Act 5 Fallout

After finishing King Lear, I can honestly say I've never been happier reading literature than when Goneril and Regan die. They have got to be two of the most annoying characters (besides any character played by Nicolas Cage) that I've ever witnessed, and all I can say is I'm glad that they ended up biting the dust. From the start of the story, it was frustrating seeing them manipulate their father while conspiring to take over the kingdom, and my annoyance only grew when I saw them portrayed as old, unattractive hags in the movie. I found it ironic that the two ended up dying over Edmund, especially considering that their original intent was strictly gaining land. As is the case with many downfalls, emotions often get in the way, and this was true in this case...As for Cordelia, it was pretty obvious that she wasn't making it out of this one alive. After all King Lear is a tragedy, and there was just no way she could have survived considering she was the most  honorable character in the play. The one character that surprised me in the end was Kent. As honorable and trustworthy as he had been towards Lear, I would have thought that he would have ended up dead as well, but it was interesting to see him come out alive. Overall, I thought the ending was fairly predictable with a few exceptions, but all in all I enjoyed the finale.

King Lear: Bad to Worse

After getting into act four, one recurring theme that seems to stand out to me is how the story is moving closer and closer to being a true tragedy. For most of the "good" characters in the story, things are dramatically going from bad to worse, and the reader can only assume its a matter of time before Lear's kingdom is torn completely to shreds. For Lear, this was seen a little earlier on in his arguing with Goneril and Regan about how many knights he can have while at their castles. Instead of reaching an agreement however, he was instead banished and forced to wander around in the storm with his fool. As for Gloucester, situation takes an incredible turn for the worse when he is convicted of assisting King Lear. As punishment, he is blinded by an enraged Cornwall, then banished. While Kent suffers no physical damage in this section of reading, you could say that his feelings of despair only grow when he sees Lear start to lose it mentally and his companion Gloucester without his eyesight. For Edmund, it seemed that he thought his troubles had reached their height when he saw how bad Lear was doing after being betrayed by his daughters. His problems only escalade though when he sees his blinded father being led by a servant. Gloucester sums up this theme well when he says,"As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport." He is showing that a state of total disorder is almost at hand, and there is little anyone can do now to stop Goneril and Regan. Through these events (and the ones to come) it is clear that this story is quickly shaping up to be a prime example of a tragedy. 

The Unrewarded Courage Seen in Kent

After finishing most of act two of King Lear, there have been several situations so far that have led me to automatically take sides regarding the conflict of the story. While at first I saw myself sympathizing with Edmund for being the rejected son who his father makes fun of, my views towards his character have drastically changed after seeing his actions against his brother. While Gloucester had made fun of Edmund (apparently a number of times), the text provides no evidence of Edgar treating his brother poorly. For Edmund to lead his father into banishing his own son for no reason seems to be more cruel towards Edgar than Gloucester, and for this, it is clear that Shakespeare intends Edmund to be one of the major villains in the entire story.
On the other side of the spectrum, I would have to say that I have been most impressed with the character qualities shown by Kent. From the beginning of the story, it appears that Kent is one of the finer men that Lear has as a friend, and his actions thus far have only confirmed this. After standing up for Cordelia in Act 1, Kent is banished unfairly by King Lear. Instead of being angry towards his king however, Kent puts himself at an even greater risk by dressing up as a peasant in order to remain a servant of Lear. While anyone else would have wanted nothing to do with Lear, he stood up for his friend and refused to abandon his loyalty towards the king. His loyalty is even further tested when he picks a fight with Oswald who had previously disrespected Lear. Because of this, he puts not only his identity at risk, but his life. As a result he is placed in the stocks as punishment, all for someone who had betrayed him. Through these examples from the text, it is clear in my mind that Kent has undoubtedly shown the most courage and integrity of all the characters thus far.

