Othello Part II

First off I must say that I absolutely think that the play shouldn't have been named after Othello. Although he did have a tragic ending, I think that the other characters that died also died in a tragic way for an innocent reason. I think that Othello's wife had a more tragic death than Othello because not only was she accused of something she never did but she was killed by the man that she betrayed her father for. If it were up to me I would have named the play “Iago- The Devil” because he is just something else. I have to admit that I am glad he is a fictional character, and after reading this play a weird sense of paranoia swept over me, because I imagined what if there are really people out there just like Iago (which I am sure there are plenty of all over the world).  I also can’t believe what a light punishment he got after all the troubles and deaths he has caused. If anything the play should have been named just “A Tragedy” because this play is a complete disaster whichever way you look at it. Although I liked Othello and his naïve and kind character, I think that this play shouldn’t have been named after him. I wish I could speak to Shakespeare and ask him what was his reasoning behind making Othello the title of the play.

When talking about disasters, I think that every character in this play was struck by a tragedy one way or another. The tragedies of Roderigo, Desdimona, Emilia and Othello are obvious, but Desdimona’s father also faced a tragedy. Not only was he so broken to hear that his daughter secretly got married to someone he despised, but if he only knew that his daughter was suffocated to death by the same man whom she chose to be with. If that is not a tragedy for any father I don’t know what is. Even though Cassio remained alive and become the general, I think that he somewhat had a tragic ending too, because he will never know who his true friends were and who was behind the plot the whole time. It makes me think what if Iago was released from jail for whatever reason, and he returned to be a “best friend” to Cassio and help him with his leadership. I can only imagine how ugly things would get. Although Iago remained alive too (which really made me mad), I think that he had a tragic ending as well because even though most of his little plans worked out I think one of the main goals of his was to take Cassio’s place. Now that he is going to jail, he will never be able to achieve that goal of his, which I am sure were bad news to him.

I am not sure what to think about Iago. He was either too evil or clever, or the rest of the characters were very naïve and easily fooled. I am glad Cassio ended up on the top, yet it makes me wonder why out of all characters, Shakespeare chose Cassio to be the one who will end up on the good side of the situation.

Othello Part I

In the first Act of Othello, I like how the play opens with not the main character speaking which is usually the case. I like the conversation that Iago and Roderigo have because it lets us know that Iago isn’t much of a fan of Othello’s and that he isn’t loyal to him. This introduction reminds me of the dramatic irony we talked about in class because right off the bat we find out that instead of being a loyal servant and a friend, Iago hates Othello because he didn’t promote him. Although we know this, Othello doesn’t know what is going on which shows that this conversation will play a major part in the future of the play.

I love how ironic Iago’s character is, because after he just told Brabantio about his daughter and Othello sleeping together, he met up with Othello and stated how he thinks he isn’t cruel enough for the job that he is doing. I find that very ironic, because him snitching on Othello showed his cruelty.  He also continues talking and asking about Othello’s marriage, and warning him that Brabantio will soon come after Othello. By warning him this way I think that he is trying to make himself seem like he is a good friend and that he is looking out for him, even though he is the one that snitched on him in the first place. What a sneaky little guy!

It is so obvious how hurt Brabantio is that this marriage was a secret and that it happened behind his back. I can’t believe that he said he would have rather adopted a child than have his own, which shows how disappointed and hurt he really is. Another cruel thing he said was that he is glad she is his only child because if he had more, he would have to keep them locked up. Although these are cruel words, I don’t really blame him because any father would be appalled and disappointed to find out that his daughter got married secretly, especially to the last person that he would expect. As much as he hated Roderigo, I am sure he likes him now way more than Othello, and I wonder if in future of the play he will try and help Roderigo get his daughter. I also can’t believe that Othello actually wanted to bring Desdemona to the battle against Turks. What man in his right mind would even think about putting his wife in danger, as much as she wanted to be a part of it?

