But no. Judging by educator Debbie Reese's analysis, Peter Pan in Scarlet is much worse than J.M. Barrie's original. Here's the story:
Peter Pan in Scarlet
The worst parts for me, as I read this book, are McCaughrean's references to Indians:
And then...the Indians themselves.
In all of what I've listed above, McCaughrean (apparently in the same style as Barrie), provides readers with a specific portrayal of Indians. Like countless writers, she provides her readers with a stereotypical Indian. Tipis (she spells it tepees) and totem poles do not originate with the same tribe. Her Indians are warriors and squaws in warpaint, carrying bows and arrows and knives. They know about scalping. But! Throat slitters???
Some detailed excerpts from the book:
Notes and Summary: Peter Pan in Scarlet
Comment: I've highlighted many of Barrie's passages about Indians in Tiger Lily in Peter Pan: An Allegory of Anglo-Indian Relations. Peter Pan in Scarlet sounds like it's several times worse. I.e., it literally has several times the amount of stereotypes. That's inexcusable in a book written just a few years ago.
For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Books.