In-Class Presentations

I thought the in-class presentations were interesting in the choices of texts used. A lot of the texts were what I was expecting, though I was surprised how often Don Quixote came up considering how long the book is. I especially liked the more unconventional pieces of literature chosen, such as Ender's Game, A History of Violence, and Wicked. These books have a lot of value that gets overlooked just because they aren't considered canon. Many of them are, in my opinion, just as good as the revered classical texts taught in literature courses, and have the advantage of being more readable and more interesting in many cases. I did enjoy reading the tragedies and the epics, but they simply didn't fascinate me and hold my attention in the same manner as, say, the Song of Ice and Fire series by George R.R. Martin did. You could teach an entire semester-long course on amazing pieces of literature like this and get just as much out of it. Granted, it may not be as much of a window into the author's culture and society as much as the Iliad came to be for the ancient Greeks, but there is still a lot that can be analyzed and learned from the different characters and their incredibly complex interactions.

Sufi Poetry

Sufi poetry is by far the most existential poetry we've come across in class to date. It's interesting that this poetry is considered to be related to religion in that it references and discussed God, yet it outwardly derides traditional religious practices as being too showy. It discusses transcendence and achieving a higher state of being, of experiencing ecstasy upon the reunion of the personal soul with the great Soul. A lot of natural imagery is used in Sufi poetry, such as birds, clouds, and flowers (the rose especially), to signify the longing and desire to achieve the highest state of consciousness in which the self dies to the whole. Traditionally, Sufis have had many methods of altering one's state of consciousness, including singing, dancing, and partaking of mind-altering substances such as bhang, a cannabis plant derivative. I'm sure the bhang helped contribute to the strong theme of love being the underlying force of the universe. Love is more than just the theme of most of the poems; it seems to be the purpose of life to a Sufi. Feeling love and sharing love are very important to the dedicated Sufi.

Catallus' Poetry

Reading Catallus' poetry was a very unique experience. It wasn't what I was expecting after having just read Sappho's poetry, which tended to be more subtle and open to interpretation. It was definitely much easier to read, since Catallus had no problem with saying exactly what he meant in no uncertain terms. I was rather surprised when I read the first couple at the kind of language he used, but it fits his style. A lot of his insulting poems about his friends are quite funny, and I found that his poem which copies Sappho's almost word-for-word was more a tribute to Sappho than an insult. He takes her words and gives the poem an entirely different feel by adding the second part on where Lesbia berates him for lazing around and writing the first part. Catallus was also easier to read in general because the poems were available in their entirety as opposed to a fragment here and a fragment there like Sappho's poems, with the added difficulty of having to infer what she may have meant in the missing spots.

Sappho Poetry

Sappho's poetry is intriguing. Most of the poems you would read and not know a woman was writing. There are very few lines that hint at a female author, especially in the third poem, where she describes the jealousy she feels for the man who gets to sit near her love and the physical effect the woman has on her. She describes the way her body reacts when her love is near as not being able to see, getting hot, shivering, etc. I can see how her writing is viewed as incredibly erotic in this case, since it sounds like she is pretty much having an orgasm in this poem just at the mere presence of the woman she loves. I found her other poems and poem fragments to be more subtle with the eroticism than this poem, but definitely still there, as in her poem where she compares a woman to a ripe red apple that no one else can reach. This could definitely be an analogy for the woman's virginity, or love/passion in general. This poem seems to convey that although everyone else has forgotten about it, the author herself remembers and desires it.

