Welcome, MHS Class of '08! It's a great pleasure to welcome you to your home on the web--your class blogsite.
Ever since we first began using online bulletin boards as a way to converse about literature and writing (all the way back in the early '90's, and please don't feel the need to comment about how long ago that was, or how old you were then), it was always my intent to do the same in my classroom. Admittedly, it took a little longer than I thought, but here we are.
I have put this space together for the benefit of your academic pursuit--to expand your ability to converse about the texts we will be discussing. This space is essentially yours to post relevant--and presumably intelligent--comments and questions regarding our readings. At the moment, that will shortly consist of Seamus Heaney's translation of the Old English epic poem "Beowulf." No doubt you have many question to pose--you can be certain that I did, when I first read it.
Please note the following rules:
1. ONLY students enrolled in MHS English IV Pd. 10 may post comments here. This is not a discussion board intended for the world--or any other MHS students.
2. Anyone who posts must do so with their REAL first name. Any posts found to be made using names other than real (for example, posting using another student's name) will be dealt with according to school disciplinary policy. And what's more, you won't receive due credit if your name isn't linked with your post.
3. All discussion will proceed in respectful, scholarly manner.
4. To ensure that #3 is obeyed, I will personally monitor all discussions on this blog. It's not that I don't trust teenagers to behave in responsible ways. . .oh, wait--yes, it is. I don't. Don't take it personally.
5. Do not expect me to comment on every posting, even if a question has been directly asked of me by one of you. I am much more interested to see whether your fellow scholars are capable of suggesting viable answers and explanations. I reserve the right to comment when and if I deem it necessary. Frequently, I will allow a discussion thread to continue unabated, in order to bring that thread into class for further investigation.
6. From time to time, if the mood strikes me, I may make a comment or pose a question, or refer you to some additional reading I've discovered. Just because I've done that does not make you obligated to respond. . .at least, not yet.
7. Just in case you haven't been told this yet--or you have, but forgot--please remember: this course is designed to prepare you for the traditional Composition class required of all college freshmen. Reconcile yourself to the gravity of that reality right now, and be prepared to handle the work that will reasonably emerge for you this year--if you must, remind yourself that the work you do now will pay larger dividends wherever you find yourself next year. Conduct yourself with that level of academic responsibility in mind.
8. Oh--and, yes, the blog will be a required element of your grade each marking period, so make it a part of your daily online ritual. Check it frequently, and post or comment consistently. The concept of "participation" is now no longer restricted to the classroom walls!
That's all I can think of at the moment, but I also reserve the right to change/adjust/modify/ invent as we go along. Because I can, that's why.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and seeing you all in in class each day.
MR. LAZ
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
In class today we took notes on Archetypes, and within this topic we heard about the inheritence of a "collective unconcious," this idea or concept reminds me of deja-vu. remebering or experiancing something even though you have never done it before.
Yeah Lydia, that is basically what it is. I did some research on Karl Jung and "collective unconscious" and it could also be called your "psychic inheritance", it is the collection of the repeated experiences that our species have previously gone through. It's like a knowledge that we were born with in the back of our minds that we are not privy to. A few experiences that Jung says present more clearly the others are: Love at first sight, "Deja vu" and the ability to know what certain symbols are the first time you see them or the immediate understanding of myth. (ex: the Ant and the Grasshopper, you reap what you sow). Other grander examples of "collective unconscious", include certain linking applications between the religions, or the similarities in dreams, fantasies, mythologies, fairy tales, and literature. (ex: the repeated traits that almost all people look for in a "hero" and name the by.
Archetypes evoke feeling within humans that are so element that they are instinct to us. The Greek word "arche" meaning origin is what the philosopher Plato based his idealism view on (broad range of philosophical approaches that ascribe true reality). During Plato's time these ideas were referred to as elements, but changed to archetypes after (like Paul and Lydia said) Jung did much research on it. I think that it is interesting that even as far back as Plato humans have felt a connection to basic feelings, they knew there was something more to be discovered.
This leads into the idea of heroism. Why do all humans look up to at least one "hero"; but are they realistic? Do similar types of people have similar types of fictional heroes; because are the Archetypes the same when you get to the bottom of every dream that humans can not fulfill? It might sound bizarre but I realized just today in class that there are no perfect human heroes.
