Pan's Labyrinth

I thought this movie wasn't so magically/fairy tale terrifying as it was a bloody war movie. The amount of blood in the movie was extreme, and so was the amount of killing and torture. However, the story centered only around Ofelia was very much like a fairy tale.

There were many magical creatures in the movie, even if they were slightly grotesque. There was the faun, which is a character that has appeared in many myths and fairy tales. However, when I think of a faun I think of Mr Tumnus from The Chronicles of Narnia, and he is a nice faun. The faun from the labyrinth was much more sinister. There were also fairies, portrayed as we typically think of them, small and with wings. However, in The Mists of Avalon (which I'm reading for my English class), the fairies are portrayed as human-sized people whose kingdom does not follow the normal flow of time.

Another of the magical creatures was the giant toad in the tree. While he was disgusting, he was definitely the least horrifying of the creatures. The creature under the house, with the eyes in his hands, was absolutely terrifying. The pictures of him eating the children again reminded me of Tiffauges, for whose appetite for children replaces his appetite for real food. The mandrake, although it only had a small part, was another magical creature. In one of the Harry Potter movies, they use a mandrake, which, like in this movie, looks exactly like a child. In both movies, the mandrake also cries like a child.

Like Run Lola Run and other fairy tales, Ofelia is given three chances to accomplish her mission. Once again, I didn't like the open-endedness of the ending. I thought that of course Ofelia made it back to her kingdom, and that her earthly body died. But when I was talking about it with my boyfriend, he said, 'How do you know the story wasn't all in her head, and that she really just died in the end?' I argued with him about it, because I didn't like how you never know what happened.

Run Lola Run

I thought there were a lot of 'mythic' and fairy tale elements in the movie. One of the things I noticed was that in the beginning of the movie, the man asks 'Who are we? Where did we come from?' When I was in high school, I had a teacher who was very into myths, and he would always ask us 'Who are you? Where did you come from? Where are you going?'. In the first scenario, Lola's father tells her he is not her father. This ties in to the mysterious origins of many heroes, since she is now unsure of her parents.

One of the characters in the movie is a one-eyed man that they referred to as a cyclops. This is a mythical creature, and also ties into the ogre idea. In the first scenario, Lola passes the woman with the child, and we see that the woman had stolen the child. This reminded me of the The Ogre, and how Tiffauges steals the children for Kaltenborn.

The movie also had fairy tale qualities. Lola was able to repeat the story three times, as in fairy tales when things come in three. An example of this in Grimm's Tales is in The Master Thief, when the thief is given three tasks to prove his greatness. I also thought Lola's glass-shattering scream was almost magical, since she was able to stop time with it. It also seemed to work to her advantage when playing roulette, so that the ball landed on 20. And, of course, like a fairy tale, the movie had a happy ending. Manni was able to get the money to Ronnie, and Lola was left with a bag of 100,000 marks.

The Ogre [Day 4]

5. How do you intepret the end of the novel? Do you see it as redemptive or destructive? (By 'end of the novel' I mean the last sentence - the sinking into the mud and the star in the sky.)

"When he turned to look up for the last time at Ephraim, all he saw was a six-pointed star turning slowly against the black sky" (370). I thought this was a terrible way to end the story. I hate when books don't have a nice, finished ending, because I would really like to know the last little bit that happened. I'm assuming that they sank into the mud and died, but I would have liked knowing for certain.

Aside from my own disappointment with the ending, I didn't really think the ending was in one way redemptive or destructive. However, I am leaning more toward redemptive. In the story of St. Christopher, the saint was 'redeemed' for carrying the Christ-child. "'You have had not only the whole world on your back but also him who created the world. For I am Christ your king, whom you have rendered this service'" (41). He is rewarded with a fruitful tree for carrying the child to safety. Tiffauges is also redeemed for his sins in the end of the story, by carrying the child to safety. However, I think Tiffauges was more redeemed when he rescued the boy and sheltered him. I thought that relationship was very different than the others Tiffauges has had with children. Tiffauges assumed the role of a paternal figure, and made sure the boy was safe instead of exploiting him in some way. I had a completely different view of Tiffauges once Ephraim entered the story. I pitied Tiffauges in the beginning, because he seemed so pathetic. Then, as the story progressed, he disgusted me. And then, at the end, I regarded him a little more highly for rescuing the child and protecting him to the very end.

