Gobble, Gobble

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!

Othello - Part Cinco

The ending of Othello was quite fast and semi-dramatic.
At first, the fight between Roderigo and Cassio confused me, I wasn't sure who got stabbed and who died. This fight scene seemed silly. It was so dark, that Cassio could not see Iago simply come by and pierce him. It would be a totally different scenario if this scene involved sniper shootings, yet Iago just glides on by and pokes Cassio's leg. It takes some time to stab someone, take the blade out and dart away to hide. Why does Iago take Bianca under arrest? She's just a prostitute that wants someone to love her. Yet, he chastises her, but he actually secretly is civil with her, since he went to her house for dinner. So Iago is the total back stabber in this whole play. He is the one that should not be trusted at all.

When Othello prepares to kill Desdemona, she awakens. He allows her to repent, which may show some love and forgiveness on his part. I don't see that though. He is ruthless by smothering her to begin with. He allows her to repent just for his amusement, not because he is simply Catholic. Yet again, he probably does show some affection to her since, she isn't completely killed. She rises from her death, which seems comedic. She cries out to Emilia. Othello is strangling his wife, and finally some heroic gesture was introduced. Emilia calls out for help, but in the end, her attempt to be Desdemona's true friend and savior ends when she is stabbed by her husband. So much for husbands, huh? During this time, women were considered inferior, so why did Shakespeare have the need to kill or torture all the women? What happen to Cassio? If this was a tragedy, everyone should have died. Cassio should have bled out profusely from him gushing leg wound. Or at least, have it amputated or something. And what happens when Lodovico, Montano and Graziano witness Emilia's death. Why couldn't Othello been the person who killed Iago? Why does Iago get away? Why is he the center of this play?

He doesn't do anything, but he succeeds in screwing everyone over by letting others act on their will and by him using his words to manipulate people. Iago is ruthless. Everyone dies, so is that what he wanted in the end? He cared less about his own wife? His own wife helped him out, and he ends up killing her.

At the end, Iago's character comes to a halt. He is trapped and he no longer can use his words to pull him out. Hopefully, Montano does something severe to Iago. He needs something to use against him, which he could use Emilia's death and Roderigo's letter.

Iago could have monologued in the end of the play, yet he was cornered. He had nowhere else to go. He didn't say a word to anyone, because he had nothing else to say. He probably could have came up with some witty remarks and nonchalant phrases to get him out of the situation. He probably could have not stabbed Emilia, and killed her later to hide her death.

Othello was tragic; all the women were killed, besides Bianca who was under arrest. Iago still lingers somewhere, compiling a plan to get out of his predicament. And Cassio is still there taking the fame. So what's next? Does Iago go out for Cassio still?

Othello - Part Quatro

During the first scene of act iv, Iago insinuates about Desdemona's adultery to Othello. Othello falls into epilepsy for two days. Does that mean he has seizures or he has epileptic charcteristics? Why couldn't Othello just have asked Desdemona in the first place, whether or not she had secret affairs with Cassio? Even as a general, his impulsive move was quite childish. He had to choose to listen to either Desdemona's defense, Iago's accusations and to his self intuition. He doubted himself, which was his main flaw. I believe if he married Desdemona for love, then we all of a sudden turn against her. Was it because during this time period, that all women were regarded ruthless individuals, and that no man can trust them? Was it that ideal that influenced Othello's decisions to trust Iago?

It was all because of Iago's words, his own words that manipulated Othello's thoughts. He used Cassio's feelings about Biana to twist Othello's perspective of seeing Cassio talking about Desdemona. That was just a wussy move on Iago's part, but of course, naive Othello fell for it. This scene demoted Othello's status. He was suppose to be this top shot kind of general, yet he cowards in the dark watching Iago and Cassio talk dirt about Bianca.

During this scene, Othello and Iago agreed that if Iago kills Cassio, that Othello must kill Desdemona. Doesn't Othello suggest poisoning his own wife first? Then Iago convinces him to strangle her instead? If Othello really loved his wife, first of all, he wouldn't want to kill her, and second, if he was a supposed "Catholic", wouldn't strangling her be worse case scenario which would automatically place him in purgatory?

As Othello constantly questions Desdemona about her and Cassio, he neglects anything she says. He states that she is the "cunning whore of Venice." This statement seemed harsh and emotionless. He must have really resented her. At this point, for poor Desdemona, I wish she had to chance to runaway. She had done no wrong to her man, yet she faces the worse to come.

If only Roderigo would have gained some courage to ask out Desdemona in the first place, or even to realize how much he has paid Iago without any results, you would think he would realize by now, that he was being played. He was too much of a follower who couldn't decide his own decisions. He needed Iago to tell him what to do, when and how to do it.

When Desdemona asks Emilia about adultery for the world, Emilia says it would counterbalance the offense. I felt this was a scene showing how women can have the same feelings that men can have for wanting others. Yet, I thought this was unnecessary and excessive. It made women seem worse in this society.

