For God So Loved the World...

In Book Two, now that they're free to do as they wish in Hell, the devils debate over what course of action to take. Beelzebub comes up with the most-favored plan: destroy God's new world. With traditional stories about the beginning of Christianity in mind, the inclusion of this decision in Paradise Lost makes the story 100% more interesting. We are given a more lucid, logical reason as to why Satan makes his evils present on Earth and targets the human race.

The only problem is, representing Hell in the new world must be exactly what God wants Satan to do. I know I'm assuming that God is truly Almighty, but omniscient powers are part of his job description, so I don't think it's a bad assumption to make. God knows no one would care about getting into Heaven if there wasn't such a shitty alternative. I mean, "Heaven or nothing" sounds a lot less intimidating than "Heaven or Hell." It can't be pure coincidence that God damns Satan and his bros to Hell, unchains them, then creates a new world and allows them inside. He is definitely capable of stopping them whenever He wants, but He doesn't! Besides, who created Hell itself if not God? Maybe there's a backstory to the backstory somewhere out there, but I hope it's written by God himself. I have a few questions for the guy.

If there is a backstory to the backstory out there, I'm trying to find out how the gates to Hell were constructed. There's nine of them for Christ's sake (no pun intended), and they're guarded by who? Satan's asexual child named Sin who he sexually impregnated with Death, and Death raped sin? Did I get that right? What kind of monster rapes his sister/mom? This is so fucked up. Do I even need to mention how ironically irritating it is that Sin is the only female here? Like...alright, I don't know what you're trying to say, God, but it's fine. Just don't act like women aren't the best sin.

Anyways, my favorite part of Book Two is when Satan flies out of Hell and gets directions to Earth from his fellow dark, cosmic entities. I'm just imagining this whole thing playing out in real time. God's a few lightyears away saying, "Let there be light!" - his voice echoing through the universe while the fallen angels strap up for war. Somebody should make a movie out of this, if they haven't already. Honestly, it would be beautiful, and Morgan Freeman could still play God.

Paradise Lost by John Milton.

Macbeth, you mad?

When I started reading Act 3, I got a feeling that the rest of the play might center around this idea that Macbeth's throne is not secure, which got me wondering - why doesn't he think about this before he murders Duncan? I guess Duncan's murder is so rushed on purpose; if it wasn't rushed, maybe somebody would have had the common sense to dissect the witches' riddles. The witches' original prophecy claims that Macbeth will be king and Banquo's family will eventually take the throne. Macbeth must only pay attention to his side of the prophecy. He reasons that the only way he can become king is if he kills the current one. If that's so true, how does he not reason that Banquo or someone must eventually kill him for the throne as well? I don't know how this tragedy ends, but if I had to make a guess...

I think Macbeth is going to die.

Buuut I'm not here to make prophecies. That's what the witches are for! Macbeth goes back to the witches in Act 4 to seek more guidance, and I've got to admit, I really like Shakespeare's version of traditional witches here.

"Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,

Witches' mummy, maw and gulf

Of the ravined salt-sea shark,

Root of hemlock digged i' th' dark,

Liver of blaspheming Jew,

Gall of goat and slips of yew

Slivered in the moon’s eclipse,

Nose of Turk and Tartar’s lips,

Finger of birth-strangled babe

Ditch-delivered by a drab,

Make the gruel thick and slab.

Add thereto a tiger’s chaudron,

For the ingredients of our cauldron."

(Act 4, Scene 1, Lines 22-34)

Double, double, toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble indeed. I mean, these bitches throw a Jewish person's liver and the finger of a baby who was born in a ditch to a prostitute and strangled to death into their stew. Shakespeare...what kind of sick were you...

Anyways, the witches show Macbeth a floating head, a bloody child, a crowned child, and a procession of eight kings where one holds a mirror and is followed by Banquo's ghost. I'm not too sure that I could unravel the meanings behind these apparitions accurately, but I'm curious to see how they play out. I'm especially curious as to how Macbeth is expected to fear Macduff yet "none of woman born shall harm [him]" (Lines 82-83). I think the witches ordered the prophecies that way on purpose so that Macbeth dismisses the first prophecy by understanding the second and concluding that he must kill Macduff: "Then live, Macduff. What need I fear of thee? But yet I’ll make assurance double sure, And take a bond of fate. Thou shalt not live..." (Lines 85-87). Gosh, these witches really are good at mind games. I like it.

