Peter vs. Caspian
- Thread starter TreeDancer
- Start date
Dragonchild
New member
That's, of course, a reminisence of the opening scene with the schoolboys fighting. And also a hint as to how thoroughly Edmund has renounced the WW.
But it does leave an uneasiness about Peter. If they were wolves he wouldn't be leader much longer after such a scene.
But it does leave an uneasiness about Peter. If they were wolves he wouldn't be leader much longer after such a scene.
Purple_Reeses
New member
I for one do not disagree and I do not agree either; Caspian did come off as kind of a wuss in the film because he was portrayed as a young prince who has been living in a world full of lies. So there is that whole 'Sheltered' sort of aspect. But Peter on the other hand was yes a jerk. It was really interesting to see how the whole testosterone conflict played out...
I was rather disappointed that they didnt put in the part where peter has to ask Aslan for forgiveness for thinking he can do things with his own strength....
Anyhow, I enjoyed both. And then, did not like both at the same time.
An Even draw.
I was rather disappointed that they didnt put in the part where peter has to ask Aslan for forgiveness for thinking he can do things with his own strength....
Anyhow, I enjoyed both. And then, did not like both at the same time.
An Even draw.
Welcome Purple Reeses. I love your name, but I have to say that you can't do that. How can you like and dislike can you like and dislike purple reeses at the same time? Can you agree with me on some point AND disagree at the same time?I for one do not disagree and I do not agree either;
Anyhow, I enjoyed both. And then, did not like both at the same time.
An Even draw.
It's like saying you like the color red, but at the same time you don't like the color red.
Sorry, I do not mean it bad, really. I just don't get it.
eustace_lover
New member
I think Peter was a jerk in the movie and a i-know-everything-cause-i-was-a-king guy
I don't really remember how he behaves in the book-I have a long time to read it-. On the other hand, Caspian didn't follow the plan when they went to Miraz's castle and he made Peter mad and he didn't fight with his uncle in the end but Peter did. So Peter is braver but he is a jerk, and Caspian is a coward. I don't like anyone
I don't really remember how he behaves in the book-I have a long time to read it-. On the other hand, Caspian didn't follow the plan when they went to Miraz's castle and he made Peter mad and he didn't fight with his uncle in the end but Peter did. So Peter is braver but he is a jerk, and Caspian is a coward. I don't like anyone
loverble
New member
I think that they were both kinda equil. They both made mistakes and to be honest I liked both. Even in the movie I know peopul who are in the same year at school as he is supposidly in that are worce then him. I guess I can say that bacuse when you get into 6th form you become much more self-engrossed with school. So in a way I can see why Peter is like that. But then with Caspians back ground you can also see why he is like he is. So personally I think they are fairly equil and I liked both charicters.
Copperfox
Well-known member
Every time people say "I want flawed characters who have to learn better," I want to scream, "But you're missing the point! Peter is supposed to have ALREADY learned much better, in the previous book! NOT EVERYONE always needs to go back and re-learn the same lessons again, and Peter most certainly should NOT be depicted as needing to! If you want a nearly-incurable dork, invent a new character called Irving Squigglepoo; don't force PETER to be the dork!"
I've wracked my brain trying to figure how I could make this more understandable. Then it came to me: Mister Spock!
All through the first Star Trek TV series, it was always a big issue that Mr. Spock had a hard time coping with emotions--whether other people's emotions, or the ones which occasionally crept up inside him. So then they made the first Star Trek movie; and in it they made a HUGE plot point out Mr. Spock making a breakthrough and understanding feelings better. But when they made "Wrath of Khan," they simply IGNORED the important personal growth Mr. Spock was supposed to have enjoyed, and took him right back to square one with his emotion-ophobia problem.
Seeing these movies, I could grasp what the writers were doing. They did not care one bit about the internal logic or continuity of the stories; they just wanted to keep the PLOT DEVICE of Mr. Spock's coldness unchanged. It was like the old "Bonanza" series, where none of the Cartwright men was allowed to get married (unless it were to a woman who fell down dead in the same episode); the writers just wanted to keep the plot format of three bachelor brothers unchanged, no matter how strained and silly it became.
