What do you think?
Rate this book
Tigerheart
For all readers who have ever lent an enthusiastic ear to a wonderfully well told tale, or tumbled gladly into pages that could transport them anywhere, now comes novelist Peter David’s enchanting new work of fantasy. Action-packed and suspenseful, heart-tugging and wise, it weaves a spell both hauntingly familiar and utterly irresistible for those who have ever surrendered themselves to flights of fancy, and have whispered in their hearts, “I believe.”
Paul Dear is a good and clever boy, doted on by a father who fills his son’s head with tall tales, thrilling legends, and talk of fairy-folk, and by a mother who indulges these fantastic stories and tempers them with common sense. But Paul is special in ways that even his adoring parents could never have imagined. For by day, in London’s Kensington Gardens, he walks and talks with the pixies and sprites and other magical creatures that dwell among the living–but are unseen by most. And at night in his room, a boy much like himself, yet not, beckons to Paul from the mirror to come adventuring. It’s a happy life for Paul, made all the more so by the birth of his baby sister.
But everything changes when tragedy strikes, and Paul concludes that there’s only one course of action he can take to dispel the darkness and make things right again. And like countless heroes before him, he knows that he must risk everything to save the day.
Thus begins a quest that will lead Paul down the city’s bustling streets, to a curio shop where a magical ally awaits him, and launches him into the starry skies, bound for a realm where anything is possible. Far from home, he will run with fierce Indian warriors, cross swords with fearsome pirates, befriend a magnificent white tiger, and soar beside an extraordinary, ageless boy who reigns in a boundless world of imagination.
Brimming with the sly humor and breathless excitement of a traditional Victorian bedtime story, deftly embroidered with its own unique wisdom and wonder, Tigerheart is a hymn to childhood’s happiness and heartbreak, a meditation on the love, courage, sacrifice, and faith that shape us and define our lives, and a splendidly rendered modern fable–for readers of any age–that brilliantly proves itself a worthy brother to the timeless classic that serve as its inspiration.
Paul Dear is a good and clever boy, doted on by a father who fills his son’s head with tall tales, thrilling legends, and talk of fairy-folk, and by a mother who indulges these fantastic stories and tempers them with common sense. But Paul is special in ways that even his adoring parents could never have imagined. For by day, in London’s Kensington Gardens, he walks and talks with the pixies and sprites and other magical creatures that dwell among the living–but are unseen by most. And at night in his room, a boy much like himself, yet not, beckons to Paul from the mirror to come adventuring. It’s a happy life for Paul, made all the more so by the birth of his baby sister.
But everything changes when tragedy strikes, and Paul concludes that there’s only one course of action he can take to dispel the darkness and make things right again. And like countless heroes before him, he knows that he must risk everything to save the day.
Thus begins a quest that will lead Paul down the city’s bustling streets, to a curio shop where a magical ally awaits him, and launches him into the starry skies, bound for a realm where anything is possible. Far from home, he will run with fierce Indian warriors, cross swords with fearsome pirates, befriend a magnificent white tiger, and soar beside an extraordinary, ageless boy who reigns in a boundless world of imagination.
Brimming with the sly humor and breathless excitement of a traditional Victorian bedtime story, deftly embroidered with its own unique wisdom and wonder, Tigerheart is a hymn to childhood’s happiness and heartbreak, a meditation on the love, courage, sacrifice, and faith that shape us and define our lives, and a splendidly rendered modern fable–for readers of any age–that brilliantly proves itself a worthy brother to the timeless classic that serve as its inspiration.
290 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2008
50 people are currently reading
1919 people want to read
About the author
Peter David
3,570 books1,358 followersaka David Peters
Peter Allen David, often abbreviated PAD, was an American writer of comic books, novels, television, films, and video games. His notable comic book work includes an award-winning 12-year run on The Incredible Hulk, as well as runs on Aquaman, Young Justice, SpyBoy, Supergirl, Fallen Angel, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2099, Captain Marvel, and X-Factor.
His Star Trek work included comic books and novels such as the New Frontier book series. His other novels included film adaptations, media tie-ins, and original works, such as the Apropos of Nothing and Knight Life series. His television work includes series such as Babylon 5, Young Justice, Ben 10: Alien Force and Nickelodeon's Space Cases, which he co-created with Bill Mumy.
David often jokingly described his occupation as "Writer of Stuff", and he was noted for his prolific writing, characterized by its mingling of real-world issues with humor and references to popular culture, as well as elements of metafiction and self-reference.
David earned multiple awards for his work, including a 1992 Eisner Award, a 1993 Wizard Fan Award, a 1996 Haxtur Award, a 2007 Julie Award and a 2011 GLAAD Media Award.
Peter Allen David, often abbreviated PAD, was an American writer of comic books, novels, television, films, and video games. His notable comic book work includes an award-winning 12-year run on The Incredible Hulk, as well as runs on Aquaman, Young Justice, SpyBoy, Supergirl, Fallen Angel, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2099, Captain Marvel, and X-Factor.
His Star Trek work included comic books and novels such as the New Frontier book series. His other novels included film adaptations, media tie-ins, and original works, such as the Apropos of Nothing and Knight Life series. His television work includes series such as Babylon 5, Young Justice, Ben 10: Alien Force and Nickelodeon's Space Cases, which he co-created with Bill Mumy.
David often jokingly described his occupation as "Writer of Stuff", and he was noted for his prolific writing, characterized by its mingling of real-world issues with humor and references to popular culture, as well as elements of metafiction and self-reference.
David earned multiple awards for his work, including a 1992 Eisner Award, a 1993 Wizard Fan Award, a 1996 Haxtur Award, a 2007 Julie Award and a 2011 GLAAD Media Award.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 158 reviews
December 20, 2015
Tigerheart by Peter David is excellent but I almost gave it 4 stars for one reason: this is a book on Peter Pan , Captain Hook , Tinkerbell , Wendy , and a boy very similar to Peter in most respects, named Paul. Only, all the characters names were changed and inferior to their original names, with the exception, maybe, of Fiddlefix, a close second in my book to the name TinkerBell.
I'm guessing that Peter David changed the names because he couldn't get approval by the Peter Pan Estate to release it officially, and/or because the main story is centered on a boy named Paul Dear, he felt he should tell his story without the focus straying to characters everyone knows much better.
I feel this was a mistake. This IS Peter Pan and to say it isn't would be more inaccurate than saying Peter Parker isn't Spider-Man .
It would be unfair, however, for this book to merit anything less than a 5 star rating.
It has it all. Excellent ideas, dialogue, a strong understandable story, action, suspense, many surprises, and it completely pulled me into the world of Neverland .
Peter David exploded into popularity writing the Incredible Hulk comic books (1st issue, #328, official run from #'s 331-359, 361-388, 390-467), to being an accomplished, surefire author of fantasy fiction.
