I don't know if I've missed a few weeks or not, and if I have, I apologize. My brain has felt a bit fried recently.
Anyway, we just covered Hamlet in class, and know we have spring break.
Hamlet is probably one of my favorite plays, because I can understand it without any trouble. This is new for me, regarding Shakespeare. It's about a prince of Denmark whose throne has been usurped by his uncle after his father's death, and his entire life has been turned upside down.
There is a lot of conflict in this play, but my favorite is that of Hamlet and himself. The question of madness is clear in the play: is Hamlet mad or is he actually seeing his father's ghost?
Hamlet's character is, essentially, that of a moody teenager. So bear that in mind when I talk about this.
Hamlet sees his father's ghost, but only after Bernardo and Marcellus claimed to see him and told him where to find it, and Hamlet is only told what he was already convinced of. It's entirely possible that this is just the power of suggestion playing with an already damaged mind.
On the other hand, it's also possible that the power of suggestion, and the desire to see his father was enough to suspend disbelief and allow for communication, or that the blood connection is somehow playing a role. Shakespeare leaves a lot of the mystical stuff ambiguous- A Midsummer Night's Dream gave you the option of believing that it was all a dream.
It's not clear if these guards actually saw King Hamlet or if they were just scared and convinced themselves they were seeing a ghost. They mention that the ghost never spoke, and given that it was night at the time, and just before the King's funeral, the thought of a ghost couldn't have been far off from their minds. At night, the shadows and the 'creepy' factor make seeing things a lot easier. Also, the ghost left when one of them pulled out their sword. A ghost couldn't possibly fear harm from a mortal weapon. This lends itself to the idea that what they saw was an animal, and that shadows were playing tricks.
There is also the fact that Queen Gertrude- the late king's wife- can't see or talk to him. The wife of the deceased surely has a stronger connection to and desire to speak with the ghost than 2 random guards? If it's just blood relatives (and guards) that can see King Hamlet, then why doesn't he appear in front of Claudius and chew him out, instead of leaving it to his son?
My personal theory is that Gertrude and King Hamlet married for politics, and Gertrude actually loved Claudius, which is why they get married so soon after King Hamlet's death, which seems to be supported by Claudius referring to Hamlet as "our son", as if he genuinely wanted it Gertrude's son to think of him as his father. The general practices of royal families at the time period were to marry cousins and other relatives, so the thought of marrying your dead husband's brother probably wasn't so weird back then. It also meant that a lot of royals had medical problems, some of which could affect the mind. Look at George III.
Claudius has probably known Prince Hamlet for some time, perhaps his entire life (especially if he loved Gertrude). My theory is that Prince Hamlet had psychosis and hallucinations his entire life, leading Claudius to fear for his ability to rule. When Claudius died, he did what he felt was best for Denmark, and took over the throne, also allowing him to marry the woman he loved, essentially killing two birds with one stone. Prince Hamlet's madness got worse, and eventually turned into murder attempts (which it seems likely Claudius knew about). Denmark needed a competent leader, especially with Fortinbras trying to invade, and any risk of Hamlet killing him to become leader would have been disastrous. (apparently, "family" was pretty disposable in this time period...)
Now, Claudius develops a convoluted plan to kill Hamlet, instead of just stabbing him in his sleep or something (which, now that I think of it, I can't recall any mention of Hamlet actually sleeping in this play). Murdering his nephew within months of becoming king would have damaged his entire rule, but an accidental sword wound, from rough housing he tried to stop (right after claiming Hamlet as his own and complimenting his skill) would make him look tragic and heroic.
While I doubt Claudius is actually a kind person, I don't think he- or anyone in this play- is actually a villain,
Obviously, there is not a clear answer to anything I just said- the play is from Hamlet's perspective, who isn't exactly unbiased. Personally, I think a version form either Queen Gertrude's of Claudius's perspective would be fascinating.