Othello - Part Tres

Let's first start talking about Emilia. Even though she is the wife of Iago and friend/Batwoman to Desdemona, she kind of screws things up. Even though she isn't totally a dumb brawn, she is obedient towards Iago. She of course has to play the role of the wife and the woman. She listens to whatever Iago demands from her. I thought it was quite interesting of how Emilia thought things through. Emilia knew how special her "friend's" hankerchief was to her, yet she neglected her "friend" and she listened to her husband's desire to have the hankerchief. Since she may know that Iago suspects her sleeping with Othello, she plays the subordinate role in trying to make him happy by doing whatever he wants and to please him. It's like in any typical relationship; if you upset your significant other by doing something, you do several good deeds/acts in order to lessen the burden of the bad deed/act that you may have done. Yet, I still feel that all these stories are too gender discriminating, because I see it as it's all Emilia's fault. If she would have just left the darn hankerchief on the floor and went upon her own business, then Desdemona would have  ended up ... at what she ends up in. (I don't want to talk about what happens until my next blog.) It's just upsetting, because if she were that smart and witty, she should have stood her ground and left the piece of cloth on the floor, given it right back to Desdemona (if she really was a true friend or good servant) or just have denied Iago in the first place. I want to know whether Iago and Emilia have had more history together, or Desdemona and Emilia. I guess from the story, it's a bit vauge. Maybe it's the fact that Emilia was faced with the dilemma of deciding to pick between her own husband and her own [true/good] friend. Maybe it's because she knows that Iago has the hots for Desdemona, and she is just a sorry sap willing to do whatever to make her man happy and win him back. Iago probably makes Emilia feel guilty for no reason, because he wants Desdemona and he could careless for Emilia. What ever the reason may be, it seems to always be the chick's fault. 


This reminds me about the movie "Splice." It has two biochemists, who both happen to be a happy couple, and of course the woman is the one who causes the problem to begin with. By the end of this movie, I was like "Arg! This is what the media does to make woman look bad, but eh, the movie was interesting enough."


It's super dumb for Othello to automatically listen to Iago's insinuations. He doubts himself, which could be his heroic flaw, yet again, it could be him being so trusting. He trusts everything that Iago says, yet I don't understand why Othello couldn't have just made some "small talk" with Cassio and Desdemona. If he wanted to be so blunt about it, then so be it. He should have not jump so wuick to conclusions without understanding and knowing all the stories. How close is Othello and Iago? What was their past history? Is it because Iago is his servant, and Othello always confides in Iago?


In the beginning, when Othello disembarked from his ship, he kissed Desdemona and showed her his devotion. Where was this love and passion when he heard all these rumors? This shows Othello's weak psyche. Here Othello's mind takes the best of him, where he no longer can trust his own wife. What happen to their love? Was it just sex? Was it because was known as a "good guy" that he could not be found fooling around with the senator's wife before being ever married? Whatever the case may be, Othello revealed his weakness.

Othello - Part Dos

Through this heoric journey, these characters started off safe at home in Venice and had to go out to Cyprus, aka the Wilds. I despise how Iago just criticizes woman to be deceptive, hypocriical and lazy. He blantantly states how women are there to "play and go to bed to work." Grrr. But hey that's me, I hate these kind of stories, because it demeans us women. Iago, a clever wit that he is, right away notices Cassio holdng Desdemona's hand as they speak. Iago thinks three-dimensionally, where he thinks way ahead and he predicts the results, where as all the other characters either think one or two dimensionally. Like Roderigo thinks one dimensionally as he is persitant with giving Iago his money without no good results and Othello thinks two dimensionally where he thinks things through now, and not things in the future. 


Roderigo is a fool, although he may have his riches, he heavily relies on Iago's words. I guess in class, we discussed the fact that maybe Roderigo was an outsider and Iago was the only person to notice him and talk to him. So maybe that could be a reason hy Roderigo is so loyal to Iago. 


The discussion about Othello being gay was qite interesting. I understand John's perspective, but I don't think Iago was really homosexual for Othello. I think Iago was more jealous and bitter towards Othello, that he wanted to get back at him. He wanted his spot so bad, and he was determined to get it. I believe Iago has a thing for Desdemona. Even though Iago thinks that his own wife, Emilia had an affair with Othello, deep down I think Iago wanted some of Desdemona. Even though it could seen as "wife for wife" like "an eye for an eye," but I'm convinced that since Iago keeps pushing back helping out Roderigo get Desdemona, is because he himself has a thing for her as well. This little scenario reminds me about a movie called "There's Something About Mary." with Cameron Diaz and Ben Stiller. There's like all these dudes that want to climb on Mary, which in this case is Desdemona.


Which brings me to another idea, I was just watching something on channel 36 about "Untold Stories" where a good student was secretly being sexually abused by her own coach. Her reason why she never told anyone was because of her naive mind, she thought just because her coach is a higher authoritative figure, that she needs to listen to her coach. Okay, why did I bring this up? It some what reminds me about Roderigo. I see it as Roderigo wanted Desdemona so bad, but he couldn't woo her, so he needed help from Iago. He looks to Iago as a higher figure, and whatever Iago tells him, he must do it, because he is a higher figure and because he wants Desdemona. What made be confused a bit, was how come Roderigo followed Iago's plan? Is he that gullible? Iago convinced him soon enough to pick a fight with Cassio, but why couldn't Roderigo grow some dignity and listen to himself and do things for the better? Here is where Iago is a darn trouble maker. He uses Roderigo's lust for Desdemona to his advantage. When someone is in love with another, that's just wrong and mean to use it against them for your own benefit. 


