

before i go on, quick rant about celebrities doing kickstarters.  seriously?!?! doesn't the general public give you enough money by watching your movies and tv shows?  i mean don't you already get paid a ridiculous amount of money for acting yet you are begging common folk for money?  fund your own projects, you can afford it!

back to "palo alto", though i didn't agree with his fundraising, i was excited about reading his work.  i admire his acting and he seems to be pretty intelligent and cultured.  he did go to UCLA and he sat with marina abramovic during her piece "the artist is present" (he was featured in the doc).  so i had pretty high expectations for his writing, but his fundraiser should have been a red flag.

i mean it did seem odd that james franco would have to do a kickstarter with all of his hollywood success but this collection of stories was horrible.  so bad that its no wonder he couldn't find anyone in hollywood to back it, you would have to be an idiot to.  it was bad.  it was like a sad attempt to be "jesus' son" but whereas denis johnson has talent and a way with words, franco has nothing.

i mean i knew it was going to be horrible after reading the first line of the first story, "halloween":

ten years ago, my sophomore year in high school, i killed a woman on halloween.

i swear to god, i am not making this up.  that was the first line.  it reminded me of that "girls" episode when hannah goes to the reading for her old professor and she reads that poorly-written and forced story about her online boyfriend dying.  and her first line is about him dying and she doesn't get a reaction so she repeats the line about him dying assuming people didn't catch it the first time.  so embarrassing.  in my head, i imagined franco repeating "killed" for a reaction and for effect.  

so that line set the tone for the rest of the stories and after that i couldn't take anything seriously.  everything felt forced.  i know what franco was trying to write, he wanted to create some great beat manifesto for generation y but sadly didn't come close.  i mean franco did capture the pretentious ignorance of gen y hipsters.  it was shocking yet lacked any real depth or edge.  it was all self-righteous intensity, kinda like hipsters.  franco's characters were soulless druggies yet would namecheck kerouac, faulkner, and hemingway.  it was as if the mention of their names would result in literary greatness, instead franco just came off like a wannabe beat.

his characters were  bad people, i was disgusted by everything i had read in  the story.  they were bad just for the shock value versus finding a deeper truth.  it was full of lines that i am sure franco wanted his readers' minds to explode as they read but everything was overdone and cliché.

franco's stories were filled with bad stereotypes as well.  the second story is the tale of girl who is . . . good at math!  what girls can't be good at math?!?!  or the slutty asian girl who will love you long time.  there was also a lot of half breeds and even a mormon.  but a mormon who knows nothing about scriptures (mormons, even the bad ones can discuss scriptures).  and just way too many bat shitty crazy boys with too much time and drugs on their hands.

and i mean i get wayward youth, i enjoyed "a clockwork orange" and "trainspotting".  i revered sal paradise.  but there was nothing enjoyable or enlightening about the reckless youth of "palo alto".  it was so bad that i now have a better appreciation for "jesus' son".

but i will add i did enjoy one thing.  i genuinely enjoyed franco's mention of the children books author bill peet.  i actually checked out a handful of his books because they are alluded to in a story.  though i did not believe anyone would let a druggie do service hours at a library.  

but in the end, i am glad i read "palo alto" because now i won't waste my money to help fund a film version or pay for a movie ticket to see it.

the composition. antonio skármeta and alfonso ruano. (123)

i came across "the composition" by antonio skármeta in a flavorpill post about great multicultural books for kids.  after reading the synopsis, i had to check it out.

"the composition" is the story of a young boy, pedro, growing up in chile which is under a dictatorship.   at first pedro, due to his age, was naïve about what is occurring in his country.  his primarily concern is playing soccer (as should be fore a kid).  one day he witnessed the father of his friend daniel being arrested.  when pedro asked why he was arrested, daniel responses that his father was against the dictatorship.  pedro did not understanding what that meant and daniel explained it to him. 

once home,  pedro relayed the story to his father and being a kid is excited about the prospect of getting free candy now that his friend is in charge of the store.  then pedro asked his father if he was against the dictatorship, his father nodded yes.  then he asked his dad, if he , pedro, was against it.  pedro's mother responded that no kids were kids and they had important responsibilities like going to school and being good.  pedro then begins to realize what is going on.

the next day at school, a captain came to pedro's school to run an essay contest about what their family does at night.  pedro was slow to start and talked to a boy next to him.  he asked the boy if he was against the dictatorship to which the boy responded "of course." and discovered that that boy's father was taken away as well.  pedro then wrote his essay.  this part reminded me of "1984" and how it was the children who became the worse enemy.  it is sad to think how the dictatorship attempted to turn their children against their parents.

weeks passed and pedro came home with his essay.  he told his parents about the contest which made them uneasy. i myself was also scared that pedro wrote about his parents listening to the radio at night.  pedro read his essay and he made up a story about his family playing chess.  to which is father responded that they needed to get a chess set.

