Ramayana Book 3: The Perfect Girl vs. The Perfect Guy

As we discussed in class, book 3 can basically be summed up in one sentence: Rama hunts a magical dear, meanwhile Ravana swoops in and kidnaps Sita. Since the book itself is more or less "simple" I will focus on the concepts found within the literature instead. One such concept we discussed in class was this idea of the perfect guy or the perfect girl. Personally, I believe that one of the purposes behind the Ramayana itself is to "educate" people on how they should be. Sita and Rama serve as paragons for the Indian culture, and more likely, nearly every culture. They represent so many positive attributes, many of which we talked about in class, such as: loyalty, beauty, strength, kindness, calmness, etc. What I find really interesting about these models of perfection is how much the "model" can vary depending upon which gender it is coming from. To me, it seems that when a gender is asked to identify the "perfect individual" for the other gender, they base the majority of their reason on physical attractiveness. This was  very easily seen in class when opposite genders merely selected good looking role-models for each other. However, when a gender is tasked with defining their own role model, they typically choose a model that is well respected, powerful, influential and important, not merely beautiful. So, when we look at the Ramayana, we can see that each gender has been specifically "assigned" a model that they should follow. Much like superheroes, Rama and Sita have become tools to enlighten people on how they should act, and what they should strive to become as human beings. Well now that I've begun to dabble in the topic of superheroes, lets head that way. Is Rama a super hero? In all honestly, I don't think we've actually read enough to answer that question. So far, we really haven't seen any notable behavior from Rama thus far, so deciding whether or not he is a superhero is going to have to wait.

Another thing I want to talk about is this idea of obligate sympathy that the reader experiences while reading the Ramayana. The reader begins to actually sympathize with Ravana, even if it is for a very small time. We see how badly Ravana wants Sita, and how "in love" he has become with such a beautiful woman, and although we realize that he is the "bad guy" we do understand him for a moment. Its this concept of relate ability that allows the audience to dig deeper into the character and their motives. One good example of this is the movie Law Abiding Citizen. In the movie, Gerard Butler's family is murdered so he sets up a plan for revenge. While executing the plan, he gets carried away and begins to kill innocent people. Although the audience knows that Butler is supposed to be the "bad guy" they sympathize with him because his family was murdered. By the end of the film, you cant decide whether you support Butler or you don't. This is essentially what happens in book 3, or t least until Ravana kidnaps Sita... This action is pretty much the defining moment for Ravana and it serves as a confirmation of Ravana's evil intent. As I discussed in an earlier post, it's also funny to think that our perspective is what truly defines the moral actions within a story. Well, perhaps not kidnapping, but say that Rama was labeled the "bad guy", then Ravana kidnapping Sita would have been a heroic act. However, since Rama has already been established as the "good guy" anything that goes against him will inevitably be considered wrong or evil.

WC: 615

Ramayana: An Indian Soap Opera

So, compared to the texts we have read thus far, Ramayana is turning out to be fairly boring. Compared to Beowulf, the Illiad, Oedipus and Gilgamesh, the Ramayana is like a furry bunny compared to a ferocious wolf (so far). What I mean to say is that the conflicts expressed in the Ramayana are more internal and "emotional" than previous works, such as Beowulf where fighting and killing stuff basically represents all of the existing conflicts. I'm guessing that the story becomes more violent and physically involved later on, but so far its a whole lot of complaining, scheming and crying (but not by Rama, remember he's perfect...). So, first of all lets discuss Manthara's apparently inherent evil quality. Much like Mr. Bahlman said in class, Manthara could have been interpreted as a a "good" character had Bharata been favored over Rama. Essentially, this proves the point that morality in terms of "good" or "bad" is ultimately based on perspective. This concept is extremely prevalent in modern day society. Topics such as illegal immigration, gay rights, abortion, etc. all have to deal with this conflict of perspectives to conclude what is "good" or "bad". The fact that the Ramayana actually brings about this critical thinking is a testament to why we even read it in the first place. Ancient texts such as the Ramayana involve concepts and ideas that still appear in the present. Since ideas found in the Ramayana and other ancient texts still occur in our society, this proves that some ancient interpretations of life have evolved into immortal thoughts that reappear throughout all mankind. They have become "meta myths" (I think that's what Mr. Bahlman told us, but I may be confusing the term).  Speaking of the immortality of ideas, lets discuss ideals.