So now, Cassio ends up drinking and starting a fight with Roderigo and stabbing Monatano. Once Othello came into teh scene, Iago tells Othello what happen, but doesn't tell him teh whole truth. So technically Iago isn't lying, yet he isn't being as truthful. At the time, how come Othello was so trustworthy of Iago's words? How come he couldn't pardon Cassio's actions? It makes Othello look stupid for picking Cassio in the first place. Why make him our right hand man, and take him down for a fight? It shows that he doesn't trust his decisions, and he needs others belief's to influence his own.

Othello - Part Uno.

At first, the story of Othello started off kind of slow for me. I didn’t really jump right to it. But eventually I got the gist of the story. In class, we discussed that Shakespeare never really had an original story. He borrowed ideas and he put his own twist to it. As Shakespeare wrote for the plays and to “fill up” all the seats, he made his stories have some depth to it. It would have been a change of pace to read a comedy instead. But I guess we need to give Othello a shot.

In the beginning, there seems to be so much footnotes and its irritating having to constantly look down and read what the footnote is and go back up. Maybe at the time, I was just not in the mood to read.

So the story starts off in Venice, Italy. Iago seems to take most of the spotlight, even though the play is titled Othello. During the time, in the Christian society, stories needed to spotlight the heroes or the protagonist. It seems without the main supporting role of Iago, and then there would be no story of Iago. From what I’ve read so far, it seems that Iago is the jealous type. Iago wanted to be granted the privilege of being lieutenant, yet Othello gave the position away to Cassio. The way I look at it, Othello is a good-hearted guy, and he wanted to give the position to someone who seemed was eager enough to do the job. Even though he never been in battle, it was a great advantage to Cassio to have such a position. But why was Iago granted as Othello’s “Bat Man?” Couldn’t that job be granted to someone else? How was class a key role in determining status in the society? As it seems, Iago is the ugly Betty that wants the fame and glory. He wants to be heard and seen for great things, yet this Othello guy ruined it. It was funny to know that Iago’s wife, Emilia is the woman “Bat Man” to Othello’s wife, Desdemona. Why couldn’t they be treated with the same respect and loyalty as Othello and Desdemona? Well I didn’t catch that in the story.

To know that Desdemona married Othello only for his war stories is a weird. I guess I can see it as her loving how manly he is for fighting and having other manly characteristics, but Shakespeare demeans the woman by just having her love him for that. But why should we care, her feelings for Othello may be indescribable, so that’s the best way he could put it for the audience. Why didn’t Desdemona tell her father that she was falling in love with Othello to begin with? What was she trying to hide? Was it looked down upon? Were they doing the nasty beforehand, so she felt obliged to marry him? We may never know.

It was a cheap shot for Iago to go whining to Desdemona’s father, Brabanzio. Iago seems like a total moocher. He takes all the money from Roderigo and lying to everyone. He likes to be the trouble maker. Shakespeare may have created Iago as one of the main characters, because Shakespeare may have believed at the time that the audience knows someone who has similar characteristics to Iago.

Iago’s intentions resemble some characteristics of people I know. He likes to manipulate and twist the stories. He does this out of boredom and jealousy. He’s a racist by calling Othello a Moor. Iago hates that fact that an “outsider” is in charge. Iago uses cognitive schemas that make limits his perspective. He sees things in a two-dimensional manner, because he plans to do the worse and get his revenge.

Okay, I hit past word count.

The Ending of the 13th Warrior

The movie starts with the moment Ahmed and the blonde-haired woman are laying down in the hay. She was there only as a relief, it was nice to hear how Ahmed showed his conservative side, “A gentlemen does not say his business about a woman.” The warriors seek guidance from the oracle, which tells the warriors that they must kill the leader than the Wendols will go away. As the remaining warriors gallop away to find the Wendols, they find themselves puzzled about where to find these creatures. Ahmed revealed his intellect by having the moment of realization. He knew that the Wendols wore the bearskin as a camouflage. If they wear the bearskin, then where do bears sleep in the winter? A cave!

The moment the warriors find the cave, this scene resembles when Beowulf had to go beneath the waters to find Grendol’s mother’s lair. The warriors slyly make their way inside the deep, dark cave. When they reach a group of Wendols without their bearskins, one of the warriors demands Buliwyf to kill the leader. He enters a scary lair of beheaded heads floating on vines, and he finds the evil mother. She kind of looks like Calypso from Pirates of the Caribbean, but she also reminds me of Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix LeStrange in Harry Potter. Buliwyf uses his mighty sword to slay her head; it was an epic moment which only lasted for a couple seconds. But he was stabbed with poison from a snake. So his arm is slowly, but surely causing him to die.

As the warriors were trying to find an escape, I thought the movie was about to end, since it seemed like there was nowhere else to go. But thankfully, with Ahmed they find an underwater tunnel to the outside of the cave.

