A combination that really doesn't fly

I feel almost bad for Peter and the Starcatchers, my latest read. Right from the start, it has three things going against it.

1) Dave Barry is an author. While Barry may be an excellent humorist, this is his first foray into the world of young adult fiction; how qualified is he, really, to write this genre?
2) Ridley Pearson is another author. Previous books by him include The Kingdom Keepers, which functioned as a grandiose advertisement for Walt Disney World. That book, like Peter, was published by Disney; I wonder if Pearson has a contract with them.
3) Finally, and most importantly, these two authors are attempting to write a prequel to the brilliance of Peter Pan.

Understand that Peter Pan is possibly one of the greatest adventure novels ever written. Not a lot of adventuring goes on-- Never Land is, after all, an island that the Lost Boys have presumably explored prior to the book. But it's chock full of pirates, magic, strange creatures, and action. To top it off, the book has some really interesting themes of immortality, growing up, and good versus evil. It's probably my most beloved children's story, as I've seen the stage production no fewer than three times.

These two authors have a lot to live up to.

I'll start with the good. Ridley Pearson has a reputation, in my mind, for being readable, but horribly bad at pacing, and drearily unoriginal with his ideas. At the beginning of this story, these problems seem to have disappeared. Several mysterious, unfamiliar elements enter the picture, and it seems we're getting a whole new, starkly original Peter Pan story. The pirates are there, but the source of the magic doesn't seem to come from fairies. There are (inexplicably) talking animals. And best of all, Ridley Pearson's terrible storytelling (more on that in a minute) has been lightened by Dave Barry's presence, making the book much more readable.

But what Peter and the Starcatchers ultimately is, is an origin story, and so we have two problems. First, the authors have to hit all the right beats for Peter to be ready for his debut in Peter and Wendy. That means we need the creation of the Jolly Roger, the origin of Never Land, the identities of the Lost Boys, and much more. By the end, I was holding my breath, but not because I was involved in the story. No, I was waiting for Hook's hand to be cut off, which I knew had to happen by the end of the story, or the book would be incomplete.

It's an OCD approach to writing, and it leads to predictability. Furthermore, it causes the second problem with origin stories: the new elements, to which not enough attention is paid by the writers. Characters like Molly and Alf, and ships like the Never Land, are interesting at first because they're new, but they don't develop any more than that. Molly is a blank slate, an emotionless fountain of information (except on rare, seemingly random occasions when she bursts into tears). The Black Stache has levity with killing, just like Hook, but he has too much levity-- it's obvious that he still has some sort of soul, so his few problems with killing sometimes seem contradictory.

Even old characters have problems. The Lost Boys are mostly not characterized, though they're present for much of the novel. Tubby Ted, on the other hand, switches character randomly halfway through, from "hungry" to "constantly irritated". Also, Peter seems to be going through puberty by being attracted to Molly, which seems inconsistent with previous Peter characterizations (but only a little).

Finally, an origin story will nearly always tell you more than you wanted to know about a world. Spoilers hoy: Never Land is an actual island, not a magical place reached by flying through the galaxy. Pixie dust is actually star material. The savages are former British slaves. Peter's immortality is an arbitrary deus ex machina.

And by the end, the terrible pacing is back - in spades. Any slight progression in the story brings a new chapter, whether it be a character's decision or a step forward in the forest. It gets unbearable, though the book is still pretty readable.

In the end, it's the entertainment that Kingdom Keepers 2 was, only slightly better in that it is more skimmable. But appropriate though it may be for kids today, Peter and the Starcatchers does not live up to its source material.