Idaho’s Original Same-Sex Scandal
WHEN Senator Larry Craig faced the television cameras here last week and denied three times that he was gay, many Idahoans were reminded of a much older sex scandal, one that rocked the state’s political capital 52 years ago and made national headlines.
There are few in Idaho who have not heard of Boise’s gay sex scandal of 1955. And across the country, a generation of gay men grew up haunted by the publicity it engendered.
Fallacy by Tradition; the population of Idaho recalled an event from the past, and applied it to what happened just now.
Larry Craig was a 10-year-old Idaho farm boy when the scandal broke, and he was a student at the University of Idaho in 1966 when John Gerassi’s book “The Boys of Boise” revived the controversy. Decades later, the wounds inflicted by it remain raw: a lawsuit involving news reports that looked back at some of the allegations made during the now-distant scandal went to the Idaho Supreme Court in 2000.
On Halloween night in 1955, when the scandal broke, Boise was a sleepy little city of fewer than 40,000 residents. It was the kind of town where everyone seemed to know everyone else, or at least worked with, or was related to, someone who did. So when three men were arrested for having sex with teenage boys, the story generated screaming headlines — above the nameplate — in the city’s evening newspaper.
The arrested men were no strangers to Boiseans. They were the salesman at the leading men’s clothier, the shoeshine man on Main Street and a warehouseman from a local family. Boise’s newspaper, The Idaho Statesman, responded to the arrests with a series of editorials demanding that prosecutors, the police and the community take action. The newspaper printed lines like “Crush the monster” and “This mess must be removed.”
Genetic Fallacy: The authority in Idaho says that being gay is completely wrong, cause they believe against it; they really don’t have solid evidence to prove why it might be wrong.
“It did not seem possible that this community ever harbored homosexuals to ravage our youth,” the paper’s editorial page declared. The newspaper helped to ignite a witch hunt, in which many in Boise sought to rid the community of all of its gay men.
More arrests followed: a lawyer, a teacher, and most sensational, the vice president of the city’s largest bank. The roundup snared consenting adults as well as men who dallied with teens.
By the time snow fell, scores of men had been questioned. Sixteen were charged, including one who was hauled back from San Francisco, where he had fled when the scandal broke.
Of the 16 men who were formally charged, only one, the one who denied it all, who fought the case through a brutal trial, beat the charges. His steadfast denials, coupled with questions about the evidence against him, persuaded the jury to let him go.
The lesson of the 1955 scandal was clear: sexual misconduct — or even the mere perception that one is gay — could ruin a man’s reputation. But steadfast, straight-in-the-eye denial just might get him off the hook.
Appeal to Popularity: the life of a man was ruined, if they were gay, because the people and society didn’t approve of it; they disliked it, therefore, leaving aside people who’d be gay.
Today, Boise is the urban center of a metro area with a half-million residents. Boise’s gay life, compared with that in San Francisco or even Portland, Ore., is quiet, but it is active enough to support a community center, a drag court, three gay bars and a monthly newspaper. The city even elected and re-elected a lesbian to the State Legislature in 2004 and 2006.
But a half-century after the 1955 scandal, Larry Craig’s change of heart about his guilty plea for disorderly conduct in a Minneapolis restroom recalls the similar lament of the most prominent of the accused men, Boise’s bank vice president. “I pleaded guilty on the advice of my attorney because he stated with all the publicity and stink that had been raised, there was nothing else I could do,” the man later said. “I knew my life was ruined anyway and threw myself on the mercy of the court.”
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The Golden Fleece, Medea, and Aristaues, the Bee-Keeper
These three myths talk about different characters who had to fight and overpass certain obstacles and challenges to gain what they were seeking for.
The Golden Fleece was a chariot-like thing obtained by Athamas, given by Mercury. In it, her son travelled to the kingdom of Colchis, and as appreciation handed the Golden Fleece to the king, who immediately secured it, with a dragon.
Then came Jason, who’d soon be the ruler of part of another kingdom nearby. He went to claim his land to his uncle, as the other part of the kingdom belonged to Jason’s father. But Pilas—the uncle—wasn’t willing to give his nephew the throne without gifts or rewards. So he said he’d give his throne, as soon as he’d bring the Golden Fleece from Colchis, which had supposedly stolen.
Brave as he was, Jason embarked along with many other courageous Greeks, and arrived. Medea, the daughter of the king was asked to help by Jason. In reward, he said, he’d marry her.
Jason married Medea eventually. As any good potion-maker, it would be easy for the couple to mostly gained what they wanted. And, as indirect as it may seem, the way the reward was for Medea, in this myth, was vengeance. She felt she’d been good in all her overall makings, and she only affected people only positively. Of what she hated of Pilas, she didn’t make the right potion, and therefore killed Pilas.
The reward Medea had to pay for killing, was remaining alone, as Jason left her for another women.
Then, the third myth I read, Aristaeus the Bee-Keeper, shows the journey he made to ask Proteus, an old prophet why was it that his bees had died. Having the patience, to do all the sacrifices and offerings to the gods that the prophet made him do, he came back home and found his bees back alive.
Similar to what it is gaining a price today. You are not raised to a higher position if you don’t work hard, as you won’t get an award if you do your best in school. Life, we are given to live, but not are we given the riches we’d like to have and live with; on the other hand, we have to fight for them and show we really want them—by making a good effort.
The Golden Fleece was a chariot-like thing obtained by Athamas, given by Mercury. In it, her son travelled to the kingdom of Colchis, and as appreciation handed the Golden Fleece to the king, who immediately secured it, with a dragon.
Then came Jason, who’d soon be the ruler of part of another kingdom nearby. He went to claim his land to his uncle, as the other part of the kingdom belonged to Jason’s father. But Pilas—the uncle—wasn’t willing to give his nephew the throne without gifts or rewards. So he said he’d give his throne, as soon as he’d bring the Golden Fleece from Colchis, which had supposedly stolen.
Brave as he was, Jason embarked along with many other courageous Greeks, and arrived. Medea, the daughter of the king was asked to help by Jason. In reward, he said, he’d marry her.
Jason married Medea eventually. As any good potion-maker, it would be easy for the couple to mostly gained what they wanted. And, as indirect as it may seem, the way the reward was for Medea, in this myth, was vengeance. She felt she’d been good in all her overall makings, and she only affected people only positively. Of what she hated of Pilas, she didn’t make the right potion, and therefore killed Pilas.
The reward Medea had to pay for killing, was remaining alone, as Jason left her for another women.