I read the ending of the story as though Tiffauges was the peat bog man and Ephraim was the child-head they found. We have discussed how children are the Alpha, and it would make sense that since they only found the head of the second person that it would be a child and an Alpha. I liked how the peat bog man came back again, and I thought it was a greater symbol here. I mean, I understand how it could symbolize the missing Jews, but I think it fits better as a pre-symbol for Tiffauges' fate.


the ending

I thought the last 20 pages of the novel were absolutely excellent. The novel itself was really good, but the ending was both expected and totally unexpected. When Tournier (through Ephraim) explained all the symbols finally, and seeing Tiffauges react to them, it was like I was seeing for the first time all the different connections. I mean obviously I as the removed observer was aware of all the symbols, but when he explained everything I got all excited like "Yes! I knew that's what that meant!" and so on.

I thought Tiffauges' reaction to the hair was really striking. "Tiffauges could not hear this without seeing himself holding a sack of hair in one hand and offering Frau Dorn a haunch of venison with the other. He remembered how the tall clumsy creature backed away, making negative gestures with her head, her hands, her whole body. She must have heard about the hair at Auschwitz and thought she was being asked to take part in that vast and macabre manufacture" (355).

He finally sees himself as the Nazi had really become. Yes, he was still French and still a prisoner, but he adopted the German language, and integrated himself so well with his captors that he essentially became one of them. "Thus, through Ephraim's long confessions, Tiffauges, steeped in horror, saw an infernal city remorselessly building up which corresponded stone by stone to the phoric city he himself had dreamed of at Kaltenborn...all his inventions, all his discoveries were reflected in the horrible mirror, inverted and raised to hellish incandescence" (357).

The Ogre [Day 3]

2. Discuss the emphasis upon animals in Rominten. What do you think the aurochs symbolize? Or why the emphasis on the hunt? Try to extract as many meanings as possible from this.

I sort of lost sight of the larger picture of the story when Tiffauges went to Rominten. He no longer seemed like a prisoner, because his German captors had integrated him so much into their society. He was asked to come to Rominten with the forest ranger, and was in very close contact with Goering.

I thought the aurochs were kind of scary. I really don't like any sort of animal outside of cats, and I especially don't like horses and cows and that sort of big animal. If I were in Tiffauges' situation, I wouldn't have even spent the time to count the animals but just gotten straight out of there. However, after looking at the questions and looking back at the reading, I think the aurochs symbolize the Nazis. "Professor Dr. Lutz Heck, father of Bos primigenus redivivus, explained that paradoxically his beasts would remain dangerous so long as they retained any traces of domestication. Born in captivity, they would take years to learn to fear man and to flee as soon as they suspected his presence " (203). The aurochs were a dangerous force in such a number, and they were also frightening to look at. The Nazis had huge numbers of followers, many of them young children, and some of their chants that Tournier includes in the book are frightening. I also think the aurochs symbolize the Hitler Youth. The children are taken from their parents at a young age, and basically 'born in captivity'. They are brainwashed into accepting the Nazi doctrine, and when they emerge from their education (their 'captivity'), they are dangerous. They so believe in what they have been taught that they perform crazy tasks, like jumping 30 ft into water or juggling the heavy wooden beams.

I thought the emphasis on hunting was a very apparent symbol. I thought that it symbolized the hunt to round up all of the Jews, and I thought the rabbit hunt especially illustrated this. "The last picture Tiffauges carried away with him that day was of an immense carpet of fawn and fur formed by the bodies of twelve hundred hares lying side by side - the bag. Alone in the middle of this cemetery of softness, Goering, crowned king of the hunt by virtue of his bag of two hundred, posed for his official photographer, belly outthrust, field marshal's baton held aloft in his right hand" (228-229). The innocent hares that were hunted and slaughtered were like the Jews that were mercilessly hunted and slaughtered.

