Peter, a hero?

     Peter is a hero, he stopped England from turning into a corrupt nation ruled by a tyrant. Even though it was not on purpose, he still saved England and that makes him a hero. This makes him and accidental hero.

     In the beginning of the novel Peter's main goal was to run from Sir Philip and his men, not saving the Queen of England from her death. It was because of series of event that followed the initial incident such as him hiding away in a coffin and becoming and actor, meeting Kit, getting hired by Shakespeare, giving the Shakespeare's play to the yellow gentlemen, and taking the letter from the yellow gentleman's house that told his partner's where to meet. All these event led to Peter discovering about Sir Philip's plot to assassinate the queen.

     Even though the events helped Peter to save the queen, it was still Peter's choice and actions that helped him. Peter could have ignored the letter he found, he could've got stuck on the island he was being held hostage at, there were so many things that could have prevented Peter from saving the queen. Peter did the right thing even though he had to risk his life many times, in the end it was because of him that the queen was saved so he deserves to be called a hero.

     Peter is a lot like the Good Samaritans that saved the passenger of a plane crash that occurred in Richmond, British Columbia on October 27, 2011. When the plane crash, several bystanders rushed to the plane and began to pull out the passengers trapped inside of it. It was because of these "heroes" that everyone made it out alive except the pilot who unfortunately died at the hospital. These bystanders were normal civilians who probably weren't fire fighters and probably not trained in rescuing people out of burning planes. Peter wasn't trained in being a secret agent and stopping traitors from killing the queen, he was a normal 15 year old boy of the lower class in a town that lived off farming!

     Peter is a great example of someone who did the right thing and became a hero. He saved the queen because he thought it was the right thing to do, he also got the common land Sir Philip took away back. He is an accidental hero!

I finally got it! I figured out how to get into my email. I will start to post on our blog again.

I need help with my web.

Do I take notes about the novel or the life style of the characters????
HELP ME PLEASE!!

admin alert -

Joyce needs help - check my blog. She can't post on your blog anymore. Please contact her.

Critiquing 5 questions

Q:Why did Sir Philip get so angry at Peter for throwing the rock? Would you be angry? Explain.

A: This is an RT(right there) question, not from the text, but equally as self-explanatory. It's quite obvious why Sir Philip would be angry with Peter if he threw a rock at him, and I would be very angry if I were in his shoes as well. Very little thinking, analysis, and reading between the lines is required to answer this question. First of all, no one wants to be injured, which the stone could have easily caused, second, people in general do not like rocks being hurled violently at them in a direct attempt to damage he or she, it gives them a feeling of great insecurity, knowing someone is trying to hurt you. Don't get it? If you had a rock thrown at you from up high and was nearly hit, would you be nervous or scared? This question cannot be modified enough to be considered a question of grade 9 standard, it should be omitted altogether. This question cannot be improved without completely changing the idea and what the asker is asking, so one may as well ask a different question instead.

Q:How do the struggles Peter and Kit fo through relate to an experience you’ve gone through in real life?

A: There are a few things that can improve this question. To begin with, it's possible that this question can't even be answered due to the fact that a person may not have experienced an experience close to Peter and Kit's. Even more, many people have not yet finished the novel, so they don't know what their full experience was like, making them unable to relate. To solve this problem, one should refer to only the first ten chapters, and in order to make sure that anyone can answer the question, make the relation more obvious, such as "How do the struggles Peter and Kit go through the first ten chapters relate to being a wanted pair of people?"
Also, the question is too vague. "Relate" can refer to a broad number of things. Being in the same timeline, being in the same area, eating the same food, drinking the same liquid, using the same muscles can all mean two things can relate to each other. One can say their experience of eating chips on the couch related to Peter and Kit's struggles because both of our experiences were on earth. In order to fix this, the asker must make the type or relation more specific. For example, one could ask for relations between the feelings you felt during your experience and the feelings Kit and peter felt during their struggles. One could even be more precise by asking how intense were those feelings, and if they were as intense as Peter and Kit's. Also, the question is worded "how do the struggles Peter and Kit go through relate to an experience you’ve gone through in real life", not, "how do the struggles Peter and Kit fo through relate to an experience you’ve gone through in real life?"

Q:In the novel, many people carry pistols and swords. Do you think death is a justified punishment? Peter could’ve been tortured for information. Are these violent methods of getting things you want right? How do you think people should be punished?

A: I can see one big thing that can be adjusted with this question. First of all, there is more than one question. At the beginning they talk about people carrying pistols and swords, and then asking someone if they think death is a justified punishment, and then talking about torturing, and then asking the reader how they think people should be punished. I don't understand how carrying pistols and swords means that they are punishing a person by death. In order to solve this problem, one must omit most of the questions and leave only one, making sure all the sentences relate to each other and are asking, or helping ask, the same question. For example: "Peter could've been killed for his participation in the destruction of Sir Philip Morton's wall. Do you think death is a justified punishment? If yes, why? If not, how do you think people should be punished for such crimes?"