Macbeth. William Shakespeare.

What's Perfect? You Decide

'The land is so well distributed that each city has at least twenty miles of it on every side, and on some sides more, where the towns are farther apart...A Phylarch rules over every thirty houses." (Pg. 59)

"Besides agriculture, which as I said is common to all, each person is taught some craft...everyone, man and woman alike, learns one of these crafts." (Pg. 64)

Based on More's recounts, Utopia might look similar to a mandala geographically and systematically. The towns and the people are virtually identical and everything centers around one common core: agriculture, just like a mandala is symmetrical from any degree and has a common center. From there, variation exists in craft, which is organized by category and interconnected with other, larger factors of the whole, and the whole pattern blooms outward. Everything is connected, communal, and equal. This kind of Utopia looks perfect.

Of course, perfection doesn't always look the same...

If more than one "perfect mandala" can be drawn, who's to say we can't create more than one "perfect society?" The only reason we disagree over what's perfect and what's not is because variation is a fundamental part of human nature, and rightfully so. More's Utopia doesn't try to eliminate variation, it just equalizes it. Other "perfect societies" could equalize things differently and still look perfect. I wonder - could Utopia look imperfect?

We have to understand that perfection is actually vague and left open to interpretation for each individual person, so perfection can even look like imperfection to you, me, and everyone else all at once. In the context of societies, maybe variation doesn't have to be categorized and equalized at all. Maybe it could be left alone and emphasized.

I don't know what my Utopia would look like, but I know the distinction between Utopia and Dystopia is one and the same with the distinction between perfection and imperfection: vague and left open for interpretation for each individual person. It's interesting to see what people believe is perfect or not and how well that translates into reality.

Utopia. Thomas More.

Politics...Evil sheep ruling the world.

    So Raphael has some pretty strong political beliefs. He knows what he wants to see in a perfect society and what he does not want. He also has plenty of examples that help him prove his point about a belief. I guess that comes from his age and wisdom as well as all  of his travels and how he was able to see how other societies worked and did not work. 

    His idea that no matter how good a policy is it will always look insane to someone who sees the world differently is spot on. That idea is still relevant now. If people have a different view and idea of how the world works it will be hard to get them to abandon that idea. 

       I also liked how he did not think that thieves should be getting the same death penalty as murders. Yes they committed a crime but the crime is not that bad that they need that severe of a punishment. Killing them off also really doesn’t realistically stop people from stealing. To stop someone from stealing you would have to find the root of the problem, the reason why they are stealing, and try and fix that. He says that the reason why some have resorted to stealing is because of sheep farming. They are being run off of their land and have no choice but to beg, since they aren’t needed as farmers since their land is being used for something else.

 

      Sheep really do get a bad name due to the practice of enclosure. When Raphael mentions how sheep used to be mild and content but now they are so greedy and wild that they devour men, all I see is a demonic sheep. I just imagine a secret gathering of sheep plotting on how to kill off the humans. That is a really creepy thought to have enclosure compared to it seems like he has a problem with the idea of landowners using their power to fill their pockets and starve the little guy.

Exactly Who's Utopia is This Going to Be?

Before I dig into the political meat of Book One, I'd like to point out something subtly noted in the letter Thomas More sent to Peter Giles. Basically, More admits he didn't ask the first thing most cognitively functioning human beings ask when a location is described to them, "where is it?" Even more conveniently, Raphael Hythloday forgot to mention it, which makes no sense considering the first chapter of Book Two is literally titled "Geography of Utopia." I cheated a little and flipped forward to see how specific the geography gets otherwise, and let me tell you, it's pretty specific. It just makes me wonder - why was the detail of Utopia's exact location left out? I know More actually coined the term Utopia in reality. Was he trying to metaphorically announce that Utopia didn't exist but could exist anywhere?

Sidebar: I just Googled "Raphael Hythloday" (to make sure I was spelling it correctly because I was too lazy to pick up the book) and according to some website called Grade Saver, "Raphael" is the name of a Biblical angel, but "Hytholoday" means "peddler of nonsense." What the heck? Why would More choose this name for the fictional man who's sole role is to explain things that are apparently not nonsense?

