Is Peter from the story, 'Cue For Treason,' a hero? Peter is a boy being force to run from his troubles due to the consequences he may face for a "Attempted Murder" of a service man for noble man and lord Sir Philip Morton. Peter went on a journey with a teathre group while keeping away and not being noticed by Sir Philip Morton on his new job. Peter later on in the story would end up saving Queen Elizabeth from her attempted assassination. This leads back to the question, is Peter a hero?
Lets clarify what a hero is. On dictionary.com a hero is described as a:
1.a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2.a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model orideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.
3.the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc.
(I believe Dictionary.com is being sexist.)
Now, Peter did show courage and ability. He also showed how brave he is in the situation he was in with the possibly he may get noticed by Sir Philip. Peter does actually not have heroic qualities, because he was technically running away for most of the story which does not show he is a hero until his problem with 'The Yellow Gentleman' that lead to him unravelling the plan to kill Queen Elizabeth. Finally, Peter is the principal male character in a story (Cue For Treason) because he is the character with the problem. So now we can say that Peter is a hero for his actions of saving the queen.
Now is Peter an accidental of intentional hero? Well Peter was not involved with saving the Queen until Peter and Kit had told the Queen's secret service that their maybe a plot to assassinate the Queen. Peter also could have avoided the situation if he had not given the yellow gentleman the script he had to rehearse for one of Shakespeare's plays that he would preform in. Peter is a good example of the unsuspecting rescuers of the plane crash in Richmond a couple of days ago. If it wasn't for their good nature and timing those survivors may have not survived. (excluding the pilot who had died in the crash) We can now say that Peter Brownrigg is a Hero. An Accidental Hero!
Austyn, your evidence and supporting ideas are very convincing to the reader, good work.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are quite a few grammar mistakes and some awkward wording. Try re-reading a few sentences, such as the first line, second sentence, and fixing some of those problems to make your post feel more smooth and flow better for readers.
Also, I am somewhat confused over what you are trying to say at times. In the second paragraph, you first talk of how Peter is heroic and all of a sudden talk of how Peter is the principal male character? I cannot see how the two ideas connect, try re-wording the paragraph to make the two ideas feel more connected to each other.
-David L.
This is a pretty descent essay, you've supported your opinions well with information from the text and other sources(Dictionary.com) I do recommend reading through your post again before posting just to fix up some grammatical errors. In some parts I think your wording is a bit wrong such as "Peter does actually not have-" do you mean "Peter does not have?" Besides your grammar problems here and there, it's a a good post.
ReplyDelete