Montaigne Essays

After reading Montaigne, I was actually eagerly anticipating the chance to hear some other perspectives and opinions on Montaigne's Essays, which of course was left unfilled, so I will enter my conjecture in this forum. Of the three essays included in Norton, the one that I found intriguing was Of Cannibals, which is also the one that lends itself into our semester's topic the best, The Culture of Competition. The part that I took the most from was in the excerpt from page 1638;

        "We win enough advantages over our enemies that are borrowed advantages, not really our own. It       is the quality of a porter, not of valor, to have sturdier arms and legs; agility is a dead and                 corporeal quality; it is a stroke of luck to make our enemy stumble, or dazzle his eyes by by the sunlight; it is a trick of art and technique, which may be found in a worthless coward, to be an able fencer. The worth and value of a man is in his heart and his will."

He later goes on to talk about how there is more valor in the manner of some defeats than there were in many other victories.

This was very interesting to me because I had never even given a tremendous amount of thought to that aspect of competition. Yes, we are taught from an early age that winning isn't everything, and that what matters most is that you try your hardest, and all the other crap that you tell a kid when he has just lost (I can say that because I'm a dad, and I will tell them the same things when, not if, they experience failure). We all are told those things, but it doesn't take very long to learn that that is all crap, and isn't really true at all. In a society that's so geared towards the goal of winning as the sole measure of success, there is a lot lost on the way. If a team wins the superbowl on a last minute freak touchdown pass that was tipped by a defender and miraculously caught in the end zone really the best team? A tennis player who wins because his opponent tripped on match point? We emphasize too much in our society on the destination that much is lost in the journey along the way.

Worst Injustice Ever!

Okay, I know it's early, and you might be wondering why I got up so early to write, but the truth is that I just got off work and finished The Decameron, and I will not be able to sleep unless I get some stuff off my chest. First of all; WHAT THE HELL????

So, the highly touted book that we derive our stories from, which is a favorite of so many of you, chose to highlight the first story on the first day, the eighth story on the first day, and the first story on the tenth day. So, even if there was only eight stories told on the first day, and one on every other, according to my 5 AM math that would mean there were at least almost twenty stories to choose from. AND THESE WERE THE BEST OF THEM?

Dr. Sanderson highlighted from Medea that Euripedes chose to end the story without any justice being one on behalf of Jason against Medea. In this story, the complete opposite of justice is done to Giultieri. He is the worst scum of the earth from any of our stories! He finds a beautiful woman that is so humble by her lack of nobility that she puts up with all of his shit, then endures incredible abuses from him and still stays faithful and says that she will do whatever he wills. Then in the end they just live happily ever after...WTF! I can think of about 1,721 better endings than that. Number one, she grabs a knife and he gets killed...number two, she backslaps him so hard that he trips over a tree root, lands face first in the punch bowl and instinctively gasps for air and he gets killed. Actually, about 1,715 of them would end up by him getting killed in some fantastical way. None of this "he's nobility so she's lucky to have him" bullshit. Suffice it to say that he is a despicable person and deserves the worst fate that someone can conjure.

Take away that one, which immediately came to mind because it was last, and what do we have? A story where 99% of a population die from plague, a tale in which a dreadful, cruel sinner dies a saint, and, lest we forget, the wonderful tale with the moral that "If I try to woo you, you better be wooed woman, or I'll hunt you down and kill you every Wednesday for eternity." That oughtta keep the women in line!
Now if that doesn't go straight to the heart, then nothing will.

END OF RANT.

"I did it for us, babe!"

As I am reading the (extensive) list of discussion questions for Medea, one of them particularly jumps out at me; “What does the play suggest about the effects of oppression?” This one, I think, is remarkable because it is notes an atypical voice of the play. Most plays of any time period, but from this one especially, warn the people against action or inaction, but this one has elements that seem to warn the rulers. As the victors (or, in this case, the rulers) always get to tell the tale, it would usually behoove them to write of tales that encouraged or even mandated the status quo. Stories, like Antigone, that threatened against revolt or protest. But, as was noted in class, Medea could be read as a microcosm of society in which Medea herself may represent the oppressed masses. In the end, as was very unusual for this or any time period, Medea gets away unscathed. Justice, or revenge as it were, did not come at a personal cost as it usually does.

                The message to those in power is simply to be wary of those whom you subdue. If you oppress a people, it will come back to haunt you. Medea was a woman who, while she was have wronged people in the public forum, the text does not imply that she was particularly a bad wife. Or, for that matter, does it imply that she was a bad mother. The only teeny, tiny little thing that she did wrong was convince people that by cutting up their father and boiling the pieces that they could make him young again. My bad! Can’t we just move on now, really? Obviously he was old so didn’t have much time left anyway, right? All joking aside now, yes, she did get her husband banished in exile and all that jazz, but whatever happened to sticking by your woman, Jason? Instead, he devises a plan to ‘better his family status’ by marrying the queen, and his big mistake was not consulting Medea first. Who knows, maybe she would have agreed that all they needed in their lives was a nice sugar mama? But alas, the world will never know because Jason thought he wore the pants in the [house?]. And this was the major act of oppression in the play, the act of going behind Medea’s back. The rest is history, and as the saying goes, “hell hath no fury…” She becomes quite resourceful as a wronged woman will usually do. She even makes sure she has somewhere to escape to, whereas the vengeful will usually act first and think later.

