In Theaters Near You

I decided to post my inflammatory thoughts on the movie Twilight since I went to see it yesterday. I had no good reason to see this movie. I have not read the book . . . However, I am a fan of Buffy and Angel and other things of the vampiric fiction genre. Somewhat.

First, if you think Twilight is going to be anything like standard vampire fiction prepare to be disappointed. There is no garlic, holy water, stakes or coffins. In fact, it attempts to mock those ideas. I say attempts because while it did get many titters from the giggle squad (i.e. vast host of teenage girls), it was actually pretty lame in the jokes arena. Sometimes I think the giggle squad were laughing at things the rest of us did not notice. Not to criticize them. I was once a teenage girl and had impossible crushes -- Mr. Darcy -- and a need to giggle. Come to think of it, I only chuckled. Giggling is impossible for a female tenor unless I try to giggle in a falsetto. Back to the subject now. To add to the attempt to turn vampire fiction on its head our vampire -- Edward -- has shiny skin when he's in the sun. He calls himself a vegetarian because he only drinks blood from animals. Don't think too hard about that one. That's about as much background info as I can stomach to write.

Things I did not like about the movie were these:

-All of the characters were flat and impossible to know.
-It seemed the theme was a praise of obsessive love or obsession, yet the villain of the story also carried an obsession for the object of Edward's desire (Bella). Confusing? Methinks so.
-The conversations were interminable. I mean, interminable. If you look up interminable in a dictionary you will see a picture of Edward and Bella talking. Yawner.
-It m o v e d a s s l o w a s m o l a s s e s i n J a n u a r y.
-Cliche after cliche after cliche after cliche. I cannot begin to name all of the cliches.
-It was very predictable.
-Big, gaping plot holes. For example, Edward tells Bella that he can read minds, except for hers. He never explains why or even theorizes on that subject (despite the interminable conversations). Also, Edward tells Bella that he has been waiting for her for many years. The wtf of this moment is never clarified.

Things I did like:

-The soundtrack was beautiful and kept the movie flowing.
-The cinematography was gorgeous.
-The landscapes were beautiful.
-Damn good special effects for not being, well, special effects. They did not use any CG.
-It turned some of the vampire cliches on their heads in a humorous manner (by using other fantasy cliches unfortunately).
-It was enjoyable to watch but not intellectual enough for me.

In short, it's up to you if you want to see it. I am no fangirl, but I did not hate it.

All Of These Stories

I am now at 49k words. You are no doubt wondering why I have taken time off from writing my book to write a blog post. First, at 49k on Nov. 21st it's kind of obvious that I'm going to win. Second, I generally write in the evenings. I've found it's more conducive to how my mind works. In the evening I am far less likely to criticize my writing because I'm tired. At the end of the day I also feel a sense of urgency to get the words written for the day. So, essentially, I write posts in the morning and sometimes in the evening on my livejournal -- which is my official NaNo journal.

I have a lot of stories cooped up in my head. On my count I have written almost five first drafts of novels. Two of them are the first volumes of two different epics. Of course, in my mind an epic is not what it is in, say, someone like Robert Jordan's mind. My characters are not all black and white, good or evil. I like to introduce some ambiguity to make the reader think. For example in the one epic I wrote where the good guys have to destroy a nameless evil (so, so cliche) I have it so the biggest good guy of them all took the bad guy's power away from him before he was a bad guy. So, doesn't he have every right to be annoyed and try to conquer the universe? I don't know, that's for the reader to think about and for me to flesh out in the ensuing books.

This is the problem with my writing and the reason why I probably won't go as far with fantasy as I might with science fiction. Basically, the more popular fantasy novels are the ones where the good guys have to destroy the figurehead of all evil. I have only one story that does that and it's nowhere near conventional. Another example from that book is that I made the Chosen One decide to become a villain and eschew his "destiny." My one other epic is the story of a curse and how it affects the lives of the people it was placed on. It's essentially fantasy parody because I have a prophecy (or curse), a young boy going on a journey and a bad guy who is only a bad buy by accident. Then in the book I am currently working on for NaNo, well, it's not epic at all and I just decided that the good guys should kidnap the main character. So, I'm a bit nontraditional to say the least.