I think its safe to say that in the Ramayana, Rama is synonymous with "The Ideal Indian". He's like the paragon to all Indians and to the culture. So why is this important to know? Because the ideals that are symbolized in literature through characters are ideals that can tell you alot about a culture. For example, if Beowulf had been exiled by Wealhtheow, I highly doubt that Hrothgar would have broken down into tears and passed out. Of course this event doesn't actually occur, but you can assume how the characters would respond to it if it did, after having read the story. Instead of openly expressing his emotions and having a pity party, it is likely that Hrothgar would have kept his deeper emotions to himself. However, Dash (aka Dasharatha) is slightly more transparent...as in fainting and wailing. This hypothetical contrast I have set up reveals that Indian culture and Angelo Saxon culture was very different. Indians believed in showing emotion, and an outward projection of inner thought. They were quote-unquote "more sensitive". It is quite obvious after reading Beowulf that the Angelo Saxon culture revolved around emotional control and outward stability. Their culture was certainly more focused on "manliness" and the discipline of emotional expression. It can be said, however, that Dash's crying is appropriate for the circumstances, so that judgement is up to the reader. The fainting however...

Remember tho, there is a balance to find between the extremes of emotional control. Different cultures, especially ancient ones, simply differ on where this "middle ground" lies. 

Something else I want to talk about is Rama himself. I'm interested in how Rama is going to behave later on as the story progresses. Will we ever find a fault in Rama, or is he truly "prefect". If we fail to uncover a fault or any hint of Hamartia (although this story is not a tragedy) then we will be able to observe what the Indian culture was and is trying to portray as a perfect individual. Rama's character will be tested more and more as the story progresses (I assume) so we will be able to pick apart the figurative anatomy of the "ideal man". 

The last thing I want to talk about, which i talk about in pretty much every blog entry, is symbolism. This story is just begging to be analyzed. A constant number of 14 years is restated and restated, is this number a coincidence . The enemy that Rama eventually faces has 10 heads. Is that symbolic of something related within the Indian culture? Obviously Manthara symbolizes evil, but is it a particular type of evil or disfunction. Greed? Envy? Selfishness? Or perhaps just a general, basic embodiment of evil? I don't know, but as a read it's always a good idea to think critically to try and discern what is what and why it is present. If we, as students, didn't do this, then what is the point of even reading the literature?

WC: 795

Gilgamesh: Hairy Men, Prostitutes and Hiking

Gilgamesh may be one of the most random stories I have ever read, if not the most random story. As we discussed in class, Gilgamesh is a, 2/3 God and 1/3 Human, King who rules over his people as a tyrant...yet he is glorified all throughout the book... yet he seriously doubts himself when facing Humbaba... yet he beats Humbaba. There seems to be a lot of internal conflict going on within Gilgamesh, either that or whoever wrote the epic wasn't too good at writing stories. Despite the amount of randomness present in the story, (such as Humbaba appearing out of nowhere) there are some redeeming qualities to the literature. For example, we have a contrast between "heroes". On one side we have Gilgamesh: extremely powerful and influential; however, Gilgamesh is very, very selfish and displays both good and bad characteristics. Enkidu on the other hand is somewhat "super" like Gilgamesh, but is a more caring individual. Enkidu is certainly less selfish than Gilgamesh, especially when he decides to fight Gilgamesh over the atrocities he was committing (prima nocta).

