I was more than certain that I had read Peter Pan as a child. Now that I managed to pick the book up for cheap, I believe that what I read back then was a watered down and censored version of the original. Well, either that or I might have just basked in simple, childish ignorance. Actually I believe that one's perception of Peter Pan is highly dependant on the age it's being read - a child would probably take out all the adventure and exhiliration at being out after bedtime, while adults would see the underlying dark nuances more clearly. And neither would be at fault here, because judging by todays standards, I wouldn't call Peter Pan a children's book, at least not exclusively. Yes, at the first glance it's a perfect bedtime story both language- and plotwise, but under closer scrutiny and a bit of immagination it could be considered dark fantasy with all the blood, some character design and with seemingly innocent elements like Peter thinning out the boys when he thinks that they're getting too old.

That being said, (re)reading it now, at the "old" age of 19 I found Peter Pan to be a brilliant piece of art. The language is very playlike and very very enjoyable. There were moments when I was tempted (and once or twice even gave in to the temptation) to read it out lous in my best "Mary Poppins" voice. And it was amazing.