just as it was described in flavorpill, it was serious and edgy.  i find it interesting in the sense that as a children's books, it questions something that kids should have blind faith in, the government.  yes, children should respect authority figures but they should also be aware of the fact that the government may not always for the rights.

at the end, antonio skármeta explained dictatorships in a short essay.  i thought it was a good inclusion so that kids could truly understand what they had read about.  and maybe it's in the historian in me but i think this is an important read and a discussion point to have with kids, so that they are better aware of the world they live in.

one last note, it was kind of kismet that I had this book because i recently watched "no" and googled because both were about dictatorships in chile. and i discovered that the author, antonio skármeta, wrote a play, "el plebiscito" which "no" was based on.  if you haven't seen it yet, you should see "no", you should check it out.

the lorax (125) and scrambled eggs super (126). dr. seuss.

brother bear checked these out for summer reading and since i never read them, decided to read them with him.

i know, how horrible that i never read "the lorax".  i am pretty sure one of my elementary teachers read it to me but i never read it on my own.  i knew the gist of it (even prior to the movie) and acknowledge that is is an important read for kids.  after reading it, i wished that i had a seed for my brother to plant due to the ending but alas, i didn't.

dr. suess was quite the prophet.  i mean preaching about our responsibility for the planet's survival decades before the green movements of today.  it is also quite anti-capitalism, against the abuse of limited natural resources.  i mean i don't know much about dr. seuss' politics other than he drew political cartoons and was racist (he was against asian immigration in the 40's) so not sure of what hidden messages may be in this story.  but regardless, I think it is important for all kids to learn that "unless" they care for the planet, no one else will and will destroy the planet and will no longer have a home.

dr. seuss's seems like a swell guy for putting out this message but when you juxtaposition it with "scrambled eggs super!", it is almost like he is a different guy!  granted "the lorax" came out about 20 years after "scrambled eggs super" so dr. seuss was more earth conscious.

"scrambled eggs super!" is the story of a young boy, peter t. hooper, who created an amazing meal he called "scrambled eggs super-dee-dooper-dee-bopper, special de luxe à-la-peter t. hooper".  one tuesday, peter t. hooper was about to make scrambled eggs when he thought to himself, how boring to have scrambled eggs using common hen eggs, so he goes hunting for eggs from unique birds. if you know me, i personally am all for this book! i will eat anything and everything based on its uniqueness.  peter t. hooper and i would totally be the best of food friends.

however, when juxtaposition with "the lorax", i am pretty sure the lorax would not agree with what peter t. hooper was doing.  i mean those unique birds had to be on some endangered species list so peter is essentially a poacher.  he did call people to get his eggs for him (like a poacher).  all of these eggs gathered from around the world so one kid can have scrambled eggs is excessive.  the lorax would not approve.

but seriously, i am not that person to be concern about the rights of animals that i eat.  at the heart of it, "scrambled eggs super" is a delightful read and my inner fat kid loves it!!!

peter pan. j.m. barrie. (124)

before i start, i have to say this is a horrible cover.  what was borders thinking?!?!?  i doubt this cover was cool back in 2003 when it was published.  i mean who were they targeting then?  tween nickelback or creed fans? i mean seriously?!? that hot topic tink shirt.  this cover was so horrible, i was embarrassed to check it out and looked for a better cover.  however, i checked out this one because it was the expanded version.

with the occurrence of my 30th birthday, i kept on alluding to my peter pan syndrome but having never read "peter pan", i decided that i should, to make my suffering legit.  so what the general public knows as "peter pan" (thanks to disney) is actually "peter and wendy".  i learned on wikipedia that the first appearance of peter pan was in barrie's work "the little white bird", the chapters devoted to peter were republished as "peter pan in kensington gardens".  from "the little white bird" came a play about "peter pan" and from that came "peter and wendy".  the extended version, i read had "peter and wendy", "peter pan in kensington gardens" and "the blot on peter pan". i couldn't find any information on the last one, so not sure where it came from.

random but before i go on, i have to say that thanks to the film "finding neverland", i saw the narrator as johnny depp playing j.m. barrie.  especially "the blot on peter pan" which read an autobiographical tale of barrie (i think it was).

i wish i had read "peter and wendy" as a child, well actually had it read to me.  the story is written as if the narrator is speaking directly to you.  he breaks the fourth wall and also the wall that prevents narrators from talking to characters.  my wish to have read it as a child is that as an adult i found the story quite sad.   there were clever little parts and the narrator made witty little epiphanies but even with all the tiny smiles it gave me, i was still sad.  if i was a child, i would have focused on all of the adventure and nonsense, a dog as a nanny, flying, the lost boys, the redskins and pirates, and of course i would have wanted to follow peter pan to neverland.  instead, i pitied him, how sad that he would be young and ignorant forever.

