This week, along with turning in our essays and doing course evaluations, we took a glimpse at the New Testament. I say glimpse because the selections from our book are only snippets of the entire work. As I've stated in this journal before, I'm not religious. I didn't grow up reading and interpreting this book. However, I know a thing or two about Christianity. I work at a 4 week long summer program for kids, and it's based out of a Methodist church, so bible stories tend to be integrated into the activities there. In actuality, many of the stories and themes from the life of Jesus I have only heard in a classroom for children 10 and under at the church. In the bible class offered at the camp, stories are told in only the most basic terms, and at times I've noticed they're definitely edited. I notice this most in Old Testament stories, like that of Moses and the plagues of Egypt. The terrifying parts of the stories are smoothed over. I understand this is not to scare the children, but in the end I wonder what kind of impression they're getting from Christianity. I think as a kid, Bible stories are butterflies and rainbows, and as you grow older you realize they address true issues humans face that might be frightening for children.
And, the reason I bring this all up is because of what we read in The Sermon on the Mount. We talked in class about how they're sort of the 10 commandment restated with elaboration. I think the New Testament is going back and smoothing over some unclear parts of the Old Testament, like we do when teaching the bible to children. It says that simply not committing adultery isn't enough, you have to also not want to commit adultery. "Love thy neighbor AND thy enemy" is much harder than just loving thy neighbor. Along with being more difficult, these elaboration on the "rules" are also more benevolent. I don't know exactly how to state it, but in the New Testament as Jesus is giving his sermon I get the sense that Christian shouldn't just not be bad, they should truly want to be good. And, isn't this what we teach children? To share and care about their friends and classmates, and to not cheat in board games? As we grow older and life kicks us around a little, I think a large amount of people being to realize they need to keep their head down, and look out for number one. Many people (especially those in poverty) do what they need to survive. But, as children, we're taught the basic, simple rules to love, kindness, and generosity. And I think that's really all Jesus is trying to get across in the Sermon. He gives unreachable rules and standards because he wants to give us a goal to continually strive for, like when we continually teach children to share and care, and hope they follow these rules for the rest of their lives.
Journal 12/2/11: Response to Daniela Sorrel's Hebrew Women: What Was Life Like?
First of all, after reading the paper I had a new respect for Hebrew women. Not begin very religious myself, I'm not educated in the bible. However, this didn't hold me back at all in reading the paper. Information was presented clearly and I could follow along easily with what we had read in Honors 201. As for making it more "engaging" and "informative," I was sufficiently engaged. You mentioned wanting to add more research, and there were a few points in the research section where I may have wanted to know more.
At one point you mention, "Out of the fifty-five prophets of the Bible, seven were women. Women served as liberators and judges as well." The first time I read the paper (I read through it twice ), this didn't really strike me. However, reading it a second time, I would like to know more about these women. They are briefly mentioned, but women as judges would have been very rare, and I think it's interesting.
The paper clearly has two parts, which is nice. I can see where your research ends and relating it back to the text begins. Women really were only "wives and mothers", but I like how you showcased Mose's mother's and sister's intelligence in keeping him alive. I also appreciated how you showed Miriam's role continuing, even after Moses freed the Hebrew people.
I was impressed with your paper, in general :) As for revising, as mentioned above, maybe add a bit more research on who those strong prophets and judge were, if you have information on that. But I like where you went with your conclusion, I felt like it was a nice lead out of the paper and back into present day.
Journal 11/18/11 Art Museum:
I used the extra free hour Friday morning to catch up on some long overdue sleep. But, after the rest of my classes had finished, I took a trip out to the art museum. I'd been before, for my art history class, but I had never considered the museum architecturally. I remember last time I visited I was impressed by the exterior and entryway into the museum, but today I fully appreciated the composition. The outside is grand, symmetrical, and (at least in my opinion) classically Gothic looking. It is very large (which seems obvious) but you actually have to stand maybe 30 yards back to be able to see the entire front side of the building properly. It conveys a sense of propriety in the building, as if it is specifically designed for academic discovery. The entrance is accessible by 2 opposite flights of stairs, which is interesting because that is how the sculpture area leads to the upper floor of the museum as well. Inside, the first thing to greet you is the sculpture, which is breathtaking. There are adornments from the ceiling that gives a sense of infinity. The sculpture area is flanked by 2 galleries, and then the staircases lead you upstairs. As I went through the museum, I realized the flow of the galleries was well organized. The hallways lead you around the museum in a sort of circle around the entire museum, with rooms off the either side that draw you in with different displays and colors. There's very little backtracking necessary to see all the museum has to offer.
I feel like most of the rooms in the museum where white and well lit, to display the art at it's finest. However, certain rooms had themes and colors. The David T Owsley gallery was a deep red, a color that was appropriate for the pre-Columbian pieces in the room. Also, the biblical gallery was a pinkish color that seemed to compliment all the works extremely well. The museum definitely had an idea of how to best display their works and keep them interesting. I found the sculpture court to be the most visually stunning part of the museum, with the best collection. I'm particularly fond of sculpture, because I believe it takes such a large amount of skill. I also enjoyed the ancient Greek and Roman vases that depicted stories.I did, however, have trouble detecting a plan for the way the pieces inside the museum were organized. I appreciated how similar works were in similar gallaries togeter, but I was unaware of why one gallery held one genre as opposed to the next. It was all interesting a went well together, but I couldn't pick up a singular pattern.
I really enjoyed revisiting the museum. I feel so calm in art museums, like I could stay there for hours just walking around, enjoying a break for my own life for a little while.
Topic proposal:
Historical Background question:
What would the average person’s life have been like during the time the Bhagavad Gita was written? How were class systems organized, and how was the “quality of life” for the average human? During the rise of Hinduism, who had power over the regions? What were the consequences of the rise of Hinduism?
I plan to examine how the Gita and Hinduism gained popularity and a following. I want to understand how people lived and felt and why the idea of Dharma was so alluring that entire nations of people read the Gita and lived by its teachings. I am very interested in the way literature and belief systems are used to influence people.
I would research life expectancy, ancient laws, caste systems, and ways of life during this time period to explain why people would be interested in the idea of Dharma.
Journal 11/9/11
We have been reading The Aeneid during 201 this week. It's a Roman sort of combination of the Iliad and the Odyssey, and focuses on the "hero" Aeneas. Aeneas can be compared to Odysseus in several ways (he is trying to find his way home, he is distracted by beautiful women...) but the two characters also contrast one another. During the fall of Troy, Aeneas must fight against his instinct to battle and flee the city with his family. This choice is wise, but doesn't exactly scream "heroic valor." Also during this battle, "Ulysses" is portrayed as a villain. We know form the Odyssey, many praised Odysseus for his "cleverness and cunning." Yet in Virgil's version, Odysseus' triumphs seem more like deceit and trickery. In my opinion, the Romans are just being sore losers here. All is fair in love and war.
