During this first week of class, we were introduced to a few different ideas. One of the main ideas that we have discussed is art. This includes different art styles and aspects that go into a piece of art. On Friday at the end of class, we looked at two different pieces of art during a transition period in history. Although they had similar subject matters, they had very different elements of art.
First of all, the color of the two pieces was noticeably different. One was very dull and included many dark colors, while the other used many light and bright colors. This may be due to the medium and time, but there is a noticeable difference to viewers today.
Another main difference between the two is the symmetry and balance of the pieces. The piece that depicted Mary holding Jesus was almost exactly symmetrical, meaning both sides were the same. The nativity scene was asymmetrical and not the same on both sides.
Along these same lines, the focal points of the two pieces were different. On the piece with Mary, the viewers’ eyes gravitate toward Mary’s face. Her face is in the middle of the piece and is the largest piece. Also, all of the faces and people surrounding her seem to all be looking up toward her face. This draws lines and curves in our heads that point toward Mary’s face, the focal point. On the other piece, the focal point was not in the center. The emphasis was on the baby Jesus. The faces and body postures of all of the surrounding characters face toward Jesus. Just like in the piece with Mary, this created lines and movement toward the focal point.
Both works are very beautiful pieces of art, even though they have very contrasting elements of art.
Weekly Response 2
In class on Friday, we had a very good discussion about the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam. We covered many issues and aspects of the Qur’an, but we seemed to compare it to the Christian Bible very often. The two holy books are very similar in concept and design, but they also possess many differences.
First of all, many of the beliefs in the Qur’an were very similar to the teachings in the Bible. Such things include similar instruction on being generous with money and belongings, the hardening of hearts of unbelievers, the way women and homosexuals are looked down upon, and concepts of Heaven and Hell. Another interesting similarity is the belief in Jesus. The Qur’an includes many stories of Jesus, and some Muslims even believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and performed miracles. However, it is not believed that he is divine like the Christian Bible believes. Islam is strictly monotheistic, and saying that the trinity exists in Christianity is verging on polytheistic.
On the other hand, the two books also have several differences. These include how to approach unbelievers, how the book was written, and the lack of narrative. The Qur’an says that Muslims should not reach out to unbelievers unless they show interest in converting. I find this interesting because I am not sure how they justify their immense expansion with this attitude. Next, Muhammad was a political leader, unlike Jesus. Also, Muhammad was illiterate, so his followers had to write everything down for him. In class, the Qur’an was described as “One big wake up call.” This is because it lacked narrative, and just seemed like repetitive instructions. Lastly, we talked about the differences between Heaven and Hell. Islam has concepts similar to these, but they called it “the right hand and left hand.” The right hand was heaven, and was full of nature, running water, and virgins. The left hand sported scorching winds and seething water. These ideas of paradise and misery are similar to Christianity, but not exactly the same.
I enjoyed our interesting discussion on the Qur’an and the many comparisons we made to the Bible.
Weekly Response 3
I have never read Dante’s Inferno before, so this week was brand new for me as far as material goes. I have heard of it and knew the basic gist of the story, but it is nice to finally read it. However, it is not exactly what I expected. First of all, I did not expect the levels of Hell to be so organized. Dante makes it very clear and organized what each level is, who is there, why they are there, and what their punishment is. There organization is unexpected but welcome because it makes it easy to understand and follow. Another aspect of the book that is new to me is the fact that it is told like a real adventure. What I mean by this is Dante simply walks through Hell like it is a place you can go and visit. I have never pictured Hell as a place like this, but more as a mystical place that living people cannot go. I realize this is only a story and a metaphor, but it is an interesting concept to think of when reading through the poem.
Although we briefly talked about it in class, I think it is still interesting that fraud is the worst sin. I understand the reasoning behind it (that humans are the only creatures that can betray), but I still feel like I would want a mass murderer or child molester in the deepest level of Hell rather than betrayers. I think a lot of this comes from the different times. I do not know about the specific time and place when this poem was written, but in general in history violence is much more accepted that it is today. I think people rank how bad something is by how much prison time they would get, and this is why I think other things are worse than fraud. Either way, this is a very interesting story that sparks a lot of thought and discussion.