Kelly, what you said about heroes, that is exactly what i wanted to say today in class but for some reason i was unable to articulate my point. "Heroes" are and can never be more than fiction, humans have set limitations, and if I was to take an idea from class to help explain what I mean, it would be " collective unconscious". Better known as "psychic inheritance" in this situation, in the "psychic inheritance" one of the parts of the "inheritance" would also be the seven deadly sins (envy, lust, pride, sloth, gluttony, greed and wrath) and one thing that "book heroes" could do is turn these off, humans can't, we are ruled by these things one way or another. I real life we are condemned by these vices and we do not accept or fit our heroes with these things for everyday mortal humans. So to summarize, since all humans have these vices, and we don't place the title of hero to to people with these "sins" , there in turn can be no "heroes" in reality. Don't get me wrong people can defiantly be heroic, but you can boil that down to pride. Doesn't make some body feel better about themselves to save someones life? Now to leave off with a question that I thought about while writing this. What do you think about, that as a person gets older he/she gains more awareness to the "collective unconscious"?
I find it terribly depressing to think that heroism is just an idea; just an idea to live up to but that has never been reached. I think one individual can be a hero to one person, but not to another. But that doesn't make he or she any less of a hero. Your hero doesn't have to PERFECT, he or she just has to have achieved something you admire. A single mother working two jobs can be a hero to their child, but another might not appreciate that, and only see a person that (to use Mr. Lazarow's example) saves people from a burning building as a hero.
Maybe it's just my attempt to be optimistic but I think that there are real heroes.
-Jenny C
as we were taking notes today on the different types of mythic heroes, i was getting incredibly irritated because every single movie, book or story i've ever read, or watched, their 'heroes' have the exact characteristics that Mr. Lazrow was describing in the notes. yes, i am a huge Harry Potter fan, and as i was taking the notes and listening to Mr. Lazrow, i was thinking-whats the point of making a story with some sort of hero if they're ALL going to be the same? i know if i was a writer of a story or book with some sort of hero in it, i would not want it to be like every single other book that has ever been published
Yesterday during and after class I thought a lot about how heroes don't truly exist and how my perception of certain people was merely based upon my fantasies and wishes. It's very disheartening to think that the heroes in our lives are not in fact heroes at all. However, after today's class and a little more thought, my spirits have been lightened and hope restored. I realized that Heroes don't always have to be flawless (although in stories and media they are often portrayed that way). Like each and every one of us, heroes (both real and imaginary) have both strengths and weeknesses.It takes a lot to be a hero, but everyone is capable in one way or another of earning that title. Perfection is merely an idea. But heroism, heroism is real.
I agree with you Jenny!
Danielle R
i dont totally agree with you laurie. i know how someone could think that making a hero adhere to the common elements that we discussed in class is a bad thing, but i believe that even if a writer tries to stray from the normal "mythic hero", the archetype is still there in the back of the writer's head, making it almost impossible to accomplish.
~Joe
After sitting in class and taking notes today i have learned that ALL heroes have weaknesses. Also many conflicts that have been unfolded can help us find our own lives, we can be heroes to if we provide freedom with no outside ties and making brutal actions within a community. I think all of the information our class took notes on today made us think of who really is a hero. And does this hero have a quest to find evil and protect the ones in trouble 24/7? Before class today i believed that everyone is a hero to someone but that may not be true. Heroes deserve their name!
-Kelley O
I think heroism is an idea that is taught to us through the achetypal stories. I do not think that repeating themes in stories ruins them. The archetypal themes help to teach that heroism is possible. They help to teach that you do not have to be perfect to be a hero, that anyone can. It is my belief that these themes actually inspire heroic behavior in reality. People learn from the repteated themes and take the lessons to heart. Those that overcome their own challenges are heroes and deserve recognition for it.
Mr. Laz, Does a mythic hero have to fit all of the characteristics, of a mythic hero? Could a mythic hero not have a rocky past?