Q:Does Peter life relate to other kids around the world? Does it relate to you? Explain why.

A: The question is far too vague. To use "life" in a question already makes the question extraordinarily broad. When someone asks how your life relates to other kids around the world, there are thousands of things that could relate between your life and kids around the world. You could say you relate to each other because you're both human beings. Also, to include kids around the world gives the question far too large an area for someone to cover in a week. To fix this, the asker should narrow the question down significantly, with what area of relation are you asking, and only one child or a small group of children. For Example: "Does Peter's financial status relate to a person in Canada living with bankruptcy?"
Also, omit the "Does it relate to you? Explain why" portion altogether. There should only be one question being asked, not two.
Another thing, the first three words should be worded "Does Peter's life," not, "Does Peter life."

Q:Does theatre have a say in political matters? If yes, explain.

A:This question is also quite broad. What kind of political matters are you asking for? Are you asking if theatre has a say in a declaration of war? What level of political power are you referring to, City, Provincial, or National? Also, theatre is quite broad. Are you referring to people? What kind of people within theatre? The actors, the playwriters, or watchers? this question should be narrowed down heavily. For example: "Do theatre playwriters have a valued opinion in environmentally-friendly issues? If yes, explain why."

Side note: It seems as though the main problem with most questions is that they are too broad.

Blog Questions block 2

1) BH

How do you think people obtained power during the victorian era? Is power more easier to obtain depending on your family or because of potential?

My opinion) First of all the time was not the Victorian era but the Elizabethan era. I think that instead of saying " Is power more easier to obtain depending on your family or because of potential?" I would say "Was power easier to obtain depending on your family's notability around specific area or because of your potential as a leader?" Good Question overall.

2)DL

Peter had multiple options and choices for the future when he found out that Sir Philip had found evidence of his participation in the destruction of Sir Philip’s wall. What other options do you think would have been other good courses of action? How might they have effected his future?

My opinion) Peter was not a part of the destruction, he was just spotting for the other "MEN" who where destructing the wall. Anyway Sir Philip's men just found his cap, that does not mean he was apart of the destruction of the wall

3)JD

Does theatre have a say in political matters? If yes, explain.

My opinion) How does the theatre ever have a say in political matters? Needs to be more specific.

4)JA

How the story being set in the late 1600s to early 1700s, make Peter’s journey more intense and complicated?

My opinion) How does the setting being in the late 1500s to early 1600s (not late 1600s to early 1700s) get involved in making Peter’s journey more intense and complicated? How is it even complicated? Needs to be more specific.

5)DL

Does Peter life relate to other kids around the world? Does it relate to you? Explain why.

My opinion) This is a good question. The reason why is because in many different countries kids leave their homes manly because of personal difficulties such abuse or losses of family members, that kids join into an organization of some sort to give them the necessities they need in their daily lives such as a new family. The only thing is that if we have the privilege to go to School, live with our families/guardians/home stay parents, etc. this does not really relate to us. (I may be speaking on behalf of some of us) Overall good thought out question!

Now I am done my 5 questions.

(PS. As I pressed the 'Publish Post' Link I got an error message so I had to go back on blogger. I was lucky enough to have my 1st and 2nd Questions saved. Thank Heavens!)

What page do the boys get?

Ms.Lees, do the boys have to the first or second page? I'm confussed,"girls choose from the first half on the list and boys choose from the last half on the list" which half? Please help!

ch 1 and 2 response

I chapter 1 and 2 we see that Pete had been involved in some confrontation with one of Sir Philip Morton's men and must now escape from his town of Cumberland. Personally If this was me I would possibly do the same. I mean he is pretty much trying to keep away from death because if Sir Philip Morton finds him he would end up being in grave danger. The thing I would do differently is not going to a theatre to not only spend 3 use full penny's for his enjoyment. What he should have done was to keep going and find a job to earn some money to live on while finding an escape root from Sir Philip Morton's grasp of him.

Big Q: Was a person's life path determined before they were born? Is it today? Or can a man change his stars as the clip suggests?


The first portion of the big Q is highly debatable and is largely determined by one's religious beliefs and opinions. There is also no solid proof or evidence to support or deny the theory of how a person's life path is determined before they were born. Because of this, no one can say they are correct in their view and that another person's view is wrong. However, a person who believes that one's life is determined by the one who is leading that life can give reasons that are loosely based on reality, while a person who believes one's life is set in stone before they were born, cannot.