Weekly Response 4
On Friday, we finished up our discussion on Dante’s Inferno. We came up with questions to discuss in class and a few of them were very interesting. First of all, I found it intriguing that the 9th circle of Hell is frozen. Having never read this poem before, this was not what I was expecting. I was looking forward to all-encompassing flames, not ice and cold wind. It is very different from the other circles of Hell that we have experienced so far.
Next, I thought the physical portrayal of Satan was interesting. I thought that Satan would be some huge, intimidating character, but instead Dante describes him more like an animal. He has three heads that are chewing people, and Dante and Virgil do not speak or interact with him at all, expect for to climb on his back. When I think of Satan, I picture a human-like character surrounded by heat and flames, not an animal character bound by ice in the center of the earth.
On another hand, I enjoyed discussing the seven deadly sins and how they fit into the circles of Hell. However, we could not find a fit for Pride. This sparked my interest because the other 6 can easily fit in a spot. I think that Pride can either be applied as the sin that is the root of the evil and being the one that causes all the other sins, or it could be applied to fraud. Pride and fraud are kind of similar because they are both concern for yourself and making yourself look good without worrying about other people.
Lastly, we discussed the influence of the trinity. I liked the point that a fellow classmate made saying that the trinity is present throughout the piece because it shows that God is always in control. Even in the deepest part of Hell, the trinity is present in the number of heads of Satan.
Weekly Response 5
This week we spent a great majority of the time talking about the Canterbury Tales. Having read the Canterbury Tales before, I thought I might have an advantage, but I was not as familiar with the Wife Of Bath (my favorite tale is that of the Miller). Despite this fact, I still very much enjoyed discussing the Wife of Bath and how her prologue and description matches with her story.
The Canterbury Tales as a whole is a satire. However, I find it very interesting how each character is unique and satirical in his/her own way. For the Wife of Bath, her satire could be seen in a couple of ways. We discussed this in class on Friday. We decided that she could be satirical both toward men and toward women. I think just the way that the Wife of Bath views relationships in a completely different way than both people in society in that time period is satirical in itself.
I found a couple of things particularly amusing during our discussion on Friday. First of which is the evidence that the Wife of Bath uses as justification for her actions. Multiple times she cites “Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband.” However, she simply ignores the second half of this verse out of 1 Corinthians 7 and only focuses on the first part. This is just one example of how the Wife manipulated evidence to fit her needs and wants. Another student brought up another thing that I thought was entertaining during class. The Wife never mentions anything about children. Does she have children? If not, then most of her arguments about sex and virginity would be very hypocritical. I wonder if Chaucer did not include information about children to add to the irony and satire of this piece.
Weekly Response 6
This week in class we read two very interesting pieces of literature: Utopia by Thomas More and The Prince by Machiavelli. When first reading these two pieces, it is very easy to find the many differences between them, but we also discussed on Friday the similarities that they share.
First of all, we talked on Friday in class about how both works of literature question the status quo in some way. Both criticize the current government and society. However, they do this in two completely different ways. I picture it as a range, with status quo in the middle. On one side of the spectrum is Utopia. This work suggests that people are better than the status quo suggests. People want to work together and learn and better themselves and their society. On the other end of the spectrum is Machiavelli’s work. He suggests that people are worse than the status quo ideas. He says people are selfish and conceited and look how for themselves more than each other. It is interesting how two pieces can challenge the status quo but have completely different ideas.
Leadership is also defined differently in the two works of literature. The Prince basically says that the ends justify the means. As long as your kingdom expands and prospers, it doesn’t matter how you do it. This means that there is no need to be honest or generous, but you simply need to appear like you are so that your subjects like you. If you can’t get them to like you, get them to fear you. Utopian leaders do not lead like this. Instead, they believe in equality and treating each other fairly and with respect. Utopian leaders were even hired in surrounding countries because they made such good leaders.
Machiavellian and Utopian ways of thinking are very different but they both stem from questioning the ways things were.