To go back to what Laurie was saying, about how each story and hero is more or less the same. I remember seeing superman returns when it came out and thinking that about superheroes in general. They have such similar characters and ideas that its redundant and kinda boring. A past teacher once told me that its a belief that Shakespeare's plays are all similar in plot. He did this because he knew the public would love them and would pay to see it. But as a writer I would not want to be just another writer of the same idea, but to write a great novel because it's unique and original.
Talking about how movies, books and whatever entertainment you see or imagine are all the same isn’t exactly true. Yes the whole point might be similar when you get all they way down to the archetypical base but in each story there are different twists and turns. Just because heroes and even regular day to day people might have the same positive quest deep down, doesn’t mean that making a story about their personal story will be "unoriginal". It's hard to see when we are always talking about the base idea of each hero but really its important for everyone to have something to believe in. Something to strive to become better in, if you strive to become worse in something, or fail then that would be the only way from "straying from the path". Then sure books or movie heroes could fail, but then they wouldn’t be mythical heroes would they?
I think there are two different types of heroes (which I think is what everyone is having this discussion about) there are Struggling Mythical Heroes who over come their hardships in the end. And then there are Moral Human Heroes were giving your best effort and having no regrets is what being Heroic really means. but there defiantly is a difference.
Kelly said that there were two different types of heroes. Struggling Mythical Heroes and Moral Human Heroes. I believe that heroes, as we learned about in class, are all similar in some way. Mythical heroes, which include characters like spiderman: who can spit webs and climb walls, has traits in common with everyday people who are characterized as "moral human heroes". Firefighters, volunteers etc., although they may not be able to fly through NY via spiderwebs, change lives- and sometimes that's all it takes to be a hero.
Afterall, everyone has weakness', everyone has flaws, not one person is perfect. As Mr. Lazarow challenged us in class by asking if a person saves someone from a burning building then goes home and beats his wife- is he a hero? If I remember correctly, Luke Skywalker hurt his wife emotionally, but who saw that? Who saw the man who saved people from a burning building hurt his wife? To the public, he is a hero, to his wife, he definitely is not. Heroes are not role models. Usually they are just "normal" citizens helping out their community and that is true in both the Mythical Heroes and the moral human heroes.
Heroes are not perfect, and do not just belong in fictional stories.
As we went through the 10 profiles of the mythic hero, i began to notice a trend. Many of the stories or movies involving mythic hero's to me, really, only deal with religion, and the belief in a higher being. I mean, sure there's a little more to it, but the main theme seems to be faith and more specifically christianity.
I was thinking about it after class today, and it's kind of chilling to me that in all of the movies i've watched and the (few) books that I have read/remembered the main characters all seem to follow the general archetypal formula in one way or another. Even Mean Girls! Having grown up in Africa, 16 year-old Cady Heron has a mysterious background that sets her apart from the others in her new community and through her quest to "take down Regina George", evil defeats evil and she shares her greater understanding of life with her high school peers on prom night.
Lydia, could you give an example? I'm not quite sure that I understand what you mean?
Danielle R
danielle-that is so interestingly funny that you recognized that even Cady Heron was a main character that followed the archetypal formula. I def. would have not recognized that. And i find it incredibly fascinating that even the writers of comedies like Mean Girls follow that formula to create the background and characteristics of the main character.
and yes, Lydia, could you please elaborate/give a few examples? i do not really understand what you are trying to say either
Hey everyone! As we finished up our notes in class today I started to think about one of the last comments Mr. Laz made today about how every hero eventually turns into a guide. I was wondering if every guide started out as a hero? The guides must get their knowledge from some where but at the same time the guide was never fully capable of going on the quest himself. I know this is not following the mythic hero guidelines but it just made me think. Also, going back a few days when Mr. Laz gave us examples of heroes who have an obscure/mysterious background, I couldn’t help but notice that most of the heroes in the examples had some sort of disguise that counseled their identity (superman, batman). Are these just ideas the director had or is this on purpose and the heroes don’t want people to know who they are? If anyone could clear these things up that would be great!!
~Kelley B.