One quote that caught my eye was when Brabantio told Othello to watch out and be careful because if she deceived her own father she might deceive him too. Since I’ve never read Othello before,  I am wondering if this is some kind of foreshadowing in the play, and if she really will deceive him later in the play.

The 13th Warrior Part II

So, we are done with The 13^th Warrior and I must say that even I enjoyed watching this movie just a little more than actually reading the story. I saw many resemblances between the movie and the story, and I especially liked the clever way of Buliwyf still dying due to poison just not from a dragon. I liked the movie because everything that happened was way more believable than it was in the story.

I must say that I thought that Buliwyf was going to die way earlier than he did, and just when we think that he passed away, he comes out ready to fight for one last time. As cheesy as it sounds, that scene gave me chills because that’s what true bravery and courage are all about. The last battle was a very powerful scene, and for a second when Ahmed started taking off his shoes and armor I thought that this scene was going to resemble Beowulf’s scene when he fights Grendel armor-less. I must say that I was glad to find out that he was only praying and wasn’t crazy enough to try and fight armor-less like Beowulf did.

I love the transformation of Ahmed’s character throughout the movie. At the beginning, he wasn’t happy about the fact that he was chosen as the 13^th warrior, but towards the end of the movie you could see his change and his dedication to defeating the enemies and protecting the village.

I also liked the strategy that they had when they were about to enter the cave, and this is something I wish Beowulf did as well when attacking the dragon. The warriors could have easily just walked in the cave and started attacking and fighting, however their plan got them very far down the cave and helped them kill the mother. I am sure if they just walked in there like Beowulf did, they wouldn’t have made it too far because they were obviously outnumbered. I also liked how more believable this scene was, rather than Beowulf swimming and fighting underwater for a few hours.

I wish the movie was more about Buliwyf because I think that he is the true hero of the movie and the story, but I can also see why Ahmed was the main character. For a second I thought that the 13^th warrior was a parallel character to Beowulf, but then I realized that there is already a Buliwyf in the movie.  I think that if the movie was specifically focused on Buliwyf it would be way more similar to the story and I don’t think that that’s what they had in mind. I like the twist and the fact that the main character is a completely different person, yet we still get to see and experience Buliwyf’s story and courage.

Beowulf && The 13th Warrior Part I

One thing that I forgot to mention in my previous blogs about Beowulf is that I liked the foreshadowing within the story when Beowulf is warned about his strengths, and to not get carried away because death eventually awaits him too. This brings us to the end of the story when Beowulf wins the battle against the dragon but dies anyway, just like he was told. At the time I did not see the relevance of the warning about his death, but when the story ended I totally got it.

So far I love the movie we are watching and I am almost ashamed that I did not watch it before this class. I love the correlation between the story and the movie. I read that The 13^th Warrior is based on a novel “Eaters of the Dead” by Michael Crichton. Does this mean that Crichton based his novel on the story of Beowulf or is it just a big coincidence? I would love to read the novel and see how it compares to the actual story, not to mention the fact that it has an awesome title!

One of my favorite parts of the movie was when Ahmad was fighting against the beasts and when he realized that they were humans he got the confidence and became almost fearless. I think that I would be the same way because there is just something extra freaky and intimidating about the fact that you are fighting an animal or a demon because that battle seems almost impossible to win. However, if you know that it’s a human and that there is somewhat of an equal chance of winning, that’s when you become more confident.

I must admit that at the beginning of the movie when everybody was at the king’s funeral, I thought that they were speaking some random language, yet I couldn’t grasp on what language it was. Not until later did I realize and finally remembered that it’s actually English. How embarrassing!! As much as I like the 13^th Warrior, I think that Beowulf is way cooler because he actually fought real demons (not fake monsters) and he did it bare-handed, while the warriors in the movie used weapons. I like the wooden gate or wall that they built to prepare for the second battle and this is somewhat of what I had in mind when I said that I wish Beowulf would have prepared better and thought of a plan before he fought the dragon. I wasn't thinking of weapons but something more like a strategy of how to surround and attack the dragon. If anything he could have accepted the help from his warriors knowing that he is not as strong as he used to be as a 20 year old (even if they were scared they still would've had to fight with him if he ordered that). The wooden gate in the movie was very clever because if it wasn’t for the gate, I am sure the battle would have been twice as hard because the enemy wouldn’t have any obstacles.

