#then again it all depends on wether you consider the Eton speech 'canon' or not

[velvetgoldie]

On Captain Jas. Hook’s timeline: a trick of narration and metatextuality

To most, Captain Hook is, and always will be, Peter Pan’s greatest foe; but that would be without taking into account James Matthew Barrie’s lifework: fleshing out what remains to be his most thorough character.

Sixteen years after the publication of the 1911 novel of Peter Pan, and twenty-three years after the first apparition of the eponymous character on stage, it was not the boy who couldn’t grow up who was chosen to be the center of Barrie’s speech at Eton; neither was it Wendy Darling - by many accounts the true hero of the story. Instead, Eton’s provost sent the following prompt to the revered author: “James Hook, the pirate captain, was a great Etonian, but not a good one”. It was the author’s role to refute this statement; which he did, and magnificently so. But what we learn from this speech seems contradictory from what had been established from the novel... Unless you study it by taking into account Barrie’s chief characteristic as an author: he is, and is remembered as, a wonderful storyteller.

Barrie’s style in Peter Pan (1911) is remarkable as he constantly steps away from his role as a narrator and reveals his hand in spinning the story as its author. For instance, in chapter 5, the narrator/author placidly remarks:

“Let us now kill a pirate, to show Hook's method. Skylights will do.”

We switch from description to action as the narrator dictates; and as such, the narrator shows that he is not only narrating, but also choosing how the story goes along. This kind of storytelling is traditionally used orally; here, it feels as though the written text is alive, being spoken as we read. Funnily enough, this kind of narration isn’t confusing for children at all; instead, it reinforces the fictional aspect of it all. The children reading musn’t fear for Peter or Wendy or the Lost Boys; for it remains, after all, a story.

But is Barrie only using metatextual tools to reassure the children? A closer look at the text shows otherwise.

It’s one thing to write the story as though it were told orally; it is another to create doubt in the mind of the reader by slipping in-and-out the diegesis. Often, the author relates the events as though they had been shared with him by someone else; to keep in mind the fifth chapter of the book, we can read:

“I have been told that he [Captain Hook] was a raconteur...”

And this recurrent use of “being told”, “having heard”, etc., suddenly fleshes out this fantastical world, by connecting it to the seemingly actual life of the author. Not only does Barrie tell and shape the story to his will, but he seemingly takes elements from his friends, acquaintances, and other faceless and nameless figures that only serve to give credit to his story.

This fascinating blur between real and the fake has also been manipulated by other great authors to the destination of children: one of the most famous examples might be none other than “Lemony Snicket” of the Unfortunate Events series. And there might have been some inspiration from Barrie when writing the thirteen mystery books; for Barrie often appears as an investigator himself.

Indeed, his 1927 lecture is not only a reply to the prompt given to him a month prior, but an investigation; as Brian Till puts it in his article “The Secret History of Captain Hook”, 

“Barrie takes the tone of an investigative reporter or prosecutor-judge, dutifully presenting the facts he has found.”

In his speech, and in order to “prove his case”, Barrie presents not fiction, but facts - heard from acquaintances and friends. Barrie mentions names as one would call witnesses to the bar: Mr. Jasparin, or Hook’s Aunt Emily, provide accounts which have to be taken for granted. It becomes difficult to keep in mind it is all fiction, as James Matthew Barrie remains ambiguous of what his actual role might be: both author, narrator, investigator, and witness.

Allow us, after having presented our facts, to round them up with the actual question at hand: what is Captain Hook’s actual timeline? This question might be asked by whoever read both the novel and Barrie’s lecture. Indeed, if one takes into account the novel, Hook is a contemporary of Stevenson’s Long John Silver (the “Sea-Cook”); thus, an 18th century-pirate. However, if one takes into account the latest additions Barrie made with his Eton speech, Hook is a contemporary of Barrie; thus, a 19th century pirate. It is known that only Peter Pan remains forever young; his Lost Boys grow up and are replaced by others. Therefore, it is out of the question to consider that Hook managed to live for over a hundred years.

So while both descriptions can be considered canon, which is actually real?

The following extract is from Hook’s description in the novel:

“In the midst of them, the blackest and largest in that dark setting, reclined James Hook, or as he wrote himself, Jas. Hook, of whom it is said he was the only man that the Sea-Cook feared. [...] In manner, something of the grand seigneur still clung to him, so that he even ripped you up with an air, and I have been told that he was a raconteur of repute. [...] A man of indomitable courage, it was said that the only thing he shied at was the sight of his own blood, which was thick and of an unusual colour. In dress he somewhat aped the attire associated with the name of Charles II, having heard it said in some earlier period of his career that he bore a strange resemblance to the ill-fated Stuarts...”

What transpires from this entire description are the many marks of hearsays (which have reached both Barrie’s ears and, more interestingly, Hook’s). “Of whom it is said...”, “I have been told...”, “it was said...”, “having heard it said...”; all these are proofs that none of these descriptions come from first-hand accounts.

These second-hand accounts somehow differ from the accounts given in Barrie’s lecture at Eton in 1927; in the novel, Aunt Emily or Mr. Jasparin are nowhere to be found - which also means there are no “reliable” sources for these comments on Hook’s character. In the novel, these comments remain sourceless - thus, vague and unreliable. While Barrie turns himself into an investigator for his Eton speech, his intention isn’t the same with the Peter Pan novel. The novel is destined for children, and as such, it makes sure the children feel impressed by the main foe of the novel. In order to accomplish that, it creates a villainous (and by extension, mysterious) aura to wrap around Hook’s shoulders: what can be more impressive than the man itself, if not the man’s reputation?

Therefore, while the most plausible, but perhaps not the most satisfying, reply to the question is saying that Barrie hadn’t planned to make a lecture about Hook more than twenty years after his first apparition (which explains the time difference between both descriptions), one can offer an alternative.

Captain James Hook might very well be a 19th century Etonian who happened to stumble into piracy and chose to contribute to his fearsome reputation by encouraging, if not starting himself, rumors about his encounters with fantastical 18th century pirates such as Long-John Silver. After all, isn’t Hook known to be a talented “raconteur” himself? As a storyteller, Hook has the capacity to re-invent himself; we know that even his appearance is fashioned after that of 17th century English King Charles II, blurring the timeline even further. By incarnating the very idea of a timeless pirate, deliberately mixing elements from three different centuries, Hook conceals himself from his own mortality - even if, in the end, it isn’t enough to avoid his fate.

The similarities between James Hook and James Barrie are many, and most certainly not fortuitous; these resemblances might culminate in their capacity to spin a story to their will, as Hook chooses to reshape his own image, while Barrie reshapes Hook. In the end, it is difficult to understand where one begins and where one ends; the only thing that remains certain, is that there is still many a mystery left within the intricate text that a peculiar storyteller left us with.