Beowulf

Beowulf has been a familiar text to me since grade 11; however, the translation I read back then was a different one to Seamus Heaney’s translation. What I took from my grade 11 English class was the importance of community, and the importance in making one’s fate. Also how the religion played into Beowulf, how light and dark, up and down imagery are utilize to show good vs. bad, or heaven vs. hell.

            Community, the individual boasts (warrior values), and story sharing were three themes I found that resonated throughout the poem. With the Dane’s mead-hall set up as the very first setting, which was shown to be sacred and prized, as community building and the gather spot of people was important. The place people are from, and the community of people they are associated with, are also an important trait in the poem, which can be seen through the formalities of greetings as people proudly introduce where they are from and who their family are. Another factor I thought was interesting was the warrior culture, one that echoes the dying warrior culture we see in The Odyssey and Jason in Medea. Like these men Beowulf builds on his fame and shares his exploits. In the lecture when talking about how a man sticks to his word/promise, I thought back to Jason in Medea and how one of the topics for discussion in the play is oaths. But here in Beowulf it is not quite the focus; although, like Homer’s The Odyssey they do show everyday expectations of people. Expectations such as the way to treat a guest, how to formally greet someone, how to introduce yourself, proper boasting, etc…

            The monsters in Beowulf are very interesting, along with the fact that Beowulf is being told through Christian Monks eyes, as bits and pieces are added or adjusted to make it more in tune to Christianity. Religious influence on the way Beowulf was transcribed was interesting to see as it was put onto a pagan warrior culture. The juggling of fate and god is something I thought was interesting to look at and compare.

            I enjoyed Seamus Heaney’s translation of Beowulf more than the translation I read before. I am not too sure why, but I remember not enjoying Beowulf the first read over. 

Oedipus the King

Oedipus is a name I have been familiar with because of the term “Oedipus complex,” which describes an incestuous relationship between mother and son. I had always just assumed that the two had been involved knowingly and it was also interesting to learn that Oedipus was the guy who figured out the Sphinx’s riddle, another tale I have known for a while. Oedipus the King is the tragic story of Oedipus, who has become a hero and acquired the Theban throne after solving the riddle of the Sphinx. What was interesting to me was how fate played in this tale. Fate played a big role and, one could say, was the antagonist of the play. It intrigued me how fate always managed to catch up to everyone no matter how hard they try to avoid it, Which was shown through Oedipus running away from his fate of killing his father and coupling with his mother, only to find that he stayed away from his adopted parents while his real parents, who tried to get rid of him in fear of the same fate, suffered at the hand of fate. Another part that stuck out to me was the extreme measures the characters went to after they found out the whole story and looked at the big picture. I honestly had to read the paragraph were Oedipus stabbed out his sight with a broach to check if I was reading about the same guy who had no qualm about exiling his brother-in-law/uncle. Spoiler alert. So while I thought I was going to get a Nero-like tale, I was still surprised at many revelations that we make earlier on and seeing how each character figures it out and reacts. Much like a horror movie in the same sense as you have feelings similar to when a movie character decides to do the obvious.

            Monsters in this play I felt couldn’t be labeled. Pretty much every named character in Oedipus the King is a monster. Including fate.

            I am excited for the lecture and would like to understand more. Hopefully I did not read anything the wrong way. I didn’t really understand some of the historical context and hopefully it will be addressed.

Republic

Reading Republic, by Plato, was interesting. The text opens up with a debate on what is justice, which is branched out from Socrates and Cephalus discussing old age. The first chapter took a while to get through; however, as I read on the reading became easier. The form the text is constructed is an interesting take, as Plato uses dialogue to form his arguments to persuade people to see what he believes to be justice. Through the form of discussion and logical reasoning, Plato is able to swiftly tackle any counter arguments and a chorus of others who, after logic reasoning and deduction, come to the same conclusion as Plato and agree with him.
The ideal kalipolis is soon introduced and we learn what Plato believes to be the best form of government. The kalipolis he creates is interesting in itself. The people will have limited education, selected by the ruling class who have been tested for the position, and will work for the greater good of the community, which will reward them in happiness. What Plato finds as happiness is very interesting. In his ideal city people will be happy just serving their community with the best of their abilities tested into one certain lifestyle. The hierarchy system is also what I thought to be interesting. Plato prides his ideal city to be harmonious, which to function every citizen would have to give up any sense of individual and have to step back to look at the greater picture. He believes there will be happiness in his city with no rifts between the classes. His justification is that if those were educated the way he believes should be. People would be okay as they belong to the state and every person is necessary and therefore okay with the hierarchy of people. His reasoning is logical and idealistic in the thought that a perfect city is to be able to function by being one big machine looking after each other, rather than people who share a space and tend to their own carnal desires. I liked seeing how his city was structured as well as other details of education and how it all played out in the larger picture. I’m not sure that I agree it is the best city, but I do see how he can shed a light on how democracy is flawed.
This book reminded me of many dystopian novels and short stories I have enjoyed. The idea of community, what is private and public, was a theme that caught me as well as choice. By limiting education and selecting certain stories to be portrayed in one light is something we find to be limiting rather than liberating. It is cool to be able to contrast Plato’s perfect city and today’s global society, especially how it would work today. In this way it reminded me of Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron were the government controls everything making sure everything is equal, just as Plato’s guardians make sure there is no strife in the community.