I am looking forward to watching the second part of The 13^th Warrior and seeing how the correlation between the movie and the story develops. Not to mention that it’s way more interesting to watch than Matrix. Just saying!!

Beowulf Part II

So, Beowulf dies at the end. I knew that there had to be a twist to the story because it would have been pretty boring if all he did was have glorious battles. However, I expected him to maybe lose a battle but not actually die (which kind of means that he lost anyways).

In my opinion, Beowulf is what a hero should be. He isn’t interested in fame and reputation like Gilgamesh, because he is more concerned about the wellness of his people and defeating the evil monsters. He as confident as it gets and without too much hesitation goes into the battles, with the belief that God will choose his destiny and that God will either let him win or lose. However, I think that he should have done more than just leave his destiny in God’s hands.  Then also comes a question, what if he did something yet he was destined to die in the end anyways?

I don’t see the significance of Wiglaf towards the end of the story. Although I admire him for his bravery and loyalty to Beowulf, I am wondering if there is more significance to this character other than that he just helped weaken the dragon. Does that mean if Wiglaf wasn’t around to stab the dragon and weaken him, Beowulf would have been dead long time ago and the dragon would have lived on and continued harassing people?

Although I did not expect Beowulf to die the way he did, I think that some kind of tragic death was waiting for him eventually, because let’s be honest; he was asking for it. I am not saying that this is a bad thing; it’s a really good thing actually because if it wasn’t for his bravery we would have still been stuck in the first part of the story for a long time where Grendel would have still been killing people left and right. However, I think that he might have gotten carried away thinking that God will save him in every battle, and with that thought he just went into any battle without much preparation, plan or weapons. This is as brave as one gets, however I think that he got a little carried away and stepped into the battle with the dragon without much of preparation which could have potentially saved his life.  It’s kind of like what we do on every day basis. We do certain things and we get good at doing them, and right when we think we got it and we assume the next time will be as easy we are wrong. He should have known that it should take some planning or some back up if he was old and going against a strong beast. Instead, it seems as if he either wanted to die or hoped that God would save him.

Now I am connecting the dots from many readings we have had so far and realizing that heroes and warriors had really high standards to live up to.  These guys are amazing and even when they died, they weren’t looked upon as losers, yet they were pronounced even bigger heroes. I enjoyed reading Beowulf and I could see why Mr. Bahlmann likes it so much.

Beowulf Part I

So far, Beowulf has been a very interesting read. For a second it reminded me of The Epic of Gilgamesh because of the typical “a hero is here to kill the monster” type of thing.

I admire Beowulf’s bravery and courage to come over seas and be so sure of himself, his strengths and his warriors that came with him. However, one of my favorite parts was when he stood up to Unferth when he called him out about the battle he lost in the seas. His answer was so quick and sharp, and it showed how confident he is. Instead of admitting he lost, he found another glorious thing to mention in order to show why even thought he lost, he is still a hero. When he said that he killed nine sea monsters and he has never heard of any man do that, he was kind of bragging but I liked it because it showed that he knew that he was the best.  I wish that when I lost in something I could find another great thing to use as an example for why I am still a winner!  Instead I call myself a sore loser!! Great lesson learned from you Beowulf!!
I also thought it was interesting how Beowulf mentioned fate a couple of times, which makes me wonder if fate will play a part in this story the way it did in Oedipus.  In the story Hrothgar seems very pleased to see Beowulf and his brave warriors, and fully trusts Beowulf with his people’s lives in his hands. However, I am just wondering if Hrothgar really believed in and trusted Beowulf’s courage, or did he just accept his help because he had no other choice and he wouldn’t lose anything if Beowulf tried to kill the monster? I am not saying this is the case, but it’s just a thought.

