gelsh

    After reading Beowulf over for the second time, I could not help but notice the similarities between Grendel and John Milton’s Satan in Paradise Lost. When the grandiose Heorot is initially attacked, the sceop describes him multiple times as both a demon and an outcast. Within the first 85 lines of Grendel’s entrance the scribe refers to him as a ‘demon’ three times and an outcast twice; not to mention a ‘fiend out of hell’. If looked at individually the opening descriptions of both Grendel and Satan are paralleled in that they are both in media res. Satan’s is right after being outcast from heaven and Grendel’s  as soon as he assaults Heorot.

Ironically, the description of the origin of Grendel and his ilk almost relates all the way back to where Paradise Lost leaves off. Apparently after Cain was exiled for fratricide he was also ‘cursed’, and is now grouped with a slew of monsters and ‘phantoms’ along with Grendel. I think the strongest difference between the two characters is the way in which they are portrayed. Milton places Satan in a heroic light while he attempts to disrupt the success of mankind, beings created to represent free will, in an ironic gesture of free will; whereas Grendel is constantly depicted as an obscene decadent monster. However both still represent outcasts of God, disrupters of mankind, symbols of envy, and unlikely icons of bravery and resilience.

Alexander Pope’s The Rape of Lock is a work of literature that does an excellent job of exercising the genre known as mock-epic. Pope opens up with a very comical preface in his letter to Mrs. Arabella Fermer; in which he blatantly insults the female gender but in a way humorous enough for it to be somewhat non-offensive. I think the mock-epic is an overlooked genre that doesn’t receive the credit it most certainly deserves.

Pope’s work manages to employ the magnificent orchestra of language, mirroring the very genre it mocks, and is able to do it about a subject completely non-magnificent. While the fate of poor Belinda’s lock may seem trivial, its significance to the characters in the novel is something the average reader can actually relate to.

At the onset of this tale told in epic verse, the character Belinda is warned by a supernatural creature that something dreadful is going to happen, and that she should ‘beware of Man!’. Most would predict a terrible family tragedy, or perhaps Belinda getting raped; however Pope brilliantly diminutizes the warning. When reading this I likened the foreboding advice given to Belinda by her guardian Ariel, to the warning God have Adam & Eve in Milton’s Paradise Lost (in reference to eating the forbidden fruit).

At the onset of Gulliver’s discovery, he provides the reader with a very meaningful and almost emotional description; “Upon the whole, I never beheld in all my travels so disagreeable an animal, or one which I naturally had so strong an antipathy.”. From this it is clear that Gulliver has an immediate ‘hate-at-first-sight’ relationship with the creature, and utterly despises the species for some seemingly unknown reason. I feel that the physical appearance of the Yahoos is meant to represent all of the vices of humanity. While humans dress themselves to reflect the advancement of industry and creativity that of which they are capable of, they disguise themselves. Using beauty they disguise all of the the sin and vice that they are also capable of. The Yahoos on the other hand almost relish in it, or rather have no shame in flaunting it.

I feel that the best way to explain the differences in the ways Yahoos and humans are represented, is it compare the relationship to that found in The Picture of Dorian Gray. The Yahoos being in the same position as the picture(a portrait of all of the reprehensible acts committed by the species), and the humans being in the position of Dorian(simply a guise of beauty and science that hides the true self).

However while this parallel is very distinct, the Yahoos are not meant to be human. There is a very simple and basic difference between the two species; humans are Yahoos capable of rational thought. It is not surprise that Gulliver’s master continues to refer to him as the ‘perfect Yahoo’. Almost as if Gulliver had evolved from the Yahoos on the island. In a sense, humans have managed to take all of the qualities of the Yahoos, and develop their barbaric and savage characteristics into more potent forms.

An interesting part of Book 4 is when Gulliver is explaining to his master the causes of war and the terrible tragedies/causalities it inevitably produces. The master then expresses his ignorance on the subject and assumes that these wars are fought by humans within the confines of their physical attributes. Gulliver then laugh at the master’s assumption and goes on to list the various weapons and devices of war that humans use to dispose of one another. Gulliver does this with a great sense of pride and an almost boastful attitude. I feel that during all of the interactions between Gulliver and the Houyhnhnms, it is when he describes the means of war where Gulliver is most proud of the accomplishments and capabilities of the human race.

In essence, I feel that the reason Gulliver was initially so repulsed and disgusted by the appearance and behavior of the Yahoos, is because it seemed extremely familiar. What he saw was the horror and vice the human race continually denies and refuses to acknowledge. I think Swift himself may have wanted to be on an island full of horses from the way he attacks the human race in Book 4.

The Gentlemen-Suitors feel threatened due to the fact that if this anti-male utopia proves successful, other women may continue doing it. It is much more than the pursuit of Lady Happy; at this point it is a fearful defense set up to protect the male gender as a whole in society.

