20th Century Lit: The Death of God and the Birth of the Modern Consciousness

20th Century Lit: The Death of God and the Birth of the Modern Consciousness

"God is dead." This quote is attributed to Nietzsche, existentialist philosopher. This line is echoed in Elie Wiesel's Night, in an episode where he witnesses a young boy being hanged on the gallows in a concentration camp--another onlooker says that God is hanging on the gallows there with him. This is the question that Elie deals with throughout his memoir--where is God?--and indeed a question that reverberated throughout the world in the 20th century. One hundred years marked by amazing advances and fantastic atrocities; the modern world--and the modern conception of "hero"--changed forever with the advent of modern warfare. To get a sense of how the modern consciousness changed, here is the entire Nietzsche quote in context:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

20th century literature reflects this sense of isolation, alienation and desperation within man. We find ourselves now, in the 21st century, a world with technology and standards of living that could never have been imagined even a century ago. Yet we also live in a world that's more fragile than ever; the world is once again "flat" with communication technology that brings us closer together, yet keeps us ironically impersonal. We accept conflict and terror(ism) as a part of our every-day lives. But the literature also reflected a sense of hope--in exploring ourselves, our minds, our realities--hope that we can rediscover that which allows us to survive, and indeed thrive, in the world that we've created. 

*   *   *
We end our journey through Western literature with the 20th-century piece Night, which describes Elie Wiesel's horrific experience surviving the Holocaust of World War II. For your consideration, I've done some research to supplement our reading. World War II and the Holocaust are immense historical events to try to tackle; for your final reflections, I'd like you to do a little outside reading to support our understanding of Night.
*   *   *

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
1) The Holocaust was not perpetrated by one individual. Hitler only took one life--his own. Nor did the Holocaust happen overnight; it was systematized over nearly a decade, and implicated hundreds and thousands of people who were involved. Estimates put the death toll of WWII at around 32 million people (take the population of San Jose and multiply by 30...), around 6 million of whom were killed in concentration camps, which manufactured wholesale death. Death on that scale was an institution, a pervasive way of thinking of a society. How could people come to believe that genocide was acceptable? Explore the following link, to get some background on the Nazi ideology, and what led to the Holocaust, and report on your findings. Try to help the class answer, "what led to this atrocity?"

• http://www.ushmm.org/education/foreducators/resource/

(Note: I have uploaded shorter versions of the articles on my website, which you can read online or download. Some articles are still many pages, so be careful about printing. <<https://sites.google.com/a/mitty.com/franklin/Home/world-literature/world-lit-resources>>)

2) How is it that genocides still occur in the world? Use the links below to research one of the following three contemporary holocausts and report on your findings. Also, fill out the corresponding worksheet, "Assessing Responsibility" and share during your report.

• Briefing paper, Rwanda: http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/alert/rwanda/contents/01-overview/
• Worksheet: http://www.ushmm.org/education/foreducators/prodev/beli/2003/staff03/pdf/assessment_rwanda.pdf
  

• Background information on Bosnia: http://www.friendsofbosnia.org/edu_bos.html
• Worksheet: http://www.ushmm.org/education/foreducators/prodev/beli/2003/staff03/pdf/assessment_balkan.pdf
  

• Briefing paper, Darfur: http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/alert/darfur/contents/01-overview/
• Worksheet: http://www.ushmm.org/education/foreducators/prodev/beli/2003/staff03/pdf/assessment_darfur.pdf 

Other helpful links:

• Committee on Conscience ("Responding to Genocide"): http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/
  

• Holocaust Encyclopedia: www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/ 

• What is genocide? http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007043

• Genocide Timeline: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007095

• What is genocide? http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/history/
  

• History and Concept of Genocide: http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/analysis/analysis_all.php?category=02-themes&topic=01-history 

ORAL PRESENTATIONS ("Blog Response") 11/30/09

For those of you who have to do an oral presentation in the last weeks who have NOT already posted to the blog:

You may only respond to Night from here on out. That means you can do a Reader's Response, or a Research Lite. I will be posting list of resources on the blog (and also on the webpage) to do some outside research for Night.

I know this eliminates an option that previous students had, but I'd like to focus our attention in the last two weeks on Night, since there is so much there to discuss. Once the research resources are posted, they will include leading questions, which you may use as a sort of "Blog Response," but I will not be posting a traditional blog on the story, as I don't think I could do justice to explaining all of WWII and the Holocaust.

If you have not yet presented, but you already posted your blog response, you'll be able to present on that. *Note: Anyone may respond to the two most recent blogs ("Enlightenment" and "19th C. Showdown") for extra credit.

~Mr. Franklin

19th Century Showdown: The Romantics and the Realists

19th Century Showdown: The Romantics and the Realists
(The subtitle was going to be "Romantics, Realists, Renaissance Writers, and Revolutionaries," but I thought that would be overkill to include in the blog...)

The 19th C. (1800-1900) in Europe marks an important shift in the development of 20th C. Western society, and what we now take for granted in the 21st Century. Before we delve into the debate between these two camps, we need to recall the significance of the Renaissance on the 19th C.

Yes, Shakespeare is largely to blame for most of what transpired in Europe in the 1900s! Think back to our lesson on Renaissance sonnets: we distinguished between the Petrachan idea--romantic, melodramatic, intensely feeling. Petrach likely would be considered "emo" (the sensitive kind, not the goth kind) if he were alive today. Think Romeo--he was the quintessential Petrarchan lover. He was ready to light himself on fire and throw himself into on-coming traffic (carriages, that is) over a girl who didn't even know he existed, whom he promptly forgot about after seeing Juliet for the first time; oh, and he marries this 13-year old girl less than 12 hours later. Insert emo stereotypes here.

