sampena16's review against another edition
5.0
All I can say is WOW. This book is insanely good. Dark, twisted, magical, tragic - the makings of an incredible fantasy. Brom has taken the Peter Pan fairytale and flipped it on its head, with fully fleshed out characters and an unforgettable narrative of mystical forests rules by gods, fanatical flesh eaters seeking to destroy the magic, and a ragtag band of children les by a wily boy with golden eyes. And the illustrations are absolutely amazing, although one can expect nothing less from a professional illustrator. I dare you to read this novel and never think of Peter Pan in the same light again.
cajeck's review against another edition
2.0
Hopefully, I'll expand on this later. It really ought to be a 2 1/2 stars, but alas, I cannot choose that. The book had great potential, some interesting characters, and was an intriguing re-imagining of the Peter Pan tale. But in Brom's attempts to make the story modern, I'm stuck reading about whiny adolescents and crotch-grabbing thugs with a Peter caricature that oscillates between awesome and unfavorably creepy. Maybe the latter was purposeful, but I didn't quite take to it. Sinister vibes would have worked best. But creepy? It just makes me think of pedophiles and annoying nutbags.
The descriptions overall were solid and very beautiful, but in the end, this book just didn't grab me.
The descriptions overall were solid and very beautiful, but in the end, this book just didn't grab me.
amber_c's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
mysterious
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
maristarry's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
johneepixels7's review against another edition
4.0
The more and more I think about this book, the more I love it.
Don't get me wrong, there were a few moments in the middle where it felt like it dragged a bit. But seeing it as a whole gives this incredible appreciation for the story itself, the world-history building of Avalon, and the character development is truly a journey in itself.
Part of me wants to give this 5 stars because it's so close to perfect in every way, but because of a slightly-off feeling, it's getting 4.5 rounded down to 4! I do love Brom's writing and excited to have finally finished a second book of his.
Don't get me wrong, there were a few moments in the middle where it felt like it dragged a bit. But seeing it as a whole gives this incredible appreciation for the story itself, the world-history building of Avalon, and the character development is truly a journey in itself.
Part of me wants to give this 5 stars because it's so close to perfect in every way, but because of a slightly-off feeling, it's getting 4.5 rounded down to 4! I do love Brom's writing and excited to have finally finished a second book of his.
raohyrule's review against another edition
3.0
I’ve never been more unsure of how to rate a book in my life. I really don’t know how I feel about this one.
The writing itself was simultaneously good and bad? The author’s syntax is artful and it does have a lyrical quality to it but there were also some pretty major rookie mistakes that I don’t think I’ve ever seen in a traditionally published, fairly well-known novel. Things like the POV of one scene being established as, for example, Peter, and then switching to, for example, Tanngnost for a paragraph or two, and then back to Peter with no established POV break. Also quite a few continuity errors in regards to points of view and characters’ narrations. For example, when the POV is in The Captain’s, Brom seems to establish that he’s using limited 3rd rather than omniscient 3rd by sticking to language/terminology the character would know, but then breaks that established rule and uses terminology that the character wouldn’t know. This is most noticeable in the scenes that take place at the end of the novel, for obvious reasons.
My main gripe with the book, though, is that it doesn’t appear to have a coherent point. When a book bills itself as horror and then employs an absurd amount of gore and assorted descriptions of psychological and physical tortures, especially when the characters being discussed are mostly children, and it appears as though there’s /supposed to be/ some sort of statement being made (considering the fact that it’s not marketed as, like, a slasher flick in book form), I expect said statement to be relatively clear, even if it takes a bit for the pieces to click into place either within the narrative itself or once the reader has finished absorbing what they’ve read. The ending was more satisfying than I expected in terms of completing Peter’s arc, but there are so many conflicting statements being made here about the nature of religiosity, adulthood, childhood, war, love, morality, humanity, etc, that it’s not even a matter of “reader’s choice” on what meaning to take from it all. The prose itself is simply confused by what it wants to say. It’s not really saying anything, because it fails to finish its own thoughts at best and contradicts itself at worst. I’m not sure if this is due to the limitations of the writer’s writing skills, or if the writer just didn’t have coherent thoughts on the majority of things he seemed keen to comment on.
What I’m saying, I guess, is that I see so much potential in this story but it reads like a draft, not the final product.
So many characters were left as loose threads too. Nothing really feels complete or coherent here, but the parts that are there are very interesting and engaging, so I really wish there was more to this than there is.
And finally, I’m really not sure why the marketing for this book is so insistent on making Peter out to be a clear villain here. Perhaps I’m just excessively lenient when it comes to morally grey characters, but nothing he did was particularly villainous in the grand scheme of the story, and none of his villainous acts were any worse than the average anti-hero’s. I mean, you just really can’t frame a character as the villain in the dust jacket summary and then in the prologue have him rescue a little girl from being raped by her father? It doesn’t really accomplish what you seem to want it to accomplish.
Brom himself refers to both his Peter and the original Peter Pan as sociopathic, but I don’t particularly see that in The Child Thief. Peter demonstrates a capacity for empathy and remorse in practically every scene he’s in. He’s cold and calculating and manipulative, and gets caught up in the brutality of his environment easily, but he’s no more sociopathic for it than the average soldier? The argument here would be that it’s not Peter who views lives as expendable for his own desires, but “war is bad because it forces people to treat other people as expendable.”
So I don’t know. I liked this book, but not necessarily for what it is so much as what it could have been had any of the pieces it started to assemble been followed through on.