Superhero time... Is Gilgamesh a superhero? In my opinion no, at least not yet. We have yet to finish the story, but thus far I would say that Gilgamesh is definitely not a "superhero" in traditional respects. Gilgamesh does not have a costume, so to speak, does not fight for the "common good", and he is not altruistic. Yes, he does go off to fight Humbaba, but only because he desires to. Out of boredom or for glory, Im not sure which. Gilgamesh does go on the heroes journey (a.k.a. walking out into the wilderness, fighting, and then coming back) but this does not necessarily make him a superhero. For the majority of what we read, Gilgamesh is more of a tyrant or a bully than a hero. Enkidu, however, may be interpreted as a hero. He has a costume or at least something to identify him with, in this case, he is very hairy. This gives him a certain recognizability that can be utilized by the audience. Enkidu also SEEMS to have the best in mind. He goes off to fight Gilgamesh after hearing that he has been sleeping with unwilling brides, and swears to protect Gilgamesh in the face of danger. Truly, to say that Enkidu is a "superhero" is a stretch, but I suppose the argument can be made. 

Next I wanna talk about symbolism. With many of the ancient texts we read in class, I always ask myself: Is this meant to be symbolic? So many times if feels like these stories are either way to simple to not include deeper meanings, or they are way too simple simply because of the era in which they were written. Just like Oedipus and Beowulf, many symbolic references can be made when diving deeper into the text. Perhaps Enkidu is supposed to be a paragon of the perfect ruler to the people of Mesopotamia, while Gilgamesh is an example of a faulted ruler. Perhaps the fight between Humbaba and Gilgamesh and Enkidu represents the eternal struggle of good vs. evil, or the concept of civilization vs. the wilderness and savagery. Or, most likely, the Epic of Gilgamesh was written without any attempt to include symbolism. It's very likely that Gligamesh was written simply for entertainment and does not allude to any hidden ideas that the author may have wanted to illustrate. Im not really sure, but as we read these ancient stories, I believe its important that we process the information critically and always ask the question of whether a story is meant to be taken literally or figuratively. 

Next class Id really like to go a little more in depth with Gilgamesh's dreams and any possible symbolism that might arise from them. I also would like to briefly discuss the relationship between Gilgamesh and the Gods, and the correlation between Mesopotamia and Egypt regarding the god Anu ( a common deity). 

WC: 663

Oedipus: Worst-Case-Scenario Literature

Wow... Oedipus is depressing. But I guess back in ancient times when tragedy was a popular genre for plays, someone gouging their eyes out was entertaining, at least to the Greeks. Anyways, I guess a good place to start with this blog would be to pick up on in-class discussions. I remember our class contemplating on whether not Oedipus was a "good guy" or a "bad guy". Although he isn't a very genuine individual (like when Oedipus says he suffers more than anyone, even though he is not being directly afflicted by the plague), he does seem to have his country in mind. Personally, I believe that Oedipus is a man that has good intentions, but with a little fate, he finds a way to screw over everything. In more academic terms, Oedipus is oblivious to the world around him; as his insecurity turns to paranoia, and his confidence turns to abhorrence, Oedipus begins to collapse on himself like a dying star. Although Oedipus is certainly not altruistic, he does his best to rid the city of the plague and discover the true murderer, even though all of this is done in ignorance. So after marrying mommy and killing daddy, and basically having the worst luck of any human ever, he gouges his eyes out. Not exactly a happy ending, but hey, you can't fight fate...or can you?

Fate is an interesting concept. I suppose it depends upon how we define fate. Is fate a possible path that has been intended for our future? Or is it an undeniable, unchangeable destination that has been cemented in our lives and cannot be altered? Or is fate a myth, pure fabrication? Im not really sure. I'm no philosopher but if i had to take a guess,  I'd say that fate ( at least in terms of the supernatural) is not real. I believe that each of us is free to do as we wish and to make unexpected or unpredictable changes in our lives. Some might say "well it was fate that made you make those changes and fate that caused you to come to that conclusion." One could make an argument that fate is simply an end result, no matter what the result is. In that capacity. fate would be undeniable but at the same time, it's influence could not be proved. If fate were susceptible to free will and choice, it would create a alternate reality, without proof of its existence. In oedipus case, fate's intervention was quite apparent,; however, in real life we don't prophecies and we don't have oracles. This is where "willful suspension of disbelief" comes in. Does fate exist? Oedipus' literary universe it does, outside of that, who knows....