Friday, March 6, 2015
Friday, February 27, 2015
Percy Jackson and the knightly virtues
Compose a
character study of a favorite character (from any contemporary book, movie, or
TV show) as seen through the seven knightly virtues. Your reader response essay
should describe what the chosen character does throughout the course of the
movie/story that indicates how he or she demonstrates at least three of these
virtues. The essay should describe the sacrifices the character makes in order
to remain true to these ideals, and how the knightly virtues are central to the
conflict of the story line.
The contemporary code of chivalry has 7 aspects: Courage, justice, mercy, generosity, faith, nobility and hope. I'm going to focus on courage, hope and justice.
The first book of the Percy Jackson series is Percy Jackson and the lightning thief.
Percy Jackson is obviously brave- even when he's absolutely terrified, he's willing to stand and fight, even without any previous training. This is shown when he fights Mrs. Dodds in the first chapter, and again, even more prominently, when he fights the Minotaur- without any weapons, even- to defend his unconscious friend.
He also has to be extremely brave to accept the quest to find Zeus's lightning bolt, which leads into the idea of his sense of justice. While his justifications lie in simply wanting to clear his name and bring back his mother, he is still going on a quest to locate and return something stolen. The quest is extremely dangerous and it would have made more sense to take a less dangerous quest at a later time.
Despite this, Percy's sense of justice- he has been falsely accused, and something important has been stolen- outweighs this, and his bravery combines with this to encourage him on his quest. He is shown to break some rules, however, this mostly seems to occur when there is a clear and present danger to others- such as the Chimera at the St. Luis Arch.
It should be pointed out that there is a parallel between Zeus and Percy in this book: Something central to Zeus's power and identity has been stolen, and Percy's mother, who is central to Percy's sense of self and life over all, was kidnapped. Percy goes on the quest more out of a desire to free his mother, but the parallel still exists.
On the surface, Percy is extremely pessimistic and sarcastic. Deeper down, though, there is a sense of hope- he never gives up on the thought of bringing his mother back from the dead, even with the lack of a successful precedent. So even if he is pessimistic regarding his chances of passing a math test, he holds out hope for the things that do matter.
Percy is an unconventional display of the knight's virtues, but nonetheless they are present and the subversion to the expectations regarding his actions and character make the series an engaging read,
The contemporary code of chivalry has 7 aspects: Courage, justice, mercy, generosity, faith, nobility and hope. I'm going to focus on courage, hope and justice.
The first book of the Percy Jackson series is Percy Jackson and the lightning thief.
Percy Jackson is obviously brave- even when he's absolutely terrified, he's willing to stand and fight, even without any previous training. This is shown when he fights Mrs. Dodds in the first chapter, and again, even more prominently, when he fights the Minotaur- without any weapons, even- to defend his unconscious friend.
He also has to be extremely brave to accept the quest to find Zeus's lightning bolt, which leads into the idea of his sense of justice. While his justifications lie in simply wanting to clear his name and bring back his mother, he is still going on a quest to locate and return something stolen. The quest is extremely dangerous and it would have made more sense to take a less dangerous quest at a later time.
Despite this, Percy's sense of justice- he has been falsely accused, and something important has been stolen- outweighs this, and his bravery combines with this to encourage him on his quest. He is shown to break some rules, however, this mostly seems to occur when there is a clear and present danger to others- such as the Chimera at the St. Luis Arch.
It should be pointed out that there is a parallel between Zeus and Percy in this book: Something central to Zeus's power and identity has been stolen, and Percy's mother, who is central to Percy's sense of self and life over all, was kidnapped. Percy goes on the quest more out of a desire to free his mother, but the parallel still exists.
On the surface, Percy is extremely pessimistic and sarcastic. Deeper down, though, there is a sense of hope- he never gives up on the thought of bringing his mother back from the dead, even with the lack of a successful precedent. So even if he is pessimistic regarding his chances of passing a math test, he holds out hope for the things that do matter.