Then, the third myth I read, Aristaeus the Bee-Keeper, shows the journey he made to ask Proteus, an old prophet why was it that his bees had died. Having the patience, to do all the sacrifices and offerings to the gods that the prophet made him do, he came back home and found his bees back alive.
Similar to what it is gaining a price today. You are not raised to a higher position if you don’t work hard, as you won’t get an award if you do your best in school. Life, we are given to live, but not are we given the riches we’d like to have and live with; on the other hand, we have to fight for them and show we really want them—by making a good effort.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
About the Ones who Misbehaved and recieved their Punishments
You did better, as long as you followed whatever the Gods said, in Ancient Greece. If one immortal dared think that he/she might be able to defeat the gods, then he/she was mostly doomed.
Minerva—known mostly by the name Athena—was the God of wisdom, truly, as she’d win any contests standing on her way to desire. It was said that she had a great talent for both the usual skills for men, but had she a great talent too, for weaving.
Then one day, Arachne, a maiden, decides to come in competition with the Goddess. She says that she’d like to compete against Minerva, and feels that is just ready to beat a Goddess.
We could say, then, that Minerva was patient, as she wasn’t as keen to beat the mortal, to show off her divinity. Rather, she disguised herself of an old lady, and went to talk to the maiden, saying that what she had done, at trying to compete against Minerva, was lack of respect and loyalty; that if maybe, the Goddess was merciful, she shall live. But Arachne paid no attention whatsoever.
At the end, though, no matter whether if we win or loose, there is nothing we can do, because….our competition was a Goddess, after all. She, yet dressed as the old lady suddenly stops weaving and did not kill her, but rather made her live as a spider, so she, most importantly could remember the memory—day in which she decided to misbehave.
The myth of Niobe tells about a queen, who believed that she was more powerful than the gods. So, every time someone told her to respect them, otherwise, they’d pay, Niobe thought it was courageous to ignore them, and have some self-confidence.
But not self-confidence, over the gods, is the ideal. Niobe’s family and beloved ones, were turned into stone, to show the grave consequences disloyalty to the gods might give. So, the gods don’t intend to kill people who disobey them, but make them understand that what they did was purely wrong, and is going to affect them throughout their lives.
Minerva—known mostly by the name Athena—was the God of wisdom, truly, as she’d win any contests standing on her way to desire. It was said that she had a great talent for both the usual skills for men, but had she a great talent too, for weaving.
Then one day, Arachne, a maiden, decides to come in competition with the Goddess. She says that she’d like to compete against Minerva, and feels that is just ready to beat a Goddess.
We could say, then, that Minerva was patient, as she wasn’t as keen to beat the mortal, to show off her divinity. Rather, she disguised herself of an old lady, and went to talk to the maiden, saying that what she had done, at trying to compete against Minerva, was lack of respect and loyalty; that if maybe, the Goddess was merciful, she shall live. But Arachne paid no attention whatsoever.
At the end, though, no matter whether if we win or loose, there is nothing we can do, because….our competition was a Goddess, after all. She, yet dressed as the old lady suddenly stops weaving and did not kill her, but rather made her live as a spider, so she, most importantly could remember the memory—day in which she decided to misbehave.
The myth of Niobe tells about a queen, who believed that she was more powerful than the gods. So, every time someone told her to respect them, otherwise, they’d pay, Niobe thought it was courageous to ignore them, and have some self-confidence.
But not self-confidence, over the gods, is the ideal. Niobe’s family and beloved ones, were turned into stone, to show the grave consequences disloyalty to the gods might give. So, the gods don’t intend to kill people who disobey them, but make them understand that what they did was purely wrong, and is going to affect them throughout their lives.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
The Centaurs, The Pygmies, and the Griffin
Creatures vs. Humans
In most myths, or Greek Mythology, there are various types and appearances of magical creatures. Myths that prove this are some like The Centaurs, The Pygmies, and The Griffin.
What differs in these, depending on the type of creature it is being talked about, some can be god, or beneficial to humans or gods, or some can despise them and cause harm within the society.
What the myth The Centaurs proves, is that as different as each (humans and creatures) may look, physically, they can be similar in an emotional way. At a party, where the Centaurs were invited, one of them tastes the wine, and felt ill. Hence the Centaur caused battle and hatred within humans, thinking they had intended to kill them.
Yet, there is another story about a much different Centaur, named Chiron. He decided to take a different road, as in the relationships with humans. He was taught, and he thoroughly gained knowledge. Though this part of the story ends “happily”, in a way that Chiron is able to teach humans who’d later be successful, it still proves that creatures—or Centaurs—can be similar to humans, en matter of intelligence and thinking.
Then, the myth of The Pygmies, a culture shows that some creatures might be too distant or occupied to even care about humans having an effect in their culture, that they have other rivals, such as other creatures. In the case of the Pygmies, the Cranes, who’d fight each other over land, cornfields.
Finally, the myth of The Griffin shows that creatures, or some, might respect us as much as we tend to respect them, if we want the same treatment. If the Griffin wants space and freedom, and if they shall have it, no inconveniences with humans might take place.
The challenge here is, that these nests were too tempting for the hunters, and they might have ended up badly for trying to steal the treasures within it.
As different as they may seem, depending on each type of creature, each group might have a different perspective of humans, and gods. They might think the same thing about them, as no matter how superior were god in a way, they still lived and thought similar to humans; they are seeking for power and ownership over something.
In most myths, or Greek Mythology, there are various types and appearances of magical creatures. Myths that prove this are some like The Centaurs, The Pygmies, and The Griffin.
What differs in these, depending on the type of creature it is being talked about, some can be god, or beneficial to humans or gods, or some can despise them and cause harm within the society.
What the myth The Centaurs proves, is that as different as each (humans and creatures) may look, physically, they can be similar in an emotional way. At a party, where the Centaurs were invited, one of them tastes the wine, and felt ill. Hence the Centaur caused battle and hatred within humans, thinking they had intended to kill them.
Yet, there is another story about a much different Centaur, named Chiron. He decided to take a different road, as in the relationships with humans. He was taught, and he thoroughly gained knowledge. Though this part of the story ends “happily”, in a way that Chiron is able to teach humans who’d later be successful, it still proves that creatures—or Centaurs—can be similar to humans, en matter of intelligence and thinking.
Then, the myth of The Pygmies, a culture shows that some creatures might be too distant or occupied to even care about humans having an effect in their culture, that they have other rivals, such as other creatures. In the case of the Pygmies, the Cranes, who’d fight each other over land, cornfields.