Aeneas leaves the battle and heads for Italy to establish his own city, fulfill his destiny, whatever. His mother, Venus, is all for this plan. But, Juno isn't too happy and gets him sidetracked to Carthage. (Angry gods making a journey more difficult, sound familiar?) In Carthage he meets Dido, and starts falling for her. Then, the Gods conspire once again to make them love one another and create a union of Troy and Carthage. What confuses me here is that Venus wanted Aeneas to go to Italy, but now she is agreeing with Juno to have him be married to Dido. I feel like Venus is sending mixed signals as far as he son is concerned.So Aeneas and Dido are all over each other one minute, but when Mercury comes down to get him back on track, Aeneas decides to pick up and leave, leaving Dido heartbroken, crazy, and suicidal. There were discussions over if Aeneas is a jerk or if Dido is over dramatic, but in my opinion, Dido is the one causing all the trouble. She was manipulated by the Gods to an extent, but she has mood swings like no other. She loves Aeneas, she hates him, she wants to have his baby, she curses him, she loves him, she kills herself. In the end, I think she wanted to be a martyr for love. She couldn't go with Aeneas because she had her own city to look after, but they're just as bad off with her dead. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Dido sort of reminds me of Antigone, she seems strong in her reason for doing something, but she also sort of wants to die to make a point. The whole affair just seems a bit pointless, except to make Aeneas seems like a strong man who will do what is best for his people, and to portray women like over-emotional lunatics.
Journal 11/3/11
This week in class we've discussed The Dao and the poems by Lao Tzu. The subject of "going with the flow" seemed to be a central theme of all the poems. I really liked how they stripped down everyday situations and explained their simplicity. The simplest way to get something done was most valued. I love this, because it was conveying how making tasks easier doesn't make you "lazy", but it makes you innovative and rational. The butcher who cuts the meat at the joints or the man who could've used his gourd as a bath were actually stories I appreciated, because I tend to think rationally and simply.
Also, we discussed the use of the word "inaction". Inaction isn't necessarily no action, and that made me think differently. When we first read "inaction" I thought of sitting around, doing nothing. After some class discussion, I realized that inaction is actually not trying to change your life, and just accepting where you are. That idea is very alluring and seems zen, but I'm not entirely in agreement. In the time when Lao Tzu was writing and the Dao was popular, it was most likely very difficult to change your life and just being respected for who you are was probably a wonderful idea. Yet, having grown up in Capitalist America, I'm all for changing your life, moving up the social or economic ladder, and making dreams come true. I am completely in agreement for simplicity in accomplishing tasks, but I also believe the tasks you accomplish should help you advance in your life, however you would like. It all ties back into the good life; if changing your life makes you happy, you should attempt to do so. Lao Tzu's view is a little optimistic, but I can appreciate his writing, and what he was trying to say.
Journal 10/26/11
So far this week we have focused on Plato's Apology and the "Good Life" presentation. I found that Plato's Apology is interesting because it is not about Plato nor is it an apology by any means. It is Socrates defense of himself during his trial. Although I agree that Socrates was noble for clinging to his principles, even under duress, I still feel that he overstepped some boundaries. His teachings were radical, and of course that threatened the powers that be, but he had a right to explore free thought and to teach it to whoever would listen even if that meant children. However, his blatant mockery of officials of the court makes Socrates seem a little haughty. As these are not Socrates own accounts, I believe there is some leeway and I should not judge his character too quickly, but I believe in Apology, he could have toned down the disrespectful comments.
Today's presentation on the "Good Life" sparked some great discussions about perspective. I personally agree with the belief that happiness measures success, because we have so little time on Earth that making the majority of it pleasant should be the end goal. This happiness is achieved different ways based on individual values. To someone, riches and fame could easily be the route to happiness. For others, it could be spirituality. Yet, I don't believe these are the only paths to happiness. We talked about materialistic happiness and spiritual happiness, but I believe you can be happy without money/riches and without spirituality. I grew up in a comfortable house, we weren't "rich" by any standard, but we weren't struggling either. I also never had religion in my life, it simply wasn't as element of my childhood. And I was happy, as I believe my brother and parents were. I know now that happiness for me personally comes with the people I associate with (friends and family), not from money or from religion. So I believe there are infinitely many paths to happiness and success, not just two.
Journal 10/19/11 Midterm Reflection
Honors 201 is actually nothing like I expected it to be. I had many classes in high school that were similarly discussion based, but not completely so. I've enjoyed probably 90% of the discussions we've had in class. I've found them relevant and easy to follow. Occasionally, however, I feel like we all talk in circles. Someone says something, and then another person agrees, and then a different person restates what the first person says, and someone else agrees with them (confused?). These discussions are rare, and I believe they only come up when we repeat topics. In the beginning of the term, we discussed epics and heroes at length and the specific qualities of Gilgamesh and Odysseus. Then, when the presentation groups talked about heroes again, I felt like we'd sort of beaten that dead horse already, and that's why the discussion floundered.
As for my own personal participation, I know I have not been especially vocal. I've made a few good comments, but I say very little when it comes down to it. I don't think that means I'm not mentally participating in the discussions, but I may not always vocalize my opinions. Occasionally this is due to over-talking by others, and occasionally simply because my ideas have already been said by someone else. Regaurdless, I know I need to discuss more openly. This is my first honors class and I'm learning, and hopefully I will improve.
I've loved having these journals every Friday, because if I don't get to say something in class I can just talk about it on here. I especially appreciated the week where other students read and commented on our journals. It was a good way to encourage online dialogue, because otherwise the Wiki isn't being used to it's full advantage. I used Wikis last year in a lit class, and my teacher required you post a certain number of times. Of course it was inconvenient to just post something to get your quota in, but it made us really keep up online and sort of build the Wiki.
Overall I would say this is one of my favorite courses. We as a class are really using the texts to get inside the mind of a person that may have lived in the time these works were written.
The Epic of GilgaKe$ha:
In the clubs the Gods of dance, or the DJs, decided they needed some new music to entertain their followers, and so they searched for a girl with a nice body and ridiculously teased hair. Then, they found her; her name was GilgaKe$ha. Her voice was merely mediocre, so they bestowed upon her the gift of auto-tune. They gave her the innate ability to perform to catchy beats. Her performances were so visually stunning and her music gained such a vast area of radio play that she became more popular than any other artist the DJs had ever created. The rumors were that she was made of two-thirds glitter and one-third girl.
GilgaKe$ha took her show on the road, and found that she was adored all over the earth. From club to club night after night she lip-synced her heart out and moved in a provocative manner to please the crowd. She finally settled as the headliner of her own show at Club Uruk. Yet, as her popularity grew so did her ego. Soon, she was committing severe party fouls on the dance floor. After her show she would dance with other girls’ boyfriends. She would invite them to have slumber parties in her basement and proclaim that their love, their love, their love was her drug. The (female) club-goers were in a rage. They would cry that a performer was supposed to lead the people in synchronized movement, not flaunt their moves in front of other’s partners. GilgaKe$ha’s pride knew no bounds. She pushed harder to be more mesmerizing to her male audience.
So the Dance God’s heard about GilgaKe$ha’s risqué moves. They realized it was bad for business, and the club-goers would not want to flock to Club Uruk if GilgaKe$ha made them angry and frustrated. They heard the complaints such as “She dances with my boyfriend!”, “She doesn’t discriminate between ‘single’ and ‘in a relationship’ Facebook profiles”, and “when she tears up the dance floor, no partner is left! She leaves everything in ruin; there is glitter strewn all over the floor”. The DJ’s conversed with one another and decided that if they could create a celebrity like GilgaKe$ha, they could create a star equally influential to humble her and make her behave on the dance floor.