Comparing/Contrasting Sunjata to Gilgamesh and Rama

After finishing the epic of Sunjata, there were several things that stood out to me that seemed to closely resemble both The Epic of Gilgamesh and The Ramayana. First, Sunjata (just like Gilgamesh and Rama) goes on an epic journey after being exiled from his home. As seen in the first two epics we looked at, it is clear that this journey is not so important except other than to show how great and mighty Sunjata is. Like in the Ramayana, Sunjata's father is king over his people, and through an unfair ruling in determining who will take the throne, Sunjata and Rama both are forced to wait to fulfill their duties as kings. While Sunjata appears to be slightly more in control and well-behaved than Gilgamesh, he falls short of Rama's near-pefect personality. We are often seeing him become angry at others, and his decision making is sometimes questionable (i.e. cutting strips off his own calf in order to feed his companion). After observing his behavior, I would say that Sunjata's character as an epic hero falls right in between Rama and Gilgamesh. Some major differences also stood out between Sunjata and Gilgamesh. First, while Gilgamesh starts out as ruler over his people, Sunjata is forced to complete several tests before he is made king. Also, unlike Gilgamesh, Sunjata is born a cripple and only gets stronger as time passes. As for Gilgamesh, he starts out strong and later becomes weakened when his companion, Enkidu, is killed. One last difference that stood out to me was how little the "gods" were involved with the plot compared to The Epic of Gilgamesh. While the story was filled with demons and superstitions, it seemed as if supreme deities played a very insignificant role in the story throughout.

The Tale of Ginji: Chapter 4

While finishing chapter four, there were several things that stood out to me regarding Ginji's characteristics. First of all, I think it is interesting how Ginji appears to be nearly a polar opposite compared to the men  discussing women in the first couple chapters. While these characters held that all women have certain flaws that make them undesirable, Ginji obviously thinks differently, as it seems that he is making the most of every opportunity he has to get with girls (and as seen in last week's reading, a young boy). So what is the reason for Ginji's rather rushed actions when it comes to pursuing others romantically? From what we have read so far, it would seem that he has uncontrollable passions that he very rarely says "no" to. The best example of this occurs with the governor's wife and her little brother, but it is also seen in chapter four with the "daughter of the farmer." Unlike in the case with the governor's family however, it just so happened that this lustful affair ended with some much heavier consequences. As a result of his immature actions, the young girl ends up dying in her sleep, provoking extreme sadness in both Ukon and Ginji. Above this, what really bothered me about the situation was Ginji's response to her death. Instead of showing regret for his actions, he tries to act noble and honorable, saying that he must look upon her beautiful face again. The fact of the matter is that SHE IS DEAD. It is Ginji's fault; there is nothing he can do to change that, and because of him a young girl's life has been cut short. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure there is nothing honorable about that.

The Dove's Necklace

After reading all the Courtly Love poems, I think that my personal favorite would be The Dove's Necklace by Ibn Hazm. The first thing that stood out to me was the fact that even though this poem was written almost a thousand years ago, it still has many applications and examples that can be seen in today's culture. At one point, the speaker talks about how lovers often take "extreme delight" at the sound of their love's name being spoken. Another example comes when Hazm describes how someone will "love his beloved's kith and kin and the intimate ones of his household, to such an extent that they are nearer and dearer to him than his own folk, himself, and all his familiar friends." This, like several other examples that Hazm provides, is extremely accurate in the way I have seen relationships take place in my lifetime. Just recently one of my good friends started dating a girl he met last year, and since they first took interest in each other, it seems as if he has spent more time hanging out with her family than his own. I guess the reason this poem came  as such a surprise to me is due to the fact that my mental picture of romance in the 10th and 11th century was entirely different from what we see today. I thought that marriages back then were based more on social status that actual feelings for the other person, but obviously I was wrong in thinking this. It really is interesting to think of how consistent and persistent love is as it has been passed along through hundreds of years of culture and tradition. For these reasons and my ability to relate to its examples, The Dove's Necklace was undoubtedly my favorite.

The Book of Margery Kempe

After reading the section from The Book of Margery Kempe, I must say that I found myself siding with her husband. In the beginning when Margery becomes "possessed" by devils and her own wickedness, her husband never leaves her side. While he could have become embarrassed and ashamed of his wife, he remained faithful to her, even when no one else would. From this situation, it is obvious that he can be characterized as an extremely patient and composed individual. He could have completely freaked out at the situation (like most people would do), but instead he refused to give up on Margery. Even when she is locked up due to her violent behavior, he is one waiting with the keys when she gets over her hysteria. Another example of his patience and understanding comes when Margery decides to start her own enterprises through ale and grain production. Instead of ridiculing her for her attempts, he remains supportive and lets her do her own thing. It is not until Margery decides that she no longer wants to sleep or eat with him that he decides that enough is enough. He finally stands up for what he feels like is an unfair situation, and for awhile gets Margery to at least eat with him on Fridays. Even this shows his patience, as most men of his day would not even consider ceasing to sleep with their wives. All this to say, I find Margery's husband the one who readers should sympathize with, and while I respect where she is coming from, I believe that Margery takes her beliefs a little too far.