Finally, the myth of The Griffin shows that creatures, or some, might respect us as much as we tend to respect them, if we want the same treatment. If the Griffin wants space and freedom, and if they shall have it, no inconveniences with humans might take place.
The challenge here is, that these nests were too tempting for the hunters, and they might have ended up badly for trying to steal the treasures within it.
As different as they may seem, depending on each type of creature, each group might have a different perspective of humans, and gods. They might think the same thing about them, as no matter how superior were god in a way, they still lived and thought similar to humans; they are seeking for power and ownership over something.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Rhetoric and Issue
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/opinion/16cross.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Contributors&oref=slogin
The speaker is talking about toy companies such as Mattel and Hasbro, being a bad influence for their customers, which are little kids in the most.
For them to have consumers in the first place, the companies must use one of the types of rhetoric, and it would be ethos. Ethos, because as company workers they are persuading and giving off a good image of what they are selling, and because their working area might affect their character.
It contains, as well, the persuasion of Logos, because once society discovered that Mattel products were painted with leaded paint, it was decided that for the children to not have contact with some sort of lead, all the toys were removed. This would be considered too, to be solved with the issue of choice, for the better future of the children; it is all about making the right decision to have a better performance.
Though the article is not exactly blaming the creators and factories of the physical objects (toys), the speaker is blaming the society and media for affecting the customers of these products in a psychological way. “They serve little positive purpose other than to teach children to be good consumers and want all the Dora the Explorer toys.”
Not only are they convincing them of buying all the “collections” but customers, mostly toddlers are exposed to adults’ daily life, such as money-wasting and the importance of jobs and business-running. It is good to give the kids a representation of what they are up to be living, but a child should have childhood as well.
So therefore, the article is dealing with the issue of blame as well; it talks about a certain thing that happened in the past, or that has been happening from the past, and that it is affecting us today gravely, why we are blaming it in the first place.
The speaker is talking about toy companies such as Mattel and Hasbro, being a bad influence for their customers, which are little kids in the most.
For them to have consumers in the first place, the companies must use one of the types of rhetoric, and it would be ethos. Ethos, because as company workers they are persuading and giving off a good image of what they are selling, and because their working area might affect their character.
It contains, as well, the persuasion of Logos, because once society discovered that Mattel products were painted with leaded paint, it was decided that for the children to not have contact with some sort of lead, all the toys were removed. This would be considered too, to be solved with the issue of choice, for the better future of the children; it is all about making the right decision to have a better performance.
Though the article is not exactly blaming the creators and factories of the physical objects (toys), the speaker is blaming the society and media for affecting the customers of these products in a psychological way. “They serve little positive purpose other than to teach children to be good consumers and want all the Dora the Explorer toys.”
Not only are they convincing them of buying all the “collections” but customers, mostly toddlers are exposed to adults’ daily life, such as money-wasting and the importance of jobs and business-running. It is good to give the kids a representation of what they are up to be living, but a child should have childhood as well.
So therefore, the article is dealing with the issue of blame as well; it talks about a certain thing that happened in the past, or that has been happening from the past, and that it is affecting us today gravely, why we are blaming it in the first place.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Alcestis, Antigone, and Penelope
Based on these three myths, we can conlude that women on Ancient Greece were but loyal. Alcestis was the wife of the king of Thessaly, Admetus, and she decided to take the throne when he was about to die. This demonstrates that no matter whether the the law of ruling favour mainly the man than the women, Alcestis was loyal to her husband, and decided to follow her rule after his, like if she were to be taken some legacy he had left he behind.
Then comes Antigone, who was rather loyal to her brother than her greedy uncle. No matter what the uncle, king now instructed, she did what she felt was right, hence her principles and loyalty. Death, was what she obtained by disobeying. But deep inside her she knew she had made the right choice, as she had remained correctly loyal to her brother.
Finally, Penelope, who might be the most solid of all examples. Doing what she was willing. She left her family behind and spent time with her new husband, Odysseus. Then, he had to go to the Trojan Wars leaving Penelope behind for a long period of time. But she was counting on him. Other men came to her house and asked her to marry them, but as patient as she was, she waited, and believed in the return of Odysseus; overall the time, she actually stayed loyal to him, and she didn’t even know whether he was coming back or not-
These women, and their morals and characters, differ variously as from women today. It is true, women have been becoming less loyal each time. But maybe it is because nowadays, so unlike Greece as well, men have been becoming more untrustworthy and women are not sure to trust him always, wherever he comes late, or he looks like he’s hiding something.
Thanks to the influences they received from the environment encircling them, women of the earlier age were in a way more tough, because of the current wars or state of battle with other close civilizations, as well as their lack of safety. There was a period in history when women were much more dependable on man than they are today. Women rights have arose, therefore giving us a valid public opinion, etc.
Then comes Antigone, who was rather loyal to her brother than her greedy uncle. No matter what the uncle, king now instructed, she did what she felt was right, hence her principles and loyalty. Death, was what she obtained by disobeying. But deep inside her she knew she had made the right choice, as she had remained correctly loyal to her brother.
Finally, Penelope, who might be the most solid of all examples. Doing what she was willing. She left her family behind and spent time with her new husband, Odysseus. Then, he had to go to the Trojan Wars leaving Penelope behind for a long period of time. But she was counting on him. Other men came to her house and asked her to marry them, but as patient as she was, she waited, and believed in the return of Odysseus; overall the time, she actually stayed loyal to him, and she didn’t even know whether he was coming back or not-
These women, and their morals and characters, differ variously as from women today. It is true, women have been becoming less loyal each time. But maybe it is because nowadays, so unlike Greece as well, men have been becoming more untrustworthy and women are not sure to trust him always, wherever he comes late, or he looks like he’s hiding something.
Thanks to the influences they received from the environment encircling them, women of the earlier age were in a way more tough, because of the current wars or state of battle with other close civilizations, as well as their lack of safety. There was a period in history when women were much more dependable on man than they are today. Women rights have arose, therefore giving us a valid public opinion, etc.
Monday, September 17, 2007
About the Ancient Poets of Greece (Museaus, Sappho, Simonides)
Superiority (…False)
The writers of today, and their achievements and performance, really depend on themselves. If an author is keen to write to therefore have money, it is probable that their piece of work will be done with much speed, and not enough feelings, that they shall not have fame. Rather, when an author really puts emotion and personality on is/her pieces, it is much likely for him/her to be successful.
Yet meaning they could be wealthy doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll have more privileges than other people, for good. They could pay for the most expensive stuff, in matters such as safety, or danger, they are to be as valuable as the rest on the people on Earth.