The Dance Gods had an image in mind for her challenger. They wanted someone who was not so different from GilgaKe$ha, yet more pure. They wanted her to be innocent of the place downtown where the freaks all came around to see GilgaKe$ha perform. They searched far and wide, past the outreaches of their music scene, to Nashville, TN, where they finally found her. Taylor Swift. She had long blonde hair, like GilgaKe$ha, only more refined. She had pale skin and squinty eyes, and her voice had a slight southern twang. The DJs recorded songs with Taylor that every love-struck teenager could relate to, and her stardom grew. They’d engineered someone to rival GilgaKe$ha’s severe hubris. Summary of the rest of The Epic of GilgaKe$ha:
After GilgaKe$ha meets Taylor Swift, she is enraged that anyone would dare rival her stardom. She challenges Taylor to a sing off in her club, and the two stars belt it out on stage. Taylor’s voice is more pure, but GilgaKe$ha’s moves are more intricate. In the end, the two girls find themselves enjoying each other’s performances. They reluctantly agree that they have equal stardom, and should share their success. They decide to tour together in one epic show. They travel to Europe, where there is talk of a Spice Girls reunion, every performer’s worst nightmare. They decide to battle the Spice Girls as a team. The DJs urge their stars not to damage the Spice Girls, but they choose not to listen. In an intense battle, GilgaKe$ha and T. Swift destroy any hope of a Spice Girls reunion. On their journey back to Club Uruk, GilgaKe$ha spurns the advances of Justin Timberlake. His pride is seriously destroyed, and he orders the DJs to punish the two friends. The DJs send a fame monster, Lady Gaga, to challenge them. They defeat her easily. Having lost one of their most popular monsters, the DJs choose to punish GilgaKe$ha and Taylor Swift. They decide the best way to teach them a lesson is to kill one of their careers. GilgaKe$ha’s career is more powerful and thus more rewarding to the DJs, and they start a terrible rumor about Taylor Swift. Her career ends after a long, drawn out battle with the tabloids. GilgaKe$ha is heartbroken that she has lost her true friend, and beings a journey to find a way to stay famous and young forever. Madonna, who has survived since the beginning of celebrity time, holds the key. GilgaKe$ha faces many trials to find her, and Madonna makes GilgaKe$ha realize that there is no such thing as everlasting stardom. GilgaKe$ha returns to Club Uruk and spend the rest of her career putting on fabulous shows for the masses, and never party fouled again.
Journal Entry 10/12/11
Today we discussed Antigone in class. I really appreciated the story, because I think it presents some interesting and controversial conflicts. We talked about some of these, like obeying the church or the state, or whether one should follow the rules or break them for what is "right." As far as Antigone's actions go, I believe she was in the right. She may have been a martyr, she may have been a little crazy, but what do you expect from inbreeding?
Also, I know the claim that not burying one brother honored the other "better" brother, but in the end they're both dead. They've both lost their lives and neither brother can ever commit treason again. Creon forbidding last burial rights is, pardon the pun, overkill. Both brothers were part of his family, and even the citizens believed Antigone was in the right for burying her brother. It seems like afterlife worries meant something to the people, and seeing as lives have already been paid, why not let them have the afterlife?
There was another question that my smaller discussion group had that didn't exactly make it into the list of questions on the board. It concerned Haemon's actions. He didn't approve of his father killing Antigone by any means, but I feel like he did very little to stop him. Even in the beginning Haemon says he'll respect his father over any woman. So, a good poll question could have been "would you choose family or love?" (Except, I realize in this case Antigone sort of is family....but you catch my drift). Haemon and Creon get into an argument concerning this, and (favorite line that I've probably ever read) Creon says "you have other fields to plow." Haemon obviously had other options, but he loved Antigone, and I feel like perhaps he should've fought harder for her. He should've rescued her from that tomb, or stopped his father altogether.
Journal Entry 10/3/11
I'm writing this journal on Monday because I felt so passionately about what we discussed in class today. When we took polls over what is "right" and "wrong" concerning the Agamemnon story, I felt sort of out-of-place. I felt strongly that Agamemnon should NOT have killed Iphigenia and that maybe it wasn't the best way to handle the situation, but I understand why Clytemnestra killed her husband and I feel that she was somewhat justified.
First of all, with Agamemnon, Devin made an excellent point about the group needs over individual needs, which I agree with.She also argued that Agamemnon's sacrifice was for the greater good of Greece in the Trojan war. However, isn't the Trojan war kind of an individual vendetta to begin with? Don't Agamemnon and Menelaus only want to fight this was because of their wounded pride? I understand wanting to support your brother, but Menelaus can live without Helen. If it comes to the point where it's either sacrifice your daughter or disappoint your brother, then I don't have any trouble seeing which choice is morally just.
Then, with Clytemnestra, I can see why she killed Agamemnon. It wasn't really fair that Cassandra got caught up in it, but she lost her daughter. Perhaps my view is skewed because I have such a close relationship with my mother, but I understand her rage. I couldn't understand in class why some people could back Agamemnon's decision but no one could back Clytemnestra. It seems like a double standard, which we've seen various times in ancient Greece. Women were definitely held to a higher standard. you know that if Clytemnestra had sacrificed Orestes for some reason or another Agamemnon would've killed her in a heartbeat. And, nobody would've thought twice about it.
I understand Greek religion plays a huge role in this story, as Artemis commands Iphigenia's death, and this changes perspectives on the story. In ancient Greece the story would've been viewed completely differently. Yet, in today's world, I can't help but feel very strong in my opinions. Clytemnestra wasn't perfect, but she did have a reason to do what she did, and I don't sympathize with Agamemnon.
Journal Entry 9/30/11
This weeks reading were more of the Hebrew Scriptures, Genesis, Exodus, Job, Psalms, and Song of Songs. We discussed in class how Job explains more how to deal with grief and hardship than explaining why bad things happen to good people. I think Job is trying to convey how God's power and reason can't be understood by humans, which is very important to Christianity in the much is left unexplained about His power. To me, I think Job faced great trials, but the fact he didn't curse God makes sense. Essentially we are born with nothing at all. Everything Job had can from God, and when he lost it all it was like he was back where he started. Since he was a God-fearing man, he had to realize he was only powerful and happy because of God and his loss had always been a possibility.
One other note about Job, though, is how his children are listed in his assets along with cattle and sheep and whatnot. And after he looses them he is extremely sad but at the end the story goes "and then he had 7 more sons and 3 more daughters and he lived happily ever after" It made me feel like his children were just numbers and they were easily replaced. I don't know why the Hebrew Scriptures didn't emphasize children more in the story, because I believe they matter much more than sheep.
I'm actually really excited to read Agamemnon (even though it's 60pgs) because ever since The Odyssey I want to know about that story. It sounds like the Greek tragedy also discusses how to deal with grief, which may show some similarities to Job. It will be interesting to see what role the Greek Gods play in that story.
Journal Entry 9/23/11
This week our class focused on creation stories and poems by Sappho. The creation myths, to me, sort of expounded on the theme of Gods and Goddesses vs. one God. With all the Olympian Gods and the polytheism described in the Babylonian myths, one feels like they are standing on uneven ground. A person will never truly knows if the Gods are going to quarrel and if they're going to get caught up in the battle. With the Hebrew scriptures and the Hymn to Atan, the one all-knowing benevolent God is much more comforting and reassuring. With Genesis, you know that at the beginning of time God was good and all was pure, but man was the one who changed that and created sin and evil. In the Greek myths, it seems like there is no time that was pure and the Gods have always had human-like undesirable qualities like jealousy and anger (the golden age? - MH). I think this is why the Hebrew scriptures are more credible and comforting, and why they still survive to be a major belief system today.
I also think it's interesting to see how the human body played such an important part in most of the creation myths. The myth about parts of the body becoming class systems seems like it was a way to keep order, yet some of the others just sort of support human arrogance. Aphrodite came from a man's body parts, as did Eve (admittedly, not the same parts) but still it supports the idea of women coming after men or being" inferior." And just to think that is there is some all-knowing all powerful deity, then we are in His image makes us seem superior to all other forms. It just shows the importance and pride early humans had in their abilities and bodies.