Anyways, I read through all of Raphael's political stances, ideas, concepts, solutions, or whatever you'd like to call them, and agreed with some but disagreed with others.

Agree: Capitol punishment is practically pointless because it eliminates the criminals, not crime. In addition, the punishment of death won't stop a thief who steals to put food on the table for his family. The system almost manufactures these kinds of thieves, then blames them, and why should they be punished with the same intensity as murderers?

Disagree: Private property should be abolished and replaced with communal property to create more prosperity. I disagree with this because I study psychology and I understand that private ownership is considered a right to individualistic people, and you would definitely decrease prosperity if you took it away from those who have had it and told those who didn't get a chance to have it that they never will. More also disagrees with Raphael but claims that communal property would leave no room for prosperity because the people will have no incentive to work, then they would disrespect authority. Well, I also disagree with More. There are plenty of societies in history we can look at who have abolished private ownership, and prosperity wasn't dead and gone, it was just equalized among members of society.

I might have this backwards or entirely wrong, but Raphael sounds consistenently liberal throughout Book One while his opposers sound conservative. I wonder if Raphael's/More's Utopia is going to be more liberal than conservative, especially since More wrote himself as a character who expresses disagreement with Raphael's ideas. Isn't Utopia different for every single person anyways?

Remember: Utopia is defined as an "imagined place or state of things"...DEFINED as IMAGINED...

Utopia by Thomas More.

Sheep Hater

          For a work of fiction, Moore seems greatly concerned that it be factual in nature. It seems strange to me though since Utopia doesn't really exist why he needs to add information such as where it exists on a map to the story. I'm also a bit confused on why the theologian says he wants to go to Utopia. Does he not know that it isn't real? 

          I find it interesting how when talking about Raphael's travels, he mentions how Raphael didn't talk about the mundane things that were everyday occurrences but how he talked about "...well and wisely trained citizens..." who were "...not to be found everywhere." The use of the word trained makes it sound to me that Moore thinks citizens and civilization should be robotic, like a well oiled machine. This is concerning to me because people are not robots and never will be. Is this the kind of society he envisions for Utopia? 

          When Raphael was discussing England's problem with thieves, he brings up a couple of interesting points. One is that due to sheep farming, people are being run off of their land and have no choice but to beg, as their services as farmers aren't needed once they are off the farmland and have no other skills to offer. It seems to me that Raphael has a real problem with capitalism in the sense of the big guy squashing the little guy. I don't know if this means he believes in a society similar to socialism. Another point he brings up is that since all of the land is being taken over for pasture, whole towns are destroyed, "...leaving only a church for a barn." I see this as Raphael finds it important to have spaces within towns for citizens to better themselves such as a library or a park. I find it interesting that he starts off the passage not by attacking the sheep farmers but by saying how terrible the sheep themselves are, those greedy little man eaters. What does he have against sheep?

How Raphael imagines the sheep.

SO MANY MEN....

So….The Wife of Bath definitely knows A LOT about marriage. Probably because she has had 5 HUSBANDS. Who let her get married at 12 years old? The thing is it seems like she likes that she has been married so much. It’s probably because she got whatever she wanted from most of her husbands. She did what she wanted and since they were older she could easily manipulate them into thinking they had to do whatever she wanted. She lied to them about the “bad things” they had done when they were drunk so they would try to make it up to her.

So she likes to control her husbands with her sexual power? She just seduces her men to get her way. She kind of reminds me of that mean girl that would flirt with the boys to get them to do her homework. She loves to marry her men for the money that they have. She uses her powers to get men to submit to her.

The only one that was different was her 5^th husband. She says she married him out of love but yet she lied to him about how he enchanted her? Was it really love or was it because he was a challenge?

 

 He was the first to not fall for her charms and didn’t take her manipulation. Instead he was the one who messed with her. He would do something wrong but win her back because he was coy and said the right things. She fell for the bad boy who was totally wrong for her and wanted to change him. He hurt her and yet she still loved him. She seems like she wasn't the average woman of the time. She did what she wanted and seemed like she didn't really care what others thought of her. Of course she mentioned that people judged her because of her lifestyle but that usually happens when you do things that others don't do.

