Peter’s Not Really Peter But Is Dead Really Dead?

The confirmation that Alternate Realities have been playing a role in the world(s) of the show gave satisfying closure to the first season, but in typical Fringe fashion lots of questions remain. Many of them surround Peter Bishop. Like, how did original Peter die? (was it Hepea, Pneumonia or something else?) Who else knows that he died – I’m assuming he didn’t have a public burial? Was mother Bishop told of her real son’s demise – is this the root for much of the seeming animosity shared between her and Walter? And I can’t help but wonder..is original Peter REALLY dead?

It would be just like JJ. Abrams and his team to lead us into a false sense of security..allowing our assumptions (well thought out as they are) to pre-empt the still unravelling tale. This has led me to re-evaluate some of these assumptions from the finale – namely the impact it would have on just about everyone concerned if original Peter isn’t dead..if Walter only thinks that his beloved son died? (and by the way, not being dead doesn’t necessarily imply being alive either..but that’s for another post!). Whilst it may seem unnecessary to complicate the story in this way, on a human level such a reveal later on down the line could carry major weight – both for the characters in the show and the audience who have become invested in their journeys.

Imagine if the original Peter somehow survived whatever illness(?) plagued him, unbeknownst to Walter, or if this original version of Peter was actually lost in another way (kidnapped, sucked into another dimension, transformed in a badger, etc) and one day turned up alive and well. Would this revelation ‘alter’  Walter’s feelings towards replacement Peter? Would he be overwhelmed with relief..or would his guilt deepen? Who would he love more – the child he has technically only known for a couple of years (bearing in mind he was in St. Claire’s for 17 years)..or the son he knew for at least 7 years? Can love even be measured with time, or does the true nature of reality make only our connections and what ‘feels right’, really matter?

Whilst this is a highly speculative sequence of events, it does serve to expand one of the underlying themes of the first season – as reality expands..who are we, and does who we are and how we behave really matter in the grand scheme of things? Curiously, it’s a question being asked by several show’s right now – “Lost”, “Dollhouse” and possibly ABC’s upcoming series, “Flash Forward“, to name only three. Is this a coincidence, or are the story-tellers tapping into some mystical force from our collective consciousnesses?

Put it this way, if technology (for example) allows us to not only imagine the impossibilities, but to achieve the impossibilities, were does it leave humanity? Will life and death matter? How about good and evil, right and wrong? By breaking the laws of nature to reach new planes, are we leaving behind our souls or are we becoming more in-tune with them? Indeed, if God mass produced and there’s more than one of everyone, what does that say about our individual and collective responsibilities – are we merely one iteration out of many? Was Hitler always a douche, or did we draw the short straw?

The answers to these questions being tackled by these stories, are important yet illusive – I guess it’s why so many of us are attracted show’s like “Fringe”, because we all want answers, but more than that, I believe that we like to see fantastical notions explored with human context and consequence. Sure, Fringe wont unlock the secrets to our lives, but it does play on something we are all used to – I’m sure that most of us loved stories when we were children, many of us probably learned some lessons through those tales – the boy who cried wolf, is one such story that terrified the life out of me, but the underlying message holds true in many ways – life will present itself to you with opportunities – change before it’s too late – or at the very least, be adaptable. Of course every story is open to interpretation, but isn’t that the point? So perhaps show’s like Fringe, Lost, Dollhouse are feeding our inner child’s..we follow the navigate the clues and underlying messages so that we can avoid dead-ends and pitfalls in order to find the true meaning (both collective and individual), just as we aim to do in real life.

Personally, I believe that every story has a message, especially those with as much scope and relevance as Fringe. So the question is, what is Fringe trying to tell us..what message is Walter losing and replacing his son tapping into? Do the creators truly know, or are they being guided by a higher force? And who does this higher force represent? If I were to take a guess, I’d say that season 1 [of the show] was largely about undoing fate – illustrating how the empowerment of technology can reverse tragedy - whether that’s by the remarkable tale of Nina’s cured Cancer, obtaining a replacement son from an alternate reality, or by gaining closure on a loved one. Indeed, without that [synaptic] tank Olivia may never had known that John Scott was actually one of the ‘good guys’ who truly loved her. Without that closure, she may have stumbled at that hurdle – instead this challenge was overcome with the aid of technology and science, and sheer tenacity on her part. She has been able to regain some confidence in her judgement, which is crucial in her line of work. So we have the central characters all at the heart of this interwoven storyline where they have cheated fate. The message? Technology is giving us the power to save ourselves, to find alternatives. Much like its less tangible rival ‘faith’, science is allowing us to play the game with more chances of winning and we are the generation to benefit the most from it. Everything before that was progress (a theme which echoes through more than one Bad Robot show).

But on the flip-side, the show has illustrated the destructive side of technology coupled with the minds of curious, amoral and vengeful human-beings. (I guess that’s a part of being-human – there’s two sides to everything). So like I’ve said before, are there really any rules governing this brave new reality? Should we be looking to reign in our ability to find alternative solutions to mankind’s problems? I used the term “cheating” above, but is it really cheating, or is it fair game to gain peace of mind by any means possible? Do ethics come into play? What about redemption? Do we have anything to be sorry for when history is just another version of the same old story?

This brings me back to Walter and the Peter’s – it will be very important to find out how Walter reconciles his love for replacement Peter, with that of his original son. In his heart, is he loving a memory or does love transcend meta-reality? In other words: is there a genuine connection between Walter and this version of Peter, one that bonded them in a predestined way? They say that you only really love once..could this also apply to Walter’s situation, or is it possible to love someone who, in your heart, is only a replacement for the person you lost?

I think that this is a pertinent question..one which wont be answered by the show, simply because it’s a matter of perspective. But I’d be interested to see what Walter’s true feelings are about this. My suspicion is that the writers may be blind-siding us when it comes to original Peter -  I think it could make the father/son relationship even more interesting going forward. I mean, you can’t just take a human-being back to the shop, Peter is pretty irredeemable.

Tagged as: peter, Theory, walter