Hey everyone!! A few days ago when we started the notes, we talked about the "Threshold Guardian". Can anyone clear up when is meant by that? Also, in the example of Mythic Hero #9, we talked about how the hero suffers a physical wound. Is there anyway possible that the wound could be emotional or mental in a way? If anyone could help me out that would be great!! Thanks
Sam Schaeffer
Responding to Samantha's comment, In the Mythic Hero #9 description, I believe the point of the hero suffering a physical wound was to outwardly express all of the obstacles and tragedies along the way of the Quest.
While I was reviewing the first six pages of The Norton Anthology of English Literature, a question worked it's way into my thinking: Somewhere around the fourth page, the author states that Homer's heroic world shared many similarities to Today's (heroic) world. Does the fact that Homer was cited make him the originator of the Hero Archetype?
I have a question about the past two or three classes: Do all writers follow this archetypal structure intentionally?
Finally, now that we have an understanding for the outline of most heroic stories, can we already guess the entire storyline of Beowulf?
-Gabe C.
In response to Gabe's most recent comment, I agree that the physical wound is symbolic of what the hero has overcome. In order to gain knowledge and/or wisdom from the quest, the hero must endure immense pain or overcome some huge obstacle, in one way or another.
Also in response to Gabe's question, I think it would be darn near impossible to put a finger on the true originator of the archetypal hero. As Mr. Lazarow explained at the beginning of this discussion, an archetypal hero is a frequently recurring character among literature. Therefore, no single author "created" this character, it has just been used and reused, probably for as long as literature has existed.
Dan Mullin
The fact that homer could have been a writter (no one truly knows if he was an oral deliverer of epic poems or the creator of some of the greatest written epic poems like the odyssey) Homer himself I believe is a Hero. There have been references in other classical roman works that state that homer could have in fact been blind. With out eyes sight could he have written down the Archetypal lines that act as the core thread to our Mythical heroes? Homer, the fact that his name stuck is amazing; he was the first major recorded author to understand that heroes follow a cretin path set to overcome bigger then life battles and struggles. To say that homer was the originator of archetypes is not at all true. Stories had been told for ages by tongue, Homer probably noticed the fact that all the stories he had ever heard ended up in the same way. Homer is the only written proof the world has left today that archetypes have developed since the human mind could tell tales.
I also have a question about Mythic Hero #9. Is Harry Potter's scar considered physical pain because i always thought of the scar as being a reminder to harry about his quest and harry having to deal with becoming a hero, not actually him experiencing a physical injury.
Eddie A.
Today we were talking about how all fictional stories share the same basic points. This is very true, but it doesn't ruin the books in the least. Obviously, good books hide this fact very well, or we all would have figured this out by ourselves a long time ago.
I have read tons of books, i mean i literally go through books like candy. I mostly read the fictional variety. I spent most of my day trying to disprove this theory. There are tons of variations, but nothing that completly disproves this.
I would also like to comment on something someone said about if the wound before/in the final battle could be emotional. In the shelves of books I read that all follow this structure, not all of the heros have had physical wounds. That doesn't ruin the whole theory though. In one book I read, the hero wasn't physically wounded, but they had lost their friend. Could the loss of a friend count as the wound? If we are following this pattern then I suppose it would have to represent the same thing as the physical wound would to the hero. Maybe the loss of a friend stands for the emotional wound, therefore it can take the place of the physical wound. It is harder to represent the change in the hero if there is nothing to represent that change, so it makes sense that the lost friend would be the representation.
Harry Potter is definitely a hero! Everything fits.. his background, his disturbed youth, his companions. It's crazy that you really can apply the archetypes to any mythic hero and it works out.
Also, although Cady Heron has a strange background, I don't think she could be categorized as a hero.
Basically I have the same question as Sandra. Does a wound, or scar have to be physical? Can a emotional disaster be a wound? It seems like a loss of a companion could have just as much of an effect on you as, say, getting stabbed. There is indeed a difference between the two, but the loss of someone close to you can change everything, as can a physical wound. I'm not really sure if that makes sense, but it's just some ideas flowing through my brainnn.
I consider the emotional wounds on the same level as physical wounds. And that the wound a character gets before/during their "descent into darkness" can be either emotional or physical. Some characters aren't physically wounded during a novel, and they have to overcome some emotional tragedy instead during his/her quest.