I hope to convince many readers to pick this one up and feel the magic like I did!
*Highly recommend to fans of the original Peter Pan book, Walt Disney's Peter Pan, or Peter Pan (2003) directed by P.J. Hogan, starring Jeremy Sumpter, Rachel Hurd-Wood, and Jason Isaacs.
August 3, 2015
This is a retelling of Peter Pan, called The Boy in this story. Actually, this is the story of Paul Dear, a young boy who desperately wants to go to Anyplace (Neverland) to find something to help his mother who is miserable after the death of his one week old sister. However, his story is strongly tied to The Boy and Anyplace since he needs both to achieve his goals, and in some part of himself, Paul believes that he may actually be The Boy or some manifestation of him.
This was an audiobook listen narrated by Simon Vance. Yeah, you know I love the guy. Even though I’d listened to one book he narrated before this. This book made me realize how consistent and talented he was with his reading, and it helps that he was reading an imaginative retelling, which I love. I enjoyed this book more than I thought I would. I was a little apprehensive at first that I might find it too juvenile for my tastes, but that wasn’t the case at all. Peter David managed to make this book feel like a child who is on the cusp of adulthood. It was both naïve and worldy, innocent and experienced. It was truly an amazing, whimsical story with tones of darkness.
Mom Note: I wouldn’t necessarily recommend this for younger children even if the tone, wording, and pacing “feels right” for younger children. This book is about children and told in that genial tone reserved for children’s books. It’s not necessarily a story that’s “bad” for younger audiences, but they wouldn’t understand the nuances in the story that require some level of maturity to already have been achieved. Examples of this include when the narrator mentions that Paul, being a child, would not understand a woman’s figure or why they might not have wanted to be as “round in the hips” as Fiddlefix (Tinkerbell) or when the narrator notes that The Boy shares with grown men the inability to decide if he wants the significant non-mother female figure in his life, Gwennie (Wendy), to be his mother or his lifemate or when the narrator refers to maturity as “the destruction.” So, for any parent/guardian/adult figure thinking this might be great for a younger audience, it’s not. It’s a book about children, but it’s not necessarily a book for children. I’d say early teens, maybe even kids as young as 11-12, would better handle a book like this one.
This was an audiobook listen narrated by Simon Vance. Yeah, you know I love the guy. Even though I’d listened to one book he narrated before this. This book made me realize how consistent and talented he was with his reading, and it helps that he was reading an imaginative retelling, which I love. I enjoyed this book more than I thought I would. I was a little apprehensive at first that I might find it too juvenile for my tastes, but that wasn’t the case at all. Peter David managed to make this book feel like a child who is on the cusp of adulthood. It was both naïve and worldy, innocent and experienced. It was truly an amazing, whimsical story with tones of darkness.
Mom Note: I wouldn’t necessarily recommend this for younger children even if the tone, wording, and pacing “feels right” for younger children. This book is about children and told in that genial tone reserved for children’s books. It’s not necessarily a story that’s “bad” for younger audiences, but they wouldn’t understand the nuances in the story that require some level of maturity to already have been achieved. Examples of this include when the narrator mentions that Paul, being a child, would not understand a woman’s figure or why they might not have wanted to be as “round in the hips” as Fiddlefix (Tinkerbell) or when the narrator notes that The Boy shares with grown men the inability to decide if he wants the significant non-mother female figure in his life, Gwennie (Wendy), to be his mother or his lifemate or when the narrator refers to maturity as “the destruction.” So, for any parent/guardian/adult figure thinking this might be great for a younger audience, it’s not. It’s a book about children, but it’s not necessarily a book for children. I’d say early teens, maybe even kids as young as 11-12, would better handle a book like this one.
February 20, 2019
This book was a bit of a disappointment, but I do appreciate and respect some of its aspects.
To begin with, I REALLY appreciated how this story clings to the special charm of the original Peter Pan. It couldn't nail it precisely, of course, because that's impossible, but it wanted to uphold the same general feel as the original, and that's refreshing among all these other Peter Pan retellings that slaughter the vibe of their source material in favor of something totally different. Which I have absolutely NOTHING against (um, quite the contrary!) because that completely fresh feel is a huge part of what makes retellings so fun and appealing. But yeah, the respect this one displays for J.M. Barrie's timeless classic is SO admirable.
That being said, I was super annoyed by the POV in that it was omniscient to the point of consistently jarring me from the story and making me feel rather detached from the characters + whatever they were experiencing in that moment. And I think that was sort of the point, which makes this a good book for reading aloud to a youngster - although there was an irritating reference to sex that may or may not go over a youngster's head. It was relatively subtle and, of course, from the other side of the "closed bedroom door," but it was STILL irritating and I'm NOT HAPPY *cough*
But anyway, back to the omniscient POV. I personally didn't care for the narrator butting in, often unnecessarily. I found it rude. ;P
It also took me a while to get into the characters, and even once I did start to connect to them and care about them, I never fell head over heels in love.
I do applaud the plot twists in this book! They were CLEVER. And the action is pretty exciting. :D
All in all, I enjoyed Tigerheart while still finding it a disappointment, and could appreciate some aspects of it while being annoyed by others.
To end on a fully positive note, I realllllly like how the title comes into play throughout the story! Gotta love a mysterious title you can't understand until partway through. Somehow that's just so special. ^_^
To begin with, I REALLY appreciated how this story clings to the special charm of the original Peter Pan. It couldn't nail it precisely, of course, because that's impossible, but it wanted to uphold the same general feel as the original, and that's refreshing among all these other Peter Pan retellings that slaughter the vibe of their source material in favor of something totally different. Which I have absolutely NOTHING against (um, quite the contrary!) because that completely fresh feel is a huge part of what makes retellings so fun and appealing. But yeah, the respect this one displays for J.M. Barrie's timeless classic is SO admirable.
That being said, I was super annoyed by the POV in that it was omniscient to the point of consistently jarring me from the story and making me feel rather detached from the characters + whatever they were experiencing in that moment. And I think that was sort of the point, which makes this a good book for reading aloud to a youngster - although there was an irritating reference to sex that may or may not go over a youngster's head. It was relatively subtle and, of course, from the other side of the "closed bedroom door," but it was STILL irritating and I'm NOT HAPPY *cough*
But anyway, back to the omniscient POV. I personally didn't care for the narrator butting in, often unnecessarily. I found it rude. ;P
It also took me a while to get into the characters, and even once I did start to connect to them and care about them, I never fell head over heels in love.
I do applaud the plot twists in this book! They were CLEVER. And the action is pretty exciting. :D
All in all, I enjoyed Tigerheart while still finding it a disappointment, and could appreciate some aspects of it while being annoyed by others.