my only exposure to peter pan prior to this was the disney movie.  and i know that disney softens things up but i mean "peter and wendy" is pretty edgy for a children's story.  as child we are supposed to admire peter pan as this great adventurer but as an adult i thought he was, to borrow a direct quote from tink, a "silly ass"!  (yes tink really said that.  it was like her go-to expression).  but really peter pan was an ass, like the mean kid in school who is oddly popular.  even though i would classify peter as a jerk, the lost boys revered him.  peter was bossy, always forcing the lost boys to pretend according to his guidelines, and they just went along with what he said.  i found it quite unfair how often they would pretend to eat because he wanted to though often times they were actually hungry and needed a real meal.  i know this might make me sound like a horrible person (though i recognize he was a lowdown cheat) but i understood why captain hook hated peter because of cockiness.  i found the cockiness out of control.  peter made a handful of situations more difficult ie saving tiger lily because he let his ego get the best of him.  it was quite annoying to read.  i also could not forgive him for his absent-mindedness.  i get it, as someone who suffers from peter pan syndrome, i recognize that we are quite selfish and often only focus on ourselves but i am not as bad as peter. it was quite sad to read how he would forget about coming back for wendy for spring cleaning.  and i guess that is the point of peter pan (and also what i recognize is my flaw when it comes to relationships) peter is great for adventures but no one really wants to spend the rest of their life with him because his adventures make his life so reckless.  (seriously this just turned into a #thirtysomethingsinglegirlsproblem moment, don't worry i will save you from reading me working out my issues in this blog).

and just as i saw peter as an ass, i saw tink as a total mean girl.  she was so catty for being a fairy, i mean aren't they sweet by nature?  i remember tink being mean to wendy in the movie and perhaps i blocked out some of the things that were shown in the movie but she was horrible in the book.  for example, having the lost boys shoot her down like a bird (i think that happen in the movie), luckily that acorn saved wendy's life.  and i know that tink wasn't all that bad because she did save peter's life but she was more mischievous then she was helpful.

quicknote:  but when i saw gaga in concert, she did this whole tinkerbell thing where we had to cheer for her so she wouldn't die.  i didn't get it until i read about tinkerbell's death. i also enjoyed the audience interaction.  when i read "peter and wendy" to my future kids, i am going make them clap to save tink.

but even though i found the characters more negative than i anticipated, i felt bad for peter more than i hated him.  it made me sad to imagine the world moving on and peter staying the same.  and what makes it worse, is the fact that peter is complete ignorant that the world is progressing.  he takes wendy's daughter and granddaughter back to neverland for spring cleaning, three generations of women grow up and peter does not take any real notice of the change, just accepts the child.  it broke my heart how peter did not experience the joys and pain of growing up, he would never truly live.

but let me clarify, this was a sad read because i am now an adult.  if i read it as a child, i would have absolutely loved it.  and like i said before there were so many cute and clever parts.  for example, i loved the part when wendy tells peter that a thimble is a kiss and a kiss is a thimble.  adorable.

i also enjoyed "peter pan in the kensington gardens."  i loved how it was narrated, again like listening to a storyteller versus reading a book.  i loved finding out peter's back story.  it was quite tragic.  as a baby, peter decided to return to kensington gardens and lived with the birds and faires.  he had such a grand time that he stayed and sadly it was too long.  when peter, finally decided to return to his mother, she had given up hope and barred the window and had another son.  poor peter.  given this context you can forgive him up for his issues.

in "kensington gardens", you also get all the insider scoop.  the narrator give us a tour of the garden's highlights along with funny little anecdotes.  and the best story of the garden is that of maime, wendy's predessor, the original thimble kisser.  sorry wendy, but i loved maimie, she was more adventurous and more of wild and crazy side.  when her older brother chickened out she decided to hide and sleep in the gardens!  as a result, maime befriends the fairies and then becomes friends with peter.  she stays for a while but decided to go back home but she promised i visit peter and even gave him a goat! so peter could ride around and plan is flute.  just like his namesake, pan. 

i should add that pan was not the only allusion, for queen mab was the queen of the faires of kensington gardens.  

i really enjoyed "peter pan in the kensington gardens" but "the plot on peter" not so much.  it was a poorly written bio. it lacked all of the piazza of the first two pan stories.  barrie tried to hard to be colorful and it resulted in a pathetic narrative.

but all in all.  it was great to finally read "peter pan".  if you haven't read it, you should.  as i read, i realized that i am no longer suffering from the peter pan syndrome because i pitied peter instead of admired him.  i do want to grow up and live and not just be ignorant of the world moving on around me.  i want to grow up!