Percy is an unconventional display of the knight's virtues, but nonetheless they are present and the subversion to the expectations regarding his actions and character make the series an engaging read,
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
King Arthur and Canterbury tales
We are reading Arthurian myths in English. I like them a lot primarily because they've never really ended. Even today, you can find new versions of them all over the place.
BBC recently had a version that I particularly enjoyed, although it wasn't exactly accurate.
Even in music, it shows up. The song "Mordred's Lullaby" by Heather Dale was surprisingly accurate, though it was told primarily from the perspective of Morgan Le Fay.
The Canterbury Tales was written by Chaucer. The one thing I find most impressive is that all of the characters seem like they could actually exists. They aren't characters you would forget.
What I found equally fascinating is how a lot of themes were developed, especially how marriage was a motif. The concept of lies and deceit came up a lot, in almost every story, simply because they were telling stories. Every story, whether fiction or non-fiction, is a lie of some sort. Non-fiction is still filtered through the consciousness and prejudices of t he person telling it, leading to a form of self-deception.
There is a character in the Canterbury Tales called Chaucer, and at times I wonder if he was included as a joke.
The character and author are vastly different people. The character is accused of being sullen and silent, a far cry from the author. He is also the narrator, writing it all from memory. No one seems to want to hear the character's story, even though people from all over read the author's story during high school. It seems like the author is poking fun at his own points, by showing such a blatant example of misrepresenting himself in a story that has multiple layers. Not only are the characters all misrepresented by themselves, they are misrepresented even more by the narrator, who is himself a misrepresentation of the author.
I'm not sure if anything I just typed makes sense, but if it does, or doesn't, please let me know in the comments.
BBC recently had a version that I particularly enjoyed, although it wasn't exactly accurate.
Even in music, it shows up. The song "Mordred's Lullaby" by Heather Dale was surprisingly accurate, though it was told primarily from the perspective of Morgan Le Fay.
What I found equally fascinating is how a lot of themes were developed, especially how marriage was a motif. The concept of lies and deceit came up a lot, in almost every story, simply because they were telling stories. Every story, whether fiction or non-fiction, is a lie of some sort. Non-fiction is still filtered through the consciousness and prejudices of t he person telling it, leading to a form of self-deception.
There is a character in the Canterbury Tales called Chaucer, and at times I wonder if he was included as a joke.
The character and author are vastly different people. The character is accused of being sullen and silent, a far cry from the author. He is also the narrator, writing it all from memory. No one seems to want to hear the character's story, even though people from all over read the author's story during high school. It seems like the author is poking fun at his own points, by showing such a blatant example of misrepresenting himself in a story that has multiple layers. Not only are the characters all misrepresented by themselves, they are misrepresented even more by the narrator, who is himself a misrepresentation of the author.
I'm not sure if anything I just typed makes sense, but if it does, or doesn't, please let me know in the comments.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
general recap and Dante's inferno
I just realized I've skipped over Everyman and the Canterbury tales.
Anyway, just as a general recap- Everyman is a morality play about how every man will inevitably die and that worldly pleasures can't accompany you into death, just your good deeds. It is pro-church.
The Canterbury Tales were written by Chaucer and are about a group of people telling tales while on a pilgrimage. Chaucer is surprisingly critical of the church, with the only clergy member who is good being the parson.
We are also reading Dante's Inferno, which I have mixed feelings on. It is an exceptionally well-written poem, but it's not really the piece of art its often held up as. The Inferno is part of a larger work known as the Divine Comedy, and it wasn't meant to be art so much a it was an act of revenge.
