It's kind of astonishing that this book came out in 2010, because it has that '80's unsettling fantasy thing down. It is easy to imagine this book as a movie (like Labyrinth) that would leave audiences wrestling with, "That was cool and visually epic, but also traumatizing and weirdly horny. How did they get away with putting kids in this movie, this was so not a kids movie?! I feel awakened and disgusted and nostalgic and I need to go share this with someone."

All of the back cover reviews called this book "dark", which I feel is a lazy description, and doesn't do the story justice. This is a gritty, grotesque, psychologically-realistic retelling of Peter Pan, that takes a long look at the horrifying casual violence in the original story:

- A "lost boy" (read "kid") is not just someone who ran off to have a nighttime adventure, and - thanks to faerie magic - still made it home in time for tea. Lost kids are the ones who fall through society's cracks, abandoned or overlooked. It's the abused, the neglected, or the troubled youths; the ones who have a reason not to trust adults, or to glorify the gang mentality of sticking to their peers. Without proper support and care, The Lost Kids are a feral group of damaged children turned cult in their reverence to their champion (Peter) who glorifies revenge. It's Lord of the Flies, complete with The Devil (The Horned One) compelling kids to murder each other.

- Peter is a psychopath. He looks young, but he's actually a centuries' old groomer and serial killer. Sure, he has Fae-touched charm and mischievousness. But he also has that alien-species' indifference to humanity's problems. Like the faeries of myth, he steals children from their homes, seduces them away with promises of adventure or belonging, and then shrugs off any responsibility for them. He is only loyal to his Fae code: Serve the faerie queen, protect nature, leave no debt unpaid (including an-eye-for-an-eye), honor bargains (but make bargains sparingly, with lots of loopholes, so as not to bind oneself to too many oaths which might contradict the primary one to the queen), and give the appearance of free will to all humans. So long as he's upholding his own code, Peter is infallible, and absolves himself of any fragile, mortal concerns. The reason that there are only 20-30 Lost Kids - even though Peter has been bringing children to the island for centuries with the promise that they'll never grow up - is because they literally never grow up. They die in service to Peter's code, and Peter considers them an unfortunate but acceptable loss.

- Colonial antagonists are not a fun, swashbuckling romp. Religious zealotry, violent "cleansings" in the name of righteousness, mutilation of natives, desecration of resources, starvation, sickness, genocide - these are the realities of colonialism, and this book presents them with all the horror and gravitas they deserve. This is not a story about kids playing pirates, pioneers, and Indigenous Peoples. This is a war story, where child soldiers have inherited inter-generational trauma from clashing cultures who refuse to empathize or compromise. All are caught in a struggle to survive, and none will, because there's nothing left to live for besides the bragging right of dying last as "proof" somehow that their side was Right all along.

- The book honors what it means to be a "fairytale". Before Disney made fairytales all about making wishes and getting married, fairytales were cautionary morality tales. And before that, before they were appropriated into Christian fables, there were myths and legends about The Fae: Progenitors and protectors of nature, the wild, and all the passions associated therein. The inhabitants of Avalon (i.e. Neverland) weave together many famous myths, and personify the historical evolution of these tales from Pagan to Christian iconography. Sure, sometimes a person proves their mettle, does a service for a faerie, and is rewarded with a boon. But other times, a person is trying to navigate tempting falsehoods in order to stay alive, or at the very least to stay "whole". Fae are seductive. They are two-faced, hidden in illusions of beauty, or hidden like dryads/naiads in their natural domain, or manipulating a person's feelings/dreams/memories/perception of time. As perspectives shift about these two-faced characters, so too does the language: Faeries become demons, The Horned King (god of The Wild) becomes The Devil, Haven is Eden complete with the forbidden apples, Peter even gets crucified after treachery from one of his Lost Boys/disciples. With the way that the story transitions from one age to another - magic to mankind, Pagan to Christian - precipitated by betrayals, seductions, a band of "brothers-in-arms", a magic sword that will determine the divine right to rule, and an Armageddon-like clash of forces, The Child Thief pays homage to one of the greatest, most famous, myths of all time: Arthurian legend. This book doesn't just step into its predecessors' shoes, it dons a whole suit of armor.

TRIGGER WARNING BELOW!!!

For all the adoration I have for what this book wove together, and the serious, horrific, tragic look it takes at humanity... I had to knock a star off for two reasons:

1) This book is masculine. The PoV's are all male, there is an inordinate amount of naked boobies noted, and female characters largely only exist as seductresses or victims of male violence. Wendy and Tinkerbell are basically not in this book. (The essence of the originals, their emotional beats, are divvied up between other characters. In the time that they appear properly, Wendy is nearly gang raped, and a Lost Boy threatens to pull off Tink's wings). Tiger-Lily is stabbed to death by a Lost Boy; Peter was practically raped by a witch when he was six; heck the opening chapter of this book is a little girl (Cricket, I presume) being raped by her father. I understand that the original book was also masculine, and that The Child Thief is just staying thematically true to the source's male wish fulfilment while emphasizing the horror of this predominantly-masculine world. BUT I think maintaining that hypermasculinity was a missed opportunity. Survivors' rage or guilt explored through female, non-binary, or queer PoV's would have elevated this book, especially once The Lost Kids clash with the Puritans. I think this story had an opportunity to give voice to the voiceless, to include perspectives not shown in the legends, histories, and fantasy stories that inspired this book. Alas, no such inclusion. The Child Thief stays in the safe, familiar aesthetic of an 80's movie/metal band, and delivers an epic horror-adventure story, but fails to tell us anything new.

2) The final 50 pages or so of this book are tonal whiplash, and I do not understand the choices made. The refugees' return to modern NYC is played for laughs, even though the entirety of the book up until then had been a gut-wrenching look at many, MANY heavy topics. Almost every character dies, including the PoV Lost Boy, our everyman: Nick. And Nick, with his final breath, basically curses Peter for being a narcissistic daredevil who bought the safety of his magical kingdom with the deaths of hundreds of children. But Peter, in the final pages, is presented like a bizarre punk-rock Jesus: He is the son of a God, he has the right to return to the magical kingdom of Avalon (i.e. Heaven), but he decides to stay with mankind for now, and avenge the fallen children by remaining a serial killer. It is stated that magic exists, hidden, in the modern world, and that maybe Peter can coax its revival? But no hope exists for the fallen Lost Children, they cannot be revived, they died in the street as semi-willing participants in Peter's gang war. There is no justice for Peter's crimes. Are we supposed to feel joy, that Peter gets to swan off into the city as an immortal, avenging angel? Should we not be horrified that Peter got exactly what he wanted, learned no lessons, is definitely going to continue the cycle of violence for selfish reasons, and children will continue to be groomed and abused both by man and by magical kind? Why is the ending of this book trying to gaslight me? It shouldn't be funny, or triumphant; this was a tragedy!

But aside from some dated male-gaze and a shounen-ized denouement, this book was MAGNIFICENT! The inspirations were woven together into a terrifying and soulful tapestry. And the social commentary was devastating, in a necessary way. I love the tragic, horrifying honesty of this book!!!