Pan's Labyrinth

Pan's Labyrinth—well there's a film I would have watched just for the hell of it. But yea ok, it does have a pretty cool connection to myth too. Naturally I had to look up the myth of Pan and the little history that goes to it.
“Pan (Greek Πάν, genitive Πανός), in Greek religion and mythology, is the companion of the nymphs,[1] god of shepherds and flocks, of mountain wilds, hunting and rustic music. His name originates within the Greek language, from the word paein (Πάειν), meaning "to pasture".[2] He has the hindquarters, legs, and horns of a goat, in the same manner as a faun or satyr. With his homeland in rustic Arcadia, he is recognized as the god of fields, groves, and wooded glens; because of this, Pan is connected to fertility and the season of spring. The ancient Greeks also considered Pan to be the god of theatrical criticism.[3]
In Roman religion and myth, Pan's counterpart was Faunus, a nature god who was the father of Bona Dea, sometimes identified as Fauna. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Pan became a significant figure in the Romantic movement of western Europe, and also in the 20th-century Neopagan movement."
Not that I've really studied the Spanish Civil War in that much detain, but I did live there for a while and I do know that the civil war is still not really talked about. Let me just say that I've seen El Valle de los Caídos and I can only imagine that has done to Spain. I stood next to Franco's grave...it's an interesting feeling let me tell you since I have somewhat of an idea as to what he did.

Run Lola Run

Ok so Run Lola Run....interesting film. I guess we kind of see the fairy tale element since we essentially watch the same story take place three different times. I kind of wish my reality was like that- don't like the outcome just say stop and start all over again. The weird thing is every time she starts all over again so does everyone she meets, basically her reality/redo's in life also change everyone around her and their lives. Apparently only Lola has the power to do that. As far as myth blending with reality—well we don't get three redos in life just because we don't like the outcome (although that would be sweet). And as a random note on her third try she goes to the casino and play roulette, the only game in a casino where the odds are never EVER in your favor. (I'm pretty sure roulette has the worse winning odds—she should have played blackjack—the odds are in the players favor in that one) And she winds, twice, on the same number—I mean what are the chances of that? I can clearly see why the film is called a 90 minute techo video though. I can't say I'd ever watch it again though—maybe if I got more of the background story I would.

The Ogre Part 4

Ephraim was the son of Joseph (as in Joseph and the coat of many colors son of Jacob). I've included a whole bunch of references from the Bible about Ephraim.

“The second son of Joseph (Gen. 41: 52; Gen. 46: 20); but at the blessing by Jacob, Ephraim was set before Manasseh, the elder son (Gen. 48: 19-20). Joshua belonged to this tribe, and to him was due much of its subsequent greatness. After the settlement in Canaan, the district assigned to the two sons of Joseph included some of the richest land in the country, crossed by several important highways, and having within its limits historic sites like Shechem, Ebal, Gerizim, and Shiloh. Ephraim was notorious for its jealousy of any success gained by any other tribe (Judg. 8: 1; Judg. 12: 1; cf. 2 Sam. 19: 41-43). It was Ephraim’s jealousy of Judah that in great measure brought about the separation of the two kingdoms, and that Rehoboam in vain tried to satisfy by going to Shechem to be crowned.
Ephraim was given the birthright in Israel (1 Chr. 5: 1-2; Jer. 31: 9), and in the last days it has been the tribe of Ephraim’s privilege first to bear the message of the restoration of the gospel to the world and to gather scattered Israel (Deut. 33: 13-17; D&C 133: 26-34; D&C 64: 36). The time will come when, through the operation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the envy of Judah and Ephraim shall cease (Isa. 11: 12-13).(http://scriptures.lds.org/bd/e/61)”


