The Purpose of Literature

After reading literature from a variety of different cultures and time periods over the course of this semester, I believe I have gained a better understanding of the purpose of literature. At the beginning of the course, my answer to the question would be very different. But now I believe the purpose of Literature is to explain the purpose of man and understand what happens to man after death. In almost every story there is a higher being or beings, a higher authority that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. The characters in the stories often have to make a decision as to whether they will comply with what the gods say to do and be content with their state. Or they can try to resist the higher authority. There will always be new literature because people will never find a concrete answer to these types of questions. There will never be a textbook that can say for a matter of fact, this is why you are here and this is where you go after you die and this is what you should do with your life. Many different religions try to answer these questions but of course nobody can come to agree upon one answer to these questions. Literature doesn't always come out and say that it is addressing man's dilemma but it a re-occuring underlying theme in almost every piece of literature. If we, as the reader, pay close attention to these underlying themes, we can gain a better of understanding of the works themselves as well as gaining insight to our lives. By piecing together different works from different cultures, all seeking to explain mans existence, I believe we can gain a better understanding of our humanity.

The relationships in King Lear

I found myself very interested in this week's reading. I was extremely interested in the punishing of Gloucester. Cornwall and Regan mercilessly gouged out Gloucester's eyes somewhat ironically for treason;  both Cornwall and Regan are both treasonous on the grounds that they have abandoned King Lear. The servants in the household start to finally realize how terrible the sisters and their husbands are when Cornwall is torturing Gloucester. One servant tells Cornwall to stop and that he will fight to the death before he sees Cornwall gouge out another one of Gloucester's eyes. Then at the end of the scene, two more servants also state their dislike for both of their masters. It seems as if this is a foreshadowing of the ruin of the sisters and their husbands. I certainly do hope there is a blood bath at the end of King Lear, like the end of Shakespeare's Hamlet, to avenge all the wrongs done. I also feel a great amount of sympathy for Gloucester and Edgar. They are both in very tough situations in this part of the story. Edgar has agreed to lead his father to the cliffs of Dover, where he will apparently jump off killing himself. The pain felt by Edgar in leading his blind father to his death is I'm sure almost unbearable.  Gloucester is also suffering greatly physically from his injuries but also mentally because he knows he has wrongfully outcast his faithful son Edgar. The bonds between parents and children have become even  more important at this point in the story. Shakespeare is definitely trying to make people think about those people that are closest to us in our life and highlight the fact that some people are only there for us when they can get something in return, while some people will be there for us no matter what (like Kent). I believe from reading King Lear we all get a little helpful hint to re-evaluate our friendships and bonds and prioritize those relationships based on how truthful and honest those people involved are to us.

King Lear

Communication...! So far King Lear has been full of characters who are very poor communicators and which has led to the very tangled and intriguing plot line in King Lear. First, to start the whole story off, Cordelia fails to communicate her love to her father effectively when the King is giving out the shares of his kingdom. She seems to be in some ways like Antigone, to proud to concede to others in order to work toward a compromise. Yes King Lear was just playing a sort of game to see how his daughters would react, but Cordelia doesn't play along, she comes back with a witty way of saying the truth and creating discord. If she had but communicated her love in different words, then she could be happily married enjoying a third of her fathers kingdom. Another instance of poor miscommunication can be seen in Edgar. Edgar learns from Edmund that his father is upset with him but he never communicates with his father to try to clarify his innocence. He simply takes Edmunds word for it and goes into hiding. It seems that Edgar could have avoided the whole problem if he had sent a letter or talked to Gloucester. Gloucester also conveys poor communication skills. He says whatever he wants whenever he feels like it, as apparent through his conversation with Kent at the beginning of the play concerning Edmund. The only one who seemingly has any sense and communicate efficiently is ironically the Fool. The Fool is the only one who seems to see the big picture and is able to talk some sense into Lear. He is not afraid to speak his mind and he says what he means, and based on the parts of the book I have read, it has kept him out of trouble as well. I definitely think that some of the other characters in King Lear would be alot better off if they followed the example of effective communication set by the Fool.