Something else we talked about in class that I wanted to review was Oedipus' name. I think we were trying to understand why Oedipus is named the way he is. Mr. Bahlman told us that Oedipus can be translated into "misshapen foot" or "swollen foot". As I was reading I stumbled upon a couple lines that referenced Oedipus birth and how the tendons in his feet were bound together. During a dialogue between Oedipus and the messenger on page 644, the messenger says, "...the tendons of your feet were pierced and fettered...so that from this you're called your present name". So to clarify the discussion we had in class, Oedipus is named so because of the injuries he sustained to his when he was bound up and abandoned in the wilderness. Polybus must have noticed the abnormal scars and damage found on Oedipus' feet and ankles, and named him rightly so. If you wanna know a little more about the correlation between the scars and Oedipus name check out this website: http://www.shmoop.com/oedipus-the-king/scars-on-oedipus-feet-symbol.html

The end...

WC: 627

Beowulf: Arm-Ripper Blood-Spiller

This week was all about the complexities of superheroes, Angelo-Saxon culture and just how badass Beowulf is (or was). Since I've never really blogged before I guess I'll open up with a discussion centered on Angelo-Saxon culture, or at least cultural references in the literature. I know we covered it in class but there are somethings I'd like to review. Personally, I think there are three major characteristics that take priority in Angelo-Saxon inspired literature; these attributes are: pride, loyalty, and respect. Of course this is just my own personal opinion but  the story of Beowulf really seems to highlight these specific characteristics. Pride: Beowulf sails across the sea so that he can defeat the infamous demon Grendel. I'm sure that Beowulf wanted to help the Danes, but lets be real, he chooses to fight Grendel so that he may find pride in a legendary victory. The literature also suggests that loyalty is an important component in the Angelo-Saxon lifestyle. Before embarking on the voyage to go fight Grendel, Beowulf first asks his King's permission. I think that the balance between pride and loyalty is fairly offset by Beowulf's boasts, but it still makes for an interesting dynamic. Lastly, I'd say respect is of huge importance to Beowulf. Beowulf does not simply want to pride himself in his own doings, but wants to act in a way that makes others respect him, such as taking off his armor to fight Grendel. Although such an action does serve as bragging rights, Beowulf states, "So I shall bear no blade in the night if he sees fit to fight without weapons." Beowulf could still have a hearty serving of pride if he defeated Grendel with a sword, but he chooses to test his raw power in a hand-to-hand melee.

In class today we also went over different attributes that Beowulf had that made him heroic, or superheroic (if thats a word). Super human: yes, courageous: yes, selfless: definitely not. I suppose not all superheroes are selfless. Take Iron Man and Bat Man for example, if they were truly selfless they would  give away their fortunes and keep only what they need to fight crime, save the day and what not. Generally, however, I would say that superheroes should be altruistic. Not to mention, Beowulf is less focused on the common good and is more focused on his ego. So is Beowulf a superhero? In my opinion yes, at least he was about 1200 years ago. Its all about cultural preference. In modern times, he's just a really strong dude who will tear your arm off if it makes him look good. 

Here's an interesting idea: is Beowulf, the story itself, directly symbolic in any way? That's something i wondered as I read through Part 1. Of course there is the symbolic struggle of good vs. evil, but what about Grendel? Is he directly symbolic of something? A sin perhaps? Or is he simply an evil monster that likes to eat Thanes for breakfast? Im not sure, but something makes me think that many bits and pieces in Beowulf are meant to represent something else entirely. Beowulf is obviously meant to symbolize the perfect warrior and hero, but does Unferth represent something? Does Hrothgar? I have no idea, but it is food for thought. 

Final Statements: Beowulf is awesome. The class discussions are awesome. This class is awesome.

WC:565