Ephraim, Tribe of
Descended from Joseph's second son adopted by Jacob.
Genesis 41:52 And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction.
Genesis 48:5 And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine.
Predictions respecting.
Genesis 48:20 And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh.
Deuteronomy 33:13-17 And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the LORD be his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath, And for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon, And for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills, And for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his brethren. His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh. ...
PERSONS SELECTED FROM,
To number the people.
Numbers 1:10 Of the children of Joseph: of Ephraim; Elishama the son of Ammihud: of Manasseh; Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur.
To spy out the land.
Numbers 13:8 Of the tribe of Ephraim, Oshea the son of Nun.
To divide the land.
Numbers 34:24 And the prince of the tribe of the children of Ephraim, Kemuel the son of Shiphtan.
Strength of, on leaving Egypt.
Numbers 1:32-33 Of the children of Joseph, namely, of the children of Ephraim, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war; Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Ephraim, were forty thousand and five hundred.
Led the third division of Israel.
Numbers 10:22 And the standard of the camp of the children of Ephraim set forward according to their armies: and over his host was Elishama the son of Ammihud.
Encamped west of the tabernacle.
Numbers 2:18 On the west side shall be the standard of the camp of Ephraim according to their armies: and the captain of the sons of Ephraim shall be Elishama the son of Ammihud.
Offering of, at the dedication.
Numbers 7:48-53 On the seventh day Elishama the son of Ammihud, prince of the children of Ephraim, offered: His offering was one silver charger, the weight whereof was an hundred and thirty shekels, one silver bowl of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary; both of them full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meat offering: One golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense: One young bullock, one ram, one lamb of the first year, for a burnt offering: One kid of the goats for a sin offering: ...
Families of.
Numbers 26:35-36 These are the sons of Ephraim after their families: of Shuthelah, the family of the Shuthalhites: of Becher, the family of the Bachrites: of Tahan, the family of the Tahanites. And these are the sons of Shuthelah: of Eran, the family of the Eranites.
Strength of, on entering Canaan.
Numbers 26:37 These are the families of the sons of Ephraim according to those that were numbered of them, thirty and two thousand and five hundred. These are the sons of Joseph after their families.
On Gerizim, said amen to blessings.
Deuteronomy 27:12 These shall stand upon mount Gerizim to bless the people, when ye are come over Jordan; Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Joseph, and Benjamin:
Bounds of its inheritance.
Joshua 16:5-9 And the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families was thus: even the border of their inheritance on the east side was Atarothaddar, unto Bethhoron the upper; And the border went out toward the sea to Michmethah on the north side; and the border went about eastward unto Taanathshiloh, and passed by it on the east to Janohah; And it went down from Janohah to Ataroth, and to Naarath, and came to Jericho, and went out at Jordan. The border went out from Tappuah westward unto the river Kanah; and the goings out thereof were at the sea. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim by their families. And the separate cities for the children of Ephraim were among the inheritance of the children of Manasseh, all the cities with their villages. ...
Could not drive out the Canaanites but made them tributary.
Joshua 16:10 And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute.
Judges 1:29 Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them.
ASSISTED
Manasseh in taking Bethel.
Judges 1:22-25 And the house of Joseph, they also went up against Bethel: and the LORD was with them. And the house of Joseph sent to descry Bethel. (Now the name of the city before was Luz.) And the spies saw a man come forth out of the city, and they said unto him, Shew us, we pray thee, the entrance into the city, and we will shew thee mercy. And when he shewed them the entrance into the city, they smote the city with the edge of the sword; but they let go the man and all his family.
Deborah and Barak against Sisera.
Judges 5:14 Out of Ephraim was there a root of them against Amalek; after thee, Benjamin, among thy people; out of Machir came down governors, and out of Zebulun they that handle the pen of the writer.
Gideon against Midian.
Judges 7:24-25 And Gideon sent messengers throughout all mount Ephraim, saying, Come down against the Midianites, and take before them the waters unto Bethbarah and Jordan. Then all the men of Ephraim gathered themselves together, and took the waters unto Bethbarah and Jordan. And they took two princes of the Midianites, Oreb and Zeeb; and they slew Oreb upon the rock Oreb, and Zeeb they slew at the winepress of Zeeb, and pursued Midian, and brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon on the other side Jordan.
Remonstrated with Gideon for not calling them sooner against Midian.
Judges 8:1-3 And the men of Ephraim said unto him, Why hast thou served us thus, that thou calledst us not, when thou wentest to fight with the Midianites? And they did chide with him sharply. And he said unto them, What have I done now in comparison of you? Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer? God hath delivered into your hands the princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb: and what was I able to do in comparison of you? Then their anger was abated toward him, when he had said that.
Quarrelled with Jephthah for not seeking their aid against Ammon.
Judges 12:1-4 And the men of Ephraim gathered themselves together, and went northward, and said unto Jephthah, Wherefore passedst thou over to fight against the children of Ammon, and didst not call us to go with thee? we will burn thine house upon thee with fire. And Jephthah said unto them, I and my people were at great strife with the children of Ammon; and when I called you, ye delivered me not out of their hands. And when I saw that ye delivered me not, I put my life in my hands, and passed over against the children of Ammon, and the LORD delivered them into my hand: wherefore then are ye come up unto me this day, to fight against me? Then Jephthah gathered together all the men of Gilead, and fought with Ephraim: and the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, Ye Gileadites are fugitives of Ephraim among the Ephraimites, and among the Manassites.
Defeated and many slain.
Judges 12:5-6 And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay; Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.
Some of, at coronation of David.
1 Chronicles 12:30 And of the children of Ephraim twenty thousand and eight hundred, mighty men of valour, famous throughout the house of their fathers.
Officers appointed over, by David.
1 Chronicles 27:10 The seventh captain for the seventh month was Helez the Pelonite, of the children of Ephraim: and in his course were twenty and four thousand.
1 Chronicles 27:20 Of the children of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Azaziah: of the half tribe of Manasseh, Joel the son of Pedaiah:
The leading tribe of the kingdom of Israel.
Isaiah 7:2-17 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind. Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field; And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal: ...
Jeremiah 31:9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
Jeremiah 31:20 Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the LORD.
Many of, joined Judah under Asa.
2 Chronicles 15:9 And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon: for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance, when they saw that the LORD his God was with him.
Many of, joined in Hezekiah's passover and reformation.
2 Chronicles 30:18 For a multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim, and Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good LORD pardon every one
2 Chronicles 31:1 Now when all this was finished, all Israel that were present went out to the cities of Judah, and brake the images in pieces, and cut down the groves, and threw down the high places and the altars out of all Judah and Benjamin, in Ephraim also and Manasseh, until they had utterly destroyed them all. Then all the children of Israel returned, every man to his possession, into their own cities.
The tabernacle continued a long time in Shiloh, a city of.
Joshua 18:1 And the whole congregation of the children of Israel assembled together at Shiloh, and set up the tabernacle of the congregation there. And the land was subdued before them.
Joshua 19:51 These are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, divided for an inheritance by lot in Shiloh before the LORD, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. So they made an end of dividing the country.
One of Jeroboam's calves set up in Bethel, a city of.
1 Kings 12:29 And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan.
Remarkable persons of.
Joshua,
Numbers 13:8 Of the tribe of Ephraim, Oshea the son of Nun.
Joshua 1:1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD it came to pass, that the LORD spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,