Sunjata

Alrighty welcome back for another edition of Chris' corner! This week I will be discussing the african folk tale Sunjata.
The thing that stuck out to me the most was the way in which the story was told. In Africa, there are men called griots who have the role of singing the local stories. In one way they are there for entertainment but they also were responsible for preserving many stories specefic to the African culture. In reading the text, it often seemed like the author was repeating his words. I found myself saying okay I get it, no need to repeat...But then I remembered that these words were being sung! In today's pop music, there is almost always a chorus, a few words or a phrase that is repeated in a song. I believe this is what the author, the griot, is doing when he repeats his words...he is making the story more melodious and pleasing to the ear.
Another thing that interested me was the character flaws in Sunjata. Two examples come to mind 1) Sunjata steals the strip of cloth that is worth one shilling and six pence from his brothers 2) He becomes prideful when he boasts that he will shoot the cotton tree and it will fall down if his mother was pregnant with him for seven years and never had a fright. Although Sunjata does show strong character qualities, such as confidence, wisdom, and leadership qualities, he does fall short in the two examples listed. These flaws allow the reader to relate with Sunjata a little bit more through his humanity. Ah one more thing that could be seen as a flaw...when he was a baby he refused to stand up because he was angry that he was denied the kingship! I mean come on, your really going to crawl around for seven years just because your pissed you didn't get to be king? Life's not fair Sunjata, get over it, get off your butt and make something of your life!

Genji

There were definitely some slow parts in The Tale of Genji...At times I really wish there had been a more affective way of communicating other than sending short two lined poems back and forth by way of messenger. At first it seemed mysterious and interesting but then it became boring and I just wanted to get on with the story.
The story picks back up when Genji meets up with the lower class woman. He has been talking to her for a long time and has been wavering the whole story as to whether or not he should pursue her. He questions his feelings and can't believe that he is attracted so much to her. At this point in the story the reader finally sees that Genji has the capability of having more than a superficial relationship with a woman. Even after he sleeps with another woman in the palace, he wakes up in the morning saying "Though loath to be taxed with seeking fresher blooms, I feel impelled to pluck this morning glory." Genji straight up tells her that he is looking for someone new and "fresh". This new person is the lower class woman, she is not amazingly beautiful and she is not that educated but she is something entirely different than all the other women Genji has been around, and Genji becomes greatly attracted to her.
I felt extreme sympathy for Genji when the girl that he loved tragically died. He felt that it was his fault that she died, because of the evil spirits of his dreams. After all the talk of not being able to find a woman that is worthy to be married in the beginning of the book, Genji finally finds a woman that he is pleased with and actually loves! Yet he doesn't ever really get to solidify this love and enjoy it...it is taken from him before he gets a chance to make something of it. I sympathize with Genji over the loss of loved ones, it is one of the hardest experiences we as humans have to face in this life. We cannot always control life though and like Genji we have to learn to move past our troubles even though we won't forget them.

Courtly Love

The love poetry we read from various poets from Spain and South France were very interesting works to read. They each had their own dinstinct views of love and the different aspect that contribute to what love really is. I think everyone can in some way or another relate to love, it is a topic that almost everyone has or will have at least some experience on the subject. It is one thing that we as human beings long for, to be loved by another with an burning passion. I also believe that we want to be able to show our love and faith and loyalty to another person, we as humans want to have that person who we can form a "spiritual union" with, as it says in The Dove's Necklace. The Dove's  Necklace tried to put into words the characteristics of love, and in some way try to define what true love looked like. It was interesting that Ibn Hazm had been through so much pain in his life, such as his the death of his father and his first love as well as his home being taken over by an opposing army, yet his heart was not hardened and he still was able to write a passionate love poem like the Dove's Necklace. My companion, I am going to make a vers that is refined also interested me because it wasn't talking of the same courtly love that was characteristic of the time. It was kind of funny that the man Guillaume IX was comparing his two different female lovers to two of his prized horses. After writing that work I'm sure no woman would ever to talk to him again, so it seems like Now when we see the meadows once again was an attempt to clear his name.

