Hamlet's Soliloquy

The players (or actors) have arrived at the palace. Hamlet asks one them to make a speech about the fall of Troy, the death of King Priam, and the grief of his widow, Queen Hecuba. Hamlet is very moved by the the actor and, when he is alone, he releases the out pour of thought the performance has released.

In act II, scene II, Hamlet talks about being moved by the actor for being able to express passion of depth and emotion for historical figures he has no connection to, whereas, Hamlet, himself, cannot take action even in a personal matter, which haunts his every waking moment. Hamlet chastises his mother for not taking after the character of Hecuba, who, from his perspective, mourns her husband appropriately. Hamlet also expresses profound disappointment in himself, calling himself a "rogue," incapable of accomplish his obsession, being "pigeon-liverd," and "[lacking] gall" for his hesitation.

So, after venting his anger outloud, Hamlet decides to take it slow. He devises a plan to have the actors act out a play, closely resembling the murder of his father, and will carefully observe Claudius' reaction. If he shows any signs of discomfort or guilt, Hamlet will know of his guilt, which will give him extra incentive finally push forward to the next step in his revenge.

The Wife of Bath

The Wife of Bath is an extremely practical woman who defies the desired archetypes of womanhood during her time period, which are purity and chastity. She scorns these "virtues," but assures that her motives are purely rational and national. The wife maintains her multiple marriages and behaviours toward her various husbands were nothing out of the ordinary. She merely did what was in her power to do, which was to use her sexual prowess to manipulate her husbands in order to get to their riches. Since, sex was within the marriage rights, the wife felt that abstinence was pointless and that sex, her most exclusive talent, was a worthy payment for the security and finances provided by each husband.

If the Wife of Bath was to ever meet Emelye, she would more than likely tell her about her personal views and experiences, the biblical male figures with multiple wives, and the ambiguities of the limitations of wives to explain to her the pros of seduction and the cons of chastity. Afterwards, the wife would probably pat Emelye on the head, comment on her naivete and innocence, and tell her it was ultimately up to her to decide what she wanted. As for Alisoun, the Miller's Wife, it would be hard to say what the Wife of Bath would say to her. I'm positive she would praise her power over the Miller, but her views of infidelity are unclear. She could tell Alisoun that adultery is beneath her and that her husband would not be alive for long anyway, so wait until he croaks; or the Wife of Bath may merely comment that Alisoun should have more discretion when seeing her lover on the side. Also regarding Alisoun's crude (but hilarious) actions toward the blacksmith, the wife may either applaud her for her frankness at showing the blacksmith what she really thinks of him or she may tell her that it is an insult to her sexuality.

The Wife of Bath is a fascinating woman because she develops her own philosophy and independent streak with her natural talents and practical thinking without coming off as an irrational "fem-nazi"; meaning she doesn't come off too strong, maintaining a sense of mystery, unpredictability, and excitement.

Beowulf and Wolverine

Beowulf and Wolverine are quite different since they are from different time periods: Beowulf is meant to be a greatly admired hero from a well-established lineage whereas Wolverine's anti-hero origin stems from as the aftermath of the Vietnam War. However both of them share similar character development... Starting with the passage of time: Beowulf ascends from a youthful warrior to a matured king. While Wolverine, with his mutation ,"healing factor," which slows his aging process, keeps him at physical peak throughout many decades. Also, like Beowulf, Wolverine is known for his raging "berserk" mode. Compare Beowulf ripping off Grendel's arm to (depending on the comic issue) Wolverine ripping his opponents (literally) to shreds or taking out Sabretooth's brain matter in one comic; both of these figures possess, not only, great strength, but a ruthlessessness to take out their enemies through whatever measures necessary. Neither Beowulf nor Wolverine are known for their modesty either; Beowulf proudly claims his patrolineal heritage and physical prowess and Wolverine is quoted saying "I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do isn't very nice." However, both are still heroic because Wolverine and Beowulf use their great powers to maintain justice and the preservation of innocent lives, while maintaining their own personal dignity and sense of honour as well.

Dharma

I believe strongly in some of the principles of Buddhism, such as wisdom, peace 0f mind, lack of materialism and self indulgence, etc. Of course, I have a long ways to go before ridding myself of "impurities" which corrupt my soul, one of which being my daily craving of meat.

One thing I can brag about is my lack of materialism, something I am particularly proud of. I am not a big spender and don't buy things I need. I never buy fast food, a fleeting joy and not healthy. Also, I don't own a cell phone, which seems quite alien to many, since it has become quite universally convenient. However, I spend little time on phones, unless it's urgent or brief, and even then, I either use the home phone or find a public phone. Iphones and "smart" phones in particular, while entertaining and amusing, I have no need of, since I have a computer to surf the net and don't mind being without the internet every free moment of my life.