Abdon,
Judges 12:13-15 And after him Abdon the son of Hillel, a Pirathonite, judged Israel. And he had forty sons and thirty nephews, that rode on threescore and ten ass colts: and he judged Israel eight years. And Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite died, and was buried in Pirathon in the land of Ephraim, in the mount of the Amalekites.

Zichri,
2 Chronicles 28:7 And Zichri, a mighty man of Ephraim, slew Maaseiah the king's son, and Azrikam the governor of the house, and Elkanah that was next to the king.

The Ogre II

So there is this whole theme of “photography” and capturing souls by photographs. I find that rather interesting and somewhat mythical. I can't remember where it came from...but I know there is an old myth that photographs would capture the souls of people (a little weird...but still kind of mythical). Maybe that's why he wants to take so many pictures of the little kids in Paris—since he can't actually eat them.

I was also struck by his little tangent about little girls and how they don't really exist. I find that extremely interesting, especially since he doesn't make the same distinction between little boys and men. That whole speech just struck me as odd.

The other part that struck me as odd is they way he gives this “half truth” to the start of World War Ii (kind of like the half truth he gave the origin of the word monster.) Yes, Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, but the Austro-Hungarian Empire waited a month to retaliate. He forgets to mention Germany's violation of Belgium neutrality as a cause of World War II. (Or even France and Britain and their push for a war sooner rather than later.)

The Ogre

I kind of like the novel starts as a diary, it gives it a “personal feel” I think. I'm a fan of first person narratives, especially when it comes to historical accounts like Nazi Germany (who wants to read a test book with a whole bunch of dates after all). It makes the story much more believable to me. Not that I can actually relate to it, but it does give the reader this sense of “being a start of the story” because we are reading it in the eyes of the author. The author is the writer and we are the diary, so we live the story as it is written.The fact that he calls these writings sinister is kind of cool too, it gives you the sense of “evil” or “bad” that is going to come out of it. His writings may not be “sinister”, but the word certainly reflects the time period. (I mean really, how much more evil to you get than Nazi Germany)

100 Anos de Solidad V

Ok so after the massacres we get five years of rain. The rain is another way Márquez plays with time. The great rain/flood kind of reminds me of the Biblical flooding of the world with Noah. In the Bible this flood was ordered by God to kill all the wicked and restart life anew—or simply put forgetting the old people and moving on (sound like the massacres yet?) Not only does the rain serve as a symbol of forgetting the past, but it also serves to wash away all traces of the past. God flood the world and man had to start again with nothing, no traces or signs of the old world, much like Macondo is going to have to essentially start over (that is if they weren't all sinners, yep, they're all screwed and are going to drown in the flood.)

