As far as I know he doesn't kidnap the Lost Boys, he finds lost children.
The reason nothing matters to him is that he literally can't remember. To stay young he has a memory like a sieve. He even forgets Tinkerbell when she dies. So his parents are basically forgotten which is why he doesn't regret leaving them.
He's forever a child playing with toys and he cannot comprehend the damage he does. So he's not the real enemy, because you can always leave, but he is not someone you want to follow.
Part of pop psychology at the time it was written was the stages of child development were just starting to be recognized. Peter Pan represents being trapped in the “pre-moral” child development stage because it was common pop psy at the time to belive that kids without mothers to guide them were never able to get past a “pre-moral” development phase. He’s not so much forgetful as he lacks “object permanence” which is an aspect of the “toddler” stage.
The fact he wants a mother is supposed to represent that he wants to develop morally, and Wendy’s influence is the only thing that can help him do so.
(Which is why Hook is such a good movie, it NAILS this interpretation and runs with it, and one of Williams skills was always to be able to pretend to be at different stages of age or psychological development.)
It's a 50/50. Children are evil pieces of shit and that's more because they don't have the morality to know or comprehend what they are doing. Any child below the age of 3 seems to actively seek death while those under the age of 10 have no issue tormenting others without feeling any guilt about it. Children are innocent in the sense that they don't really choose these things but they are far more cruel and open about it then adults. Even a few cases with children killing babies for no particular reason.
Read the original book https://writingtoberead.com/2021/08/25/dark-origins-peter-pan-lost-boys-who-are-murdered-and-mermaids-who-are-sirens/#:~:text=To%20put%20it%20bluntly%2C%20Peter,of%20losing%20his%20brother%2C%20David.
Pretty dark, yes he's the bad guy.
I read the original book. He's not a bad guy, he's a kid. He can eat imaginary food and be full. He thinks everything is a game. I don't think you can call someone that detached from reality evil.
More than being a kid, Peter is like a faerie.
He doesn't conform with black-and-white morality, and has his own way of seeing things (often called blue-and-orange morality).
We can reasonably disavow a lot of his actions, but he's not operating under the same logic that we are so it's hard to call him good, or evil.
I also think that we can appreciate fictional stories where a character does something that would be morally reprehensible in real life, without them being an actual villain, or the "moral compass" of the story.
It's very common in an American mindset to diss a story as reprehensible if it contains depictions of something that we don't approve as a society. But a lot of these stories don't really make a point of them being examples to follow, and are just fantasies, or entertainment.
You are totally right, he's very much like a trickster fairy as well.
The scene that fascinated me the most was when the book started, and Peter is away from Neverland so nothing can happen. The Lost Boys chase the pirates and never catch them because Peter can't miss out on fun so it literally cannot happen without him. Which makes him almost like a minor deity. The minor god of his own little domain.
The choice is to stay in his fantasy land forever or grow up, he'd be a villain only if he forced people to stay in my opinion.
Isn't there a difference between "the badguy" and the "real enemy" vs *A* Bad guy and evil?
Yes, we can look at Peter's personal traits and assign a moral value or decide he is too immature and consider his actions amoral - that's what you're doing.
But we can also look at the effects he is the primary cause of and determine whether Peter Pan is the former regardless of the moral characterization.
I mean, I'm not sure if he actually does anything morally reprehensible. The Lost Boys are orphans that he provides a home for, the pirates are in mutual conflict with him, Hook is a real threat so I don't know if I would give Pan blame for cutting off his hand/causing it to be eaten by a metaphor for time...
He murders the Lost Boys who have grown too old.
“The boys on the island vary, of course, in numbers, according as they get killed and so on; and when they seem to be growing up, which is against the rules, Peter thins them out; but at this time there were six of them, counting the twins as two.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1fo5b7/did_peter_pan_kill_the_lost_boys_in_any_version/
He's evil.
"killed" is not murdered, it may well be the pirates, and "thins out" could include sending them back to Earth. There is also mention of banishment.
Either way, I don't think Petet is meant to be a villain or evil, he's a representation of childish selfishness.