3. Bluebeard is a very important character in the text - how does the horse serve as a mirror image for Abel? What dos the horse symbolize for him? Why is this important?

Bluebeard is a mirror image for Tiffauges because all the horse is concerned with is eating and defecating. There is also a lot of emphasis and description of the horse's bottom. "'But all a horse's strength is in his crupper...In fact, a horse is crupper with organs attached to the front'" (224). This is one of the first things Pressmar tells Tiffauges, and of course this is Tiffauges' favorite subject. "...Tiffauges saw brand-new balls of dung emerge, wonderfully smooth and shiny, to fall one by one unbroken on to the straw. Such perfection in the defecatory act struck Tiffauges as the supreme justification of Pressmar's theories. The whole of a horse is certainly in its crupper, so the crupper makes the horse the Spirit of Defecation, the Anal Angel, and makes Omega the key of its essence" (226).

Bluebeard, and probably a hose in general, is the best animal for Tiffauges. It mirrors him in size and strength. Tiffauges was able to work tirelessly while in the prison camp, and is only ever able to fit into the leftover uniforms that are much too large for anyone else. Bluebeard is also an extremely large horse, and capable of carrying Tiffauges on his journeys to collect boys. Both Tiffauges and Bluebeard are obsessed with the act of defecation. For the horse, it is not so much a religious act as it is for Tiffauges. However, it is one of the only things each of them is good for.

The Ogre [Day 2]

There were a few things in the reading for today that both intrigued/repulsed me.

I. the execution of Weidmann

"'But Monsieur Tiffauges, he's just like you! Anyone would think he was your brother! He's like you, Monsieur Tiffauges, exactly like you!...It was grotesque, unbearable. You could hear the click of the knife rising jerkily between the posts. Then a hiss. The blood spurted out in floods. It was 4:32 AM" (118-119).

I thought this scene was particularly repulsive. I don't think it was the idea of the execution that I found repulsive, but rather the fact they still used the guillotine in France after almost two centuries. I do not like the idea of the guillotine, and especially the thousands of heads that rolled from it during the French Revolution. It just seemed like such a primitive, bloodthirsty way of executing someone in an age that was on the brink of technology. I didn't have much of anything insightful to say about this scene, only the fact that it repulsed me.

II. the camera

"When I range about the streets in my old Hotchkiss, I'm never quite happy unless the camera case slung around my neck is properly wedged between my legs. I enjoy being equipped with a huge leather-clad sex whose Cyclopean eye opens like lightning when I command it to look, and closes again inexorably on what it has seen. It is a marvelous organ..." (103).

I thought this was a slightly disturbing image, especially given the events that follow. As we discussed in class on Tuesday, Tiffauges is basically asexual, with neither heterosexual or homosexual relationships (excepting Rachel). I thought the camera replaced his sexual organs because he was microgenitomorphous, and also because the camera was the only thing that allowed him to have 'relations' with people.

At first, I felt slightly bad for pathetic Tiffauges when little Martine accused him of being the rapist, when he really only had intended to help her. However, when I thought back on the whole situation, it made sense that she would accuse him as the rapist. He was having 'relations' with the children, without their consent, by hanging around the school and taking their pictures without them knowing. When I read the line about Tiffauges hearing a scream, it was like I knew the events that were going to follow.

III. the pigeons

"he had come to the conclusion that many pigeon owners were not doing their patriotic duty, were turning a deaf ear and, not so much out of negligence as out of jealous attachment to their birds, were failing to write to the Erstein headquarters. It was just these birds he longed to see and touch and possess: as they were the most loved, they must also be the most desirable" (141).

