No creative title ever

Aww no class today? That's alright I'm still not feeling well so it may be good for me. Anyway what to right about? For right now I'm going to write about something that we're not reading. I'll loosely stay on topic by saying that I'm writing about other books with sympathetic villains, because when you get right down to it, Shylock is sympathetic in some ways (when you don't pay attention to the whole pound o' flesh thing).

In my free time I'm reading Special Topics in Calamity Physics byMarisha Pessl. It's a surrisingle long book and I've been working on it slowly for a month or so now. But as far as i am into the plot, there are no villains, only negative characters. These negative characters are more or less the cool clique in the private high school the protagonist has just arrived at for her senior year. These people hang out with the enigmatic film teacher Ms. Hannah Schneider. They go over to her house for dinner and discuss topics from the meaning of life to how they are doing in classes. Schneider pushes Blue (said protagonist) into this exclusive group for unknown reasons and she has to deal with being the odd one out in this narrow minded clique.

The students are all assholes to her basically. I know this sounds like teenage high school schlock but it's a very intriguing book so stick with me. So now Blue is wondering why she's forced to intrude on this closed circle and why she has to be the center of attention when she likes to imagine herself as a Jane Goodall character, observing the pointless drama of high school life. Meanwhile Schneider's motives remain a mystery, as the only people she keeps in contact with ever are these six high school seniors. Eventually we find out that each of the "Blue Bloods" as they are called has some kind of tragedy in their past which has made them the condescending asshole they are now.

This entry isn't nearly as good as I thought it would be and makes the excellent book I'm reading sound quite drab. Maybe I'll try again later.

Second Class Citizen

So yeah I said in class today that the most disturbing part of The Merchant of Venice for me (and there aren't many disturbing parts so it was easy to pick) was at the very end when Portia saves Anotonio through an agonizingly literal run through of the contract. After Portia explains that Shylock must take exactly a pound of flesh, without drawing blood or killing Antonio, Shylock backs off and it seems that everything is okay. But then Portia takes it one step further by saying that through the contract, Shylock indirectly meant to take the life of a Venetian, which is an offense so severe that Shylock must forfeit everything he has, half to Antonio and half to Venice. Here tha language is very odd. Portia says: "It is enacted in the laws of Venice, / If it be proved against an alien / That by direct or indirect attempts / He seek the life of any citizen ... the offender's life lies in the mercy / of the Duke." This is the law, right? And it makes sense, because Venice is protecting its citizens from foreigners who would try to kill them. A just law.

My problem with this law is more in its use here. Shylock is not an "alien". We can safely assume that he is Venetian, being that he lives there and has set up a very nice establishment for himself there. So this law guarding against foreigners is being unjustly used against a citizen of the city for entering a contract in which a Christian would presumable give up his life. The antisemitism doesn't surprise me, as the entire play bashes Jews. It's the idea that the religion is the primary identifier of Shylock. His Jewishness is more important to the others than his...Venetian...ness. He who is a fellow countryman is now given up. And all of this isn't so ridiculous in the context of the play so now I'm just trying to voice what my problem is.

I guess most of all it's that they label him an "alien." That just seems really wrong given that he is a Venetian whether Jewish or Christian.

Of Cannibals and Men

Reading Montaigne is interesting. The topic and the way he goes through it seems kind of hamfisted and cliche now but at the time it was probably a pretty cool argument. It's all just a big the real barbarian...is you looking glass type argument though which is such a played out concept now.

I'm still not totally convinced that Montaigne's own religion is the key to understanding the reading, though. It seems like his views of religion are more a product of his views of society in general. Montaigne admired the cloeseness of the Brazilian communities and how they all viewed each other as relatives and equals as opposed to the class distinctions of Europe. This social ill is Montaigne's biggest issue with France in his time, and the one which I feel he most wishes to address.

Flashbacks 2

Alright so the next thing we read was Genesis from the Bible, right? We spent a long time on this one. I'll talk about something that I don't think we touched on much but was in the back of my mind the whole time we read this. Does the character of God change through Genesis? I think his character changes in so much as he acts differently toward humans in different parts of Genesis. With Adam and Eve, it kind of seems like God sets them up for failure by only making one rule, to not touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge, which he places right in the middle of the garden. Adam and Eve, as humans, were bound to try the fruit sometime. The snake just kind of sped things along. Then with Noah he was ruthless. God hadn't really supplied any rules on how to live outside the garden yet and so as people became more corrupt (because of normal human behavior) God got pissed. Only one man was worth not killing. Then even later he told Abraham to kill his son. Which is messed up and is against God's own rules. Luckily at the last second (literally) God stops the whole mess and Abraham sacrifices a ram instead. I think God earlier in Genesis would have just let Abraham kill Isaac and then reprimanded Abraham for killing him.

Flashbacks 1

So this is the beginning of a series of retrospective blog posts I think. I have been the definition of not keeping up to date with this blog thing so hopefully blogs about past events will be okay. And regardless of whether it's okay or not, I'll be doing it.

This post is gonna be about Gilgamesh. Remember it? I was thinking recently about the topic of the paper we wrote a while ago, everlasting life in Gilgamesh. Since we'll be revisiting this paper soon, I'll try to collect my thoughts about what I wrote. Gilgamesh's view of death is the main character trait that changes through the epic. In his youth, he accepts that death is inevitable and is mainly concerned with leaving a lasting impression through the deeds he accomplishes in life. This is why he kills Humbaba, the bull of heaven, spurns that sexy lady god and all the other stuff. However, with the death of Enkidu, Gilgamesh starts to worry about the idea of death itself. He resolves that he should not have to die and stop doing such crazy awesome deeds.

This idea of everlasting life becomes Gilgamesh's dream, his one desire. However, in my paper I argue that it is just an illusion. This is beacause Utnapishtim the Faraway is the only other mortal to obtain everlasting life, and rather than a warrior posed for battle, he is just constantly relaxing and doing nothing in particular. This is the reality of everlasting life: a loss of the meaning that mortality gives life.

Now I feel more prepared.

Hello specific sect of internet interested in reading this blarg

I guess the title is self-explanatory.