Demonocracy

I must say, I'm liking these diplomatic, levelheaded, blunt demons. First we get Mephistophilis, now we see all, er, most of these demons calmly advocating for their opinion at Pandemonium. I swear I would side with some of them if I didn't know they were....demons.

Though this could be seen as making fun of political discussion, I think the debate scene is extremely important. I'm so used to reading or watching stories about demons who are ruthlessly emotional and vengeful and blah blah blah. It's enthralling to read what demons have to say when they engage in this type of discourse, at least in Milton's mind. The further personification of demons and devils in the stories we've read is not only interesting, it's sobering. When one reads a story that paints demons as logical, cunning, and creative, one cannot help but wonder the message the author is trying to send. When demons are relatable, that's when there's something afoot.

There are several moments in the meeting that jumped out to me. One was when the demons were discussing what to do and the topic turned to the creation of a new race called man. I'm not sure why, but that part was very potent and deep to me. Another was that Satan essentially rules over the other demons. While they can (and do) weigh their options, it's Satan who has the final word. It's also Satan who undertakes the task of going out to find the information about the new race.  When nobody else could decide, he steps in and takes the matter in his own hands.

QUESTION: Which of the demons do you think has the best plan? Objectively, I would say Mammon probably had the best plan, which was to make do with what they have in Hell and not incur God's wrath any further. They have empirical knowledge of God's power (burning lake) and they're not at that point anymore, so why make it worse when it has finally gotten better?

Measure for Measure is Flat Out Flat

One problem I have with some of Shakespeare's work is lack of development. I understand that he wants to write what he wants to write, and the parts he chooses to flush out are amazing, but I'm left with several questions that I would really need answered if I were to understand this play. 

I need more development here. Angelo is the worst character here, but that's kind of thrown in our faces without any backstory or precedent, so it's difficult for me to immerse myself in this play and see more than what we're given on the surface. We get this apex of tension with Isabella and Angelo arguing quite early in the play, which makes the play move rather quickly. It might just be me, but I don't feel like I know everyone quite well enough yet. Where Shakespeare's thoughtfulness shines through is his dialogue. The confrontation between Angelo and Isabella is such a well-written scene, as it sets the situation up, explains the characters, and builds into an early climax for the play. That being said, I just don't approach this scene with the same level of interest as I would another play that had been written with more development. I'm not swayed either way, except of course I thought Angelo was slimy and gross. 

I think my main problem is that this play is rather flat. I was turned off by the fact that deception is the pervasive theme here. There is a presented and acknowledged problem, and all the characters are woven into this web of lies in order to solve it. In the end, Claudio is spared, but what is actually accomplished? The Duke reveals his disguised self, proposes to Isabella, and sentenced Lucio to marry the woman who comes forth with claims of his child. Angelo is pardoned, and Isabella doesn't have a chance to respond. The play just ends. It reads like a deus ex machina style play, with the last-minute interference of the Duke, but it has all the closure of a kid who closes his/her toybox when they get bored of playing. The good aren't really rewarded, the evil don't get their comeuppance, and no characters really learn any lessons. 

I felt as though I was watching from outside a house here, not knowing the full story or who each character is. 

How did y'all feel about this? Did the story seem to fall flat? Why? Why not? Is the ending too thrown together?

Control vs. Empowerment

Okay, so during the Wife of Bath's Tale, I was curious as to whether the storyline would turn into a story of empowerment or a story of control. I'm still on the fence as to whether the story is empowering, but I know now that it's a story of control. The Wife of Bath paints this tale almost like an expose on what women want. The knight, who we can all agree is a pretty crappy human being, rapes a woman and is sentenced to death, and has his life put in the hands of this old, unattractive woman. This is definitely an interesting shift in power since the story begins with the knight raping someone because he was "so overcome with his sense of lust." The knight is in the old woman's debt after she reveals that what women want is control. At this point in the story, I was enticed by this seemingly universal truth that what women want most is to control their spouses, and wondered how that would translate to the knight being in debt to the old woman. Obviously, at this point in the story,  I dislike the knight and am alright with the old woman. She helped save the knight's life, but she did it as a power move. She's cunning, smart, and opportunistic, but I was curious as to where that would lead.
I was pretty disappointed with the ending, from the standpoint I approached it. While it (sort of) reinforced the universal truth and made the knight a slave to an old woman for a couple hours, the knight gets off the hook completely.