One who says that a person's life is determined in their present situation can say that humans make their own decisions and their own choices in life, which determines their path, while one who believes that human paths are determined before their birth can only say that a greater, powerful entity decided their paths in life. Because of how critics of preset paths in life can loosely connect their reasoning to reality, due to the fact that humans do indeed make their own decisions in life that can decide their path, they hold an advantage over believers. Reality is real undeniable(though it does not directly support critics), while believers can only assume and support, based on belief. There is no proof that one's path was decided prior to their birth. That cannot be loosely based on reality, because no one has real, existing evidence of anything or anyone deciding their stars before their birth.

A person could have changed his or her current life path back in the middle ages quite easily. It is obviously quite difficult to change one's life if he or she remains living in the same area that they had been living prior to changing his or her life, in an area where most people are familiar with who he or she is, where he or she lives, what he or she does, and their physical characteristics. It would have been extremely difficult to cover up everything that her acquaintances and companions are now so familiar with. That is essentially the same as being asked to change your physique, habits, personality, routines, and even the way you talk.

The one, most effective way to change one's current path is to run away from his or her current life by running away to a different country or city. There one could have started a new, fresh life, with a new beginning, without having their history moulded into their shadow. During those times, it was very difficult to trace a person if he or she ran away from their current life. The only way to inform the public of a wanted criminal or missing person was to put up posters, and one could have easily changed their appearance through a haircut, changing the hair of their colour, giving oneself a scar, or even using a disguise in public. An example of how one can easily start a new life on their own is in the book "The Thief Lord." Both Propser and Bo ran away from Venice, and were taken in by Scipio, beginning a new existence. Though both Propser and Bo were traced, It was purely and only because they were so foolish as to not disguise themselves or change their facial image, if they had, they would have certainly never been traced, due to the fact that their hunter Victor Getz found them only by sight, there were no DNA scans or blood tests back then.
Take these photos for example:

they are the same people. It may be easy to notice when you are looking at a solid photo up close with the same expression, but back then when there were no photos, and in a busy street or at a distance, it would be significantly harder to tell they were the same.

With their entire history behind them, one could travel to another area to find a new job, meet new friends, and become someone else, different places would surely have different opportunities for people with different skills and interests. One would not have to do much more than change their appearance, so as not to attract suspicion. That could have been easily accomplished as shown in the photo above. No one would know that you used to be a peasant, criminal, or a hero. As a result, no one can be biased towards you, not knowing your previous history. At that point, it is up to the new beginner to decide what he or she would like to become, and what lengths he or she would go to in order to achieve what is desired. Because of how easily someone would have been able to cover up their history and become a new person in Elizabethean England, it is quite clear that almost anyone would have been able to change his or her current path. No one would know that you used to be a peasant, criminal, or a hero. As a result,

However, it's not the same case in modern days. Nowadays, the largest contributing factor to someone's future today is the environment around them. Friends, family, and those that are closest to a person play the largest role in their path. A person with academically excelling friends and family will probably feel the same need to do the same thing in order to feel accepted and fit in. A person with a violent family and violent friends will probably learn the same practices. However, there are some cases where one will become aware of what his or her future will likely look like, and they may or may not be happy with it. A person drawn into becoming a gangster could become aware of what they are going to become, and what their future and life could look like later on, and decide if they want that, or not.

In the middle ages, it was easy to erase one's history from public and start anew, easy to run away without a trace, and it would have been easy to begin a different life, but in modern times, it is much more difficult. Someone could have erased their history easily back in the middle ages, positive or negative, but in modern times, that is not the case. Today, the possibility of changing one's path is determined by what he or she is trying to morph into, and what he or she is trying to leave behind.

In modern times, if one has had a benign history, they can change into something negative or positive, without significant active intervention from others. For example, J.K. Rowling, the writer of the "Harry Potter" novel series, went from living off of benefits to multi-millionaire status in only five years. She had a benign history, so there was nothing in her history to hinder her growth. Also, someone with a benign history can change into something negative, such as a gangster, without much intervention from others in the process. It is only after he or she has already changed that they will run into life trouble. Essentially, one who has a benign history has the potential to become what he or she desires without significant hindrance from others.

However, that is certainly not the case for people with a malignant history. One who has a malignant history will certainly have much hindrance from others if they attempt to become something positive (they cannot become negative as they are already negative.)
Today, with new technology including reading fingerprints, eye scanners, and even DNA testing, it is almost impossible to permanently erase one's history. That is why a criminal will always have to be on the run, even if they run to opposite ends of the earth, even if they change their appearance, they will always have their history written in their DNA, and that's why they will never be able to start a new life without atonement for their past sins. No matter where they run, no matter how far they travel, everyone will always remember all the things they have done and been in the past. You will never be able to become a new person, and start a new life, and your old history will always haunt you. You may be able to change your appearance, but you won't be able to change your genetics, and because of it, you will not be able to change your life if you are trying to leave behind a malignant history.