One more comment, concerning Sappho: I think the poems by Sappho are one of my favorite things we have read. She was not only one of the first strong, recognized, female authors, but she is so straightforward with her writing. Not that I don't appreciate symbolism and metaphor, but it's refreshing to read something from a poet and feel like you know exactly what he or she meant. Her writing is just relateable, and I think it's heartbreaking so little of her work still exists. Her themes are themes that still apply to modern life, like love and motherhood.
Journal Entry 9/16/11
The Odyssey Books 14-24 Response
During class today there was some discussion over the ending and if book 24 was really a necessary part of the story. I think it was very important to the culmination of Odysseus' homecoming. Yes, the suitors are dead and book 24 sort of slows down the momentum, but Odysseus essentially just killed all the eligible bachelors in Ithaca. There has to be some fallout from his decisions. Also, it shows that Athena is following through with Odysseus; she doesn't hang him out to dry.
I also really liked Devin's explanation of the dove metaphor concerning the unfaithful housemaids. I think they were victims of circumstance, in a way. Some of them may not be older than 20 or 25, so they would never have known Odysseus. Also, because they had to put up with the suitors for years, they didn't really understand proper host-guest behavior. So when they disrespected Telemachus and Penelope, they probably didn't understand the extent of their disrespect to Odysseus. They definitely weren't angels, but I'm not sure they deserved the ending they received.
One other comment: In the last two poems about Odysseus, the first one from Tennyson made me furious. If that were to really be how Odysseus would feel years from his homecoming, I'd want to slap him. It hook him how long to get home? 20 years. He's angered what God? Oh yeah, the God of the sea. And he wants to sail again?! Also, talking about being bored at home, he left Penelope for 20 years. She was miserable for a huge chunk of her life, and Odysseus would put her through that again? It would be like Odysseus didn't appreciate anything he had or anything he'd lost to get home in the first place. The second poem was more idealistic in Odysseus' yearning to reach home. Yet, the phrasing was rather basic and juvenile. It was difficult to feel inspired from the second poem as well. I'd like to see an example where Odysseus is content at home, possibly seeing Telemachus set out on his own adventure or something to that effect.
Journal Entry 9/9/11
The Odyssey Books 7-13 Response
Odysseus has it pretty rough. Every time I read about another one of his trials I'm just frustrated for him, because he should have made it home to Ithaca years ago. However, there are things about Odysseus that have me scratching my head. He's not always constant in his sentiments. For example, Odysseus' men are dropping like flies. He loses some to the lystrogonians, the cyclopes, and Skylla. And usually, the men he loses are described as "his six best men." Odysseus is "saddened" by their deaths but he's sort of like "oh well, onward to Ithaca." Yet when Elpenor dies, he's like "Oh no! Elenor got drunk and fell off the roof!" and he is moved and saddened. Odysseus even sees him in the underworld and decides to go back to give him a proper funeral. Although that's very sweet, why does Elpenor get special treatment? Why not the six guys devoured by Polyphemus? And when Odysseus learns himself alone makes it back home, he's obviously upset, but leads his men to their deaths anyway. His actions are all over the place regarding the crew.
In a way I understand Odysseus has had trials and proven himself during the war. Having never read the Illiad, it's difficult for me to appreciate Odysseues for the fame he's had from Troy. All I see are his blunders afterward, and it makes me wonder sometimes "why is Odysseus the only one the Gods pity enough to allow him to go home?" Even though I don't fully appreciate his worth, I'm still rooting for Odysseus, it's difficult not to. Part of that is Odysseus' family at home. His family is ideal in a that he has a loving, faithful, beautiful wife, and his son is finally proving himself as a man. It's really sweet; I want to see their reunion.
One other thing I'd like to comment in books 7-13 is the trip to the underworld. Achilles basically says he'd rather be a serf alive than a lord of the dead. I think sends a really strong message that life is precious. And even if you have it rough with monsters, enchantresses, angry Gods, and foolish crewmen, you should keep pushing through. Sometimes death seems like an easy solution, especially for Odysseus, but it shows more integrity to suck it up and move forward. Odysseus never looses sight of Ithaca, and that's sort of cool.
Journal Entry 9/2/11
Odyssey books 1-6 Response
The Odyssey is a book that I feel pretty comfortable reading because I read it last year in AP lit. I know what's going on and how the story ends unlike I did with Gilgamesh. However, I've gained a few new insights into the text this time around.
One new insight is concerning the Agamemnon story. The first time I read the Odyssey, anytime anyone discussed Agamemnon it was always in some form of "poor Agamemnon, he was killed by his wife's lover." However, now that we discussed more of Clytemnestra's motives in killing her husband, I'm less than sympathetic for Agamemnon. How he sacrificed his own daughter is despicable. Also, the fact that he sacrificed his daughter didn't save him from a horrible end anyway. Now that I know more about Agamemnon, I can tell Odysseus possesses more hero-like qualities and is more deserving of a happy homecoming.
Another question arose while I was reading the story again. Emilie asked it at the end of class, saying "Why do the suitors all of the sudden want to kill Telemachus?" and I was wondering the same thing. I see it as mostly their pride driving them to do what they’re doing. They don't really have any authority to be overtaking Odysseus' home, but they continue to do so. I believe they are disillusioned into believing that they are as good as married to Penelope already and have some sort of power in Ithaca. Therefore, when Telemachus disobeys them, they feel like it is treachery or almost breaking some unwritten law, and they feel slighted. Their motivation to kill Telemachus is mostly that he threatens their power and is a thorn in their side. However, personally, if I was trying to get the girl I wouldn't go killing her son. I guess that's not how the suitors see things.
Odysseus' trials have only just begun to be discussed, but I like the way the story is framed to give you some background into the way other people perceive Odysseus before we ever even meet him.
Journal Entry 8/26/11
Gilgamesh Response
First of all, I just want to say I’ve enjoyed reading Gilgamesh (so far). It’s remarkable that such an old story could have survived so long and be intricate.
What I’ve really thought about most was about our discussion on Wednesday in class. We discussed the friendship of Gilgamesh and Enkidu and drew parallels to more recent stories. Gilgamesh is considered more “civilized” even though Enkidu has a purer spirit. Upon meeting one another, they battle until they realize they are essentially counterparts and, as Gilgamesh describes later, “brothers.” This meeting is almost identical to that of Ishmael and Queequeg in the beginning of Moby Dick. Ishmael is an average sailor and Queequeg looks foreign and savage. At first encounter, they don’t like one another and have trouble sharing a room. However, with time, Ishmael and Queequeg discover they are similar and share brotherly affection like Gilgamesh and Enkidu.
Another parallel I couldn’t help but draw was between Gilgamesh and The Odyssey. Both are epics with strong heroes, of course, but both also deal with pride and the wrath of the Gods. When Odysseus insults Poseidon by being too prideful, he is cursed in his journey home. This is similar to when Gilgamesh insults Ishtar, although Ishtar is the one who has too much pride. Gilgamesh is also cursed and loses his best friend.
Today during class (Friday) we discussed the repetition of phrases. They are possibly because the fable was told orally. Yet, I think it has to do with emphasis on an idea. Gilgamesh is continually told to turn back in his quest to find immortality. Each time, he describes his love for Enkidu in the same detail. He is reiterating his motivation for his journey. I don’t think his quest for immortality is “homage” to Enkidu, but merely a strong emotional reaction to his loss.
I’m excited to finish the story. I think it’s so interesting that the story continues to be interesting after 2,000 years.