Fraud in The Inferno

After completing this weeks reading, the main thing that stood out to me was the fact that those who had committed fraud seemed to have some of the worst punishments in hell. This included Pope Nicholas III, who had payed his way into his position in the church and as punishment had to lay headfirst in the ground with flames leaping up at his feet. This appears slightly odd (at least to me), since the sin of fraud is punished significantly more than murder itself. On top of this extremely harsh punishment, we find that this group of sinners is the only one in which Dante shows no sympathy for whatsoever. In fact, we see a rather fiery side of Dante when the pope tells him the reasons for his punishment. Sarcastically, Dante drills Nicholas with questions: "Please tell me, how much treasure did our Lord insist on from Saint Peter before He gave the keys into his keeping? Surely he asked no more than 'Follow me.'"Through this encounter we start to understand Dante's real opinions about how and why certain sins are worse than others. During his lifetime Dante undoubtedly saw several examples of fraud and hypocrisy in the Catholic church, and it is my belief that as a result of this he makes it so that these church-related crimes are most hated by God in The Inferno. Because of this situation, one must wonder if all the levels of hell that Dante creates in his poem are based simply on his own opinions as to which sins are worse than others. One instance that would seem to support this comes from one of the first levels where those who had committed lust were punished. As the history of Dante's actual life goes, it is clear that he dealt with lust; this may be why he made this sin to seem "not as much of a big deal." With this in mind, this helps make it clear of what Dante's opinions towards certain sins were during his lifetime.

Review: Unbroken

This past summer I had the privilege of reading Laura Hillenbrand's Unbroken, the story of Olympic gold medalist and WWII veteran Louis "Lou" Zamperini. For what it's worth, I can honestly say that this is the most inspiring book I have ever read, and I would recommend it to anyone looking for something worth reading.

For those who haven't heard of Lou, the Olympic athlete grew up in California where he quickly became  famous for his record-setting running on the college track. After being drafted into the military, Lou became a bombardier and flew several missions for the Air Force throughout the war. His final mission ending in his plane going down over Japanese waters, where only he and two others survived. Stranded in a 6' raft with two other men, Lou survived over 30 days at sea with no food or water while dodging enemy fire as well as sharks. He was then captured by the Japanese and kept in unbearable concentration camps where came close to death on a number of occasions. Miraculously, he and the others from the camp are eventually rescued and brought home, nearly 4 years after his plane had crashed.

I remember reading this book and thinking to myself, "There is absolutely no way any of this is true. It had to have been made up or exaggerated." The adversity that this man went through is unlike anything I have ever heard of, and the fact that he survived all of it makes it all the better. If you haven't read it already, I would highly recommend you put on your list of books to read. You won't regret it.

Rama: Should he feel cheated?

After completing our portion of the Ramayana, I could help but wonder a few things regarding Rama. After Rama kills Ravana and has been reunited with Sita, Dasaratha tells Rama that he finally realized that the purpose of his life was to put an end to Ravana for the gods. While this is a noble task that Rama has completed, I couldn't help but feel bad that Rama and Sita had to go through all of their adversity just to complete a favor for the gods. Personally, I would have been extremely upset at the thought of having my wife kidnapped by the king of all demons, just so that I would be provoked to fight. Not only did this situation cost him nearly two years of separation from Sita, but it also cost him the crown to his father's throne, as well as banishment from his own family's kingdom. I think the only thing keeping Rama from being upset at the fact that his whole life was manipulated by the gods was his commitment and dedication to his dharma. He believed in having purpose and duty in life, and in the end he was able to say that he fulfilled his dharma to the best of his ability.
Another thing that somewhat bothered me in the end of the story was Rama's accusation to Sita of her unfaithfulness to him during her time away. While I understand why Rama accused her (he didn't want people to think she was impure), I don't think it was right for Rama to do the accusing. In a practical relationship, causing someone to walk through fire to prove they had been faithful does not give off a sense of trust in the relationship. You would think that after all his time away from Sita would have caused Rama to want nothing more than to enjoy her company. Again, I think this all relates to his commitment to dharma, as he pushes his wife's trust aside in order to pay respect to his dharma.

Rama's Weakness?