I started reading science fiction again just to catch up on the genre and discovered that I enjoy it more than fantasy. My science fiction is very different from any of the stuff I have read recently. The biggest difference so far is the lack of cyberpunk in my writing. I had never even conceived of such an idea before reading some cyberpunk. The thing is, it doesn't really interest me. Who cares how many strange operations a person can get and whether or not they can have a gun inside their skulls? The characters are always what interests me. That's why The Speed of Dark is my favorite work of science fiction. It's all about the characters.

That's how I try to write. I try to incorporate some themes -- not too blatantly. Then I try to center the story on the characters' personal journeys. One of my trademark moves is to have a "me character." However, the "me character" is never allowed to be the main character. It's always a supportive character. The definition of the "me character" is that this character will have one or two attributes of myself. Chaucer put himself into his works. However, he obviously did not take himself too seriously, because his "me character" was always a total idiot. I digress about digressing . . . Characters make the story, so that's what I try to focus on.

In conclusion -- because you have to have an "in conclusion" -- I have a lot of stories in my head. I wish some of them would get out on paper in a more perfect form and I could sell them to people.

Philosophy of Stories

A wise man once told me -- and I paraphrase, "Philosophy means nothing, we should just tell stories." I tend to view my life through a kaleidoscope of stories. This is why I write and this is why I wish to share some of the stories that have made me who I am. I will focus on the stories that I enjoyed before the age of 19 (that's when I went to college) in this post.

1. Horton Hatches the Egg: When I was very young I had a cassette tape that played this Dr. Seuss classic. I would listen to it every day along with my twin sister. The thing I remember most about the story is Horton's stodgy motto: "I meant what I said and I said what I meant, an elephant's faithful one hundred percent." I took that to mean exactly what it means, except that I am not an elephant. I hold myself to a very high standard of doing what I say I will do. I used to think this came about after my experiences selling puppies to deadbeats who never showed up when they said they would. Or simply because I am a Christian and want to give people a good impression of Christianity. But no, the fact is, I hold myself to that standard because a story drilled it into me at a very young age.

2. King Solomon in the Bible: You might wonder what this story had to do with me. Well, I'll tell you. One of my favorite Bible stories was the one about King Solomon's wisdom. I used to ask mom to read that to me from the picture Bible at least once a week. I took it to mean that wisdom is good, but it's difficult to come by. Strangely enough, I always understood why what Solomon did in the story about the baby and the two women who claimed it was a wise way of acting. I also understood that he lost his wisdom in certain circumstances (around attractive women, or just women). We all have weaknesses that outweigh the bounds of our wisdom. Or, rather, we are all fallen and even wisdom cannot keep us from doing stupid and wrong things. We need God's forgiveness.

3. The book of Job: I have read Job more than any other book in the Bible. It's effects on the way I live my life are multiple. First, there's Job's absolute stubbornness. He just would not curse God, and he refused to believe that the reason for his torment was his own doing. I am a stubborn person too. If you say something to me that I completely disagree with then I will not back down. I've got myself into trouble because of that. Which brings me to the next bit of Job's story that shaped the way I am. How I choose my friends. I am very picky about who I am close to. I am not exclusive, however. I will hang out and have a good time with lots of different people. I am picky, however, about who I confide in. Obviously, poorly chosen friends can have a negative effect. So I choose as wisely as I can. The third thing I learned from Job is reverence. Another term for that would be the fear of God. I have never heard God speak from a whirlwind, but I know he can. Then there is the subject of suffering. From the book of Job I learned that suffering is a part of life. You cannot get around it no matter how good you are. Some people choose to whine and complain about suffering. I try my best to accept suffering and make the most of this imperfect life. Lastly, I have the patience of Job. I kid you not.

4. Mouse Soup: My favorite book was Mouse Soup. I memorized it when I was three years old so that I could read it to myself before I knew how to read. Mouse Soup taught me that you do not have to be the biggest and the strongest in order to succeed against bigger and stronger odds. You just have to be a thinker and you have to keep going. Mouse Soup is really a Machiavellian story and it made Machiavellian principles quite clear to me at a very young age. This book also gave me an appreciation for the use of words and stories. A good story can turn a bad day around. In Mouse Soup the stories he tells save the little mouse's life. It's an extreme example, but it works.

5. Frog and Toad books: These books taught me many things about devotion, perseverance and loyalty. I would read them again and again because I so admired the friendship between Frog and Toad. To this day when I think of happiness among friends I think of Frog and Toad. I also think of those two creatures when I have bad dreams or do garden work.

6. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: Holmes is a remarkable character. Perhaps best known for the phrase, "Truth is stranger than fiction." I always laughed that a fictional character said that. The important thing I learned from Holmes was to pay attention to my surroundings. You can deduce a lot if you just take the time to observe the world around you. It took conscious effort for me to train myself to watch the world and determine the meanings of what I saw. Now it's a subconscious skill.

7. Pinocchio: Pinocchio was the first longish book that I ever read. It's really not that long actually. I adored this story from a very young age, having watched the Disney movie over and over again. But the book is so much better than the movie. People always tell me that "Pinocchio lied." My response was always, "Yeah, and he repented." His life was a long struggle of yearning. Just as my own is. He wanted to be better than he was and he could not be that of his own free will. Nothing Pinocchio did could make him into his desire to be human. Just as nothing I do will make me perfect or wash me clean of my wrongdoings. Only God's grace can do that.

Stories shaped my character and that's why I am a story teller. I'd better get back to writing my book now. What are some of your stories?

Contrast And Comparison

Recently I decided to watch my all time favorite movie, Pride and Prejudice (1995) the BBC miniseries version. I have only watched this 5 hour movie in one sitting twice in my life. The first time was post final exams my first semester freshman year. The second time was right before my colonoscopy the day that I had to consume nothing but liquids and got to drink some really nasty prescribed beverages in the evening hours. Each time I watch this movie I notice something different. And believe me, I've watched it a lot. I almost have it memorized, there's no real reason for me to keep watching it I suppose. I still find it fresh and interesting, despite these facts. I still notice something new also. I believe the BBC version is truly the best because it portrays the subtleties of the book without making them too plain. The conversation behind the conversation is almost always there. The main difference between the miniseries and the 2005 -- short -- version of Pride and Prejudice is the aspect of subtlety. The 2005 version was not able to maintain it's subtlety and thus is somewhat lacking (although the cinematography and musical score are outstanding in comparison to the 1995 BBC version). I digress.

This time watching the miniseries I noticed something that I think a lot of people miss. Most of the time I hear people talk about how wonderful Mr. Darcy is. How much he gave to win Lizzie, what a gentleman he is. Women want to marry him and men are intimidated by him. He's basically supposed to be the sexiest, most ideal man in English literature. People leave out a few important bits of the story in forming these opinions of Mr. Darcy. Specifically, I find it interesting that at the end of the movie Mr. Darcy thanks Lizzie for saving him from a life of "pride and conceit." I cannot remember if that's in the book as clearly as it is in the movie. But I think it is still important.

The fact is, I have always wondered if no one else noticed the offensive manner of Mr. Darcy's first proposal to Lizzie. Lizzie was completely in the right to chastise him the way she did. Moreover, her response to his proposal proves what a strong character she is in the story. Any other woman would have gone for Mr. Darcy for his money and prestige alone. In fact, he expected Lizzie to do just that. This expectation shows the audience that Mr. Darcy was not the ideal man after all. He was far too arrogant to realize that love might be more important to a woman in his society than money and position, or security. Yes, perhaps Lizzie was blinded by her prejudices, but she had every right to turn down that proposal even without the prejudice bit.

Speaking of Lizzie's prejudices, I find it funny that so many people are so willing to judge her on that. We all know women who have succumbed to the male sob story. Some of us have even done that. Yet we automatically think ill of Lizzie for believing Mr. Wickham. Wickham did seem sincere in his attempt to win her sympathy. Furthermore, he was not stupid enough to think that Lizzie would have run away with him like Lydia did. It is clear to me that Wickham did admire, respect and even possibly love Lizzie. The only way he could think to get her attention and goodwill was the sob story. Yes, he used her to gain a general good opinion in her town. But he obviously knew he could not actually take advantage of her. I think that he had some idea that she was the unattainable woman; the one too strong for him to get. And I think in that sense he did want her. Besides all that, how could she have known he was a liar? Mr. Darcy was too proud to make his own matters public and show the world what kind of a man Wickham was. Lizzie had only the word of the one who seemed nicer to go on. Mr. Darcy did kind of insult her in public at a ball once and made no efforts to be nice anywhere she saw him.