What about the writers/poets of the Ancient Greece? In Museaus, we are told in someway indirect that in the EPOCA, writing or poetry could be expressed by anyone, as Museaus was said to be a semi-mythological creature. This somehow connects to the point of Writers having same BENEFITS than others, because the myth is telling than anyone, no matter the type of person or creature, can get to be a writer.
The myth of Sappho ends to the same conclusion; Sappho was a poetess and greatly in love. But with no virtue or characteristic to make her special, she suffered the same fate in the area of love, as most humans would (the person she loved did not loved her back, and she ended up committing suicide).
Then, from the myth Simonides, we can say the same thing as well. It is proven to us that if we are successful, life shall bring good deeds. Simonides did well in his work he was to show the Prince Scopas, and we should believe he deserved the compensation the Prince promised him. It is fair, at the end, for the house to destroy itself un top of the prince and his guests, as he had neglected the price to Simonides.
What I can conclude form these myths, it’s that, no matter in which area we specialize ourselves, for us to do good in life we should always try our best, and for the good of it, try to remember that we are not special nor different from the rest; that the fact that we are whichever culture or sex is going to turn us superior is false.
It is only fair for us to be considered successful when we exceed, when we gain prestige not for who we are, but rather because of what we made.
The writers of today, and their achievements and performance, really depend on themselves. If an author is keen to write to therefore have money, it is probable that their piece of work will be done with much speed, and not enough feelings, that they shall not have fame. Rather, when an author really puts emotion and personality on is/her pieces, it is much likely for him/her to be successful.
Yet meaning they could be wealthy doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll have more privileges than other people, for good. They could pay for the most expensive stuff, in matters such as safety, or danger, they are to be as valuable as the rest on the people on Earth.
What about the writers/poets of the Ancient Greece? In Museaus, we are told in someway indirect that in the EPOCA, writing or poetry could be expressed by anyone, as Museaus was said to be a semi-mythological creature. This somehow connects to the point of Writers having same BENEFITS than others, because the myth is telling than anyone, no matter the type of person or creature, can get to be a writer.
The myth of Sappho ends to the same conclusion; Sappho was a poetess and greatly in love. But with no virtue or characteristic to make her special, she suffered the same fate in the area of love, as most humans would (the person she loved did not loved her back, and she ended up committing suicide).
Then, from the myth Simonides, we can say the same thing as well. It is proven to us that if we are successful, life shall bring good deeds. Simonides did well in his work he was to show the Prince Scopas, and we should believe he deserved the compensation the Prince promised him. It is fair, at the end, for the house to destroy itself un top of the prince and his guests, as he had neglected the price to Simonides.
What I can conclude form these myths, it’s that, no matter in which area we specialize ourselves, for us to do good in life we should always try our best, and for the good of it, try to remember that we are not special nor different from the rest; that the fact that we are whichever culture or sex is going to turn us superior is false.
It is only fair for us to be considered successful when we exceed, when we gain prestige not for who we are, but rather because of what we made.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Dyrope, Venus and Adonis, and Apollo and Hyacinthus
We should be Careful
We usually are given terrible consequences that harm us, when not careful. Take into consideration the myth of Dyrope. Amused by nature, she was gathering flowers, with her sister and son in her arms, for the thrones of the nymphs. Pretty much distracted, she gathered a few purple flowers, which resulted out to be the nymph Lotis. She was terrified of what she had done, as soon as she realized the blood coming up of the flower’s stem.
Then, she tried to run and disappear and forget the scene, but she was stuck to the floor—like a plant. She couldn’t move anymore. Dyrope, weeping, told all her family how much they loved them, and learned from her mistake.
The Goddess Venus was one day playing with her son, Cupid, and one of his arrows accidentally struck her. Though she tried to remove it, the effect was now in action, and the Goddess immediately fell in love with Adonis. She followed him everywhere. One day, when Adonis was hunting, Venus warned him of being careful with nature and its dangerous creatures. Nevertheless, Adonis wasn’t the one struck by the love arrow, and he paid no attention whatsoever to what Venus had to say.
He did die in the end, because of a wild boar. If Venus and her son had been more careful, Venus would have never fell for Adonis, therefore never feeling sorry for his violent death.
Finally, in comes Apollo and Hyacinthus. The God, amused by this particular human, would take the pleasure to help him and follow him everywhere he’d go. They once were playing with quoits, and Apollo, who was probably to jolly to realize and think about what could happen, threw his hard. Hyacinthus, then, eager to catch it, ran after it; but the quoits bounced and struck him.
We know for sure Apollo didn’t mean to kill his beloved friend. But we understand that if not careful, something we don’t really want to happen can happen after all.
In our culture today, we feel bothered by the fact that parents or any elders are trying to protect us. Maybe they are overprotecting…or maybe they don’t want us to end up death. Yet, as much different from Ancient Greece, we play with balls and dolls, not with any type of arrow or quoits—or wild beast.
We usually are given terrible consequences that harm us, when not careful. Take into consideration the myth of Dyrope. Amused by nature, she was gathering flowers, with her sister and son in her arms, for the thrones of the nymphs. Pretty much distracted, she gathered a few purple flowers, which resulted out to be the nymph Lotis. She was terrified of what she had done, as soon as she realized the blood coming up of the flower’s stem.
Then, she tried to run and disappear and forget the scene, but she was stuck to the floor—like a plant. She couldn’t move anymore. Dyrope, weeping, told all her family how much they loved them, and learned from her mistake.
The Goddess Venus was one day playing with her son, Cupid, and one of his arrows accidentally struck her. Though she tried to remove it, the effect was now in action, and the Goddess immediately fell in love with Adonis. She followed him everywhere. One day, when Adonis was hunting, Venus warned him of being careful with nature and its dangerous creatures. Nevertheless, Adonis wasn’t the one struck by the love arrow, and he paid no attention whatsoever to what Venus had to say.
He did die in the end, because of a wild boar. If Venus and her son had been more careful, Venus would have never fell for Adonis, therefore never feeling sorry for his violent death.
Finally, in comes Apollo and Hyacinthus. The God, amused by this particular human, would take the pleasure to help him and follow him everywhere he’d go. They once were playing with quoits, and Apollo, who was probably to jolly to realize and think about what could happen, threw his hard. Hyacinthus, then, eager to catch it, ran after it; but the quoits bounced and struck him.
We know for sure Apollo didn’t mean to kill his beloved friend. But we understand that if not careful, something we don’t really want to happen can happen after all.