She's a Man Eater

The Wife of Bath (Alisoun) strikes me as a very headstrong independent woman. She knows what she wants and doesn't let anyone or anything get in her way. 

During this time period, I feel that Alisoun acts in direct contrast to what is normally expected from a woman. For one, she feels that women need to be in control in their relationship with their husbands. She talks about how she basically had her husbands wrapped around her finger to get what she wanted out of them. She has a deeply rooted need for this control which I'm not entirely sure from where it stems from but it could have something to do with her mom. She mentions in line 576 that she convinced Jankin that he had enchanted her saying that her mom had taught her that trick. Maybe her mom had the same mindset because her mom taught it to her or perhaps something happened to cause her to be this way. Will we ever find out? I don't know but it is interesting to think about. I'm also a bit confused on why Alisoun had to fake that she was enchanted by Jankin but mentioned that he was the only one that she actually married for love. If she actually loved him, shouldn't she have been head over heels for him? 

She also has a very strong sexual appetite which I feel was frowned upon for women during this time. There has a been a lot of mention about Christianity in CT and Alisoun seems to use it to fit her own personal agenda of what she thinks is right (not to say that others haven't done the same thing). Alisoun doesn't seem share the same interpretation that others had during her time on the topic of sexuality. While it's clear that she believes in God, she questions where others got the idea that they were commanded to be virgins as it doesn't really mesh with the idea of marriage. She also uses the Biblical tales of Abraham and Jacob to defend her choice in having multiple husbands, basically saying if they could have a bunch of wives, why can't I have a bunch of husbands. Again, I think this goes back to Alisoun being a free spirited person. Not in the "make love, not war" sense but more in the sense of "take what I want when I want it."

Visual representation of Allison sizing up her next prey- I mean husband

I was not completely surprised at the fight she had with Jankin that happened towards the end of the prologue simply due to Alisoun's personality. I believe the book that Jankin would read came off to Alisoun as a personal attack because all it did was blame women for everything bad that happened to their husbands which directly contradicts everything she stood for in that women were to basically be worshipped and rule over their husbands.

#JustWifeyThings

The Wife of Bath tries to establish herself as an experienced wife, but the only thing she’s actually experienced with is sexual manipulation… I love it, especially with the concluding details of her fifth marriage. Of course, women want what they can’t have, and the Wife of Bath knows this, but she still falls in love with her fifth husband, Jankyn, because she can not control him the way she wants to. Regardless of the domestic violence and psychological abuse involved, the Wife of Bath and Jankyn are great for each other because they balance each other out. I’m so glad she actually fell in love with him. I mean, her philosophies on love in her first four marriages are awfully sad, most likely because she had never experienced true love, and how could she?

They had me yeven hir gold and hir tresoor;

Me neded nat do lenger diligence

To winne hir love, or doon hem reverence.

They loved me so wel, by God above,

That I ne tolde no deyntee of hir love! (Lines 204-208)

 To top it all off, Jankyn is twenty years younger than her… I’m not going to lie; I find that detail erotic and captivating not just because it’d be my dream as a single, old lady to score some youthful babe but it adds to my astonishment over this woman’s mere existence. It was common for an older man to marry a younger woman, but was it common for an older woman to marry a younger man? I didn't think so...

She must represent a whole bunch of woman that actually existed in Chaucer's time with similar thoughts, feelings, and behaviors when it comes to schemas about Church, marriage, sex, feminine roles, and money. I want to hear the voices of these women! I don’t care for the argument that women like her are the first “feminist” characters. Uh, I don’t think she’s too concerned with feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men (thanks for the definition, Google). She doesn’t mention a need for women’s rights and she definitely isn’t trying to achieve equality with men – if anything, she’s trying to achieve jurisdiction over men. I think the Wife of Bath is just a badass nympho that doesn’t conform to the typical perspectives women in her time were taught to take and, in turn, needed to fine the right guy for her, and she did. In my opinion, she can’t even translate to a feminist character.

My mental image of the Wife of Bath during her first four marriages:

Fionna Goode from American Horror Story, especially in the episode with the axeman ;)

And during her fifth:

Lucy from I Love Lucy, mostly because she and Ricky are both hot-tempered and crazy, but they love each other <3

Geoffrey Chaucer, "The Canterbury Tales." Edited by V.A. Kolve and Glending Olson. Second Norton Critical Edition.