In Pope Boniface VIII's reign, the republic of Florence was pretty divided over whether or not he was a good person.The Neri (black) Guelphs felt that the pope was good and the Bianchi (white) Guelphs were wary of him. Dante was a Bianchi Guelph. Anyway, when the then-pope appointed Charles De Valois as a general peacemaker for Tuscany, Dante traveled to Rome to talk to the pope about it. while Dante was there, the pope ordered Valois to enter Florence with an armed militia and overthrow the established government with a more religiously appreciative one. It should be pointed out that Dante was a politician. The pope then fined Dante for being in Rome, and the new government of Florence decided to ban him from ever returning. (This decision was not repealed until 2008.)
This is when Dante started to write the Divine Comedy.
Dante is really good with rhyming and can make things stick in your head, which is one way to ensure his story got remembered.
What is especially important is that there were many dialects of Italian at the time, but there was also another division: there were 2 separate and very different versions of Italian, both with their own individual dialects. One was spoken primarily by the nobles and one spoken primarily by the commoners.
Dante wrote the Divine Comedy in common Italian.
Even with a lot of people unable to read, and without the printing press, the story still was heard and and passed around. In fact, it's seems likely that Dante himself read it to commoners to ensure that it spread. He was, after all, the one who would primarily benefit from others hearing it.
Now onto the actual story and how it's just a particularly well-written bit of revenge. Dante had every reason to hate Pope Boniface VIII when he wrote the poem. In the poem, the then-pope has a special place in hell: circle 8. Dante comes across Pope Nicholas III in the third sub-ring, the one that represents simony, who mistakes Dante for Pope Boniface VIII. When the confusion is cleared up, Nicholas III comments that he foresees that Boniface VIII will join him soon. Later on in the poem we are reminded of Pope Boniface VIII's feud with the Colonna family, leading to the destruction of the city Palestrina, the death of 6,000 innocents and the destruction of both Julius Caesar's home and a shrine to the Virgin Mary. Boniface VIII's fate is confirmed by Beatrice, when Dante finds her in heaven.
Also in the poem Dante meets St. Peter, who denounces the papacy, calling it a blood-filled sewer with a vacant throne.
It should be pointed out that the 8th circle contains those whose misdeeds are second only to that of Judas. One has to wonder why the pope didn't send an assassin after Dante.
Dante was probably laughing in his grave when Italy became a single state, and had to decide on a single unifying language, because they chose the language of the Divine Comedy for it, ensuring that his work lived on forever. He also, probably, got another laugh when Florence decided to repeal the ban and asked for Ravenna, the city Dante moved to and died in, to exhume his body so it could be buried in Florence. Ravenna has refused to this day.
Sources:
http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/circle8a.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Boniface_VIII#Posthumous_trial
http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/textpopup/inf0601.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/return-of-dante-the-guelphs-and-the-ghibellines-850012.html
http://www.literarytraveler.com/articles/dante_florence/
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
1 in 7 billion
Mrs. Jarman had us watch the discovery video from 2011 about the rising population and the problems that causes.
The land mass of earth is 57,308,738 square miles . There are roughly 7 billion people on earth, meaning that the population density of the entire planet is 123 people per mile, so about the same as North Carolina right now.
This means that land is not the problem; resources, infrastructure and education are.
So which of these gets addressed first? Should any of them be placed above others in terms of importance?
Personally, I would say no.
Resources, infrastructure and education all need to be improved and all at the same time:
A poor infrastructure means resources don't get distributed correctly and it means people would have trouble getting to their schools. Resources mean that people won't be able to live because they don't have food or water, etc. Education is necessary because that would allow the citizens to create for themselves what they need. It's that whole "teach a man to fish" idea. It is also necessary because fertility and education have an inverse relationship.
When these three things are set up, all else follows.
There is more information here in this blog if you are curious:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text
The land mass of earth is 57,308,738 square miles . There are roughly 7 billion people on earth, meaning that the population density of the entire planet is 123 people per mile, so about the same as North Carolina right now.
This means that land is not the problem; resources, infrastructure and education are.
So which of these gets addressed first? Should any of them be placed above others in terms of importance?
Personally, I would say no.
