Monthly Connections, Cultural Relativism

I really enjoyed the article. I especially liked the author's conclusion. He made excellent points on the subject and I found that I couldn't agree more with him.

The first thing this article made me think of was Waiting For Godot and existentialism in general. During the discussion in class, something that you (Mrs. Burnett) said stuck out in my mind. About how ridiculous it is for someone to say to someone else "no you can't come here because this is our land" even though if you think about it, we're all here and who's to say what land belongs to anyone. Now, you didn't say it like that, but that's the idea. This was an allusion to illegal immigration and immigration in general (or at least that's how I interpreted it). Anyways, after you said that, I thought that it kind of made sense for people to claim land because that's how society is. If there weren't boundaries, things could be chaotic. And I felt that this article did a good job in describing situations like that. Even if it is ridiculous to say you can't come here, this is my land, there has to be something to keep order because that's how people can live with other people. On smaller terms, most people would not let some random person off the street come into their houses. They made or paid for their houses so why should they have to? But, one could say "Hey, this is just space on the earth and who are you to tell me where I can and can't go?" I see it the same way with countries, it's the same thing but on a larger scale. And if you really want to live in a country, what's so bad about doing it by the rules?

Like the article said, everything can be seen from the different sides and with Cultural Relativism both sides are not any better or any worse than the other. So going back to the immigration issue (which isn't necessarily culture-bound but I think it can be seen using this idea), one side believes that it's okay to cross borders into countries and live in them without having used the proper procedure. Whereas the other side (which is the country) believes it is wrong that these people want to live in the country and show no concern to the laws of the country in the first place. Of course there are the existentialists in the country who believe that it is okay for anyone to come into the country because it's all land and we're just people living on the same planet. The first idea according to Cultural Relativism would be that since neither idea is better or worse than the other, people may come and go or stay as they please. In a society as big as the one on earth, this is not such a great idea for several reasons:
1. In order to co-exist, some type of order must be maintained
2. By not following the order (law) that is in place, there cannot be peaceful co-existance
3. Without peaceful co-existance, there is turbulance and chaos
4. And then we all die

So as humans, we must compromise on ethical terms (like if a woman is considered property in some countries, it isn't okay for her husband to torture her). People can come into and leave countries or stay in them. But there is a proper order for this. Why? Because this is what allows humans to live peacefully. Like the article said, it would be impossible for there to be places that allows murder or place no value on the truth. Likewise, it is impossible for there to be places to exist that have no care whether or not people come and go as they please.

Monthly Connections November, Beowulf! (Once Again)

So I feel kind of bad because all of my blogs are dealing with Beowulf in some way which is completely unoriginal of me, but oh well. Hopefully next month will be something other than Beowulf (I'd much rather be writing about Wuthering Heights but that's what I get). I cannot believe that some people spend their entire lives trying to "tear up" Beowulf and find all of the hidden meanings, symbolism, and historical influences. I don't really know what kind of satisfaction someone gets trying to figure out if Beowulf is a Christian work or not because there's always going to be the other side telling him he's wrong, plus he's never going to find out whether he's right or not. Well, I could understand the sense of wonder, but reading the article, I just don't understand why one man would be so curious as to know about every single aspect of Beowulf.

So, I thought that the article accurately told about Beowulf. It pointed out several things that I didn't notice like how Beowulf only addressed crowds with exception of Wiglaf at the end. This sort of deals with him being an Epic Hero, a "larger than life" person. But this type of person wouldn't even be dealing with life if he never made personal connnections to other humans on personal levels. Isn't the purpose of life to create relationships? Beowulf would fail at making relationships because of his lack of dealing with the individual. Or is he so "larger than life" that he doesn't need to make relationships with individuals in a "normal" way.

A related point that was made is how some say that the true theme lies within the meaning of the story rather than the character of Beowulf. This would make sense as to why Beowulf lacks qualities that most all humans possess. This could also be why Beowulf isn't immediately introduced into the story. Rather than begin with Beowulf hearing the news of Grendel's massacre and then showing the massacre in a flash back, Grendel's massacre occurs followed by Beowulf coming over by a boat to "save the day". This is the opposite of how most of the issues were presented. For example, a character would be introduced followed by something about his past.

I enjoyed the comparison between Grendel's mother and the humans of the novel. It's a bit ironic that trying to avenge her son can be considered an honorable thing but it isn't because she and her son are monsters. But that was another point that I didn't notice until I read the article.

Monthly Connections October, Grendel and Other "Parallel Stories"

I've never been a fan of sequels unless the storyline was designed to be in a series of novels. But I'm not too fond of book series either, with the exception of Harry Potter. So I ask myself, why would anyone want to write a "follow up" novel to the poem Beowulf? To begin with, Beowulf was written long ago and it wasn't written in a modern language. I believe that there is a reason why writers write what they write and there is a reason why some things are left unexplained and why stories end where they end. The rest is open to interpretation.

The first problem I have with Grendel is the way it is written. It appeared to me that the author was trying to write in a style that was similar to the flow and diction of Beowulf. Except, he didn't really succeed. The wording just didn't match up for me. One of the biggest problems I had regarding this was the use of swears. These words didn't exist when Beowulf was written so why would an author use them in a novel that was supposed to take place during the same time? I can understand the use of swears in literature when someone is talking or when it is written on the wall like in The Catcher in the Rye, but I feel that it shows a limited vocabulary if the writer can't find a better word or phrase to use other than a swear.