Shakespeare, quite eloquently and respectfully, gave his view of love to contrast Petrarch. Think of the sonnet we read which begins, "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun." He goes on to describe what seems to be a quite unattractive woman whom he's nonetheless in love with. He was the more mature, more modern lover of the time. His teenage lover was the kid who'd been held back, who knew the ropes; the literary high school cougar-hunter. He gave a more "realistic" ideal of love to contrast Petrarch's, which was no doubt influenced by the Renaissance emphasis on chivalry and courtly love. Note, that they both dealt with the same topics--love, time, nature, regret--but approached them somewhat differently. Both seem to reach the conclusion of carpe diem--that life (and love) is fleeting, and that we should enjoy it while we can.

Enter the 19th Century writers. They took their cues from Petrarch and Shakespeare. They found themselves in the arena of two distinct but intertwined revolutions: the Industrial Revolution, and the political revolutions of the Americas, England, France, and darn near every other Western European country. They saw their world changing around them, and the glory of the Renaissance man became the agony of the urban man; cities developed, and so did slums. Nature became more and more distant to people who were forced to work and labor in unfit conditions to survive. The widening gap between rich and poor was bridged by a rising middle class who was increasingly unhappy with government. Artists became activists, and began using their art and literature to strive for change in society. Let's look at the different approaches of the two.

The Romantics
In this corner is the 19th C.'s version of a hippie: the Romantic writers wanted to break away from rules and established order, get back in touch with their feelings, and reconnect to nature. They valued simplicity and individuality, and sought spirituality in an increasingly secular world. They did not reject reason, but lobbied for the elevation of the imagination, and revolted against the restrictions imposed by classical aristocratic ideas. You can just see them barefoot in the woods, reading poetry to each other from recycled books while driving Prius's (or free-range horse-drawn buggies made from organic trees, or whatever). 

The Realists
In this corner is 19th C.'s version of the fist-pumping activist: the Realist writers sought to tether their experience by describing it in raw, factual detail, and hopefully therefore reforming it. They also had a great deal of concern over social institutions, but, of course, couldn't break away to their cabin in the woods because of their 12-hour days at the factory, six days a week. Rather than break away from the rules, they sought to to break the rules and the established order. They wrote mostly stories, novels and plays like Les Miserables, War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, and even Frankenstein to warn of the dangers of unbridled industrialization and unchecked political power. You can just see them drinking their black coffee and smoking their cigarettes and hating it, listening to underground radio, scoffing at the Romantics, and planning on overthrowing the government.

You'll notice that I've not ever mentioned that the Romantics and the Realists were against each other--this is not "Romantics vs. Realists," this is "Romantics and Realists." They both were looking at the same metaphorical coin, just from different proverbial sides. They both realized the negative affects of industrialism and the impact civil and political uprisings were having on their society; they just went about dealing with that reality in somewhat different ways. They were not very different at all, and indeed many authors of the period could be classified as both romantic and realist. What they did succeed in doing, though, was ushering a new typed of "hero" in the Western world (aha, yes, you knew we'd come back to that idea, right?). Heroes are no longer warriors or knights, nor just gentlemen (or noble ladies), explorers, or captains of industry. The "pen is mightier than the sword" idea had caught on. (Think American Revolution; though many of those who had a hand in it did fight, just as many contributed simply by writing and voicing their ideas.) Although, history is somewhat cyclical; the 20th century would see the return of the idea of "might makes right" with several international conflicts, which changed indelibly the idea of and perhaps the belief in the concept of "hero"...

*     *     *
QUESTION TO CONSIDER
*Note: You may NOT use this question as a "Blog Response" for your oral presentation, but you may respond to it for 1pt in the extra credit category.


Do you consider yourself more "romantic" or more "realist"? (Be aware that I've oversimplified the definitions in my entry, and be aware that, although I do not like hippies, I am a romantic at heart.) Do you see yourself as a lover or a fighter? In your response, try to define what you think of as "romantic" or "realist," and explain why you think you fit that definition.

 

Elucidating the Enlightenment

Elucidating the Enlightenment

The Enlightenment (1650-1800), also known as the "Age of Reason," continued the forward momentum of the Renaissance. It held the dual qualities of both valuing formal qualities and structure, and challenging authority (specifically of the Church). Remember that this is a world where God (or the gods) is no longer the center of the universe--man is. With the discovery of new scientific ideas, the European world took on a more "clock-work" feel; one of the prevalent ideas of the time was that everything was governed by rules that could be discovered. Isaac Newton and Renee Descartes, among others, saw a world that wasn't mysterious, but discernable; however, the Enlightenment thinkers didn't have the unbridled optimism of the Renaissance thinkers. They saw human ability as great, but also realized that the world often fell short of ideal standards.

