Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by mwesthaven
Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie
adventurous
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
TL;DR:
Peter Pan was more emotionally complex, darker, and more violent than I expected for a children’s book. The whimsical writing and deeper themes about childhood, loss of innocence, and maternal love were compelling—but the racist, stereotypical portrayal of Indigenous people was deeply offensive. I’m glad I read it for context, but I wouldn’t revisit it.~
✨️🌌⏳️🏝☠️🧚♂️✨️
As someone who grew up with Disney’s Peter Pan, I was curious to finally read J.M. Barrie’s original novel and see how it held up—and how it compared to the adaptation that shaped so many childhood memories. I expected something whimsical and light, but what I found was more layered, more melancholic, and, in some ways, more troubling than I anticipated.
*THEMES*
At its heart, Peter Pan is a story about childhood, but not in the carefree, playful sense we often associate with the word. It’s more about the desperate clinging to youth—how frightening growing up can be, and how comforting it is to be taken care of. The theme of motherhood runs throughout the book, presented as both a source of safety and a site of emotional trauma. Peter himself is emotionally wounded by his belief that his own mother closed the window on him and forgot him when he flew away. It’s a surprisingly painful undercurrent for a children’s classic.
*WRITING STYLE*
The narration was another surprise: it’s playful and self-aware in a way that feels unusually modern. Barrie writes with a kind of wink to the reader, reminding us that we’re hearing a story and that he’s the one shaping it. The tone is whimsical and stylized, with lines that stood out for their cleverness and symbolic weight—like the quote about Captain Hook:
Peter Pan was more emotionally complex, darker, and more violent than I expected for a children’s book. The whimsical writing and deeper themes about childhood, loss of innocence, and maternal love were compelling—but the racist, stereotypical portrayal of Indigenous people was deeply offensive. I’m glad I read it for context, but I wouldn’t revisit it.~
✨️🌌⏳️🏝☠️🧚♂️✨️
As someone who grew up with Disney’s Peter Pan, I was curious to finally read J.M. Barrie’s original novel and see how it held up—and how it compared to the adaptation that shaped so many childhood memories. I expected something whimsical and light, but what I found was more layered, more melancholic, and, in some ways, more troubling than I anticipated.
*THEMES*
At its heart, Peter Pan is a story about childhood, but not in the carefree, playful sense we often associate with the word. It’s more about the desperate clinging to youth—how frightening growing up can be, and how comforting it is to be taken care of. The theme of motherhood runs throughout the book, presented as both a source of safety and a site of emotional trauma. Peter himself is emotionally wounded by his belief that his own mother closed the window on him and forgot him when he flew away. It’s a surprisingly painful undercurrent for a children’s classic.
*WRITING STYLE*
The narration was another surprise: it’s playful and self-aware in a way that feels unusually modern. Barrie writes with a kind of wink to the reader, reminding us that we’re hearing a story and that he’s the one shaping it. The tone is whimsical and stylized, with lines that stood out for their cleverness and symbolic weight—like the quote about Captain Hook:
“He was never more sinister than when he was most polite.”
That line alone captures so much of the book’s dual nature: the way childlike fantasy is blended with real danger and darkness.
*ADAPTATION COMPARISON*
The Disney film, interestingly enough, stays fairly close to the book in spirit and character. Peter is still cocky and bratty, Hook is theatrical and menacing, and Wendy plays the nurturing, grown-up child among the Lost Boys. The adaptation rearranges and condenses the plot, but the core personalities are remarkably consistent. What Disney tones down, though, is the violence. In Peter Pan, the play-fighting of Neverland has consequences—people die. That darkness, while not graphic, caught me off guard. I didn't expect quite so much death.
*SETTING*
As for the setting, both London and Neverland are vividly drawn. London feels cozy and nostalgic, while Neverland is magical and dreamlike, full of the kind of make-believe that only children can fully immerse themselves in. It works beautifully with the themes of imagination, freedom, and escape.
🚫⚠️But then there’s the part that didn’t work—and honestly, shouldn’t have even then: the depiction of Indigenous people. The use of the term “Redskins,” the cultural stereotypes, the appropriation of Native customs by the white characters—these aspects are offensive and unacceptable. They age very poorly, and it’s hard to justify or excuse them, even in historical context. That part of the book was uncomfortable to read and significantly detracts from its legacy.
*FINAL THOUGHTS*
It’s not a book I’d re-read, but I’m glad I finally experienced it. It’s whimsical and clever, but also darker and more emotionally complex than I expected. While some parts still sparkle with imagination, others feel painful and outdated. I appreciate it for its historical value and what it has to say about childhood—but I won’t pretend it doesn’t come with caveats.
*ADAPTATION COMPARISON*
The Disney film, interestingly enough, stays fairly close to the book in spirit and character. Peter is still cocky and bratty, Hook is theatrical and menacing, and Wendy plays the nurturing, grown-up child among the Lost Boys. The adaptation rearranges and condenses the plot, but the core personalities are remarkably consistent. What Disney tones down, though, is the violence. In Peter Pan, the play-fighting of Neverland has consequences—people die. That darkness, while not graphic, caught me off guard. I didn't expect quite so much death.
*SETTING*
As for the setting, both London and Neverland are vividly drawn. London feels cozy and nostalgic, while Neverland is magical and dreamlike, full of the kind of make-believe that only children can fully immerse themselves in. It works beautifully with the themes of imagination, freedom, and escape.
🚫⚠️But then there’s the part that didn’t work—and honestly, shouldn’t have even then: the depiction of Indigenous people. The use of the term “Redskins,” the cultural stereotypes, the appropriation of Native customs by the white characters—these aspects are offensive and unacceptable. They age very poorly, and it’s hard to justify or excuse them, even in historical context. That part of the book was uncomfortable to read and significantly detracts from its legacy.
*FINAL THOUGHTS*
It’s not a book I’d re-read, but I’m glad I finally experienced it. It’s whimsical and clever, but also darker and more emotionally complex than I expected. While some parts still sparkle with imagination, others feel painful and outdated. I appreciate it for its historical value and what it has to say about childhood—but I won’t pretend it doesn’t come with caveats.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Racial slurs, Cultural appropriation
Moderate: Bullying, Child abuse, Death, Misogyny, Racism, Sexism, Violence, Blood, Murder, Injury/Injury detail
Minor: Death of parent, Abandonment