I felt like with this statement, pigeons have replaced the children in Tiffauges life. Since he does not have the love of children to occupy his time, he has devoted countless hours and days to the rearing of a wounded pigeon and to the upkeep of the pigeon loft. He treats them with almost this sickening devotion, caring for them as if they were humans and not birds. I thought the grossest part was when he willingly prechewed their food and let them eat it from his mouth. I have a cat at home, and I love him tremendously, but I would never chew his cat food for him so that he would have an easier time eating it.

I also think Tiffauges takes his pigeon obsession too far, as he does with the children. Mme. Unruh, the dear widow with the small pigeon loft 'bequeathed' to her by her late husband, is torn about parting with the silver dove, and begs Tiffauges not to take him. However, her pleas do nothing to change his mind, and he takes the pigeon anyway. I feel like this is the same with the children. When the child falls down the stairs, and his knee is cut and injured, Tiffauges slaps and manipulates the poor child into whatever poses he likes, just so he take a photograph.

IV. the Monster

"Tiffauges threw it open and staggered back before the monster that stood framed there. It was at once like a horse, a buffalo, a deer. It took a step forward and was immediately halted by its enormous antlers, with jagged tips, which got caught on the doorposts...Now Tiffauges understood the begging demeanor, the awkward gait, the somnabulistic slowness; and because of his own awful myopia he felt close to the dark giant" (176-177).

I thought it was funny how a man so large as Tiffauges, who ate nothing but raw meat and raw milk, was afraid of another creature as monstrous as he was. I also found it funny how murderers and corpses have been compared to Tiffauges, but now it is an animal that he is being compared to. I thought the comparison of Tiffauges to the elk was rather fitting, because Tiffauges can also be lumbering and gentle. Although he had a strange obsession with children, and was given to strange tendencies, he never really meant any harm to anyone. This is just like the elk, who only wanted food because he could not see well enough to fully feed himself.



"'I feed blind elks,' he said" (181). My most favorite quote from this novel so far.

The Ogre [Day 1]

2. Why is part one written as a diary? Why does he call these his "sinister writings"? What might this imply?

"I thus have two sets of writing...one that is 'sinister', distorted by all the 'gauchenesses' of genius, full of flashes and cries - in short, inhabited by the spirit of Nestor" (pg 30). At first, I didn't understand why they were called sinister writings. They didn't seem evil, but only the past events of his life. Then it clicked when he said 'gauche', and it made sense. They are sinister writings because they are written with his left hand. I also thought the writings represented Nestor. Nestor was a lefty, and somehow transferred this ability to Tiffauges. Part one was written as a diary to explain why Tiffauges is so fascinated by children. Nestor was very fascinated by children, even though he was only a child himself. I thought it was weird how old Nestor seemed; he was taking the same classes as Tiffauges and the other children, but he seemed years ahead of them in knowledge and in maturity.

5. How do you interpret Abel's "rewriting" of the Adam and Eve myth? How does he transform the myth? Why? What does this say about Abel's personality?

"Later he sees that the solitude implied by hermaphroditism is undesirable, so he puts Adam to sleep and takes from him not merely a rib but all his feminine sexual parts, and makes these into an independent being" (pg 16). I thought his rewriting of the Adam and Eve myth was both strange and very fascinating. We are quick to put down creation myths like that, and support evolutionist ideas (I myself included), but as much as we disbelieve them, we don't ever dare to change them. Tiffauges, on the other hand, has no problem in believing in and changing the myth. I would never have thought to give Adam both gender roles. But being the only human until Eve was created, he had to reproduce somehow. And honestly, how could Adam and Eve, one man and one woman, have populated the entire Earth? That would mean that everyone was related and we would all be extremely inbred. I don't it would be possible for a race to survive that long with so much inbreeding; there would have been some serious genetic defect along the way that would have mutated a person's cells so much that they wouldn't be able to function.

"...a sexual part of man, too cumbersome for him to carry permanently..." (pg 16). I thought this quote made Adam look very weak and inadequate. He couldn't handle the responsibilities of being a woman, so God had to help him by taking those parts away. I thought that this also made woman look like the true other half of man. She become the other piece of the puzzle. Although man could 'use' her whenever he wanted, she couldn't really be his inferior. It would almost make her his superior, because she carries the burden that man couldn't handle.