Journal 12/7/11:
This week, along with turning in our essays and doing course evaluations, we took a glimpse at the New Testament. I say glimpse because the selections from our book are only snippets of the entire work. As I've stated in this journal before, I'm not religious. I didn't grow up reading and interpreting this book. However, I know a thing or two about Christianity. I work at a 4 week long summer program for kids, and it's based out of a Methodist church, so bible stories tend to be integrated into the activities there. In actuality, many of the stories and themes from the life of Jesus I have only heard in a classroom for children 10 and under at the church. In the bible class offered at the camp, stories are told in only the most basic terms, and at times I've noticed they're definitely edited. I notice this most in Old Testament stories, like that of Moses and the plagues of Egypt. The terrifying parts of the stories are smoothed over. I understand this is not to scare the children, but in the end I wonder what kind of impression they're getting from Christianity. I think as a kid, Bible stories are butterflies and rainbows, and as you grow older you realize they address true issues humans face that might be frightening for children.
And, the reason I bring this all up is because of what we read in The Sermon on the Mount. We talked in class about how they're sort of the 10 commandment restated with elaboration. I think the New Testament is going back and smoothing over some unclear parts of the Old Testament, like we do when teaching the bible to children. It says that simply not committing adultery isn't enough, you have to also not want to commit adultery. "Love thy neighbor AND thy enemy" is much harder than just loving thy neighbor. Along with being more difficult, these elaboration on the "rules" are also more benevolent. I don't know exactly how to state it, but in the New Testament as Jesus is giving his sermon I get the sense that Christian shouldn't just not be bad, they should truly want to be good. And, isn't this what we teach children? To share and care about their friends and classmates, and to not cheat in board games? As we grow older and life kicks us around a little, I think a large amount of people being to realize they need to keep their head down, and look out for number one. Many people (especially those in poverty) do what they need to survive. But, as children, we're taught the basic, simple rules to love, kindness, and generosity. And I think that's really all Jesus is trying to get across in the Sermon. He gives unreachable rules and standards because he wants to give us a goal to continually strive for, like when we continually teach children to share and care, and hope they follow these rules for the rest of their lives.
Journal 12/2/11:
Response to Daniela Sorrel's Hebrew Women: What Was Life Like?
First of all, after reading the paper I had a new respect for Hebrew women. Not begin very religious myself, I'm not educated in the bible. However, this didn't hold me back at all in reading the paper. Information was presented clearly and I could follow along easily with what we had read in Honors 201. As for making it more "engaging" and "informative," I was sufficiently engaged. You mentioned wanting to add more research, and there were a few points in the research section where I may have wanted to know more.
At one point you mention, "Out of the fifty-five prophets of the Bible, seven were women. Women served as liberators and judges as well." The first time I read the paper (I read through it twice ), this didn't really strike me. However, reading it a second time, I would like to know more about these women. They are briefly mentioned, but women as judges would have been very rare, and I think it's interesting.
The paper clearly has two parts, which is nice. I can see where your research ends and relating it back to the text begins. Women really were only "wives and mothers", but I like how you showcased Mose's mother's and sister's intelligence in keeping him alive. I also appreciated how you showed Miriam's role continuing, even after Moses freed the Hebrew people.
I was impressed with your paper, in general :) As for revising, as mentioned above, maybe add a bit more research on who those strong prophets and judge were, if you have information on that. But I like where you went with your conclusion, I felt like it was a nice lead out of the paper and back into present day.
Journal 11/18/11
Art Museum:
I used the extra free hour Friday morning to catch up on some long overdue sleep. But, after the rest of my classes had finished, I took a trip out to the art museum. I'd been before, for my art history class, but I had never considered the museum architecturally. I remember last time I visited I was impressed by the exterior and entryway into the museum, but today I fully appreciated the composition. The outside is grand, symmetrical, and (at least in my opinion) classically Gothic looking. It is very large (which seems obvious) but you actually have to stand maybe 30 yards back to be able to see the entire front side of the building properly. It conveys a sense of propriety in the building, as if it is specifically designed for academic discovery. The entrance is accessible by 2 opposite flights of stairs, which is interesting because that is how the sculpture area leads to the upper floor of the museum as well. Inside, the first thing to greet you is the sculpture, which is breathtaking. There are adornments from the ceiling that gives a sense of infinity. The sculpture area is flanked by 2 galleries, and then the staircases lead you upstairs. As I went through the museum, I realized the flow of the galleries was well organized. The hallways lead you around the museum in a sort of circle around the entire museum, with rooms off the either side that draw you in with different displays and colors. There's very little backtracking necessary to see all the museum has to offer.
I feel like most of the rooms in the museum where white and well lit, to display the art at it's finest. However, certain rooms had themes and colors. The David T Owsley gallery was a deep red, a color that was appropriate for the pre-Columbian pieces in the room. Also, the biblical gallery was a pinkish color that seemed to compliment all the works extremely well. The museum definitely had an idea of how to best display their works and keep them interesting. I found the sculpture court to be the most visually stunning part of the museum, with the best collection. I'm particularly fond of sculpture, because I believe it takes such a large amount of skill. I also enjoyed the ancient Greek and Roman vases that depicted stories.I did, however, have trouble detecting a plan for the way the pieces inside the museum were organized. I appreciated how similar works were in similar gallaries togeter, but I was unaware of why one gallery held one genre as opposed to the next. It was all interesting a went well together, but I couldn't pick up a singular pattern.
I really enjoyed revisiting the museum. I feel so calm in art museums, like I could stay there for hours just walking around, enjoying a break for my own life for a little while.
Topic proposal:
Historical Background question:
What would the average person’s life have been like during the time the Bhagavad Gita was written? How were class systems organized, and how was the “quality of life” for the average human? During the rise of Hinduism, who had power over the regions? What were the consequences of the rise of Hinduism?
I plan to examine how the Gita and Hinduism gained popularity and a following. I want to understand how people lived and felt and why the idea of Dharma was so alluring that entire nations of people read the Gita and lived by its teachings. I am very interested in the way literature and belief systems are used to influence people.
I would research life expectancy, ancient laws, caste systems, and ways of life during this time period to explain why people would be interested in the idea of Dharma.
Journal 11/9/11
We have been reading The Aeneid during 201 this week. It's a Roman sort of combination of the Iliad and the Odyssey, and focuses on the "hero" Aeneas. Aeneas can be compared to Odysseus in several ways (he is trying to find his way home, he is distracted by beautiful women...) but the two characters also contrast one another. During the fall of Troy, Aeneas must fight against his instinct to battle and flee the city with his family. This choice is wise, but doesn't exactly scream "heroic valor." Also during this battle, "Ulysses" is portrayed as a villain. We know form the Odyssey, many praised Odysseus for his "cleverness and cunning." Yet in Virgil's version, Odysseus' triumphs seem more like deceit and trickery. In my opinion, the Romans are just being sore losers here. All is fair in love and war.