I admire Beowulf’s courage to fight Grendel without any weapons. I guess you can say that it was fair, but if I knew that my opponent had no weapons and my weapons could assist me in defeating him, you best believe that I would bring my weapons and not even think about being “fair”. But I guess that’s what separates me from a true hero! I find it funny how all heroes have to save something from the battle to show that they defeated the enemy. In Epic of Gilgamesh, Enkidu and Gilgamesh brought back the head of one of the monsters, and Beowulf proved his victory by hanging Grendel’s arm on the wall. I guess it’s just like athletes keep and show off their trophies as proof of their win, our heroes keep body parts as a proof of awesome battles and victories! Way to go Beowulf!!

The Wife of Bath

I must start off by saying that the Wife of Bath is awesome! Not that I support everything she has done to her husbands, but not many women can do the same and get away with it. She is definitely a man-eater!! I know there was a movie that reminded me of this story, where a woman bribes and manipulates older men into marrying her, and then tries to murder them in order to get their money ( I just can’t remember what it’s called).

I love how she explains that in order for virgins to exist there must be someone out there who is creating these virgins and that we should leave virginity to those who strive for perfection and indulge in our sexual powers. What I like about this is that she is going against everything people believed back then and isn’t afraid to be rebellious. I can see her as one of those people that you would see in a movie, grey and old, sitting in a rocking chair and talked about her wild young years and crazy experiences, while her grandchildren listen (only in this case she had neither children nor grandchildren).

I love the irony in the fact that she married all of her husbands for money, and the one and only time she falls in real love with a man, is the one that treats her like crap. As we already mentioned in class, the fifth husband’s name is the only name mentioned out of all the husbands she had, which shows how significant he is and that she really did love him. She explains that women always desire what is forbidden to them, which makes total sense to me.  All girls want attention, but too much attention is never too good because it becomes annoying after a while. As guys like a challenge so do we, therefore I agree that forbidden is not necessarily what we desire but what we always imagine and think about. This also makes me think about the saying “women like bad boys “or “players”.  We always say we want a guy who treats us like a princess, but then many times we see women in relationships that are bad for them, but they don’t want to leave because they are in love with the jerk that never turned out to be the prince charming she thought he was or “wanted” him to be.  This also ties in with the fact that was mentioned in class about us not knowing what we want from men, which I completely agree with. We like to pretend that we have a set of standards for a perfect guy, but most of the time we settle for something that is nowhere near our standards and then we wonder why we are in love when “he” is everything we did not want in a man. We are very confusing beings and I will proudly admit that!

I couldn’t help but think of how cruel and selfish the Wife of Bath is, when she wasn’t even worried about her fourth husband dying, because she already had another one lined up. She is heartless and maybe her unlucky fifth marriage was a punishment for all the marriages she ruined by being cruel and manipulating. This reminds me of a random thing that I am about to mention. One of my very good friends dated three girls at the same time.  It turned out, that he fell in love with one of them just when all three found out that they have been played all along. It also turned out that all three girls were willing to forgive him and stay with him (if he left the other ones of course) except the one he fell in love with, who was disgusted and never talked to him again. This is somewhat relevant to Wife of Bath’s situation, because it was almost like karma that the first man she fell in love with treated her like crap.

Oedipus Part II

First of all, I must say that I love the irony in the fact that Oedipus becomes blind at the end, after ridiculing the prophet for the same thing. As far as fate goes, I honestly believe that  Oedipus nor his parents could change his fate.  I think that he was doomed from the beginning and fate wasn’t the question in the story, but when the fate would play out. Even if parents did not abandon him and raised him and taught him who his parents are and that it is wrong to kill your father and sleep with your mother, it would have happened eventually. Maybe it wouldn’t play out the same way it did in the play, but it would have definitely happened one way or another, because that was simply his fate.  On his way of avoiding his tragic fate, he killed the man who later turned out to be his father, which proves that even though he tried to avoid what was meant to happen, he made it happen even faster than it should have maybe. I wonder what would have happened if he was never found on the hill or if he let the king go and did not kill him?