I do have my moments of weaknesses though, like straightening my hair, despite the damage my hair suffers, for which I have to buy costly heat protection. Skincare products, I am very vulnerable to since my skin isn't as good as it used to be and I have no patience for "natural" remedies. Hopefully, someday I'll either obtain natural beauty or just learn to make do with minimal coverage and be happy with the way I am.

Achilles' Fate

Achilles is the hero of the Iliad, the hope of the Greeks and was hailed as an all-powerful demi-god, despite being second-in-command to Agamemnon. No one could best him, however as with almost every hero, his weakness was a loved one he held dear to his heart; the loss of that propelled Achilles for vengeance. He defeats his arch-nemesis, Hector, saves his comrades, and paves the way for Victory.

The reason Achilles chose to fight and end his life was the low sense of self-worth as a result of Patroclus' death. It is agonizing to see a man of such pride, tumble so easily. It's not as if Achilles was pure arrogance, he lived up to the greatness he was destined for. For his heroic status, Achilles was immortalized and his legend was passed on, as was the tradition of the Greeks: achieve through strength and bravery and your legacy will inspire.

Achilles' regret in the aftermath does spurn some questions though. Is a glorious death really as desirable and romantic as it sounds? Looking at it, from a modern perspective, Achilles was extremely depressed, vulnerable, and hastily decided to throw away his life. Great for the readers and the Greeks, but not the individual psyche. Also, Achilles was killed by Paris, a coward and a cause of the war. Was Homer trying to redeem the cowardly Paris or was he subtly trying to contradict the romantic notions of dying in combat?

Scene from the Odyssey

The Odyssey, in general, didn't engross me nearly as much as the Iliad, probably because of the stilted translation. However, I loved the scene between Achilles and Odysseus, which I read about in the intro to the World Literature textbook about Homer. I got really excited about it and looked forward to it as a highlight of the story.

I was disappointed that the scene happened much, much too briefly. However, it holds so much meaning, contrasting the Greek values and beliefs presented in the Iliad. I never expected there to be a contradiction about a glorious demise, especially by Achilles or Homer. Odysseus, praising Achilles' fate, while condemning his own, is a classic example of the cliche: the grass is always greener on the other side.

I loved Achilles in the Iliad. However, in the Odyssey, he is shown in a very different light. Despite his great power, I thought it was unfair that Achilles was relied on so much, to the point where he was the main and only hope for the Greeks. He knew his fate would mean the end for him, his colleagues probably knew it, yet they try to force Achilles into fighting, and berate him for refusing. Even though Achilles admitted his guilt for not saving Patroclus and avenged his death, he humbly regrets his death and would rather give up glory for life. It is surprisingly more realistic than a lot of the "noble" heroes who are presented, ex: Batman. Batman is a great, complex character, but Achilles is actually relatable, as a man fighting his fate, then ultimately, succumbing to it.

The Floods

It is interesting that two cultures with contrasting religions would share a similar story. In this case, it is the flood story from the Bible's Genesis and Epic of Gilgamesh. Could two radically different backgrounds have the same reason to preserve the same story? Both stories involve mankind being punished severely, having to unknowingly forfeit their lives to a torrent at the whim of their respective gods. Meanwhile there's only a chosen survivor, his family, and a pair of animals of each sex from diverse groups to board a boat in order to escape the flood.

Both flood stories, even with the same plot elements, ironically have multiple differences, many of them religiously based. In Gilgamesh, Enlil released the flood because of the "clamour" caused by the (even then) "[teeming]" population of mankind and is later chastised for his actions by Utnapishtim and another god, Ea. There is even a beautiful verse recited by Ea "lay upon the (individual) sinner his sin..." Whereas, god from Genesis, being omnipotent and supposedly having just motive, doesn't warrant even a mention of second thoughts or questioning from Noah (at least not in this edition), the closest being god's proclamation that the waters "shall no more become a flood to destory all flesh." Also, while Noah does live for many centuries, he does receive immortality like Utnapishtim since his story is monotheistic.

In Genesis the flood lasts 40 days and Noah checks the global status every 7 days with the help of a raven and 3 doves. While the time period of the destruction in Gilgamesh lasted for 6 days and nights and on the 7th day, a dove is released to check the status of the world, then afterwards a swallow and a raven (but whether it was every 7 days or on the same day is unclear). Narration in Gilgamesh is 1st person by the hero, while in Genesis, it's third person, making the first much much more complex than the latter since the readers get a glimpse into the thoughts and emotions of Utnapishtim, when having to leave behind his people and city to conditions beyond his control.

Going back to the reason each version of the similar story is preserved... Perhaps both cultures believed in the flood and there was an Utnapishtim and Noah. Even though the flood in Gilgamesh wasn't agreed upon by all, perhaps both stories still were meant to serve as a reminder for mankind not to provoke the wrath of the gods, since there is no telling what is going to happen. Like 2012...