No, I am not saying that Lizzie is not at all to blame. It does behoove us to consider with care the stories told us about what's wrong with other people. We should assess people's actions against their words. It is best not to believe ill rumors about someone before we get to know the person. But I do find it funny that people let Mr. Darcy off so easily just because he loved Lizzie. If he had loved her so much than he should have cared enough about her not to insult all her loved ones to her face when he proposed to her. He should have bothered to get to know her and realized that she would not marry a man who she did not love and who treated her like he did.

In the end, it is clear that Lizzie's obstinacy had a good effect on Mr. Darcy. He learned to have patience and he learned to set aside his pride. Lizzie is a very strong female character, one that women can appreciate and respect, yet one who is fallible. Why is this part of the story so often overlooked?

Outdated But True

Finally, someone who does not give J.K. Rowling more credit than is her due! Here is an article about Snape -- written before the 7th book -- by Orson Scott Card. I think he makes a lot of sense. It is especially worth mentioning that he does not think Rowling intentionally inserts a lot of the themes in the Harry Potter books. Of course, he does not think most authors do that and with modern literature I would agree. Back on subject, he also points out where Harry is kind of a jerk in the books. I always wondered why no one seemed to care that whenever Snape accused Harry of lying and breaking the rules Harry was indeed lying and breaking the rules. Yeah, Snape's vindictive, but that does not mean he's entirely wrong to distrust Harry and company.

Conditional Surrender

It is difficult to avoid talking about the most informally discussed subject in the U.S. Harry Potter. There's no reason for me to clarify my statement, so I will not. I was not sure if I would join the bandwagon and add to the hype, but after some consideration I have given in to the pressure. I give in on one condition only: that I get to say whatever I flippin' want about Harry Potter and all you Potter freaks out there can get offended if you like or just not read what I say. In short, conditional surrender never tasted so good.

We have all heard the endless arguments against Harry Potter. It interests me, however, to note that originally there was an enormous Christian backlash against the books. Then, right around the time the movies started coming out (I think) the backlash died. Suddenly, instead of backlash there was an enormous Christian welcome. People could not get over the "Christian symbolism" in Harry Potter. Harry is a "Christ figure." It's okay to let your kids read these books because they're like the next Narnia. The people who put Harry Potter next to The Lord of the Rings have obviously never read The Lord of the Rings. As for it being the next Narnia, uh. No.

I appreciate Harry Potter because it's a fun read. Yes, I read Harry Potter. I don't stand in line to get the first book on the shelf, in fact, I don't even purchase the hardcover editions. I have better things to spend my money on. I wait for a copy to become available at the library. It works quite well. Granted by the time I read the book I know all the spoilers, but I don't care. These books are not the end all and be all of storytelling to me. In fact, they're quite the opposite. They have very little substance. Half the time I feel like the entire plot was a waste. For example, in the fourth book, there was no reason that Voldemort had to go through all that trouble with the Tri-Wizard Tournament to kidnap Harry. He had a man on the inside. All he had to do was kidnap Harry. So easy. The teen angst gets old. In fact, I despise the 5th book. Then there's the prophecy. How cliche! Anyone who knows anything about the fantasy genre has been subjected to many, many prophecies. Oh yes, and Voldemort is undoubtedly the stupidest badguy ever having broken nearly every applicable rule of the Evil Overlord List. As for characterization, never have I seen so many flat characters in one series in my life. The best characters are Harry (and Harry is a total Gary Stu) and Hermione. Ron lost his personality after the second book. Any other character who has personality is a side character and only seems real because he or she has a bit part. Don't get me started on writing style. Yes, they are a fun, easy read.

The sudden mainstream Christian switch from discussing why these books are evil to embracing them wholeheartedly puzzles me. You would think no one had ever read a book before with Christian symbolism in it. I could sit here and name off at least a dozen other fairly recent books with Christian themes in them. Themes are better than symbolism which is about all the Harry Potter books contain. Harry is not a self sacrificial Christ figure. He only sacrifices himself when he fears losing a friend. That is not self sacrifice for the sake of others. It is not the same as what his mother did for him. She died for him because she loved him, not because she was afraid of losing him.