At first it seems as though the men react quite barbarously. At the beginning of Act II scene 4, the men are yelling about how they should attempt to burn down the convent of pleasure as to “smoke them out”. It seems as though this part would be an excellent addition to the mock-play performed to the ladies in the convent of pleasure. Next however, the men start getting a little crafty and decide that they can dress like women to gain entrance into the convent. It seems that the male suitors are never actually insulted in the play for what Lady Happy implies about the gender (them pretty much having no use except to cause problems), in fact the immediate concern is that none of them will be able to win over the ‘ever so fair’ Lady Happy.

Not only are they extremely fearful that this will be the first of many convents of pleasure, they become quite envious of it. One even brings up the idea that they could create an all-male convent of pleasure. In my eyes this play is an expression of the selfishness evident in both genders. I think that an important message is that the advocates of these all-gender convents completely overlook all of the positive aspects of marriage and love.

    John Milton’s Paradise Lost is an epic tale of the struggle between God and Satan, and the trials of Adam and Eve. Probably the most prominent theme throughout this work of literature, is that of free will. Because of this complicated and at times seemingly paradoxical concept, God and Satan alternate between roles of protagonist and antagonist. Due to certain conflicts and issues that arise during the epic poem, Satan is ironically a greater defender of mankind than God.

Throughout Paradise Lost, God is continually referencing his newly created race of men as a race defined solely by their free will. This grants them the power of emotion, choice, creativity, virtue, and of course, sin. It is thus safe to say that  mankind’s most definable characteristic is free will. Since god is so extraordinarily proud of what He has just created, one can only assume that he will exercise this trait throughout the rest of the poem. However there are certain crucial points throughout Paradise Lost when he not only defies free will, but punishes mankind for exercising it.

Milton points out numerous times that God has foreseen the events that will take place after Satan attempts to breech the Gates of Hell into Paradise. Yet even though he is all-knowing, he asks aloud, while among his loyal angels and Son, who will volunteer to go into Paradise as a mortal and sacrifice him/herself. He does this knowing full well in advance that his Son will ‘volunteer’. This knowledge turns his Son’s ‘choice’ into the complete opposite of free will; a sense that all are bound to predestination by the hand of God. Not only does this oppose free will, the one true unique characteristic of humanity, but it also points out that God is capable of creating a facade of free will in order for things to follow a certain path.

Satan’s role in Paradise Lost is probably the most ironic. He sets out to corrupt and dismantle this “beautiful” race that God created, when in reality he not only is the reason they exercise free will, he exercises it throughout his entire journey out of Hell. This, makes him the protagonist in the fight for what humanity stands for.

I feel that the Wife of Bathe’s prologue is almost more important than the proceeding tale itself. As reas as the character the Wife of Bathe seems at certain points, her character appears to be too one-dimensional. It is almost as if Chaucer is portaying a woman he once knew, but only basing his description on his opinion of her. Whether or not this is a satire on women of the 15th century, or Chaucer’s bitter revenge over a woman he once knew, I don’t know. But I feel that he intends to create a character as a way of satiring 15th century women, only all of the knowledge and information he has on the subject is from women who have behaved unfavorably towards him.

However, I feel that he makes a subtle hero out of the 5th husband. Clearly, the man is undeserving of this role because he has many un-hero like qualities; such as being abusive, sadistic, cruel, greedy, etc.. The reader, or at least me personally, feels satisfied that the wife of bath “gets a taste of her own medicine” so to speak. I think this 5th husband is a very important character even though he makes a brief appearance. He is the cause of her self-realization, represents a ‘love-hate’ relationship, portrays the wife of bathe’s masochistic side, and symbolizes the endless desire of what can’t be obtained.

In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, one can look at Sir Gawain as an atypical interpretaion of what christ was like. The initial evidence of this can be found in the first scene when Gawain voluntarily forgeits himself to the dangers of the green knight’s game. This is an act of self sacrifice, and by claiming he is the weakest knight he is doing what is almost the best for his kingdom.

The second point can be found i the behavior and demeanor of the knight. His chastity, innocence, and genuine naivety of each situation he finds himself in can be paralleled to Dostoyevskys portrait of christ through his character Prince Myshkin in his novel The Idiot.

While the shield held by Gawain represents his 5 main strengths and virtues, it points out that by having full trust in these creates weaknesses. Not only does he put trust in the virtues of his shield, but he puts full trust into the virtues of complete strangers. Gawain holds no suspicions towards the host of the white castle and his supposed wife, in fact he ends up holding them in the highest of esteems. Gawain acts in this christ-like manner thoughout the whole tale except for his final encounter with the Green Knight.

Putting faith in his green girdle to save him from death instead of putting faith in God is a parallel to a story from the Bible; when Peter denied his association with Jesus 3 times. Just like Peter, Gawain puts his fath in the green girdle, denying his association with God, 3 times in fear of losing his life.