Thus with Peter: the Walden writers decided that, for the limited tenure of the character of Peter, they were going to FORCE him to stay in a limbo of immaturity, out of the feeling that the audience would rather have dorks. Well, if I'm ever in danger from monsters, I don't want a dork offering to save me; I want a competent hero who knows his nostrils from a hole in the ground. And although you'd never know it from the revisionist movie, Mr. Lewis DID give Caspian, and the reader, a competent hero who knew his nostrils from a hole in the ground. If only the movie had used the characters ACTUALLY IN the book, I'll bet they could have made it work well enough that NOT ONE of the fans now defending the revisionist version would say upon seeing it, "Darn it, I wish that Peter had been stupid and immature!"
I've wracked my brain trying to figure how I could make this more understandable. Then it came to me: Mister Spock!
All through the first Star Trek TV series, it was always a big issue that Mr. Spock had a hard time coping with emotions--whether other people's emotions, or the ones which occasionally crept up inside him. So then they made the first Star Trek movie; and in it they made a HUGE plot point out Mr. Spock making a breakthrough and understanding feelings better. But when they made "Wrath of Khan," they simply IGNORED the important personal growth Mr. Spock was supposed to have enjoyed, and took him right back to square one with his emotion-ophobia problem.
Seeing these movies, I could grasp what the writers were doing. They did not care one bit about the internal logic or continuity of the stories; they just wanted to keep the PLOT DEVICE of Mr. Spock's coldness unchanged. It was like the old "Bonanza" series, where none of the Cartwright men was allowed to get married (unless it were to a woman who fell down dead in the same episode); the writers just wanted to keep the plot format of three bachelor brothers unchanged, no matter how strained and silly it became.
Thus with Peter: the Walden writers decided that, for the limited tenure of the character of Peter, they were going to FORCE him to stay in a limbo of immaturity, out of the feeling that the audience would rather have dorks. Well, if I'm ever in danger from monsters, I don't want a dork offering to save me; I want a competent hero who knows his nostrils from a hole in the ground. And although you'd never know it from the revisionist movie, Mr. Lewis DID give Caspian, and the reader, a competent hero who knew his nostrils from a hole in the ground. If only the movie had used the characters ACTUALLY IN the book, I'll bet they could have made it work well enough that NOT ONE of the fans now defending the revisionist version would say upon seeing it, "Darn it, I wish that Peter had been stupid and immature!"
Darth Sparhawk
New member
But Copperfox, Peter still saved the day at the end. He was the one who fought the evil king. If he hadn't Miraz would have obliterated everything and Lucy would have been unable to escape the siege. It is not right to say that the movie Peter is a dork. He is a true hero and proved it. He is not flawless, that's all.
Dragonchild
New member
You know, C-F, In sometimes wonder why if it is not really a Peter-Problem but the fact that Walden all but leave out Aslan. There is no room for Peter to be other than flawless when Aslan who really is flawless stays in the box. Doesn't Peter realize in the book that his trust in Aslan wasn't 100%? In the film he has to be the hero but in the books he's always the deputy-hero for there's Aslan in charge.
I don't even think Walden didn't want to have a perfect boy-hero, they just didn't want a supernatural hero, a god, to speak plainly. They wanted to create a fantasy film not a religious one.
It is different, to me at least, with a comparison between book and film and reality. When reading the books I never was much interested in Peter. Nor in any of the other Pevensies, by the way. They were too palish to me, they never came really alive. All in all I took them as symbols not as real people. When reading the books the most interesting person form me was Mr. Lewis.
In the movies the charakters of the books really came alive for me for the first time. I got interested in them as people and their different ways to deal with their situation - being kings and queens, being young people trying to grow up, being in close touch with the One supernatural being - became interesting to me, personally.