Edit (didn't think of this until later): In addition, one has to wonder if Harry would put so much effort into defeating Voldemort if the whole thing had not been placed on his doorstep so to speak. If he weren't the Chosen One, that is. And if Voldemort were not so entirely inefficient. Furthermore, there is no explicit moral code in these books. It strikes me as odd that Christians would be able to discover all sorts of symbolic material in the book, but fail to notice there are no absolutes concerning the behavior of the characters. So long as Harry and his friends are tormenting other kids, it's okay. And why, oh why, are all of Harry's enemies fat or greasy looking? I mean, doesn't that suggest that it is okay to mock obesity? Perhaps I am grasping at as many straws as the people who find Christian symbolism, but at least I can recognize a straw when I see it. End Edit.

I have no problem with the books themselves. I read them for fun. I simply have a problem with people who see things in them that are not there. What's wrong with weighing what you read and being able to point out both the good and the bad in it? Well, then again, I am a debater.

The Answers

I think I have given everyone sufficient time to read my trivia questions from the previous post and respond. It's been nearly a week. I guess it was trivia. I mean, not everybody knows trivia. I spent countless hours reading books about pirates (bad ones) and sailing ships as a kid, so perhaps my brain cataloged too much trivia pertaining to such. I did get one response and those look right to me. Here are the answers:

1. Matt's answer: "Calypso is featured in The Odyssey, and delayed Odysseus on the island of Oyigia with her feminine wiles." That would be a yes. I would add that she was a nymph.
2. Matt's answer: "Tethys, a titaness, original sea goddess." Yes. If you want to go to more contemporary (as if) Greek mythology then you could say there was no sea goddess. Poseidon, the sea god, was male.
3. Davy Jones is actually derived from a word and meant the devil. He never was a real person. Not sure what the word was or if anyone knows that.
4. Davy Jones' locker is a euphemism for death at sea. (That was a real easy one, people.)
5. The captain of the Flying Dutchman was Captain Vanderdecken, a Dutch captain who may or may not have ever actually lived.
6. The legend goes that Vanderdecken attempted to sail the Flying Dutchman around the Horn (the bottom of South America) too late in the year. The storms were already terrible. But he kept trying to sail around it and fought the storms for more than a month. His ship ran out of food and fresh water and he still would not turn back. Then he cursed God in his anger at the weather. An angel came and cursed Vanderdecken, his ship and his crew. They would have to sail the high seas for eternity as a ghost ship.
7. If any sailor saw the Flying Dutchman (a ghost ship) he saw a harbinger of doom or bad luck. The Flying Dutchman was usually "sighted" in bad weather and sometimes down around the Horn.
8. Matt's answer: " Charon, as featured in the Aeneid."
9. Pirates kill people and steal stuff.
10. It's good because they wear fluffy shirts and wield cutlasses. Actually, this is one area where I have not been able to suspend my disbelief while watching the Pirates movies. I just keep thinking to myself, "But they're fighting for their right and freedom to kill people and steal things, why should I care about them?" Ah well, it's just a movie. And a fun movie at that.

Third Time's Fatal

This is the year of the thirds. Spiderman 3, Shrek the Third, Pirates 3. I have now seen all three of these third movies. Here is my one sentence summary of each one.

Spiderman 3: Sadly not as good as the second one; too many badguys, too much unneccessary plot development.

Shrek the Third: They did not try to make it better than the first or second, thus it fulfilled its vision and was good in and of itself.

Pirates 3: Just plain awesome, the third movie that can remind us all why trilogies work so well.

I saw Pirates 3 last night. You must go and see it for yourself. It was amazing. Barbosa is the ultimate badguy and the ultimate badass. I think Geoffrey Rush may have topped my list of favorite actors.

Now, I have a little trivia game relating to the Pirate movies. I want you to participate. You are not allowed to look any of the answers up on any internet search engine or Wikipedia. You are allowed to remember them from literature and look them up in books if you want. These questions pertain to the Pirate movies only because the Pirate movies took from other mythos to create their fantasy world. It's a spectacular fantasy world and well done, but obviously got everything wrong. Not that it matters, I had too much fun to care. I just have this thing about knowing where your story comes from. It's weird, but I want people to have some understanding that a story can be created from other stories and still be good, but that it may not be true to the stories it came from. It's good to know where it came from even though it's not real history. There are reasons why people write stories. Actually, I really just want to say that if one more person insists to me that in nautical lore Davy Jones was the captain of The Flying Dutchman I am going to scream. Here are the questions:

1. Who was Calypso in Greek mythology?
2. Who was the actual goddess of the sea in Greek mythology?
3. Who/what was Davy Jones (hint: that's not a Dutch name)?
4. What does the term "Davy Jones locker" actually mean?
5. Who was the real captain of The Flying Dutchman (hint: he had a Dutch name)?
6. What was the captain of The Flying Dutchman famous for?
7. What was the significance of seeing The Flying Dutchman?
8. Who really ferried dead souls to the Underworld in Greek mythology?
9. What do pirates do?
10. Why is that cool?

