Final thoughts

Since we are reaching the end of the semester, I wanted to share my thoughts on the entirety of the class. I would first like to talk about the readings. Over all, they have been pretty interesting. I enjoyed starting out with Gilgamesh. It is definitely one of my favorite readings from this semester. It has action, conflict, and journeys that make it enjoyable. Although I don't like Gilgamesh as a person, Enkidu had a plethora of qualities that I like to see in my friends; such as loyalty, courage, and honesty. Their relationship allowed for many discussion points. Aside from Gilgamesh, my other favorite readings are Beowulf and Oedipus Rex. I think Beowulf is a given. It has a superb hero that goes out and beats monsters up because he wants to test his strength. Beowulf is the ultimate man; how can you not enjoy reading about such a character? Even though Oedipus is a little messed up, I enjoyed reading it. One of the reasons is because it was written very well. It actually made me feel for Oedipus; I actually felt bad for him at the end. He was just trying to be a good king and find out the truth so he could save his town from the plaque. He didn't listen to anyone, so he eventually he found out the truth. But even though he went down, he still saved his town; he was still an excellent king.

The one text that I enjoyed the least was Daoism. It is so complicated; I had no idea what I was reading for the majority. It was all very confusing. Watching The Matrix helped a little, but the comparison to salt helped me understand considerably more. Either way, I still didn't understand it very much. Maybe that means I actually understand it better than I think. Even though it brought up several discussion points, I couldn't get into it at all because it was too confusing for me. Every other text had some interesting parts, but they just didn't compare to the genius of Beowulf and Gilgamesh.

I have truly enjoyed this class. We read some great stories and we also read some not so good ones. However, the good readings greatly outweighed the ones that I didn't like so much. Our in class discussions have been pretty interesting. They allow for me to view the texts in ways that I didn't before class. They also clarify any misunderstandings that may have convinced myself of. Furthermore, they actually taught me that analyzing texts can be fun and exciting. In the beginning of the semester I just read the stories how they were written; I didn't put any thought into them. The later into the semester we got, the more thought I put behind our readings. I tried to interpret situations and actions in different ways than I normally would have thought. I don't know if I will continue to "read" movies, but either way I enjoyed reading deeper into the texts. This class has been extremely fun. I applaud you, Mr. B, for allowing me to have a different perspective on English this semester. Your passion for English was easily noticeable. Because of this, I too had more passion than for the texts that we read. Thank you for an excellent class.

Othello's flaw

Throughout the entire play, Othello is deceived by Iago. His plan is not foiled until the end of the play after Desdemona has been smothered. Emilia informs Othello that she was indeed the one who found the handkerchief and gave it to her husband. Othello goes mad with anger, wanting to kill his batman. Until the end of the play, Othello was a respectable man. He was well off, intelligent, and even admired by other people for his war strategies. Even though he believed his wife was cheating on him, he had no reason to murder her. He let his anger get the best of him; resulting in Iago's plan mostly succeeding. This is Othello's tragic flaw; not that he is so trusting, but that he lets his emotions get the best of him. Because he trusted everyone, he would have trusted his wife if he had just sat down and talked to her from the beginning. But instead, he let Iago fuel his anger; making Othello naive. Being trusting is not a bad thing, it's when that trust leads you to unthinkable solutions. Othello is just a good guy that let his batman control his every thought and actions. Emotions are what brought Othello to his doom.

Othello is definitely a trusting guy; he trusted everyone and anyone. While his trust in Iago led him to go crazy, his trust also would have allowed him to trust his wife and spoil Iago's plan. This obviously did not happen. Othello was a good man, but his emotions got the best of him; specifically anger. He was angry at Desdemona for supposedly cheating on him. Iago plagued his mind with lies and truths that let Othello piece together his own suspicions. Anger was not the only emotion that took control of Othello; it was also his passion. He was so passionate about getting revenge on his wife and Cassio that when he thought Iago had killed Cassio, he grew even more excited to kill Desdemona. Othello's passion led him to do the unthinkable; murder his wife and be proud of it. Othello is not the first person we have read about that let passion be his down fall. Oedipus also let his passion defeat him. He was so passionate about finding out the truth that he did not listen to the prophet and his wife when they said to stop his search. He wouldn't even listen when Tiresias said he was the killer. Othello kind of reminds me of Oedipus. They were both so passionate that neither of them would listen to the truth. When they found out the truth, they tried to make amends my physically wounding themselves (Othello succeeded). Oedipus and Othello have several differences as well.

