Was Peter too "perfect"?

First, we do not get to see him much of Peter (or any of them) in England at the beginning of PC.The book starts out with the four waitin gon a rural rain stop that is nearly empty. Lewis says enough to reintouce them and give the setting before spiriting them into Narnia. So any speculation regarding who he was for the previous year is just that--speculation.

Second, as I have mentioned before, the four characters spent at least 15 years (I like to imagine it was nearer 30 or more years) as rulers of Narnia. They got a lot of experience on the throne. We know that Peter, Edmund, and Lucy took place in battles. They ruled over a peaceful Narnia and learned things such as tact, patience, and many other positive attributes. These characteristics, presumably, came back to them in Narnia as wel as their battle abilities.

Peter was High King and understood the responisbilites of being in that position. Why wouldn't you think that he would not regain those atributes that made hum such a popular king, one that earned him the name Peter the Magnificent?

MrBob
 
Lila said:
Something we have to remember here is that Narnia is an allegory - it's a set of symbols. Therefore, we can draw the conclusion that Lewis's main purpose in writing the series wasn't to keep the spotlight on character development and dynamics; it was to create a story with parts that function to convey a deeper meaning. Maybe Peter's attitudes were a bit unrealistic, but that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. In fact, if he had acted as a typical teenager would, it might distract or take away from the real significance of the story.

In book form, this works out well. As a movie... not so much. I know this has been said many times before, but if you translated PC word-for-word into screenplay form, it would turn out to be a very boring film. The writers really had no choice except to add some deeper, more accessible layers to Peter's character. And in my opinion, they did a pretty good job with it.

Now... here's a completely separate idea, one that I haven't seen discussed yet (but I apologize if this has actually been covered already and I'm just being redundant :p). What about the idea that Peter symbolizes the Apostle Peter? I actually heard this idea in my English class a few days ago when we were learning about allegories. If this connection were true, wouldn't it make sense for Peter to have some pretty visible flaws? Yes, Peter the apostle had many virtuous qualities, but had a lot of struggles in his faith and he even ended up denying Jesus. He wasn't a perfect man; he didn't always say and do the right things. To me, Peter's behavior in PC seems to line up very well with the way that Biblical Peter acted.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that Peter is 100% supposed to represent the Biblical Peter, actually, I really don't think he represents the Peter of the Gospels at all. Tolkien used three different people in his LotR trilogy to represent different aspects of Christ (Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn). Honestly I think Lewis followed suite but not with the Christ-figure, who is most decidedly Aslan. No, I think Lewis used characters to represent different aspects of the church, or the Christian himself. If you don't try to fit the character arcs into a set historical figure, things become a lot less muddled. In a lot of Lewis's writings you see it; he points out different grades of Christians. I think that Peter actually represents that Church itself, the Seat of Peter if you would, historically there have been falters and imperfections in Christianity but as it says in the Bible, Christ said he would never leave or forsake the church, and so Peter's doubt and missteps represent the times when the Church has not lived up to Christ's expectations. Edmund's character arc definitely has major echos of Judas, but it actually follows the Apostle Peter's arc more fully, because despite Peter's denial of Christ, he did not despair and take his life for his crimes against the Messiah, this fits with Edmund's arc perfectly; Edmund represents the late Conversion. He represents the repentant sinner. Lucy represent the faithful Christian, she has her vices but Christ is the center of her life. Susan represents the Fallen-away. The ones who every chrisitan has to hope will come back to the fold one day.
 
No, Peter in the books was not impossibly perfect; what he was, was VIRTUOUS. Degraded modern people, who want the bar lowered so that they don't have to live UP to any noble example, will complain of characters like Peter as "unrealistic;" but this is dishonesty, not insight. They don't WANT reality to contain persons who clearly are morally better than they are.


* * Written on a borrowed computer, while mine is in repair.
 
For me Peter is courageous, valiant, sage and everything, but he isn't perfect! Especially in the first film he's very hard with Edmund, and in the "Prince Caspian" he's too headstrong: he doesn't want to wait Aslan, he doesn't listen Lucy and he attack the castle of Miraz... but he's a wonderful king, especially when he litigate with Caspian <3 :p
 
Back
Top