To end on a fully positive note, I realllllly like how the title comes into play throughout the story! Gotta love a mysterious title you can't understand until partway through. Somehow that's just so special. ^_^
February 4, 2008
Tiresome, pointless, and overly precious. I don't really like the story of Peter Pan very much anyway, but this retelling was just unnecessary.
February 11, 2019
This is a charming and respectful retelling of J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan. Others have written thorough reviews and I won't repeat that here. I thought the renaming of characters was well thought out and quite clever. There is the protagonist, Paul Dear, Captain Hack, Captain Slash (his sister), Fiddlefix as Tinkerbell, and The Boy as Peter Pan. Lovely moral lesson, too.
July 31, 2008
Read this book with my kids while on a camping trip. They played "pirates" on every rock formation they could climb! Excellent reimagining of Peter Pan. The narrator speaks to the audience personally and really draws you in-a writing style that was compelling, allowing the kids to feel like they are "in" on the joke or storyline. I reccomend it to kids and adults.
October 20, 2008
4.5 Stars. A superb re-imagining of Peter Pan that is both funny and poignant. Peter David does a fantastic job of taking a story that is familiar to just about everyone and making it fresh and new. A great achievement and highly recommended.
July 19, 2014
Quite a few years ago, I read 4 of Peter David's Star Trek novels and found them entertaining. Then I heard him take part in a literary panel at Comic-Con and discovered how mischievously witty he can be. In 2010, he was the Guest of Honour at the local SFF con', Bubonicon, so I was happy to hear him again. Not only is he funny and intelligent, he comes across as a truly decent man. (If you ever get a chance to hear him speak live, take it.)
So I became more interested in reading more of his fiction, stuff beyond Star Trek. (I admit, I'm not a huge fan of comic books; and I know he's written tons, but those I'm not very likely to seek out.)
When I spotted this book, I was intrigued; and since I hadn't read its inspiration yet, I bought Peter Pan and Tigerheart on the same day. I figured I'd better read Peter Pan first--and I was sorely disappointed. (See my review if you wish.)
This book is at least twice as good as its inspiration! It's charming, full of adventure, intelligent, and at times touching. David writes in an imitation of J. M. Barrie's style that is actually better than Barrie. (There's also something about the tone and word choices that also at times made me think of Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett, and a little bit of Neil Gaiman in The Graveyard Book. This is a good thing.) There is no talking down to the younger readers who might get their hands on the book. There are a number of words most children would have to look up (yay!).
Here's an example of a passage I particulary liked:
"Freed of her imprisonment, ripe for vengeance against those who had discommoded her, Fiddlefix started to glow with the force of a miniature sun. The intensity of her illumination was directly proportional to the ferocity of her temperament, and at that moment Fiddlefix was feeling temperamental enough to blind a herd of bison." (page 252)
The story is consistent; the author clearly knows exactly what he's doing, unlike Barrie. He takes the kernels of the ideas from Peter Pan and develops them properly, mixing the fun, adventure, poignancy, and commentaries on the differences between men and women and children and adults in proper proportions. A couple of passages brought tears to my eyes because of their nicely-crafted truthfulness.
I admit I was initially bugged by the fact that none of the characters have the same names as those in Peter Pan--that felt a little fan-fictionish, and I wondered why David had done it--but as the story barreled on, I became less concerned about it. There is a brief line about midway through that sort of explains the name business (essentially, the story goes on and on but sometimes the names change), but there's also an afterword in which David explains why he made the choices he did. His reasoning makes sense. The story, ultimately, belongs to Paul Dear and his family--their feelings and losses and gains--not Peter Pan.
I was also a little unsure about the choice to have the Picca tribe speak in incomplete English. But it harks back to 19th century conventions (and old Western films), and at least Princess Picca is a character with some dimension to her.
David includes many feminist-leaning elements in the story, clearly dealing with Barrie's messed-up ideas about women. Gwenny is a lot like Wendy, but she's stronger and gets to do more. There's even a formidable female pirate captain!
I'm not sure what people who love the original Peter Pan story will think of this, but I would hope they could embrace it. I recommend this book to adults and intelligent children alike.
So I became more interested in reading more of his fiction, stuff beyond Star Trek. (I admit, I'm not a huge fan of comic books; and I know he's written tons, but those I'm not very likely to seek out.)
When I spotted this book, I was intrigued; and since I hadn't read its inspiration yet, I bought Peter Pan and Tigerheart on the same day. I figured I'd better read Peter Pan first--and I was sorely disappointed. (See my review if you wish.)
This book is at least twice as good as its inspiration! It's charming, full of adventure, intelligent, and at times touching. David writes in an imitation of J. M. Barrie's style that is actually better than Barrie. (There's also something about the tone and word choices that also at times made me think of Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett, and a little bit of Neil Gaiman in The Graveyard Book. This is a good thing.) There is no talking down to the younger readers who might get their hands on the book. There are a number of words most children would have to look up (yay!).
Here's an example of a passage I particulary liked:
"Freed of her imprisonment, ripe for vengeance against those who had discommoded her, Fiddlefix started to glow with the force of a miniature sun. The intensity of her illumination was directly proportional to the ferocity of her temperament, and at that moment Fiddlefix was feeling temperamental enough to blind a herd of bison." (page 252)
The story is consistent; the author clearly knows exactly what he's doing, unlike Barrie. He takes the kernels of the ideas from Peter Pan and develops them properly, mixing the fun, adventure, poignancy, and commentaries on the differences between men and women and children and adults in proper proportions. A couple of passages brought tears to my eyes because of their nicely-crafted truthfulness.
I admit I was initially bugged by the fact that none of the characters have the same names as those in Peter Pan--that felt a little fan-fictionish, and I wondered why David had done it--but as the story barreled on, I became less concerned about it. There is a brief line about midway through that sort of explains the name business (essentially, the story goes on and on but sometimes the names change), but there's also an afterword in which David explains why he made the choices he did. His reasoning makes sense. The story, ultimately, belongs to Paul Dear and his family--their feelings and losses and gains--not Peter Pan.
I was also a little unsure about the choice to have the Picca tribe speak in incomplete English. But it harks back to 19th century conventions (and old Western films), and at least Princess Picca is a character with some dimension to her.
David includes many feminist-leaning elements in the story, clearly dealing with Barrie's messed-up ideas about women. Gwenny is a lot like Wendy, but she's stronger and gets to do more. There's even a formidable female pirate captain!
I'm not sure what people who love the original Peter Pan story will think of this, but I would hope they could embrace it. I recommend this book to adults and intelligent children alike.
to-read-own
November 24, 201711/24/17 $1.99 for Kindle.
July 16, 2008
Not exactly a sequel and not exactly a retelling of the Peter Pan story, Peter David's "Tigerheart" is more of a reimagined modernization of the classic story along the lines of his King Arthur trilogy and "Howling Mad."