Weekly Response 7 (Paper proposal) Evan, this sounds like a workable plan. I think focusing on how each work questions the status quo is a good approach. You want to have an overarching idea that holds your paper together, so your paper doesn't become just a list of similarities and differences. -MH
For my first essay, I am going to do a comparison essay. The two works that I am going to compare are The Utopia by Thomas More and The Prince by Machiavelli. These two pieces are very interesting and will make a good comparison because they have both differences and similarities.
When it comes to the form of the essay, I am going to cover a few main topics and compare the similarities and differences in these topics. We focused on some of these topics in class and others I will derive from the other readings. The main thesis of my paper is that both pieces of work question the status quo and current society in some way.
One topic I will discuss is the form of government. Utopia’s believe in equality and representation while Machiavelli argues that the government should be controlled by one ruler. This topic will transition nicely into the way that leaders should lead. The Prince offers ideas such as the ends justify the means and Utopia talks about leading with integrity. Utopian leaders are even sent to other lands to lead because they are such good leaders.
Another topic I want to talk about is the way that war is viewed. Machiavelli says that leaders should make friends with whoever has the strongest army and places an emphasis on the military. Utopia does not have this emphasis on the military and Army. Utopias have no need to expand their land or empires. Along these same lines, Utopia’s share their wealth and resources but Machiavelli does not agree with this.
As I begin writing, I will most likely find other topics that I find interesting. Also, I might make these narrower as I continue. I think this will be an interesting paper to write and a great way to explore these pieces in more depth.
Weekly Response 8
Although we had a short week due to Fall Break, I found our activities on Wednesday and Friday very interesting. Our discussions revolved around colonization, but we explored a few different viewpoints, and it was interesting to compare and contrast them all.
The first perspective is the view of the natives from the eyes of many Europeans. People like Columbus or Cortes viewed the natives as lesser people than themselves. They came and immediately took control and converted the natives’ ways to that of European culture and religion. These Europeans thought that these natives were barbaric and they needed civilized.
On the other hand, we got a taste of the view of Europeans from the eyes of the natives. These perspectives differed, but they did not see Europeans as lower than themselves. Often times, they saw them as great or godly white people, like in the case of the Aztecs and Cortes. Some natives were more willing to convert than others, and some fought back. Even though the natives saw the Europeans as foreign and strange, we do not see the natives trying to convert European culture to their own. This is interesting since these events were taking place in the homeland of the natives.
Lastly, we can look at the view of barbarism from the perspective of Montaigne. Although Montaigne never actually went to colonize, he had some very strong opinions on the issue. He argued that the only reason we see people as barbarians is because their practices are not the same as our own. This rings very true in the case of the Europeans viewing the natives. Their actions were not any more wrong or weird than the actions of the Europeans, but they were seen as barbaric because that is not what they were used to. The natives viewed the Europeans as strange, but they did not look at them like barbarians. It was interesting to explore these different perspectives this week, especially through the use of newscasts.
Weekly Response 9
For the first couple of days this week, we read and talked about the play Tartuffe. Not surprisingly, this is a satire, which seems to be a common theme in this course. I found this play very interesting to explore.
First I was interested in the content of the play. When I first began reading it, I could not tell if it was trying to be funny or not. I could not tell if I was not reading something right, but I found many parts of the play amusing. I thought that it was just me, until I watched the posted youtube videos. These were very entertaining, especially watching the actors act of some of the ridiculous scenes (like Orgon hiding under the table). That’s when I decided that it was okay to laugh, and I realized that this was probably one of Moliere’s goals.
I also found our “debate” on Wednesday interesting. When reading the story, I never thought of Orgon as a bad guy. I saw Tartuffe as the villain of the story, and Orgon was the unfortunate, dumb character that he used as his tool to get what he wanted. Before the debate, I tried to convince myself that Orgon was also a villain so I could argue either side, but this was difficult. The worst thing that Orgon did was go against his family in a few different ways, but Tartuffe was even behind this. Orgon was not evil, but he was just a puppet being used by Tartuffe. However, I found it entertaining that Orgon basically stated that he “knew it all along” when he learned of Tartuffe’s manipulative ways. I sincerely doubt this, but maybe he really is evil if he actually did know of Tartuffe’s motives and went along with them anyway.
This was a brand new piece of literature to me and I enjoyed exploring the different aspects of it.
Weekly Response 10
In Honors 202 this week, we had the opportunity to read and explore Candide by Voltaire. I find this time in history very interesting, so I was excited to explore this literary work. This was an intriguing piece that was brand new to me, so I enjoyed reading and discussing Voltaire’s Candide.
First, I was intrigued simply by the context of the work. This class tends to revolve around satires, so that did not surprise me. However, sometimes the works that we read can be hard to understand without also consulting a summary or watching a video. This work, on the other hand, was very straightforward. It did not beat around the bush when it told a joke or when it made fun of something. The reading was very dense with satirical material and ironic jokes. You almost had to read it very slowly and think about every single line to completely understand it. I realized this when we read it in class versus when I read it at home. I read it at home for comprehension, but a bunch of whole new meanings appeared when we slowed down and did in-depth analyses of the writing.
Another thing I would like to mention is just an personal interpretive point. I have found that I tend to always connect the writings and satirical material to historical context that surrounds the literature and the author. I don’t know if I over analyze, but I often find myself asking myself “what was going on in history to make him write this?” I don’t know history that well, but I like to use these connects to understand works.
Overall, I have enjoyed Candide. It is funny, straightforward, and fairly simple to understand, aside from the randomness of a few of the scenes and topics. I look forward to seeing what else we will be reading from the renaissance time period.
Weekly Response- Project Proposal
For the project due next Monday, we would like to take a more creative approach. Brittni, Daniel, Benjamin, and I would like to put together a video. It would be our contemporary analysis project. The video would be similar to the Exodus video from last year in 202. Our plan is to take the circles of Hell in Dante’s Inferno and put them into a “college edition.” We want to take the main punishments from each circle and reenact them in a college-related environment.
Just like the Exodus video, the only audio will be popular songs. However, we realized this may become hard to follow, so we are going to include headings at the bottom of the screen that say the circle, the sin, and the original punishment. Then we will act out a college version of the punishment and have a related song playing. We will have actors that will play Dante, sinners, demons, and possibly Virgil, but he is not particularly necessary for the ideas we have.
Of course, this will be a humorous video. However, the humor will not take away the understanding that our group and the audience will get from it. It will make the Circles of Hell from the Inferno memorable and easy to understand in a modern setting. We will make sure that it is understandable and does not stray too far from the literature.
We plan on having scenes for all 9 circles, and possibly an introduction and closing scene. However, we will not have scenes for all of the sub sections in each circle. We will find a way to acknowledge them without having a scene for each one, because that would take too long and we do not have the time and resources for that many.
This project will be a lot of work, but we are willing to put in the time to make a great product. It will be fun, and I am sure we will learn a lot about Dante’s Inferno along the way.
Sounds great. See my comment to Brittni's post. --MH
Weekly Response
Since this week was primary focused on Classical music, especially Mozart, I have been listening to his pieces quite a bit. I like to play instrumental music while I study or read, so this was a perfect opportunity. However, I usually listen to the music passively. It has been interesting this week in class to actively listen to these pieces instead of letting it be background music.
First of all, there is a huge difference between passive and active listening. Whenever you actively listen to Mozart, your imagination takes off. You can picture stories, landscapes, events, or anything that comes to mind. You do not get this imagination whenever you do not fully pay attention to the work. Everyone can attach his or her own story to the music, which is very interesting to me. There is no wrong answer to what you feel or picture in your head, because there is no real story behind the piece. However, there are ups and downs, which create drama, but we can make our own stories.
Another thing that I never noticed before was the structure of the pieces, which was the main focus of our discussion on Friday. I was curious as to where the AABA structure began, but it seems as if it just became a universal structure for classical music with no real explanation. It must have stemmed from an earlier composer. However, I found the comparisons to modern day pop music intriguing. This style of music follows a similar pattern, and a variation of this pattern can be seen in a large number of popular songs today. These structures are somehow known and used by everyone, and it is just accepted as normal.
I enjoyed this opportunity to truly explore classical music. If I had continued to only listen to instrumental music as a passive consumer, I would have never discovered these ideas.
