Do you usually think in pictures? I recognize myself writing in the style you used above when I'm in a "picture" frame of mind.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:i have a younger brother who i love terribly but i was often a real ass to him when we were little kids. I never threatened to kill him or destroy everything he made or anything like that but i did always have to have control like peter. I was the boss the older brother. We both grew out of it but it was actually reading of Peter that made me recognize much of that in myself and work to change it. Remember Graff says he can't decide to be an older brother or a jackel,
"The Saint of Overachieving Elder brother's everywhere" has to do with how well Orange describes the fact that though he loved his younger brother, his drive to succeed/lead sometimes manifested itself in bullying and tormenting that same brother. I think that tms uses the Saint label to say that he has lived this same tug between empathy and need to control and that Orange has done such a good job of putting his feelings into words, that Orange could speak for many Elder brothers on this same subject.
quote:I betcha Pete pulls off a good suit better than his brother.
This is a visual. It's both bravado and the result of the inner drive to succeed. It's also saying that even though everyone may love the little brother better, Peter is better suited to the role of leader/bureaucrat.
At least that's how I read tms' post.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please excuse my delay, I'm antipodean in placement and sporadic in terminal access.
If I am to remain a 'racker' this delay may have to be taken on board, and my posts may lack a little back and forth.
My thread was precisely what lucky 3000 surmised, my breed of Americana Rat Pack and colonial slang (welcome to Australia) wasn't meant to be confusing, simply the way I talk, I'll concede to being heavily image based.
Peter touches a fat old older bro complex in me and that's really what I was saying.
I grew up on these books and am pretty excited to be here. And want to save all my Wiggin questions and hell-yes anecdotes for reasonable and unfortunately, until I am nearer the nets, rationed talk.
I am also a relative newbie to this talking to people on the other side of this rock thing so if raising new topics is something that should be done elsewhere please lemmie know:
I oft wonder about Australia's potential role in the Enderverse. Such a ripe nation, refusing to believe it has a 'real' history. In Peter's time, a hypothetic game of Risk realises Oz doesn't need occupying but definately knocking out if an enemy is to win.
I doubt a colinized planet of Australians. God forbid, but boy have they been good at producing soldiers in the past.
Salutations all.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
tms, please speak understandable or at least passable english from now on. Your last post gave me a headache. And as far as a response delay, thats not a problem, so don't worry about it.
And to Reticulum, at least you have set your goals high. Better than dreaming of being a janitor. Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can you hate Peter, let alone anyone, after reading the Ender series?
"But when it comes to human beings, the only type of cause that matters is final cause, the purpose. What a person had in mind. Once you understand what people really want, you can't hate them anymore. You can fear them, but you can't hate them, because you can always find the same desires in your own heart."
"I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves."
Maybe this is because I relate to Peter, but I've found that both of these quotes are true. If you really try to understand what people want, you will learn that you want the same things. Many people that know me would say I relate to Peter in many ways, which is scary for some, and intriguing to others. I just hope someday I can be a political power like Peter Wiggin.
posted
Advent: thanks for the 'spoiler' (haven't read the last shadow book yet, but you're not spoiling anything anyway)
Cory: I completely agree. OSC once said he doesn't agree with the evil-heroes-are-so-much-more-interesting notion and those quotes just hit the bull's eye. I mean, I don't think anyone EVER thinks their motives are bad. So, in a way, no one IS that bad, either, and it's hard to hate them when you really get to know them (I was trying to make it short, so please feel free to comment on the inadequacy of the last sentence) Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Peter I expected was more or less a lighter shade of Achilles. Sneaky, manipulative, exteremly ambitious, and ruthless - enough to be kept out of Battle School and enough to commit the atrocities (though mostly in the service of a good cause) that he did in the EG and Speaker timeline.