Ideas such as rationalism and empiricism gave way to political ideologies as well. Because the universe was governed by unchanging laws, that meant man was as well; because we were born with a "tabula rasa" (blank slate) and must understand our world through experience as well as logic, that justifies man's basic equality. Thinkers like Hobbes, Rouseau, and Locke (who inspired America's "founding fathers") mostly agreed that good or bad, man's nature was affected (and mostly corrupted) by society and social institutions. Artists joined in on that thinking; art and literature began to not just reflect society, but offer social commentary on it, and then criticize it... and then challenge it. Just as the Renaissance thinkers challenged the Church and God, the Enlightenment thinkers began challenging the government and social institutions. These thinkers set the stage for the "revolutionary fever" that was about to boil over, that would change the Western world more than the Plague and H1N1 combined. Technological advancement and political upheaval in Western Europe and the Americas set the agenda for the next two centuries, setting the foundations for discourse in the 20th and 21st centuries...

*      *     *
QUESTION TO CONSIDER:
Do you think society has a positive or negative effect on individuals? On communities? Why? You should, of course, first explain whether you think human nature is basically good, selfless, or basically bad, selfish. Are our biological urges pushing us to the preservation of self or others, and how does society impact that? Are we ruined or saved by society? Feel free to speculate; you can come up with an answer that's somewhere in the middle.

*Note: You may NOT use this question as a "Blog Response" for your oral presentation, but you may respond to it for 1pt in the extra credit category.

The Impossible Dream: Mediocrity in Times of Meritocracy

As we read Don Quixote, remember our focus for this unit: the Middle Ages and Renaissance are the link between the Classical era and the Modern era. This period of more than a thousand years helps us understand how the Western world (and the Western Ideal) developed into what it is today. Here's a short recap of what we've discovered so far about the hero idea:

Greco-Roman Hero: More warrior than leader, the idea of heroism in classical literature revolved around societal values of excellence, pride, and property. The hero is tragic and achieves his status through heroic deeds and adventures; his fate seems out of his hands, and his end is usually dismal. Examples: Oedipus, Achilles, Hector

Medieval Hero: The hero in the Middle Ages is largely transformed by a shift from polytheistic ideas of religion to a monotheistic religion--Christianity--which became the main source of power and authority in society. The hero embodied decorum and loyalty, and then chivalry. His allegiance shifted from his lord to his lady; although his journey was marked by hardships, he usually had a reward (even if it was only in the afterlife). Examples: Roland, Knight (from "Wife of Bath")

Renaissance Hero: The hero now looks quite different; we don't see him in the midst of physical battles, but emotional, mental and spiritual battles. Therefore his journey is also a bit different. It may sound like an inspirational card from Hallmark, but the their goals are really about the journey, not the destination. Success or reward, then, takes on a much less physical form.  Examples: Dante, Federigo

Enter Don Quixote, the Renaissance "hero." I use my quotation marks here, because there is some debate to be had about whether or not Quixote is in fact heroic. Let's look at his track record: He's old, poor, out of his mind... and he gets everything wrong. He dies a lonely and broken man, but only after he's been literally forced to give up his dreams. And what dreams he had; he aimed high, and insisted on upholding an outdated code of chivalry in a world what didn't care to be heroic. This leads to the question: does Don Quixote get an "A" for effort? Is it okay that he tried his best, that he kept on trying, that he went down fighting? Or does all that matter is the fact that he fails?

Let's try to make this more relevant to us: You, as high school students, exist in a culture of meritocracy. In other words, you are constantly being judged and are constantly competing; winning isn't the only thing, it's everything. You've got to have the GPA, got to play the sport, got to do the service hours, got to score high on SAT's, all so you can get into a good college and get a good job and have a good life. There is an incredible amount of pressure on you to achieve. Unfortunately, this pressure to achieve is sometimes at odds with your actual growth; if the highest concern is the grade (or the points) and not the learning, then you might cut corners. If the highest concern is the win and not the development, then you might take steroids. When average doesn't cut it and all that matters is the end result, then the value of the steps in the process start to diminish. If you don't have a 4.something, you aren't worth mentioning. No "A's" for effort; a fail is a fail. Don Quixote's world doesn't seem quite so far away, now does it?

Miguel de Cervantes surrounded Don Quixote with people who ridiculed him because he dreamed big but simply wasn't good enough. And although we laugh at him, in the end we may pity him, as facing the reality of his own mediocrity actually leads Quixote to his death. In our case, life isn't quite as tragic, but when we constantly hold ourselves up to the standard of others, it can feel like jousting against windmills. In a world of 4.something GPA's, all-star athletics... how does the average person feel "heroic"? I tell you in class that the "points" don't matter, that you will wake up in 20 years and have absolutely no memory of that 5-point homework assignment you languished over; but by then, of course, you may be focused on a very different kind of "point"...

QUESTION TO CONSIDER:
(Just one question)

1) Reflect on the questions embedded in the blog: Do you agree or disagree that our society is based, for better or worse, on "winning"? Is competition a good thing or a bad thing? To anchor this to the text, is the character Don Quixote sympathetic, or pathetic? In other words, do we praise him for pursuing his ambitions, or do we criticize him for being unrealistic?

Luck Be a Lady to Knight: A View of Women in Western Lit

The Renaissance is a period of about 250 years in Western Civilization that marks the end of what we call the Middle Ages. It is the era of European culture that saw the death of feudalism and the growth of nationalism. It witnessed the end of the unilateral power of the church and the beginning of the modern nation-state. And yet is was a "rebirth" in several important ways: First, it was the rebirth of classic Greek and Roman ideas. The rediscovery of ancient texts (and the growth in literacy) fueled the Renaissance thinkers. Second, it was the rebirth of interest in the physical world; while Medieval Europeans were largely concerned with the afterlife, Renaissance thinkers turned their attention to the way the world and nature functioned. This, in turn, gave rise to a third rebirth in interest in the sciences and humanities, which lead to drastic technological advances and geographic discoveries. The broadening of the Renaissance man's world--indeed, the shifting focus away from God to man--is perhaps the single most significant "rebirth," placing man at the center of his own universe.