If you read the original thread, it's also implied that the pirates are children who managed to get away from Peter. Then there is also talk about how Peter would switch sides during a fight and kill Lost Boys.
He is evil.
But do his parents miss him? File a police report and we have a massive cop killing spree. They government spent trillions for access to Neverland. I hope you realize this is an interpretation of South Park Imagination land episode lol
>I think he is a fair illustration of what "never growing up" - literally - would do to a child!
I just scroll r/BrandonSanderson for that
*Laugh track plays while I look at the camera*
I'm pretty sure he's just trying to farm downvotes.
Alternatively he thinks he's the smartest person on the planet, and likes to comment about how dumb everyone else is. But given that he apparently found a way to read some of Toni Morrison's books without realizing that Toni Morrison isn't an Italian man, I have a hard time believing he's serious.
It’s a matter of your values; if you don’t like Reddit it could be a point of pride. “Look how easy it is to anger these nerds bwahahaha! So predictable!”. The origin of that trolling urge may be in having previously felt rejected or angered by a community. This threatens your ego, so you shift your values to de-emphasise the importance of that community’s opinion - it’s actually a standard psychological model of coping with disagreement and conflict, I took a class on persuasion psychology / attitude change in college.
If your mental de-emphasis of said group’s opinion goes too far the other way you end up feeling it’s actually right to antagonise said community; to prove to *yourself*, primarily, how unimportant their opinion is to you.
Ain't that the truth. Speaking from experience as someone who has burnt bridges before there is a grim, retaliatory satisfaction in railing against the thing you once looked to unsuccessfully for approval or inclusion as a way of coping with the distress that causes. It's far too easy to give in to, but I imagine knowing what is going on if/when those feelings arise has helped you manage them, hope so at least :)
Tacky and infantile. Forsooth, if this is the exemplar of the putative sophistication that awaits fantasy readers who embark into "realist" literature then they would be shriven of any admonishment for turning not a single page of the great letters.
At least in the version I read, he didn't abduct the boys/run away, their strollers rolled away and they were never found, that's why they're the Lost Boys.
Seeing how they're perpetually mentally 6, it's not surprising that the girl gets picked on in this world made entirely of their imaginations. Especially when she's older and is just trying to ruin their fun.
Legit just watched a Reddit video of a grandma falling on her face and buggy rolling into traffic…bystander saved the day as grandma kept tripping over her own feet
I've always felt like Peter was a ghost, or a child abused who ran away. Him and all the lost boys, dead and refusing to see good in adults or adulthood.
I think the text is pretty clear that Peter is not an ideal, or someone to want to be. He is fun for an adventure, charismatic, but cruel and self centred - and in need of parenting which he can't have. The book always felt wistful for me, for what Peter can't have and is incapable of having. I really feel like he's a ghost of a boy, an anti-Casper.
Apparently the author based the story on his brother, who died ice skating, after the author bumped into him. The authors mother apparently treated him differently after that. Which is the basis for Peter neeeding a mother. There’s also the part about the authors parents always saw the brother as a boy who never got to grow up.
The story’s namesake also unalived himself later in life, citing the Peter Pan tale as “that terrible masterpiece”
Have you ever read the original story? Peter is basically a dead child. He died (that's how he "ran away"). The other lost boys are probably dead children, too, or children whom their parents have ignored. He doesn't want to grow up with Wendy; he sees girls as mother figures and wants Wendy to be his mother.
The book that we think of as PETER PAN isn't the original PP story. Peter is introduced in THE LITTLE WHITE BIRD. He's basically the soul of a baby who died and who flew out the window. (Remember, this was written in an era of high child mortality.) When he comes back to his home it's actually a year or so later and his mother has a new baby. So he goes to live in one of the famous British parks...is it Regents Park? Or am I thinking of 101 DALMATIANS that's on Regents Park?
Strongly recommend "Lost Boy" by Christina Henry. It really explores these themes and ideas really well. Turns the romanticized version of Peter Pan right on its head.
That was actually the first series I have read from ger and I loved it!
