Reflections

I thought all of the presentations were rather interesting. Some people put a lot of work into theirs, and most had at least a clear summary of the paper and an interesting visual aid. Overall I would consider them very successful.

One of the ones I was most drawn to was Matt Leagre’s presentation about V for Vendetta. I have read the graphic novel and seen the movie, and I love both of them. Matt did an excellent job putting together ideas from the book, and I liked his use of the movie clip, even if it does not exactly follow the end of the actual graphic novel. However, Matt’s presentation was also interesting because he discussed the qualities of an antihero, which was I myself did in the presentation. I found the ties between our presentations interesting, and would like to read Matt’s paper in more detail to see if we analyzed our antiheroes in similar ways.

Steve Nisi’s presentation was also interesting because he chose a topic that did not necessarily lend itself obviously to the hero cycle, and so he had to stretch his ideas and the text in order to make the steps of the hero’s journey match up. This shows, though, that almost every story follows to one extent or another the hero’s cycle, and with a creative mind and a little wiggle room you can find the connections.

I also enjoyed Batu’s presentation on Batman and all of the others I saw, and I enjoyed learning more about the various aspects of the hero’s journey and applications of the hero cycle to various works, and can’t wait to see the remaining presentations.

Presentation (a bit late)

My presentation is going to be over my second paper, the topic of which was a comparison of the antihero qualities of the underground narrator in Dostoyevsky’s Notes from Underground and the protagonist of Andre Gide’s novel The Immoralist, named Michel. I plan on giving a brief overview of each novel and each character, discussing Michel and The Immoralist more heavily because the class should be familiar with Notes from Underground. As for visual aid, there does not seem to be much to do except make a PowerPoint with various insertions of text to illustrate specific points, perhaps accompanied by pictures of the novels, the authors, and maybe illustrations. It will likely depend on what I can find online.

I will discuss why I chose this topic, probably mentioning my intense interest in Dostoyevsky’s life and works, and the recommendation of The Immoralist by the esteemed Ms. LaMagdeleine. The comparison between the two works, thought up in collaboration between myself and noted educator, was of great promise and seemed interesting to me at the time.

The first example I will probably draw from the text would be my direct comparisons of the females in the two novels, Liza and Marceline, and their impact on the antihero qualities of the two protagonists. Any quote will do, and a lengthier explanation will be brought out as deemed appropriate and as time allows. The second example would be a direct comparison of two quotes, one from Michel on the uselessness of reason and morality and a similar one by the Underground Man.

Female Heroes

To be honest, it is difficult to think of very many contemporary, or historical, female heroes. Society at large does not support them nearly as much as male heroes, and even when women rise above the general populace, they still tend to take a backseat to a male hero. In example, batgirl and supergirl are little more than sidekicks to their respective superhero men. However, there are a few examples of female heroes in modern culture. One heroine, less popular now, is wonder woman. An independent hero, Wonder woman uses strength and skill to defeat enemies. She is not disguised as a man in the slightest, and in fact her feminine features are exaggerated. This could be viewed as positive because she does not have to hide that she is a woman, or negative because she is highly sexualized; the feminine features that are exaggerated could appear to make wonder woman nothing more than a sex object. Another heroine in modern culture is Samus Aran, a fixture in many video games. Samus takes the opposite approach, hiding all feminine qualities behind an all-encompassing suit of armor. She does not appear to be female, and she is not nearly as sexualized as wonder woman is. Again, this appearance could be interpreted multiple ways. Samus Aran is purely powerful; with no sex characteristics she rises above typical feminine stereotypes to be much more like a traditional hero. However, one could also argue that Samus achieves this because she is disguising herself as a man, or at least losing all gender characteristics. It could easily be argued that she is becoming a hero only by failing to remain a woman.

Batman

There are elements of Batman’s character that put him into any of the three archetypes we have discussed. Primarily, he is the archetypal hero. His journey, set out mainly in Batman Begins, follows quite closely the nine steps of a typical hero. He has an unusual birth, being rich and watching his parents murdered. He has a mystic weapon in his suit and crime-fighting gadgets, a spiritual guide in Alfred, and crosses the threshold when he learns to fight and dons the mask, becoming Batman In general, he is a physically and financially gifted individual who uses his abilities and assets to empower himself to fight evil. He captures criminals and generally cleans up the streets of Gotham City, saving lives and making noble decisions that would classify him as a hero. These qualities, his journey, and his decisions would generally classify him as an archetypal hero.