For example, the kidnapping/murder/otherwise taking out of circulation of the best battle schoolers was something I thought he'd have to do. My vision of how he rose to true Hegemon was by first sitting back a bit and letting some of the big boys battle it out, giving them time to realize that having top battle schoolers was really the only way to win. Thus, getting everyone addicted to the battle schoolers, to the point where going to war without them is almost unthinkable. Then, somehow or another, taking them away, except that he's got the best ones and is hinting around that he's got his brother, The Battle Schooler, helping him out. He'd have to crush a few armies and likely slaughter significant portions of the enthusiastic and supportive populace, but he'd reach a point where no one would have the guts to take him on. Unifcation by force, with really good stuff for the people who go along and death, destruction, and mayhem (and thus, the atrocities) for those who resist.
And mostly this was for a good cause, although the ambition plays a healthy role as well. I thought that would be a really interesting character and a really interesting story. It would also fit into the Hive Queen and the Hegemon motif, where Ender gets people inside what Peter was doing and shows the light and the dark and the humanity of it all.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I hope you were dissapointed in your expectations I would never have thought Peter was like Achilles. For one thing, I can't imagine him killing just because someone had helped him. Maybe I could agree with a notion that Achilles would be a more evil version of Peter (if he hadn't been mental), but not the other way round. For me, that's a big difference Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, forgot to include the whole minus the psychopthy in my description. That was my thinking before the Shadow series came out, so the whole "I'm a crazy killer guy." wasn't really something I was thinking about not being part of it.
To give another example, Peter (my Peter anyway) would have played countries off against each other and turned on the people who thought he was helping them when it served his purpose.
I did wonder, not much really, but a little, if Achilles and his actions were remnants, darkened up a whole lot, of how OSC may have seen the story going at one point.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The example with playing the countries off against each other: it would be very... machiavellian I think it would agree with the picture of Peter we haev after reading Ender's Game. And that's why it feels so great to watch Peter later evolve into a much more moral being, don't you think? This is what makes him a proper human: he is capable of getting mature.
Hmmm, yeah, the psychopathy IS a rather important issue, isn't it... Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Warning: The following is uncomplimentary of the Shadow series books. If you're the type to get offended by something like this, I suggest you don't read it.)
See, I don't agree. First, I don't necessarily think that machiavellian behavior is a bad thing. It's particularly that quality of ruthlessness that makes Peter someone you can picture gaining power over the world. This isn't something that can be done while keeping your hands clean and your conscience clear. It requires hard decisions. And, in the pre-Shadow books, we're told that it requires Peter committing atrocities. That fundamental paradox of Peter, that he's willing to do the dark things necessary to both save the world and feed his ambition, was the main thing that made him an interesting character to me and what made The Hegemon not just another biography on a political leader, but a work of such deep exploration of the human character that it merited placement alongside The Hive Queen.
Peter doesn't evolve as a character. He's just replaced with a weaker, dumber, hippy version. It's not like we get a view of how the experiences he goes through tempers his prior characteristics. He just doesn't have these characteristics anymore, as if someone waved a magic wand over him and made them go away. Peter, in the Shadow series, is pretty firmly a Good Guy.
I was hoping for the moral ambiguity both necessary for a world-conqueror and explictly described in the pre-Shadow books. I was hoping for glimpses into what would make up the Hegemon, where we see Peter acting on both dark and light impulses, and come to understand why he acts this way and to see him as fundamentally human.
The after-school special version of Peter we got, I really wasn't interested in.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
With all due respect to OSC, I've always been more concerned with how the characters of a story are drawn, rather than what the author has to say about those characters. In my experience our intuitions and feelings can be far more probing and accurate reflections of reality than our intellectual calculations. Based on the "above calculating" survival mechanisms OSC draw in Bean, I'd guess he'd be inclined to agree with me.
For those of you who think that Peter's character in Ender's Game was incongruous with his character in the Shadow books, just you wait for your first reunions with old friends and enemies after a decade or so of seperation. Bear with me and let me flesh out my interpretation of things before you make a judgement on them.
Peter's character in ender's game is that of an almost cartoonishly malicious creature. Peter's creulty and it's impacts on ender are illustrated frequently throughout the entire novel. From the torturing of squirrels to the constant reminders that ender lived in a climate of fear, Peter is portrayed as being malevolent to his very soul. What's really striking and disturbing, though, is that the reality of the pain Peter causes is considered completely unreasonable to the rest of the world. The world Ender and Valentine see apart from themselves is so unreconcilable to the terror that is their young lives, that they fear their earthly creators, their parents, would be powerless to aid them. In short, Peter is established as being an unmitigatingly bad dude.