It's quite similar with the saints in church. Normally I think of them as an assortment of positive traits and decisions I should try to copy. But since this is impossible, I normally quit very soon.
Now, if I come upon a story of a saint in trouble (and they do exist) and somehow learn to know him as a real person, somebody who didn't start with being holy but worked through towards it, the thing's quite different. We start to be siblings then, working for the same thing out of the same love.
It's like that with Peter for me in the PCmovie. From being a sovereign lord in the books he changed to be brother for me in the films. I like that change and it encourages me to put my trust in our real sovereign Lord.
Have a nice weekend and a joyful sunday, everybody
I don't even think Walden didn't want to have a perfect boy-hero, they just didn't want a supernatural hero, a god, to speak plainly. They wanted to create a fantasy film not a religious one.
It is different, to me at least, with a comparison between book and film and reality. When reading the books I never was much interested in Peter. Nor in any of the other Pevensies, by the way. They were too palish to me, they never came really alive. All in all I took them as symbols not as real people. When reading the books the most interesting person form me was Mr. Lewis.
In the movies the charakters of the books really came alive for me for the first time. I got interested in them as people and their different ways to deal with their situation - being kings and queens, being young people trying to grow up, being in close touch with the One supernatural being - became interesting to me, personally.
It's quite similar with the saints in church. Normally I think of them as an assortment of positive traits and decisions I should try to copy. But since this is impossible, I normally quit very soon.
Now, if I come upon a story of a saint in trouble (and they do exist) and somehow learn to know him as a real person, somebody who didn't start with being holy but worked through towards it, the thing's quite different. We start to be siblings then, working for the same thing out of the same love.
It's like that with Peter for me in the PCmovie. From being a sovereign lord in the books he changed to be brother for me in the films. I like that change and it encourages me to put my trust in our real sovereign Lord.
Have a nice weekend and a joyful sunday, everybody
Darth Sparhawk
New member
AsbelMctalisker
New member
I think you`ve got it there Dragonchild.
Its one of the weak points of the screenplay that Aslans appearance in the story is reduced to a dream sequence which only Lucy has, It seems to put Peter in particular under a lot more pressure as a leader and forces them to almost repeat the same scene again later in the film.
One aspect of the books that has always bothered me though is the whole idea of the memory fading when in another world and then `Narnian air` restoring the Pevensies to something of their former Narnian selves before joining Caspian. Its just a bit over convenient.
As somebody who went through my adolescence more years ago than I care to remember I think, if I were zapped back in to my 14 or 15 year old self I doubt I would cope any better than film Peter did. If after a year of that I was suddenly zapped back forward in time again while still being physically a teenager then I think I would end up going crazy!
Its one of the weak points of the screenplay that Aslans appearance in the story is reduced to a dream sequence which only Lucy has, It seems to put Peter in particular under a lot more pressure as a leader and forces them to almost repeat the same scene again later in the film.
One aspect of the books that has always bothered me though is the whole idea of the memory fading when in another world and then `Narnian air` restoring the Pevensies to something of their former Narnian selves before joining Caspian. Its just a bit over convenient.
As somebody who went through my adolescence more years ago than I care to remember I think, if I were zapped back in to my 14 or 15 year old self I doubt I would cope any better than film Peter did. If after a year of that I was suddenly zapped back forward in time again while still being physically a teenager then I think I would end up going crazy!
tolkienlewisfan
New member
I completely agree with you Copperfox. I kinda flet that they betrayed Lewis's book throughout the whole movie, but as a whole I liked Peter way more than Caspian.
Copperfox
Well-known member
Thank you, T-L-F.
Darth, D-C and Asbel: probably none of you is old enough to have seen so thoroughly what I have seen over my lifetime: the downhill progression in the view Christians hold of heroes.
Try to imagine a sort of scale: say that Aslan has 50,000,000,000,000 goodness-points; and say that a really admirable mortal, who is as consistent as we mortals can be about being good, would have 200 goodness-points. Given these symbolic numbers, is it NECESSARY for Peter to be artificially held down at only FIVE goodness-points in order for Aslan to be superior?