David succeeds beautifully at weaving the story of Peter Pan for a modern audience. But instead of focusing on Peter as the central character, David creates his own, Paul Dear. Early in the story, Paul's baby sister dies, causing a rift between his parents and their separation. Determined to make his mother happy again, Paul sets out to Anywhere to find a new sister and bring her home to his mother. Along the way, he meet the Boy, who is the kind of Anywhere, refusing to grow up, self-centered and having fantastic adventures.
David tells the story in a omniscient narrator voice with brilliant asides to the audience. The story is modern but also timeless with references to modern day drugs to stop little boys from having fantastic adventures in their imagination. But while it does have those hints of the modern world, the storytelling and the universe are timeless.
If you're familiar with Peter Pan either from the popular Disney movie or from the J.M. Barie original story, you're in for a treat with David's unique take on the story. Reading "Tigerheart," I found myself wishing David had written this years ago so that it would have been adapted for the big-screen as "Hook" instead of the movie we got. Seeing Steven Spielberg create this world would have been wonderful.
While it's marketed for young adults, I have to say that "Tigerheart" is a joy and delight for anyone who hasn't or doesn't want to lose touch with their inner child. One of the best books I've read this year and one that I heartily recommend.
David succeeds beautifully at weaving the story of Peter Pan for a modern audience. But instead of focusing on Peter as the central character, David creates his own, Paul Dear. Early in the story, Paul's baby sister dies, causing a rift between his parents and their separation. Determined to make his mother happy again, Paul sets out to Anywhere to find a new sister and bring her home to his mother. Along the way, he meet the Boy, who is the kind of Anywhere, refusing to grow up, self-centered and having fantastic adventures.
David tells the story in a omniscient narrator voice with brilliant asides to the audience. The story is modern but also timeless with references to modern day drugs to stop little boys from having fantastic adventures in their imagination. But while it does have those hints of the modern world, the storytelling and the universe are timeless.
If you're familiar with Peter Pan either from the popular Disney movie or from the J.M. Barie original story, you're in for a treat with David's unique take on the story. Reading "Tigerheart," I found myself wishing David had written this years ago so that it would have been adapted for the big-screen as "Hook" instead of the movie we got. Seeing Steven Spielberg create this world would have been wonderful.
While it's marketed for young adults, I have to say that "Tigerheart" is a joy and delight for anyone who hasn't or doesn't want to lose touch with their inner child. One of the best books I've read this year and one that I heartily recommend.
May 4, 2011
The cover features a quote from Terry Brooks calling it "by far the most charming and clever reimagining of the story of Peter Pan I have ever encountered." I have to agree with him. I've read other takes on the story and characters, from Peter and the Starcatchers to the official sequel, Peter Pan in Scarlet. What David does is a bit different -- he captures the charm and timelessness of Barrie's characters and settings, but slantways. The names are changed (though there's never any doubt about who's who), and this impressively allows David to play on all our memories and associations of the characters, while sidestepping our assumptions about them and giving himself enough room to tell an original story with a few of his own characters. The style of the writing is absolutely delightful, full of sly wit that has the narrator addressing the reader face-on, and overall, for the reader, the feeling is of being a child listening to a story told by one's favorite uncle. That said, there are darker and more philosophical elements slipped in with the sparkle and adventure (again, in keeping with the undertone of the original mythos), and more than anything I would say this truly reads as a Peter Pan-inspired story for adults who have never quite grown up.
December 30, 2008
David is a true journeyman, a genre writer who has never had the big breakout book but has written enormous amounts of fantasy and science fiction in all kinds of formats to make a living. The results are never absolutely spectacular, but they are always an enjoyable read. He's written everything from television episodes to graphic novels, Star Trek books to a variety of his own original novels. In the past I've enjoyed Sir Apropos of Nothing and his Knight Life sequence.
Tigerheart is David's reexamination of the Peter Pan legend. It features The Boy (Peter), Gwenny (Wendy), Fiddlefix (Tinkerbell), and Captain Hack (Hook) along with other various indians, pirates, and inhabitants of the Anyplace (Neverland). To this mix, he adds three new characters, a boy named Paul who comes to the Anyplace to try to find a replacement for the baby sister whose death has left his mother humorless and distraught; Paul's Anyplace companion, a powerful white tiger; and Mary Slash, a villain whose nature I won't disclose as to not spoil the surprise.
David captures not only the characters, but some of Barrie's style in a clever tale that speculates on everything from the nature of boys, the power of belief, the relationship of the dream world and the real world, and the powers and limits of parents.
This is a fine homage to J. M. Barrie and a well-paced tale in its own right. I recommend it.
Tigerheart is David's reexamination of the Peter Pan legend. It features The Boy (Peter), Gwenny (Wendy), Fiddlefix (Tinkerbell), and Captain Hack (Hook) along with other various indians, pirates, and inhabitants of the Anyplace (Neverland). To this mix, he adds three new characters, a boy named Paul who comes to the Anyplace to try to find a replacement for the baby sister whose death has left his mother humorless and distraught; Paul's Anyplace companion, a powerful white tiger; and Mary Slash, a villain whose nature I won't disclose as to not spoil the surprise.
David captures not only the characters, but some of Barrie's style in a clever tale that speculates on everything from the nature of boys, the power of belief, the relationship of the dream world and the real world, and the powers and limits of parents.
This is a fine homage to J. M. Barrie and a well-paced tale in its own right. I recommend it.
Read
February 5, 2009Peter David's vast experience in comics and media tie-ins is apparent in Tigerheart, a good old-fashioned Victorian story all the more appealing because it will resonate with adults and younger readers alike (though as Paul Di Filippo points out, "I don't recall the original Tinker Bell swearing quite as much as Fiddlefix"). Tigerheart is by turns whimsical, poignant, and touched with humor. The suspense and adventure make up for any thought that the book tries to be too many things at once: a coming-of-age tale, an adventure, a parable. David is a versatile storyteller and an accomplished stylist, and he hits all the right notes here. The novel won't replace Barrie's original, but it will make a nice companion piece to that beloved classic.
This is an excerpt from a review published in Bookmarks magazine.
September 6, 2008
This isn't actually a review because, well, I wrote the book (although I gave it five stars because, as my grandmother used to say, If you're not for yourself, who will be?) I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank all of you who had such positive things to say about "Tigerheart." It has been extremely gratifying and much appreciated.
PAD
PAD
July 31, 2022
~4 Stars~
June 13, 2014
A book that I won't mind to not read. It isn't fulfilling a read. Best spend your time and money on other books.