Grendel vs. fire breathing dragons

Beowulf really should have listened when he was told to not let his little bit of success get to his head. He also should have picked different men to back him up. I dont know about anyone else, but the way they just left him to die was NOT okay in my eyes. These men are supposed to be men of valor, men of strength and courage, not men who run away when times get hard. “his comrades, hand-chosen, sons of noblemen, did not take their stand in a troop around him with warlike valor—they fled to the woods and saved their lives,” (2596-2599).

Of course while I don’t blame them, because I would probably do the same thing, I’m not sure why Beowulf didn’t “Hand choose” these men much better.

What makes it even funnier in a way, to me that is, is while Beowulf’s life had just ended the men came to see him, the men who left him when he needed them. “those ten weak traitors all together/ who had not dared to hoist their spears/ when their lord of men needed them most:/ now shamefaced, they carried their shields…” (2847-2852). they knew that instead of sticking around and dying for meaning they are now looked down upon… Wiglaf tells them “Death is better/for any earl than a life of dishonor!” (2890-2891.) Wiglaf would have stuck around. 

I cant be entirely upset about Beowulfs death just because he did it to himself. Really, only Beowulf can be mad and Beowuld for getting himself in to something he shouldn’t have in an effort to prove himself to be this great soldier. He thought because he killed Grendel he could kill fire breathing dragons… and that is just foolish to me. There is absolutely no comparison in my eyes. Beowulf says himself he can handle this has he did Grendel and his mother, with no idea that they were not the same. I mean I guess they both look pretty scary...

But the dragon still takes the cake. 

Always will. No enemies are the same, and Beowulf should have taken the advice he received and maybe he would still be alive, maybe if he took the time to learn his enemies he would have defeated them. I dont know, I guess the adrenaline was cruising through his veins. Beowulf died a very Courageous death, and I feel like thats all he would have wanted anyways, another reason why I cant be too upset over his death. He died stupidly, but with much valor

Dragons are Cool.. So Beowulf Wins..Then Dies?

     So first off even though the dragon is another foe for Beowulf I still think it’s pretty cool. Dragons are interesting creatures to be the bad guy in a story. When the narrator was talking about the dragon setting the town on fire I could help but imagine the dragon that Harry had to fight in the Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. As well as Dragon from Shrek and how they were both protecting something like the dragon in the story, one was protecting a golden egg and the other was protecting the castle and Princess Fiona.

      Out of the foes that Beowulf had I really liked the dragon. Maybe it was because when you think about a dragon you kind of get this cool, bad-ass vibe. Plus all the dragon wanted to do was protect his things and when he set the town on fire he became a problem that Beowulf couldn’t help but fight. Kind of like Grendel’s Mom who just wanted to avenge her little boy.

       Beowulf’s soldiers suck! I get that they don’t want to be a dragon’s lunch but they kind of signed up for the job when they became soldiers. Especially if Beowulf needs you to be there even if you’re just bait so he can regain his strength you have to do your job. You may not have signed up for that particular job, but it’s your job.

      Beowulf should have listed to Hrothgar when he was talking about Beowulf not getting a big head and being humble. Maybe if he did he would still be alive. It was portrayed well when the narrator stated, “…he did not dread that attack, nor did he worry much about the dragon’s warfare, his strength or valor, because he had survived many battles…” (Lines 2347-2350). Maybe if he wasn’t so full of himself he would have been more careful. Although he did win his battle which is also kinda cool and has the legacy of defeating a dragon before he died. He died a great hero.

Beowulf Wins! Then Dies...

First I want to address this dragon. When it was talking about how the dragon was setting fire to the town, it reminded me of the dragons in Game of Thrones only instead of protecting their mother, this dragon was protecting itself from thieves. I kind of feel bad for the dragon because he was just trying to protect his treasures but he kind of went off the deep end and started burning the town down which Beowulf could just not let happen. I'm really interested to know where all of these non-human/supernatural foes keep coming from? Is there a set amount in the world that they live in or do they spawn from some foreign world? If it's the latter, they will be fighting these monsters long after Beowulf's death.  