Another problem I had with Grendel is when we were discussing it in class. Everyone made it sound as though this is actually how Grendel is in Beowulf, but it's not. This is only one person's interpretation, it's not exactly what the author of Beowulf intended for the character of Grendel. So I wonder to myself, why are we interpreting it as though it were? It would be like writing the Boo Radley version of To Kill a Mockingbird and depicting him as a total pervert until the very end when he saves Scout and Jem because he's had a sudden change of heart but then going beynd the story and making him kill everyone because really he's a psychotic killer. Not only would this be untrue to the story, it would be one version of how the story truly ends and it would be a version that not many people would like.

So how does this observation tie into "my life, media, or on a larger scale to something happening in society or the world?" Well, there are many books that have been published without the author's direct consent as informal sequels or follow ups or "sister stories" to previously written novels. In my mind, these people should not be writers because they are taking an unoriginal thought (the previously written novel) and putting a spin on it to make it their own. Why is it that Geraldine Brooks has to tell me what really went on to the Mr. March from Little Women in her novel March? I filled in the cracks for myself and I find it almost disrespectful that an author would believe that her version is so great that it should be published and readers of Little Women should just accept her version as the true version. And who the hell does John Clinch think he is to go out and say what "really happened" to Huck Finn's father in his novel Finn? Once again, he is trying to rework a classic and say that his version is true. There are so many informal sequels to the novels Pride and Prejudice and Gone With the Wind, and I find it overall insulting to the readers of the original text. Any "writer" who goes out and publishes an informal sequel--in my mind-- believes that the readers of the original novel are too stupid or too dumb or too uncreative to come up with an epilouge that they like. Louisa May Alcott, Mark Twain, Jane Austen, Margaret Mitchell, and any other writer who has written a story that someone created a spin-off of, ended the story or left out certain parts for a reason-- for the reader to decide for himself. Anyone who has accepted spin-off stories as true is a fool.

I was watching the new Beowulf movie that came out this morning and I took note of many inconsistencies between it and the book. Most people do realize that movies are usually altered when they have been created from books. This is not the case with novels. In class, we never discussed other possibilites of what made the character of Grendel from Beowulf behave the way he did. Well, we did but it wasn't in-depth to the point that we were saying that he had human qualities and could talk and was friends with this dragon that eventually kills Beowulf. The way I pictured him was as a monster who was evil and had to eat so he ate people. John Gardner told me I was wrong, he said Grendel is this guy who really just wanted to be friends with humans but they tried to kill him so he instead killed them, and oh by the way, he can talk and is capable of complex thought, and he's really not a bad guy at all. He just kills people because, well, they made him mad once. And even though he's some kind of creature, he's basically better than all of he humans in the novel. This was not my interpretation at all and I refuse to accept it because Beowulf has absolutely nothing to do with whatever John Gardner wrote.

I can understand when a writer wants to come back with a follow up or sister story to another novel they wrote, but I do not appreciate other authors telling me how a story ends when they didn't write it to begin with.

All of these novels should come with a big sticker on the cover: WARNING: this novel was written without the consent of (the author of original) and in no way expresses his/her beliefs.

Monthly Connection September, Howard Roark: The Hero of The Fountainhead

So during the first Socratic Seminar, Katelyn and I had a short discussion regarding whether or not Howard Roark should be considered the hero of The Fountainhead. I believe that he is for numerous reasons, while Katelyn believes that Ellsworth Toohey may be considered the hero to some people.

These two defintions of the word "hero" clearly define Howard Roark, not Ellsworth Toohey.

the principal character in a play or movie or novel or poem
champion: someone who fights for a cause

To start out with, the title of the book is The Fountainhead. This is refering to Howard Roark who, like a fountain, is welling with ideas--particularly about architecture, but these ideas apply to life as well. It would not make sense for an author to title a work after the antagonist(the title of Beowulf is Beowulf, not Grendel.) Ellsworth Toohey, in a sense can be considered a "fountainhead" but not in the terms of the novel. He tried to constantly manipulate people as a way of living. Howard Roark didn't rely on anyone but himself. Usually if a hero is living for others, it is to postively influence their lives, not to control it.

The novel also presented the situation in a way that Howard was the obvious hero. The fact that Toohey is undefeated at the end of the novel takes nothing away from the fact that Howard did succeed. He is the architect he wants to be, he has friends who understand him, and he has Dominique. Especially after learning all of Toohey's true motives, I don't see how any sane person would consider him the hero.

When Toohey gives Peter his big speech about how he intends to control everything, it becomes extremely obvious to the reader that Toohey is the "bad guy." His ideas are similar to that of totalitarian leadership in North Korea. Tell the people what they want because they are too stupid to know, make yourself a God-like figure, basically control everything. This is not the definition of a hero. There isn't a sane person on Earth who wishes to be controlled unless they are brainwashed. So, Toohey would not be considered a hero because his main objective is to control you! Some people may admire the fact that he is smart enough to get all of these people to listen to his ideas, but he cannot be considered a hero because he isn't letting people live.

So tying this in to Beowulf, it would be like calling Grendel the hero. Katelyn's arguement would probably be something along the lines of, if someone didn't like all of the people or the city that Grendel is terrorizing, maybe they would consider Grendel to be the actual hero and maybe even a martyr. This is not the case for the same reasons that make Toohey not the hero of The Fountainhead. To start off with, it is not how the story is presented. Grendel is killing people for no reason, which is very bad. I don't think killing is smiled upon anywhere. Also Grendel is depicted as the villain who the fighting hero like Toohey for Roark.