The other cool thing in the book is the manipulation of time. The decoding of Melquíades' book collapses the entire history of Macondo into a single instant (or at least so it seems) Although the novel pretty much appears to be written in chronological order, there are hints of playing with this notion of time. Ghosts appear, people disappear and reappear, and deaths and destruction seem to be foreshadowed almost always. The past in this book dictates the future, and often it seems that the past occurs in the future (take the whole pigs tail thing). This whole notion of time seems to be altered with the entire towns almost instant amnesia after every single event. The idea of time is both linear and cyclical in this novel and therefore very fluid. It can unravel in a single instant, like Melquíades depicted, the family is physically moving forward while at the same time spiraling in circles.

100 Anos de Solidad 3

Ok so I know the blog says two things but I have a ton of stuff to say about the Banana Massacres and the time in which Garcia Márquez was writing. I think that with this piece in particular we should lo the situation of Garcia Márquez in two parts. First the environment of its childhood and the times in which wrote and second, the life that lived and as grew. Six months later its birth there was a crisis that to it we have given the name the Banana Massacres in the town of Ciénaga near Santa Marta The workers in the plantations were on strike and the government, after a month sent military forces to end the strike. The ending of the strike in real life was horrific and gruesome. It was essentially a government ordered mass murder. Now the question becomes why does such a horrific event become so easily forgotten. Well I'm sure there are several reasons, but I would argue that it was the nature of the time in Latin America. Essentially, if the government could order such mass murders then imagine what it could do to the people if they rebelled or spoke out against them. It was a way of keeping everyone in line and masking their horrific acts by putting everyone else in fear of the consequences of speaking out or rebelling.

Another important time for Márquez are the years when wrote. It wrote above all in the 1960s and 1970s, during the time of the "Latin-American boom" the events that occurred had a great impact in the literature of the "boom" and at the same time to Garcia Márquez. We have to take into account that the 60s were times of revolution and political oppression. Consider the Cuban Revolution and its leader Fidel Castro, which affected all of Latin America. The world, in the first place the United States andU.S.S.R. are in the Cold War and the world was in a state of confusion and terror. Latin America in these years had many authoritarian governments. Therefore Latin America was more or less completely ruled by dictators. The best-known were in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Peru. In the case of Chile, Latin America remained more or less angry with the United States because the U.S. they helped Pinochet. Pinochet is known for its violations of the human rights, like the torture. It is certain that the United States did not want to have Chile under a communist government, like that of Allende, but with all its efforts to eliminate Allende, Chile became a country under a dictator. Also there is the fall of another dictator, the General Perón and the liberation of Argentina.

The book is a combination of these two scenes. It speaks of both the massacres themselves and the political situation Garcia Márquez experienced his whole life. People really did fear the government and their power. They could kill thousands without any repercussions and would kill thousands more to silence any rebellion. (Take the Dirty War in Argentina as another example of this). It makes sense that the horror of the Banana Massacres was instantly “forgotten.”

100 Anos de Solidad 2

Ok so these aren't two separate themes but religion seems to play a large role in this novel, but in different ways. We see religion (or aspects of it) in many areas of the novel. We have the priest, Father Nicanor (who of course represents the church and the Catholic faith). We of course see Catholic traditions, like the entire house going into mourning when Remedios dies and the wedding is postponed. Interestingly enough the “belief” in religion inspires a “non-religious” act. Because of the wedding being postponed and the return José Arcadio, Rebecca begins this infatuation with her “brother” which results in them both being exiled from the family. It is as though religion first brings the family together to mourn and then turns around to tear them apart.

Then of course we have a war going on (contrary to all religious beliefs..violence is not the answer guys—God said so). The cool thing about this war is it basically happened—the Banana Massacres. This war took place right around the time Gabriel was born (which means he has no real recollection of it). Although his grandfather was much involved, the idea of him bringing up a past war and putting it into present context is just a great example of his mastery of playing with time. He has taken the past and made it present and one would no know that it was a distant memory/story.

100 Anos de Solidad I

Well I never made this connection before, but I guess I can see the parallel between José Arcadio Buendía and Don Quijote, in the sense that they both kind of live in their own world. José Arcadio Buendía is obsessed with the new-found gadgets of the gypsies, which is interesting in itself since most times gypsies were viewed as social outcasts. Interestingly enough he has a little bit of a violent side as well (as we see when he kills Prudencio and essentially rapes his wife).Although he seems to be a “man of few words” his actions speak pretty loudly.

I would say that one of the biggest symbols in this novel (ok so they're kind of like symbols) are the gypsies. While each individual has their own significance in the novel the group as a whole represents this idea of the unknown or the magical. José Arcadio Buendía sees their inventions as wondrous and becomes intrigued by them and eventually obsesses over them. They kind of become a symbol for his madness, and maybe to some extent the madness of others.