Thoughts on The Book of Margery Kempe

I found The Book of Margery Kempe to be an interesting read. Throughout the story I was left wondering, Is this woman looney? or is she really receiving some kind of visions/instruction from God. It seems that when she is possessed by demons and has to be locked away, that she could very easily be insane. However, I do believe that there can be demonic powers that can possess persons, so who knows, she really could have been possessed for a while. After she recovers from being possessed however, she doesn't seem to normalize any. Her personality and ideas seem to be literally all over the place. She wears extravagant clothes to be recognized and esteemed by the people living in her town, yet she becomes upset when others are just as respected as she is. She also randomly decides to have her own brewery and grain mill, which seems odd today, but think about how much more odd it would have been in that time for a woman! Im sure women of the day didn't go about starting their own businesses in order to make money, i feel like most men of that time would not have wanted their wives out trying to make money for the family. It was the man's job to bring in money for the family, not the woman's. Another part I found interesting was the withholding sex from her husband, which if God really did appear to her and tell her that she should refrain from having sex with her, it would seem to be contradicting what God says about sex in the Bible...Whether Margery really did have these visions or not is totally up to the reader to determine, however, the loyalty and determination to follow her beliefs is respectable regardless.

The Inferno

As I was reading the inferno, I tried to put myself in the shoes of Dante. Although I am not as old as Dante was when he wrote this work (middle age), I do feel as if sometimes I am lost in which direction I need to take with my life. In the beginning of the work, Dante is lost in a dark wood, not knowing which direction to take, before Virgil comes to attempt to show him the way. In order to show him the way, it has been decided that he needs to see the terrors of hell, and also pass through purgatory and eventually paradiso. In the first levels of hell, Dante is totally dependent on Virgil, he cannot make any decisions on his own, including moral ones. It is as if he is a child having to be taught the difference between right and wrong. As they get deeper and deeper into hell, Dante begins to realize/learn that the sinners should not be sympathized with for the sins they have committed against God are detestable.
One part that I found extremely interesting was when Vanni Fucci, who is in the seventh pouch of the eight circle for robbing a sacristy. This is a sin that is theoretically like stealing from God. Although this is a sin that is terrible as a reader I sympathize and say that Fucci could have had a reason he needed to steal, such as feeding his family or having money to survive. Is this one sin the reason he in hell? His character may be sympathized with right until the point that he curses heaven with an obscene guesture towards heaven. This shows that he is not sorry for his actions and although he is being tortured in hell, he would rather be there than in heaven which he despises. This one soul gives the reader in to the mind set of those in hell...do they all curse heaven, do they all not wish to take back the actions that put them there?

Is Rama really perfect?

In reading the second part of the Ramayana, I was surprised when I came to the part about Rama questioning the purity of Sita. The reason this was so surprising was that it showed a weakness on Rama's part. This weakness is trust. He does not trust Sita when she tells him that she has been pure while in captivity. It requires a rigorous test such as walking into fire in front of a great audience and also the gods before he will believe that she is pure. However it is somewhat unclear as to whether Rama really does not believe Sita or whether he is influenced by the watchful eyes of the public. It could be that he is so worried about how his marriage and the purity of his wife appears to the public, that he would rather please the crowd than accept the consequences of believing his wife. What do you think? Is Rama's one weakness his trouble believing others or is it his willingness to give into the beliefs of those around him?

  Either way, it is definitely a character flaw and a fault that conflicts with dharma. If we had not just learned that Rama himself is a incarnation of the god Vishnu then it would be a little easier to accept this flaw, but in this case it causes the reader to seriously question everything that Rama and dharma stand for. Can the gods choose to not follow dharma...? Or is it a misinterpretation of the story that is leading to the misconception that Rama has failed to follow dharma in not believing Sita? There are alot of loose ends in the story, especially considering after revealing this flaw, the story goes on to say that Rama lived  for thousands of years and the kingdom was very productive and wealthy. This would seem to indicate that although Rama failed his wife in a very crucial situation, he still all kinds of benefits as king. There seem to be no repercussions of this fault.