Here is when the warriors were relieved, yet again, the fog was coming. The fight was about to begin, and Ahmed threw his armor and sword on the ground, kneeled and prayed Allah for guidance and support to make his last remaining time on the Earth memorable. Buliwyf knew he was dying and he did not want to just sit in the back and watch his warriors (Comitatus) die. He limped his way to the fort and he stood there waiting for the Wendols to attack. This scene was similar to when Beowulf had to fight the dragon in order to save his kingdom.  All the warriors were determined to save the village and finally the Wendol’s leader comes out to lash out at Buliwyf. Buliwyf takes him down and the Wendols are called away from a horn. As Buliwyf sits amongst the fort, he dies staring into the wildness. He has died with honor. Hrothgar stated that he would be buried like a king, since Buliwyf said all he has is his hands which make him a pauper. Restoration is now stored, and Ahmed leaves the Norseman. The fight is over and he accomplished his duty to serve as the 13^th Warrior.

The Beginning of the 13th Warrior

Beowulf and the 13^th Warrior closely parallel one another. Both stories begin with a funeral. As Ahmed, Antonio Banderas, is sent out as an ambassador, he finds himself stuck with Noresman. It was kind of funny to see Antonio Banderas play as a shy character. I always see him taking the front stage with a high level of confidence and man power. In 13^th Warrior, as a little boy and an oracle enter the Mead Hall (I presume), this part similar to Beowulf. The Scandinavian kingdom seeks help from 13 distinct warriors. Of course the king of this kingdom was named Hrothgar as well.

It was interesting to see How Ahmed watch the Norseman attentively, just to learn some of their language. That shows a great example of observational conditioning, where a person can simply observe a behavior and adapt or learn from it. Ahmed was forced to be the 13^th warrior, and compared to the other Norseman, it seemed like he was so puny and scrawny.  But of course, one must not judge size. Ahmed proves to the Norseman, that although he may seem small; he is intelligent and later displays great horsemanship by jumping over things. “The dog can jump.”

In Beowulf, Hrothgar fears the monster called Grendol which keeps causing mischievous havoc. In the 13^th Warrior, it is the Wendols that prey on the small villages in the Scandinavian kingdom. Once the warriors have arrived, the people of the feeble village gazed at the warriors like they were some God. The villagers knew that these people are here to help them and save them from the Wendols. The Norseman warriors and Ahmed are lead by Buliwyf, whom resembles Beowulf. Yet the difference here is Beowulf sounds more powerful and independent whereas Buliwyf kind of just goes to the village and tells his men what to do. Hrothgar’s son Wiglaff resembles Unferth. They both seem to start a fight somewhere. I think both are both envious of the unknown warriors. The scene involving one of Buliwyf’s warriors to fight and put on a show reminded me of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. The battle scene seems like the bigger fella would slaughter the smaller one, yet of course the smaller, older and wiser warrior get the job done.

When it’s time to fight, the gruesomeness of the 13^th Warrior had a more detailed action scene in comparison with Beowulf just fighting only Grendal. I guess the equivalent of all the Wendols meant one Grendal. It was gruesome to see heads split from bodies. At the end of the scene, there were no leftover bodies of Wendols, so what does that mean? The Wendols were scared to leave their own kind behind? Or was it because the people did not know that the Wendols were actually people not an evil creature from hell? When Ahmed discovered that a Wendol was a man, why did he suddenly go in Ramboo mode? He was like “NOOOOO!” I didn’t really get that. Was it because it was a sickening idea to know that these humans ate other human’s heads?

Well I can’t wait to watch the rest.

Beowulf Part II & Part III

In the Pagan society, to avenge a death was the way, instead of mourning for the loss. When Grendal's mother found her way to the Mead Hall to steal away Hrothgar's advisor, it was an "eye for an eye" concept. The thing to consider was the fact that she was a woman. At the time, this would have been looked down upon, but since she's technically born evil, it gives her the right to be evil. When Beowulf fights Mama Evil, he uses Unferth's special sword, Hrunting. Just because it has a name gives the sword uber awesome power. In class, Mr. B brought up the question whether Unferth gave Beowulf his sword out of fear or respect. I looked at it like Unferth thought Beowulf has proven himself strong and powerful that Unferth felt the need to share the wealth. I don't think Unferth was scared or intimidated, because then he would just take a stand back and just watch Beowulf fight the evil by himself. I guess his "Comitatus radar" was starting to work. It would be interesting to add another suspenseful aspect to the fight with Grendal's Mother. The moment Beowulf butchers up her neck, it would have been more interesting for some projectile blood to start spraying everywhere. It almost catches Beowulf's feet as he escapes her lava liquid. Beowulf as strong as he is, why did he only hold the melted sword and Grendal's severed head? He could have grabbed the Grendal and the mother by the hair/head and put the knife on something to hang on his sholder or something.  I think this is one part of the story that lacked in detailing more descriptions and reasons. Maybe Grendal's mother's acidic blood was too much to risk carrting, I suppose.

Is Beowulf more like Superman or Batman? I think neither. He's more like Jackie Chan. We know the hero can still get hurt, but we don't want them to die. But the hero still has some incredible supernatural ability to kick some major butt.