Fairy Tales Part 2

So I kind of get the “prodigal son” kind of feeling from a few of these stories. (The two stories about the thumbling and to some extent the Golden Goose one). They all kind of go along with the idea that the beloved son “goes away” for whatever reason and then comes back and we all rejoice. It's kind of like the non-biblical version of a biblical story. It's like the theme is the same as the biblical story, the idea that the sons go out and have these experiences and then come home to the ever loving father/family. I do find it interesting that the Grimm Brothers have stories like these that seem to be almost translated from biblical story to fairy tales for ordinary people.

Fairy Tales

I guess these stories have become so universal because they “teach a lesson” (i.e. snow white and the consequences of vanity). I think that since we have things like Disney Princesses that most little girls “look up to” it sort of becomes a way to get a moral across in a fun, little kid kind of way. These stories are also internationalized because the morals and lessons they teach are pretty universal. (it's not like we're reading the Prodigal Son here). They are pretty much free from all religious ties and can relate to all cultures. I mean no one really wants to teach their kids to lie so stories about not lying seem to work pretty well, especially when we put them into “Disney land.”

Good-Bye Don Quijote!

As I think I've made rather clear in this class I don't enjoy this book at all. But, having said that, I can appreciate certain parts of the book and I guess I understand why it's considered such a literary classic. My primary “appreciation” is what Cervantes does for women in the book and the roles he allows them to play. What he did for these women, by giving them free-thinking, independent and speaking roles was something very very controversial for his time. This sort of “breaking the rules” about the roles of women is probably one of the few things I can actually say that I do like about this novel. I won't lie, unless I'm assigned to read it again I probably never will, but I can say that Don Quijote was one of the first novels to portray women's “inward thoughts” as part of an outward story (I'd argue that La Celestina also attempted to do this). So even though I don't like this novel at all, I can appreciate what it did for not only the Spanish Language, but for the role of women. (Not saying that women all of a sudden turned out to be these women in the novel,but it certainly “gave the hopes for the future”).

Don Quijote Part V

“Lela Zoraida / Maria the woman presented in these chapters. How do you interpret her multiple identities (Arabic / Muslim / Christian / "Spanish")”
I think that this woman directly imitates the culture of the time. As we remember Spain, especially southern Spain had a heavy influence of Los Moros for quite some time. The idea that this woman is a combination of the Moros and the Spaniards in a way combines “everyone” living in Spain at the time. There were Spanish Catholics and Arabic Muslims (if I remember correctly mostly from northern Africa) and their cultures coexisted to some extent for 500 years. This idea that the this woman has multiple identities is somewhat misleading. She does not exactly have multiple identities but rather the identity of Spain as a whole (given the time period of course). She is a representation of Spain as a whole but at the same time a representation of all the parts/peoples that make up Spain. In some ways she may in fact represent the unity of Spain. Spain was divided into north and south, with Christian rulers in the north and Muslim in the south. In this woman we have this unity of northern and southern Spain and all that Spain is, and interestingly enough, once again we have a woman (not a man).

Don Quijote Part IV

In Chapter 29 we meet Dorotea. The interesting thing about her is that she is once again this “radical woman.” She is said to be intelligent and shows it by playing her “princess role.” Again we see this portrayal of women that are radical. Throughout this book there have been portrayals of women that are incredibly radical for the time period. We have peasant girls portrayed as beautiful, prostitutes as princesses, women who can chose who they love and women who can trick men. In some ways this entire scene is saying something about the radical changes women are going through ( or maybe the ones Don Quijote wants them to go through)

Again with the quotes from Sparknotes (I swear they can be so helpful sometimes)
“2. I shall never be fool enough to turn knight-errant. For I see quite well that it’s not the fashion now to do as they did in the olden days when they say those famous knights roamed the world.
Explanation for Quotation 2 >>
In this passage from Chapter XXXII of the First Part, the innkeeper responds to the priest, who has been trying to convince him that books of chivalry are not true. Though the innkeeper defends the books, he says that he will never try to live like Don Quixote because he realizes that knight-errantry is outdated. The innkeeper’s remark is important for several reasons. First, it inspires Sancho, who overhears the remark, to resolve—as he does at so many points throughout the novel—to return to his wife and children because knight-errantry has fallen out of fashion. The fact that Sancho does not leave Don Quixote becomes even more poignant when juxtaposed with his temptations to leave.
Second, this quotation highlights the priest’s hypocritical nature. The innkeeper appreciates knight-errantry from a distance, but the priest, who plays the role of inquisitor against Don Quixote throughout much of the novel, cannot escape his fascination with knight-errantry. The priest furtively encourages Don Quixote’s madness so that he may live vicariously through him.”
Here we can see several themes from the novel. This idea of chivalry coming from novels like Don Quijote thinks (because we all know he thinks whatever he reads in these books is true) and this idea that this mission Don Quijote is on is outdated. Here we can kind of see how and why others view Don Quijote as crazy. He has not only created his own version of reality, but has based it on what others feel as an outdated concept. It also says something about Sancho since he thinks about leaving but decides against it. It is almost as though we can really see Sancho starting to buy into Don Quijote's warped vision on the world.