100 Years of Solitude [Day 4]

3. Aureliano's deciphering of the parchment - Why does Melquiadez want this parchment to be deciphered and read?

I thought the last few pages of the book were extremely intense, and I was literally on the edge of my seat reading them. I knew how the novel was supposed to end, that we were supposed to find out Melquiades wrote the book and that we were reading his observations of the Buendia family and Macondo. However, I felt like in the last few pages I forgot that we were supposed to know the ending, and I was very curious to see how the story ended.

Throughout the whole book I couldn't convince myself that Melquiades was dead. There was just something about the way he would reappear to the people in the room that made him very un-dead. "Melquiades revealed to him that his opportunities to return to the room were limited. But he would go in peace to the meadows of the ultimate death..." (356). I think it has to do with the issue of memory. Melquiades mentions 'ultimate death', which I took to mean him actually dying. The sort of death he was under now was just a state of memory. Those who were interested in his alchemy and his manuscripts never forgot that he existed, while those who could care less forgot about him. "As had happened to Ursula with Aureliano Segundo when the latter was studying in the room, Santa Sofia de la Piedad thought that Aureliano was talking to himself. Actually, he was talking to Melquiades" (356). Sofia thinks he is dead, so she cannot see him in the room. But Aureliano, who is translating the manuscripts, can see him because he has not forgotten about him. The last time Aureliano sees Melquiades, after he has learned almost as much as he can, Melquiades tells him "'I died of fever on the sands of Singapore'" (356). This is how everyone else believed he died, so when they heard this news, he became dead to them. Only when Aureliano is almost finished translating does Melquiades tell him this, so that he can forget him too. If Ursula and Rebeca and Pilar can live over one hundred years, I saw no reason Melquiades should have to die.

I wasn't entirely sure of the reason Melquiades wanted this manuscript to be read. I thought that maybe he wanted it to serve as a lesson to the future generations who read it, but it can't be a warning for Aureliano because he is the last of the line in a dead town. However, I also think Melquiades meant to use this as a false sort of memory. Everyone seems to forget things so quickly that maybe he wanted everything to be preserved. When Aureliano reads it, he learns about the memories of his family and of his own lineage. If this parchment memory wasn't there, he would have never found out Amaranta Ursula was not his mother or his sister but instead his aunt.

The last line of the novel really brought the idea of circular time and memory to a nice end. "...everything written on them was unrepeatable since time immemorial and forever more, because races condemned to one hundred years of solitude did not have a second opportunity on earth" (417). Ursula always seemed to think that everything was going in a circle, that everything was repeating. But just because everyone shared the same name did not mean they went through the same experiences. Also, after reading this line, I finally understood the meaning of the 'one hundred years of solitude'. It wasn't that someone spent 100 years by themselves, like I originally thought. It was that the family inbred into itself for 100 years, and did not reach out into the external world (and gene pool).


8. The symbolism behind the sexual union of Amaranta Ursula and Aureliano and the resulting pig-tail child

By this point in the story, I was very confused as to who was who, and how they were all related to each other. I couldn't remember the ages of certain characters because of the repetition of the names and because everyone either seemed older or younger than they really were, based on what they did. The final Aureliano (not the last child who was born) seemed ages older than Amaranta Ursula, but she was actually slightly older than he was.

Their union was like the union of Ursula and Jose Arcadio Buendia. They were the first of the cousins to be married in the novel, and they were worried about having a child with a pig tail. The other incestuous unions do not result in children with an animal tail, until only two members of the family are left. Unlike Ursula, who wore the chastity panties to avoid having sex, Amaranta Ursula only put up a small fight, and very willingly gave in to her cousin's desires.

I thought it was only fitting that the last surviving members of the Buendia family would produce a child with a pig tale. I also thought it was weird that there was almost a role reversal here. When Ursula's cousin was born with the pig tale, a butcher cut it off and he ended up bleeding to death. However, when Amaranta Ursula has the child, she is the one who ends up bleeding to death.