I love the little twist within the play, when Oedipus freaks out about killing a man on the street and then finds out that his father actually died from natural causes. That’s when he relaxes and realizes that he did not kill his father. However, only a few seconds later he also finds out that the man he thought was his father is NOT his real father, and his minute of happiness is gone. Could you imagine finding everything out about your life and your family in just a matter of minutes or hours and finding out that what you thought was your life and who you thought your family was if far from the actual truth? Wow!! It really sucks to be Oedipus!

As far as Oedipus’ tragic flaws go, I think his tragic flaws were his curiosity. If he wasn’t as hungry for knowledge as he was, maybe he would have let go of finding out the truth and even though it would bother him that he doesn’t know, at least he would have been saved of the awful truth and poking out his eyes. However, how many people would actually not want to find out something when they are told that they shouldn’t know the truth. It’s like telling someone you can go everywhere in this house but the room upstairs, you don’t want to know what in there.  Would you actually take that advice or would it bug you that you are forbidden to enter the mysterious room? I would like to say that I would take the advice, but most likely human nature would make me go into the room to see what is going on. The same goes for Oedipus. Even though he was told not to fish for the truth, I think that is what sparked his curiosity even more which lead him to an even bigger disaster.

Oedipus the King

I must say that Oedipus is officially one of my favorite readings we have had this far ( even though I already read it in high school), not only because it wasn’t hard to read and understand, but also because it is nothing like we have read in this class.

The first part of Oedipus went by extremely fast and jumped straight to the point which I liked because too much detailing in our other readings bored me to death.  One thing we were told to pay attention to in this story is fate and how it plays out throughout the text. We were told to pay attention to fate and how it plays out in this story.  The question we all want to know the answer to is can you change your fate or destiny? First of all I do not understand the difference between the two and I always used the two interchangeably. As far as the question about destiny goes, I am not sure if you can change your fate. I love people who say “ only you can control your life and only you choose the path you want to take, “ but what if the path you choose is the one that was already chosen for you anyways? I guess the question is, is there a path already chosen for you before you were born and no matter what you try to do or what path you would like to, you will still somehow end up going down the path.

 I always wanted to go to a physic before because I always wondered about my future. However, the thing that freaks me out is what if I am told what my future will be and I try to change is and just because I tried to change it I will end up with the future the physic told me I will have. I guess this proves that I am not too sure if you can change fate. I believe that our path is already chosen for us and we can write out our own life and choose our own path, but I think that our decisions are guided by the way our original fate was written and that at the end of the day we will still end up at the place we were meant to be from the beginning.

Since I already read this play in high school, I know what will happen and that’s why I am ALMOST convinced that we cannot change our fate and that what was meant to be will happen one way or another, no matter how hard we try to stop it.

The Matrix

After  we were done watching the Matrix, it reminded me exactly why I did not want to watch it in a first place when it first came out, due to the many deep layers of symbolism, meanings and confusion.  I know we were supposed to “read” the movie and not just watch it, but as I was watching it and listening to Morpheus speak about The Matrix, what it is and how it works, all I could think about was “Daoism, Daoism, Daoism”. Everything he said sounded like exactly something from one of the Daoism readings we had. Although I did not understand Daoism that much, I still found some connections between The Matrix and Daoism, beginning with the idea of “how do you define real”. I loved the scene when Neo went to visit the oracle and when the little kid told him that the spoon isn’t actually bending because there is no spoon. If this is also something that Daoism reflects, I don’t believe in it one bit. I mean it would be great if I could look at things and bend them how I want to and move objects around the room however I wanted to, but so far that’s been impossible because I actually think that the spoon I eat with exists. If the spoon doesn’t exist yet it is there and we can see it and feel it and use it, does that mean that we as people do not exist either? We can be touched, smelled and seen, yet if we are just like that spoon that doesn’t exist, we as people aren’t any more real than that spoon. I guess what I am trying to say is that the question “how do you define real” is fair, but a better question is how do you differentiate between “real and unreal”?  What makes certain things real and certain things unreal?