Do Quijote III

I'm going to steal a little from sparknotes on Don Quijote just because I feel like sometime when they explain quotations they do it so very well.

“For what I want of Dulcinea del Toboso she is as good as the greatest princess in the land. For not all those poets who praise ladies under names which they choose so freely, really have such mistresses. . . .I am quite satisfied. . . to imagine and believe that the good Aldonza Lorenzo is so lovely and virtuous...”

In this quotation from Chapter XXV of the First Part, Don Quixote explains to Sancho that the actual behavior of the farmer’s daughter, Aldonza Lorenzo, does not matter as long as he can imagine her perfectly as his princess, Dulcinea del Toboso. This idea of Dulcinea figures prominently in the novel, since we never actually meet Dulcinea, and she likely does not even know about Don Quixote’s patronage. Don Quixote’s imagination compensates for many holes in the novel’s narration, providing explanations for inexplicable phenomena and turning apparently mundane events into great adventures. Dulcinea gains renown through Don Quixote’s praise, and regardless of whether she is even real, she exists in fame and in the imaginations of all the characters who read about her. In this way, Don Quixote’s imaginings take on the force of reality and he becomes, effectively, the narrator of his own fate.

Here we see this idea of chivalry again as well as the “level” of Don Quijote's insanity. He has created this alternate view of reality that allows him to give his life some meaning and purpose. He has this women, who may or may not be real and whom we never meet, and yet he does all things in her name and honor. He has “devoted his knighthood to her and she may not exist but in his mind. In this we can see that Don Quijote has created his version of reality and his truth so that his life both has meaning and direction. The existence or lack there of of this Dulcinea drives him and raises praise to her through him. Even the name he has given her tells something about her. (Dulcinea...dulce...sweet and innocent, that maiden that needed protection of the knights). He's created his “ultimate woman” and around this a world in which he does everything for her and in her honor.

Don Quijote II

In Chapter 11 Don Quijote talks about the “golden ages” and the creation of knights to protect the purity of the virgins. This both relates to the overarching theme of chivalry and myth. On one hand we have this notion that knights were created for the protection of these virgins, a chivalrous act, and other the other hand the the “myth” that that's what knights actually do. This “truth” that Don Quijote sees in knighthood is perhaps a reflection of what he feels knights are supposed to do and how they are supposed to act when in reality we know this isn't true. Maybe he thinks he can restore knighthood somehow, kind of like Perceval?

This same sort of “false impression” of knighthood is seen when he speaks to Vivaldi in Chapter 13. While Don Quijote insists that knights “execute the will of God.” While it's probably more truthful to say that knights execute the will of Kings or perhaps even their own wills. Again we see this myth of what knighthood is supposed to be versus what it actually is. The idea that Don Quijote refuses to believe that knights are “bad” is part of his “insanity.” He's created this image, or this myth of knighthood and refuses to see it any other way. Perhaps we should say his principles of knighthood are far more moral that the actual actions of most knights and since he knows his principles are good and moral he tries to insist “knights like him” are the same.

Don Quijote I

Well I have to say that there are a lot of “radical” moments to chose when it come to Don Quijote. I guess we should start at the beginning where he decided that he now going to be a knight and set off on this little adventure. Most people don't wake up at 50 and decide “oh hey I think I'll be a knight today.” Maybe it was some sort of mid-life (ok near-end-of life) crisis. Kind of like he woke up one day and realized that he hadn't done anything important or significant with his life so he better get to it before he dies. He chooses the name Don Quijote de la Mancha. Interestingly enough his name means “foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals; especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action” (according to Merriam Webster). Interestingly enough we see this “crazed chivalrous romantic old man” decide he's going to set off on this adventure and do so in the name of the farm girl he once had a crush on.
We later have Don Quijote “mistake” windmills for giants (yes because that's a common error) and then blames it on the fact that there is an enemy chanter that changes the giants to windmills when he charges. It not only shows that Don Quijote has an “active imagination” to say the least but that he's basically content with his new reality. I know most people don't like to call him crazy—but he's crazy—at least to the outside viewer. Don Quijote thinks that what he was doing is fine, perfect, and totally normal. He's created his own world and lives in it alone (pretty much the definition of insane).

Inferno V

Canto 28 Lines 37-42.
While these lines may not address the entire work in a “conventional manner” they do address the idea that the end is near. In a sense while Dante's ultimate goal in this entire Comedy is to get to Heaven, his main mission right now is to get out of Hell. These lines speak of Satan and the end of his journey through Hell. It also hints towards the idea that the devil is not truly in charge of Hell and that Dane will be able to pass him. In a sense the idea that Hell is not the “end” for Dante both allows him to pass the Devil as well as allows him to begin to understand God's power.