When Peter appears in "Shadow of the Hedgemon", we're not exactly presented with an angel, but an undisciplined and even petulant and whiny child? What happened to the hellian who tormented fragile ender in his youth? OSC gives us several clues to work with. A look into Peter's mind gives us several rational-sounding reasons why he keeps company with his parents, even though it's made perfectly clear that Peter's capable of making an independent life for himself. There are several aspects of the same point made, but basically they provide him with an excellent cover. That may well be the case, but I doubt it's the whole story. Even Peter tells himself that he needs his parents to keep the real him out of the public eye, we know that several major political players have already unmasked the great locke. At the same time, you've got Bean making it on his own in extremely similar circumstances. The only significant differences are that Bean has just met his blood relatives, Bean has a trusted childhood companion (which means a lot, considering the circumstances Bean arose from), and Bean's political power and danger comes from his real identify, rather than his not identity. Right up to the point where Sister Carollatta dies and Achilles is enabled to expose Peter, Peter and Bean bear their period of percolation in anonymity with the people who love them the most, whether or not they admit to themselves that it's the case. Later with Bean, we see the tension between needing the one he loves the most and making the most critically rational choices come into the light and bloom with his relationship with Petra. Peter's story line is provided with no such vehicle for demonstrating Peter's maturity is provided, in all honesty because he's already too complex a character to completely flesh out without taking the spotlight away from Bean, who's the focus of the novels. Nevertheless, when we take into consideration Peter's almost obsessive frustration with his parents, his "oh so reasonable" arguements for binding himself to his parents lean heavily towards denial. Bean's successful survival and anonymity out in the world at large; in spite of having a trained genius killer hounding him, demonstrates that any argument neccesitating that a person of Peter's resources be kept under lock and key in his parents home does not hold water. Though Locke and Demontheses may move mountains and re-draw maps, the world's eye is not focused on the actions of a single teenage undergrad. Apparently, there are other motives that drive Peter which are not readily apparent to the reader or himself, as demonstrated by the self-induced crisis of living his parents.
If we are willing to believe that there are forces driving Peter that he's unwilling to face, we can follow the breadcrumbs and establish some reasonable guesses as to what those drives are. Hopefully we're not biased from whatever it is that keeps Peter for facing off with some of these gut level motives.
Let's consider the lense through which we see "Peter the Terrible" from Ender's game, and see if we can't shed some light on this one-dimensional evil. I presume that age on this forum varies considerably, so some of you may not like to hear this, but Ender's a child and sees the world through relatively naieve eyes. This is an extremely sublte thing to detect in this story, because it's made extremely clear that children feel they live in real danger and the truth would seem so incredulous to anyone in the self-deluded world, that they have no hope whatsoever in external aide. You'll notice, however, that Peter never actually carried out any of this death threats against Ender. In fact, rather than actually harming Ender's person, it appears that he strives to terrorize him in any way he can concieve. Every one of Peter's barbs is co-signed by Ender's reactions. Peter demonstrates an extrodinary creativity and ruthlessness for undermining Ender's sense of well-being, despite any defense that Ender's genius might spare him from. Despite this incredible drive, Peter maintains this drive only as long as Ender is present. Once Ender has been removed to Battle school, things change rather dramatically, if slowly. Instead of playing on Valentine's worst fears while she's now totally without ally, he conscripts her aide. It's said that the country mellows Peter, but that move happens to correspond with the removal of his nemesis, Ender. The astute reader will notice that I declared Ender Peter's nemesis without justification. Be assured, that will come in a moment. I believe it is now apparent, however, the wrath of "Peter the Terrible" was uniquely energized and focused against ender, and that the source of this wrath was totally beyond Ender. I can only presume that if there was something Ender could have done to escape the wrath his brother brought down on him, he would have done it. I believe this because faced with a situation impossible the master (Giant's Drink), her persued doggedly, regardless of the reality of the situation. He has been faced by this situation before in his brother, and knows that though the outcome was determined before he arrived, giving up was not a viable option. It is only by surpassing one impossible task that he can admit the truely impossible task he cannot remove from his heart: That he wants Peter to love him. Ender's encounters with his brother's violent, unmoving heart in many ways downplay the impossibility of other challenges presented in Ender's life. Of himself, Peter's love is completely and utterly inaccessible to Ender. The horror of this is balanced only by Ender's need for Peter's love. If Ender truely believed that God had established his brother's love as inaccessible to Ender, why did he presume to rebel against God's law regardless of the apparent truth. I believe that at some level Ender knew a truth deeper than that apparent to him. I propose that on some deep, fundamental level, Ender knew his brother wasn't the devil, but simply a human tool the devil magnified, so that the devil could temporarily pretend that love was powerless in this world existing of unmitigated hate.