Europe during the Renaissance was still, then, a "man's world;" as we look at our next frame story, Boccaccio's Tale of the Falcon, we are reminded of themes brought up by Chaucer, and must also be conscious that we are still looking at a view of women through the eyes of men. To give some background on the importance of Boccaccio's work: he set out to authentically represent the Renaissance confidence in human ability and delight in the diversity of human experience. His overriding theme asserts throughout his hundred tales that a truly noble individual must accept the consequences of his actions and confine his desire to what is humanly possible. In that, though, he insists that what is humanly possible is a usually a great deal, and that we can often overcome our fortune or learn to exploit it.

Boccaccio is quite sympathetic and understanding towards human aspirations and emotions. He creates a "hero," Federigo, who is sympathetic and who we can relate to. But what about the woman in the tale, Mona; although we can maybe relate to her paternal motivations, is she sympathetic? Do we pity her? Despite her desire to save her son, do we approve of her methods of obtaining the falcon? What is being said about Renaissance women here?

It seems that there are, at least, two ways we can read the women we've encountered in the the literature we've covered thus far: they are either getting a bad rap, or they are being (somewhat) accurately portrayed. Let's look at the roster:

• Jocasta. She was actually a pretty good mom to her husband, Oedipus, once she found out that he was her son. Ignore the fact that she sent her infant son to die in the wilderness based on a prophecy; that's how the Greek's rolled. You don't mess with the prophecies. You do what you have to do, or risk the wrath of the gods. 

• Helen (of Sparta). Okay, no way to spin this one positively; she single-handedly led to the 10-year conflict, the Trojan War. But she did it for love (right?). Ignore the fact that she was married at the time; that's how the Greek's rolled. You don't mess with the will of the gods, or...  well, you get the picture.
  

• Trojan Women. We get just snippets of other women connected to the Trojan War--Hector's mother and wife, Achille's slave-girls, even the goddesses who intervene on the side of the Spartans (Hera, Athena, Thetis). Maybe we don't get enough from them to draw any conclusions...

• Roland's Wife. Hmm, all we know is she's the reason why Ganelon hates Roland so much and sets him up for the big fall. She's not even a character in the story, and she's still causing problems...

• Chaucer's Angels. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) We already discussed last blog the various women Chaucer depicts in his Cantebury Tales. Each of them really represents a one-dimensional quality of women; taken together, maybe they give us a complete picture of what Chaucer thought of the women of his day. But, again, we are stuck looking through Chaucer's eyes. 

• Dante's Angel. All we know of Beatrice in real life is that he loved her but was never really able to pull off a relationship with her. In the story, she is the one who sends Virgil to rescue him and join her in the Mount of Joy, Heaven. She serves as a beacon to him, although we never see her in the story, and in some ways is responsible for Dante's transformation (or, at least, his journey). 

We have quite a character to round out the list: the wealthy and wily Mona. This collection of women gives us quite a bit to discuss in terms of the role of women in society and marriage...

*      *      *
CRITICAL QUESTIONS

1) Think about the questions from the seminar prep (p. 26-27 in the packet); what are the most important traits you (personally) look for in a significant other? As a follow up question, think back to the "Wife of Bath" interviews; what do you think causes relationships to succeed or fail? (Answer both.)

2) Think about the female figures we've encountered in the literature we've read thus far; which character do you relate with most? (Okay, fellas--you can answer this question also. Which character do you relate to; in other words, which one makes the most sense to you?) Is there a female character we've read that gives us a depiction of women that's actually close to reality? Specifically, what is your judgment of Mona?

3) Think about the following statements, and consider the response by the "experts." What do you think about these statements? What do you think about the expert opinions? Choose two statements to respond to:

a. Play Hard to Get
Sam Yagan, dating-website cofounder: Playing hard to get starts the relationship off on a deceptive foot. If you want your relationship to be based on trust, honesty, and communication, why would you begin it like that?

Greg Behrendt, coauthor of He’s Just Not That Into You: You shouldn’t play hard to get; you should be hard to get, because your life is so busy and fulfilling. My wife and I call it being a MOD―a moving object of desire.

b. Your Spouse Shouldn’t Be Your Best Friend
Pepper Schwartz, sociologist: I agree. I think you’re asking a lot of your marriage to have the level of confidentiality, truthfulness, and disclosure that a best friendship has. Your marriage can fulfill only so many roles.

Barbara De Angelis, personal-development expert: I disagree. If your spouse isn’t your best friend, then what is he? I think it’s important that you not only love him but like him a lot, too.

John Gray, author of Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus: I have no problem with partners who are best friends, but you should have other close friends to confide in as well―especially when you are having relationship difficulties and need time away from your spouse. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

c. You Can Learn to Love Someone
Judy Kuriansky, sex therapist: That’s true, depending on how you define love. You may not have the love-at-first-sight kind of love, but the deep companion kind of love―in terms of trusting each other and being a team―can develop over time.

Behrendt: No, that sounds like settling. I don’t believe in settling, because it’s not fair to the person you’re with or yourself. It’s not like settling on an apartment you don’t love but can live with.


d. There Is Such a Thing As Love at First Sight
Ellen Wachtel, couples therapist: False. Often it takes time for love to develop. For some people, physical chemistry plays such a big role at the outset that it is mistaken for love.