Othello was a good guy that let his passion take control. He could have easily evaded the situation if he had confronted his wife or Emilia about the handkerchief from the beginning. Iago is a genius that used his skills to manipulate Othello. He is not a bad man, he was just controlled by one.

Othello: Act I

As of right now, this play is driven on Iago's lust for revenge. He is holding a grudge against Othello for one reason: Othello did not promote him to lieutenant. Instead, the responsibility was given to Cassio; someone who has never been in battle. Even at the beginning of the play, Iago stirs up trouble by convincing Brabanzio that Othello has stolen his daughter. Iago, as wise as he is, enlisted the service of Roderigo in his scheme. Iago plans on using Roderigo because he is wealthy and completely in love with Othello's wife, Desdemona. Iago has created his plot for revenge and he plans on using Othello's good nature to do so.

Iago and Othello have completely different characteristics. While both of them are intelligent, Iago is more cunning then Othello. He is also more prone to succumbing to his feelings. An example of this is when Iago is not promoted to the position. That is the entire reason that he wants revenge. He has just reason to be upset, but that doesn't give him the right to go on a rampage. He let his anger get the best of him, and by doing so, he might end up taking himself down along with Othello. Even though he can come up with this intricate, step-by-step plan, I think he is not as smart as he seems to be. His entire plan is to get revenge on Othello for not giving him the position. However, it seems that all he wanted was to be lieutenant. If this is the case, then I think it would have been easier to get rid of or kill Cassio. By doing so, he would have been the only option left for the position. On the other hand, Othello is an honorable, good natured man. The Duke holds him in high regards along with basically everyone else. This is blatantly obvious when Othello is telling the Duke his story about how he won Desdemona over. At he end, the Duke is persuaded into believing Othello and even says that his own daughter would fall for him. Othello is trusted by the Duke and he trusts everyone. He believes that people are naturally good; which makes Iago's plan much easier to carry out because Othello will never expect him.

Villains can either make a story better or break it down. As of right now Iago is definitely a villain that makes it better. He is really the only person that has done anything in the play. He started a riot to try and expose Othello for being a type of man that he is not. His plan is almost flawless (as is every villainous plot); there is only one person that knows Iago was the one that deceived the senator, Ricardo. If Ricardo continues to play a part in his plan, then all should end how Iago wants it to. If he does not, however, then Iago will suffer greatly. In this play, the villain overpowers the hero tremendously(for the first act at least); paving the way for tragedy.

The Thirteenth Warrior

The 13th warrior has many similarities with Beowulf; I'm not talking about the obvious ones such as names either. The first one that comes to mind is from one of the first scenes, funerals. Although there is not three funerals throughout the film, they definitely portray how Beowulf and people during his time viewed death. After the actual burial or cremation, the funeral is a celebration. No one mourns for the dead because they are comfortable with it and have excepted that it is the way of life. They celebrate the death of their king in both beginnings of Beowulf and The Thirteenth Warrior. The elaborate and exciting funerals show that the kings must have been brave and honorable to be celebrated by everyone. The same is for the Funeral of Beowulf and Buliwyf. Both of them have large celebrations for their death. Even though Buliwyf was not as superior or manly as Beowulf, he was just as respected as Beowulf was. He was the leader that they fell on to guide them throughout the movie. Another similarity that the movie shares with Beowulf is the battles.

Yes the movie still has a Grendel, his mother, and a dragon. I, however, do not find this to be the important part of the battles, but more of the number of battles. Beowulf is shaped around three different brawls. The first with Grendel, his mother, and then the dragon. In each battle, Beowulf equips himself accordingly; wearing no armor for Grendel but then gradually wearing more and more. Controversially, in the movie Buliwyf continues to wear less and less armor. There are also four battle scenes, but they take place over a period of three days (at least I think they do). Beowulf's three battles set the time period for the fighting scenes of the movie. This is important because it shows that the movie follows the same structure as the epic poem. Beginning and ending with a funeral also shows this.

Another similarity that I saw between the two is the importance of honor. When Beowulf arrives to help out Hrothgar, he is put on the spot. His awesomeness gets questioned because he lost the swimming race. Beowulf snaps back wittingly that he only lost because he killed all of the sea monsters in that area. He also asks what Unferth has done to make him eligible to mock him. Antonio has to do the same thing in The 13th Warrior (sort of). At first, he is being made fun of for being an outsider. Some of the other men bring up his mother. It is not until he talks back in their language that they are a little impressed with him, but not quite. Before they ride out the next day, he must prove that he is capable of riding a horse well. But to finally win every one over, he has to make a sword that suits him properly and use it in front of them. Honor is an important part of both Beowulf and the movie; most likely because they deal with the same era and people.