In our culture today, we feel bothered by the fact that parents or any elders are trying to protect us. Maybe they are overprotecting…or maybe they don’t want us to end up death. Yet, as much different from Ancient Greece, we play with balls and dolls, not with any type of arrow or quoits—or wild beast.
Orion, Aurora and Tithonus, and Acis and Galatea
Love is Blind…
Greek goddesses and gods fell in love easily, usually with the strongest immortal. So deep was their love, they usually forgot some details that would affect their supposed relationship easily. They’re mortal, the humans. The gods couldn’t expect them to live forever, like themselves would. They lived in Earth, gods don’t. But some, Hercules in the Disney Movie, did surrendered to the heavens and immortality—for love.
Say, Orion, as well. So convinced and keen he was to marry Enopion, that he tried a little to hard to get her, therefore making Enopion’s father gat mad at him, blinding him and throwing him out to the seashore.
In most cases, the person that the gods are in love with is not in love back. So, if they were to try too hard, and gain misery for trying to be with them, their supposed love will not help them back. What did Enopion do when her father blinded Orion?
Then, the Goddess Dawn fell in love with the mortal Tithonus, son of the king of Troy. What the Goddess most wanted in this world was to be with this prince, and therefore she immediately took him to the heavens, and told Jupiter to gift him with immortality. So in love she was, she forgets to tell Jupiter that she’d like for Tithonus to remain youthful as well. As she forgets, Tihonus, grows old, no matter if he is immortal. As old and uglier he gets, Dawn loves him less…where did all the intense love go?
If we got to be these people, so adored by Gods, would we be happy? What did the gods look exactly when they were in love? If we are based on Dawn, well we can say she was only interested in Tithonus beauty, as she started rejecting him the older he got.
If the relationship is not truly, yet shallow, then it shall be intense. As with the Goddess Galatea and Acis. It was true, they loved each other fairly and truly, but if no hatred within them then there must be someone against them. Some Cyclops was the one who defeated Acis and broke Galatea’s heart.
All of the characters mentioned, ended mostly in misfortune for ignorance and non-thinking. They should have thought about what they wanted to do, or what they should, and who were they seeking to be with, and how would their live be affected.
Greek goddesses and gods fell in love easily, usually with the strongest immortal. So deep was their love, they usually forgot some details that would affect their supposed relationship easily. They’re mortal, the humans. The gods couldn’t expect them to live forever, like themselves would. They lived in Earth, gods don’t. But some, Hercules in the Disney Movie, did surrendered to the heavens and immortality—for love.
Say, Orion, as well. So convinced and keen he was to marry Enopion, that he tried a little to hard to get her, therefore making Enopion’s father gat mad at him, blinding him and throwing him out to the seashore.
In most cases, the person that the gods are in love with is not in love back. So, if they were to try too hard, and gain misery for trying to be with them, their supposed love will not help them back. What did Enopion do when her father blinded Orion?
Then, the Goddess Dawn fell in love with the mortal Tithonus, son of the king of Troy. What the Goddess most wanted in this world was to be with this prince, and therefore she immediately took him to the heavens, and told Jupiter to gift him with immortality. So in love she was, she forgets to tell Jupiter that she’d like for Tithonus to remain youthful as well. As she forgets, Tihonus, grows old, no matter if he is immortal. As old and uglier he gets, Dawn loves him less…where did all the intense love go?
If we got to be these people, so adored by Gods, would we be happy? What did the gods look exactly when they were in love? If we are based on Dawn, well we can say she was only interested in Tithonus beauty, as she started rejecting him the older he got.
If the relationship is not truly, yet shallow, then it shall be intense. As with the Goddess Galatea and Acis. It was true, they loved each other fairly and truly, but if no hatred within them then there must be someone against them. Some Cyclops was the one who defeated Acis and broke Galatea’s heart.
All of the characters mentioned, ended mostly in misfortune for ignorance and non-thinking. They should have thought about what they wanted to do, or what they should, and who were they seeking to be with, and how would their live be affected.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Rhetoric (NYT articles)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/travel/09prac.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin
This article is using a little bit of logos persuasion, as it is using logical to make a statement—that might not be the main thing—the internet being a bad influence for such things, as hotel and room reservations. Logical because, it is an idea our society has been developing throughout the past years. And, it is logical, to say, that if reservations online turn out what they’re not, it is rather preferable to do direct reservations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/technology/techspecial/12threat.html?ref=technology
Is talking about computer programs and systems not being infected by hackers or viruses; rather, by themselves.
It might be difficult to convince the mob that supposed ‘clean’ programs are the ones who are damaging the computer. Speaker uses pretty much the persuasion of logos, because emotion and character doesn’t deal at all with discoveries in our technology. But then again, why would proving something based on research be logical? It might not belong to any of these forms of persuasion at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/opinion/12wed3.html
In this article, the speaker is using a bit of each persuasion, mostly logos (explains that people are doing wrong at avoiding such law, because children need proper education to they can exceed later on in life), and ethos (because the speaker is expressing that the lack of education goes against his beliefs and ideas).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/arts/television/12goss.html?ref=arts
This article doesn’t use persuasion, as the speaker is only trying to inform, rather than state an opinion. Talks about this new series called “Gossip Girl” on Warner Channel, and how much popularity it is gaining.
Perhaps, wants to convince readers to watch the series, but there is no evidence whether the speaker has seen the series or likes them.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/travel/09weekend.html?ref=travel
Though the speaker is not trying to persuade someone about something, he/she is giving them advice on how to plan their weekend depending on where they live, if they are interested on Salsa.
Indirectly, though, he persuading a little bit, telling people to go to have some fun and dancing at salsa clubs. Therefore, he is using the persuasion of pathos and ethos, as within his emotion he likes salsa, and within his character he enjoys it.
In overall conclusion, I was able to understand that most of the articles within newspapers are not rhetoric. Though some articles are based on personal opinion, a newspaper is all about informing a general public, about whichever topic the article is dealing with.
So, it might use persuasion, but not as intense. The newspaper is not seeking to express their opinion on a certain topic, because, it is true, what could it serve them? Or their readers? They are rather trying to convince their audience to make their own minds about what they inform about; because, as the speakers, they must be aware that the people reading this, each has its own ideas or beliefs.
This article is using a little bit of logos persuasion, as it is using logical to make a statement—that might not be the main thing—the internet being a bad influence for such things, as hotel and room reservations. Logical because, it is an idea our society has been developing throughout the past years. And, it is logical, to say, that if reservations online turn out what they’re not, it is rather preferable to do direct reservations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/technology/techspecial/12threat.html?ref=technology
Is talking about computer programs and systems not being infected by hackers or viruses; rather, by themselves.