100 Years of Solitude [Day 3]

2. The Rediscovery of Rebeca

I thought this scene was one of the strangest things encountered in the book so far. I had the feeling Rebeca would still be in the house, as I was reading the build-up to her discovery. "He asked who owned it. Someone told him that it did not belong to anyone, that in former times a solitary widow who fed on earth and whitewash from the walls had lived there, and that in her last years she was seen only twice on the street with a hat of tiny artificial flowers and shoes the color of old silver when she crossed the square..." (217). She was ostracized from the family once she married her brother/cousin, so there shouldn't be any reason that they wouldn't have left Rebeca's corpse in the house. Everyone seemed to forget about her and even I sort of forgot about her until this scene. I didn't, however, think Rebeca would still be alive inside the house. "..and then he saw in the center of the room the squalid woman, still dressed in clothing of the past century, with a few yellow threads on her bald head, and two large eyes, still beautiful, in which the last stars of hope had gone out...the woman was aiming an antiquated pistol at him" (218). Seeing as Ursula has managed to stick around this long, I guess there's no reason why Rebeca couldn't still be alive either.

At first I thought it was weird that Rebeca suddenly reappeared after the story went on without her for so long, and everyone had already forgotten about her. But then I read the scene with the massacre, and how quickly everyone forgot about the incident. After that I decided 'forgetfulness', in a sense, was possibly a theme of this novel. Aureliano Buendia (the original Aureliano) forgets about his family ties when he goes to fight the war, and completely forgets the bond he had with his mother. Rebeca is cast out of the house, and everyone forgets about her until they find her almost corpse-like and still alive. The villagers of Macondo completely forget the massacre only hours after it happens. The characters in the story are so good at forgetting things, the reader begins to forget them too.

6. The Ascension of Remedios the Beauty

I liked this scene, mainly because Remedios the Beauty was impossibly innocent, but also because Fernanda became so upset that she lost her sheets. At first, I felt bad for the way the family treated Fernanda. But then, the more crazy things she did, the less I pitied her, and was glad her sheets ascended with Remedios.

I didn't really think anything significant of this scene until I looked over the topic options last night. I was eating Easter candy, and had an epiphany about Remedios rising into the air. "...she watched Remedios the Beauty waving good-bye in the midst of the flapping sheets that rose up with her, abandoning with her the environment of beetles and dahlias and passing through the air with her as four o'clock in the afternoon came to an end..." (236). I thought that she might almost be a Christ-like figure. She lived a pure and simple life, choosing not to dress in fancy clothing but instead a sack-like dress. She was completely innocent of everything, and did not seem to have the sometimes cruel tendencies of the other members of the family. Yes, she did have the habit of killing men who got too close, but she couldn't help that the scent of her skin drove them mad. I thought her rising up into the air was sort of like Jesus ascending into Heaven on the third day. He also lived a very pure life, and did not die of His own sins, but to save us from ours. There isn't any evidence of Remedios the Beauty committing any sins, except that she's too beautiful. I thought with all of the mention of the Church in the story, this might be another one, especially since it is referred to as a 'miracle'. "Fernanda, burning with envy, finally accepted the miracle, and for a long time she kept on praying to God to send her back her sheets" (236).

100 Years of Solitude [Day 2]

1. theme: violence.

I noticed a LOT more violence in chapters 6-10 than I did in chapters 1-5. Of course, these chapters deal a lot with the war, but I feel like most of the violence was very senseless. I also noticed that most of the violence was accompanied by pure human cruelty. We talked about ethics in my health science class this morning, so maybe I noticed more how unethical most of the actions were when I went back to look this over.