Going back to what Gabe said earlier, I think that some authors do intentionally make their stories archetypal. However, I don't think that everyone does. It goes back to Jungs "collective unconscious," where these themes are instilled in all of us. So I guess what I am trying to say is that maybe some authors unintentionally fall into these repeating themes because of their collective unconscious.
I think the idea of the physical wound is kind of fuzzy. The whole point is to have a physical representation of the growth and hardship that the hero endured to defeat evil. So, in a sense it is the same as a mental or psychological wound, but it is shown in an injury on the outside.
And to Dan, I asked Mr. Laz about Harry Potter's physical wound in the final battle with Voldemort. And the obvious answer is his lightening scar. But he got that when he was a baby, not during the war with Voldemort. So the scar might symbolize the loss of his parents, but not what he has learned and achieved since then. So I don't think that Harry Potter has a wound like that, but he definitely fits the role of a archetypal hero in the other aspects.
Tuesday I went to the movies and i saw The Brave One. As i was watching the movie i was able to compare the main character, played by Jodie Foster, to the characteristics of a mythic hero. She had physical and emotional wounds, the character also had to make a journey that changes her within.
I have been thinking a lot about heroism since the class discussions we have had the past couple of days, and i feel that ordinary people can also be titled as a hero. I believe that its not essential to do something exceptional to be called a hero. Fighting a battle, or saving the world should not be the definition of heroism.
I know i look up to ordinary people such as my parents. My father grew up in horrible conditions. He did not have much offered to him, he was determined and managed to go to work, help support his family, and go to school. Every day he challenged himself, studying at all hours of the day, teaching himself most of what he knows. His father died when he was younger, and he was the oldest of six children living in Kensington. He did everything in his power to take care of his family and make something of himself. Soon enough all his hard work payed off. He became a Nuclear Pharmacist.
I know my story was long but my thoughts on herosim differ from the views of others. The struggle of the life for the"everyday man" to me is something to look up to. Achieving something no one thought was possible, to me is extrodinary, and to me that is someone to idolize.
The main point im trying to establish is that not everyone can do something extreme such as volunteer their life for others, but to be able to say that you came from nothing and made something of yourself and concured the odds in my eyes is the true defintion of a hero.
What Christine was saying about how an ordinary men or women can be heroes to those who know them closely is true. I feel that struggling families and parents doing everything they can for their children is the actual heroism that we should be more appreciative for each day. That is what the real life version of our made up world consist of. People, who have reached their goals, do grow up and become the guides, Like Christine's dad to her now. Our story patters come from our every day lives, its how we learned how to write about heroes in the first place.
I read pages 19-20 and i had a hard time figuring out how the short lines of these poems would actually sound. And how can you tell if an old English poem is a poem, since to me it seemed that any similar sounds or flowing short thoughts could qualify from the description that was given. Are the only ways you can tell from...alliterations or symbol sounds? Did anyone else find this hard to understand?
i can totally and completely agree with what Christine said, especially since i can relate to it. Like Christine's dad, my dad also had to work extremely hard to get where he is. My dad is the second oldest of 12, so he always tried to set a better example for the rest of his sibling. When my parens came to the US from Russia, they had $300 to their name-but after 17 years of non stop hard work, my dad is a successfull entrepreneur, owning and running three businesses of his own.
Although my dad didn't fight Vader, or have the quest of dropping a ring into this huge firey pit, i view my dad as a hero, because of what he did for his family and what he did to get where he is today.
To Danielle, and Laurie k. Well, what i mean is that the major theme seems to be the constant fight between good and evil, heaven and hell.
EX. The Matrix: Neo as the character who is " the savior" like Jesus and Mr. Smith the evil force is "the devil".
Kelly, Old English poems tell stories. Although the sentences, or thoughts, are contained in one line, they are connected in order to tell the story. Because the poems were sung, they follow a more rhythmic pattern with alliterations and stresses. I think all the Old English poems follow the same structure of the half-lines with a caesura splitting each line. I don’t know if that helped at all, but that’s what I gathered from the reading and Mr. Lazarow’s discussion on Friday.