The prose is incredibly rambling, impersonal, boring, barren and lifeless. There isn't really anything to admire in it. It would have been an acceptable style if used for a term papers, but that is not what this book is. Disappointing. The story is imaginative enough but the prose isn't displaying its glory. It would go paragraph to paragraph without any story, only exposition.
The storytelling isn't any better. The car accident analogy in chapter 2, is astounding in its ridiculousness as for its uselessness. Words wasted. It doesn't add anything to the story. It is might sound pretty (to the author), but to the readers, it is just plain dumb. Then this statement: "even the most unselfish of them—and you know who you are, so do not offer protests, because you will not impress me" sounds very haughty and would never impress any readers at all if it doesn't outright insult them. Not to mention, it isn't quite true. Not only that, it also abruptly disrupts the flow of the story by calling attention to itself and practically, again, adding nothing of import to the story. And:
"Now—let us talk about the Irishman."
I almost burst to laughter. This is one of the clumsiest, most stupid sounding transition I ever behold. I was quite riveted by it in its incredibly audacious absurdity. I had to roll my eyes and shake my head. Oh, how the author surpass even my lowest expectations! And it was all in the beginning of the chapter. This is then followed by a very awkward introduction of the said man, which soon disappear from the story forever. Why did the author wastes effort when the character live only for a few paragraphs? I couldn't understand what the author is doing.
The story is also very laden with faults. One of it is the when our characters got trapped in the cave. Events had lead with them inside and the mouth of the cave covered with boulders and soil, with a great tsunami raging outside. Much later we are told that there was an exit at the back, not very big, but big enough for people to squeeze through. The problem of course is that, the water from the tsunami should have been able to get in the cave because of that opening, if the debris (mainly trees, and boulders in this case) carried by the tsunami the tsunami didn't block it in the first place (which it should). They should logicaly have been doomed there. Not only that, the damage of the tsunami isn't that big either. The damage described is actually inconsistent of what a tsunami can do. For all appearances, it only looks like there was just a storm.
Another is the rock slide itself that covers the mouth of the cave. It is for the fact that the landslide is so easily triggered by pushing against the boulders by a boy. Essentially if you see if you see a cave mouth, blocking it by creating a rock slide from the top using your own strength in a short moment is an impossible task because for the cave mouth to remain uncovered (as implied with all the earthquake and all), the area at the top of it would have to be very very stable, typically such cave is in the side of solid rock (like rock cliffs) or it is located in mountains where there a lot vegetation (especially trees); none of which provide boulders for you to push and roll into its mouth. Here, what happen instead is the incredulous, a boy pushing on boulders, caused a rock slide and block the entrance. What could be more absurd?
As far as I can see, the author is very very ignorant to matters of nature.
And there are more of it. Very very many.
There are many things that the author should have studied these things instead of depending on the imagination.
Ah! Oh! The author authored many superhero books. No wonder he keeps ignoring physics and many basic sciences.
The characters isn't at all that interesting too. He present The Boy as unsavory as possible. Paul, which the author claimed is the main character, is often eclipsed by The Boy that he doesn't really register much in the story until we come near the end. The minor characters also has little in them to be interesting. The villain (Mary) though is another story. She has strong presence and quite intimidating. Reading about her is more fulfilling that reading about our heroes.
The story, seems good enough, just that, it isn't delivered in a better manner and the faults is just quite glaring. There is also moments that sounds quite preachy and pretentious.
The prose is incredibly rambling, impersonal, boring, barren and lifeless. There isn't really anything to admire in it. It would have been an acceptable style if used for a term papers, but that is not what this book is. Disappointing. The story is imaginative enough but the prose isn't displaying its glory. It would go paragraph to paragraph without any story, only exposition.
The storytelling isn't any better. The car accident analogy in chapter 2, is astounding in its ridiculousness as for its uselessness. Words wasted. It doesn't add anything to the story. It is might sound pretty (to the author), but to the readers, it is just plain dumb. Then this statement: "even the most unselfish of them—and you know who you are, so do not offer protests, because you will not impress me" sounds very haughty and would never impress any readers at all if it doesn't outright insult them. Not to mention, it isn't quite true. Not only that, it also abruptly disrupts the flow of the story by calling attention to itself and practically, again, adding nothing of import to the story. And:
"Now—let us talk about the Irishman."
I almost burst to laughter. This is one of the clumsiest, most stupid sounding transition I ever behold. I was quite riveted by it in its incredibly audacious absurdity. I had to roll my eyes and shake my head. Oh, how the author surpass even my lowest expectations! And it was all in the beginning of the chapter. This is then followed by a very awkward introduction of the said man, which soon disappear from the story forever. Why did the author wastes effort when the character live only for a few paragraphs? I couldn't understand what the author is doing.
The story is also very laden with faults. One of it is the when our characters got trapped in the cave. Events had lead with them inside and the mouth of the cave covered with boulders and soil, with a great tsunami raging outside. Much later we are told that there was an exit at the back, not very big, but big enough for people to squeeze through. The problem of course is that, the water from the tsunami should have been able to get in the cave because of that opening, if the debris (mainly trees, and boulders in this case) carried by the tsunami the tsunami didn't block it in the first place (which it should). They should logicaly have been doomed there. Not only that, the damage of the tsunami isn't that big either. The damage described is actually inconsistent of what a tsunami can do. For all appearances, it only looks like there was just a storm.
Another is the rock slide itself that covers the mouth of the cave. It is for the fact that the landslide is so easily triggered by pushing against the boulders by a boy. Essentially if you see if you see a cave mouth, blocking it by creating a rock slide from the top using your own strength in a short moment is an impossible task because for the cave mouth to remain uncovered (as implied with all the earthquake and all), the area at the top of it would have to be very very stable, typically such cave is in the side of solid rock (like rock cliffs) or it is located in mountains where there a lot vegetation (especially trees); none of which provide boulders for you to push and roll into its mouth. Here, what happen instead is the incredulous, a boy pushing on boulders, caused a rock slide and block the entrance. What could be more absurd?
As far as I can see, the author is very very ignorant to matters of nature.
And there are more of it. Very very many.
There are many things that the author should have studied these things instead of depending on the imagination.
Ah! Oh! The author authored many superhero books. No wonder he keeps ignoring physics and many basic sciences.
The characters isn't at all that interesting too. He present The Boy as unsavory as possible. Paul, which the author claimed is the main character, is often eclipsed by The Boy that he doesn't really register much in the story until we come near the end. The minor characters also has little in them to be interesting. The villain (Mary) though is another story. She has strong presence and quite intimidating. Reading about her is more fulfilling that reading about our heroes.
The story, seems good enough, just that, it isn't delivered in a better manner and the faults is just quite glaring. There is also moments that sounds quite preachy and pretentious.