Please forgive my verbosity, this will all come to a point, God willing.
Now we have to ask ourselves what it is about Ender that uniquely encurred the full attention and wrath of Peter. This is where the Shadow series fleshes things out we might not otherwise know. It's almost obvious to say that Peter was jealous of Ender. Peter's whole character is crafted to be above such pettyness, and not without reason: he wasn't. Peter was clearly dealing with some pretty rough questions. Why did his parents need to have a second male child; why was he so unacceptable? Why did they need a replacement so bad that they'd break and bend the law to get him. What was so special about him that Battle school kept the monitor in Ender longer than they did Peter?
What's astonishing here is not that Peter would ask these questions, it's that he's unwilling to accept the answers. Intellectually Peter knows the score. He knows why battle school didn't accept him, he knows why his parents were allowed to have a third. What he's really asking is why did the answers to those questions have to be things he couldn't accept? Why was the answer, at the end of the day, that it was he wasn't unacceptable on all accounts. And what does he do about this? He turns around and hands his cross to Ender. He ruthlessly attacks the soul of the "chosen one", with every ounce of energy that he has. Having been judged completed unacceptable in his own eyes, he imposes the same harsh judgement on Ender before he could speak his first word, as though incriminating Ender in some way redeemed him. Peter's problem with Ender was just that, it was Peter's problem. It does not, however, identify him as a evil demon feeding only on the pain of others. Peter just took on that persona to escape himself, the self that was so unacceptable.
A quick word to the propogations of Peter's malfuncion: He was provoked. For two extremely intelligent people trying desperately to reconcile their beliefs with themselves and the politicla atmosphere they lived in, their first child definitely had to be uncharted territory for them. Peter was born to parents consciously choosing an environment of duplicity and fear. Is it really any shock that Peter became completely unempathetic? What childhood model does he have? I'm not trying to acquit him, here, but only point out that his mistake was a very human one. Conversely, the misery he imposed on valentine and ender neccesitated empathy, as they had no other means of emotional survival beyond cherishing a love for one another. Nothing else would have survived the terror in their lives, and in a way, evil driving Peter would have won.
Peter trys to sell his soul to the devil because he feels that he's damned from the get go. His parents blame themselves and demonstrate an irrational loyalty to make up for it. Whether that's reasonable or not is a different arguement. It's clear story it's clear that despite Peter's commitment to evil, God's not willing to let Peter go. Needs for love and fellowship prove greater than Peter's irrational whims. His parents constantcey is a testament to a love for him that was lacking during his childhood, and it's one gift he's uncomfortable with but can't refuse (because he needs it). He goes to his parents to reveal who he truely is under the illusion that they cannot know who he really is, and that this changes nothing. They show him what is the truth really is by revealing the nature of their unreasonable love for him. They revealed the self-sacrafice Peter considered himself unworthy of, and it floored him. Peter the Terrible wept like a child needing his mom and pappa. He doesn't transform into a different person, but the rudder of his life is clearly and definitively turned. His parents love, demonstrated in their action before their words, had already turned it, as visible in subtle ways.
At the end of the series, Peter insists of providing Bean with his services. He does this in spite of Bean's negative opinion of him. It may not be a perfect self sacrafice, but it's completely contrary to the heartless and villainous character Peter was attempting to hide behind.