Othello

Othello is a really interesting play. I can definitely see how Shakespeare delves into the human psyche with this play; it deals with love, jealousy, and hate among other emotions. It's amazing to see just how manipulative Iago is. In the beginning of the play he says outright to Roderigo that he is not what he seems. You would think that Roderigo would hear that and begin to think twice about what Iago says and does later on, but he continues to take him at his word. Not only does he believe what Iago is saying, he becomes Iago's lackey. It seems that all the characters throughout the play do not suspect Iago of being anything but honest and caring. Othello himself is convinced Iago loves him and looks out for him even though Iago is secretly plotting his downfall. In this sense, even though the reader of the play can't see Iago, I would imagine it would take an incredibly good actor to be able to play a character that seems so genuine to everyone else. The play may be titled after the character Othello, but it is Iago that is the focal point to me. Even though he is the “evil” character, you must have some grudging respect for how well he manipulates everyone. I don't believe he is even truly evil, since he doesn't just cause hate and violence for the mere fun of it, he has a motive for the way he acts. Granted, he completely overreacts in this situation, but it is a good example of a specific kind of person that is found in every society.

Medea

I honestly liked Medea a lot. Reading the play, it felt more realistic and it definitely felt more modern. It was a departure from the other Greek tragedies we've read in that the play is focused on a scorned woman who successfully gets her revenge. Also, the chorus is all female, which was not the norm for these types of plays. The chorus was really involved in this play. They kept taking Medea's side and didn't do anything when she was murdering her children. Normally the chorus is only a narrative voice, someone for the characters to talk to when they need to say something, and a descriptive voice for the scenes that take place off stage. The chorus didn't even provide the narrative voice for one of the most important scenes, in which Medea's poisoned dress and coronet kill the princess and her father. I actually like the chorus better in this play because they're not just standing around impassively.
Both the chorus and the central character, Medea, talk about what it means to be a woman and how it feels. This is different from all the other tragedies in that it seems they're bringing up social issues, whereas normally the tragedies only deal with actions and consequences and fate. I can see why this could be considered to have a feminist voice, since Medea does lament the fate of women in Greek society. Also, the fact that she is a woman who atypically does not have a maternal instinct strong enough to even try to save her childrens' lives is unusual. She murders her own children and gets away with it. The fact that she gets away with it flies in the face of every other tragedy of the time. One of the main reasons why the tragedies were written was to be didactic. Each play sent a message; in Oedipus, it was "don't try to avoid your fate", in Clytemnestra it was dealing with the consequences of your actions, specifically murder. The only role Medea seems to fill is to be cathartic. There are plenty of characters to feel pity for here, especially the children, who are completely innocent.

Oedipus Rex

Oedipus Rex was a fascinating play to read. It unfolded in a similar manner to a modern-day mystery story, but with gods and fate playing a role. I found the entire process of searching for the murderer to be incredibly ironic, since it is Oedipus that both initiates the search and ends up being the murderer. His character is likable, and it seems as if he is undeserving of his fate. His entire life, he has tried to be a good son, a good ruler, and a good husband, yet in the end he turns into a poor, blind beggar for the rest of his days. His only mistake was to try and avoid his fate of murdering his father and marrying his mother, yet for that one mistake he is punished heavily. I really liked the whole dramatic end scene where the chorus is narrating Oedipus' actions inside the house as he finds Jocasta dead and stabs his eyes out. The fact that the whole violent scene is never actually shown makes it much more ominous. The very end, too, where he is lamenting the fate of his daughters and then has to say goodbye to them forever is very sad. That seems to be the only point of the story: sending the message that trying to avoid one's fate will lead to ruin. I can definitely see this play as comprising part of a general campaign by the leaders of Athens to keep the populace subjugated, since the whole story is about knowing your place and accepting everything that happens to you or else facing the consequences.