I have a question about the reading we had for the weekend. On page 29 it says that Beowulf speaks of God as though he is monotheistic, but then on the next page it says that he’s a Pagan. I was just wondering what religion he truly is. I remember Mr. Lazarow saying that the Anglo-Saxons were Pagans who accepted Christianity. So, I guess what I am asking is, does Beowulf practice both Christianity and Paganism?
Friday we talked about the stressed unstressed rhythm of old english poems, and how that rhythm sounded. We stated that it sounded like a heart beat and or war drums. I think that the old english poets used this rhythm to portray those sounds because in many cases the poets were talking about war.
Laura, I don't know what religion Beowulf himself believes in, but Mr. Lazarow was saying that because the Anglo-Saxons were Pagans that accepted Christianity, both beliefs were present in their writing, and it was hard to decipher what they really believed in.
as Mr. Lazarow talked about anti heroes this afternoon, 3 immediately came to my mind. Robin Hood - he stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Stealing is considered a crime, but the audience would of course be on Robin Hood's side. Frank Abignale Jr, Catch me if you Can. He forged checks for a living- a very serious crime, but of course the viewer did not want Frank to be cought- the viewer wanted him to keep getting away with it. And then last but not least, Danny Ocean, Ocean's 11. They rob a bank for goodness sakes, of course thats not allowed, but again, the viewer wanted Ocean and his men to succeed in obtaining the money. When Mr. Lazarow first described the term "anti-hero" the first thing that popped into my mind was the evil villan, but thinking of these examples cleared things up for me, and hopefully if anyone else was confused, it will clear some things up for you too!
Why is there a character named halfdane? Would Heorot hall be considered some kind of court?
I think that an "anti-hero" is someone who does something bad or something that doesn't follow the normal groove of things, for the greater good, or for what is right.
To back track a little, in class on Friday we had talked about stressed and unstressed rhythm in Old English poetry. Laz said that we could apply it to our favorite songs and see that it really does occur, and he was right. But I was wondering about those one syllable words that artists sing to have both stressed and unstressed rhythm (for one word). Like if they were to sing the word 'in' and change keys so it's stressed more at the end on the letter 'n.' Do examples like these not follow the patterns of stressed and unstressed rhythm?
Going back to today in class, we talked about anti heroes, and some examples. I was thinking that maybe Holden Caulfied from "Catcher in the Rye", could be an example of one. Through all the crazy experiences and behavior, the people in the novel are still willing to help him out.
Samantha Schaeffer
The anti-hero that comes to my mind is Scareface. He is a drug dealer and kills lots of people but in the final battle i wanted him to win.
Eddie A.
Lydia, Halfdane is Beow’s son and heir. In the foot-note it says that he was given the name probably because his mother may have been a Swedish princess. Halfdane was Hrothgar’s father.
I think that Heorot may have been a court where there was entertainment for the King, at least that's what I got from the reading. I hope this helped you.
Today in class we talked about blood vengence and "man-price"
The want of blood vengence is encoded into all people. We still with blood vengence in our society today. Let's look at gangs for example. They have the same characteristics of the dueling tribs at the time Beowulf was written. If someone in a gang was killed the members of that gang would then go and kill whomever killed their member. This is just like the cycle of the dueling tribs. The gangs unlike the tribes from the times of beowulf have not figured out that fighting is getting them no where. They have yet to descover "man-price".
We can even more closly relate this to sibling rivalry. Although this is not the same, it still shows the cycle of vengence. When a sibling does something to there brother/sister, the brother/sister will want to and most likely get back at them. This cycle usually continues until a parent steps in. It's the same concept as blood vengence just on a more relatable level.
We can all pretty much relate to the idea of sibling rivalry. Even if we've grown out of it by this age, when we were growing up there was a constant bickering, at least there was in my house. If one girl stole her brother's toy, it's likely that her brother would go into her room and take one of her toys in revenge. They would bicker, possibly try to pry the toy out of each other's grasps, and in the end cry for their parents. But the difference between sibling rivalry and actual blood vengeance is that most kids, depending on their ages, won't remember to hate their brother or sister the next day. But tribes and gangs can hold grudges for decades and decades, as in the Montagues and the Capulets.
Post a Comment