Resources, infrastructure and education all need to be improved and all at the same time:
A poor infrastructure means resources don't get distributed correctly and it means people would have trouble getting to their schools. Resources mean that people won't be able to live because they don't have food or water, etc. Education is necessary because that would allow the citizens to create for themselves what they need. It's that whole "teach a man to fish" idea. It is also necessary because fertility and education have an inverse relationship.
When these three things are set up, all else follows.
There is more information here in this blog if you are curious:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Thor comics and Beowulf
I like comic books, Thor comics in particular. I also like Beowulf.
While reading Beowulf it occurred to me that it was really similar to the basic plot of the Thor Comics.
As I've already stated, Thor is pretty much the most human-like of the gods, and Beowulf is pretty much the most god-like of the humans.
There are many similarities between the two:
Both are portrayed with blond hair:
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11115/111150906/3805463-2230489458-Thor-.jpg
http://schoolworkhelper.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Beowulf.jpg
Both start of arrogant and wanting glory (with a desire to defend others as well):
Thor in the comics and the movie is banished form Asgard for excessive arrogance, but despite this, a lot of the time he fights is rooted at least in part in a desire to defend others. In the movie, he didn't attack the Jotuns until they invaded Asgard, and went initially to Jotunheim to investigate whether or not it was a planned attack or a group of extremists. Clearly, that plan fell to pieces.
Beowulf is fighting Grendel partially for glory, and partially as a favor to Hrothgar, in order to help defend Hrothgar's people. His motives are just as mixed as Thor's, but there is still noble intent.
Both are high up in society:
Aside from the fact that Thor is a god/super-powered alien, he's also a prince.
Beowulf is a member of King Hygelac's court and related to him, giving him a claim to the throne.
Both are big and have super strength:
Thor is a god, so super strength comes naturally, in fact this is why Stan Lee designed for him to be a god/super-powered alien in the comics, to justify him being stronger than any human.
In the poem, Beowulf is described as having the strength of 30 men.
Both are portrayed being big and muscular (see pictures above).
Both mature over time:
The plot of Beowulf is action-packed and interesting, but just as important is that Beowulf matures into a wise king.
Thor comics show him maturing into a wise king as well.
Even how they mature is similar, they go up against a lot of foes and learn from them.
Given how similar these two are, it seems highly likely that Stan Lee drew inspiration for the Thor comics from Beowulf.
While reading Beowulf it occurred to me that it was really similar to the basic plot of the Thor Comics.
As I've already stated, Thor is pretty much the most human-like of the gods, and Beowulf is pretty much the most god-like of the humans.
There are many similarities between the two:
Both are portrayed with blond hair:
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11115/111150906/3805463-2230489458-Thor-.jpg
http://schoolworkhelper.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Beowulf.jpg
Both start of arrogant and wanting glory (with a desire to defend others as well):
Thor in the comics and the movie is banished form Asgard for excessive arrogance, but despite this, a lot of the time he fights is rooted at least in part in a desire to defend others. In the movie, he didn't attack the Jotuns until they invaded Asgard, and went initially to Jotunheim to investigate whether or not it was a planned attack or a group of extremists. Clearly, that plan fell to pieces.
Beowulf is fighting Grendel partially for glory, and partially as a favor to Hrothgar, in order to help defend Hrothgar's people. His motives are just as mixed as Thor's, but there is still noble intent.
Both are high up in society:
Aside from the fact that Thor is a god/super-powered alien, he's also a prince.
Beowulf is a member of King Hygelac's court and related to him, giving him a claim to the throne.
Both are big and have super strength:
Thor is a god, so super strength comes naturally, in fact this is why Stan Lee designed for him to be a god/super-powered alien in the comics, to justify him being stronger than any human.
In the poem, Beowulf is described as having the strength of 30 men.
Both are portrayed being big and muscular (see pictures above).