One thing I remember from the movie is when Morpheus explained that even though Neo knows something, he can’t explain it and that he can only show him the door and Neo has to walk through it alone. This reminded me of Daoism because we spent a lot of time trying to figure out what Daoism really is, and then we came to the conclusion that Daoism goes with the flow and that it can’t really be explained in just one way. The movie is all about things being real and un- real, which reflects many themes in Daoism.

I enjoyed watching this movie and never knew that it reflected many parts of Daoism and it would be really creepy if the world really became an artificial reality called The Matrix in the next century or two.

The Perspectives of Daoism

The Daoism was a really boring read for me mostly because I am not a huge fan of philosophical and ethical ideas and I don’t like when a story makes me think (and I definitely had to think after I was done with Daoism).  Thinking about life, values and principles of nature is sometimes what we need in order to understand how and why we are living the way we are, but reading about that for about 30 pages almost put me to sleep because there was too much going on. The Daoism was kind of interesting because it’s amazing to realize that these people actually think in a “ go with the flow” way and they simply take things in life as they are. The most interesting read to me was the Dao De Jing, just because it was written in a rhythmic language which made it very easy to follow and understand. One of my favorite lines was “Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful” (Dao De Jing, 1019). In other words, truth hurts because it can get ugly and hurtful sometimes, and beautiful words may not be truthful always. Although he stated the obvious, I still like this line because it was one of the few that I actually understood and could relate to.

Although the Dao De Jing perspective wasn’t as bad to read and understand, I really fell into a confusion state once I began reading Zhuangzi. The intro was great and so were the stories shared that eventually reflected a lesson learned or a certain principle of life. However, the topics and questions were thrown all over the place and I could not keep up with the questions or the answers.  One line left me so puzzled that I ended up laughing because I have never read anything as confusing as that. “There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning” (Zhuangzi, 1028). WHAT? I tried to think outside the box and tried to get the message behind this saying, but in the end I ended up being even more confused. I liked the story about Lady Li becoming Duke Hsien’s consort, because it reminded me of a number of questions I have about death as well. I like this part because he explained that Lady Li was so sad for being held captive and taken to the state of Chin, however, when she saw what a good life she lived she wondered why she was ever depressed in a first place. So then he questions himself about the dead people and whether or not they wonder why they have longed for life. In other words how does he know if the dead are really miserable and missing the life they had while they were alive, or are they happy as dead and now wondering why they were ever scared of dying in a first place (the same way Lady Li was scared and sad about being taken to the state of Chin). This caught my attention because I ask myself random questions like that all the time and unfortunately I never get an answer, because asking about something so unknown and mysterious such as death is impossible to get an answer for unless you believe in spirits or you can talk to them (which would be a whole different blog entry).

Overall, I understand the significance of the Daoism perspectives because these stories might not have much meaning to someone who does not follow these philosophies. However, they are significant to many people out there who follow Daoism.

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

When I first started reading Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, I had to go back a few times and read the same lines over and over again until I finally understood what the author was saying. This poem was the hardest one to read for me, because this is the only text we have read so far that I had to go back and read the same thing a few times. With that being said, I am so grateful for Sparknotes !

I love the detailed descriptions of everything in the poem, because it helped me visualize the scenes such as the feast and when the Green Knight stormed in. This was one of my favorite scenes just because it was so unexpected and random. I had no idea that one of the main characters of the poem would be introduced by storming in and challenging the king. Anyways, who just storms in, interrupts a party and without much explanation asks to play a game? This reminded me of a typical SAW movie where Billy the Puppet pops up on the screen and whispers “ I want to play a game.”  Not only was this scene random, but did anybody catch how awesome this knight is? He gets his head chopped off, and without any show of pain or hurt, reaches down and somehow finds his head, that is still talking by the way, and then rides off on his horse headless.  I don’t know about you, but I think that is awesome!