During this first week of class, we were introduced to a few different ideas. One of the main ideas that we have discussed is art. This includes different art styles and aspects that go into a piece of art. On Friday at the end of class, we looked at two different pieces of art during a transition period in history. Although they had similar subject matters, they had very different elements of art.
First of all, the color of the two pieces was noticeably different. One was very dull and included many dark colors, while the other used many light and bright colors. This may be due to the medium and time, but there is a noticeable difference to viewers today.
Another main difference between the two is the symmetry and balance of the pieces. The piece that depicted Mary holding Jesus was almost exactly symmetrical, meaning both sides were the same. The nativity scene was asymmetrical and not the same on both sides.
Along these same lines, the focal points of the two pieces were different. On the piece with Mary, the viewers’ eyes gravitate toward Mary’s face. Her face is in the middle of the piece and is the largest piece. Also, all of the faces and people surrounding her seem to all be looking up toward her face. This draws lines and curves in our heads that point toward Mary’s face, the focal point. On the other piece, the focal point was not in the center. The emphasis was on the baby Jesus. The faces and body postures of all of the surrounding characters face toward Jesus. Just like in the piece with Mary, this created lines and movement toward the focal point.
Both works are very beautiful pieces of art, even though they have very contrasting elements of art.
Weekly Response 2
In class on Friday, we had a very good discussion about the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam. We covered many issues and aspects of the Qur’an, but we seemed to compare it to the Christian Bible very often. The two holy books are very similar in concept and design, but they also possess many differences.
First of all, many of the beliefs in the Qur’an were very similar to the teachings in the Bible. Such things include similar instruction on being generous with money and belongings, the hardening of hearts of unbelievers, the way women and homosexuals are looked down upon, and concepts of Heaven and Hell. Another interesting similarity is the belief in Jesus. The Qur’an includes many stories of Jesus, and some Muslims even believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and performed miracles. However, it is not believed that he is divine like the Christian Bible believes. Islam is strictly monotheistic, and saying that the trinity exists in Christianity is verging on polytheistic.
On the other hand, the two books also have several differences. These include how to approach unbelievers, how the book was written, and the lack of narrative. The Qur’an says that Muslims should not reach out to unbelievers unless they show interest in converting. I find this interesting because I am not sure how they justify their immense expansion with this attitude. Next, Muhammad was a political leader, unlike Jesus. Also, Muhammad was illiterate, so his followers had to write everything down for him. In class, the Qur’an was described as “One big wake up call.” This is because it lacked narrative, and just seemed like repetitive instructions. Lastly, we talked about the differences between Heaven and Hell. Islam has concepts similar to these, but they called it “the right hand and left hand.” The right hand was heaven, and was full of nature, running water, and virgins. The left hand sported scorching winds and seething water. These ideas of paradise and misery are similar to Christianity, but not exactly the same.
I enjoyed our interesting discussion on the Qur’an and the many comparisons we made to the Bible.
Weekly Response 3
I have never read Dante’s Inferno before, so this week was brand new for me as far as material goes. I have heard of it and knew the basic gist of the story, but it is nice to finally read it. However, it is not exactly what I expected. First of all, I did not expect the levels of Hell to be so organized. Dante makes it very clear and organized what each level is, who is there, why they are there, and what their punishment is. There organization is unexpected but welcome because it makes it easy to understand and follow. Another aspect of the book that is new to me is the fact that it is told like a real adventure. What I mean by this is Dante simply walks through Hell like it is a place you can go and visit. I have never pictured Hell as a place like this, but more as a mystical place that living people cannot go. I realize this is only a story and a metaphor, but it is an interesting concept to think of when reading through the poem.
Although we briefly talked about it in class, I think it is still interesting that fraud is the worst sin. I understand the reasoning behind it (that humans are the only creatures that can betray), but I still feel like I would want a mass murderer or child molester in the deepest level of Hell rather than betrayers. I think a lot of this comes from the different times. I do not know about the specific time and place when this poem was written, but in general in history violence is much more accepted that it is today. I think people rank how bad something is by how much prison time they would get, and this is why I think other things are worse than fraud. Either way, this is a very interesting story that sparks a lot of thought and discussion.
