posted
Sorry if this has been discued before. I do not believe i have ever posted here though I used to post on the old AOL Hatrack boards back when COTM was being written. Anyway, this isnt a question as to nature of Peter (How complex that would be) but instead his portrayal in the book to come in relation to how he has been portrayed in the other books and series.
Ok we have all seen Peter differently through his different characterizations. Ender's Game had him much more cruel though the seed of his "mellowing" was placed and he proved to be a good ruler. But we still remembered the cruel Peter because of all the squirls and other stuff. And of course Xenocide and Children of the Mind reminded us of this, though it wasnt an accurate portrayal of The Peter (at least I do not think so). Finally the "Shadows" series has Peter in a much more kind light. Sure he is a bit amoral but he is aware of it and ashamed of it at times. He is pro-democracy generally rather than pro-dictatorship (though i am sure its for others rather than his own he is concerned about when it comes to democracy). This, of course, in contrast to his saying that democracy is always the government in times of change and conflict, suggesting it leads to something else which of course in Ender's game is the object of his desire, absolute power with plans for better future for man, not better future for man with whatever power he could get using those goals. Now I think most of us are getting used to Peter this way, but looking over "Investment Counselor" and having read the post ender books again over the last week, I am reminded again and again that everyone is aware of the cruel and brutal deeds Peter commits in his quest for power. In first meetings (pg 193) though it suggests that everyone is in the know about how he was great because AND inspite of these cruel deeds: "englightened despot" (Despot nevertheless) "Mix of deft diplomacy and brutal force" "behind the manipulations and the massacres." Yet none of these have been shown at all in the recent books. Peter hasn't even really done anything to be considered a bad deed (save opportunistic publishing times) and is instead outwardly a seeming hero for liberty. Definitely no Force has been exhibited by the Hegemon nor has he done anyhting but fight against massacres. So since Ender tells the truth in the Hegemon, and the people in later books know Peter's acts through history (Great and Terrible man Wangmu says), are we in for a character reversal in last book? Will Peter, with victory within his grasp, return to his roots in the series and do many things to finalize his bid for "the purple?" After all, even if some of the evil behavior exhibited in Ender's Game was misunderstood or childhood angst, Graff still felt according to their excellent testing that he had the soul of a jackyl and i believe said he was one of the worst humans hed ever seen (Cant remember quotation. I also remember reading in the amazon description for new book (Though i dont know how accurate it could be considering I do not think its been started) that Bean would face the rise of the hegemon, thus suggesting Peter may now but the psuedo antagonist.
What does everyone think? So far we have seen the mellowed Peter but could much of the behavior of Peter with others turn out to be artifice? Could he really still be that power hungry young man who the last chapter of latest book suggested he wasnt when he said he wouldnt get anyone killed to get the job of Hegemon (with real power not as is). Or could he simply become more ambitious as he sees the opportunity for the power and it stirs up his old desires. Or will he continue to be portrayed as is and OSC will have his after deeds be suggested as occurances during his reign. What does everyone think?
posted
I think that Peter will end up being portrayed much like Mikal in Songmaster. Yes, Peter has a hunger for power, but I think that he will channel that hunger. He will become ruler of earth not just so that he can be the ruler, but because he sees a need for that to happen. Like perhaps that will be the only way to keep China from enslaving the entire world.
I don't think that he'll change the world so that he can get the power -- I think that he'll grab the power because it's the only way he can see to change the world. He does set up a very stable and equitable government.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right that is, of course, how his character has been portrayed as of late and I think the Peter as a whole will be seen like that. My question, though, is his means. It always seemed to me that Peter, to posterity, was one of those great men whose means justified a higher end. He was revered for what he did but the acts he took to get there were not always just or good. I mean if they were, if Peter is only a politician and his immoral acts can only be seen in a sort of moral flexibility in his political dealings, then whats the point for Hegemon in first place? Where do we get death and healing in every hand (since its also apparent that the death that Peter is guilty of in Enders book is not the squirels since its not in the book since Wang Mu had not been aware of it).
So what im saying is if OSC has said in other books that Peter is guilty of cruelty, massacres, etc, when will we see them? Will we get a glimpse of his dark side in the next book or will it be left for us to speculate on after what acts Peter committed that would warrant his great and "terrible" part. We know he is revered for his accomplishments, but he is known in books for his acts as well. I mean if Peter didnt do the bad things everyone knows he did later on to get power, then there is no point for Enders book anyway cause it doesnt create the Dichictomy and Paradox of Good and Evil in all humans. Peter would just be a somewhat unscrupulous but not evil politician who accomplished great deeds.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. If Peter doesn't start getting worse, I'm going to wonder why Ender had to write the Hegemon for Peter. Peter's guilt and unreconciled sins are what made him seek Ender's help in a sort of confessional at the end of his life. At least, that's the way I've seen it.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Peter did seem terrible in Ender's Game but quite honestly, began to look much better, almost a saint in comparison to Achilles, once we got to know that character. Because Achilles was so bad, we didn't feel like Peter was the focal villian any more.
So did that color our own feelings of how terrible Peter was/is?
posted
From my memory, he was a sympathetic character. I didn't see that blood thirst, roothlessness, that he had before.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading all of the Ender and Bean books, i looked upon Peter's early cruelties as part of his bitterness against Ender. He threatened Val and Ender with violence, but didn't really do much, so to convince them of the possibility and really scare them, he had to sacrfice a few cute little critters. More Machiavellian than monster.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well yeah again I agree with everyones impression of Peter, why he acts how he is, who he is in comparison with peter, and the other posts. But my whole point is how will OSC portray Peter so that he is consistent with how the Fictional characters in the book percieve him. The fact remains that those people who read The Hegemon have access to some pretty nefarious deeds which we are not privy too. Regardless of how we see Peter as a whole or who he is, my point is when and how will we see him reconciled with "History". As he is now he is nowhere near the level of ruthlessness that is suggested in other books in order to attain the "real" hegemony.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