Canto 32 Lines 70-75
These lines both allude to the “anamalistic” qualities of Hell. This is not the first time we were introduced to the “animals” of Hell. It may be an attempt to remind us that the creatures of Hell are now “sub-human” It also speaks of the eternal chill of Hell which I;m sure Dante felt throughout his journey. It brings back the idea that although Hell is controlled by God, it is still terrifying and horrible and reminds Dante that this is not where he wants to end up.

Inferno IV

Dante's decent into Hell can be seen in several ways. The Bible teaches us that the path to salvation is following the ways and teachings of Christ. Dante is literally (well in terms of the book) following in Christ's footsteps by taking the same journey. The journey is also happening during the most hold time of the Christian calendar which has significance. Good Friday is the say we re-enact the stations of the cross and the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus. We in a sense try to relive Christ's experiences on Good Friday. Dante relives Christ's experiences in the same manner, he just chooses to re-enact a different experience on this day. In many ways all Christians strive to live the way Christ lived and Dante walking in the path of Christ shows his devotion to Christianity.

Inferno III

While I find the idea the Dante puts many Popes in Hell since he is a devote Christian, I don't find it as odd as you may think. In the title of the canto it specifically states that we will find corrupt clergy which was not exactly uncommon in Dante's time. We have to remember that the Church has not always played the same role as it does today. Of course we all know that at one point there was no separation between Church and State and in some cases the Church was the State, but we must also remember that the Church was an institution and functioned much like institutions we see today. Therefore of course there was corruption. One source lists the corruptions of the Church as follows “Moral laxity, at all levels of Church hierarchy, became an obvious source of criticism of the Church. Clergy members were supposed to be an educated elite, but many parish priests were illiterate and hardly know how to perform ordinary religious services. Many priests and nuns publicly flaunted their vows of chastity by taking lovers. During this time, “illegitimate” children could be made legitimate by purchasing a document from the Church; out of 614 grants of legitimacy in the year 1342-43, 484 were to members of the clergy. In some areas, bishops chose not to enforce rules regarding celibacy because it would decrease the income gained from fines imposed on concubinage. Several popes raised illegitimate children, including Innocent VIII and Alexander VI, who conferred upon their sons important Church offices. Numerous bishops and abbots used their positions to lead lives of luxury and leisure, living more like princes than humble men of God. Cardinals lived in palaces in Rome, sporting jewel-encrusted gold robes and feasting on sumptuous meals. During the Babylonian Captivity, one Cardinal in Avignon required 10 stables for his horses, and another housed his servants in 51 houses. When Giovanni de Medici was elected Pope Leo X in 1513, he said, “God has given us the papacy; now let us enjoy it.”The Church developed several corrupt practices to pay for these extravagant lifestyles. Christian tradition taught that pilgrimages to sites of relics or holy places were acceptable forms of penance that were necessary to return to God’s grace after one had sinned. During the late medieval period, some clergy took advantage of this tradition to create a thriving industry by bringing relics to the people and charging repentant Christians to see the holy remains and objects. Frederick I, prince of Saxony in northern Germany, kept a collection of over 17,000 relics that included a piece of Moses’ burning bush, 33 fragments of Jesus’ cross, some straw from Jesus’ manger, and even a vial of milk from the Virgin Mary’s breasts. Proceeds from pilgrimages to this museum of relics paid for Saxony’s cathedral, castle, and university. Simony was another practice that created revenue for the hierarchy in Rome. It allowed Church offices to go to the highest bidder, regardless of the buyer’s background or training. By the fifteenth century, some Christians even considered traditional Church taxes, levied in the form of tithes on all Christian subjects of the pope, to be unjust.”
As we can see it is no surprise that Dante a devote Christian condemns such actions and sends those who “supervise the Church” and are supposed to be the icons of the Church in one of the lowest circles of Hell. It is almost as though Dante cannot put the Church the institution in Hell so he must put the “governors” of the institution there to pay for the sin of steering such a great force in such a terrible path.
The interesting part of this canto for me is that the Church is only inverted on a superficial level. While on the surface we see the Church as a representation of “all things holy” but in fact there is nothing holy about what the Church is doing and Dante knows this. We can see a parallel in a sense. God cast Lucifer and his band on angles out of heaven after trying to take God's place as all-mighty. The Popes in Hell were cast there after trying to manipulate the Church and its followers to become “all-mighty” In a way God cast all those who followed in the ways of Lucifer into the same eternal damnation. Guess we should all be glad Dante didn't cast all of those who liked these Popes into hell right along with them.