Weekly Response 4
On Friday, we finished up our discussion on Dante’s Inferno. We came up with questions to discuss in class and a few of them were very interesting. First of all, I found it intriguing that the 9th circle of Hell is frozen. Having never read this poem before, this was not what I was expecting. I was looking forward to all-encompassing flames, not ice and cold wind. It is very different from the other circles of Hell that we have experienced so far.
Next, I thought the physical portrayal of Satan was interesting. I thought that Satan would be some huge, intimidating character, but instead Dante describes him more like an animal. He has three heads that are chewing people, and Dante and Virgil do not speak or interact with him at all, expect for to climb on his back. When I think of Satan, I picture a human-like character surrounded by heat and flames, not an animal character bound by ice in the center of the earth.
On another hand, I enjoyed discussing the seven deadly sins and how they fit into the circles of Hell. However, we could not find a fit for Pride. This sparked my interest because the other 6 can easily fit in a spot. I think that Pride can either be applied as the sin that is the root of the evil and being the one that causes all the other sins, or it could be applied to fraud. Pride and fraud are kind of similar because they are both concern for yourself and making yourself look good without worrying about other people.
Lastly, we discussed the influence of the trinity. I liked the point that a fellow classmate made saying that the trinity is present throughout the piece because it shows that God is always in control. Even in the deepest part of Hell, the trinity is present in the number of heads of Satan.
Weekly Response 5
This week we spent a great majority of the time talking about the Canterbury Tales. Having read the Canterbury Tales before, I thought I might have an advantage, but I was not as familiar with the Wife Of Bath (my favorite tale is that of the Miller). Despite this fact, I still very much enjoyed discussing the Wife of Bath and how her prologue and description matches with her story.
The Canterbury Tales as a whole is a satire. However, I find it very interesting how each character is unique and satirical in his/her own way. For the Wife of Bath, her satire could be seen in a couple of ways. We discussed this in class on Friday. We decided that she could be satirical both toward men and toward women. I think just the way that the Wife of Bath views relationships in a completely different way than both people in society in that time period is satirical in itself.
I found a couple of things particularly amusing during our discussion on Friday. First of which is the evidence that the Wife of Bath uses as justification for her actions. Multiple times she cites “Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband.” However, she simply ignores the second half of this verse out of 1 Corinthians 7 and only focuses on the first part. This is just one example of how the Wife manipulated evidence to fit her needs and wants. Another student brought up another thing that I thought was entertaining during class. The Wife never mentions anything about children. Does she have children? If not, then most of her arguments about sex and virginity would be very hypocritical. I wonder if Chaucer did not include information about children to add to the irony and satire of this piece.
Weekly Response 6
This week in class we read two very interesting pieces of literature: Utopia by Thomas More and The Prince by Machiavelli. When first reading these two pieces, it is very easy to find the many differences between them, but we also discussed on Friday the similarities that they share.
First of all, we talked on Friday in class about how both works of literature question the status quo in some way. Both criticize the current government and society. However, they do this in two completely different ways. I picture it as a range, with status quo in the middle. On one side of the spectrum is Utopia. This work suggests that people are better than the status quo suggests. People want to work together and learn and better themselves and their society. On the other end of the spectrum is Machiavelli’s work. He suggests that people are worse than the status quo ideas. He says people are selfish and conceited and look how for themselves more than each other. It is interesting how two pieces can challenge the status quo but have completely different ideas.
Leadership is also defined differently in the two works of literature. The Prince basically says that the ends justify the means. As long as your kingdom expands and prospers, it doesn’t matter how you do it. This means that there is no need to be honest or generous, but you simply need to appear like you are so that your subjects like you. If you can’t get them to like you, get them to fear you. Utopian leaders do not lead like this. Instead, they believe in equality and treating each other fairly and with respect. Utopian leaders were even hired in surrounding countries because they made such good leaders.
Machiavellian and Utopian ways of thinking are very different but they both stem from questioning the ways things were.
