Board Thread:Writer's Workshop/@comment-27516784-20160519030957/@comment-24101790-20160519033850

It was deleted because it wasn't a very well-thought out idea. Take the original reddit thread that gave a similar theory. Even the OP acknowledged that it was possible that Peter Pan was returning them home as a method of 'thinning out the herd' (see ending of "Peter Pan" or "The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up" where he returns a number of children back home and even has a change of heart after he tricks them into believing their mother abandoned them.)

This becomes even more problematic when you mention and dismiss the idea outright without providing any evidence to support your claim or discredit the other idea. ("Barrie states that Peter 'thinned the boys that got too old out.' This is essentially saying that Peter Pan killed a few kids who grew up in Neverland, that got too old to stay. It is a wonder why he didn't simply return them. One would wonder the reason. Does Peter have some sort of joy in killing and pain?") What evidence do you have to support that he's killing the children or that he's sadistic? This is especially jarring considering his nature as being more mischievous (yet conscientious) towards the end of the novel.

Story issues: "When they get to a certain age, Peter ruthlessly kills them in unknown fashions." feels out-of-place when you describe him murdering Rob sentences later. "Peter pulls out his miniscule, almost toy-like blade and shoves Rod against a wall. Peter's eyes don't have blood dripping from them, they look completely ordinary" Why exactly are you referencing lost episode cliches in the story. It really has no bearing on the story and feels like it was shoe-horned in. It would be like describing something as hyper-realistic in a story that doesn't involve animation.

Story issues cont.: There isn't a lot of explanation or evidence to back up this theory that he's murdering them (especially considering the other novels/plays where he lets children leave all the time). This lack of focus/evidence makes the ending seem very weak. "This can be interpreted in several ways, as one is free to decide what it means to them. However, I feel that it is suggesting that laziness is almost a sin. It is something that one can take advantage of, usually for the worst." Did you mean to say that focusing on having fun/more childish ventures are the morale of the story? As it really doesn't seem like Rod or Mitchell are really being lazy, but instead, aren't maturing.

In the end, this feels more like you're just trying to take a story and make it darker without providing any evidence to back-up the claims you're making. Besides this line: "Barrie states that Peter 'thinned the boys that got too old out.'" there really isn't much to support your theory. Even the phrase thinning out doesn't necessarily imply murder. Take Arloste's (the original poster who proposed this idea) response to one user.

"I don't suppose "thins them out" could be banishing them or something, instead of murdering them?" ~ Robobreasts

"Like I said, it's not the only way to interpret things, just one of many. He could be bringing them back to Earth, to grow in to adults there, it's certainly possible. It never goes into exactly what 'thinning' them is." Arloste 8 points 2 years ago

This theory needs a lot of work and really doesn't feel like you put a lot of time into researching it or making Rod and Mitchell's story involving. (It's basically just Peter Pan rescuing them from an abusive family only to murder them a decade later with little to no reason given.)