The understanding of our flawed human condition, and of the need to be humble before Aslan/God, has been subtly warped into a belief that it's almost impossible for us EVER to practice ANY goodness with any sort of consistency. Those who fall into this trap, what you might call a pessimistic mutation of humility, have to close their eyes to the existence of MANY real-world heroes and heroines--Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Florence Nightingale, Anne Sullivan and Alvin York, for example--who DID IN FACT reach a level of moral excellence which modern people would now call "impossible" if they saw it in a movie.
In the BOOK, Peter did have doubts of what Aslan was up to, but he never turned AGAINST Aslan in his heart. In the book, you would NEVER have heard him speak so dismissively of Aslan as in his movie line, "We've waited for Aslan long enough!" And it is BECAUSE the movie made Peter so inferior, that he was forced to admit his inferiority to Caspian at the end when saying "We're not needed anymore."
If Mr. Lewis had been WRONG to say that we mortals, though needing God's grace, CAN potentially become significantly noble and good EVEN IN this life, then there would have been cause to deconstruct Peter and change him into a stumble-bum. But Mr. Lewis, who had SEEN heroism with his own eyes in the trenches of World War One, WAS NOT wrong. It is NO contradiction of our humility before God to say that we CAN be better than a crawling, fumbling bare minimum; and it does ONLY HARM to say that we can't, lowering the bar by lowering the quality of heroes.
I do share other people's annoyance at the near-total absence of Aslan; but I dwell on the problem about Peter because (1) it is doing a more subtle, sneaky form of damage, and (2) Aslan will get His chance to show up more in future films, whereas Peter has now been retired, and the revisionists have intentionally left us a bad taste in our mouths concerning him.
Darth, D-C and Asbel: probably none of you is old enough to have seen so thoroughly what I have seen over my lifetime: the downhill progression in the view Christians hold of heroes.
Try to imagine a sort of scale: say that Aslan has 50,000,000,000,000 goodness-points; and say that a really admirable mortal, who is as consistent as we mortals can be about being good, would have 200 goodness-points. Given these symbolic numbers, is it NECESSARY for Peter to be artificially held down at only FIVE goodness-points in order for Aslan to be superior?
The understanding of our flawed human condition, and of the need to be humble before Aslan/God, has been subtly warped into a belief that it's almost impossible for us EVER to practice ANY goodness with any sort of consistency. Those who fall into this trap, what you might call a pessimistic mutation of humility, have to close their eyes to the existence of MANY real-world heroes and heroines--Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Florence Nightingale, Anne Sullivan and Alvin York, for example--who DID IN FACT reach a level of moral excellence which modern people would now call "impossible" if they saw it in a movie.
In the BOOK, Peter did have doubts of what Aslan was up to, but he never turned AGAINST Aslan in his heart. In the book, you would NEVER have heard him speak so dismissively of Aslan as in his movie line, "We've waited for Aslan long enough!" And it is BECAUSE the movie made Peter so inferior, that he was forced to admit his inferiority to Caspian at the end when saying "We're not needed anymore."
If Mr. Lewis had been WRONG to say that we mortals, though needing God's grace, CAN potentially become significantly noble and good EVEN IN this life, then there would have been cause to deconstruct Peter and change him into a stumble-bum. But Mr. Lewis, who had SEEN heroism with his own eyes in the trenches of World War One, WAS NOT wrong. It is NO contradiction of our humility before God to say that we CAN be better than a crawling, fumbling bare minimum; and it does ONLY HARM to say that we can't, lowering the bar by lowering the quality of heroes.
I do share other people's annoyance at the near-total absence of Aslan; but I dwell on the problem about Peter because (1) it is doing a more subtle, sneaky form of damage, and (2) Aslan will get His chance to show up more in future films, whereas Peter has now been retired, and the revisionists have intentionally left us a bad taste in our mouths concerning him.