I never thought being a king would be boring, but apparently Beowulf thought so. I suppose that seems most convincing, since Beowulf held his head high and knew his brute characteristics as a warrior were much more satisfying than a king. But I thought Beowulf enjoyed gifts and treasures so much, that being king would grant him lots and lots of treasure. Does that make him selfish for wanting treasure? After all, the king is the "ring giver." I believe Beowulf has been wound up in his kingship, that when the dragon came around, he felt the need to re-live his youth. I don't really see it as fate or his deathwish. I mean maybe Beowulf just wanted to die in "battle." Just like Lieutanant Dan in Forest Gump. Yet, I don't necessary think he wanted to die with honor. As a king, he felt that it was his duty to stop the "majestic dragon" causing havoc in the villages. Since the dragon was destroying everything, it was hard to see it as a natural being. I looked at it as if Beowulf knew that he was old and he probably knew he couldn't match up to his youth years, but he seemed to take the initiative to be the leader. He doesn't want his full-decked out army to help slew the dragon, because he didn't want to risk losing all his warriors. He felt the need to stop the dragon himself. I guess it goes to show you that what comes up, must come down. The first two pivotal battles were the stories that made Beowulf that warrior that everyone wants to be, now that he must be like 100 years old, he has finally come to the end of his awesomeness, because he is worn out and tired. He did his fair share. He wanted to "go out on a bang." The scene when he's injured and slowly dying from venomous poision kind of reminds me about the ending of I Am Legend. Will Smith felt the need to save the woman and the boy, in order to pass the cure and his legend. That was what Wiglaf was there for. Even though he disobeyed his king, he felt the need to abide by the Comitatus belief of fighting/defending his king. The last few moments of Beowulf's life, when he makes Wiglaf take kingship, I felt that even though Wiglaf helped put some stab wounds in the dragon, he was there to witness the death of his king. I felt that Beowulf had no choice, but to make Wiglaf king. If anyone else was there what would happen? I think Beowulf knew that the Geats would go to battle, so he needed to assign kingship to someone or else hell will break loose and the Geats would curse at Beowulf in his after-life. 

Beowulf's (Awesomeness)^nth power

The first time I heard of Beowulf was on television. The commercial featured little clips, but of course the one that caught my eye was Angelina Jolie. When the movie came out, I never watched it. I never had the desire to, until most recently…my boyfriend urged me to watch it, because he felt (just like Mr. B) that Beowulf was an awesomely awesome fellow. I was hesitant and still put the movie off. One day, it just happened to be on FX and I was fixated on the story. At first, I thought the movie to be overly exaggerated. I thought it was meant to poke fun at Beowulf. Yet, I found some appreciation for it. So far reading this story and having the movie as a background template filters my imagination to believe the visual analysis rather than reading it.

When the Comitatus, followers of the king, meet in the Mead Hall, resembles a gathering of a frat house. Or a house party for people to relax and of course drink and play some beer pong. Hmm, I wonder if Beowulf would be beer pong king. Just a random thought. The epic poem would have created more appeal to me with more detailed imagery. If the poem entailed additional appearance descriptions of Grendel would have created a scarier monster, because Grendel seems kind of lame, I mean besides the fact that he eats people.

Beowulf plays a strong, combative character. It was admirable to know he swam for five days and five nights in excruciating icy water to later lose against Breca. Due to his awesomeness, the only reason why he lost the match was because he has done something even more great by slaying nine sea monsters. He challenges Unferth to do the same or fight against the mighty Grendel.

When Grendel eventually comes around and shows his face to Beowulf, Beowulf disarmors in order to have a fair fight with the mystical giant. Grendel has neither sword nor clothes, Beowulf finds it is only fair to do the same and fight with his own hands. But why do guys do that, why do they need to show off their manliness by stripping off their shirts. I understand why girls need to take off their hoop earrings and hair weaves, only so it doesn’t end up hurting them in the end. Grendel represents the defective misfits and rebels of society. The ones who love to insinuate havoc and trouble. It seems like Beowulf finds the passion to rid the “bad” out of the society to maintain order.

Beowulf encompasses an ideal heroic figure. With his big muscles and his eloquence to speak, he resembles the ideal man figure to look up to. He’s like Batman and Superman. He plays the dominant male figure in slaying all the bad monsters and saving the day. Could Beowulf be interpreted or compared to a God? He seems to play a distinctive role in saving people’s lives. Or he just likes to be compared to a hunter shooting a buck and hanging its head in his living room as a trophy of triumph?

WC=522

Wife of Bath! Go Females!

The three ideal states of a woman are virginity, chastity and marriage. All three ideals are opposing aspects of the wife of Bath. The prologue’s length seems long, which may indicate that the woman is talking, because the of course women always talk long and forever as it seems. From this prologue, this indicated that she is an extrovert woman. Although she may be classified as a “black widow,” there must be some logic behind her reasoning. She plays as the dominant figure of the story. She wants to hold the reigns of the horse by playing the con artist, aka the infamous strippers of Sin City. As she discusses about her relationships in the past, it previews an insight about her age, as she loses her train of thought. Yet I find her to be an empowering woman figure, because she stands for what she wants. She seems like a “suga mama,” yet it only means she wants security. The question was “why did she rip the three pages out of the book-about wicked wives?” She did it out of anger! Why would a wife be happy reading stories about horrible wives? Not because she was trying to hide something ugly about herself to the fifth husband, it was because she most likely believed the stories would alter her lover’s mind into leaving her. She didn’t want him to leave; because of course she wanted something from him. The ability for a woman to seduce a man is an inherited skill any woman could possess. She knows how to trick men into giving her things. It’s a win-win scenario, the man gives her something she wants or needs and she will give him a woman’s ideals.