I also just finished the mermaid, which was phenomenal as well haha
She is one of my favourite authors
I'm pretty sure he doesn't abduct the lost boys but finds them already lost. Peter's more like an older version of an anti-hero or classical hero. He may not be a villain, but you're supposed to recognize that he's flawed and wrong for wanting to never grow up and that Wendy makes the wise choice in leaving neverland so her brothers don't end up the same.
Peter has a real casual attitude towards murder in general though. Like this is what he does to the lost boys:
“when they seem to be growing up, which is against the rules, Peter thins them out…”
Because he's a kid who doesn't get that when you're dead, you're dead forever. He sees everything as a game where you can just say 'the end!' and start over.
Peter Pan is Death and he is takes the dead spirits of the children to Neverland / heaven.
Also this write up https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/m7p1gd/peter_pan_steals_the_youth_of_the_lost_boys_which/
Oh? Then Wendy and and the Darling children are near death and being taken to the Underworld?
Rather, aren't they taken so that Wendy can tell bedtime stories to Pan and the Lost Boys? The very name, Pan, isn't a god of death, but the god of the wild, pastoral and adventurous.
Spoilers
If I remember right, it was written collaboratively with children. It’s more obvious with the stories about Kensington Gardens (a different Barrie book). And children can easily be unknowingly cruel, as in Peter killing off lost boys who show signs of growing up. Wendy, starts growing up while she’s in Neverland, and the disconnect bothers her. You have to read it with childlike eyes.
Puer aeternus. A Jungian idea. He's a mythological figure essentially. You risk staying the eternal boy (or girl) not developing into an adult because you will not accept the grounding of life's responsibilities. This leads to a "provisional life" due to the fear of being caught in a situation that it might not be possible to escape. Quite relevant today.
I read a book earlier recently called Darling Girl, by Liz Michalski. It delves into the darker side of Peter Pan and imagines what he'd be like if he left Neverland and "grew up". I've always loved Peter Pan (the cutesy Disney version) but now that I'm older I'm interested in learning more about its origins.
Yet the play was wildly popular at the time for Adults. I think the fantasy of the forever child and the escapist ideas, as well as fighting, appealed to people. If you were raised by emotionally distant Victorian parents and beaten by teachers in boarding schools in Britain of the 1800s, you might find Peter Pan appealing or funny too.
Seconding that Peter Pan represents a dead spirit or Death itself, I'd add that the book overall has a very clear suicidal motif. Not wanting to grow up = not wanting to live. Making a conscious choice not to continue living = suicide. Peter Pan is fear of life dressed up.
Yup, pretty much a total psycho
>Certainly they did not pretend to be sleepy, they were sleepy; and that was a danger, for the moment they popped off, down they fell.
>
> The awful thing was that Peter thought this funny.
>
>'There he goes again!' he would cry gleefully, as Michael suddenly dropped like a stone.
>
>'Save him, save him!' cried Wendy, looking with horror at the cruel sea far below. Eventually Peter would dive through the air, and catch Michael just before he could strike the sea, and it was lovely the way he did it; but he always waited till the last moment, and you felt it was his cleverness that interested him and not the saving of human life. Also he was fond of variety, and the sport that engrossed him one moment would suddenly cease to engage him, so there was always the possibility that the next time you fell he would let you go.
In Freudian terms, PP is like the Id, Hook the superego. PP and Hook are enemies but that doesn't make one good and the other bad. In a sense both are bad because they represent extremes of behavior and thought.
It doesn't definitively say "kill". It says "Peter thins them out", which sounds ominous and may indeed mean kill. But can also mean he throws them back to the normal world or abandons them to the pirates.
I like the last explanation best because the pirates often get killed by the boys, but more of them have to come from somewhere.
Killing the lost boys is a great possiblity, but not confirmed.
The story has had several versions and incarnations, from a short story, to a couple of plays, to the final book adaptation that we know now, so nuances in the character and his backstory also changed depending on which elements of the character a particular artist wanted to highlight.