Both mature over time:
The plot of Beowulf is action-packed and interesting, but just as important is that Beowulf matures into a wise king.
Thor comics show him maturing into a wise king as well.
Even how they mature is similar, they go up against a lot of foes and learn from them.
Given how similar these two are, it seems highly likely that Stan Lee drew inspiration for the Thor comics from Beowulf.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Beowulf's quest for glory
The purpose of Beowulf's quest for glory is initially to establish a name for himself.
Beowulf is a nobleman, with many relatives who are kings and a father who served in Hrothgar's court. Beowulf's father is Ecgtheow and his grandfather is also named Beowulf (changed to Beow in some versions). In lines 262 to 266 he refers to his father as a "noble vanguard-warrior".
The point of him being a nobleman is to make him a more appealing hero. The noblemen were supposed to be heroic and great with many deeds to their names and be the great leader that could effortlessly get rid of any enemy.
Beowulf is not the leader of the Geats at the beginning of the poem, but he is a member of the court of king Hygelac. So he is of noble birth and is essentially a knight at the time, with a claim for being King of the Geats at a later point.
Obviously, Beowulf is aware of his lineage, because he spends a fair bit of time discussing his ancestors and what they did. He spends time discussing what he did as well, but before he fought Grendel, he mostly just talks about defeating ogres and opponents in battle, which, while impressive, is rather vague. The ogres and opponents are never named. "I defeated 5 ogres" is not quite the same thing as "I defeated the fiend from hell, Grendel, who terrorized the meadhall Heorot". Named opponents are more impressive.
Beowulf is fighting Grendel because Grendel is widely known as a terror, and he wants to be known as the one who defeats that terror.
There is an interesting bit where Beowulf is speaking:
I have also heard that the evil creature
Beowulf is a nobleman, with many relatives who are kings and a father who served in Hrothgar's court. Beowulf's father is Ecgtheow and his grandfather is also named Beowulf (changed to Beow in some versions). In lines 262 to 266 he refers to his father as a "noble vanguard-warrior".
The point of him being a nobleman is to make him a more appealing hero. The noblemen were supposed to be heroic and great with many deeds to their names and be the great leader that could effortlessly get rid of any enemy.
Beowulf is not the leader of the Geats at the beginning of the poem, but he is a member of the court of king Hygelac. So he is of noble birth and is essentially a knight at the time, with a claim for being King of the Geats at a later point.
Obviously, Beowulf is aware of his lineage, because he spends a fair bit of time discussing his ancestors and what they did. He spends time discussing what he did as well, but before he fought Grendel, he mostly just talks about defeating ogres and opponents in battle, which, while impressive, is rather vague. The ogres and opponents are never named. "I defeated 5 ogres" is not quite the same thing as "I defeated the fiend from hell, Grendel, who terrorized the meadhall Heorot". Named opponents are more impressive.
Beowulf is fighting Grendel because Grendel is widely known as a terror, and he wants to be known as the one who defeats that terror.
There is an interesting bit where Beowulf is speaking:
I have also heard that the evil creature
in his recklessness heeds not weapons;
then I it scorn -- so that for me Hygelac may be
my liege-lord blithe in his heart--
that I bear a sword or broad shield,
yellow-rim to war but I with my grip
shall fight with this fiend
Beowulf states that he will fight Grendel without weapons to make Hygelac "blithe in his heart". Blithe means happy or joyous. Part of the reason is for personal glory, but these lines (433 to 439) also make it appear that he is fighting to bring glory to the Geats and to Hygelac. This makes sense given that in Scandinavian society, ideas of individualism weren't as common as they are today.
Later on, when he is King, he fights the dragon in order to defend his people. (lines 2312 to 2399 is it being discussed how Beowulf became king and him making his decision to fight the dragon.)
Overall, it appears he fights for glory, and while the glory is partially for himself, he seems to be fighting for the glory (and, regarding the dragon, safety) of the Geats as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)