"It is unclear whether he believes in God. He certainly does not believe in rational argument."

"[Jordan] Peterson’s thesis... is that... 'archetypes' recur throughout the most influential stories in Western culture. For instance, the archetype of the intellectually arrogant adversary represented by the biblical Cain is manifested in the figures of Milton’s Satan and Goethe’s Faust, as well as, less exaltedly, 'Felonious Gru, of Despicable Me fame,' Jafar from the Disney film Aladdin and 'Syndrome in The Incredibles.' The obvious problem is that if you convince yourself that every animated children’s film is rich with ancient allegorical meanings, it induces a kind of symbological paranoia. Potential allegories lurk behind every tree and lamppost, waiting to be interpreted. Like the madman who glimpses messages from the CIA in the clouds, Peterson sees revelations about 'the intrinsic nature of being' in the most banal and improbable places.... And because he employs no interpretative system other than his whim the reader is soon overtaken with apathy. Your job is not to be persuaded or argued with, but just to sit still and be instructed in the specious art of Petersonian symbology: 'Shoes signify class, occupation, purpose, role and destiny,' 'smoke is essence, gist or spirit,' the rainbow 'represents the ideally subdued community, which is the integration of the diversity of those who compose it.'..."

Writes James Marriott, in "We Who Wrestle with God by Jordan Peterson review — rambling, hectoring and mad/The conservative polemicist’s new book is a bizarre study of the Bible featuring Jiminy Cricket, Harry Potter and Tinkerbell the porn fairy" (London Times).

Tell me about an "interpretative system" that is better than Jordan Peterson's "whim." He's one man, interpreting things. If my "job" is to "sit still" and take in his ideas, how is that different from reading any book? The author isn't here with me, the reader, to be "argued with." But I buy the Kindle version and excerpt any passage I want to pick apart, and I do my own writing here on this blog, which you are sitting still and reading. If you are "overtaken with apathy," you stop reading. If you want to argue, you go into the comments section. If it's just too much interpretation, coming at you endlessly, take a break. Nobody said you had to read this all at once. I heard that Elon Musk read the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica when he was 9 years old. That's unusual, and it's not what the encyclopedia writers had in mind.

Anyway, here, buy the book and send an Amazon commission my way: "We Who Wrestle with God: Perceptions of the Divine."

ADDED: The book review says that Peterson asserts that "the archetype of the intellectually arrogant adversary represented by the biblical Cain is manifested in the figures of Milton’s Satan and Goethe’s Faust, as well as, less exaltedly, 'Felonious Gru, of Despicable Me fame,' Jafar from the Disney film Aladdin and 'Syndrome in The Incredibles.'" So — without mentioning Peterson or Cain — I asked Grok what those characters have in common. Answer:

These characters, despite their varied origins and narratives, share several common themes and traits: 

Ambition and Desire for Power: Each character is driven by a profound ambition. Milton's Satan seeks to overthrow God and establish his own rule, Goethe’s Faust yearns for unlimited knowledge and experience, Syndrome wants to become the world's greatest superhero through technology, Jafar aims to rule Agrabah and gain ultimate power through the Genie, and Gru initially seeks to prove himself as the greatest villain by stealing the moon.

Complex Morality: They all exhibit a complexity in their moral alignments. While traditionally seen as antagonists or villains, each character has moments or narratives where their desires, motivations, or transformations are explored, suggesting a depth beyond simple villainy. Satan is often interpreted as a tragic figure with a compelling charisma, Faust's deal with Mephistopheles explores themes of human ambition and its consequences, Syndrome has a backstory of rejection fueling his villainy, Jafar's cunning and ambition are paired with a certain charm and intellect, and Gru undergoes a transformation from villainy to heroism through the influence of his family. 

Charismatic Leadership: Many of these characters lead or attempt to lead others. Satan rallies the fallen angels in Hell, Faust influences those around him with his knowledge and later his devilish pact, Syndrome commands an army of robots, Jafar manipulates through cunning and magic, and Gru commands his minions. Their leadership, while often tyrannical or misguided, showcases their ability to inspire or dominate. 

Rebellion Against Authority or Norms: There's an element of rebellion or subversion in each character's story. Satan rebels against divine authority, Faust against the limitations of human existence, Syndrome against the traditional idea of superheroes, Jafar against the established rule of the Sultan, and Gru initially against societal norms by choosing villainy. 

Transformation and Growth: Characters like Gru and Faust experience significant personal growth or transformation in their stories. Gru evolves into a hero through his love for his adopted daughters, while Faust's journey with Mephistopheles leads to his eventual redemption or damnation, depending on the interpretation. 

Use of Wit, Cunning, or Ingenuity: Each character uses some form of intelligence or cunning to achieve their goals. Satan uses rhetoric and persuasion, Faust uses knowledge and deals with the devil, Syndrome uses technology, Jafar employs magic and manipulation, and Gru uses gadgets and strategic planning.

These themes highlight their roles not just as villains or anti-heroes but as complex figures within their narratives, exploring human (or supernatural) desires for power, recognition, and change. Their stories delve into the consequences of such desires, making them intriguing for their depth and the moral questions they raise.

ALSO: Looking for archetypes in children's stories isn't odd or paranoid. It's traditional in the field of psychology.