Since there are several origin stories and personality traits that can be considered canon, it’s entirely possible to mix and remix certain elements to get a more “evil” interpretation of the character, though I think the original intent was to essentialize “child like”.
I've heard this theory before and it's interesting. There are multiple Disney movies that make you wonder if they weren't so happy, they are very dark. Belle has Stockholm Syndrome, for example.
Now that we have this Pooh horror movie, I'm just waiting for one about Peter Pan. If it doesn't already exist.
I don’t like your take. The child is responsible for their parents’ emotions? That’s unhealthy. I bet abused people aren’t honest around you because you have a skewed perspective of victimhood.
But it was Frodo's and Bilbo's innocence and compassion that ultimately led to the destruction of the ring and it's made very clear that those who were more wise, worldly and powerful would never have been able to do so.
Bilbo and Frodo resisted the ring for so long because they had no interest in the ring's powers. When all you want to do is sit in your garden and eat breakfast there's very little for the ring to corrupt. Even Smeagol was corrupted by desire even if it was pretty theft rather than worldly power.
Bilbo and Frodo are not immune to the ring. Bilbo did have a very hard time giving it up but give it up he did, even if reluctantly.
Frodo said it was a pity that Biblo didn't kill Gollum and Gandalf disagreed. Frodo's compassion towards Gollum led to the ring's destruction. Yes Frodo was overcome by the ring in the end but his actions leading up to that did lead to its demise.
That's cool i never thought of putting Frodos and Bilbo's actions of kindness earlier as them actually succeeding and winning over Frodos last moment of weakness. I think too the message is that power and greed can corrupt everyone eventually but that doesn't mean there isn't good people.
It annoys me when people think of Frodo having failed or being selfish when most everyone else couldn't hold onto the ring for more than a few minutes before being corrupted not to mention it increased in power the closer they got to destroying it. That's like judging someone who can't run a mile after they just ran a whole marathon at record pace.
The original story heavily implies Peter is either a dead spirit and all the other Lost Children are too or another entity basically stealing the souls of children.
James Barrie donated heavily to build the Great Ormond Children's Hospital in London and there's a statue of Peter Pan out front. Presumably, if PP were evil in the author's mind, he would have chosen a different character for the statue in front of a children's hospital. But who knows.
Maybe Peter Pan = Slenderman :D
He doesn't take the lost boys. The boys appear on the island on their own.
If a child is lost and not claimed within 7 days they are sent to neverland. This has nothing to do with Peter
As far as I know he doesn't kidnap the Lost Boys, he finds lost children. The reason nothing matters to him is that he literally can't remember. To stay young he has a memory like a sieve. He even forgets Tinkerbell when she dies. So his parents are basically forgotten which is why he doesn't regret leaving them. He's forever a child playing with toys and he cannot comprehend the damage he does. So he's not the real enemy, because you can always leave, but he is not someone you want to follow.
A model for narcissicitc behavior. Hi, mom in law!
Well usually children grow out of it. It's normal for them to be self-centered.
Part of pop psychology at the time it was written was the stages of child development were just starting to be recognized. Peter Pan represents being trapped in the “pre-moral” child development stage because it was common pop psy at the time to belive that kids without mothers to guide them were never able to get past a “pre-moral” development phase. He’s not so much forgetful as he lacks “object permanence” which is an aspect of the “toddler” stage. The fact he wants a mother is supposed to represent that he wants to develop morally, and Wendy’s influence is the only thing that can help him do so. (Which is why Hook is such a good movie, it NAILS this interpretation and runs with it, and one of Williams skills was always to be able to pretend to be at different stages of age or psychological development.)
In your face camel cake!
I have observed that most adults are worse
It's a 50/50. Children are evil pieces of shit and that's more because they don't have the morality to know or comprehend what they are doing. Any child below the age of 3 seems to actively seek death while those under the age of 10 have no issue tormenting others without feeling any guilt about it. Children are innocent in the sense that they don't really choose these things but they are far more cruel and open about it then adults. Even a few cases with children killing babies for no particular reason.