Aeneas leaves the battle and heads for Italy to establish his own city, fulfill his destiny, whatever. His mother, Venus, is all for this plan. But, Juno isn't too happy and gets him sidetracked to Carthage. (Angry gods making a journey more difficult, sound familiar?) In Carthage he meets Dido, and starts falling for her. Then, the Gods conspire once again to make them love one another and create a union of Troy and Carthage. What confuses me here is that Venus wanted Aeneas to go to Italy, but now she is agreeing with Juno to have him be married to Dido. I feel like Venus is sending mixed signals as far as he son is concerned.So Aeneas and Dido are all over each other one minute, but when Mercury comes down to get him back on track, Aeneas decides to pick up and leave, leaving Dido heartbroken, crazy, and suicidal. There were discussions over if Aeneas is a jerk or if Dido is over dramatic, but in my opinion, Dido is the one causing all the trouble. She was manipulated by the Gods to an extent, but she has mood swings like no other. She loves Aeneas, she hates him, she wants to have his baby, she curses him, she loves him, she kills herself. In the end, I think she wanted to be a martyr for love. She couldn't go with Aeneas because she had her own city to look after, but they're just as bad off with her dead. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Dido sort of reminds me of Antigone, she seems strong in her reason for doing something, but she also sort of wants to die to make a point. The whole affair just seems a bit pointless, except to make Aeneas seems like a strong man who will do what is best for his people, and to portray women like over-emotional lunatics.
Journal 11/3/11
This week in class we've discussed The Dao and the poems by Lao Tzu. The subject of "going with the flow" seemed to be a central theme of all the poems. I really liked how they stripped down everyday situations and explained their simplicity. The simplest way to get something done was most valued. I love this, because it was conveying how making tasks easier doesn't make you "lazy", but it makes you innovative and rational. The butcher who cuts the meat at the joints or the man who could've used his gourd as a bath were actually stories I appreciated, because I tend to think rationally and simply.
Also, we discussed the use of the word "inaction". Inaction isn't necessarily no action, and that made me think differently. When we first read "inaction" I thought of sitting around, doing nothing. After some class discussion, I realized that inaction is actually not trying to change your life, and just accepting where you are. That idea is very alluring and seems zen, but I'm not entirely in agreement. In the time when Lao Tzu was writing and the Dao was popular, it was most likely very difficult to change your life and just being respected for who you are was probably a wonderful idea. Yet, having grown up in Capitalist America, I'm all for changing your life, moving up the social or economic ladder, and making dreams come true. I am completely in agreement for simplicity in accomplishing tasks, but I also believe the tasks you accomplish should help you advance in your life, however you would like. It all ties back into the good life; if changing your life makes you happy, you should attempt to do so. Lao Tzu's view is a little optimistic, but I can appreciate his writing, and what he was trying to say.
Journal 10/26/11
So far this week we have focused on Plato's Apology and the "Good Life" presentation. I found that Plato's Apology is interesting because it is not about Plato nor is it an apology by any means. It is Socrates defense of himself during his trial. Although I agree that Socrates was noble for clinging to his principles, even under duress, I still feel that he overstepped some boundaries. His teachings were radical, and of course that threatened the powers that be, but he had a right to explore free thought and to teach it to whoever would listen even if that meant children. However, his blatant mockery of officials of the court makes Socrates seem a little haughty. As these are not Socrates own accounts, I believe there is some leeway and I should not judge his character too quickly, but I believe in Apology, he could have toned down the disrespectful comments.
Today's presentation on the "Good Life" sparked some great discussions about perspective. I personally agree with the belief that happiness measures success, because we have so little time on Earth that making the majority of it pleasant should be the end goal. This happiness is achieved different ways based on individual values. To someone, riches and fame could easily be the route to happiness. For others, it could be spirituality. Yet, I don't believe these are the only paths to happiness. We talked about materialistic happiness and spiritual happiness, but I believe you can be happy without money/riches and without spirituality. I grew up in a comfortable house, we weren't "rich" by any standard, but we weren't struggling either. I also never had religion in my life, it simply wasn't as element of my childhood. And I was happy, as I believe my brother and parents were. I know now that happiness for me personally comes with the people I associate with (friends and family), not from money or from religion. So I believe there are infinitely many paths to happiness and success, not just two.
Journal 10/19/11
Midterm Reflection
Honors 201 is actually nothing like I expected it to be. I had many classes in high school that were similarly discussion based, but not completely so. I've enjoyed probably 90% of the discussions we've had in class. I've found them relevant and easy to follow. Occasionally, however, I feel like we all talk in circles. Someone says something, and then another person agrees, and then a different person restates what the first person says, and someone else agrees with them (confused?). These discussions are rare, and I believe they only come up when we repeat topics. In the beginning of the term, we discussed epics and heroes at length and the specific qualities of Gilgamesh and Odysseus. Then, when the presentation groups talked about heroes again, I felt like we'd sort of beaten that dead horse already, and that's why the discussion floundered.
As for my own personal participation, I know I have not been especially vocal. I've made a few good comments, but I say very little when it comes down to it. I don't think that means I'm not mentally participating in the discussions, but I may not always vocalize my opinions. Occasionally this is due to over-talking by others, and occasionally simply because my ideas have already been said by someone else. Regaurdless, I know I need to discuss more openly. This is my first honors class and I'm learning, and hopefully I will improve.
I've loved having these journals every Friday, because if I don't get to say something in class I can just talk about it on here. I especially appreciated the week where other students read and commented on our journals. It was a good way to encourage online dialogue, because otherwise the Wiki isn't being used to it's full advantage. I used Wikis last year in a lit class, and my teacher required you post a certain number of times. Of course it was inconvenient to just post something to get your quota in, but it made us really keep up online and sort of build the Wiki.
Overall I would say this is one of my favorite courses. We as a class are really using the texts to get inside the mind of a person that may have lived in the time these works were written.
The Epic of GilgaKe$ha:
In the clubs the Gods of dance, or the DJs, decided they needed some new music to entertain their followers, and so they searched for a girl with a nice body and ridiculously teased hair. Then, they found her; her name was GilgaKe$ha. Her voice was merely mediocre, so they bestowed upon her the gift of auto-tune. They gave her the innate ability to perform to catchy beats. Her performances were so visually stunning and her music gained such a vast area of radio play that she became more popular than any other artist the DJs had ever created. The rumors were that she was made of two-thirds glitter and one-third girl.
GilgaKe$ha took her show on the road, and found that she was adored all over the earth. From club to club night after night she lip-synced her heart out and moved in a provocative manner to please the crowd. She finally settled as the headliner of her own show at Club Uruk. Yet, as her popularity grew so did her ego. Soon, she was committing severe party fouls on the dance floor. After her show she would dance with other girls’ boyfriends. She would invite them to have slumber parties in her basement and proclaim that their love, their love, their love was her drug. The (female) club-goers were in a rage. They would cry that a performer was supposed to lead the people in synchronized movement, not flaunt their moves in front of other’s partners. GilgaKe$ha’s pride knew no bounds. She pushed harder to be more mesmerizing to her male audience.
So the Dance God’s heard about GilgaKe$ha’s risqué moves. They realized it was bad for business, and the club-goers would not want to flock to Club Uruk if GilgaKe$ha made them angry and frustrated. They heard the complaints such as “She dances with my boyfriend!”, “She doesn’t discriminate between ‘single’ and ‘in a relationship’ Facebook profiles”, and “when she tears up the dance floor, no partner is left! She leaves everything in ruin; there is glitter strewn all over the floor”. The DJ’s conversed with one another and decided that if they could create a celebrity like GilgaKe$ha, they could create a star equally influential to humble her and make her behave on the dance floor.
The Dance Gods had an image in mind for her challenger. They wanted someone who was not so different from GilgaKe$ha, yet more pure. They wanted her to be innocent of the place downtown where the freaks all came around to see GilgaKe$ha perform. They searched far and wide, past the outreaches of their music scene, to Nashville, TN, where they finally found her. Taylor Swift. She had long blonde hair, like GilgaKe$ha, only more refined. She had pale skin and squinty eyes, and her voice had a slight southern twang. The DJs recorded songs with Taylor that every love-struck teenager could relate to, and her stardom grew. They’d engineered someone to rival GilgaKe$ha’s severe hubris.