July 23, 2014
Oh, brother. Hated hated HATED this book. This guy "re-imagined" Peter Pan? More like barely got away with plagiarizing it and then completely destroyed the spirit of the story. He just re-named the characters and places with extremely obvious parallel names. Captain Hack? Gwenny? The Bully Boys? Pixies? He just opened his thesaurus and went from there. That's why I have a hard time calling this a "re-imagination." Call it what it is: theft.
That wasn't the only issue I had with this one. Here's a list of some of the others:
- He glossed over some of the most interesting characters in the whole piece (like the Irishman and shopowner in the beginning).
- He implied Peter Pan and Tigerlily were having sex, a rather grown-up thing to do for someone who refuses to grow up.
- Author intrusion can be welcome in small doses to make you feel like the author is sitting there telling you the story, but for the first half of the book, at least, it was on practically every page, and it just induced more eye-rolls from me than delighted smiles.
- The second half of the book wasn't exempt from author intrusion, either, except in this case, it was thrown in hastily in large portions. It's as if the author was like, "Oh, right, I'm writing author intrusion stylistically, and I haven't done that in a while, so DUMP DUMP DUMP." If you're going to try a specific style, you have to keep it consistent.
- He slaps you across the face with the moral of the story without letting you figure it out for yourself. I hate it when authors shout, "THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO LEARN FROM THIS." Absolutely hate it.
- Some of the writing was so poorly constructed from a technical aspect, I don't know how it got past the editors. Yet some of it was beautifully written. Again, be consistent with your style. Or get better editors.
A few positive things, though. I enjoyed Paul's character development. Most people think of going to Neverland (or "Anyplace" *rolls eyes*) to escape growing up, but in Paul's case, he grew from a childish boy into a mature young man. And as clunky as SOME of the writing was, there was some beautiful passages, too.
But the instances in which the writing was beautiful won't save this book from getting chucked into the Goodwill donation basket.
That wasn't the only issue I had with this one. Here's a list of some of the others:
- He glossed over some of the most interesting characters in the whole piece (like the Irishman and shopowner in the beginning).
- He implied Peter Pan and Tigerlily were having sex, a rather grown-up thing to do for someone who refuses to grow up.
- Author intrusion can be welcome in small doses to make you feel like the author is sitting there telling you the story, but for the first half of the book, at least, it was on practically every page, and it just induced more eye-rolls from me than delighted smiles.
- The second half of the book wasn't exempt from author intrusion, either, except in this case, it was thrown in hastily in large portions. It's as if the author was like, "Oh, right, I'm writing author intrusion stylistically, and I haven't done that in a while, so DUMP DUMP DUMP." If you're going to try a specific style, you have to keep it consistent.
- He slaps you across the face with the moral of the story without letting you figure it out for yourself. I hate it when authors shout, "THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO LEARN FROM THIS." Absolutely hate it.
- Some of the writing was so poorly constructed from a technical aspect, I don't know how it got past the editors. Yet some of it was beautifully written. Again, be consistent with your style. Or get better editors.
A few positive things, though. I enjoyed Paul's character development. Most people think of going to Neverland (or "Anyplace" *rolls eyes*) to escape growing up, but in Paul's case, he grew from a childish boy into a mature young man. And as clunky as SOME of the writing was, there was some beautiful passages, too.
But the instances in which the writing was beautiful won't save this book from getting chucked into the Goodwill donation basket.
July 4, 2011
Paul Dear was raised on swashbuckling tales of The Boy and Anyplace, where The Boy fights pirates alongside Fiddlefix the fairy and his band of Vagabonds. Soon however, Paul wonders if he is The Boy, as strange things start to happen whereby his reflection starts talking to him, teaching him things, and he begins to be visited by fairies. But when tragedy strikes his family, Paul finds he must venture into the Anyplace in order to bring his family back together.
If all this talk of the Anyplace and The Boy sounds familiar to you, it should. However, to say that Tigerheart is simply Peter David’s take on the Peter Pan story would be a disservice. The story really isn’t about Peter Pan. It is Paul Dear’s story through and through, as he learns about responsibility, the costs of heroism and ultimately, about growing up. Something that Peter Pan would never do!
Stylistically, Tigerheart is different from previous Peter David novels. Here, he writes in the more old fashioned form of a narrator, which just adds to the charm of the story. It is the type of book that a child could pick up and follow easily, and yet contains many subtle undertones and classic Peter David humour, that adults can easily pick up on - Gwenny wanting to be a social worker being particularly funny. What on the surface might seem a whimsical tale of a boy’s “hero’s journey”, there are certainly many deeper layers to be found. David uses the Anyplace to analyze our own perspectives on what it means to grow up, as well as the modern reaction to seeing children with fertile imaginations, which is namely to send them to the nearest shrink.
Some may find that David’s Anyplace is much darker than they remembered. Interestingly, I found his take on the Anyplace, and in particular, the arrogant nature of The Boy to be spot on. With many heart breaking moments, as well as some truly fantastic moments, I look forward to more tales from Anyplace.
If all this talk of the Anyplace and The Boy sounds familiar to you, it should. However, to say that Tigerheart is simply Peter David’s take on the Peter Pan story would be a disservice. The story really isn’t about Peter Pan. It is Paul Dear’s story through and through, as he learns about responsibility, the costs of heroism and ultimately, about growing up. Something that Peter Pan would never do!
Stylistically, Tigerheart is different from previous Peter David novels. Here, he writes in the more old fashioned form of a narrator, which just adds to the charm of the story. It is the type of book that a child could pick up and follow easily, and yet contains many subtle undertones and classic Peter David humour, that adults can easily pick up on - Gwenny wanting to be a social worker being particularly funny. What on the surface might seem a whimsical tale of a boy’s “hero’s journey”, there are certainly many deeper layers to be found. David uses the Anyplace to analyze our own perspectives on what it means to grow up, as well as the modern reaction to seeing children with fertile imaginations, which is namely to send them to the nearest shrink.
Some may find that David’s Anyplace is much darker than they remembered. Interestingly, I found his take on the Anyplace, and in particular, the arrogant nature of The Boy to be spot on. With many heart breaking moments, as well as some truly fantastic moments, I look forward to more tales from Anyplace.
July 27, 2008
This book reminds me of a quote from Stoppard's The Coast of Utopia: "Because children grow up, we think a child’s purpose is to grow up. But a child’s purpose is to be a child.... "
Tigerheart is sort of a sequel to Peter Pan, but not really; all the names are changed, although the characters are out of copyright now, and although that seemed like an odd choice at first I think it worked really well for the purpose of letting Peter David tell the story on his own terms, reintroduce the characters and premise from a sidelong view. I liked the bits in the real world (or real-world-plus-pixies-and-talking-animals) a tad more than the bits in Neverland/the Anyplace, I think because the vaguely Edwardian setting was so charming, especially when the touch of magic was added.