Why is that men can have several wives, yet women cannot do the same with having several husbands? At the time, women were considered “objects.” Objects just like animals, property and houses. At the time it was acceptable to “beat” women, because women represented the man’s “property.” Is that why some women are evil? Maybe so, yet thank goodness, this isn’t the way anymore. The world would not revolve if there wasn’t some dilemma to deal with. Although she manipulates men and upholds a strong and brute personality, she still embraces her age when she reveals some sympathetic and fascinating character about herself.

Throughout the story, she brings attention about her habit of lying. Which may entail questioning about her perspective being truthful. Her brute personality may show some aspect of being a phenomenal actor. I mean she is a con artist after all. She claims to be an expert of marriage after five marriages, which may show a fallacy in her claim. Although she was married five times doesn’t mean she knows everything about marriage. It only means she has gained “experience.” She is mesmerized by her fifth husband, because he is different from the other four. He knows her tricks and he cannot be fooled by her art. She claims to love him, and that the previous four were purely married for money. This reminds me of what my aunty tells me all the time; to marry a man for his money, nothing else. She believes it is important to play the trophy wife when the man comes home to treat his lady. But I don’t follow that, she’s crazy and single. Yet I do understand what she claims about men. All she wants is security, which seems to resemble the wife of Bath.

WC: 583

"Swollen Feet"

Although I have read this story before, I still find it interesting and of course ridiculously amusing. Oedipus plays as the cocky leader and, he takes the city’s plague under account in order to make the citizens happy. In doing so he needs to purge the murderer of king Laius. Funny thing is this story follows the aspect of dramatic irony. From the beginning, the audience finds the story to be oblivious, yet we need to be in the state of willful disbelief, and allow ourselves to follow the plot of the story and find that in the end, Oedipus is indeed the murderer. It’s kind of like the CSI shows. I’ve been hooked on the CSI: Las Vegas. The outline of the story starts out as “who is the murderer?” and all these sequence of events lead to the obvious ending. Or so we think…dun dun dun!

In class, there was discussion about how the Oedipus was faced with fate and he was eventually going to end up at how the oracle’s “vision” expected it to be. Although Oedipus was oblivious at himself, playing the role as the king of the city, I believe he made a morally great decision in attempting to solve the plague of the city. Even though the prophet told Oedipus that he doesn’t need or want to know the truth of his parenthood, I think that’s a situation that most people may not be able to resist. Every time a close friend says something like “Oh! You don’t wanna know,” I can’t resist, but keep insisting on finding out what it is that I don’t want to know. The prophet still was granted the choice to tell or not to tell Oedipus his knowledge, yet he did. If he chooses the path on not telling Oedipus, would Oedipus eventually find out the ugly truth of his being? Perhaps, only because it was fate, but if this was the case, then the story would take longer than the 24 hour story time line.

In The Incredibles, when Frozone had two conflicting responsibilities, he still manages to counterbalance each responsibility. He knows it his grand duty to attend both saving the day and his wife, yet again, the wife should know that although she plays the utter importance in her husband’s life, she needs to remember his responsibilities and condone him for the greater good. Once he saves the day, he shall stroll along his path of ice and attend to his majestic woman. If I were faced with the duty to help save other lives versus attending to my significant other, I would need to take action and face the fact that I could be an INCREDIBLE J Or just simply justify both aspects to be equally important. The question is which would be accomplished first.

Maybe another way of thinking about the situation would be comparing or considering circumstances through a domino effect. If Frozone needs to save the day, in order to make the citizens happy and then go safely home afterwards to make his lady happy, then gosh darn, he better go save the day first and come home as soon as possible to attend his lovely woman. Everyone, or mostly everyone, experience these excruciating conflicts every day. Given several choices to choose from staying home to study for an exam or to go on a date with a boyfriend/girlfriend in order to make them happy are conflicting responsibilities that we may face every day. Having the mobility to execute and prioritize duties all depends on the character of the person. For the record though, if I were put in Mrs. Frozone’s Wife’s shoes, I would say “The world could wait, you need to attend to me first.” I think any wife may feel that way, maybe the exception of military wives....

WC: 640

Fate or Conspiracy?

What is fate? According to dictionary.com, fate as a noun is something that unavoidably befalls a person; fortune; the universal principle or ultimate agency by which the order of things is presumably prescribed; inevitably predetermined; destiny. The big discussion in class was how to intertwine the basic principles of Daoism and The Matrix movie with the ideals of how belief equals reality, or does it? Although it seems to be fate that encompasses the presence of Neo, he was still granted the ability to choose. He had a choice to pick the red pill or the blue pill. Yet, what may be debatable was whether or not Neo was really the One. Even though Neo was told that he was the One, he was subtly denying it, or I guess being the reluctant hero.

Somewhere I’ve heard this philosophy, B.E.A.R. philosophy. First one must Believe in oneself, and then one must have enough Energy to take Action and get Results. Since Neo was reluctant at first, he never believed himself to begin with, yet with the Oracle’s ambiguous statements, Neo finally found the passion inside himself to reveal his ability to be the One. The fundamental element of Daoism is oneself to believe. It is what he, she or I will or will not believe. Like what one of my fellow classmates stated, Neo was given the choice to pick the red or blue pill, so picking the red pill gave the person a clear mind, an open mind. In order to believe something so trivial, one must have a clear, open mind to evaluate and understand all things, to everything that nature may bring, or even what our destined fate may or may not be. In other words, Daoism is a belief that someone can follow. It is another way to choose the life we choose to live. Some people live as atheists as others as God worshippers.