I've got more things I could say about Peter and the other characters, of course, but I feel like I've already written too many words.
too long; didn't read "version": Peter's character is extremely realistic and there are no discontinuities between the books in regards to his character. Do some detective work and you'll probably figure that out.
tl;dr: Peter's made of flesh and blood.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
although Mr S highlights all my concerns about the character continuity surrounding Peter, I have found that the method of following OSC's character breadcrumbs, aligned with the notion that his novels come PREDOMINANTLY from the perspective of one character, always seems to sound out realistic and consistent, character motivations, habits, even syntax.
the third factor to differing viewpoints of various characters is, as H-John mentioned, that we visit them at different ages. some mature, some don't. the fact that Enderverse children are often more adult in their synaptic abilities than us only enrichens the breacrumb mix. yum.
when we have a novel seen predominantly through Pete's eyes we may find ourselves at the gingerbread house for character groupies.
information is a Wiggin weapon. i always wondered if in the crucible of this character lay a grand disappointment in Peter that his monitoring implant's results, alongside his own pressuirized situation as first-born to brilliant minds, didn't cut it. could this crisis of confidence, compounded by Ender's success be a major characterizing factor? i've said it before but i love the breadcrumb his Mother drops to Bean about the fact that Peter is far more a product of the education system than Ender.
we know it was Peter's 'nature' not his capacity for lateral thought that Battle School rejected, Peter may never have known or faced this and thus we will not be hearing it (yet) in his first person narrative.
another thought, and that's all these are: could Peter's fear of Bugger War propaganda have moulded him more than Ender (perhaps too concerned with the fear of Peter, and his classmates, his marginalisantion as a Third)? when I think of Peter and his family i think of Martin Amis huddling under his school desk in rigid fear of nuclear war, then having to go home and intellectually defend disarmament with Kingsley over dinner.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it doesn't bring much into the discussion, but I have to say it: JohnWithAnH: (what I really wanted was an icon for clapping, but I couldn't find it, so I chose a more 'subservient' version Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it doesn't bring much into the discussion, but I have to say it: JohnWithAnH: (what I really wanted was an icon for clapping, but I couldn't find it, so I chose a more 'subservient' version Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, Interesting, but I'm not sure you understand the nature of my complaint. I'm not saying that Peter's character is inconsistent from Ender's view of him in EG to the Shadow books but rather 1) It's inconsistent with the history given (both in it's absence of atrocities and with The Hegemon being a work on par with The Hive Queen) 2) It's unrealistic for the Shadow version of Peter to be able to conquer the world or to hold that position for well-near his entire natural life.
Peter needed to be dark to be believable and interesting as a character. He needed to be active and forceful and canny and manipulative. Instead, he's a nice guy and he (for all that the books focus on him) doesn't really do much of anything throughout the series. Most of the Peter scenes are small ones. We get him interacting with his parents and with Bean and Petra, but very little with him acting on the world stage. Even his "democracy as the ultimate panacea" strategy is a basically passive thing. The Peter we get is no once in a eon uniter of humanity world leader. He's barely even a politician. He doesn't solve his problems. They just sort of melt away.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd bump it, but I think that would be against Ian's wishes, but we had a discussion a while back related to this somewhat that I really appreciated.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But then the shadow series isn't all about Peter. No one said Peter got to be the main character, so OSC didn't have to concentrate so much on him and his dark side. And maybe (as is often the case) Peter was regarded by other people as the manipulative power-yearning manipulator: it was them that created his legend, and not himself. So maybe the Peter we see is the Peter Ender actually described in the Hegemon. Of course, I haven't read the last book so I may lack some vital information but I don't think the Peter we see wouldn't be able to get control over the Earth. Another matter is that his gaining control didn't necessarily have to be due to his ruthless ambition. The circumstances also matter a lot. So if Peter found himself in the right circumstances (and he did), then it would be much easier for him to get to rule the Earth even without any evil ruses On the other hand, if those circumstances had never arisen, he might have never get hold of the power, no matter how much he tried.