It might be difficult to convince the mob that supposed ‘clean’ programs are the ones who are damaging the computer. Speaker uses pretty much the persuasion of logos, because emotion and character doesn’t deal at all with discoveries in our technology. But then again, why would proving something based on research be logical? It might not belong to any of these forms of persuasion at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/opinion/12wed3.html
In this article, the speaker is using a bit of each persuasion, mostly logos (explains that people are doing wrong at avoiding such law, because children need proper education to they can exceed later on in life), and ethos (because the speaker is expressing that the lack of education goes against his beliefs and ideas).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/arts/television/12goss.html?ref=arts
This article doesn’t use persuasion, as the speaker is only trying to inform, rather than state an opinion. Talks about this new series called “Gossip Girl” on Warner Channel, and how much popularity it is gaining.
Perhaps, wants to convince readers to watch the series, but there is no evidence whether the speaker has seen the series or likes them.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/travel/09weekend.html?ref=travel
Though the speaker is not trying to persuade someone about something, he/she is giving them advice on how to plan their weekend depending on where they live, if they are interested on Salsa.
Indirectly, though, he persuading a little bit, telling people to go to have some fun and dancing at salsa clubs. Therefore, he is using the persuasion of pathos and ethos, as within his emotion he likes salsa, and within his character he enjoys it.
In overall conclusion, I was able to understand that most of the articles within newspapers are not rhetoric. Though some articles are based on personal opinion, a newspaper is all about informing a general public, about whichever topic the article is dealing with.
So, it might use persuasion, but not as intense. The newspaper is not seeking to express their opinion on a certain topic, because, it is true, what could it serve them? Or their readers? They are rather trying to convince their audience to make their own minds about what they inform about; because, as the speakers, they must be aware that the people reading this, each has its own ideas or beliefs.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Amphion, Linus and Marsyas, Pgs. 154-155
Those who plot the destruction of others often fall themselves.
-Phaedrus (Thrace of Macedonia)
Then revenge is some sort of force, that shall bounce back again on whoever caused it. Revenge is usually seen within fables, or other short stories that explain a lesson—myths, too. In Amphion, Antiope, the mother, along wit her two childs, Amphion and Zethus, plot vengeance on Lycus, arrogant king of Thebes, and his wife, Dirce, because they were the ones who had treated Antiope with cruelty in the first place. Then, in the myth Linus, Hercules kills his music tutor, Linus, in revenge, because of what he had told his pupil—first. Finally, the God Apollo punishes to death some brave-like man named Marsyas, because of him being swollen with pride and challenging the God initially, in the myth Marsyas.
This above, all show acts of revenge. But, based on our culture today, is revenge valid? Is it somewhat fare? It is true, you are somehow levelling yourself with someone else. You are not actually doing it because you’re mean and you want to, it is rather because that person did something bad to you first.
But which action was first? It’s not like we count or remember who started whichever conflict. And this way, the only thing revenge will do is extend this argument till forever and ever, just because the two sides think they are levelling with one another.
And, if revenge is considered good, then so would other negative traits such as greed, viewed as some sort of taking care of personal stuff, and wrath, seen as an alarming warning towards other people could be considered good too…yet only good to the person planting this action.
Quote taken from: www.worldofquotes.com/topic/Revenge/1/index.html
-Phaedrus (Thrace of Macedonia)
Then revenge is some sort of force, that shall bounce back again on whoever caused it. Revenge is usually seen within fables, or other short stories that explain a lesson—myths, too. In Amphion, Antiope, the mother, along wit her two childs, Amphion and Zethus, plot vengeance on Lycus, arrogant king of Thebes, and his wife, Dirce, because they were the ones who had treated Antiope with cruelty in the first place. Then, in the myth Linus, Hercules kills his music tutor, Linus, in revenge, because of what he had told his pupil—first. Finally, the God Apollo punishes to death some brave-like man named Marsyas, because of him being swollen with pride and challenging the God initially, in the myth Marsyas.
This above, all show acts of revenge. But, based on our culture today, is revenge valid? Is it somewhat fare? It is true, you are somehow levelling yourself with someone else. You are not actually doing it because you’re mean and you want to, it is rather because that person did something bad to you first.
But which action was first? It’s not like we count or remember who started whichever conflict. And this way, the only thing revenge will do is extend this argument till forever and ever, just because the two sides think they are levelling with one another.
And, if revenge is considered good, then so would other negative traits such as greed, viewed as some sort of taking care of personal stuff, and wrath, seen as an alarming warning towards other people could be considered good too…yet only good to the person planting this action.
Quote taken from: www.worldofquotes.com/topic/Revenge/1/index.html
Monday, September 10, 2007
Chp XV: Perseus, Medusa, Atlas, and Andromeda
The three myths I read for today have everything to do with one another, as they belong to the same chapter and focus on the same characters; Perseus.
I was able to compare Perseus with Gilgamesh himself in various ways. First, we can say both characters are one in a kind. Say, Perseus was born as a God, but then sent away with his mother by his grandpa, as he had been told by some oracle something about this newborn killing him. Then Gilgamesh, is part human part Gods, therefore superior in a way than other humans; he is the creator as well, of the city of Uruk, and someone who none would dare fight.
With the characteristics they have, either Perseus or Gilgamesh have their own unique way or perceiving the world, and others. Gilgamesh, believing he is superior, demands respect and shows seriousness towards others. Perseus, he is not quite used to being loved, and is unwelcome wherever he goes, cause of what prophecies have said. He is seeking to gain respect and therefore is strong and always willing to do his best, to defeat.
Visions affect both the epic and the myths dramatically. Perseus might have never killed the Medusa nor met Andromeda, if his grandfather had never believed what the oracle told him. When Gilgamesh told his mother about some vision he had had, and his mother’s analysis is false, Gilgamesh without knowing it, beliefs his mother, and therefore is never prepared for the arrival of his equal—Enkidu. Were this visions to be taken differently by the characters, the text would have a different result. Perseus might have belonged along with his family of Gods, and Gilgamesh would’ve prepared some type of surprise attack for Enkidu, meaning that Enkidu might have end up killed before he and Gilgamesh became friends.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Prometheus and Pandora, Apollo and Daphne, and Pyramus and Thisbe
In a relationship, what does the male represent, and what does the female? Does a female always represent the same things in overall cultures, or is it rather different depending on each couple?