MrBob
Well-known member
"But Copperfox, Peter still saved the day at the end. He was the one who fought the evil king. If he hadn't Miraz would have obliterated everything and Lucy would have been unable to escape the siege. It is not right to say that the movie Peter is a dork. He is a true hero and proved it. He is not flawless, that's all."
Sparhawk, Peter did not save the day at the end. Aslan did. If any of the Pevensies can be said that they were the big hero, it would be Lucy for keeping her faith in Aslan. It was Lucy who reminded Peter who defeated the Witch. It was Lucy who met up with Aslan at the end. Peter's fight with Miraz was only a stalling technique, one that he employed immediately in the book, but that he was his last chance in the movie. Movie Peter had relying on Aslan a final chance instead of first choice.
What Copper is arguing is not that Peter is flawless or that we want a flawless Peter but that movie Peter was too flawed. As I have mentioned in this discussion, going to Narnia is suppoed to be a positive experience. Walking with Aslan is supposed to give strength to anyone. So why is it that Peter has regressed beyond that of Edmund in LWW within six months of coming back from Narnia?
"I think, if I were zapped back in to my 14 or 15 year old self I doubt I would cope any better than film Peter did. If after a year of that I was suddenly zapped back forward in time again while still being physically a teenager then I think I would end up going crazy! "
Asbel, the point of the memory repressions was more than simply convenient, it was necessary so that one could live and survive better in each world. I agree that a normal person would go a bit nuts if they suddenly regressed in age, but realize that it is the lessons that we learn that would dictate how well we could handle the switch. Peter was not known as "The Maagnificent" for nothing. He had to embody that title for teh Narnians to give it to him. For him to forget all those memories and experiences (they are still there and accessible, just not so prominent) is antithetical to the character of Peter and the theme of the books.
At the end of VotDT, Aslan tells Lucy and Edmund that they must get to know him in their own world. This was the reason they were brought into Narnia. So why would the filmmakers have forgotten about that specific plot point? Just to make a flawed hero? Movie Peter was too flawed to the point that it really felt like Aslan didn't want to bring him back fearing his behaviour would get worse in the interim.
I have a topic subject ready about the unpreparedness of characters that i will post in the book section as I feel it is the best place.
MrBob
Sparhawk, Peter did not save the day at the end. Aslan did. If any of the Pevensies can be said that they were the big hero, it would be Lucy for keeping her faith in Aslan. It was Lucy who reminded Peter who defeated the Witch. It was Lucy who met up with Aslan at the end. Peter's fight with Miraz was only a stalling technique, one that he employed immediately in the book, but that he was his last chance in the movie. Movie Peter had relying on Aslan a final chance instead of first choice.
What Copper is arguing is not that Peter is flawless or that we want a flawless Peter but that movie Peter was too flawed. As I have mentioned in this discussion, going to Narnia is suppoed to be a positive experience. Walking with Aslan is supposed to give strength to anyone. So why is it that Peter has regressed beyond that of Edmund in LWW within six months of coming back from Narnia?
"I think, if I were zapped back in to my 14 or 15 year old self I doubt I would cope any better than film Peter did. If after a year of that I was suddenly zapped back forward in time again while still being physically a teenager then I think I would end up going crazy! "
Asbel, the point of the memory repressions was more than simply convenient, it was necessary so that one could live and survive better in each world. I agree that a normal person would go a bit nuts if they suddenly regressed in age, but realize that it is the lessons that we learn that would dictate how well we could handle the switch. Peter was not known as "The Maagnificent" for nothing. He had to embody that title for teh Narnians to give it to him. For him to forget all those memories and experiences (they are still there and accessible, just not so prominent) is antithetical to the character of Peter and the theme of the books.
At the end of VotDT, Aslan tells Lucy and Edmund that they must get to know him in their own world. This was the reason they were brought into Narnia. So why would the filmmakers have forgotten about that specific plot point? Just to make a flawed hero? Movie Peter was too flawed to the point that it really felt like Aslan didn't want to bring him back fearing his behaviour would get worse in the interim.