From the start of beginning of The Ramayana, Rama is portrayed as the ideal epic hero for a story. He is obedient, kindhearted, respectful, and he is fully devoted to Dharma. As seen in during the beginning of his banishment, he also cares immensely for his wife, Sita. When she requests to go live with Rama in the forest, he tells her that she must stay in the city where she will be safe. While on the surface this may sound like a good idea, it becomes clear that Rama has in fact contradicted himself in relation to what he told his mother (who had also requested to leave the city to be with Rama in exile). Rama had told her that it was her duty through Dharma that she should not leave her husband. Why then would he tell Sita she had to remain in the city if her Dharma called for her to always be with her husband? The answer is that Rama was madly in love with her, so much that her wellbeing and safety took priority to everything else in his life (including Dharma). It is only when she threatens to kill herself does Rama allow her to come with him into the forest. While girls (and guys) dream about having someone so madly in love with them, this "honorable" trait that Rama displays proves to (in my opinion) be his ultimate weakness. It is not until Rama, Sita, and Laksmana are in the forest that this weakness becomes unmistakeable. This occurs when Sita sees Marica disguised as a beautiful, playful deer and decides that she wants it as her own. While Laksmana correctly predicts that it is in fact a demon, Rama refuses to heed his brother's warning and risks all of their safety in order to get a deer's hide for his wife's enjoyment. As predicted by Laksmana, Sita is lured into a trap and kidnapped by Ravana, and if it weren't for the ridiculous, unrealistic outcome of events that unfold later, she would never have been rescued by her lover. All this to say, Rama's judgement is hindered by his uncontrollable love for Sita. The question remains: is this a weakness or a strength?

Antigone

One issue that came to mind after reading this story was whether or not Creon should be considered a good leader. Obviously, he gives off the impression that he means business when it comes to being loyal to Thebes. His first action we see deals with the punishment of Polynices after his death while fighting his brother for the throne. Instead of allowing him a proper burial, Creon declares that Polynices is not to be touched and his body must lie in the sun and rot. While this may not seem like a huge deal to us (although it still is a disturbing situation), not having a funeral for a deceased family member was one of the worst punishments imaginable considering the fact that an individuals future in the afterlife depended on the quality of his burial. While it may seem cruel of Creon to issue such a punishment, I think it in fact shows a sense of patriotism for his country. Before engaging his brother in combat, Polynices had gathered foreigners to help him take the throne, an act that condemned him a traitor in Creon's eyes. The next thing Creon does is declare that anyone who takes part in burying Polynices is to be killed as well. When Antigone, his son's future bride, attempts to bury her brother, Creon makes no exception to this rule, and at hearing the story declares that she must die. Don't get me wrong here: I think it's a little extreme that Creon is wanting his future daughter-in-law dead just because she tried to give her brother a proper funeral. Whatever weakness this shows in him (his uncontrollable anger), Creon's commitment to his country is only made greater. All this to say, it's hard to say whether or not Creon is the kind of ruler i would like to live under...While he is committed to doing what's best for his country, i'm not so sure he knows how to do what's best for his people. What do you guys think??

Applications from The Epic of Gilgamesh

After finishing The Epic of Gilgamesh, a few things stood out to me that I think can be related to our time...The first deals with the transformation that took place within Gilgamesh after Enkidu's death. As we saw in the forest prior to his friend's death, Gilgamesh's view on life was that it should be lived to the absolute fullest. Instead of just sitting back and living in fear of death, he wanted to go out and make a name for himself by doing heroic deeds (such as killing Humbaba, slaying the Bull of Heaven, etc.). Before he and Enkidu face Humbaba, Gilgamesh even states that to die doing something courageous is better than living without taking chances...However, once Enkidu bites the dust, Gilgamesh suddenly becomes terrified at the thought of death and does everything he can to prevent his own. When you think about it, there's plenty of people who can relate to such a situation. In current times, when people lose someone close to them (especially a best friend), it really can affect what they believe and how willing they are to take chances.

I think the other relation to our society from this story also deals with Gilgamesh after Enkidu's death. I feel like many of us spend our time wishing we could be something that we're not. This "something" could be a number of things (a pro football player, an astronaut, America's next top model, etc.), but in Gilgamesh's situation it was an immortal being. Instead of wishing to be something we're not, I feel that we should make the most of what we have in accordance with what we're "called" to do...Siduri offers the same type of advice to Gilgamesh saying that instead of looking for something he could never find, he should spend more time focusing on the good things in life that he can enjoy. Don't get me wrong: it's great to set goals and to "aim high" in life, but at the same time I think we should know our limits and live within them...