Schwartz: It’s a romantic story when it works out, but you don’t hear about the relationships that end badly. Relationships start slow and build; they aren’t necessarily wonderful from the start.

Howard J. Markman, psychologist: You’ll quickly know if you’re attracted to each other, but not if you’re compatible or fit to stick together through tough times.

e.The Way to a Man’s Heart Is Through His Stomach
De Angelis: The way to a man’s heart is through his heart. Men want a woman who is going to be a great friend and companion―and if they have to order takeout, so be it!

Kuriansky: It’s true if he loves food, but that part about having to feed the needs of his heart is true, too. Still, don’t lose sight of your own needs. For a relationship to be successful, both partners need to feel pleased and fulfilled.

Gray: You’re off by about six inches. Sex is the direct way to a man’s heart.

Mr. Franklin, teacher extraordinaire: The way to a man's heart is through his rib-cage.

Go to Hell: Understanding Dante's View of the Inferno

Dante's Inferno stands among Western literature as one of the great masterpieces, and for very good reason: Dante did a feat of poetic genius in creating such an eloquent poem in vernacular (what we could consider "street" language--we, of course, have a hard time seeing this in the translations!). Perhaps more lasting is Dante's impact on the Western view of Hell. The idea of hell as a place of fiery torments with imps carrying pitchforks is popular largely because of Dante's imaginative descriptions. (PS--Have you ever wondered why they're carrying pitchforks? The Medieval people created some pretty gruesome torture devices; being chased by a pitchfork seems like hell for a farmer!) The Inferno is an allegory, which means just about everything symbolizes something. So, without further ado, here are some things to understand about Dante's view of hell:

*   *   *

1) STRUCTURE and SYMBOLS. Dante sets up hell on the principle of inverse relationships. Heaven for him was on top of a mountain (of joy), so hell for him is the inverse (a cone of concentric rings, a pit of despair), the worst sinners being at the bottom, the furthest from God's love. The law of hell is symbolic retribution, or contrapasso--as they sinned, so are they punished. Each ring has its own sin and punishment (the contrapasso, which we'll see later), and the sins are further divided into categories:

• Sins of the She-Wolf. Sins of Incontinence, or lack of self-control or restraint--sins of passion, emotion, and self-gratification. These are the first sorts of sins Dante encounters in the Inferno, but it is the last and most vicious of the animals he encounters in the Dark Wood... more on that later. 
• Sins of the Lion. Sins of Violence and Ambition. These include sins such as wrath, but also gluttony and sullenness. This is the ring where we get to see what we expect from hell--not a circus ring, but a boxing ring. This is where Jerry Springer-style fighting happens. 
• Sins of the Leopard. Sins of Malice and Fraud. These are sins of the intellect, unlike the previous sins, which are of the heart and emotions. Dante puts these further down the Inferno because they involved premeditation and intention, people hurting those they had an intimate relationship with, through betrayal or backstabbing. 

This is Dante's moral geography; aside from literally creating a map of hell, he also ranks and values the different sins and sinners he populates hell with. Moreover, his system of justice is the contrapasso, which is the relationship between the sin and the punishment. People that were flakey in life (opportunists) have to chase a flag flapping in the wind. People that were driven by their passions are whipped in a whirlwind. People who betrayed their loved ones are frozen in ice (huh? Okay, that one needs some explanation--check the introduction to Canto 32, which you can find on the class website!). 

Now, Dante (the character, not the author) finds the She-Wolf the most difficult, nay, impossible to pass. Think about what Dante (the author, not the character) was going through; he was suffering the exile from his beloved country and the loss of his love, Beatrice.  He was in a depression that kept him from seeing the light of God--no wonder this was the most difficult thing for him to face. There's one more thing to focus on, which connects to this...

2) THE RESPONSE. As Dante moves through the Inferno, his response to the sinners changes. This is the transformative journey motif, and this is the medieval spin on that topic: he achieves his enlightenment (and thereby works out his salvation) as he goes through the journey, not when he reaches the end. Remember the sin he had the most trouble with (She-Wolf)--well, these are the sinners he is the most sympathetic to. Not only does he give them the lightest punishment (Paolo and Francesca, floating together for eternity--aww), BUT he also pities them when he encounters them. He swoons (faints) because he is so overcome by their love and the fright of it all. Talk about a drama queen. By the time he gets down to the bottom, he hates the sinners, and relishes seeing them in torment, and doesn't hesitate to kick a few in the frozen face right before he hops on Satan to climb towards the exit. Change of mind, indeed. Thus, the first part of his journey--the recognition of sin--allows him to put sin in its proper place, so he can be open to redemption and the love of God.

3. THE PARADOX. I left this one un-bolded because it's probably the most touchy, and we won't have time to discuss this much in class. Dante sets up an interesting paradox: he believes the people in hell deserve to be there because they desire to be there (check Canto 3 line 123, and Canto 5 line 8). Hell, and therefore Sin, is what the damned really wish for--it is their actual and deliberate choice, for divine grace is denied to none who wish for it in their hearts. The damned must actively turn from and reject God to be here, so they clamor for their judgment and their punishment. Do we buy this? Here's the second can of worms: according to the sign above hell, God created hell (not the devil), and He created it even before He created man. In other words (or, in Dante's words), loving, merciful God created this terrible place in preparation for people before He created man, knowing that some would suffer the torments for eternity. This is a theological debate that is delicate, and I don't have an answer to it (so I won't be posing any questions about it)--just food for thought.