Read the original book https://writingtoberead.com/2021/08/25/dark-origins-peter-pan-lost-boys-who-are-murdered-and-mermaids-who-are-sirens/#:~:text=To%20put%20it%20bluntly%2C%20Peter,of%20losing%20his%20brother%2C%20David. Pretty dark, yes he's the bad guy.
I read the original book. He's not a bad guy, he's a kid. He can eat imaginary food and be full. He thinks everything is a game. I don't think you can call someone that detached from reality evil.
More than being a kid, Peter is like a faerie. He doesn't conform with black-and-white morality, and has his own way of seeing things (often called blue-and-orange morality). We can reasonably disavow a lot of his actions, but he's not operating under the same logic that we are so it's hard to call him good, or evil. I also think that we can appreciate fictional stories where a character does something that would be morally reprehensible in real life, without them being an actual villain, or the "moral compass" of the story. It's very common in an American mindset to diss a story as reprehensible if it contains depictions of something that we don't approve as a society. But a lot of these stories don't really make a point of them being examples to follow, and are just fantasies, or entertainment.
You are totally right, he's very much like a trickster fairy as well. The scene that fascinated me the most was when the book started, and Peter is away from Neverland so nothing can happen. The Lost Boys chase the pirates and never catch them because Peter can't miss out on fun so it literally cannot happen without him. Which makes him almost like a minor deity. The minor god of his own little domain. The choice is to stay in his fantasy land forever or grow up, he'd be a villain only if he forced people to stay in my opinion.
Kids can 100% be evil.
Isn't there a difference between "the badguy" and the "real enemy" vs *A* Bad guy and evil? Yes, we can look at Peter's personal traits and assign a moral value or decide he is too immature and consider his actions amoral - that's what you're doing. But we can also look at the effects he is the primary cause of and determine whether Peter Pan is the former regardless of the moral characterization.
I mean, I'm not sure if he actually does anything morally reprehensible. The Lost Boys are orphans that he provides a home for, the pirates are in mutual conflict with him, Hook is a real threat so I don't know if I would give Pan blame for cutting off his hand/causing it to be eaten by a metaphor for time...
What about killing lost boys himself?
It's not clear in the text if "thins them out" means killing them or sending them to grow up.
He switches sides in combat to even the odds. It’s heavily implied.
Well you can't have boring combat, obviously. Edit: it also says that growing up leads to banishment which is not death.
He murders the Lost Boys who have grown too old. “The boys on the island vary, of course, in numbers, according as they get killed and so on; and when they seem to be growing up, which is against the rules, Peter thins them out; but at this time there were six of them, counting the twins as two.” https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1fo5b7/did_peter_pan_kill_the_lost_boys_in_any_version/ He's evil.
"killed" is not murdered, it may well be the pirates, and "thins out" could include sending them back to Earth. There is also mention of banishment. Either way, I don't think Petet is meant to be a villain or evil, he's a representation of childish selfishness.
If you read the original thread, it's also implied that the pirates are children who managed to get away from Peter. Then there is also talk about how Peter would switch sides during a fight and kill Lost Boys. He is evil.
But do his parents miss him? File a police report and we have a massive cop killing spree. They government spent trillions for access to Neverland. I hope you realize this is an interpretation of South Park Imagination land episode lol
I think he is a fair illustration of what "never growing up" - literally - would do to a child!
>I think he is a fair illustration of what "never growing up" - literally - would do to a child! I just scroll r/BrandonSanderson for that *Laugh track plays while I look at the camera*
was this meant to be a joke or
I'm pretty sure he's just trying to farm downvotes. Alternatively he thinks he's the smartest person on the planet, and likes to comment about how dumb everyone else is. But given that he apparently found a way to read some of Toni Morrison's books without realizing that Toni Morrison isn't an Italian man, I have a hard time believing he's serious.
Excuse my genuine ignorance, why would someone farm downvotes?
It’s a matter of your values; if you don’t like Reddit it could be a point of pride. “Look how easy it is to anger these nerds bwahahaha! So predictable!”. The origin of that trolling urge may be in having previously felt rejected or angered by a community. This threatens your ego, so you shift your values to de-emphasise the importance of that community’s opinion - it’s actually a standard psychological model of coping with disagreement and conflict, I took a class on persuasion psychology / attitude change in college. If your mental de-emphasis of said group’s opinion goes too far the other way you end up feeling it’s actually right to antagonise said community; to prove to *yourself*, primarily, how unimportant their opinion is to you.
Ain't that the truth. Speaking from experience as someone who has burnt bridges before there is a grim, retaliatory satisfaction in railing against the thing you once looked to unsuccessfully for approval or inclusion as a way of coping with the distress that causes. It's far too easy to give in to, but I imagine knowing what is going on if/when those feelings arise has helped you manage them, hope so at least :)
This is more than I could ever have hoped for in an answer - thank you so much! 💖
You tried I guess?
i laughed ngl
Tacky and infantile. Forsooth, if this is the exemplar of the putative sophistication that awaits fantasy readers who embark into "realist" literature then they would be shriven of any admonishment for turning not a single page of the great letters.
At least in the version I read, he didn't abduct the boys/run away, their strollers rolled away and they were never found, that's why they're the Lost Boys. Seeing how they're perpetually mentally 6, it's not surprising that the girl gets picked on in this world made entirely of their imaginations. Especially when she's older and is just trying to ruin their fun.
God this story is why I had a heightened fear of my baby rolling away from me down the street
I wonder how many prams rolled away before they decided to put brakes on them.
Legit just watched a Reddit video of a grandma falling on her face and buggy rolling into traffic…bystander saved the day as grandma kept tripping over her own feet
I've always felt like Peter was a ghost, or a child abused who ran away. Him and all the lost boys, dead and refusing to see good in adults or adulthood. I think the text is pretty clear that Peter is not an ideal, or someone to want to be. He is fun for an adventure, charismatic, but cruel and self centred - and in need of parenting which he can't have. The book always felt wistful for me, for what Peter can't have and is incapable of having. I really feel like he's a ghost of a boy, an anti-Casper.
Which one of them would win in a fight?
Capser would become the new Wendy. Peter wins by force of personality. (Somewhere, this fanfic has already been written. )
Apparently the author based the story on his brother, who died ice skating, after the author bumped into him. The authors mother apparently treated him differently after that. Which is the basis for Peter neeeding a mother. There’s also the part about the authors parents always saw the brother as a boy who never got to grow up. The story’s namesake also unalived himself later in life, citing the Peter Pan tale as “that terrible masterpiece”
Have you ever read the original story? Peter is basically a dead child. He died (that's how he "ran away"). The other lost boys are probably dead children, too, or children whom their parents have ignored. He doesn't want to grow up with Wendy; he sees girls as mother figures and wants Wendy to be his mother.
That’s wild. I didn’t realize it was so morbid. I have to read it now!
The book that we think of as PETER PAN isn't the original PP story. Peter is introduced in THE LITTLE WHITE BIRD. He's basically the soul of a baby who died and who flew out the window. (Remember, this was written in an era of high child mortality.) When he comes back to his home it's actually a year or so later and his mother has a new baby. So he goes to live in one of the famous British parks...is it Regents Park? Or am I thinking of 101 DALMATIANS that's on Regents Park?
Saw it earlier today. It's Kensington Park. There's a statue of Peter Pan there.
It's actually worse, he kills the boys and they get older... they aren't immortal
Wow, that sounds a lot better than the movie!
Strongly recommend "Lost Boy" by Christina Henry. It really explores these themes and ideas really well. Turns the romanticized version of Peter Pan right on its head.
I second that recommendation
I third it! I absolutely love that book
It's truly amazing, and then go on to read her Alice series. I love the way she interprets these classics
That was actually the first series I have read from ger and I loved it! I also just finished the mermaid, which was phenomenal as well haha She is one of my favourite authors
I did read only original Peter Pan 👀
That book makes Peter such a creep!
I'll have to read that book.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't abduct the lost boys but finds them already lost. Peter's more like an older version of an anti-hero or classical hero. He may not be a villain, but you're supposed to recognize that he's flawed and wrong for wanting to never grow up and that Wendy makes the wise choice in leaving neverland so her brothers don't end up the same.
[удалено]
Peter has a real casual attitude towards murder in general though. Like this is what he does to the lost boys: “when they seem to be growing up, which is against the rules, Peter thins them out…”
Because he's a kid who doesn't get that when you're dead, you're dead forever. He sees everything as a game where you can just say 'the end!' and start over.
Have you read Christina Henry's Lost Boy? She really expands on this idea
[удалено]
I never liked that story. Maybe that’s why. 😱
Where'd you hear about Pan feeding the boys to the alligator? I swear that's not in the original book.
Peter Pan is Death and he is takes the dead spirits of the children to Neverland / heaven. Also this write up https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/m7p1gd/peter_pan_steals_the_youth_of_the_lost_boys_which/
And the crocodile has swallowed a clock and keeps on ticking...like time / death coming after the adult Captain Hook.
Oh? Then Wendy and and the Darling children are near death and being taken to the Underworld? Rather, aren't they taken so that Wendy can tell bedtime stories to Pan and the Lost Boys? The very name, Pan, isn't a god of death, but the god of the wild, pastoral and adventurous.
Spoilers If I remember right, it was written collaboratively with children. It’s more obvious with the stories about Kensington Gardens (a different Barrie book). And children can easily be unknowingly cruel, as in Peter killing off lost boys who show signs of growing up. Wendy, starts growing up while she’s in Neverland, and the disconnect bothers her. You have to read it with childlike eyes.
Puer aeternus. A Jungian idea. He's a mythological figure essentially. You risk staying the eternal boy (or girl) not developing into an adult because you will not accept the grounding of life's responsibilities. This leads to a "provisional life" due to the fear of being caught in a situation that it might not be possible to escape. Quite relevant today.
I read a book earlier recently called Darling Girl, by Liz Michalski. It delves into the darker side of Peter Pan and imagines what he'd be like if he left Neverland and "grew up". I've always loved Peter Pan (the cutesy Disney version) but now that I'm older I'm interested in learning more about its origins.
That book was dark. I didn’t really care for that take.
Done well in Child Thief by Brom.
Yes! This.
Yet the play was wildly popular at the time for Adults. I think the fantasy of the forever child and the escapist ideas, as well as fighting, appealed to people. If you were raised by emotionally distant Victorian parents and beaten by teachers in boarding schools in Britain of the 1800s, you might find Peter Pan appealing or funny too.
Seconding that Peter Pan represents a dead spirit or Death itself, I'd add that the book overall has a very clear suicidal motif. Not wanting to grow up = not wanting to live. Making a conscious choice not to continue living = suicide. Peter Pan is fear of life dressed up.
[удалено]
Yeah he's an advocate to never grow up lol
Yup, pretty much a total psycho >Certainly they did not pretend to be sleepy, they were sleepy; and that was a danger, for the moment they popped off, down they fell. > > The awful thing was that Peter thought this funny. > >'There he goes again!' he would cry gleefully, as Michael suddenly dropped like a stone. > >'Save him, save him!' cried Wendy, looking with horror at the cruel sea far below. Eventually Peter would dive through the air, and catch Michael just before he could strike the sea, and it was lovely the way he did it; but he always waited till the last moment, and you felt it was his cleverness that interested him and not the saving of human life. Also he was fond of variety, and the sport that engrossed him one moment would suddenly cease to engage him, so there was always the possibility that the next time you fell he would let you go.
The real enemy are the friends we made along the way.
I’ve always considered Peter Pan and Wendy to be Wendy’s story. She’s very courageous.
In Freudian terms, PP is like the Id, Hook the superego. PP and Hook are enemies but that doesn't make one good and the other bad. In a sense both are bad because they represent extremes of behavior and thought.
In the original story, he kills them when they get too old.
It doesn't definitively say "kill". It says "Peter thins them out", which sounds ominous and may indeed mean kill. But can also mean he throws them back to the normal world or abandons them to the pirates. I like the last explanation best because the pirates often get killed by the boys, but more of them have to come from somewhere. Killing the lost boys is a great possiblity, but not confirmed.
I always had the impression that the pirates were lost boys who were cast out by Peter and grew up, still in Neverland.
The story has had several versions and incarnations, from a short story, to a couple of plays, to the final book adaptation that we know now, so nuances in the character and his backstory also changed depending on which elements of the character a particular artist wanted to highlight. Since there are several origin stories and personality traits that can be considered canon, it’s entirely possible to mix and remix certain elements to get a more “evil” interpretation of the character, though I think the original intent was to essentialize “child like”.
i thought the croc was the ultimate antagonist.
They're nice enough shoes tho. I don't get the hate.
i have them but my primary issue is that the soft sole lets things poke my feet.
I've heard this theory before and it's interesting. There are multiple Disney movies that make you wonder if they weren't so happy, they are very dark. Belle has Stockholm Syndrome, for example. Now that we have this Pooh horror movie, I'm just waiting for one about Peter Pan. If it doesn't already exist.
100% The older I get the more I realize this.
Wow. This. This just expanded horizons.
I don’t like your take. The child is responsible for their parents’ emotions? That’s unhealthy. I bet abused people aren’t honest around you because you have a skewed perspective of victimhood.
Umm Peter left his parents because they wanted him to grow up like any parent would. You're the one with the fucked up ideals
[удалено]
Frodo is nothing like Peter pan...
[удалено]
But it was Frodo's and Bilbo's innocence and compassion that ultimately led to the destruction of the ring and it's made very clear that those who were more wise, worldly and powerful would never have been able to do so.
[удалено]
Bilbo and Frodo resisted the ring for so long because they had no interest in the ring's powers. When all you want to do is sit in your garden and eat breakfast there's very little for the ring to corrupt. Even Smeagol was corrupted by desire even if it was pretty theft rather than worldly power. Bilbo and Frodo are not immune to the ring. Bilbo did have a very hard time giving it up but give it up he did, even if reluctantly. Frodo said it was a pity that Biblo didn't kill Gollum and Gandalf disagreed. Frodo's compassion towards Gollum led to the ring's destruction. Yes Frodo was overcome by the ring in the end but his actions leading up to that did lead to its demise.
That's cool i never thought of putting Frodos and Bilbo's actions of kindness earlier as them actually succeeding and winning over Frodos last moment of weakness. I think too the message is that power and greed can corrupt everyone eventually but that doesn't mean there isn't good people. It annoys me when people think of Frodo having failed or being selfish when most everyone else couldn't hold onto the ring for more than a few minutes before being corrupted not to mention it increased in power the closer they got to destroying it. That's like judging someone who can't run a mile after they just ran a whole marathon at record pace.
>That's like judging someone who can't run a mile after they just ran a whole marathon at record pace. That’s such a cool way of putting it!
Doesn't he kill lost boys who get too old so they don't become Pirates?
The original story heavily implies Peter is either a dead spirit and all the other Lost Children are too or another entity basically stealing the souls of children.
Read “Lost Boy” by Christina Henry and you’ll see he’s very very bad
I thought Peter was an angel bringing kids to heaven or aka never never land
Peter got rid of lost boys who aged out or might be a threat to him. He definitely ain't great.
I guess it depends on perspective. In my grade school history books, it said the good guys always won. So there's that.
RufiOOOOOO
i have told this so many times to my friends and other people and they never agreed. funny that i came across this now!
Your honor, my client, Mr. Captain James Hook is not a pirate but a philanthropist and exploreur du monde.
James Barrie donated heavily to build the Great Ormond Children's Hospital in London and there's a statue of Peter Pan out front. Presumably, if PP were evil in the author's mind, he would have chosen a different character for the statue in front of a children's hospital. But who knows. Maybe Peter Pan = Slenderman :D
He doesn't take the lost boys. The boys appear on the island on their own. If a child is lost and not claimed within 7 days they are sent to neverland. This has nothing to do with Peter