Reviews

Had a good message about holding onto childlike wonder but the fact that a GROWN man wanted Wendy, a child, to 'be' his mother was beyond odd to me. It felt like one of the lessons girls are supposed to take from this book is to be prepared to 'mommy' to every boy and man in your life, and I just can't get behind that. Beautifully written, though.

faithtrustpixiedust's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

Buddy read with Nana (not to be confused with the dog nurse 😂)

As usual, this was golden ❤️

(Original review)

This is honestly so wonderful. I read this mostly because I am writing a dark fantasy Peter Pan retelling (you can vote on a title here), but it really exceeded my expectations. I knew it would be enjoyable--it is a classic that has stood the test of time--but it was really a fantastic story told so wonderfully. It feels like it is being told to you, and it feels like there's even more to tell, which is probably why it has become so iconic. Peter's character is so interesting because he's almost an antihero sometimes, and quite similar to Hook in so many ways. If you've only seen the Disney movie, you really should read the book because it is significantly better in every conceivable way (except for the singing--there isn't a lot of singing lol).

sade's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

So i picked up this book because i'd just read [b:All Darling Children|30462067|All Darling Children|Katrina Monroe|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1465531934l/30462067._SY75_.jpg|50995582] and i wanted to see how far from the original the author had strayed from Barrie's work. While Monroe presents Peter Pan as blood thirsty, most times for the sake of it, Barrie presents Peter Pan more as a selfish but brave child who has rather grand adventures with or without the lost boys.

You would think that such negative qualities would hurt Pan's general lovability and make him less likable but even with the negative, Barrie uses words to make such negative traits seem admirable. Observe:"it is humiliating to have to confess that this conceit of Peter was one of his most fascinating qualities". Being conceited is obviously negative but on Peter it's fascinating.

You have to wonder at how a boy who "thins out" the lost boys when they seem to be growing, has forbidden others to look in the least like him, who is soley interested in his own cleverness, forgets his friends

Spoiler

(i mean he even freaking forgot Tinkerbell existed and she drank poison for him, ugh)

, is ungrateful turns out to be a character children look up to. The peter pan page on G.O.S Hospital page describes Pan as a character "who has been inspiring children and adults alike for over a hundred years" Like its's actually funny. Inspite of all these Character flaws, Jas Hook was somehow a worse character and Villified (I suppose someone had to be a villian). You might at this point, like to point out that Hook probably was worse and treated his crew deplorably, Let's however not forget that when

Spoiler

.Peter helped Hook along to his death and took over the jolly roger becoming captain, he treated the boys the same way Hook treated his crew

"some of them wanted it to be an honest ship and others were in favour of keeping it a pirate; but the captain treated them as dogs, and they dared not express their wishes to him even in a round robin. instant obedience was the only safe thing."

Micheal and John's characters were not developed past the fact that they were Wendy's brothers. With or without them the plot would have moved along. I can't in all honesty begrude Wendy's character being that at the time the book was written, that's probably all girls' were taught to do.

All in all, I'm frankly i'm of the opinion that Peter Pan is psychotic. It was an interesting read though and i'm glad I finally got to read the real story of Peter Pan.

More...