A few of the ideas about the Anyplace were more spelled out than I would have preferred--the idea that it's the origin of all parables and childhood folklore wasn't particularly fresh--and the narrator's attitude toward girls seemed a little too in-period at times, plus there was one episode I found frankly kind of disturbing, but it was overall a lovely book and, for an early-twenty-first-century grownup mind, a thought-provoking way to get into the mindset of a time when it was easier to think of childhood as sacred.
Tigerheart is sort of a sequel to Peter Pan, but not really; all the names are changed, although the characters are out of copyright now, and although that seemed like an odd choice at first I think it worked really well for the purpose of letting Peter David tell the story on his own terms, reintroduce the characters and premise from a sidelong view. I liked the bits in the real world (or real-world-plus-pixies-and-talking-animals) a tad more than the bits in Neverland/the Anyplace, I think because the vaguely Edwardian setting was so charming, especially when the touch of magic was added.
A few of the ideas about the Anyplace were more spelled out than I would have preferred--the idea that it's the origin of all parables and childhood folklore wasn't particularly fresh--and the narrator's attitude toward girls seemed a little too in-period at times, plus there was one episode I found frankly kind of disturbing, but it was overall a lovely book and, for an early-twenty-first-century grownup mind, a thought-provoking way to get into the mindset of a time when it was easier to think of childhood as sacred.
January 14, 2010
I don't think this review is spoiler-y, but to be safe, I'll check the box...
A wonderful pastiche of Peter Pan, though that name is never used, he is called The Boy, for this is Paul’s story, a boy who travels to Anyplace to find his mother a baby, because his baby sister died and she is inconsolable. After many exciting adventures and close saves, Paul and The Boy need to escape Noplace (from which there is no escape) and call for help from people who should be unable to help them. “’Believe in us. Believe in a happy ending. Believe… believe.’ Throughout the world, for a very brief time, people lying in comas, or with multiple tubes invading their bodies – people who were incredibly aged, sitting in a haze of uncertainty as to whether they were alive or dead, their own memories suspect and their own children strangers to them – for a very brief time, those peoples’ families were surprised and stunned to hear them speak or whisper with a clarity and certainty of purpose that they had all assumed to be long gone. ‘I believe,’ whispered the elderly and infirm. ‘I believe,’ whispered people lying in hospitals. ‘I believe,’ whispered coma patients who had been declared to have lost the ability to string words together.” (page 272- 3)
A wonderful pastiche of Peter Pan, though that name is never used, he is called The Boy, for this is Paul’s story, a boy who travels to Anyplace to find his mother a baby, because his baby sister died and she is inconsolable. After many exciting adventures and close saves, Paul and The Boy need to escape Noplace (from which there is no escape) and call for help from people who should be unable to help them. “’Believe in us. Believe in a happy ending. Believe… believe.’ Throughout the world, for a very brief time, people lying in comas, or with multiple tubes invading their bodies – people who were incredibly aged, sitting in a haze of uncertainty as to whether they were alive or dead, their own memories suspect and their own children strangers to them – for a very brief time, those peoples’ families were surprised and stunned to hear them speak or whisper with a clarity and certainty of purpose that they had all assumed to be long gone. ‘I believe,’ whispered the elderly and infirm. ‘I believe,’ whispered people lying in hospitals. ‘I believe,’ whispered coma patients who had been declared to have lost the ability to string words together.” (page 272- 3)
October 27, 2008
I have never ever read Peter Pan, nor have I seen any movies. I've seen "Hook", yes. And I have seen "Neverland" but this book made it quite clear, I need to read the book.
This story is about a boy named Paul whose Father tells Paul all the stories of adventures that The Boy takes place in...in a land called anyplace.
One day, Paul stumbles across a dead pixie and succeeds in bringing her back to life by believing. And the pixie then informs Paul of why she died in the first place. Because The Boy ceased believing in her...and she is eager to seek revenge on PP.
Together, Paul and the pixie travel to anyplace and find that The Boy is now a pirate! The story pretty much continues to be amazing and adventurous!
This book is a story of dreamers, the imagination, pirates and the wonderful world of youthful hope. I loved it...and to be honest, I loved that this book isn't a childrens book, but one for adults. Heehee, there were some subtle adult like things mentioned..or left to the imagination. I liked it a lot.
This story is about a boy named Paul whose Father tells Paul all the stories of adventures that The Boy takes place in...in a land called anyplace.
One day, Paul stumbles across a dead pixie and succeeds in bringing her back to life by believing. And the pixie then informs Paul of why she died in the first place. Because The Boy ceased believing in her...and she is eager to seek revenge on PP.
Together, Paul and the pixie travel to anyplace and find that The Boy is now a pirate! The story pretty much continues to be amazing and adventurous!
This book is a story of dreamers, the imagination, pirates and the wonderful world of youthful hope. I loved it...and to be honest, I loved that this book isn't a childrens book, but one for adults. Heehee, there were some subtle adult like things mentioned..or left to the imagination. I liked it a lot.
Read
May 13, 2009Captain Hack. The Boy of Legend. Fiddlefix. The Bully Boys. These wonderful characters are enchantingly familiar, yet offer a charming new take on the beloved story of Peter Pan. Peter David takes the classic characters and turns them on their heads, bringing readers on a witty and engaging adventure that builds upon the original tale. Young Paul Dear, having grown up on his father's fantastic stories of pirates, pixies and wild Indians, has no trouble believing in The Anyplace, and when a family tragedy strikes, he knows he most go there to make things right. With the help of the pixie Fiddlefix, he sets off to find The Boy of Legend and encounters a fascinating world of danger and adventure where he, himself, must play the hero. In the end, he finds that he and The Boy have more in common than he could ever have imagined. This delightful tale for all ages is perfect to offer to your YA readers or to anyone who has fond memories of the original.
May 4, 2009
I was skeptical about this book. If the story centers around nautical adventures too much, my interest wanes… considerably sometimes. I stuck with it, and was glad.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
August 24, 2010
The most memorable aspect of this somewhat dark Peter Pan rewrite is the active narrative voice, which at times struck me as clever and original, and at other times as annoyingly self-conscious and twee.
September 20, 2016
This book vascillated between 3 and 4 stars for me....it's charming and delightful mostly, but a bit heavy handed at times. I do love that the author is giving some of the proceeds to the Ormond Street Children's Hospital, though.
July 21, 2008
I know i'm easy, but I cried a lot during this book. I loved it. It was really creative and the voice was both familiar and delightfully new. A great take on the classic.
Want to read
January 19, 2010quote from Stoppard: "Because children grow up, we think a child’s purpose is to grow up. But a child’s purpose is to be a child.... "
September 4, 2015
Another terrible, difficult to follow, totally not understandable, re-telling of Peter Pan.