How has this idea of sexism changed over periods of time? At least, how much has it changed since the supposed existence of Roman myths and Gods?
Recall the myth Prometheus and Pandora. We can tell whoever told this story, is representing the women as rather foolish and troublemaker, mischievous; as, supposedly, it was a women who spilled the jar with Epimetheus secrets, all flaws that today inhabit human beings and societies.
But, the representation of the sexes, might be affected too, on what type of a relationship the male and the female are sharing.
If a relationship is pure, filled with love and passion, then the female, as to the male, might be something perfect, everything he ever wished for. The female then, might perceive the male as a courageous loving being; this type of relationship, in which the couple loves each other strongly no matter what, can be seen on the myth of Pryamus and Thisbe. They love each other so much they ignore their flaws.
Then this kind of relationship was meant to happen. Lovely. It felt right so they liked each other, and not that anyone is obligating them to love each other, they just do. Will the relationship be different if the couple happened not by pure love and desire, but by one solid cause? If we focussed on the myth of Apollo and Daphne, then we shall prove how different the relationship can indeed be. Daphne, while Apollo is in love, tends to feel obligated if she were to love Apollo.
If there is a relationship filled with love, there might be a similar type of relationship, nonetheless having more to do with friendship. This, we can see it through Gilgamesh’s and Enkidu’s companionship. Here, the two people within the relationship are not so deeply focused on each other, they tend to be together and together they shall defeat and defend themselves. Love, is more of loving your lover, then friendship is more like loving your alliance—both of yourselves.
How has this idea of sexism changed over periods of time? At least, how much has it changed since the supposed existence of Roman myths and Gods?
Recall the myth Prometheus and Pandora. We can tell whoever told this story, is representing the women as rather foolish and troublemaker, mischievous; as, supposedly, it was a women who spilled the jar with Epimetheus secrets, all flaws that today inhabit human beings and societies.
But, the representation of the sexes, might be affected too, on what type of a relationship the male and the female are sharing.
If a relationship is pure, filled with love and passion, then the female, as to the male, might be something perfect, everything he ever wished for. The female then, might perceive the male as a courageous loving being; this type of relationship, in which the couple loves each other strongly no matter what, can be seen on the myth of Pryamus and Thisbe. They love each other so much they ignore their flaws.
Then this kind of relationship was meant to happen. Lovely. It felt right so they liked each other, and not that anyone is obligating them to love each other, they just do. Will the relationship be different if the couple happened not by pure love and desire, but by one solid cause? If we focussed on the myth of Apollo and Daphne, then we shall prove how different the relationship can indeed be. Daphne, while Apollo is in love, tends to feel obligated if she were to love Apollo.
If there is a relationship filled with love, there might be a similar type of relationship, nonetheless having more to do with friendship. This, we can see it through Gilgamesh’s and Enkidu’s companionship. Here, the two people within the relationship are not so deeply focused on each other, they tend to be together and together they shall defeat and defend themselves. Love, is more of loving your lover, then friendship is more like loving your alliance—both of yourselves.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Juno and her Rivals, Callisto (Chp. IV), Monsters (Chp. XVI
I’ve heard a bunch of times, around the media, and in church mainly, that our God up there is there to take care of us, to forgive us no matter how many times we screw up; so we can say he is someone good, some pleasant father that is always willing to give us a second chance, because he knows, and we know, some of us, that we can do it right.
But, when I read Juno and her Rivals, I started doubting whether all Gods, in all religions are as good as our God. Cause, in the myth, Juno is not what we could call patient.
So I thought the behaviour of our Gods towards us has varied, throughout time, in all religions. At the time in which Gilgamesh lived, if he did, it is easy to notice the Gods behaved different, mostly like Juno. They probably were this way, because the Gods, were much more linked to humans in some way or other. They lived among them sometimes, and gave them advice and punished them; they had more human-like characteristics.
As the myth Callisto shows, jealousy was a human-characteristic that Juno had; she was certainly jealous of the beautifulness of one of the nymphs, Callisto. As jealous and powerful as she was, she converted the poor nymph into a big brown bear, removing her attractive human characteristics.
How can we be sure if our God, today, is even human? He/she doesn’t definitely share human characteristic, cause it is rather hard to find a perfect human being.
But then, later on, no matter how angry might have Juno or her husband Jupiter be, humans and other mortals like to contradict them, just sometimes; at doing this, unlike modernity, they are fully aware of what dangerous consequences might rebellion bring.
In Monsters, this is similar to Gilgamesh as well, as Gilgamesh, part, human therefore part immortal, liked to disobey the Gods, when going into the Cedar Forest, when insulting Ishtar; Enkidu disobeyed hell, when breaking all the rules and doing sorts of things he wasn’t supposed to do. Practically, no matter how important might the Gods have been once to us, we, as humans, as imperfections, think evil and…ignore the Gods sometimes.
But, when I read Juno and her Rivals, I started doubting whether all Gods, in all religions are as good as our God. Cause, in the myth, Juno is not what we could call patient.
So I thought the behaviour of our Gods towards us has varied, throughout time, in all religions. At the time in which Gilgamesh lived, if he did, it is easy to notice the Gods behaved different, mostly like Juno. They probably were this way, because the Gods, were much more linked to humans in some way or other. They lived among them sometimes, and gave them advice and punished them; they had more human-like characteristics.
As the myth Callisto shows, jealousy was a human-characteristic that Juno had; she was certainly jealous of the beautifulness of one of the nymphs, Callisto. As jealous and powerful as she was, she converted the poor nymph into a big brown bear, removing her attractive human characteristics.
How can we be sure if our God, today, is even human? He/she doesn’t definitely share human characteristic, cause it is rather hard to find a perfect human being.
But then, later on, no matter how angry might have Juno or her husband Jupiter be, humans and other mortals like to contradict them, just sometimes; at doing this, unlike modernity, they are fully aware of what dangerous consequences might rebellion bring.
In Monsters, this is similar to Gilgamesh as well, as Gilgamesh, part, human therefore part immortal, liked to disobey the Gods, when going into the Cedar Forest, when insulting Ishtar; Enkidu disobeyed hell, when breaking all the rules and doing sorts of things he wasn’t supposed to do. Practically, no matter how important might the Gods have been once to us, we, as humans, as imperfections, think evil and…ignore the Gods sometimes.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Responding to Calvin's Story
At first I wasn’t sure on how I should start this entry, as so much questions and ideas based on the text came to mind. Calvin’s story it’s…really confusing, yet exclusive, and similar to Ishmael, as it makes you think a lot.