Beowulf's death

Even in his old age, Beowulf is able to take on and kill a dragon. Beowulf does not die from getting his throat bitten by the dragon, but instead poison from the bite undertakes him. For everything that he has done, this is a wimpy way to die. I don't understand how he can get his neck bit and not die, but mere poison kills him. There is only one explanation for this, I think Beowulf chose to die. He wanted to die with honor and getting killed in action was the only way to guarantee that. He had already killed sea monsters, Grendel, Grendel's mother, and now a dragon; his life was a never ending battle. He constantly proved to others that he was the mightiest. Beowulf was strong enough to fight off the poison, but he was smart enough to know that while he was alive, he would always have to prove his strength. So he did the inevitable; he died. By letting himself get conquered by a dragon (after he took it out), he got what he wanted. He was able to protect his people, but most importantly, he died with a lifetime's amount of honor. His funeral showed how brave and honorable he truly was. Yes, Beowulf died, but his death actually made him a more illustrious hero.

In our society, our heroes don't die. It is not so much that they can't die (most of them actually can), but that we don't want them to die. Does death make someone less manly or not a hero? I don't think so; actually, I think the complete opposite. I think that someone who dies protecting what he or she believes in is more of a hero than a character that doesn't die. Mel Gibson in Braveheart is a great example. Sir William Wallace rallied Scotland to defend itself against the king of England. He died fighting for freedom for his people; his death doesn't make him less of a hero, but more. If Wallace had lived, he may not have been able to gather everyone together to win the war. His death made the Scottish join forces and fight back the English. Because he was fighting for his people Wallace became a hero, but he became a legend because his death indirectly brought freedom.

When a hero dies, it is viewed as a weakness. This is only true for some situations; it depends on how he or she died. If the hero died fighting for his honor or to protect something, then it is not a weakness. It is a sign of strength because despite the odds, the hero kept on fighting. If he defeated the villain, then he would definitely be a hero, but he would be a bigger hero if he had died fighting. His death would show his courage and in that, he would be recognized. On the other hand, if a hero died because of old age, he would be considered less heroic than someone who died fighting. A hero is bound to be more memorable if he died for an honorable cause then simply dieing. This is the case for Beowulf; he died protecting his self image and people. His death helps us remember him as a brave, courageous man.

Beowulf

Beowulf is the ultimate man. He takes up several challenges to prove his strength and bravery. Even though he lost the swimming race to Breca (because he was killing the sea monsters), he still has confidence in his abilities. He then travels to Denmark to take on another challenge, Grendel. Beowulf decides to fight the monster without armor and weapons in order to make the duel more equal. This little feat shows that Beowulf is respectful to his opponents. He chooses to fight fair because it is more manly; he wouldn't be proving his strength if he were to fight unjustly. Despite Beowulf's strength, bravery, and admirable character, the one trait that assembles the complete man is his way with words.

Beowulf's articulate language makes him manly; people respect him because he speaks well. This is the one trait that made me ponder Beowulf's character. Because everything about him is manly, it implies that being able to speak well is a masculine trait. After realizing that this attribute makes Beowulf more respectable, I asked myself if this still applies to society today. Do we consider a man who can speak well more masculine than a man who can not? I think that it can be manly but it can also not be; it just depends. Have you ever listened to men that talk in circles just to make themselves sound intelligent even though they are not? That is not masculine; if anything it is aggravating. This even applies to politicians. Most of them are eloquent, but I wouldn't consider any of them manly. Why don't I consider them manly if they can speak well? The answer is simple, because they haven't done anything to prove their strength. All they are doing is talking; that is not masculine. However, it is completely different when a man has already proved his strength and is capable of sounding intelligent, such as Beowulf. Imagine seeing a strong, athletic man performing some kind of physical feat (like winning a race or fighting). You would probably think he was pretty manly, but you wouldn't consider him intelligent. Now imagine that you saw the same man render someone speechless with his eloquence. You would be quite surprised. Not only can he perform athletic feats, but he has intelligence as well. In this case, his ability to speak influences his manliness for the better.