Still, I think I'm beginning to see your point. Hmmm, the Peter question is not a problem for me since Bean is so much more important, but a few more posts and you'll have me convinced Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
if we are questioning supposed inconsistency, it may be wothwhile reflecting on oolung and Adbent's earlier observations of Peter crying over his treatment of Ender and the charged moment when he apparently apologises to Valentine (this is one of my favorite paragraphs.) Does Peter know what he means when he says it? Whatever the case his psycopathy is laid out in all it's ugly bumpiness from the first novel. The human traits of Peter seem much discussed here, his paradox, his inconsistency, quite consistently.
The atrocity, Mr S, MAY either be through the eyes of the beholder, or yet to come. Peter's observation at Achille's funeral still has room to be fufilled methinks, and mehopes.
I'd love to read the sequence when Peter decided to send Ender away in detail. That's gotta cost a guy, no matter how cold he was when he acted on it. Those Wiggin's don't sleep too well do they?
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
tms: I'm afraid that I'll need your help to appreciate continuity of habit and syntax across time. Enlighten me, if you would.
What does "We may find ourselves at a gingerbread house for character groupies" mean?
We know it was Peter's nature rather than his intellectual ability that kept him from battle school. I would propose that Peter knew this as well, but was unreconciled to it. When circumstance forces Peter to interact with his Parents, we see a judgement on Peter's character that preceded the judgement made by the battle school. Peter knows this is the case, and points at it subltely, but frequently. For example, he comments to his father that "well, there's always someone who they like better". The reason that that's caustic is because, like battle school, he's saying "Yes, it's not a good thing to be second best. You already pidgeon-holed me as second best, and I've learned to deal with it." His non-chalant callousness is a defense. His father's mercy is the only thing keeping this defense in tact. His father feels the compulsion to say "yes", to affirm the judgement on Peter. He's merciful because Peter is NOT reconciled to his shortcomings as he pretends, and would be anihilated. This demonstrates that "knowing" about yourself in an intellectual sense does not imply, in Peter's case at least, that you have the power to remake yourself. Peter is at an impasse.
I do not understand your last comment.
oolung Praise me not. Praise God for gifting OSC and us for being able to appreciate it.
Mr. Squicky You'll have to forgive me, I was being self-serving. The contrast between Peter as he's understood in Ender's game and in the Shaddow series was a very large hurdle for me, and I found uncovering the whole story to reconcile this percieved problem very satisfying.
Concerning point 1) -What atrocities are given? (I haven't read "Shadow of the Giant" yet, and am still working on "Children of the Mind". -At what point in Peter's life do they take place? A man can only cause harm in proportion to the amount of power he's been alotted. The human (and thus fallible) leader of an entire species is going to inevitably cause serious harms in the microscopic (say, township) level, regardless of their effort to do good. That's exactly why the world is broken up into so many smaller, more digestable chunks - to prevent that kind of thing from happening. The American republic lends itself to encapulation, allowing irreconcilable peoples and points of view to stay irreconcilable on the federal level. I'm afraid this isn't terribly visible in America today, visible as we are now. The Peter Wiggin we're exposed to in the Shaddow series is a boy who would be a man to be the Hedgemon, but is a boy regardless. He does not yet "play for keeps". Rigging the games so he'll show up the winner, not actually risking anything yet. His power is through influence, and the responsibility for the actions taken ultimately belong to the influenced.
-"The Hedgemon", as I understood it, revealed the "darkness that lurked within the great man", or something ot that effect. The Hive Queen was the story of a completely foreign creature that Ender translated for humanity. The Hedgemon was the man who united the entire world, a man of unprecedented greatness. Again, Ender took a completely inaccessible icon and translated it for humanity, revealed the humanity of the Hedgemon. If you go to Washington DC and view the statues there, they are immense. The words of men have been etched in marble 30 feet high. And they are noble words. The image of these men are carved from marble dozens of feet high. They're not people - they're ideas. What we forget is that greatness is a mantle they undertook, not themselves. Ender restored humanity to the Hedgemon, the man who united the world. How is this so petty when compared to the Hive Queen?