I would say that Gawain is a hero.  He came out of nowhere and decided to take on the Green Knight’s challenge instead of the King, and then he still kept his part of the deal and a year later went to look for the Green Knight. Once he returned home, even though he fulfilled his part of the deal, he didn’t feel like a hero but instead felt ashamed for lying and being a sinner, which is a true hero to me.  This makes me wonder, what would have happened if Gawain did not go looking for the Green Knight?  Would the Green Knight come and look for Gawain? However, if that was the case, the poem would have a completely different storyline, because by Gawain going out to search for the Green Castle, he stopped at a castle on the way and was welcomed by a host, who later turned out to be the Green Knight. Therefore, I think if Gawain never went looking for the Green Knight, the poem wouldn’t be as interesting.

I loved the twist in poem when Gawain realizes that the Green Knight is the king who welcomed him into his castle, let him stay and play a game with him. What was the point the Green Knight wanted to make? Since Gawain was struck just once for lying about the gift he got from the host’s wife, did the Green Knight want to teach him a lesson about lying? In that case, what would have happened if Gawain did not lie? Another thing  that is still bothering me is how did the Green Knight get his head back on?

Overall, I had somewhat of a hard time understanding some parts, but at the end of the poem I wished that it went on for a little longer because it was an interesting and an unpredictable read.

Sakuntala and the Ring of Recollection.

While reading the Sakuntala and the Ring of Recollection, I was confused with the intro of the play because I did not see the point of the conversation between the director and the actress or how they are related to the rest of the story. Now that we have covered it in class, I understand the purpose of that act. However, that scene made me wonder if the actress talking to the director was the woman that took on Sakuntala’s role later on in the play or is she completely irrelevant?


I like the language or at least the translation of the play, which was way easier to read and understand than the language in Gilgamesh. One of my favorite scenes in the play was when the king was jealous (or at least I think he was), of the bee that was attacking Sakuntala. I thought that it was sweet of him to admire how close the bee is to Sakuntala and to wish that he could be in the same position as the bee.

Another scene that caught my eye and reminded me of many books or movies I have seen, is when the poor fisherman gets caught and brought into the police station for questioning. It seems as if in every other movie or a book, a poor innocent man gets accused of a crime, and I found this a little funny. I like the irony in the scene, once they find out that the fisherman and the ring incident actually helped them all by making the king happy and reminding him of his wife again. Maybe the fisherman scene was used for somewhat of a comic relief.

I didn’t like the use of so many unnecessary names, because when they would refer to a name I would think it’s somebody important and then I would find out it’s only a maid or somebody totally irrelevant (not that maids aren’t important, but I saw no need for their names to be used in the play). Maybe I am missing an important theme of the play. I guess this is a typical storyline where an almighty king falls in love, gets the girl of his dreams, has to overcome a challenge, somebody gets heartbroken, yet at the end everybody lives happily ever after. Why does it sound like I have heard this before? It sounds familiar because I have seen and read something similar to this so many times, and I feel like the only thing missing was a scene where Sakuntala kisses a frog and it turns into King Dusyanta.

Overall, the play was easy to follow if you ignored the variety of unnecessary names and although the plotline was not as original, it was still interesting and attention-grabbing. By the way, I think this would make a great Bollywood movie that would have hilarious scenes such as the creepy King Dusyanta spying on Sakuntala from behind the bushes.

Is Gilgamesh really a hero?

While I was reading the Epic of Gilgamesh I was starting to wonder if Gilgamesh was truly a hero. There may be many definitions of a hero, but to me, a hero is someone who is courageous, fearless and is willing to use his/her powers in order to help others. At the beginning of the poem Gilgamesh is described as being a very powerful, arrogant king who uses his authority and powers in negative ways such as raping his noble’s soon to be wives. This does not represent any type of hero to me because he used his powers in a negative way and molested and bullied his people.