However, there are elements to suggest he is a tragic hero and an anti-hero as well. Batman is an anti-hero in that he completes noble actions, but does not necessarily act like a gentleman or even a nice guy while he does them. He often beats criminals senseless, and does not always treat the common people well, as evidenced in the first scene when he ties up and leaves for arrest vigilantes mimicking him, even though they, too, are trying to do good. Batman is also a tragic hero because, at the end of the movie, he falls from grace. Even though he has everything going for him, his decision to take the blame for Harvey Dent turns him into an outcast, a fallen idol who everyone despises. This fall from respect and glory classifies the normally victorious Batman as a tragic hero.

Spiteful Man

I find it interesting that the Underground Man is taking the path he is in this sequence. For a man who said he could never act, we see him taking action. He invites himself to, attends, and then basically ruins the party of his friends. He borrows money and chases them into the night. He even initiates a conversation with a whore he meets. All from the man who is now frozen in inaction, contemplating potential paths he could choose.

And yet, in another way, his actions meet exactly with his claims in part one. The underground man is fulfilling his role as a mouse, being taunted and humiliated by stronger and better people, bearing the assault in order to hold some vain hope of vengeance. He is taking pleasure in his own degradation, one of the common themes of his discussions in the first part. He is driving himself into humiliation and shame simply because he can, and seems to find some perverse pleasure in the process. When he finds his friends have left the house of ill fame, the Underground Man’s sedentary nature asserts itself in his happiness at their departure. Throughout he had wished for vengeance, but was relieved when he did not actually have to follow through.

The Underground Man is living through the terrible shame that drove him underground, and we see in his choices leading to that fall the character traits he assigns himself in part one. He is feeble, weak, and jealous. Even more than that he is a spiteful man, degrading himself and others in a pathetic attempt to revenge himself for a perceived wrong.

Rooster

Rooster is a federal marshal. A lawman. He is employed by the government to search out, capture, and bring into custody criminals of all sorts. When he first appears in True Grit, he is just returning from an apparently very successful raid, having captured a great deal of criminals. Obviously he is very successful, though his methods are called into question in the next scene when an attorney questions Rooster while he is on the stand. The viewer learns that in his nearly four years as a federal marshal, he has killed twenty-three men, and presumably shot many more. He is accused of murdering the family of the defendant at the trial in cold blood, though Rooster claims he only killed them in self-defense. Either way, Rooster is suspect.

His personality and appearance do not endear Rooster to the viewer any more than his suspicious conduct. Rooster is large, rough looking, and wears a large eye patch that makes him appear vaguely sinister. His personality matches his less than refined appearance. He is rude, ignoring Mattie Ross when she attempts to get his attention while he brings in prisoners. He is gruff at the trial, almost refusing to answer the questions of the attorney questioning him. He also appears unrepentant about the many lives he has taken.

Despite all of the factors that suggest Rooster is a very unsavory character, we know he is a noble man by his profession (and the synopsis of the plot). He is an anti-hero, doing good using methods that are at the very least questionable. He is, regardless of anything, a powerful man and a powerful character.

The Underground Man

The underground man is an outcast, an anathema, driven to a decrepit hovel on the outskirts of Petersburg where he sits and maligns the world around him. He no longer works, and is sustained by an inheritance he received from a dead relative. Before he quit working he was a worker in the government service, where he was intentionally rude to the petitioners who came to see him. To all appearances he is a grim and hateful man who finds enjoyment only in his own degradation. He believes himself cleverer than everyone around him, and yet he envies the stupid, direct men and women who can single-mindedly and peacefully take action.

However, the underground man is brilliant, and has made real discoveries about the human condition. He has also realistically approached himself, stripping away false pride and seeing himself for what he truly is, a mélange of a hero and an insect. He sees himself as a mouse, a man who is not truly a man because he refuses to answer injustice, but merely bears ignominious (haha) insults and despises the world from a corner, content to attempt petty revenge that is doomed to injure the one seeking revenge than the one he is seeking revenge upon.