Weekly Response 7 (Paper proposal)
Evan, this sounds like a workable plan. I think focusing on how each work questions the status quo is a good approach. You want to have an overarching idea that holds your paper together, so your paper doesn't become just a list of similarities and differences. -MH
For my first essay, I am going to do a comparison essay. The two works that I am going to compare are The Utopia by Thomas More and The Prince by Machiavelli. These two pieces are very interesting and will make a good comparison because they have both differences and similarities.
When it comes to the form of the essay, I am going to cover a few main topics and compare the similarities and differences in these topics. We focused on some of these topics in class and others I will derive from the other readings. The main thesis of my paper is that both pieces of work question the status quo and current society in some way.
One topic I will discuss is the form of government. Utopia’s believe in equality and representation while Machiavelli argues that the government should be controlled by one ruler. This topic will transition nicely into the way that leaders should lead. The Prince offers ideas such as the ends justify the means and Utopia talks about leading with integrity. Utopian leaders are even sent to other lands to lead because they are such good leaders.
Another topic I want to talk about is the way that war is viewed. Machiavelli says that leaders should make friends with whoever has the strongest army and places an emphasis on the military. Utopia does not have this emphasis on the military and Army. Utopias have no need to expand their land or empires. Along these same lines, Utopia’s share their wealth and resources but Machiavelli does not agree with this.
As I begin writing, I will most likely find other topics that I find interesting. Also, I might make these narrower as I continue. I think this will be an interesting paper to write and a great way to explore these pieces in more depth.
Weekly Response 8
Although we had a short week due to Fall Break, I found our activities on Wednesday and Friday very interesting. Our discussions revolved around colonization, but we explored a few different viewpoints, and it was interesting to compare and contrast them all.
The first perspective is the view of the natives from the eyes of many Europeans. People like Columbus or Cortes viewed the natives as lesser people than themselves. They came and immediately took control and converted the natives’ ways to that of European culture and religion. These Europeans thought that these natives were barbaric and they needed civilized.
On the other hand, we got a taste of the view of Europeans from the eyes of the natives. These perspectives differed, but they did not see Europeans as lower than themselves. Often times, they saw them as great or godly white people, like in the case of the Aztecs and Cortes. Some natives were more willing to convert than others, and some fought back. Even though the natives saw the Europeans as foreign and strange, we do not see the natives trying to convert European culture to their own. This is interesting since these events were taking place in the homeland of the natives.
Lastly, we can look at the view of barbarism from the perspective of Montaigne. Although Montaigne never actually went to colonize, he had some very strong opinions on the issue. He argued that the only reason we see people as barbarians is because their practices are not the same as our own. This rings very true in the case of the Europeans viewing the natives. Their actions were not any more wrong or weird than the actions of the Europeans, but they were seen as barbaric because that is not what they were used to. The natives viewed the Europeans as strange, but they did not look at them like barbarians. It was interesting to explore these different perspectives this week, especially through the use of newscasts.
Weekly Response 9
For the first couple of days this week, we read and talked about the play Tartuffe. Not surprisingly, this is a satire, which seems to be a common theme in this course. I found this play very interesting to explore.
First I was interested in the content of the play. When I first began reading it, I could not tell if it was trying to be funny or not. I could not tell if I was not reading something right, but I found many parts of the play amusing. I thought that it was just me, until I watched the posted youtube videos. These were very entertaining, especially watching the actors act of some of the ridiculous scenes (like Orgon hiding under the table). That’s when I decided that it was okay to laugh, and I realized that this was probably one of Moliere’s goals.
I also found our “debate” on Wednesday interesting. When reading the story, I never thought of Orgon as a bad guy. I saw Tartuffe as the villain of the story, and Orgon was the unfortunate, dumb character that he used as his tool to get what he wanted. Before the debate, I tried to convince myself that Orgon was also a villain so I could argue either side, but this was difficult. The worst thing that Orgon did was go against his family in a few different ways, but Tartuffe was even behind this. Orgon was not evil, but he was just a puppet being used by Tartuffe. However, I found it entertaining that Orgon basically stated that he “knew it all along” when he learned of Tartuffe’s manipulative ways. I sincerely doubt this, but maybe he really is evil if he actually did know of Tartuffe’s motives and went along with them anyway.