                So in the end, I believe that the play sends a strong message to the rulers of Ancient Greece that if you oppress your subjugates for too long, they will revolt and they will at least try to overthrow you. You should try to rule fairly, with at least some of the sixteen virtues held with conviction in your character, and then the people ‘will love you’. The writer advises this, and also; if you decide to marry another woman, you had better make sure that you kill the other one first.

King v. Divine

In class, as we talked about Antigonick, the question was posed numerous times and in numerous different ways, which law eventually supersedes the other, man's law or god's law? The answer, of course, lie's in one religion and resolve of faith. The more fervently that you believe in a higher power, and therefore in an afterlife in heaven or paradise or what have you, the more likely it will be that you will follow god’s law. A person who is religiously ardent will weigh the sacrifice of following man’s law when it specifically competes with god’s law, and could possibly conclude (as Antigone does), that the sacrifices they would make in this life are immaterial when compared to the gains received in eternity. An atheist, however, might only concern himself with the trials in this life if he believes that there is no eternity.
    The other question then becomes, if someone is religious but to a smaller extent, how much does their deity forgive? If, as in (from what I understand of) the Catholic religion, the sinner need only confess and ask forgiveness and it will be granted, the act of following man’s law is greatly trivialized in importance when you look at the broad picture of life vs. afterlife. This was not the case in Ancient Greece. If the gods were scorned, then the wrath was usually substantial. This calls to mind an issue that was introduced when I was listening to talk radio this week. The host was recalling a story where an individual was confronted by a “nut job with an NRA card” (as this was a conservative talk show, the relationship was not implied causation), and the aggressor demanded (a reason was not supplied) that the individual denounce his faith to god. He said that if the man did not do so, then he would be shot. The man did so, and was released to the powers that be. The talk show personality claimed that this act would obviously be forgiven as it carried no significance, that these were only words. He extended it to says that if someone demanded that he say that he hates his family in the same situation, that he could easily do it in the interest of self-preservation. I take issue with how easy it would actually be, though. Whether I would do it or not, I can’t say because I believe it’s one of those instances where you would never know until you are put in it, but I don’t believe it would be that easy. My two boys are my whole world, and while many would say that you would do whatever it takes to make sure that you get home to them, you would then have to look at them every day knowing that, even though it didn’t “mean anything”, you had said that you hated them. I would probably feel like a coward. I don’t know if this is a natural survival instinct in conflict with pride, but it would not be easy. I guess, if I were pressed when put in the situation, I would probably just…wow that’s a hard one. I think that I would just kick his ass, take his gun, sell it on eBay and buy them something with the spoils.
            The other point that I wanted to make is that, throughout the course of human history, when man’s laws have come in conflict directly with god’s laws, or people’s belief in god, the divine usually triumphs. Our own country was founded (not to be confused with discovered) by people whose personal beliefs were suppressed and so they left Europe in search of somewhere where they could practice their own beliefs freely. The flip side to that coin is that there is no single cause that is more deadly in war (including money) than a warrior or group of warriors fighting for their god. Everyone believes that their own version of god is “the right one”, and it is apparent that many are willing to kill others to prove it.

Sophocles' Oedipus the King

     So this week, not only did we read Oedipus the King, but I was in the group that actually got to teach the class on Oedipus. First of all, let me say that I think my group did an amazing job, and I feel that I was very fortunate to work with the people that I did. If you would have told me before that I would have had to teach an entire class period on a book that I'd never read, not only to a bunch of people that I'd never met, but with people that I'd never met, I probably would have freaked out. As it were, however, the build up to it was a lot worse than the actual project itself. Once we were actually up there in front and the nerves settled, honestly I had a pretty good time.
     One thing that I wanted to touch on a little more that we didn't have time for was the text's favor of fate over free will. I think this was a significant dynamic in the text, and perhaps mirrored their belief as a society. Sometimes, its hard to distinguish from these texts a society's value form an author's value, but I believe this may have been the former. No matter how hard the character's in this play try to do the right thing and avoid their fate, it appears to be inescapable. Oedipus, for example, knew that it was prophesied that he would kill his father, yet he was confidant that he could avoid it by staying away from his family (or so he thought). As it were, the exact actions that the characters took in order to avoid their fate were the one that propelled them towards it.
     All in all, I thought the text to be captivating, and the controversial nature of the play gave us plenty to talk about in class. The biggest piece of advice that I can give to everyone else is to make sure to prepare your section. The more prepared you are, the less nervous you will be. Also, do not underestimate the willingness of your peers. We had budgeted our time beforehand, but we had no idea that the discussions would go as well as they did (which was awesome). I thought there would be a few minutes given to each question, and I was very proud when a couple of our questions hosted quite lengthy discussions. Thank you very much everyone for your insightful and pertinent contributions....good luck with all of your projects, I look forward to experiencing them!