Made me think of such things as are Qfwfq and (k)yK humans?
They aren’t exactly humans, nor do they belong to any specie living on this Earth. They are even vaguely alive, as they were…just there staring at creation itself, and gambling about what was supposed to happen.
If there was nothing to know, nothing to learn from or not anything for there to be that might have made Qfwfq think, then why did he know all that? How was he able to predict everything and mention random facts about future—future in their case—such as Mesopotamia vs. Aryans, and who shall wins from Arsenal and Real Madrid?
This story includes many of the topics we have until now learned in class. For a start, it talks about creation, like if it were just any other myth, explaining its own beliefs, on where we come from, on how and when was the world created. I wondered as well, what type of knowledge wasQfwfq using, when he talked and gambled about the future.
In simulation to Gilgamesh, Qfwfq and (k)yK could be said to be the Gilgamesh and the Enkidu of the story. Though they seemed to have known each other forever (unlike the characters in the epic), they act as true companions, and they are okay with each other’s company. Both pairs of buddies have some dilemma they shall study and face, in Gilgamesh and Enkidu’s case, to exceed in whichever threatening adventure they embark. The dilemma Qfwfq and (k)yK face is practically the creation of the world, of everything, to their eyes.
Neither of the four had an idea of how much effect their stories have for the future, for the civilization today. What might have Qfwfq thought if he were to know all of his bets we know today by fact, what might have Gilgamesh thought if today his story is the first written piece in the world…
Made me think of such things as are Qfwfq and (k)yK humans?
They aren’t exactly humans, nor do they belong to any specie living on this Earth. They are even vaguely alive, as they were…just there staring at creation itself, and gambling about what was supposed to happen.
If there was nothing to know, nothing to learn from or not anything for there to be that might have made Qfwfq think, then why did he know all that? How was he able to predict everything and mention random facts about future—future in their case—such as Mesopotamia vs. Aryans, and who shall wins from Arsenal and Real Madrid?
This story includes many of the topics we have until now learned in class. For a start, it talks about creation, like if it were just any other myth, explaining its own beliefs, on where we come from, on how and when was the world created. I wondered as well, what type of knowledge wasQfwfq using, when he talked and gambled about the future.
In simulation to Gilgamesh, Qfwfq and (k)yK could be said to be the Gilgamesh and the Enkidu of the story. Though they seemed to have known each other forever (unlike the characters in the epic), they act as true companions, and they are okay with each other’s company. Both pairs of buddies have some dilemma they shall study and face, in Gilgamesh and Enkidu’s case, to exceed in whichever threatening adventure they embark. The dilemma Qfwfq and (k)yK face is practically the creation of the world, of everything, to their eyes.
Neither of the four had an idea of how much effect their stories have for the future, for the civilization today. What might have Qfwfq thought if he were to know all of his bets we know today by fact, what might have Gilgamesh thought if today his story is the first written piece in the world…
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Entry 8 (Whole epic)
The influence of Gods and their actions within the epic are massive, as the epic would have a totally different significance and ending if somehow the Gods didn’t act the way they did.
For a start, Anu the God of the city, obeying the people’s pleads, creates Enkidu, supposedly the one who was to equalize Gilgamesh and defeat him. Were Anu to be some kind of ignorant selfish God, Enkidu wouldn’t have been created, never meeting Gilgamesh, and never would have they later become the invincible duo.
Then Shamash comes in. Gilgamesh’s mother prays to him for the safety and security of her son, during the journey he is about to embark with his now new companion, Enkidu. Shamash agrees, and grants safety as promised to Gilgamesh. It is most possible that without Shamash protection and company, Gilgamesh might have loosened in self-confidence and moral strength.
When Gilgamesh neglects to Ishtar’s—Goddess—love, she is enraged, sending Gilgamesh and his city the Bull of Heaven, as a curse and punishment. This new challenges, influences Gilgamesh and Enkidu’s relationship, making them more united, more invincible.
The Chief Gods decided, in the heavens that either Gilgamesh or Enkidu should die. Later, Enkidu falls gravely sick and slowly, dies, fact that made Gilgamesh embark on the terrible journey, to find immortality, his only wish left to live for.
What if the Gods had chosen Gilgamesh to die instead of Enkidu? Would Enkidu have become ruler of Uruk…would he want to kill himself too for depression and disgust…?
Finally, we can consider Gilgamesh himself as a God too, as he is 2 parts God 1 part Human. As the main character in the Epic, he mostly makes his own decisions and as their leader, other characters shall follow him. He is the one who decides to go into the Cedar Forest, he, with such selfish attitude at the beginning, makes the people of the city want another leader so they could get rid of him. If Gilgamesh had accepted, someway, Ishtar’s love, his friendly relationship wit Enkidu might have never grew strong nor eternal.
For a start, Anu the God of the city, obeying the people’s pleads, creates Enkidu, supposedly the one who was to equalize Gilgamesh and defeat him. Were Anu to be some kind of ignorant selfish God, Enkidu wouldn’t have been created, never meeting Gilgamesh, and never would have they later become the invincible duo.
Then Shamash comes in. Gilgamesh’s mother prays to him for the safety and security of her son, during the journey he is about to embark with his now new companion, Enkidu. Shamash agrees, and grants safety as promised to Gilgamesh. It is most possible that without Shamash protection and company, Gilgamesh might have loosened in self-confidence and moral strength.
When Gilgamesh neglects to Ishtar’s—Goddess—love, she is enraged, sending Gilgamesh and his city the Bull of Heaven, as a curse and punishment. This new challenges, influences Gilgamesh and Enkidu’s relationship, making them more united, more invincible.
The Chief Gods decided, in the heavens that either Gilgamesh or Enkidu should die. Later, Enkidu falls gravely sick and slowly, dies, fact that made Gilgamesh embark on the terrible journey, to find immortality, his only wish left to live for.
What if the Gods had chosen Gilgamesh to die instead of Enkidu? Would Enkidu have become ruler of Uruk…would he want to kill himself too for depression and disgust…?
Finally, we can consider Gilgamesh himself as a God too, as he is 2 parts God 1 part Human. As the main character in the Epic, he mostly makes his own decisions and as their leader, other characters shall follow him. He is the one who decides to go into the Cedar Forest, he, with such selfish attitude at the beginning, makes the people of the city want another leader so they could get rid of him. If Gilgamesh had accepted, someway, Ishtar’s love, his friendly relationship wit Enkidu might have never grew strong nor eternal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