Following quotes from Mr. B:

-          “Daoism has no solid answer.” At first, I wasn’t quite sure what he meant by this, but I think it means that although I may think this way about Daoism, doesn’t mean it is concrete, because Daoism is an abstract idea, that anyone may have a different perspective towards the idea of Daoism.

-          “As far as the first film goes, the real world could actually be a nice place and Morpheus could just be fooling Neo in the same way he claims the matrix is doing. Think on that for a minute.” I never thought of it like this, I was stuck on  one-dimensional analysis that the Matrix is a forbidden place, maybe because of Lawrence Fishburne plays such a convincing character, who would deny him?! Although this plays a plausible solution to Morpheus’ character as the Greek god of dreams, the movie would have turned out to be way different, even if Will Smith was asked to play Neo. Morpheus is a rebel and he wants another person to take the position as savior as he will claim to be the one whole guides them and plays as the mentor of the mavericks.

-          “Going back to Gawain, does he wait because he's scared, because he wants to defer to knights he sees as better than himself, or because he doesn't want to be a hero at all? Or is there another way of looking at his actions?” Gawain was probably scared; I mean who wouldn’t be with a big. Buff green guy asking to play a game of head chopping. As King Arthur attempts to take the Green Knight’s proposal, Gawain saw this as the opportunity to save his uncle; he most likely did not want to see any harm to his greatness. Perhaps it was an act of chivalry or an act of suggested obligation since he is family, no one else brave would stand up to the plate to take the ridiculous challenge.

word count - 653

Cont. of the Matrix ...

Whoa! What an ending. I might be the only one thrilled, since that was my first time watching the Matrix. Mr. Reeves with his questions, I found it funny, like every line he said was a question. But I guess if you think about it, we (the students) take the place of Mr. Reeves, because if we were put in that position I would be questioning everything. It finally made sense in the end though, why no one really told him any full detailed explanations. Besides the fact it creates some suspenseful elements to the movie, it provides the concrete meaning of Daoism. In order to understand it, you must BELIEVE! Haha. From Neo’s perspective, he was lost in translation. He was informed that he was the One, but he didn’t believe in it. Until the moment of truth, dun dun dun…he has magical powers and gets the lovely woman in the end and saving Morpheus. Yay!

There was this one part of the movie, when Neo and Morpheus were speaking to one another. I’m not exactly sure what the exact lines are; the part when Neo saves Trinity from her falling Doom. As Neo attempts to tell Morpheus what the Oracle told him, Morpheus said “What the Oracle told you is true, it’s whether or not you choose to follow the path or …” shoot I forgot the quote. Something along those lines, but at first when I heard it, it took a moment to decipher what Morpheus was saying; I didn’t understand it, but I understood it. So does that mean I do understand it or I really don’t? Maybe I’m just thinking too hard about it. I knew I had some concrete thought behind this…

The Matrix movie exudes elements that follow a heroic story. In the beginning, Neo was at home where he thought he was safe, but then when he is brought out of the Matrix, he realizes that his safety (or thought of safety) was false. So from most past readings, the hero is supposed to leave home/civilization away to the wilds/the place of unknown and then come back safe from home. But in rare occasions of this movie, Neo plays the hero and goes to another place (outside the Matrix) which is now his new “home.” Neo illustrates some heroic features, such as the mini clip of him and Trinity “suiting/armoring up.” Of course, he has to save the woman and friends in distress.

The Matrix & Daoism In Theory

The ultimate problem of the movie is the Matrix itself. Ironically the humans created the Artificial Intelligence which then takes over the human race. The Matrix created by the machines to deceive the human mind by placing their mind in neural interactive simulation program designed to control the human lives while literally sucking all life out. The machines take over the world and cultivate human beings as a food source. It’s like growing humans as mere vegetables with no capabilities to develop or emerge as prominent individuals.

From the beginning with Keanu Reeves as the One, begins to confuse me. Besides the fact that I never watched the Matrix before…His double identity revealed and people are suddenly attacking him with robotic bugs. Poor bellybutton, I bet it must’ve hurt. The whole idea of Neo being the One illustrates some concrete idea behind Daoism. What exactly is Daoism? Do I understand it? I thought I did, but apparently I really don’t. In theory, I looked at it as things happen, because they do. We can’t change that. Why is Neo the One? Why not Morpheus or even Trinity? I mean she’s kicking butt in the beginning of the movie. Of course, the woman has the play the back role, why couldn’t a woman be chosen as the One. Well until we get to the end of this movie, then we’ll see if my attitudes change for Mr. Reeves. I suppose Neo has been chosen as the One, because it’s the way of how Daoism may perceive it. He was chosen to be the one to destroy these machines and help humanity survive!

I guess I could say that Mr. Neo follows some Daoism principles by going with the flow. He may not really be a true fan of tree hugging, but he definitely goes with the flow. Just like the scene involving him to follow directions from Morpheus to escape his office from them evil Agents! They are quite scary, I would run too. I hate how their character talks so serious it makes them look so artificially fake.