Beowulf really should have heeded that warning not to let all of his successes go to his head, because maybe he would still be alive. When he was preparing to fight the dragon, the narrator talked about how he was not afraid of this fight because he had already "...crushed Grendel and his kin in combat,..." (Line 2353). I know how facing your fears/enemies head on is seen as a good thing in this society (which in some cases I agree) but Beowulf's fight with Grendel was not easily won. He especially did not "crush" the fight with Grendel's mom where he almost died. In this instance, choosing to quit while he was ahead would have been a much better option. 

I'd also like to address Beowulf's terrible soldiers who just abandoned him when he needed them the most. I understand not wanting to fight against a huge dragon because you don't want to get eaten by it, but the job they signed up for of fighting with and for Beowulf literally could have been that same situation everyday. At least there was Wiglaf who stood by Beowulf's side even though he could only offer "...a little life-protection..." to him (Line 2877). I completely agree that the ten traitorous soldiers shouldn't receive any treasure and be stripped of land rights but I think it's a little extreme to punish everyone in their tribe. It kind of reminds me of the three generations of punishment that North Korea imposes on those who they feel have betrayed the government. The only ones who should be punished are the soldiers.

How Old is this Freaking Geat

Beowulf, this is how your age mates are doing.

How old is this freaking Geat, for Pete’s sake? I mean, let’s assume he was at least twenty when he killed Grendel and Grendel’s mother. Then, he’s King for fifty winters before he does what? Slays a dragon? This man has got to be seventy-something years old, and he is about to slay a dragon. Um...okay…and what was the average life expectancy of a man during this time period?

Whatever, all mathematics and real-world logic aside, I still don’t know how I feel about the structure of this dragon/worm/serpent section of the poem. The narrator begins with an attempt to rationalize the hoard, which the dragon seems to guard:

“There were many such

antique riches in that earth-hall,

for in ancient days an unknown man

had thought to hide them carefully there,

the rich legacy of a noble race,

precious treasures.” (Lines 2232-2236)

(Wait – “noble race”? Hm, that’s a strange construal coming from Europeans – not.) In addition to this vague explanation for the entire existence of the hoard and the dragon, footnote three on page 187 clarifies a critical reference: “a cup is taken from the dragon’s hoard.” Is this The Holy Grail? DUH. Okay, I understand that literature likes to drop subtle hints and leave things up to the imagination, but my imagination is too big for this. If you’re going to provide me with a backstory, give me the whole backstory, please! Now, I have about four note pages of thoughts. Did this unknown man find The Holy Grail, or had it always been in his possession? How? Why would the dragon be there? Did a demonic or Holy body place the dragon there? Did the unknown man die and get reincarnated as a badass dragon to protect his stuff? Could Beowulf commit suicide and come back to kick his ass as a maximum CP Zapdos? Does this dragon just have hoarding disorder? Can he sell it on Let Go? Isn’t there a Spongebob episode about this? These are my real questions.

On a serious note, this section made me realize just how thematic “fair fights” are to this poem, and from a historical perspective, that makes perfect sense. Battles between two people or even two countries used to be consistently fair. Each opponent would have a chance to prepare, they’d have the same grade of weapons at their disposal to use, and they’d usually be allowed to surrender. We can’t know if anybody in this poem would have cared if his or her opponent suddenly waved a white flag, but that part doesn’t matter so much.

Beowulf’s battles are fair because he performs them out of vengeance for the lives his opponents took first, and I think that sort of replaces the idea that Grendel, Grendel’s mother, and the dragon didn’t get a chance to prepare. One could also argue that his opponents aren’t human; therefore, they don’t know nor abide by the moral rules of battle. Beowulf also uses only the weapons he needs to match his opponent’s abilities. His technical reasoning for this has something to do with wyrd or fate. Beowulf believes the party that's supposed to win will always win, regardless of who is more powerful. I don’t know about that, I think it’s just nice to try and play on level ground. Winning feels sweeter that way. For some reason, today's world doesn’t fight the way Beowulf fights. We sneak up on each other, steal, lie, and cheat with our own interests in mind all the time. We’d do anything for a Klondike bar. What is wrong with us? Why don't we want to fight fairly anymore?

Beowulf, II. ed. by R.M. Liuzza