I’ve thoroughly enjoyed all of the previous readings that we have been assigned in this class, but I did not enjoy reading The Four Voyages. I do tend to appreciate factual information more than entertaining stories in regards to books, but that is only when I enjoy the subject that I’m reading about. History is not one of my main interests, and this collection of anecdotes did not interest me very much. But I do of course understand how important the events are that are discussed in the book. Without Columbus’ conquering having occurred, the world we’re accustomed to would be completely different. I always find the “butterfly effect” very interesting when it comes to historical events. If certain events in our history happened even slightly differently, our entire world could be completely different than it is. If Columbus did not end up sailing towards the Americas, and made it to East India like he originally intended to, I wonder who would have been the man that took Columbus’ place as the person who would have brought European traditions to the natives in America. It was bound to happen eventually, not that it is correct in any way though.

King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella told Columbus to win over the inhabitants, but to ensure that he does not cause them any harm or injury. These words clearly went in one ear and out the other, because Columbus was far from treating the natives with the respect that they deserved. Instead of attempting to assimilate with the native peoples, Columbus and his men went the violent route and treated them inhumanely in order to gain riches and to spread Christianity as best as they could.

After hearing about Columbus as a hero my whole life, it was interesting reading a more detailed and factual account of his voyages. Columbus has his own holiday dedicated to him even though in retrospect, his actions likely do not warrant a day of celebration in his honor. It may be that I am not that interested in history, or that I’m just not particularly interested in the story of Christopher Columbus, but this was not one of my favorite readings so far. Looking forward to discussing in class with everyone!

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Beowulf, specifically I enjoyed the version of the book that I purchased which included complementary photos that made the reading even more interesting. I had already read both Beowulf and the related story of Grendel, which I actually enjoyed much more than Beowulf, in high school. In Beowful, Grendel is represented as a complete monster, and does not offer any sympathy towards him. Whereas in Grendel, he is not a monster, but a confused and curious creature that is simply unable to interact with the humans in an intelligible way, making him seem like a scary monster when that is not his intention at all.

Both the dragon and Grendel’s mother are represented as monsters in the story as well. I don’t feel that the dragon is a monster, because all he really does is generally keep to himself and protect the large treasure. He only becomes involved with the humans after the thief comes and disturbs him. Though I do think the story of Beowulf is an interesting read, I really think that Grendel should be included as part of the Arts One curriculum in the same unit in which we read Beowulf. The stories complement each other really well, and give you a different perspective on the story of Grendel, Beowulf, and the men in Hrothgar’s kingdom. Specifically, Grendel is made out to have much more human-like characteristics in Grendel, which makes us more sympathetic towards Grendel instead of disliking and fearing him as a murderous beast.

Beowulf seems to be a hero in every sense of the word. He embodies the perfect hero in the way he carries himself and his strength and athletic abilities. He went extremely out of his way in order to offer a helping hand to Hrothgar and his people, and it was fairly obvious from the beginning that he was going to be able to handle the monstrous Grendel, but that was to be expected. I enjoyed re-reading Beowulf, and I also enjoyed the conversations that we had in class about the story.

I had read Oedipus Rex by Sophocles in 11th grade, so I already knew what to expect, but this was a good refresher of the terrible tragedy that it is. Even though he might have a bit of a temper, Oedipus was undeservedly doomed from the very beginning. The chances that he would have ended up murdering his father and sharing a bed with his mother, even after being removed far away from his home were incredibly low. But, it was in fact fate that it ended up occurring, so the only way that Laius and Jocasta could’ve prevented it would have been to ensure that baby Oedipus was actually killed. The idea of a terrible fate or a prophecy is frustrating in terms of a story such as this because you know that no matter what, the prophecy will be fulfilled in the end.

An interesting irony in the story was the fact that Teiresias, the blind oracle, was able to see more clearly than Oedipus was able to. Oedipus was blind to the fact that he did in fact kill his father, and refused to listen to the oracle because of how silly it all seemed to him. At the same time, Oedipus likely had an idea in the back of his head that what Teiresias was saying was in fact true, which is why it angered him so much.

These Greek tragedies are outlandish and unfortunate in every way. They are definitely interesting reads, but they don’t seem to have any sort of resolution at the end or include any moral teachings. It seems more like that messed up things occur, and everyone (or almost everyone) is either dead or emotionally distraught by the end of the stories. I look forward to hearing everyone else’s thoughts on the story, and I am also very glad that we are moving on from the Greek tragedy in the upcoming weeks.

I apologize for the extremely late post, these blogs completely slipped my mind in the midst of midterms.

The Republic by Plato was an extremely difficult and occasionally boring read in my opinion. It was necessary to re-read certain passages multiple times in order to fully grasp the concepts and ideas that Plato (via the voice of Socrates) was trying to get across. After finally plowing through the book I felt a great sense of satisfaction because I was able to tackle such a thought-provoking text while still feeling that I understood all or most of the concepts. What I found extremely intriguing was Plato’s critique of democracy which ran through the entire discussion. Instead of allowing for personal freedom and movement between social classes like in a democracy, Plato emphasized the importance of functionality and specialization. By having each person in society perform the task that their natural abilities were suited to, a society would be extremely efficient and would minimize any wasted potential. In a modern democracy, many people are unemployed, or work at jobs that they are not very good at. If we were all placed in occupations that we are good at, then things would run extremely smoothly, like when he said,

“better-quality goods are more easily produced if each person does one thing for which he is naturally suited, does it at the right time, and is released from having to do any of the others”

I also found the idea of preventing rulers from handling currency or owning private property very interesting, because that would clearly limit a lot of political corruption, which is a huge issue in our modern day societies. Not that I am against personal freedom, or democracy, but reading The Republic really swayed me to agree with a lot of Plato’s arguments about how we could improve on our own society. This book definitely got me thinking about things differently in general, and I really enjoyed being able to discuss the concepts with our Arts One class.