One thing that caught my attention was how Gilgamesh was so concerned with fame. Right before the battle with Humbaba he mentioned that if he defeats him, he would get guaranteed fame. I think that a true hero should not be going into battles and taking on risky challenges just for fame and a good reputation. I believe that a true hero is humane and courageous, and is willing to sacrifice his/her life in order to protects his people or save someone’s life, regardless of the fame. A true hero puts himself in dangerous situations in order to serve as a protector or a defender, and not in order to become famous or earn good a reputation, which seemed to be the only thing on Gilgamesh’s mind. I also remember Gilgamesh getting scared when Humbaba threatened him in the forest, and if it wasn’t Enkidu, he would have probably been dead. Isn’t a hero supposed to be fearless?

Although Gilgamesh’s grieving over Enkidu’s death was obvious, I think that he was more upset because he realized that the same faith awaits him, which is very selfish. He went to visit Utnapishtim, in order to ask him questions about death and although he went through a challenging journey, I still could not find a hero in him. A real hero shouldn’t be afraid of doing what it takes in order to save something or somebody, even if it takes his/her life away. To me, a real hero would be willing to sacrifice his own life in order to save someone else. One of the reasons I believe that Gilgamesh was as brave as he was in his battles was because he thought he was immortal. However, if he knew that one day death awaits him too, I don’t think he would have been as courageous or would have taken on as many life-threatening challenges.

I respect Gilgamesh for his bravery in battles and for taking on journeys that no man would ever take, however I think that it takes way more than challenging journeys in order to be a hero. A real hero would never harass other people and misuse his/her powers. A real hero would never take on challenges in order to show off his/her strengths and hope to get recognition and fame in return. Finally, I think that a true hero is not afraid of dying or sacrificing his/her life for something valuable in return. Gilgamesh is nothing but a selfish guy who uses his strength in order to fool people about how brave he is.

Gilgamesh and Enkidu: In Love?

Although I expected the Epic of Gilgamesh to be confusing and boring, I must say that I enjoyed reading it. One topic we slightly touched in class and that I was interested in blogging about, was the idea that Gilgamesh and Enkidu had a homosexual relationship. I would have to disagree and I will mention only a few pieces of evidence from the text that contradict the idea.


At the beginning of the poem, it is explained that Enkidu was mesmerized by a prostitute, which clearly explains that he is attracted to women. Also , before Enkidu and Gilgamesh went off to a battle with Humbaba, they visited Gilgamesh’s mother and asked for her blessing. In that scene his mother technically “adopts” Enkidu or recognizes him as her son, by gifting him sacred jewelry. Another part of the text that caught my attention was when goddess Ishtar asked Gilgamesh to be her husband and he refused. Many would say that he refused because he is in love with Enkidu, but the way I see it is that Gilgamesh is very vulnerable and afraid of getting hurt by the goddess.

In the text Gilgamesh also refers to his love for Enkidu as love for a wife. I find nothing homosexual about this because you can choose to take this in two ways. One way to take it is that Gilgamesh thought of Enkidu as his wife and was in love with him. However, the way I see it is that Gilgamesh was using somewhat of a metaphor to explain the bond him and Enkidu had and that he cared about his friend as much as he would have cared for his wife or someone as close to him as a wife. The way I look upon Gilgamesh’s and Enkidu’s relationship is that it’s a strong brotherly bond. They spend all of their time together, fight their battles together and keep each other strong and motivated. After they met for the first time and finished fighting each other, the text explains that they became friends and kissed. There are two waysyou can think of them kissing. There is one way which is a passionate kiss that a couple would share or a kiss of forgiveness and a start of a new friendship. Many cultures back then and still to this day have a way of greeting or showing affection by giving a kiss on the cheek, as in France for example and throughout the rest of Europe. I saw this kiss as a gesture of compassion and a start of a new brotherly bond.

I guess this controversy depends on how people interpret the text and the context of the poem. Some people may see them as really good friends with a strong brotherly bond, and others may pick up the mysterious clues within the text and see them as homosexuals. However, to me, Gilgamesh and Enkidu were nothing but best of friends and shared a brotherly relationship throughout the poem.