Mary Poppins was an intriguing read; I remembered near nothing from the Disney adaptation, and started the book unsure of what to expect — perhaps a sweet, children-targeted story? Or something more disturbing like the Grimm’s fairytales? However, P.L. Travers offered an eccentric, independent, and sharp-natured character in Mary Poppins who was used to explore the boundary between childhood and adulthood, and, as cliche as it sounds, how everything may not be as it seems.
Mary Poppins, the character, appeared to be the cusp between the world of the children and the adults, having characteristics of both. The adults were generally absent from the lives of the Banks’ kids, except for Mary Poppins who also appeared to be timeless as she knew pretty much everyone the kids met in their adventures. The adventures themselves usually contained an aspect of what appeared to be “magic” with everything else rooted in reality; even the tale of the circus in the sky related to the actual constellations and sun. These magical events took the children away from their absent (and essentially useless) parents, would could not seem to handle any responsibilities and did not seem to know how to properly raise children. I think the author may have seen herself in Mary Poppins, ageless with no limitations to her imagination and peculiarities. Like Mary Poppins, she may had a childlike spirit even in an adult’s body.
I found it hilarious and slightly brilliant how Travers portrayed the children talking to the Starling. It was endearing how the children would keep emphasizing that they would never forget their conversations with the bird, yet inevitably forgetting as they became older. It spurned thought as well, making the reader (or at least me), consider the possibility that maybe babies are smarter than we realize; after all, people generally forget everything from their very early years, and, with Mary Poppins, anything seemed plausible.
With all the extraordinary events, it was definitely odd how Mary Poppins would consistently deny them from ever occurring, and I think it could be reflective of how the author, as a child, had a curious mind yet received censored or unclear answers to her speculations. Travers specifically shared in an article on The Times’s how she had read the Bible as a child and had questions that she didn’t receive clear answers for. Maybe with the denials of Mary Poppins, Travers is commentating on how the inquisitive nature of children is stunted by adults that don’t care or simply don’t think children have the mental capacity to understand. Mary Poppins, of course, delves into a world beyond the scope of the laws of nature and reason, and that in itself could also be the reason why no explanations were ever offered — it was never meant to be understood.
Travers has claimed that she “never wrote for children,” defending such a claim by questioning what exactly it would mean for a book to be written for children as opposed to adults and why regular literature books would then consequently not be meant for children. And I find her point very valid. In fact, I think this perspective of hers embedded in her writing made Mary Poppins approachable for all ages rather than a definitive audience. None of the material was filtered or simplified in how a traditional “children’s book” would be, and Travers, as a child, had appreciated books that didn’t omit or censor things that were deemed (emphasis on deemed by ADULTS) to be inappropriate for kids. I think Disney could probably see this as well, and, as the entrepreneur he was, he likely envisioned how a film version of Mary Poppins could be appreciated by a wide audience, aka more viewers and more profit. The ingenuity and bizarre nature of the stories could be particularly captivating along with a character that appeared all-powerful while stepping on the boundary between childhood and adulthood. These aspects would seem to be convincing motivators for Disney to make a film adaptation of Mary Poppins, and, although the novel Mary Poppins didn’t have a traditional “happily ever after”, I’m sure Disney could formulate one himself (and he clearly successfully did as shown through the success of the film).
Overall, I found Mary Poppins strange, but captivating due to how bizarre it all was. The multitude of characters and style of writing, including the repetitive parallels between Mary Poppins and Mary Poppins Comes Back, made the reading exhausting at times, but the plot-lines in the individual chapters oftentimes made up for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment