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.