Summary of the rest of The Epic of GilgaKe$ha:
After GilgaKe$ha meets Taylor Swift, she is enraged that anyone would dare rival her stardom. She challenges Taylor to a sing off in her club, and the two stars belt it out on stage. Taylor’s voice is more pure, but GilgaKe$ha’s moves are more intricate. In the end, the two girls find themselves enjoying each other’s performances. They reluctantly agree that they have equal stardom, and should share their success. They decide to tour together in one epic show. They travel to Europe, where there is talk of a Spice Girls reunion, every performer’s worst nightmare. They decide to battle the Spice Girls as a team. The DJs urge their stars not to damage the Spice Girls, but they choose not to listen. In an intense battle, GilgaKe$ha and T. Swift destroy any hope of a Spice Girls reunion. On their journey back to Club Uruk, GilgaKe$ha spurns the advances of Justin Timberlake. His pride is seriously destroyed, and he orders the DJs to punish the two friends. The DJs send a fame monster, Lady Gaga, to challenge them. They defeat her easily. Having lost one of their most popular monsters, the DJs choose to punish GilgaKe$ha and Taylor Swift. They decide the best way to teach them a lesson is to kill one of their careers. GilgaKe$ha’s career is more powerful and thus more rewarding to the DJs, and they start a terrible rumor about Taylor Swift. Her career ends after a long, drawn out battle with the tabloids. GilgaKe$ha is heartbroken that she has lost her true friend, and beings a journey to find a way to stay famous and young forever. Madonna, who has survived since the beginning of celebrity time, holds the key. GilgaKe$ha faces many trials to find her, and Madonna makes GilgaKe$ha realize that there is no such thing as everlasting stardom. GilgaKe$ha returns to Club Uruk and spend the rest of her career putting on fabulous shows for the masses, and never party fouled again.
Journal Entry 10/12/11
Today we discussed Antigone in class. I really appreciated the story, because I think it presents some interesting and controversial conflicts. We talked about some of these, like obeying the church or the state, or whether one should follow the rules or break them for what is "right." As far as Antigone's actions go, I believe she was in the right. She may have been a martyr, she may have been a little crazy, but what do you expect from inbreeding?
Also, I know the claim that not burying one brother honored the other "better" brother, but in the end they're both dead. They've both lost their lives and neither brother can ever commit treason again. Creon forbidding last burial rights is, pardon the pun, overkill. Both brothers were part of his family, and even the citizens believed Antigone was in the right for burying her brother. It seems like afterlife worries meant something to the people, and seeing as lives have already been paid, why not let them have the afterlife?
There was another question that my smaller discussion group had that didn't exactly make it into the list of questions on the board. It concerned Haemon's actions. He didn't approve of his father killing Antigone by any means, but I feel like he did very little to stop him. Even in the beginning Haemon says he'll respect his father over any woman. So, a good poll question could have been "would you choose family or love?" (Except, I realize in this case Antigone sort of is family....but you catch my drift). Haemon and Creon get into an argument concerning this, and (favorite line that I've probably ever read) Creon says "you have other fields to plow." Haemon obviously had other options, but he loved Antigone, and I feel like perhaps he should've fought harder for her. He should've rescued her from that tomb, or stopped his father altogether.
Journal Entry 10/3/11
I'm writing this journal on Monday because I felt so passionately about what we discussed in class today. When we took polls over what is "right" and "wrong" concerning the Agamemnon story, I felt sort of out-of-place. I felt strongly that Agamemnon should NOT have killed Iphigenia and that maybe it wasn't the best way to handle the situation, but I understand why Clytemnestra killed her husband and I feel that she was somewhat justified.
First of all, with Agamemnon, Devin made an excellent point about the group needs over individual needs, which I agree with.She also argued that Agamemnon's sacrifice was for the greater good of Greece in the Trojan war. However, isn't the Trojan war kind of an individual vendetta to begin with? Don't Agamemnon and Menelaus only want to fight this was because of their wounded pride? I understand wanting to support your brother, but Menelaus can live without Helen. If it comes to the point where it's either sacrifice your daughter or disappoint your brother, then I don't have any trouble seeing which choice is morally just.
Then, with Clytemnestra, I can see why she killed Agamemnon. It wasn't really fair that Cassandra got caught up in it, but she lost her daughter. Perhaps my view is skewed because I have such a close relationship with my mother, but I understand her rage. I couldn't understand in class why some people could back Agamemnon's decision but no one could back Clytemnestra. It seems like a double standard, which we've seen various times in ancient Greece. Women were definitely held to a higher standard. you know that if Clytemnestra had sacrificed Orestes for some reason or another Agamemnon would've killed her in a heartbeat. And, nobody would've thought twice about it.
I understand Greek religion plays a huge role in this story, as Artemis commands Iphigenia's death, and this changes perspectives on the story. In ancient Greece the story would've been viewed completely differently. Yet, in today's world, I can't help but feel very strong in my opinions. Clytemnestra wasn't perfect, but she did have a reason to do what she did, and I don't sympathize with Agamemnon.
Journal Entry 9/30/11
This weeks reading were more of the Hebrew Scriptures, Genesis, Exodus, Job, Psalms, and Song of Songs. We discussed in class how Job explains more how to deal with grief and hardship than explaining why bad things happen to good people. I think Job is trying to convey how God's power and reason can't be understood by humans, which is very important to Christianity in the much is left unexplained about His power. To me, I think Job faced great trials, but the fact he didn't curse God makes sense. Essentially we are born with nothing at all. Everything Job had can from God, and when he lost it all it was like he was back where he started. Since he was a God-fearing man, he had to realize he was only powerful and happy because of God and his loss had always been a possibility.
One other note about Job, though, is how his children are listed in his assets along with cattle and sheep and whatnot. And after he looses them he is extremely sad but at the end the story goes "and then he had 7 more sons and 3 more daughters and he lived happily ever after" It made me feel like his children were just numbers and they were easily replaced. I don't know why the Hebrew Scriptures didn't emphasize children more in the story, because I believe they matter much more than sheep.
I'm actually really excited to read Agamemnon (even though it's 60pgs) because ever since The Odyssey I want to know about that story. It sounds like the Greek tragedy also discusses how to deal with grief, which may show some similarities to Job. It will be interesting to see what role the Greek Gods play in that story.
Journal Entry 9/23/11
This week our class focused on creation stories and poems by Sappho. The creation myths, to me, sort of expounded on the theme of Gods and Goddesses vs. one God. With all the Olympian Gods and the polytheism described in the Babylonian myths, one feels like they are standing on uneven ground. A person will never truly knows if the Gods are going to quarrel and if they're going to get caught up in the battle. With the Hebrew scriptures and the Hymn to Atan, the one all-knowing benevolent God is much more comforting and reassuring. With Genesis, you know that at the beginning of time God was good and all was pure, but man was the one who changed that and created sin and evil. In the Greek myths, it seems like there is no time that was pure and the Gods have always had human-like undesirable qualities like jealousy and anger (the golden age? - MH). I think this is why the Hebrew scriptures are more credible and comforting, and why they still survive to be a major belief system today.
I also think it's interesting to see how the human body played such an important part in most of the creation myths. The myth about parts of the body becoming class systems seems like it was a way to keep order, yet some of the others just sort of support human arrogance. Aphrodite came from a man's body parts, as did Eve (admittedly, not the same parts) but still it supports the idea of women coming after men or being" inferior." And just to think that is there is some all-knowing all powerful deity, then we are in His image makes us seem superior to all other forms. It just shows the importance and pride early humans had in their abilities and bodies.