This was a brand new piece of literature to me and I enjoyed exploring the different aspects of it.
Weekly Response 10
In Honors 202 this week, we had the opportunity to read and explore Candide by Voltaire. I find this time in history very interesting, so I was excited to explore this literary work. This was an intriguing piece that was brand new to me, so I enjoyed reading and discussing Voltaire’s Candide.
First, I was intrigued simply by the context of the work. This class tends to revolve around satires, so that did not surprise me. However, sometimes the works that we read can be hard to understand without also consulting a summary or watching a video. This work, on the other hand, was very straightforward. It did not beat around the bush when it told a joke or when it made fun of something. The reading was very dense with satirical material and ironic jokes. You almost had to read it very slowly and think about every single line to completely understand it. I realized this when we read it in class versus when I read it at home. I read it at home for comprehension, but a bunch of whole new meanings appeared when we slowed down and did in-depth analyses of the writing.
Another thing I would like to mention is just an personal interpretive point. I have found that I tend to always connect the writings and satirical material to historical context that surrounds the literature and the author. I don’t know if I over analyze, but I often find myself asking myself “what was going on in history to make him write this?” I don’t know history that well, but I like to use these connects to understand works.
Overall, I have enjoyed Candide. It is funny, straightforward, and fairly simple to understand, aside from the randomness of a few of the scenes and topics. I look forward to seeing what else we will be reading from the renaissance time period.
Weekly Response- Project Proposal
For the project due next Monday, we would like to take a more creative approach. Brittni, Daniel, Benjamin, and I would like to put together a video. It would be our contemporary analysis project. The video would be similar to the Exodus video from last year in 202. Our plan is to take the circles of Hell in Dante’s Inferno and put them into a “college edition.” We want to take the main punishments from each circle and reenact them in a college-related environment.
Just like the Exodus video, the only audio will be popular songs. However, we realized this may become hard to follow, so we are going to include headings at the bottom of the screen that say the circle, the sin, and the original punishment. Then we will act out a college version of the punishment and have a related song playing. We will have actors that will play Dante, sinners, demons, and possibly Virgil, but he is not particularly necessary for the ideas we have.
Of course, this will be a humorous video. However, the humor will not take away the understanding that our group and the audience will get from it. It will make the Circles of Hell from the Inferno memorable and easy to understand in a modern setting. We will make sure that it is understandable and does not stray too far from the literature.
We plan on having scenes for all 9 circles, and possibly an introduction and closing scene. However, we will not have scenes for all of the sub sections in each circle. We will find a way to acknowledge them without having a scene for each one, because that would take too long and we do not have the time and resources for that many.
This project will be a lot of work, but we are willing to put in the time to make a great product. It will be fun, and I am sure we will learn a lot about Dante’s Inferno along the way.
Sounds great. See my comment to Brittni's post. --MH
Weekly Response
Since this week was primary focused on Classical music, especially Mozart, I have been listening to his pieces quite a bit. I like to play instrumental music while I study or read, so this was a perfect opportunity. However, I usually listen to the music passively. It has been interesting this week in class to actively listen to these pieces instead of letting it be background music.
First of all, there is a huge difference between passive and active listening. Whenever you actively listen to Mozart, your imagination takes off. You can picture stories, landscapes, events, or anything that comes to mind. You do not get this imagination whenever you do not fully pay attention to the work. Everyone can attach his or her own story to the music, which is very interesting to me. There is no wrong answer to what you feel or picture in your head, because there is no real story behind the piece. However, there are ups and downs, which create drama, but we can make our own stories.
Another thing that I never noticed before was the structure of the pieces, which was the main focus of our discussion on Friday. I was curious as to where the AABA structure began, but it seems as if it just became a universal structure for classical music with no real explanation. It must have stemmed from an earlier composer. However, I found the comparisons to modern day pop music intriguing. This style of music follows a similar pattern, and a variation of this pattern can be seen in a large number of popular songs today. These structures are somehow known and used by everyone, and it is just accepted as normal.
I enjoyed this opportunity to truly explore classical music. If I had continued to only listen to instrumental music as a passive consumer, I would have never discovered these ideas.