Another thought aside from Daoism, is Neo suppose to be referred to as the One in relation to Jesus Christ? Both whom were resurrected and both represent as saviors of civilizations.

Oh dear Sakuntala!

September 9, 2010

“Men are emotionally constipated.” – Mr. B.

Where do we begin? What to talk about? Today’s discussion about time line was excruciating, knowing the fact that this happened out of the blue for no particular reason drives me nuts. But I guess it does make sense, some things are just irreverent and have no place in the story.

It’s interesting about how the king can marry women, yet it would tarnish his name or reputation, if he were to marry a simple peasant. I can’t exactly think of a recent movie that shows this, but I see this type of behavior through somewhat Disney characters or even how some individuals nowadays think. For example, although I may not be part of some successful family, my aunty always tells me to marry a some rich man with lots of money to spend on me, someone with a title and great power. To her she thinks an ordinary man or a homeless guy is not worth anything. Then what happens to the other percent of men who do ordinary jobs and have ordinary lives? Here is where we can use some imagination and think that somewhere, somehow there is that perfect partner. But back to the story, due to Sakuntala’s mother’s nymph genes, it makes her partly supernatural. So in other words, if Sakuntala were any other ordinary women, then the king wouldn’t “fall in love with her at first sight?” That may be asking too much, I mean I know were suppose to believe this magic fairy tale that, because she happens to be a nymph’s daughter that exudes sometimes sexy about her which lures the king in.

It was a funny thought when Dushyanta and Sakuntala claim they both love each other to even consider “married.” Because when this happens, the king dips. He is somewhere else away from his lover and she’s at home waiting for his reappearance.

Every romantic comedy has a downfall (not sure if that’s the correct word) maybe conflict could be better. Right when the king leaves, Sakuntala screws up and causes the “wise man” to curse her. It’s like when couples get married and their parents disapprove. The mother is usually the one who’s cursing the person who is marrying her kid. When this happens, Sakuntala’s supposedly awesome friends try to help her out, but of course has me yelling in my mind saying “Hello?! What are you doing? Say something?!!!” This emotional roller coaster reminds me of thriller flicks sometimes some cheesy horror films. When the killer is in the house, why you do you have to run in the house like some superhero and end of dead for the remaining movie? But this is when we have to realize it’s just a movie and we need our “willful suspension of disbelief.”

Grrrr…

Eventually when Sakuntala meets the king, he has no idea who she is….right? Because where’s the ring silly girl? This is the part when Maury comes out and says “Dushyanta, you ARE the baby’s daddy of Sakuntal.”

Word Count 508

Randomness within 20 minutes of typing.

English 231: World Literature

August 31, 2010
Today's discussion was quite interesting. Although I have read the text, it was quite insightful to have open discussion about what were actually reading. Mr. Bahlmann asked us what we wanted to talk about. At first, I blanked out and I thought he was just trying to make conversation with the class, when I realized it was about 1:05pm, so class was in session. He asked what we liked or didn't like about Gilgamesh, so far. Thankfully, my fellow classmates saved me and spurted their answers out loud. They didn't like the ellipses, the repetition of the dreams and the specific language used. I knew Gilgamesh was written a long time ago, but when someone referenced the "Show him your sex" phrase, I thought that was irrelevant. Then again, there isn't a wrong answer, right? The quote referenced towards older language found in the biblical pages of the Old Testament. It seemed a bit childish for the class to laugh at this phrase. It wasn’t anything to provocative or something.




Something quite startling was the concept of how the “nobles” thought it was “noble” for Gilgamesh to bless a man’s wife by simply taking her to bed the first night of their wedding. I felt disgusted, but then again, this happens with Asian families prearranging marriages for their son or daughter. If I were put in that position, I would feel filthy and kill myself. The class laughed at Mr. Bahlmann’s remarks about the great ol’ mighty Gilgamesh saving the marriage of an ordinary man and woman, by simply screwing around with everyone’s wife. Nowadays, Gilgamesh represents a prime example of an immoral man. Thankfully, the trusty man, Enkidu, will come to the rescue.



How was Enkidu created? I don’t think it was answered during class. I mean besides the story telling us he was created from clay and thrown into the woods. Is he supposed to be some mystical creature that developed to counter balance the greatness of Gilgamesh? I have no idea. But let’s not get into different tangents here. So an animal trapper from the city spots Enkidu in the woods, freeing his critters which upset him so much, that the trapper goes to the king. The king then tells the trapper to bring a woman to him and “show her sex.” How was this supposed to affect Enkidu? Besides give him six glorious days and seven nights to bump and grind this prostitute. The discussion lead to how the animals saw Enkidu differently as a civilized person. Yet, when I think of sex, I think individuals act wild and crazy like that one song… “You and me baby are nothing like mammals’, so let’s do it, like they do it, on the discovery channel.” I question Enkidu’s possibility to actually withstand six whole days sexing up with that one prostitute may serve him to be supernatural. He was in the wild for so long with no companion, so I imagine a man would go crazy for seeing a beautiful (cough cough) woman throwing herself to him. Think about it through the woman’s perspective, how it would have varied in diction and expression. The passage seems to demean women for being just sex symbols and nothing more.

Word Count: 540