Agamemnon

Agamemnon's death in his self-titled play seemed very fitting to me. It was satisfying in that he was punished (in my view) fairly for his murder of his own daughter as a sacrifice to the gods. The appearance of one murder to avenge another murder fits into the pattern of "violence begets violence" quite well. I liked that Clytemneptra had the courage to avenge her daughter's death, but it didn't make me like her any more. The descriptions of her character in general didn't particularly endear her to me, especially when the chorus describes her as having masculine aims and ambitions.
As depressing and tragic as the story is, however, it is definitely clear that Aeschylus achieved his aim in making the play extremely cathartic. There are no truly happy or joyful moments in the play at all, the action and plot of the story all focuses on murder and violence. Setting up the background with Iphigenia being murdered gives a reason for Agamemnon to be murdered but also helps the viewers/readers get involved with the story by wanting him to be punished. The only emotions that the audience is supposed to feel are anger and dislike, and that's what I felt reading the play.

Agamemnon

Agamemnon was an interesting play. It was definitely different from any of the modern plays I've seen in that the chorus has such a large part explaining and narrating. It seems like the play is more dependent on the chorus than on the actual characters to expound everything. The play seems very short, especially when you consider that no sooner does Cassandra get to Agamemnon's palace and realize the history of the place and her impending death, than it happens. She arrives and prophesizes her own death and Agamemnon's at the hand of Clytemnestra for revenge of the daughter sacrificed, then immediately goes into the palace and is killed. I felt a lot of pity for her since she knew what was going to happen. I didn't feel a lot of pity for Clytemnestra. Yes, Agamemnon killed her daughter, so I understand why she killed him for that, but it seems hypocritical that she also murders Cassandra because she was sleeping with her husband when she herself is friendly with Aegisthus.

Ramayana

The Ramayana was a more challenging read. I enjoyed the rhyme of the translation, but there was a lot of repetition that made it easy to lose sight of what was being said to begin with. That was one parallel that the Ramayana had with the Iliad - since both are in the epic style, there are many descriptions of the might or valor of the heroes. Both Ram and Achilles represent certain values ideal to their respective cultures. With Ram, he represents the ideal Hindu man. He is intelligent, wise, does whatever is right, listens to his people, and is a good man, ruler, and husband in general. Achilles, on the other hand, is brave, adventurous, and a good warrior as he searches for eternal glory. While he does have the tragic flaw of hubris, he still represents the ideal physical man of the time period the Iliad was written in. The major difference I found in reading both is the tone of the works. The Iliad is very much about Achilles' wrath and the consequences of Achilles' hubris. The Ramayana has a much more didactic tone where it is discussing how because Ram is good and kind and wise, he will overcome the evil Ravan. There are common themes of abduction and war in each, but the Ramayana seems to be a more stark good-and-evil tale intent on conveying the values and lifestyle the reader should follow. This is why it works well as a religious text and reference.

The Iliad Books 1 & 22

Books 1 and 22 of the Iliad were more interesting to read and definitely a truer portrayal of the anthropomorphisms of the Greek gods. The one thing that struck me as being a common trait of the gods was just how capricious they were. Hector is the son of the king of Troy; he is noble, a good warrior, a good husband and father, yet Zeus decides to let him die because he doesn't want a quarrel with his daughter Minerva, who wants Troy to fall. Athena herself is petty and jealous. She decides to avenge her losing a beauty contest by completely destroying the man who chose Aphrodite over her, as well as his entire city and his father's kingdom. I felt a lot of pity for Hector while reading of his death. He didn't do anything wrong, he was just trying to defend his city and protect his people and he ends up dying because someone up there felt like it.
Another thing that struck me while reading the Iliad is just how long winded everyone is. It seems like each character has the ability to extrapolate for hours and fight simultaneously. For example, Achilles' and Hector's exchange about what will be done with Hector's body seems like it went on long enough that maybe someone could've shot Achilles from the walls of Troy. A little unrealistic. Also, at the very end of Book 22, where Hector's wife is expounding upon the various trials and tribulations her fatherless child will now face, it seems a tad long winded for someone who just fainted and fell off a battlement. All in all, rather amusing.