I have a topic subject ready about the unpreparedness of characters that i will post in the book section as I feel it is the best place.
MrBob
Copperfox
Well-known member
MrBob, you are TOTALLY righter-than-right!!!! That's _just_ what I've been trying to get them to see: that Peter had _exactly_ the right amount of weakness in the BOOK as it was written, leaving NO need to make him still _more_ weak and foolish!
Also, to the extent that Peter does any saving of the day by defeating Miraz:
In the book, Peter's defeating of Miraz is continuous and integral with his consistent noble character throughout. But in the movie, we are made to feel that Peter has only _barely_ managed to _become_ good enough just in time to fight Miraz, _finally_ making a contribution after otherwise being a klutz and a schmuck all the way up to then.
P.S. If I, 56-year-old Copperfox, could suddenly become, say, 30 years younger physically _without_ losing any of my knowledge and experience, the only way I would go "crazy" would be with _delight!_
Also, to the extent that Peter does any saving of the day by defeating Miraz:
In the book, Peter's defeating of Miraz is continuous and integral with his consistent noble character throughout. But in the movie, we are made to feel that Peter has only _barely_ managed to _become_ good enough just in time to fight Miraz, _finally_ making a contribution after otherwise being a klutz and a schmuck all the way up to then.
P.S. If I, 56-year-old Copperfox, could suddenly become, say, 30 years younger physically _without_ losing any of my knowledge and experience, the only way I would go "crazy" would be with _delight!_
Last edited:
Darth Sparhawk
New member
I know once - Peter did what he did with the desire to put an end of Telmarine's tyranny and if not his courage to fight Miraz. the usurper would have killed all of them. If you call the movie Peter a bad man, I must disagree.
Copperfox
Well-known member
I don't call the movie's Peter a _bad_ man exactly; _even_ the Walden fools wouldn't have dared to make him a villain! But they _did_ load him down with FAR MORE failings and weaknesses than there was ANY valid cause for heaping on him. This produced the effect that, when Peter said at the end, "We're not needed anymore," it _didn't_ sound only like "Now we've finished our job;" it sounded more like Peter was saying, "Now I realize that we _weren't_ needed, and especially *I* wasn't needed, at ANY point in this movie; I didn't contribute _anything_ that someone else couldn't have done better."
Dragonchild
New member
C-F, I'm not so much younger than you are 
, but you're right; I have no idea about the change in the concept of christian hero because most of my 45 years I was not concerned with christianity and it's heroes.
And if you would go crazy with joy when hurtled back into your twenties I must say, I envy you. I'd be terrified.
So, I'm not able to perceive either the book or the film from an officially labelled christian perspective, that would be alien to me. Neither do I think or was I taught that it is impossible to be good nor do I think that we are naturally good (although people did try to teach me that). Of course it is possible to be good. It's just not possible to be good all the time. And it's not possible to be perfect. For am mere man. If Peter is human in the full sense of the meaning then he has no business to be perfect. If Mr. Lewis intended him to be, his motives may have been to imitate medieval hagiography, with good reason and success. For the 1950s. We are living in times which have seen more cruelty and abnormity than we ever thought we would live to see and our children are going to see more of it. I think, we need more of a perfect God and less of humans who think themselves perfect in His stead.
I am well aware that it is really our different experiences in life that are clashing here and none of us can walk in the other's shoes, but I really, trully am fully convinced that the film Peter is the better hero for today. And I would like to leave it at that, for my part. Since everybody has his or her own way to follow, perspectives and convictions may and will differ, of course, and there's no need for inner growling, as far as I am concerned, at least.
, but you're right; I have no idea about the change in the concept of christian hero because most of my 45 years I was not concerned with christianity and it's heroes.And if you would go crazy with joy when hurtled back into your twenties I must say, I envy you. I'd be terrified.