*  *  *

Keep these things in mind as we read and prepare to write: Dante's system of justice seems like the "eye-for-an-eye" system of the Old Testament (angry God), as opposed to the unmerited grace of Christ int he New Testament (merciful God). What do we think of his system and set-up of Hell? Also, think of Dante's transformation through his journey; does he qualify as a hero? Remember the shift we're seeing from the Classic (Greek) to the Medieval; would we consider Dante a hero even with the new standards?

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER/CRITICAL RESPONSE:

1) Do you agree with Dante in how he rates the sinners? He places people who lie further down than people who murder and rape. He's certainly got a point to make, but did he get it right? If so, why do you agree with him? If not, why do you disagree, and how would you place the sinners?

2) What is the worst sin imaginable? Or, what is a  sin that's not so bad, but that you'd like to see punished? Imagine that Dante and Virgil are about to enter a new circle of hell. People in this circle have all committed the same sin. Decide what sin they have committed and what this particular circle of hell is like. Also decide what their punishment is (remember, it should fit the crime). Be vivid in your description, like Dante, and include an encounter or conversation he has with someone there. Include the names and labels just like we find in our book. With your write-up, include an illustration!

3) What is your idea of hell? Create and describe a rough sketch of your Inferno. Who would be your guide? What would you encounter in life that gave you a preview of the afterlife (ie, like the three animals Dante encounters)? Which sins would you have the hardest time overcoming, or the most sympathy for? How would your hell be shaped, and how would it function? Who would we find there, and what would be going on? This can be less detailed than #2, but should be a bit more broad to encompass the big picture. Include a sketch on your write-up!

4) What would Dante's Inferno look like today? Take the basic structure of the Inferno, and populate it with people who have lived since Dante's time. You may also include people that are living (as Dante did), though you may want to be cautious about including your "frenemies." Focus your description on the parts of the Inferno that we read in class (Cantos 3, 5, 33, 34) AND the circle you're reading for your group presentation.

The View of Women in "The Wife of Bath's Tale"

The View of Women in "The Wife of Bath's Tale"

Chaucer's Canterbury Tales is an incredible piece of literature not just because of what it did for the English language (making it legit), but because of the themes and topics it explores. Chaucer not only gave a language to the illiterate of medieval England, he gave them a voice; he wrote from the perspective of people who previously had no voice in literature, people from all levels and walks of the feudal society. "The Wife of Bath's Tale" is one of the more well-known of his tales, perhaps because it deals with one of the oldest of literary and human themes--the relationship between men and women.

Women did not have equal standing to men in medieval society, so it's notable that Chaucer writes in the voice of a woman--and quite a woman at that--critiquing the treatment of women by men. And the critique of the treatment of women by men was by a man, which makes him an early feminist...maybe. There are at least three levels to consider:

1) The Women of the Tale. In the story, we encounter four women: the nameless maiden, who is raped by the knight; the queen, who offers him his life in exchange to answering the question of what women want; and the old hag, the fairy who gives him the final trial and his final reward. The fourth "woman" in the tale is the group of women the knight asks the question to, who offer him a variety of answers, some noble, some shallow. To contrast, the only men in the story are the knight, who is clearly not adherent to the code of chivalry, and whose redemption at the end of the story is questionable; and the king, who is merciless in condemning the knight's actions, and only relents at the queen's behest. All of these characters are, for us, snapshots of medieval societal views, but for Chaucer, they were the predominant opinions of the day.

2) The Wife. Chaucer offers a description of the "fifth" woman of the tale in the general prologue to the Tales (I read just the beginning to you in class in Middle Englishe), and she (the Wife) also gives us some important info about herself in "her" prologue to her own tale (you get just a snippet of this in the background article in the textbook, right before the reading selection). Well, we don't get most of this information in the textbook, so here's a synopsis:

The Wife, whose name is Alison or Alice, is described as "larger than life" with "broad hips, a big butt, a hat as big as a house"... and a mouth to match. With a red face, red stockings, and a gap between her teeth, she matches the medieval stereotype of a "lustful person." She has had many husbands, and has acquired a considerable wealth in the process. She also refers often to how she dominated her many husbands in different ways, a theme that of course comes up in the story.

3) The Chaucer. Chaucer held many positions in life, and therefore drew from personal experience to write many of his tales. However, he also drew from societal stereotypes in characterizing many of his characters, which he does in great detail throughout the work. What's interesting in taking on the voice of the Wife is that he is simultaneously using stereotypes of women, but also criticizing the unequal status of women in society. He is, in some ways, advocating on behalf of women who may not have had a voice; he is still a man, though, and so his vocalization of the desires of women are ultimately just what a man thinks women want. That's the one are of his writing that does not reflect his personal experience...

***
So, looking that these three levels of discourse on women, here are a few CRITICAL QUESTIONS to consider:

* Is there a fair portrayal of women on any level of the story? Does Chaucer get it right, or is his portrayal inherently flawed because, after all, he's just a man? Address each of the 5 women depicted in the story.

* Here's one from class: Think about the end of the story--the man concedes, but still gets the pretty girl. Is his redemption complete? Do we buy this? Another way of thinking of it is this: there are actually two trials the knight goes through. First, he must find the answer to the queen's question to make up for raping the maiden. He does go about it the right way--he asks a bunch of women, and one of them eventually gives him the right answer--but does this satisfy our need for justice? Does this offer retribution for the rape of the maiden? The second trial the man goes through is in answering the old hag's ultimatum: he concedes in giving her the mastery, and he gets the "prize" for passing the test. Are we satisfied with this ending? Does he really wish her his master, or his equal, or does he simply want to shut her up? Address whether Chaucer offers the man a complete, fulfilling redemption.