The last two are jokes because I wanted a total of ten questions. I will probably post the answers at some point.

Hook Is Back

Does anyone remember the movie, Hook, from when you were a kid (or a bit younger as the case may be)? It's got about as many cliches as it has minutes and I have never been the biggest fan of Robin Williams. Strangely enough Hook is still one of my favorite movies. I even occasionally quote it. "I've just had an apostrophe!" is surely one of the best lines in cinematic history. The part where Hook first walks out and you suddenly realize that it's Dustin Hoffman and he's freakin' short, is hilarious. Perhaps the strangest thing about this movie, for me, is that for once I find myself liking Peter Pan more than Captain Hook.

I have read Peter Pan and Wendy at least twice and have watched several movie versions of the story including the Disney animated. I never liked Peter Pan as a character in any of them. He was better in the movie versions, usually. But I still never liked him. I think I was born too old to appreciate Peter Pan, if that makes any sense. Recall the line from It's a Wonderful Life Mr. Bailey tells George that he was born older than his brother. Some people are just more mature from the day they were born. However, does it follow that such people have an advantage in life?

Let me put it this way, I never had any fun reading about Peter Pan. I never wanted to stay a kid forever, so I had no common ground with the charaacter. I did not want to grow up fast, but I sure did not want to be a kid all my life. I never believed in Santa Claus. When I watched movies like Miracle on Thirty Fourth Street I found myself unable to get into the story. Not because of the characters, but because of the message. Santa Claus and the perpetuation of him as an idea was not important to a person who never believed he existed. Suffice it to say, I am a born cynic and always have been. My skepticism is outrageous.

Yet I still think Hook is a good movie. Maybe it is able to reach the little kid that still exists in me. The cliches are the sort of cliches that kids do not notice. Captain Hook is hardly scary, but he is still a well done badguy, in my opinion. He's comical and even somewhat silly.

I could go on to express an opinion about the state of family films in the status quo. I could digress over the fact that no movie is good for both adults and kids these days. But it would not apply. It would be irrelevant. The fact is, there is very little adult-appreciable material in Hook. The jokes are the sort that kids laugh at. The expressions of imagination and emphasis on imagination are the kind that kids see the meaning of. You have to be a kid to like that movie. Or be partly a kid. I think the movie Hook does what the book Peter Pan and Wendy was meant to do. But better. Because I never liked the book and I never liked Peter Pan. I thought as Hook did that Peter Pan had very "bad form."

Then again perhaps that is the brilliance of that book. Perhaps it differentiates between the child and pirate in all of us. Some of us are closer to being Hook than to being Peter. Peter was a noble character in that he helped others and lived free. Peter's fatal flaw was that he forgot his friendships in the immature way that a child fails to realize how much others care for him. But Hook remembered everything. Yes, he obsessed over his memories and used them to harbor ill will. Still, he remembered. He took care of that which belonged to him, even if he hated it. His belief in appearances took precedence over his likes and dislikes of the people around him. The form mattered more to him than the heart of a person. Hook's fatal flaw was his belief that he was good just because he appeared good. In actuality he was the cynical, dark badguy with no happy thoughts. That darkness which exists in every person conquered Hook. However, Peter -- Hook's opposite -- was not the ideal human either.

Then comes the movie, Hook, and it shows a softer side to Peter Pan. A more manageable, mature side. Here is a Peter Pan who finally stands up for his loved ones. He puts his children before his own need never to grow up. Here is a Peter Pan worthy to defeat Captain Hook. There it is. That is why I hate the book so much. Because it ended too soon. The book Peter was not a worthy opponent. He was a silly, forgetful, immature ten year old who could not understand the important things in life. The Peter that Robin Williams portrayed was a man who has lost himself in darkness. This Peter discovers that light exists when he has to battle an enemy who is the image of his former, dark, foolish self in order to protect the goodness of his children who are the image of his childish Neverland orphan self.