So, I'm not able to perceive either the book or the film from an officially labelled christian perspective, that would be alien to me. Neither do I think or was I taught that it is impossible to be good nor do I think that we are naturally good (although people did try to teach me that). Of course it is possible to be good. It's just not possible to be good all the time. And it's not possible to be perfect. For am mere man. If Peter is human in the full sense of the meaning then he has no business to be perfect. If Mr. Lewis intended him to be, his motives may have been to imitate medieval hagiography, with good reason and success. For the 1950s. We are living in times which have seen more cruelty and abnormity than we ever thought we would live to see and our children are going to see more of it. I think, we need more of a perfect God and less of humans who think themselves perfect in His stead.
I am well aware that it is really our different experiences in life that are clashing here and none of us can walk in the other's shoes, but I really, trully am fully convinced that the film Peter is the better hero for today. And I would like to leave it at that, for my part. Since everybody has his or her own way to follow, perspectives and convictions may and will differ, of course, and there's no need for inner growling, as far as I am concerned, at least.
Copperfox
Well-known member
Okay, Dragonchild, then you don't have to look at this post; it contains nothing which is intended to be talking about you personally.
===============
===============
===============
===============
===============
===============
===============
===============
For the rest of you:
Let me try another angle. Imagine two shirts brought into an apartment building's laundry room: one has been brought there by mistake, because it is entirely clean. The other shirt is SO caked with mud, that you can't even tell what its actual color is. Both of these shirts have been left lying on a counter, while whoever brought them both in has gone to do something else.
I'm visiting a friend who lives in this building, and I help him to carry his own laundry to the laundry room. As I help him transfer garments into the available washing machines, I notice the super-filthy shirt on the table. Pointing it out to my friend, I casually remark, "I hope you never have to try to get clean something that's _this_ dirty!"
Seeing what I have pointed to, and hearing my words, my friend suddenly and unaccountably becomes wildly angry and indignant. Grabbing up the _clean_ shirt from the counter, he shouts at me, "How _dare_ you be so _impossibly_ demanding? How _dare_ you expect me to have ALL my clothes as clean as this shirt _every_ minute? You _know_ that's not humanly possible, and you're being a self-righteous legalist to demand it!!"
Baffled at his reaction, I say truthfully, "But I _didn't_ say that I expected you never to have any dirty clothes at all! I didn't even say anything _like_ that! All I said, and you _heard_ me say it, was that I hoped you wouldn't ever get your clothes AS dirty as this mud-caked shirt! What gave you the idea that I was demanding an impossible degree of constant cleanliness?"
My irrational friend juts out his jaw defiantly, replying, "Anyone who has ANY objection to a shirt being totally covered with heavy mud, IS demanding that clothes must never be soiled at all for one instant no matter what! It's _exactly_ the same thing!"
I defy anyone to justify the craziness of my imaginary friend in the above example. If you can do _that_ in your own mind, you must live in a house where the temperature can never be set to any moderate level, but must always be either boiling hot or freezing cold. In that case, maybe you can justify people saying about the Caspian movie: "If you have ANY objection to Peter being shown as totally stupid, juvenile, petty, conceited, faithless and rash...if you have ANY objection to Peter being shown as a stumbling loser almost all the way through, until he finally gets his act together only _barely_ in time to be of some use near the end...then that's the SAME thing as demanding that he be 100 percent sinless, infallible and perfect!"
That is the argument I keep encountering on this thread.
But shirts can be somewhere _between_ ultra-filthy and magically immune to all dirt. Houses can be somewhere _between_ boiling hot and freezing cold. And Peter could be somewhere _between_ the plaster saint and the bumbling idiot who's so useless that he embarrasses his little brother. In fact, anyone who has actually read the BOOK, knows that Mr. Lewis _did_ place Peter in between those extremes. Too bad the Walden writers didn't like Peter being closer to the ideal extreme than to the rotten extreme; too bad they wanted to move him far closer to the rotten extreme. But Peter _did_ already have, in the book, enough shortcomings to "humanize" him sufficiently; making him _worse_ than Mr. Lewis made him was gratuitous, unnecessary, NOT ANY kind of improvement, and even _harmful_ to the theme of the whole Narnian series.