The art of rhetoric is a manly attribute, but it depends on the situation. If a male speaks well but has no physical capabilities such as strength or bravery, he is not manly. He would be considered intelligent and a weak, coward. His ability to speak well doesn't contribute to his manliness, because eloquence alone does not make him a man. However, if a male is strong, brave, capable of physical achievements, and has a way with words, he is definitely manly. In fact, he is the ultimate man because he can fight and he is intelligent. Beowulf is the best example; he beats up monster and gains respect through his words. Hence, Beowulf is the ultimate man.

The wife of Bath

The wife of Bath is an interesting women. She has been married since she was 12 to five different men. Because of her experience with relationships, she affirms herself as an expert on marriage. She has been criticized many times for marrying five different people, but she believes it is not a sin. She says that several figures such as Abraham and Jacob had more than one wife, so why can't she have 5 husbands. The others disagree by saying that Jesus told a Samaritan women that her fifth husband was not her husband. She argues that no one knows what this means because men can only try to interpret what scriptures actually mean. Upon reading this, I could not help but imagine that this is what Chaucer thinks. If it is, I agree with him completely. If two people read the same passage in the Bible and gather different conclusions, which one is right? They could both argue their side, but nothing would come of it. They would still believe what they think the passage meant; their beliefs wouldn't change. Because of the different interpretations, it is difficult to prove a point. That is why I think Chaucer wants people to be open minded; because there might be other perceptions. While I agree with the wife of Bath's insight, I definitely don't agree with her relationships.

The wife of Bath states that three of her husbands were good and two of them were bad. The first three were good because they were rich, old, and submissive. When reminiscing, she laughs at all the anguish she put them through. She would accuse them of cheating and lie to them until they felt guilty. She would get whatever she wanted after they believed her. Also, she would tease them sexually until they promised her money. She is a controlling women in every aspect that brags about using her body and lies to get what she wanted. She considered her last two husbands bad because they were not submissive. They acted controlling and demanding and even used the same tricks that she did. Yet, she considers them bad but not herself. She thinks that she is an expert on marriage, but she never realizes that she is the complete opposite. If she says that her last two husbands are bad and they act just like her, then why doesn't she consider herself a bad wife? Relationships are built on trust and honesty, something that she never had with her husbands. She also never compromised with any of them; she just tried to control them. She considers herself an expert, but she only thinks about herself in the relationships. She is extremely selfish.

The wife of Bath is an intelligent women. She is extremely controlling and cunning; using any trick to get what she wants. She often lied to her husbands to make them suffer. She considers the three submissive ones as good and the others bad; indirectly accusing herself as a bad wife. The bad husbands were just like her; therefore making her a bad wife. She considers herself an expert on marriage, but she is wrong. She is only an expert at being selfish.

Fate

Does fate actually exist? This question is the reason that this topic is so interesting to discuss. Yes, we all have our opinion, but no one really knows. We can argue different points, but in the end they are still opinions and not factual. I like to believe that I am the one making the decisions, but I wouldn't say there is no fate. If I come to two different paths I can take in my life, which one will I choose? Do I go left or do I go right? I believe that each path leads to a different place. I am free to choose which direction to take; I don't think that the path for me has already been chosen. I do, however, believe that God knows which one I will choose. He knows that I will either choose left or right and he knows which path I will take the next time there is a fork in the road. This does not mean he has predisposed my fate. I have the choice to choose left or right. If I go right a consequence will occur whether it is good or bad and a different consequence will occur if I choose the left path. I believe that I make the decision, but God knows which path I will take. With this said, the entire idea of whether fate exists or not is difficult for me to comprehend. There are several examples of fate in literature and other forms of entertainment, but Oedipus shows it the best.

If fate exists, then Oedipus would not have been able to escape from his. The oracle said that he would kill his father and sleep with his mother; no matter what he did, he would fulfill this oracle. Laius decided to leave his son on a mountain top so he could not kill him. This obviously failed, but what would have happened if he had decided to let Oedipus live with them anyways? If fate exists then he would have killed his father and slept with his mother willingly instead of blindly. Perhaps he would have killed Laius out of pity or maybe jealousy. If fate does not exist, then things would have been completely different. Oedipus would have been able to stay with his mother and father and not fulfill that prophesy (that is unless he wanted to kill his dad and sleep with his mom, which would fulfill the prophesy anyways). Both Laius and Oedipus tried to get around fate but Oedipus ended up doing exactly what was prophesied; there was no loop hole in the oracle. If fate exists, then there is no possible way to get around it.

The idea of fate is a touchy subject. There have been many examples of fate and more are sure to come. Even so, no one can say for certain whether fate is real or not. It is more of an idea that some people think is true and others think it is false. If fate exists then it is impossible to get around it no matter what actions you may take. If it does not exist, then we are all making our own decisions and setting our own paths. Oedipus fell to his fate, but that doesn't necessarily mean it exists. If fate does exist however, I hope that my predestined path is the one that I want for myself.

Oedipus the king

So far I have not been able to decide if Oedipus is a good king. He has some good qualities and some bad ones. The one quality that makes him a good king is that he wants to save his kingdom and citizens from the plague. Even before he is confronted by the priest, he already sent Creon to the oracle to figure out what he must do to get rid of the plague. Creon says that the plague was caused because the murderer of the former king, Laius, was never found. Oedipus immediately decides to find him and sends for Tiresias to help in the search. Tiresias knows who the murderer is, but he refuses to tell the king and instead tells him to stop his search. Oedipus grows angry saying that the prophet himself is the murderer. This is just one of the qualities that makes Oedipus a bad king. He completely disregards Tiresias's advice who is a prophet of the gods. He sends Creon to the oracle for advice, but when he sends for the prophet he refuses to listen to him. Why would he listen to the oracle but not the prophet? Don't they both represent the gods. Oedipus may have hubris, but he also doesn't listen to people; which might be more of his downfall than hubris. When Oedipus is accusing the prophet, Tiresias tells the king that his "strength is in his truth," (I don't remember the exact quote) something that Oedipus does not have.

Truth is a quality that everyone should have, especially a king. Truth and honesty is the foundation for practically every relationship. If you don't trust someone you probably won't be friends, buy anything from them (especially if you are at a store), or even really like the person. That is because everyone wants people to be honest with them. When someone has lost that trust, it can be extremely difficult to gain it back. Hence every relationship is built on trust. Oedipus has no trust or honesty in his life. He does not trust the prophet when they are bickering and he doesn't trust Creon when he accuses him of conspiring against the previous king. Oedipus is not the only one in the story whom does not trust people. Laius and Jocasta were afraid of the revelation given to them. Because of this, they sent their son to death. This also made Jocasta disbelieve the gods. She no longer has faith in them and tells Oedipus of their lies. Oedipus trusts her, but only to an extent.

So far Oedipus is both a good and bad king. He has good intentions, but he goes about them all wrong. He refuses to listen to Tiresias's advice; instead going further into the search for the murderer. He accuses his brother-in-law of conspiracy and only lets it go when his wife confronts him. He wants to free his people and kingdom from the plague so much, that he lets his passion get the best of him. He doesn't think clearly and has no truth in his life. Despite all of this, I can not help but pity him for when he finds out the truth.

The Matrix

I am not exactly sure where to start. There was so much going on in the movie; I had difficulty following all of it. Despite my best efforts to read the film, I kept getting distracted by a few things. The first is Neo. He is suppose to be this master hacker and programmer, but he doesn't even know what simple computer terms mean. An example is when he finally makes it out of the matrix and into the real world. When they are connecting him to the program simulations, he is told they need to disconnect his output port (something along those lines, I don't remember the actual quote). It is amusing to me that he does not understand what that means. There are several other times that his lack of knowledge about basic computer terms bug me, but I am going to stop now because I could complain about this for a while. The other thing that distracted me was the matrix itself. It is a program that is so complicated that you have to read it through its code. While this is not a big deal, the code itself (the green lines going down the screens) made me laugh. It consists of numbers and letters; however, there were also Japanese and Chinese symbols among the other characters. This may seem like it has no relevance, but it relates to me. This is because I can see more of the Japanese culture influencing this film then I see Daoism in it. Though, I am not going to talk about this subject because it does not relate to anything we have read in class. Instead, I am going to talk about Neo as a hero.

Neo is not a typical hero. At first, he is willing to follow several instructions given to him by Trinity that lead him to take the red pill. When he finds out that he is suppose to be the one, he sort of rejects that idea. He doesn't want to be a hero because he does not believe in his abilities. This is even shown when he is fighting Morpheus. He doesn't think that he is capable of being faster and stronger, but he is eventually he gets there. I think that he becomes faster and stronger because Morpheus is pushing him and Neo just wants to hit him. When Morpheus is taken to be cracked, Neo wants to rescue him, not because he thinks he is the chosen one, but because he doesn't want to lose him. Also, when the oracle tells him that he is not the one, he is surprised but mostly upset because he doesn't know what to tell Morpheus; he doesn't want to disappoint him. These times are what makes Neo a hero. He doesn't want to be one, but he wants to make his friends happy and is willing to risk his life to get them back; he puts everyone else before him (well, at the end he does). Being brave, courageous, and caring are attributes of a hero.

Another part of the film that interested me is Morpheus. Morpheus is actually the Greek god of dreams. He can be apart of someone's dream, talk to them, and even wake them up. This is interesting because Morpheus is the one that wakes Neo up from his dream (it could be argued that Neo wakes himself up). Morpheus can also travel in and out of the dream. He shares several characteristics to that of the Greek god.

Daoism

I don't understand, or maybe I do; either way it is what it is. Daoism is extremely confusing. Almost every belief is contradictory to itself. If you think you understand it, you don't. So if you don't comprehend it, then you must understand (I know it pretty well then). This whole contradictory idea is mind boggling. It truly makes you think about everything in life. It puts perspective on emotions, attitudes, and actions. While I was reading the wiki-link, I noticed it said that yin and yang is often used to express some principles of Daoism. Yin and yang represents that all forces are interdependent of one another; you can't have one without the other. When I was reading this, I couldn't help but think of Newton's third law of motion: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This may not just apply to physics, it could apply to all aspects of life. If I try to understand Dao, then I won't be able to because the opposite force won't allow me to do so. I don't know if this is true because I don't understand what forces could be reacting with each other. If I make a decision, what force is reacting to the decision I just made? If I tried to figure this answer out, I would probably never find it; therefore proving that Dao relates to at least some matters in life (referring to if you don't understand than you actually do). With this said, I don't necessarily agree with Daoism, but I do think that some people would be better off trying to follow some of its teachings.

Like I said before, it puts perspective on emotions, attitudes, and actions. It makes all of these seem relevant to how you react to situations. If you are forced to move somewhere you don't want to, you will probably be angry. Your anger might make you hate where you move even more. Your actions and attitudes are based on your emotions. If you are angry, you might end up hating it; but if you follow Dao and "go with the flow," then you will end up having a happier attitude about the whole situation. If people have some of these characteristics, then they might be better off. This is because Dao follows Te, or in English the way or path. It doesn't matter what path you are on, as long as you follow it. Everyone has there own path, but eventually it leads to the same place.

Daoism is extremely confusing and sometimes contradictory. However, its belief about "going with the flow" is something that a plethora of people already follow. I think it is a good idea to an extent. If someone follows it completely, then he or she will just be somewhere without any goal to reach for. He or she will be waiting for something to happen. I don't agree with that, but I do believe that thinking in that aspect will develop a positive attitude in whomever does. Several motivational books talk about thinking positively. If you think positive, then you will be happier, but how can you think positively if you let situations bother you (such as moving)? Daoism is still confusing, but some of its teachings can be applied to life.

Sir Gawain: an Honorable Hero

Sir Gawain makes King Arthur's knights look good. Among all the other brave, courageous men, Gawain was the only one that would protect the king; he gave himself up so the king would not die. He is truly a man of loyalty and honor...or is he? Yes, he remains loyal to the king by taking his place in the game, but he doesn't always remain loyal throughout the story.

Upon Gawain's quest to reach the green knight, he runs into a castle. When he kindly asks if he can lodge there, he is granted permission. During his sojourn there, the lord of the castle wants to play a game. They agree that the lord will go out and hunt in the morning, while Gawain stays at the castle and rests. At the end of the day they will give each other what they have obtained. While the lord of the castle is out slaying vicious animals, Gawain is back at the castle kissing his wife (that just doesn't seem like a fair trade). Though, Gawain does remain loyal to the lord by giving him the kisses he received when he comes back from hunting. However, the third time they make this deal, Gawain conceals the girdle he was given; breaking his promise by doing so. This is not the only time that Gawain is not loyal. When the green knight is about to chop his head off, Gawain flinches (who wouldn't flinch). Seeing this, the green knight stops his weapon and makes fun of Gawain for being a coward. After hearing this, Gawain regains his strength and allows the green knight to continue. I bring these two scenes up because these are the two times that Sir Gawain does not remain loyal. However, these two scenes are the key to Gawain's honor.

Gawain's biggest accomplishment was not protecting the king, but instead uniting the king and his knights (even though he wouldn't have been able to unite them if he didn't take King Arthur's place). Some time after Gawain returned, every knight wore a girdle (uniting them as one). This represented the honor that Sir Gawain had, but how can he have such great honor when he broke his promise not once, but twice? The green knight forgave him for his sins, but Gawain did not forgive himself. This is what gave him his honor. If Gawain had thought he did nothing wrong, the green knight would have killed him. There is no honor in dieing a self-centered fool, but there is honor in living a man of your word.

Sir Gawain was one of two men in the court when the green knight interrupted the celebration; King Arthur being the other. He protected his king and stayed true to his word by going on a journey to find the green knight. He made a couple mistakes on his quest, but he admitted his wrong doings. If Gawain had made it back alive and had not admitted his faults, the knights of the court would not have honored him. They would have respected him for saving King Arthur's life, but they would not respect a man who was full of himself. Gawain is an honorable hero. He protects his king, admits when he is wrong, and stays loyal to his word. He is the knight that every other knight should look up to.

Shakuntala the play

The beginning of this play is extremely boring; the first four acts are not interesting at all. However, the title of the play interests me. Wikipedia states that the translation of the title is "The Recognition of Sakuntala." This can be taken two ways. The first is that this could be the title because the king, Dushyanta, is given a curse that makes him forget his bride. He then sees his royal ring and recognizes that she was indeed telling the truth; he remembers everything that happened between them. The other way that this can be interpreted is through a question: what has Shakuntala done that has deemed her worthy to be a recognizable figure? Well, she doesn't really do much (appanently women in general didn't do much during this time period). Despite this, she does have a couple redeemable qualities.

The first is that she protects her values. After the king and her declared their love for each other, the king tries to get with her. Even though they are in love, she does not sleep with him. She protects her values. This is recomemdable. Yes, every other girl was raised to protect her virtue, but how many of them would actually deny the king to do so. While reading this part, I could not help but think of Ann Boleyn. She also protects her virtue from King Henry VIII, while her sister, Mary Boleyn, immediately gives herself to the king. Ann was very cunning and only wanted to be made the queen, but she was able to do so while staying true to her virtue. There is just something about girls with virtue that make men go crazy over them (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you need to go watch The Other Boleyn Girl).

Another redeemable quality is that she has hope. Even after she was rejected by her husband, whom hasn't seen her or their son in years, she still has hope that he will return. This hope may be to help her cope with everything that happened, but I think it is because she still loves him. When she hears that her son's bracelet did not turn into a serpent upon being touched, she then sees that it was the king who touched it. When she sees him, she is not bitter, but instead happy to see him (remember, she still does not know that she was cursed). It is recomendable that she did not have resentment for him especially since she thought that he straight up rejected her. If these two were Romeo and Juliet, Shakuntala would have killed herself after being rejected. Instead, she decided to take care of their son and be hopeful that he would return.

At first glance I did not think Shakuntala was a figure worth recognizing, but upon further thought I have changed my opinion. She is a hero that sticks up for what she believes in; she protects her virtue and has hope and love for someone who has hurt her exponentially. She was a perfect woman during her time and she would still be considered a keeper today. The only difference is that she would have to do more than take care of plants (she would have the best garden though); she would need to go to school. "The Recognition of Sakuntala" is a great name for a play that recognizes a great woman.

The last tablets

After returning home from battle, Gilgamesh is welcomed by the goddess Ishtar. She wants to be his wife, but Gilgamesh does not appreciate her treatment of past relationships. I don't know why he rejected her; she is just like him. When he refused to become her husband, Ishtar ran home to her mother and father. Seeing how she is just as selfish as Gilgamesh, she wants Anu, her father, to send the bull of heaven to take revenge on the people. When he denies her, she threatens to kill off the entire population by opening the doors to the abyss. I only bring her up, because eventually Anu allows her to release the bull of heaven; which is indirectly the downfall of Enkidu.

When the bull ends up in Uruk, it opens up wells in the ground that sucks in 300 men; but when it tries to kill Enkidu, he climbs out and starts wrestling with it. Even though Gilgamesh is perfectly aware of what is happening (he was probably standing right next to them), he does nothing to help Enkidu; that is, until Enkidu subdues him. Why is it that Gilgamesh can only strike the winning blow? He doesn't do any of the hard part. He is still a coward unable to take action until someone else comes to his rescue (this time Enkidu wrestled the bull, last time Shamash captured Humbaba).Through his actions, Gilgamesh kills his best friend (indirectly of course).