I do not even think I would give this to an enemy.
I do not even think I would give this to an enemy.
August 17, 2020
About a year ago I attended a comic book convention, and there at the back of the hall was Peter David. I have sort of a complicated relationship with reading his books. If you were to ask the ‘90s version of me how much I loved his work, I would have been very happy to oblige. But as I began reading a wider selection of material, my interest, and appreciation for, his work began to slip. Yet there he was, a year ago, and I thought it would be quite foolish to ignore such an opportunity. And sitting among his selection of merchandise were copies of Tigerheart. A year later and I finally got around to reading it. I think I made a good decision last year.
I’m a Peter Pan guy. I’m a fan. When Dave Barry (along with Ridley Pierson) wrote a series of books riffing on him, it was a perfect confluence of interests. Dave is famous for his perennially juvenile perspective. He ended up writing fairly straightforward Peter Pan adventures, which disappointed some readers, but at the same time I’ve never seen Peter spend so much quality time with children his age and enjoy doing so, and I think that was the whole point. J.M. Barrie’s Peter can be about as caustic and selfish as Tinkerbell, his defiance of aging a strike against adulthood, which is much as Peter David sees it. Dave saw it as Peter having “awfully big adventures,” which for those lucky ones is what childhood is and what adulthood doesn’t really guarantee.
Anyway, Peter David’s version is kind of a version in which we peak behind the curtain, a sequel but also a prequel, when all is said and done, in which we learn why Peter refuses to grow up, as his story parallels with that of Paul Dear, who undertakes a great adventure to repair a home life that has gone dangerously off the rails.
This is the sort of book with a great beginning and is only sort of great the rest of it. Peter David winds it up so tightly that it’s hard to compete with himself. By the time Paul actually reaches the Anyplace (Neverland), the Lemony Snicket narration style is passed over more than utilized, which guts the results considerably.
The other weakness is also paradoxically the book’s greatest strength: Paul’s relationship with a white tiger.
The two scenes where Paul actually interacts with the tiger are the best material of the book, and yet they are both brief and...only two scenes, and don’t occur until about halfway and then again near the end. In the bonus material Peter David admits the title of the book was something that came later and forced him to edit the name into the book itself in subsequent revisions. It would have been as well, and better, to have added more of the tiger himself, at least one more appearance, at the beginning somewhere.
If I were feeling less generous. I would suggest the results are a kind of fan fiction, that Paul is a relatively weak character because he exists mostly as an author stand-in (a Mary Sue) to help us revisit Peter but feel like a significant presence. The ending reveals a crucial bit of information, though, that is roundly suggested in the opening, although in hindsight a stronger link could have been made.
That the results are considered, by the author, as more of a pastiche than a continuation of Peter’s adventures is somewhat weakly defended by suggesting Peter himself couldn’t stand to appear in a story in which he is not firmly the star. So instead he’s The Boy and Peter David can alter and add to the mythology as he likes. He gives Hook, I mean Hack, a sister, for instance. And, well, I don’t see how that greatly improves anything.
And by abandoning a clear link he must also offer justifications for all these elements, and they’re also kind of weak, better if the witty narrator had simply punted his way through, as happens occasionally.
But on the whole, this was solid material. It’s the first time I truly enjoyed reading Peter David since that time he unofficially folded Trelane into Q lore. And it’s a pretty good riff on Peter Pan.
I’m a Peter Pan guy. I’m a fan. When Dave Barry (along with Ridley Pierson) wrote a series of books riffing on him, it was a perfect confluence of interests. Dave is famous for his perennially juvenile perspective. He ended up writing fairly straightforward Peter Pan adventures, which disappointed some readers, but at the same time I’ve never seen Peter spend so much quality time with children his age and enjoy doing so, and I think that was the whole point. J.M. Barrie’s Peter can be about as caustic and selfish as Tinkerbell, his defiance of aging a strike against adulthood, which is much as Peter David sees it. Dave saw it as Peter having “awfully big adventures,” which for those lucky ones is what childhood is and what adulthood doesn’t really guarantee.
Anyway, Peter David’s version is kind of a version in which we peak behind the curtain, a sequel but also a prequel, when all is said and done, in which we learn why Peter refuses to grow up, as his story parallels with that of Paul Dear, who undertakes a great adventure to repair a home life that has gone dangerously off the rails.
This is the sort of book with a great beginning and is only sort of great the rest of it. Peter David winds it up so tightly that it’s hard to compete with himself. By the time Paul actually reaches the Anyplace (Neverland), the Lemony Snicket narration style is passed over more than utilized, which guts the results considerably.
The other weakness is also paradoxically the book’s greatest strength: Paul’s relationship with a white tiger.
The two scenes where Paul actually interacts with the tiger are the best material of the book, and yet they are both brief and...only two scenes, and don’t occur until about halfway and then again near the end. In the bonus material Peter David admits the title of the book was something that came later and forced him to edit the name into the book itself in subsequent revisions. It would have been as well, and better, to have added more of the tiger himself, at least one more appearance, at the beginning somewhere.
If I were feeling less generous. I would suggest the results are a kind of fan fiction, that Paul is a relatively weak character because he exists mostly as an author stand-in (a Mary Sue) to help us revisit Peter but feel like a significant presence. The ending reveals a crucial bit of information, though, that is roundly suggested in the opening, although in hindsight a stronger link could have been made.
That the results are considered, by the author, as more of a pastiche than a continuation of Peter’s adventures is somewhat weakly defended by suggesting Peter himself couldn’t stand to appear in a story in which he is not firmly the star. So instead he’s The Boy and Peter David can alter and add to the mythology as he likes. He gives Hook, I mean Hack, a sister, for instance. And, well, I don’t see how that greatly improves anything.
And by abandoning a clear link he must also offer justifications for all these elements, and they’re also kind of weak, better if the witty narrator had simply punted his way through, as happens occasionally.
But on the whole, this was solid material. It’s the first time I truly enjoyed reading Peter David since that time he unofficially folded Trelane into Q lore. And it’s a pretty good riff on Peter Pan.
August 6, 2025
This was nearly a DNF for me. I just really struggled to want to pick this one up. There are good parts. I liked the ending a fair bit. The writing is very similar to Peter Pan in its whimsy and voice, but for one unfortunate flaw that really dragged the whole thing down. The fun of Peter Pan is the imagination. It didn't have to make sense, but in this, everything is explained, mainly things that aren't interesting or try to make sense of the world of Neverland, and it just gummed the fun up. I think this should have been shortened quite a bit, and some of the more adult things taken out and sold more for children. That's the other thing. I don't know who the target audience is besides adults who love Peter Pan. I am not the biggest fan so maybe this is all just because I am not quite the target, but it did seem a rather niche audience otherwise.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 158 reviews