If Peter, as a loser whose greatest moral achievement is to confess being inferior to Caspian, is "the right hero for today," exactly what do people think is going to be _required_ of heroes for today? Thank God that the military men and women fighting against real-world terrorism are more sensible and competent than Movie-Peter was made out to be....or else we would have had seven or eight more successful terrorist attacks on American soil since 2001.
===============
===============
===============
===============
===============
===============
===============
===============
For the rest of you:
Let me try another angle. Imagine two shirts brought into an apartment building's laundry room: one has been brought there by mistake, because it is entirely clean. The other shirt is SO caked with mud, that you can't even tell what its actual color is. Both of these shirts have been left lying on a counter, while whoever brought them both in has gone to do something else.
I'm visiting a friend who lives in this building, and I help him to carry his own laundry to the laundry room. As I help him transfer garments into the available washing machines, I notice the super-filthy shirt on the table. Pointing it out to my friend, I casually remark, "I hope you never have to try to get clean something that's _this_ dirty!"
Seeing what I have pointed to, and hearing my words, my friend suddenly and unaccountably becomes wildly angry and indignant. Grabbing up the _clean_ shirt from the counter, he shouts at me, "How _dare_ you be so _impossibly_ demanding? How _dare_ you expect me to have ALL my clothes as clean as this shirt _every_ minute? You _know_ that's not humanly possible, and you're being a self-righteous legalist to demand it!!"
Baffled at his reaction, I say truthfully, "But I _didn't_ say that I expected you never to have any dirty clothes at all! I didn't even say anything _like_ that! All I said, and you _heard_ me say it, was that I hoped you wouldn't ever get your clothes AS dirty as this mud-caked shirt! What gave you the idea that I was demanding an impossible degree of constant cleanliness?"
My irrational friend juts out his jaw defiantly, replying, "Anyone who has ANY objection to a shirt being totally covered with heavy mud, IS demanding that clothes must never be soiled at all for one instant no matter what! It's _exactly_ the same thing!"
I defy anyone to justify the craziness of my imaginary friend in the above example. If you can do _that_ in your own mind, you must live in a house where the temperature can never be set to any moderate level, but must always be either boiling hot or freezing cold. In that case, maybe you can justify people saying about the Caspian movie: "If you have ANY objection to Peter being shown as totally stupid, juvenile, petty, conceited, faithless and rash...if you have ANY objection to Peter being shown as a stumbling loser almost all the way through, until he finally gets his act together only _barely_ in time to be of some use near the end...then that's the SAME thing as demanding that he be 100 percent sinless, infallible and perfect!"
That is the argument I keep encountering on this thread.
But shirts can be somewhere _between_ ultra-filthy and magically immune to all dirt. Houses can be somewhere _between_ boiling hot and freezing cold. And Peter could be somewhere _between_ the plaster saint and the bumbling idiot who's so useless that he embarrasses his little brother. In fact, anyone who has actually read the BOOK, knows that Mr. Lewis _did_ place Peter in between those extremes. Too bad the Walden writers didn't like Peter being closer to the ideal extreme than to the rotten extreme; too bad they wanted to move him far closer to the rotten extreme. But Peter _did_ already have, in the book, enough shortcomings to "humanize" him sufficiently; making him _worse_ than Mr. Lewis made him was gratuitous, unnecessary, NOT ANY kind of improvement, and even _harmful_ to the theme of the whole Narnian series.
If Peter, as a loser whose greatest moral achievement is to confess being inferior to Caspian, is "the right hero for today," exactly what do people think is going to be _required_ of heroes for today? Thank God that the military men and women fighting against real-world terrorism are more sensible and competent than Movie-Peter was made out to be....or else we would have had seven or eight more successful terrorist attacks on American soil since 2001.
Last edited:
are people here still arguing that in order to "look" human you have to be a faithless jerk like the movie Peter? CF I left this thread long ago. You and I know that that is not the only way to portray a human in need of redemption.