* Also from class: The more things change, the more they remain the same. Chaucer's Tales were composed near the end of the 14th century; nearly 600 years later, has anything changed about the role of men and women, and the interaction between them (well, clearly some things have changed--dudes aren't rolling up on horses raping maidens any more, but that's maybe only because we don't use horses for transportation any more...)? Does Chaucer hit on a truth about the nature of women and men in society, or are his ideas outdated and irrelevant? Compare Chaucer's views to contemporary views on women and men.

Transitioning from the Classic Hero to the Medieval Hero

Transitioning from the Classic Hero to the Medieval Hero

"The Song of Roland" is an important piece in helping us understand the movement from the classic Greek epic/tragic hero to the hero we see in the literature of the Middle Ages. Many of the stories we read will place the protagonists in situations in which fighting or warrior skill alone will not solve their problems, nor bring them glory. The world view changes when the Roman outlook gives way to the Holy Roman outlook--when we move to a Christian outlook, in other words. There are a couple of important distinctions to note in this transition:

1) The shift in values creates a shift in conduct. Think about it this way: when what was important to people changed, their goals and objectives in life changed, and therefore they changed their behavior. The classic hero was motivated by wealth, trophies, and glory; therefore, honor and valor in battle would help the hero achieve those. The bigger and more valiant the victory, the larger the reward in reputation.

On the other hand, the knight fights not for himself, but for his king, queen or country, or for his lady. The shift here is away from kleos (glory) to fides (loyalty) and chivalry, a French term which came to define the relationship between a knight and his lady (so, something to do with love...). For these goals, the knight must conduct himself with a bit more honor, since it's not just his own reputation that's at stake.

2) The shift in religious ideas creates a shift in the relationship to the gods/God. The classic hero lived in a world (albeit a mythical one) where the gods had direct interaction with people, and conducted themselves with human personalities and faults. They are petty and flakey, and play favorites. Fate was, then, paradoxically your fault and out of your control.

For the Medieval hero, God is distant except for certain miracles; He is either vengeful or merciful, and rarely anything else; and He lives in heaven, not down the street atop Mt. Olympus, so there is not a lot of direct contact. The knight is subordinate to God, not interacting with Him, and never challenging Him.

3) The shift in a view of the afterlife creates a shift in the approach to life. For the classic hero, to die in battle was glorious, and if you make good in life and don't die horribly (which was ironically the case for most heroes), you'd be awarded a spot in the Underworld, which is somewhere in the middle of the earth. There were some pretty nice spots down there, too; sort of like "paradise" in the Old Testament, which was actually in the upper parts of Hell, where the Old Testament saint lived before Jesus took them to Heaven. Sort of like that.

For the Medieval hero, Heaven was, well, in heaven! They live a live of purity, forsaking worldly wants to get to heaven and be with God forever. Whereas some of the eternal home's of the classic world resembled placed on earth, Heaven is like no place on earth, because it's not on earth--it's out in space somewhere...

4) The shift in the understanding of the hero's goal creates a shift in the journey. The classic hero will reach the goal and die, or die while reaching the goal. Death, really, is part of the goal, which is somewhat of a bummer, you can imagine. You will win, but you will die. If you don't die, you haven't won. All that wealth and booty equals street cred in the afterlife, but you can't take it with you.

For the Medieval hero, the knight may or may not actually achieve the intended goal. Their journey does also involve some humbling, though not necessarily death; their reward is much more intangible often, as the enlightenment they receive was not the reason for the journey, but gained over the course of the journey. In other words, they don't seek enlightenment as a product; they receive enlightenment as a process. Again, although there is often some failure, the lessons they learn to translate into some street cred with God when they get to heaven. Maybe this shift isn't so much a difference as a variation...

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
* How does "The Song of Roland" act as a transitional piece between the classic hero and the Medieval one? In what ways does the story reflect the classic ideals? In what ways does it show the shift to the new ones?

* Which hero, in your opinion, is superior, the classic or the Medieval? I don't mean if they squared off in a fight (though that would be somewhat exciting), but in terms of values and qualities?

Defining the Greek Hero (Lecture, 10/1/09)

For your essays, the first thing you will need to do is acknowledge and show understanding of the Greek concept of hero, and how it is distinct from our contemporary concept of hero. By that I mean, "we" (21st c. Americans) don't necessarily think of Achilles as the "good guy" in the Iliad, although he is clearly the protagonist. So we need to look at the values held by the Greeks in order to determine what "hero" meant to them.

A. Cultural Values (The world the Greek hero lived in)
First, we need to put the Greek hero in the context of what the Greeks valued in their society. Ideas that were important to them included:

1. A regard for material possessions. Possessions (particularly a warrior's possessions and spoils) were closely tied to his sense of honor, his prestige in the community. To lose one's possessions was a shameful thing. Think about why it upsets Achilles so that Agamemnon takes his possession, the slave girl; he is publicly insulting Achilles, without besting him in battle.