The comedic nature of The Ramayana

No disrespect to anyone who finds religious direction from this book, but this book literally had me laughing out loud at times. It reminds me somewhat of a comic strip story, or a story told by a small child. The spaceships, fighting vultures, flying mountains, and twenty-armed antagonists gave me a picture of something along the lines of a science fiction movie. What I found strange was that the first part of the book was actually pretty normal...until Rama got to the forest, then bizarre stuff started happening left and right. I don't know why the first part seemed fairly normal but as soon as the random stuff started happening, I kind of lost focus on the Ramayana and did not take the work seriously any longer. It was actually making me laugh...the part about the vulture fighting the golden amphibian spaceship...priceless. Oh and the fact that it goes through the whole fight scene, explaining how the vulture disarms the amphibian spaceship only to later say that the spaceship was somehow miraculously fixed and was able to fly Ravana and Sita away. Maybe its just me but I find no validity in this kind of story at all.

I do like to read and watch superhero/sci-fi movies but in order for me to take anything from a work that I can apply to my life, the setting has to be somewhat based in reality. It is understandable that people elevate the idea of Rama and dharma, but as far as this story actually happening, it is far from believable. I am not saying that this work is utterly ridiculous, it does have its place in literature but it is not a work that deserves to be taken too seriously. Anyways, I did find the story quite entertaining regardless if I was laughing or not.

Antigone

The story of Antigone is a quite interesting one that involves the question, when religious beliefs conflict with laws of society, what should be the appropriate response? In the story, Antigone is faced with the dilemma of obeying Creon's decree that Polynice's body shall not be buried or following her religious duties and give Polynices a proper burial. This is a tough question and one that has been dealt with for almost as long as civilization has been around. When people's religious views conflict with laws or orders of the government does that person have a right to disregard the rules of the government? Tough question huh... For example, during World War I, some Americans had religious beliefs that were at odds with the idea of killing e.t. ("Thou shall not kill"). These Americans were called conscientious objectors. During World War I, these people did not have a choice, either they entered the draft or they were thrown into jail. This definitely made it a tough decision whether religious beliefs held priority over government authority, especially being faced with a penalty such as being thrown into jail. (During World War II conscientious objector's were able to have the option of performing a non-combat duties such as cooking, machinery, medic etc). In Antigone's case, she feels that the gods' authority is to be obeyed at all costs and is ready to die for her beliefs. Creon is almost the complete opposite and believes that the laws of the government must be followed for the well being of society. Both have legitimate arguments but neither one are willing to make concessions to the other and work through the problem to try to find a solution. As mentioned in class, this stubbornness is perhaps rooted in the pride and egotism of both Creon and Antigone...both think they are right and refuse to try to see things from any different perspective. The issue of pride is very difficult to overcome especially in an argument, this is where the two characters fail to recognize that everyone would be better off if they laid their pride down and tried to work things out. Oh well...arguing makes for a better story i guess...

Gilgamesh's Travels

I have never written a blog before but I have always been interested in the concept. I feel like it is a great way for people to share their ideas and a great way for people to actually form their ideas as well. The topics of my conversation will be based upon literature reading done in ENGL 2200 at Auburn University. First up is the Epic of Gilgamesh. I found the story to be quiet interesting and pretty descriptive for a story that was preserved by oral tradition for a long time. I do question, however, the translation of the story. I do not pretend to be an expert on the art of translating 1,000's of year old works, but I do wonder how a very detailed and verbose story burgeoned out of, to my understanding, cuneiform scrawled on clay tablets...Regardless of the stories' authenticity, the themes of the story, the search for fame and eternal life are consistent with the longings of the human race since the beginning of time. Gilgamesh's quest for eternal life is an interesting one. Gilgamesh's quest is seeded in the loss of his friend and "brother" Enkidu. Repeatedly, Gilgamesh states that it is because of the loss of Enkidu that he cannot bear the thought of death. It seems as if the reality of death hits Gilgamesh when Enkidu dies. Before, Gilgamesh was not afraid of death, he went out to fight Humbaba and the Bull of Heaven without even really considering the danger and potential for death. After Enkidu dies however, he becomes wreckless and cannot bear the thought of dying so he sets out in the wilderness to obtain the secret to immortality. Even though i read the summary before I read the actual story, I still found myself rooting for Gilgamesh and thinking that he might actually gain eternal life. Although he fails in his attempt, in which every human does, his legacy becomes in a sense eternal. The story of the mighty king Gilgamesh and his doings still live on. In the end Gilgamesh learns to accept that he has been given a certain amount of time on the earth and that he should enjoy the many beautiful and enjoyable things that the world has to offer.