Inferno II

The first quote I chose is in Canto 9, lines 52-57 when Dante the pilgrim meets Medusa. Once again Dante is bringing up this idea of ancient Greek mythology by using a popular figure such as Medusa. In the stories I have read about Medusa after she was beheaded by Perseus her head was used as a weapon until it was given to Athena and put on her shield. I found the use of Medusa interesting in two ways. The first is that even in hell she has power to turn people into concrete and as Virgil tells Dante, could even prevent him (Dante) from returning to the world if he doesn't close his eyes. Basically that Dante should close his eyes before he's turned into stone. The second is that much like the Gates of Hell warn Dante about what lies ahead so Furies warn Dante and Virgil about the arrival of Medusa. It seems as though this idea of “warning” repeats itself in many circumstances. It is as though we are constantly advised about what's ahead.

The second quote that interested me is from the opening of Canto 11, line 1-12. Here Dante (the author) sets us up with yet another 'warning.” We are about to descend into the deepest circles of hell and he paints a picture while drawing our senses in by talking about the stench of hell. Interestingly enough there is an inscription on the tomb of Pope Anastasius who was also drawn from the “straight way” much like Dante stated he was in the opening lines of Canto 1. Perhaps it is here that Dante sees where he may end up should he not choose to get back on this “straight path.” We are not only warned about the consequences of straying off the path, but about the sheer torture hell is going to be for those who stray. We could say that in these opening lines we are warned that hell is going to get really REALLY bad from here on (not that is was great before, but there weren't any rivers of blood boiling people and it didn't smell).

Inferno Part I

I particularly like the third Canto of this book, mostly because I love the inscription on the gates of hell. I think that this truly sets the stage for the journey we are about to take (or Virgil is about to take) through hell. It is as though hell warns us what to expect before we actually start our journey through it. We are warned that through these doors is the epitome of human suffering and sheer terror. This inscription tells us to abandon all hope before entering these gates. It is as though the words on these gates speak t o Virgil and challenge him to both enter the gates and prepare for what is ahead. I particularly like how the canto starts off with this inscription because even though we are two cantos in, this is truly where the journey begins. Not only does the journey really begin here, but it begins with a warning and sets the stage for what is to come. It is as though no matter what happens in the rest of the story hell gets to say “well hey I warned you.” I'm curious to see if Virgil actually “abandons all hope” or if he simply puts hope on the back burner while on this journey.

Story of the Grail Part II

This image of white snow tainted with red blood I find very interesting. When looking at the colors themselves, white often signifies purity, light, joy and glory, all positive images. Red on the other hand is often the color of passion, rage and of course the color of blood itself. In many ways this red blood is much like the blood of the red knight Perceval has spilled. It shows us once again the violence associated with knighthood. If we contrast that to the white that represents Blancheflor, we can infer that Perceval's blood or the blood of those he has shed has somehow contaminated her. It is as though the red blood seeping into the white snow is a symbol of both their unity since we assume they are in love and at the same time a symbol of the pain and violence he will bring to her. Perceval will taint her purity with the violence and blood he has shed. In many ways when Perceval sees the blood over the white snow he sees this image of Blancheflor being somehow tainted. I would also say that he beings to see that he himself is the new “red knight” since he killed him in order to get his armor. Perceval as this new red knight will forever represent this image of violence and rage and understands that merging this with the purity and joy Blancheflor represents will ultimately strip her of that purity and joy.

Story of the Grail Part 1

When Perceval's mother learns that he he wishes to be a knight her reaction is somewhat unexpected. Most people perceive knighthood as a great honor, one that most mothers would be proud to have bestowed upon their sons, yet his mother is almost angered by this idea. If you don't want to call it angry we at least know she is upset by the idea, and most would argue rightfully so. Her son, however, has the idea of being a knight held to such a high standard that not even his mother can talk him out of it. I almost feel like he has this idea that knighthood is somehow the glorious honor we see portrayed in fairytales. It is as though his mother knows the hardship it can bring and he only knows the tales of rescuing fair maidens and slaying dragons. I rather like the contrast between them. His mother reminds us that knights were actually people and many of them actually died in service, much like our own “modern-day knights” (aka the military).I mean we see commercials all the time talking about “the few and the proud” and those who “serve our country” and sometimes fall into this trap that the job is somehow glorified when really some of those who serve their country lose their lives in its name. This “myth” of knighthood and serving ones country (or king) hasn't truly changes that much. We still think serving our country is somehow a great honor and it is something most mothers would be proud of, but at the same times fear it. It's almost like his mother says the things that everyone knows and doesn't say. She reminds us that such an honor can and often does result in great sacrifice.