"I like her best": Motherhood and Revision in J. M. Barrie's Pan Narratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though recent scholars like Duschinsky and Heath have plunged into analysis of girlhood and femininity in film adaptations of Peter Pan, the shifting treatment of femininity in Barrie’s own adaptation is less discussed. In his novelization of the Pan tales, Barrie revises his story to focus on motherhood, emphasizing the role of an underdeveloped demographic in the play. Childhood reigns supreme in Barrie’s play, but the novel adaptation Peter and Wendy foregrounds mothers. Though scholars such as Jack and Morse have discussed the creator role of mothers in both the play and the novel, Peter and Wendy introduces a fresh emphasis on motherly sorrow. A comparison of key scenes in the narrative shows that Barrie took advantage of the revision process to make the suffering of mothers central in the novel, presenting a more sympathetic view of mothers and a more critical view of children who forget them. While the stage directions of the play hint at the heartlessness of children, the novel’s narrator belabors this theme. An examination of an alternate ending created several years after the play’s first performance reveals that the suffering of mothers figures more prominently in the novel than in either of the play’s best-known iterations. The possibility of direct address in the novel form allows the narrator to explicate the suffering of mothers and the heartlessness of children, ensuring that the novel’s audience grasps this idea which the play’s audience might have missed. This shift in focus may further illuminate (or complicate) Barrie’s treatment of and connection to mothers—a theme that has riddled Pan scholarship for nearly a century.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".