The underground man is a recluse and a hermit, but he is one honestly seeking to understand himself and the world around him. He has been hurt by the cruelties of the world, but is accepting and understanding of his pain. He seeks retribution, but he knows this is petty, and accepts that. He is above all a man who understands and accepts himself. I like him, the underground man. He is not a man I would want to know, but he is a man I desperately want to hear the thoughts of. This book will do.

Catharsis

Now that we have finished Othello, I must say that I have indeed learned something from the play. First, though, the characters. Othello is a fool for letting Iago deceive him, though his folly is not as great as it could have been. His trust in Iago is obviously his downfall, and he should have foreseen Iago’s jealousy for Cassio. Othello is a prime target for manipulation, and with a bit more forethought he could easily have avoided the entire issue. Desdemona, I pity. She was nothing more than a pawn in Iago’s plot, and held none of the fault that Othello did, but more just as much of the burden. Iago is a cold man indeed to have caused her such misery when she is the only moral center of the play, and had done nothing to harm him.

In this, I cannot sympathize with Iago. His betrayal of Othello I can at least comprehend, and it is fair to say that Iago betrayed Othello for the same reason Othello betrayed Desdemona. In vengeance for being cuckolded both men did great damage to someone they should have cared for, and so one could argue that Iago is simply smarter than Othello and no less noble. However, when Othello lets his vengeance fall on Cassio, one starts to question. Cassio is, after all, blameless. However, Cassio’s punishment, too, can be understood because of the jealousy that is eating away at Iago. The nobility of Iago completely breaks down when he pushed Othello to kill Desdemona, a true innocent who had not engendered Iago’s hatred in any way. Emilia and Roderigo, too, are innocents slaughtered. These deaths more than Othello’s suicide and Cassio’s wounding turn Iago into the wretch he is.

This play has taught me the dangers of jealousy, and of letting any one person, however trusted, completely command your actions. At hints from Iago, a man he barely knows, Othello is willing to question the chastity of and even murder Desdemona, a woman he loves and cherishes. This speaks both of his lack of trust in Desdemona and a surfeit of trust in Iago. If one lets jealousy into one’s heart, it will grow and feed on happiness until there is nothing left. One must trust as far as one can and not let doubt cloud love. However, one must also beware of trusting too much, because anyone can be out for your death, and trusting them completely, without checking their words against your own heart and the thoughts of others, can lead to damnation. Ironically Othello has pushed me to trust less and more simultaneously, a consequence of good literature, I suppose.

Iago

Iago’s plan at the end of Act One is to somehow persuade Othello that Cassio is sleeping with his wife. He explains that Cassio is easy to be jealous of, that he has an appearance and a personality that women would be drawn to, and that he is a man Othello would quickly believe had captured his wife’s affections. Because Cassio is attractive and because he holds the position Iago himself wants, convincing Othello that Cassio has cuckolded him will serve the double purpose of humiliating and disgracing Othello while freeing up the lieutenant’s position for Iago to fill.

There is much evidence to suggest that Iago will indeed succeed in his endeavor. The first piece of evidence is his wit, evidenced with his quick rhymes displayed for Desdemona and Emilia at a whim (pages 59-61). He also watches Cassio “court” Desdemona and Emilia both by kissing their hands and appearing to dote on them. Though he is only being courteous and deferent because of his high breeding, it could be interpreted by Othello that Cassio is being lecherous in his behavior. Another advantage Iago possesses is the purse and allegiance of Roderigo, both knowing and unknowing pawn in Iago’s schemes. By playing each man against the other, Iago is convincing each that they can trust him and that they cannot trust anyone else. In doing so, he is exploiting the weaknesses of those around him with great skill, and the particular faults in and situations of these men seem to be designed to give Iago a successful outcome to his plan. Iago seems to have much playing in his favor, though his wit would suggest that even without these advantages he could engineer Othello and Cassio’s downfalls.

Vader's Bastard vs. Hygelac's Nephew

While there are many differences between the two men Luke Skywalker and Beowulf, there are underlying ties that bridge star systems and eons to link the two heroes inextricably. But the differences are pretty important too. Beowulf is far superior physically to Luke, and would probably dwarf him considerably, after outweighing him by several hundred pounds of muscle. Beowulf is renowned as having immense strength, and proves this in the fight with Grendel, whereas Luke is a shrimp, to put it bluntly, and uses skill more than brute force to accomplish his goals.

