Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: greene66
Look up James Barrie's life, though.

His fascination with the Llewelyn Davies boys was certainly not healthy, even if nothing explicitly physical occured.

46 posted on 12/04/2014 2:33:54 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: x

He was an interesting character - had a very difficult childhood and an awful marriage. I think it was more a case of arrested development than any improper interest in the boys. The boys themselves (when grown) were of the opinion that he was asexual - an “innocent” was how they described him (which perhaps not coincidentally is the Scots term for a childish person). I’ve known at least one person that fits that description.


47 posted on 12/04/2014 3:58:14 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ecce Crucem Domini, fugite partes adversae. Vicit Leo de Tribu Iuda, Radix David, Alleluia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: x

Oh, I know about Barrie. Always interepreted him more through the lens of a Victorian type mindset, and (hoped) some of the things that seem squirrelly about him weren’t necessarily indicative of any kind of perversion. There was a wholly different worldview back then, which invariably might look suspect at times through the innately dark nature of modern culture. I observe it all the time in such vintage artifacts, and even recall it from my late grandparents and great-grandparents lives and attitudes.

I liked the 1924 silent film version of “Peter Pan” with Betty Bronson, but even better was the Barrie/Bronson follow-up, “A Kiss for Cinderella.”


52 posted on 12/05/2014 9:57:00 AM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson