Yeah okay theres so many ways you can interpret this like???
MY PROBLEM IS THAT PEOPLE JUST TAKE PETER PAN FOR FACE VALUE WHEN THERES SO MUCH GOING ON AND EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT WHEN YOU ACTUALLY READ IT AND TAKE THE STYLE OF IT INTO ACCOUNT BUT..
The only thing that the book mentions about killing lost boys is when it says that he “thins them out” from time to time or when they start growing up but thats so vague like why are we just assuming that he kills them?
The thing with Peter Pan, is basically it’s written as if it were by an adult trying to explain things to a child, which in a way, it is. This means that it’s not only super vague, but also really strange to the point where the reader basically has to suspend disbelief about literally everything.
Peter Pan is a child playing pretend except everything is real. If two children are playing cops and robbers and the boy playing the robber shoots the boy playing the cop with his imaginary gun, do we suddenly think that boy is evil or cruel or twisted? No, because it’s a game. That’s what it is to Peter–a game, a dream, a big pretend. He’s a child and he goes by children’s rules. Does that
excuse him? No. Does that make him evil? Absolutely not.
So let’s assume that “thinning out” actually means “killing”.
First off we have to ask ourselves–do people even really die at all in Neverland?Time doesn’t exist in neverland. People don’t really age, or else all the Pirates and Native people would be dead dead deadddd by now. (well the tribe i think has generations living there but the pirates from what we know have no women and therefor no reproductive abilities like theyre all GROWN men so?) So we cannot say if anything is finite at all. For Peter, Neverland is a big playground where he can act out all of the adventures he wants, for the kids, it is literally their dreams come to life. Creatures are created just to be hunted. Faeries have orgies. Wendy’s life was saved by an acorn and Peter had an argument with a bird. Sure things are killed. Pirates are killed. but if this killing was permanent wouldn’t eventually there be no pirates left on the island? If Peter just spends eternity killing them off?
Really we’re assuming that death in Neverland works like death here, when in reality, it could be no different than death in children’s play, dead one day and back in time for dinner. We really don’t know. But by the way the story is written, even that would be believable.
The way I see it is this: things in Neverland are as each child makes it. If they believe they’re eating dinner, their bellies get full. If they believe Wendy is their mother–even if she’s their sister–they suddenly cannot see Wendy as anything else. If they don’t believe in faeries, the faeries cease to exist.
Under this logic, isn’t it only safe to say that if they believe they’ll be kids forever, they will be? It’s not until they start to want to grow up that they begin to grow up. And every grown up in Neverland is a Pirate. So really, if you /do/ think that Peter is killing these kids for just growing up…I feel like it’s a lot more complicated. In a way, he’s killing these kids because they’re betraying him by choosing to grow up, choosing to leave their childhood (and him, because he’s a manifestation of childhood), and picking sides with the Pirates. So really, he’s killing them for betraying him. Which I mean, he’d still be killing them but at least it’s a little more understandable.
If he’s killing them at all.
To sum all of these really unorganized thoughts up: /
-Peter might not be killing any of the lost boys at all, but people just jump to that conclusion. He might be dropping them off with their nannies where he got them in the first place jfc people like chill out.
-If he is killing them it’s because a) he doesn’t understand the concept of death because death isn’t the same finite thing that it is outside of Neverland.
or b) they’ve betrayed him and chosen to grow up and become pirates and therefore they’ve become his sworn enemy.
-Peter Pan isn’t some evil little demon who’s entire existence is based on stealing kids away and waiting for them to get old and then killing him like he’s def not innocent lmao he does kill pirates and he’s very violent tbh. Hes a hella asshole. But he’s also very loyal (once he remembers who you are like he goes v far to save his friends multiple times) and he cares about the lost boys a lot. He brought Wendy to them because he wanted to be able to tell the Lost boys what happened in the stories she always told like he literally brought her and her brothers all the way to never land so that his lil babs would get to know how Cinderella or some shit ended like?? wow
Idk my major frustration stems from this whole “Peter Pan is a demon he’s an evil little creature who lures kids into Neverland and murders them woah so edgy” Like!! I love dark!Peter au’s and stuff like I’m all for taking the tale and twisting it. But to say that the authors intent was to write this gruesome murderous boy is completely not fair to the character and is taking a lot of things (i.e.. the world that the author built, the meaning of the story, the mood of the story) out of account and is pretty unfair imo.
I’m not saying he’s not an asshole. I’m not saying Peter Pan isn’t dark. I’m just saying to completely paint him to be evil and heartless is unfair because it disregards that his emotional capacity is that of a child and that he is also passionate and brave and full of wonder and curiosity and all of the things that children are. Idk dude idk please everyone come argue with me about peter pan.