The writing itself was simultaneously good and bad? The author’s syntax is artful and it does have a lyrical quality to it but there were also some pretty major rookie mistakes that I don’t think I’ve ever seen in a traditionally published, fairly well-known novel. Things like the POV of one scene being established as, for example, Peter, and then switching to, for example, Tanngnost for a paragraph or two, and then back to Peter with no established POV break. Also quite a few continuity errors in regards to points of view and characters’ narrations. For example, when the POV is in The Captain’s, Brom seems to establish that he’s using limited 3rd rather than omniscient 3rd by sticking to language/terminology the character would know, but then breaks that established rule and uses terminology that the character wouldn’t know. This is most noticeable in the scenes that take place at the end of the novel, for obvious reasons.
My main gripe with the book, though, is that it doesn’t appear to have a coherent point. When a book bills itself as horror and then employs an absurd amount of gore and assorted descriptions of psychological and physical tortures, especially when the characters being discussed are mostly children, and it appears as though there’s /supposed to be/ some sort of statement being made (considering the fact that it’s not marketed as, like, a slasher flick in book form), I expect said statement to be relatively clear, even if it takes a bit for the pieces to click into place either within the narrative itself or once the reader has finished absorbing what they’ve read. The ending was more satisfying than I expected in terms of completing Peter’s arc, but there are so many conflicting statements being made here about the nature of religiosity, adulthood, childhood, war, love, morality, humanity, etc, that it’s not even a matter of “reader’s choice” on what meaning to take from it all. The prose itself is simply confused by what it wants to say. It’s not really saying anything, because it fails to finish its own thoughts at best and contradicts itself at worst. I’m not sure if this is due to the limitations of the writer’s writing skills, or if the writer just didn’t have coherent thoughts on the majority of things he seemed keen to comment on.
What I’m saying, I guess, is that I see so much potential in this story but it reads like a draft, not the final product.
So many characters were left as loose threads too. Nothing really feels complete or coherent here, but the parts that are there are very interesting and engaging, so I really wish there was more to this than there is.
And finally, I’m really not sure why the marketing for this book is so insistent on making Peter out to be a clear villain here. Perhaps I’m just excessively lenient when it comes to morally grey characters, but nothing he did was particularly villainous in the grand scheme of the story, and none of his villainous acts were any worse than the average anti-hero’s. I mean, you just really can’t frame a character as the villain in the dust jacket summary and then in the prologue have him rescue a little girl from being raped by her father? It doesn’t really accomplish what you seem to want it to accomplish.
Brom himself refers to both his Peter and the original Peter Pan as sociopathic, but I don’t particularly see that in The Child Thief. Peter demonstrates a capacity for empathy and remorse in practically every scene he’s in. He’s cold and calculating and manipulative, and gets caught up in the brutality of his environment easily, but he’s no more sociopathic for it than the average soldier? The argument here would be that it’s not Peter who views lives as expendable for his own desires, but “war is bad because it forces people to treat other people as expendable.”
So I don’t know. I liked this book, but not necessarily for what it is so much as what it could have been had any of the pieces it started to assemble been followed through on.
momster13's review against another edition
5.0
"The darkness is calling. A little danger, a little risk."
harrie11's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
mituna's review against another edition
4.0
I don't know how to review this book; it's left me speechless and feeling a lot of different things. I adored the first 50% of it. So beautifully written, perfectly dark and mysterious, ugh the atmosphere was perfect. But at the halfway mark it took a turn from a dark version of Peter Pan to a high fantasy fae story. Not necessarily bad but not what I wanted or expected. It was a bit like reading Silence of the Lambs and it turning into Lord of the Rings midway through. It stopped feeling like a Peter Pan retelling and became something much bigger than it. Again not bad but I would've liked it more if I'd known what I was getting into. For me it ruined it as the moments when it felt like Peter Pan were the best parts and I'm not that into high fantasy. You call that Captain Hook?
Also not a fan of the ending.
But the writing is great, lots of morally grey characters, interesting themes and a solid way of showing how every story has multiple sides. The Lord of the Flies vibe was brilliant but I'd have loved to see even more of it, more time seeing them train and explore what life is like for the Lost Boys. Oh and the art was gorgeous.
Also not a fan of the ending.
But the writing is great, lots of morally grey characters, interesting themes and a solid way of showing how every story has multiple sides. The Lord of the Flies vibe was brilliant but I'd have loved to see even more of it, more time seeing them train and explore what life is like for the Lost Boys. Oh and the art was gorgeous.
Spoiler
FUCK The Lady. I was hoping she'd bite the bullet the whole novel, what a let down. At least Peter broke free of her spell or whatever. I was rooting for Ulfger from the moment we met him so it goes without saying I was pretty disappointed. The Captain adopting Danny made me immensely happy. RIP my beloved Redbone. Also, Brom, fuck you for killing Nick. Sorry to make this personal but after the stress you put me through in the last 40% of your book you have some gall to kill off the best character right at the end. That hurt, big time.spicyclown's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
medium-paced
2.0
DNF. I was 50% in and I just couldn’t Continue.
I just didn’t enjoy it. I really hate when there are many children protagonists in books. To be fair, in this case it’s me - not the book.
I loved that the book was straight forward brutal and i liked the writing style too 😄
I think for someone who loves fantasy, children and brutality it’s perfect and maybe even a must read but I need a break from fantasy now
I just didn’t enjoy it. I really hate when there are many children protagonists in books. To be fair, in this case it’s me - not the book.
I loved that the book was straight forward brutal and i liked the writing style too 😄
I think for someone who loves fantasy, children and brutality it’s perfect and maybe even a must read but I need a break from fantasy now