Because the Bull of Heaven and Humbaba have been killed by Enkidu and Gilgamesh, the gods decide it is time for one of them to perish. This time Enkidu has a dream and he can understand it all by himself. After the Bickering and decision of the gods, Enkidu becomes ill. He curses the door and Shamhat, but he should be cursing Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh wanted to go kill Humbaba. Becuase they were successful, Ishtar wanted to marry Gilgamesh. Which leads in Gilgamesh and Enkidu slaying the bull of heaven. Finally, the gods make Enkidu ill. Enkidu does not curse his friend and he takes back everything that he already cursed, proving how amazing this man is. I won't get into detail, but what happens after Enkidu's death irritates me greatly.

For Gilgamesh to make his entire city mourn, including mountains, rivers, and forests (even the forest where Humbaba was killed?), over Enkidu proves that they were indeed great friends. It is also a little honorary, but he ruins everything by going into the forest. Gilgamesh has to be hurt from loosing his friend, but being afraid of his own death while Enkidu took it like a man is a kick in the face to Enkidu. He further disrespects him by wanting to live forever. Firstly, how can he want to live forever with all the torment and anguish that Enkidu's death is putting him through? Secondly, if Gilgamesh really cared about Enkidu, he wouldn't want to live forever. This is because when he dies, he will be able to see Enkidu again down in the netherworld.

Gilgamesh is still a fool. He is selfish and disrespectful to his friend Enkidu. After finishing, I asked myself why anyone would want to write an epic, or any other type of literature for that matter, on Gilgamesh. I have not come to a conclusion, but it was probably written to make Enkidu the real hero, that is if Gilgamesh was an actual person. All in all, the epic of Gilgamesh is pretty decent. It is a good (or bad) story that both makes me angry and kept me excited. It is an great story of two friends. That's what I think the goal of Gilgamesh really is; to teach people how to be a great friend such as Enkidu.

The first five tablets

Gilgamesh is a fool. He believes that because he is king he can do whatever he pleases. Taking newly married brides to bed on their wedding night proves this. Even though the other men are not as strong or wise as he is, Gilgamesh expects them to live up to his mighty name. He degrades them by beating them in tests of intelligence (I wonder if he is talented in chess) and strength. Even though he does all of this and more, it still seems that he is put on a pedestal. This could be because he is two-thirds god and one-third man. Which makes me wonder: if Gigamesh is two-thirds god then what does that make Enkidu? He is a creation of the gods, but that probably doesn't qualify him as one. He does however, have to be at least two-thirds god; since he can match the strength of Gilgamesh.

Gilgamesh has many dreams. Some of them about someone becoming a companion of his (Enkidu) and others about the forest beast Humbaba. I bring this up because it seems that his dreams tell the future. Although he can not interpret them for himself,  Enkidu and Ninsun (his mother) can. Another reason that I think Enkidu is a god is because he can interpret these dreams. Ninsun is a god and she can interpret them; but Gilgamesh is only two-thirds god and he can not. Since it seems that only full gods can translate dreams, Enkidu has to be a god. Although he could have made up those interpretations just to please Gilgamesh.

Another reason Gilgamesh is a fool is because he doesn't listen to anyone. When he wanted to go kill the forest beast for fame and glory, he was warned by the elders and Enkidu that he shouldn't go. Nonetheless, he ended up going with Enkidu anyways, for his own reasons of course. Even though it was his idea, Gilgamesh ends up getting scared when Humbaba insults and threatens them. If Enkidu hadn't rallied his spirits, Gilgamesh would have been slaughtered.  Gilgamesh is suppose to be intelligent, but in reality he is a fool. He pities the monster when Humbaba pleads for his life. He would have spared him if Enkidu, once again, had not talked some sense into him.

Gilgamesh is selfish. He oppresses his citizens for his amusement. He traveled to kill Humbaba for his own glory and fame. Even after Humbaba is killed (many thanks to Enkidu and the god Shamash) Gilgamesh only wants to return home to show everyone what he did. Enkidu chops down a giant tree so he can make a door for a temple out of it. Enkidu is going to thank the gods for helping capture Humbaba, while Gilgamesh is going to bask in his own glory.

Right now, Gilgamesh is a terrible hero; selfishness, relying on his strength, and stupidity will result in his downfall.  I can only hope that the true hero, Enkidu, will take his crown and kingdom away from him (this won't happen, but at least change him for the better).