One more comment, concerning Sappho: I think the poems by Sappho are one of my favorite things we have read. She was not only one of the first strong, recognized, female authors, but she is so straightforward with her writing. Not that I don't appreciate symbolism and metaphor, but it's refreshing to read something from a poet and feel like you know exactly what he or she meant. Her writing is just relateable, and I think it's heartbreaking so little of her work still exists. Her themes are themes that still apply to modern life, like love and motherhood.
Journal Entry 9/16/11
The Odyssey Books 14-24 Response
During class today there was some discussion over the ending and if book 24 was really a necessary part of the story. I think it was very important to the culmination of Odysseus' homecoming. Yes, the suitors are dead and book 24 sort of slows down the momentum, but Odysseus essentially just killed all the eligible bachelors in Ithaca. There has to be some fallout from his decisions. Also, it shows that Athena is following through with Odysseus; she doesn't hang him out to dry.
I also really liked Devin's explanation of the dove metaphor concerning the unfaithful housemaids. I think they were victims of circumstance, in a way. Some of them may not be older than 20 or 25, so they would never have known Odysseus. Also, because they had to put up with the suitors for years, they didn't really understand proper host-guest behavior. So when they disrespected Telemachus and Penelope, they probably didn't understand the extent of their disrespect to Odysseus. They definitely weren't angels, but I'm not sure they deserved the ending they received.
One other comment: In the last two poems about Odysseus, the first one from Tennyson made me furious. If that were to really be how Odysseus would feel years from his homecoming, I'd want to slap him. It hook him how long to get home? 20 years. He's angered what God? Oh yeah, the God of the sea. And he wants to sail again?! Also, talking about being bored at home, he left Penelope for 20 years. She was miserable for a huge chunk of her life, and Odysseus would put her through that again? It would be like Odysseus didn't appreciate anything he had or anything he'd lost to get home in the first place. The second poem was more idealistic in Odysseus' yearning to reach home. Yet, the phrasing was rather basic and juvenile. It was difficult to feel inspired from the second poem as well. I'd like to see an example where Odysseus is content at home, possibly seeing Telemachus set out on his own adventure or something to that effect.
Journal Entry 9/9/11
The Odyssey Books 7-13 Response
Odysseus has it pretty rough. Every time I read about another one of his trials I'm just frustrated for him, because he should have made it home to Ithaca years ago. However, there are things about Odysseus that have me scratching my head. He's not always constant in his sentiments. For example, Odysseus' men are dropping like flies. He loses some to the lystrogonians, the cyclopes, and Skylla. And usually, the men he loses are described as "his six best men." Odysseus is "saddened" by their deaths but he's sort of like "oh well, onward to Ithaca." Yet when Elpenor dies, he's like "Oh no! Elenor got drunk and fell off the roof!" and he is moved and saddened. Odysseus even sees him in the underworld and decides to go back to give him a proper funeral. Although that's very sweet, why does Elpenor get special treatment? Why not the six guys devoured by Polyphemus? And when Odysseus learns himself alone makes it back home, he's obviously upset, but leads his men to their deaths anyway. His actions are all over the place regarding the crew.
In a way I understand Odysseus has had trials and proven himself during the war. Having never read the Illiad, it's difficult for me to appreciate Odysseues for the fame he's had from Troy. All I see are his blunders afterward, and it makes me wonder sometimes "why is Odysseus the only one the Gods pity enough to allow him to go home?" Even though I don't fully appreciate his worth, I'm still rooting for Odysseus, it's difficult not to. Part of that is Odysseus' family at home. His family is ideal in a that he has a loving, faithful, beautiful wife, and his son is finally proving himself as a man. It's really sweet; I want to see their reunion.
One other thing I'd like to comment in books 7-13 is the trip to the underworld. Achilles basically says he'd rather be a serf alive than a lord of the dead. I think sends a really strong message that life is precious. And even if you have it rough with monsters, enchantresses, angry Gods, and foolish crewmen, you should keep pushing through. Sometimes death seems like an easy solution, especially for Odysseus, but it shows more integrity to suck it up and move forward. Odysseus never looses sight of Ithaca, and that's sort of cool.
Journal Entry 9/2/11
Odyssey books 1-6 Response
The Odyssey is a book that I feel pretty comfortable reading because I read it last year in AP lit. I know what's going on and how the story ends unlike I did with Gilgamesh. However, I've gained a few new insights into the text this time around.
One new insight is concerning the Agamemnon story. The first time I read the Odyssey, anytime anyone discussed Agamemnon it was always in some form of "poor Agamemnon, he was killed by his wife's lover." However, now that we discussed more of Clytemnestra's motives in killing her husband, I'm less than sympathetic for Agamemnon. How he sacrificed his own daughter is despicable. Also, the fact that he sacrificed his daughter didn't save him from a horrible end anyway. Now that I know more about Agamemnon, I can tell Odysseus possesses more hero-like qualities and is more deserving of a happy homecoming.
Another question arose while I was reading the story again. Emilie asked it at the end of class, saying "Why do the suitors all of the sudden want to kill Telemachus?" and I was wondering the same thing. I see it as mostly their pride driving them to do what they’re doing. They don't really have any authority to be overtaking Odysseus' home, but they continue to do so. I believe they are disillusioned into believing that they are as good as married to Penelope already and have some sort of power in Ithaca. Therefore, when Telemachus disobeys them, they feel like it is treachery or almost breaking some unwritten law, and they feel slighted. Their motivation to kill Telemachus is mostly that he threatens their power and is a thorn in their side. However, personally, if I was trying to get the girl I wouldn't go killing her son. I guess that's not how the suitors see things.
Odysseus' trials have only just begun to be discussed, but I like the way the story is framed to give you some background into the way other people perceive Odysseus before we ever even meet him.
Journal Entry 8/26/11
Gilgamesh Response
First of all, I just want to say I’ve enjoyed reading Gilgamesh (so far). It’s remarkable that such an old story could have survived so long and be intricate.
What I’ve really thought about most was about our discussion on Wednesday in class. We discussed the friendship of Gilgamesh and Enkidu and drew parallels to more recent stories. Gilgamesh is considered more “civilized” even though Enkidu has a purer spirit. Upon meeting one another, they battle until they realize they are essentially counterparts and, as Gilgamesh describes later, “brothers.” This meeting is almost identical to that of Ishmael and Queequeg in the beginning of Moby Dick. Ishmael is an average sailor and Queequeg looks foreign and savage. At first encounter, they don’t like one another and have trouble sharing a room. However, with time, Ishmael and Queequeg discover they are similar and share brotherly affection like Gilgamesh and Enkidu.
Another parallel I couldn’t help but draw was between Gilgamesh and The Odyssey. Both are epics with strong heroes, of course, but both also deal with pride and the wrath of the Gods. When Odysseus insults Poseidon by being too prideful, he is cursed in his journey home. This is similar to when Gilgamesh insults Ishtar, although Ishtar is the one who has too much pride. Gilgamesh is also cursed and loses his best friend.
Today during class (Friday) we discussed the repetition of phrases. They are possibly because the fable was told orally. Yet, I think it has to do with emphasis on an idea. Gilgamesh is continually told to turn back in his quest to find immortality. Each time, he describes his love for Enkidu in the same detail. He is reiterating his motivation for his journey. I don’t think his quest for immortality is “homage” to Enkidu, but merely a strong emotional reaction to his loss.
I’m excited to finish the story. I think it’s so interesting that the story continues to be interesting after 2,000 years.