Brad Pitt's "The Iliad"

   This week we read the Iliad by Homer. The unfortunate thing about this text was that most of the story I had read from an online version that was a lot more difficult to follow than the text from Norton's Anthology. So I didn't understand a lot of the first half from the actual story, but from other sources explaining it to me. Then, after reading the text, I watched the movie Troy because I wanted to see how the producers of the film did or didn't give it justice. The movie itself was entertaining and well put together, but there were some enormous differences in regards to literary accuracy.
    One of the aspects of the story that I felt was accurately portrayed in the film was the mentality of the warriors. The above scene I think depicts this well when Achilles basically says to the boy that the most important thing in this life is to be remembered. That it is better to go to war and die a hero than to stay away from it and live. The movie also captures the hatred between Agamemnon and Achilles, but in different ways than the book does. Agamemnon in the book was a king and a warrior, who slew many enemies, but ultimately had to concede his pride and ask Achilles for help. In the movie, however, Agamemnon never so much as lifts a sword and is portrayed simply as a politician. The cinematic Agamemnon is never forced to be humble in any way, and I think much is lost through that development.
   The huge omission on the part of the producers was the choice to exclude any deity from portrayal in the movie. I believe that this choice was made to prevent it from being a four hour movie, but it immensely changes the entire feel of the story. The Trojan (and the Greeks to a lesser extent) are still shown to revere the gods, but in the movie no gods act or interact on the story in any way.
     The scene below was what I thought was one of the best parts of the book, where two bitter enemies share commonality in the form of grief and expose their vulnerabilities to each other. Instead, while they do have a touching exchange, the writers chose to have Achilles expose his true grief to the deceased Hector, and his atrocious attempt at grief and mourning was, I think, more fitting a 6 year who just lost his favorite toy. Only Peter O'Toole's phenomenal acting and the original story saved this scene, as I for one failed to believe Brad Pitt's acting to say the least.

      At the two hour point, however, everything changes. I sat in my chair awaiting the funeral games, and then my jaw hit the floor. I think I missed the whole ending of the story, because I don't remember anything about the Trojan Horse, or the fall of Troy. It was almost as if there was a mutiny behind the scenes of the movie and someone stood up and said "No, no, no! Here, let me do it!" at which point the whole thing started to fall apart. Even in Hollywood's need for an exciting ending, I think that a measure that drastic was an unnecessary injustice. 
     I hope you've learned a little bit about the movie Troy and how it relates (and doesn't) to the movie. All in all, it was a good movie, with some great acting parts and some not so great, but worth the 150 minutes devoted to it.

Introduction/Gilgamesh

      Welcome to my blog for World Literature! In case you were wondering about the title of my blog, I have been watching a lot of "Community" on hulu lately, and every episode is titled like a college class. So I tried to think about what they would call the class. If any of you haven't seen Community though, I highly recommend it, and personally guarantee that about 9.5% of you will love it! You might have noticed already that I have an interesting (see: different) sense of humor. It's an acquired taste that's usually geared more towards first-person audiences. But I digress...

 

     This week, we read the Epic of Gilgamesh, and it was actually a very easy read! The main themes of the story were about friendship and the fear of mortality. Gilgamesh, in the beginning, is a very nasty ruler, and abuses his subservient people. The most prevalent example of this is that he has first rites to every bride after a marriage. So after the people prayed for peace, the gods asked Aruru, who created the human race, to make one that was equal to Gilgamesh. This is where symbolism might have been introduced. It was mentioned by one of my classmates that, perhaps, Enkidu, who was the one that Aruru created, may have been Gilgamesh's conscience. I hadn't thought about it, but there is a lot of argument for that theory. Enkidu is exactly opposite from Gilgamesh in almost every way except physical strength. Gilgamesh is allegedly very handsome, kingly, whereas Enkidu was wild, with shaggy hair and "knew neither people nor inhabited land." Freud argued that we have three consciences; our ego, our superego, and our id. The 'ego' is the balance between our id (conscienceness of self) and superego (conscienceness of others). The interesting thing is that, as far as I could tell, Gilgamesh and Enkidu do not do anything separately from the time that they are introduced, to when Enkidu dies. At that time, Gilgamesh is humbled and, for the first time, outwardly displays a fear of death. Perhaps Enkidu's death was the symbolic death of Gilgamesh's superego, and the new Gilgamesh was the new, balanced ego. It's a stretch, I know, I'm just trying to support an interesting perspective.
      One of the things that I was very surprised with in the book was the use of irony. When Gilgamesh goes to Ur-Shanabi to cross the sea, his temper gets the better of him, and he uses brute force to intimidate Ur-Shanabi and get him to do Gilgamesh's bidding. Then Gilgamesh finds out that the Stone Charms that he smashed were actually the secret to getting across the "waters of death". When we think of people and cultures in ancient history, we usually think of them as primitive and inferior, and that we have grown exponentially in every way. I think irony is one of the most useful and effective literary tools in modern storytelling, and to see that they used it 3,500 years ago was very eye-opening.
      Well, that does it for my inaugural post! Hope you enjoyed it (or are at least awake still), and, until next time...Troy and Ahbed in the Moooorrrrrrning! (watch Community, you'll get it)