2. A regard for the gods. The relationship to the gods was simple: rather than seeming abstract and far away, the gods had direct dealings in the affairs of humans. (Not literally, of course, but this is what they believed about, for example, natural phenomenon.) Your "luck" or fate, then, was tied to your favor with the gods; if you prospered, it was because the gods willed it. If you suffered, it was because the gods willed it. By not angering or displeasing the gods, you could gain their favor, so they believed.

3. A regard for the dead and funeral rites. Finally, and most importantly, the Greeks believed that the funeral rites were important in conveying the soul of the departed safely to the underworld; if they did not go through the rites, their soul would wander the earth. The significance of this was that DEATH held an important role (especially to the hero--we will see this a bit later).

B. Qualities of a Hero (How to spot this dude on the streets of Greece)
Secondly, there were certain qualities that marked a hero in the classic Greek world. The biggest distinction, perhaps, between classic Greek heroes and our contemporary heroes is that the classic hero was often a TRAGIC hero (think Oedipus). Here are a couple of things that characterized the (tragic) hero:

1. Pedigree. Usually, the hero had some divine ancestry, a link to the gods; or, at least, the hero was able to rise to nobility. Make the connection here to the point above about "relationship to the gods."

2. Favor. Usually this relationship or favor from the gods translated in some special quality or "magic" element or assistance the hero may acquire in his journey (ie, invulnerability, invisibility caps, etc.)

3. Arete. Greek for "virtue." For a warrior, this was honor and excellence in battle. (Think, "This is Sparta! Let's fight!") For, say, a philosopher, this would be something like bookishness. (Think, "This is Athens! Let's read!")

4. Journey cycle. Usually the hero was on a Quest for Enlightenment/Salvation/Redemption (make the connections to the archetypes/Topics in World Lit). There were some exploits or adventures of some sort, and the hero responds or reacts with courage, boldness, and strength.

5. Decision. Usually the hero is faced with a serious decision on this journey-cycle. It was common for the hero to fail or make a mistake at this point. The hero would suffer would suffer for this...

6. Suffering. Suffering is meaningful for the hero (this is what makes him tragic!). More on this later, but the important thing for now is, this this suffering is usually brought about by...

7. Hamartia. This is the fault, or more appropriately, the "tragic flaw." These came in many flavors, but included hubris (our favorite--"excessive pride"), jealousy, rage, naivete, etc.

8. Neutrality. This one is weird, but try it on for size: the hero was neither fully good or evil. This goes against our conventional way of thinking, but is important to grasp to understand what the Greeks thought. Think about Oedipus, or Achilles; they don't seem "good" much at all, and they certainly aren't sympathetic. But they're not altogether evil either; they have arete (they're good at what they do), but they also have hamartia (some serious bad qualities), so for now they go in the gray area.

C. The Death Connection (or, "Hero's Gotta Die!")
As I mentioned death was important in the universe of the Greeks, and it had a significant role in the hero's journey-cycle. Let me remind you of a few things first:

* Think back to the Intro to Greek Lit Powerpoint. Greek dramas evolved from religious festivals in honor of Dionysus where people sacrificed a goat (tragos).

* Think back to the Flower myths last year; when the character's blood was spilled, a flower or plant bloomed in its spot. This was some honor (of a sort) by the gods--this character lived on in this symbol.

Think about this for a second: the Greeks connected the gods to almost all natural phenomenon; some natural phenomena were the gods immortalizing favored mortals... herein lies the importance of death to the hero. In suffering (and ultimately death), the hero obtains glorification in moving from mortal to immortalized.

Huh, wha? The hero has to die to be heroic? YES. Let's look at how that pans out.

The hero has to go through an ORDEAL. This is the journey-cycle/quest. This is where the hero uses his arete. This is where favor from the gods helps. This is where the hero reveals his hamartia. This is where the favor of the gods runs out. This is meaningful for the enlightenment/salvation/redemption. Here's how it works:

(Note: Greek coming at you...)

1. Catharsis. Literally, a "release," this is the cleansing, purging, purification, clarification for the hero. This is the ordeal part of the ordeal. This is the thing that hurts, is painful, but is also good for you. This leads to...

2. Anagnorisis. This is the "epiphany" (literally, the realization) or recognition that the hero's fate is brought about by the hero, not by others. This is the enlightenment/redemption. This comes with...

3. Kleos. Literally, the "song of glory," or fame, if you will. Unfortunately, this usually takes the form of, you guessed it, DEATH, in some honorific way (not "horrific"--"honorific"--being honored, like having a flower named after you). This is how the the hero supercedes death and is redeemed, by his glorification (and, in a sense, immortalization); this is also what makes the hero tragic, though, as death (and later in literature, just a downfall) is a necessary ingredient in the recipe.

SO, to summarize...

The classic Greek hero existed in a world where gods, possessions, and death were the most important things (not in that order); the hero had a dual nature (arete/hamartia); the hero was usually involved in a quest/journey-cycle that solidified his hero-status by placing him through an ordeal in which death resulted in his redemption and glorification. Very complex, these Greek heroes; not the one-dimensional do-gooders we currently think of as heroes!

Now, how does this relate to your essay? You will need to show your understanding of the Greek hero by defining it at the start of your comparison (in your own words--not mine). Then, decide which of the qualities discussed above will work for your comparison (which "criteria") for Achilles and Hector. Both are heroes, for obviously different reasons. Which best fits the definition; or, which is the "superior" hero? This is where you should draw your own conclusion. Use data from the Iliad, and email me if you have any questions!

The Oedius Myth

"Experience is not what happens to a man. It's what a man does with what happens to him."
--Aldous Huxley