2) I haven't read "Shaddow of the Giant", so I'll have to get back to you on that one. I'm also not a historian or general, so I'm not sure I can say anything either way. It is the story that we're given, though. Are you suggesting that it is necceary that Peter be evil for him to be successful?
I disagree, I thought Peter was a very interesting character, angels of good and evil and all. I cite the fact that we're having this conversation as evidence. A few points, though: -We're not shown him doing much. There are limits to how much a book can accomplish. If I recall correctly, it's called Shaddow of the Hedgemon, not "The Hedgemon", and is a sequel to a novel called "Ender's Shaddow", a book not about Ender. Would you say that Ender "doesn't do anything" because he's not the focus for that book? If your complaint is about a story as of yet unwritten, I'm afraid that OSC is the person to take that up with.
I'm not sure I understand your arguement. It seems to be that conscious wrong-doing is necceary for greatness. I seem to recall there being some degree of irony in discovering that Peter was the great Locke, who made "the Locke Proposal", which united humanity under peace and prosperity. This is completely unreasonable?
Alai is revealed to be a person of great power matched by great character. Is the loyalty of the Islamic world under him unreasonable?
My intention isn't to ridicule, I simply don't understand. Bear with me, if you would, and explain what exactly the problem with Peter's character and his interface with the story is, and why.
oolung You made some good points.
edit: I'd just like to throw out there the beautifully well made point that was the heart of ender's game: Despite all that is natural and rational to us, Ender was only able to defeat a threat to humanity's survival by loving them.
This is completely counter-intuitive without OSC's narrative paving the way. It's counter-intuitive to Bean, who served under Ender. Great then Ender in every way, but inexplicably below ender. This is reiterated and resolved in his conflict with Achilles.
I bring this up to point out that it just because it may appear that power comes from lies and deciet and treachery, ultimately this appearance is decietful and the opposite is true.
Peter admits openly that he sees something off himself in Achilles at Achilles funeral. They're not the same, however. The crucial difference is that at the core of Achilles, he believed the lie and at the core of Peter (in spite of all appearances!), he did not. Achilles died at the hands of those he hurt, and Peter became Hedgemon. It's not that unreasonable to me.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the Hedgemon was a book about how peter had mellowed over time and that does fit in with the two contrasting views of Peter we get in Enders game and the shadow series. However I would have liked it if he was fractionally more Evil. Just a tiny bit. I did find that I liked peter, i found him more interesting that Bean who i felt that up until after Shadow of the hedgemon was just "mind" but when he begins to look into his humanity he becomes more interesting.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone recommend a good toaster (brand and design - the kitchen is sorta yellow)? Years ago I became enamored with a breakfast of toasted garlic bagel with orange-marmalade spread. I don't currently own a toaster.
Posts: 351 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never thought that this thread would last this long. Well just goes to show me how often I'm wrong about these things. Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
a) I was implying that certain people covet character details more than others, abnd that a tome heavily weighed to Peter's story might prove a treasure chest of sorts.
b) My last comment was posed as a question because it's a feeling I have about these super-children's nocturnal habits. Peter and Ender seem continually contemplating, often alone, seemingly often at night. OSC details other character's night musings too. I always wondered about the Wiggin's abilities to cope with little sleep and how they may have to turn their brains off sometimes to let their bodies rest. Does OSC often make detail Enderverse characters drift off, and how, or is that my own imposition?
I wonder how important, powerful people sleep.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
tms a) I had to look at it like, 3 times, but I finally got it. Breadcrumbs:gingerbreadhouse::peter's supporting role:hedgemon books
The last horse finally crosses the finish line, sorry to be slow.
b) When I was younger I couldn't sleep because I couldn't shut my brain off. Now it's just noise, so I play music. I'd imagine "enderverse" characters drop off to sleep the way a lot of us do - without noticing.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Today in my U.S. history class we got into an odd discussion about what makes a leader, and global unity. Most people said the obvious answers, so I then described Peter Wiggin. (I used a lot of what ifs) I told the teacher what he was like, and how he might unite the world. After I explained, he said no such leader would ever exist. And that it sounded too sugar-coated. I think a person with Peter-like characteristics would be an ideal leader. Do you agree/disagree?
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