Metamorphoses

Reading Metamorphoses Book 1 is an interesting departure from the previous two creation myths and flood stories. It is definitely different in the sense that the narrative as a whole does not follow the actions of one hero or group of people. In Book 1, there is a conglomeration of many smaller stories, including the creation of the earth, the flooding of the earth by Jove, the transformation of Daphne into a laurel, the transformation of Io into a heifer, and so on. The common theme of all the stories is, of course, metamorphosis. In the creation story, chaos transforms into an ordered world and in the flood story, the world full of cruel, unrighteous people transforms into a fresh, clean world inhabited by the two most righteous people. I found the creation story fascinating in the respect that it didn't discuss any god, but stressed Nature being the orderer. This seems like a pretty advanced concept for that period in time, and definitely looks like the precursor to the modern theory of evolution.

Anna Tsukroff

Gilgamesh and Genesis both contain very interesting versions of the Flood myth. There are many parallels between the two, such as detailing the specific dimensions of the craft and having the protagonist send out birds to test whether the waters had receded yet. The Gilgamesh story is very different from the Genesis story, however, in the light it displays the Gods in. There is only one God in the Genesis story, and he is an all-powerful vengeful (and later forgiving and fatherly) deity. The Gods in the Gilgamesh story are much more anthropomorphized in the respect that they tend to squabble and disagree with each other. They go behind each others' back to thwart the others' plans, such as how Ea told Utanapishtim to save himself and a few of each type of living being so they could survive the flood that Enlil brought about specifically to annihilate everyone and everything on Earth. The Gods are not focused on humanity in the Gilgamesh story, the Flood is not brought about by wickedness or cruelty as it is in the Genesis story. The catastrophe is released more as an arbitrary whim of Enlil than in response to anything mankind has done. Humans have much less control over their fate in that tale; the Gods do whatever they please, rather as the elements of nature they represent seem to do. Overall, I found the Gilgamesh story to be much more detailed and interesting than the Genesis story, though neither seem likely to have happened in the manner described in the myths. I definitely do think that these stories were based on some sort of catastrophic flood that happened in the fertile crescent region at some earlier point in time, though. There is actually scientific evidence that a flood of that catastrophic nature occurred around 5500 BCE when the Mediterranean Sea is theorized to have basically dumped into a freshwater lake that turned into the modern-day Black Sea. It would make sense for a number of different cultures to have Flood myths that have so many parallels originating from this event, since the flood was supposedly incredibly widespread and devastating.

Anna Tsukroff

The story of the Flood in Genesis has remained a powerful one throughout many years. This is due, in my opinion, to its simplicity and clarity. The story itself is concise and easily understood: God is an all-powerful being who decided to destroy all life on Earth on a whim because he felt men were not obeying him and were acting in a cruel, evil manner. The only one he saved, Noah, was saved because he was obeying God and therefore found favor with him. The message of the Flood is that actions have consequences. If you act in an evil manner, God will punish you. If you are good and righteous, God will reward you.

It is interesting that God has a change of heart after the Flood. He makes a covenant with Noah stating he'll never destroy all life on Earth again. There is a transition here from an angry, vengeful God to a more forgiving figure. I feel that at this point, God becomes more reliable in the eyes of the reader because he is saying that no matter what man does and how evil and corrupt he is, he will never kill everyone on Earth in a great catastrophe again. Personally, when I read this, this doesn't seem like a completely comforting statement. God is saying he won't kill humanity as a whole again, but he's not saying he won't kill or punish individuals. The message of understanding the effects and consequences of your actions still applies even through God's covenant with Noah.

What I find hypocritical about Noah, however, is the incident with his son Ham seeing him naked. It is never stated or even implied in the text that his son purposefully spies on him or really wants to see Noah naked. In fact, he does a nice thing by going and getting his brothers Shem and Japheth to cover his father up when he's too much in a drunken stupor to keep himself clothed. Instead of thanking his son for taking care of him, however, Noah curses his son and all of his son's descendants, the Canaanites. This seems a completely unforgiving and spiteful act for someone who is supposed to be so righteous.