 Granted, he gets what he wants by allowing the old woman to make her own decision, but he acts from a position of apathy rather than a position of relinquishing power. He has two options left, and the ultimatum the woman gives him is hell either way (for him). While the woman (at this point, his wife) gets to choose what to do, there doesn't seem to be a lot of empowerment going on. The message this story sends is "give your wife what she wants and your marriage will be happy," which sounds alright for the beginning of the tale, but fails to pull through the end retaining the same meaning. Perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I think the Wife of Bath's Tale isn't as empowering as it seems.

Challenging the Term "Hero" in Beowulf

Like many a reader, I read Beowulf and was in awe of his might, his agility, and his lung capacity (seriously, the dude swam for a week). I also saw that while Beowulf is not of the land under attack, he seems to feel that it's his responsibility to protect it. On the surface, Beowulf is formidable, tough, and gritty. Beowulf no doubt inspired many other archetypal "heroic" saviors, but is he a hero? Merriam-Webster, the great and powerful, says that a hero is "a person who is admired for great or brave acts or fine qualities." Let's pick this apart, shall we?

So a hero must be brave, great, and fine, eh? Or at least their deeds must be. Beowulf's fighting Grendel can be seen as a brave act, since Grendel is a demon with a bloodstained track record. Grendel terrorizes the hall for years and years, and shows no signs of slowing down. Beowulf has undoubtedly heard the tales, but he arrives in Heorot with nothing but the most cringeworthy hubris.
Beowulf proclaims: "Now I mean to be a match for Grendel, settle the outcome in single combat" (29). When I read this, I cocked an eyebrow and muttered "single combat?" But it did not stop there.

"Hand to hand is how it will be, a life-and-death fight with the fiend"

.........What does Mr. Ye Olde Superman do? He throws his blade to the ground and takes Grendel on mano a mano! Greco-Roman style! YEAH!

........Does that not sound a little suspect? 

That, in fact, was the moment I understood that Beowulf was not completely like your garden variety superhuman hunk. If I were to save a town under attack from a monstrous, cannibalistic demon, wouldn't I take every chance to ensure my victory (and, moreover, the citizens' safety)? The tide and tone of character changes when Beowulf announces his plan to fight Grendel unarmed, and I began to see him as less of a hero and more of a brash collector of trophies.

I am reminded of Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride. Inigo (for those of you who have not seen this masterful work of cinematic art) is a brilliant swordsman from Spain whose fencing skills put him among the elite of the world. While he is vengeful and headstrong about finding his father's killer, his character contains a Beowulf-esque element of hubris. When Wesley (then in disguise) finds Inigo, they engage in a dazzling sword fight. But before this takes place, Inigo mentions to his fellow cronies that he will duel Wesley with his non-dominant hand. I believe his exact line was:

"I'm going to do him left-handed...It's the only way i can be satisfied...If I use my right...over too quickly"

Now why would Inigo make that decision? Was he heroic for doing so? 

Why would he make the decision to put himself at an apparent disadvantage for any other reason than pride? Inigo and Beowulf share the desire to be known, feared, and respected. They would save a town so the next town could know about it. What makes them different is Inigo grows into a more 3-dimensional character after defeating the man who murdered his father, while Beowulf just fights a dragon with the same attitude he had 30+ years prior and gets killed in the process. 

It's difficult for me to think of Beowulf as a hero now, but I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts. Are his acts more heroic in the connotative sense of the word? Does saving someone, regardless of your intention, make you a hero?