The upbringings of the two heroes differ greatly as well. Luke is raised as a farmhand, with limited means of improving his heroic capabilities. He can practice flying ships, and does, but his skills in combat have no means of improvement or even testing until he receives the light saber from Obi-wan. Beowulf, by contrast, has a heroic upbringing, or at least a means of accentuating his skills is implied by the height of said skills in his combat with Grendel. Beowulf is a born hero, descended from heroes, while Luke is a reluctant hero born (seemingly) from simple farm folk.

Beowulf is also ready to fight all the time, every time. He never shies from a fight and is even willing to fight Grendel with a great handicap, completely without weapons or shield. He also seeks out challenge, volunteering to fight Grendel without being asked. Luke is the opposite, a reluctant farm boy who only joins the struggle against the empire with much prodding. Beowulf seeks out danger, while Luke must be pressed to enter it.

However, despite these differences, Luke and Beowulf share many qualities. They are heroes with great skill, with a sword and shield or a light saber and spaceship. They are asked to perform great feats, and they perform them, saving many lives in the process. They stand, often unaided, against great foes, and their skill and fate's gentle hand guide them to victory time and time again. These threads of heroism tie their lives together despite the great differences in setting and character between the two stories.

Wiglaf

Wiglaf is a very compelling character in the story of Beowulf because he represents at the same time a man less than Beowulf, a man equal in stature and bravery to Beowulf, and a man with qualities that transcend Beowulf, or at least the character described in the epic.

We meet Wiglaf when he joins the fight against the dragon to defend Beowulf. We first see him as a man less than Beowulf, a thane of the great king who is subordinate and therefore presumably less skilled or less influential than Beowulf. He remains the only thane to back Beowulf in the fight, and yet he is still the subordinate of the King and so is seen as a lesser man.

During the fight, Wiglaf holds his own and is able to strike the dragon and dull its fiery breath’s potency. Here we see Wiglaf as Beowulf’s equal, a man brave in combat and equally skilled with the blade. While Beowulf strikes the killing blow, it is clear that the battle would have been lost without the assistance of Wiglaf and the two men seem to share in the burden and honor of slaying the beast.

After the fight we see Wiglaf as a man that transcends, or at least breaks apart from, the hero that is Beowulf. Wiglaf is respectful and diligent towards his dying king, following orders to the end and attempting to save Beowulf from the poison that consumes him. He fetches treasure for Beowulf, showing his ability to be both a messenger and slayer of dragons, a dual role that Beowulf would never be capable of. Wiglaf also assures that Beowulf’s final demands are met after his death, showing his utmost respect for tradition and for the king that just recently ruled over him. The multiple roles Wiglaf is allowed to and is capable of playing show that he has heroic qualities that are at the very least different from those displayed in the protagonist Beowulf.

The Swim with Breca

Unferth attempts to lower the esteem of Beowulf in the eyes of those around him by telling what turns out to be a false version of a story about a swimming challenge between Beowulf and Breca. He does this because he is a coward, much more willing to belittle the accomplishments of others than he is to outdo than himself. Unferth is jealous of Beowulf, "sick with envy," and this jealousy drives him to attempt, unsuccessfully, to turn others against Beowulf and deny the great hero fame and glory larger than his own.

Beowulf responds by telling the true story, where he not only matched Breca's swimming ability, but also slew nine seamonsters in a single night in the open ocean. He then proceeds to mock Unferth, telling him that he was never and will never be as talented with the sword as Beowulf is. Beowulf also condemns Unferth to Hell for his own shady combat tactics. Beowulf rightly says that if Unferth were as brave and talented as he claimed, Grendel would not have been a problem to Heorot, as Unferth could have taken care of Grendel himself.

Beowulf's response shows further evidence of his heroism, showing his ability to slay monsters in the ocean, a territory most fighters fear. However, the response shows not only Beowulf's deeds, but his character as well. He is not necessarily the most noble of heroes, as his mockery and condemnation shows. He is willing to expose a coward and a braggart in his company, not as much concerned for the feelings of others as he is for true and strong men to show themselves worthy. He is a hero because he accomplished the tale he tells, but also a hero because he will expose lies and deceptions and cowardice, even at the expense of others' feelings.