Violence is present right in the beginning of chapter 6 - "Colonel Aureliano Buendia organized thirty-two armed uprisings and he lost them all. He had seventeen male children...and they were exterminated one after the other on a single night before the oldest one had reached the age of thirty-five. He survived fourteen attempts on his life, seventy-three ambushes, and a firing squad. He lived through a dose of strychnine in his coffee that was strong enough to kill a horse" (103). While there is no direct violence in here, like we see in later scenes, there is still a lot of violence/malicious actions committed against one man.

I thought the worst scene relating to senseless violence was in chapter 8, when General Jose Raquel Moncada was sentenced to death. I thought it was intolerably cruel that the women of the town, and more importantly Ursula, were the ones who stood up in his defense, and that his 'friend' Aureliano refused to commute the sentence. I thought that Aureliano's excuse for why Gen. Moncada had to die was completely unethical, and a pathetic excuse by a delusional man. "'You know better than I,' he said, 'that all courts-martial are farces and that you're really paying for the crimes of other people, because this time we're going to win the war at any price. Wouldn't you have done the same in my place?'" (158). Substituting and sacrificing the life of an innocent man to cover the crimes of others is not acceptable on any level. But the way the General accepted his death really got me, and I'll admit it, I was having an overly emotional day and I almost cried when he calmly removed his jewelry and asked Aureliano to bring it to his wife. The way he was so calm in the face of his impending death, and the grace with which he handled the situation really struck me.

There were the more obvious incidents of violence, like the countless firing squads and frenzied attacks, but I also noticed that Ursula is capable of much violence herself. Although she is normally a calm and collected woman, it doesn't exempt her from being violent and cruel. In some ways, it was funny when she would attack, but it was also very frightening, because she was more than capable of causing harm. This was very present in chapter 6, when Arcadio becomes obsessed with power, and she runs out into the courtyard. "When Ursula burst into the courtyard of the headquarters, after having gone through town shouting shame and brandishing with rage a pitch-covered whip, Arcadio himself was preparing to give the squad command to fire...Before Arcadio had time to react she let go with the first blow of the lash...Whipping him without mercy, she chased him to the back of the courtyard, where Arcadio curled up like a snail in its shell...She left Arcadio with his uniform torn, roaring with pain and rage..."(105).

In some stories, you don't notice all of the violence that goes on, and can sometimes overlook it. However, I found it very hard to overlook any of the violence here.

2. theme: lack of 'filial piety'

After finishing these 5 chapters, I found that none of the children really have a sense of respect for their parents (or Ursula, since she is basically the adopted mother of every child in the story). Arcadio rebels against her, and decides to take over the town. Aureliano, whom I always pictured as a 'mama's boy', for some reason, completely disowns her when he returns from the war. "It was then that he decided that no human being, not even Ursula, could come closer to him than ten feet" (165). The last person he should have ever turned his back on, in my opinion, was his own mother. His mother is not only the most powerful force in the town, but also the woman who raised him and took care of him.

I also was really bothered by the amount of incest in this story. It was like no one had respect for their relatives. Everyone couldn't wait to get into bed with their aunt or sister or cousin, and I found it even weirder that they actually had feelings and got 'turned on' by their old aunt, or their younger sister. I can't fathom ever having feelings for one of my relatives, because it is just strange and horrible and something you're not supposed to do. I also cannot understand how none of the children, with the possible exception of Remedios the Beauty, weren't born mentally retarded or with some type of deformity. Yes, I realise that there is most likely a psychological problem with most of the boys, like their lust for power (and for their female relatives), but they are not cognitively impaired, as they should be. I also found it strange that Amaranta kept turning down male suitors from outside the family. It was like she was saving herself for one of the boys in the family, and I especially thought so even more the way she lit up when Aureliano returned home.

100 Years of Solitude [Day 1]

1. character: Jose Arcadio Buendia

I thought Jose Arcadio Buendia was one of the most interesting characters in the first five chapters of the novel. He was constantly changing from a madman into a sane man, until he ended up as a lunatic. I thought Jose AB was the Don Quijote of this story. He was constantly being disillusioned by his madness, as was Don Quijote. As Don Quijote is tricked and brought home at the end of the first part of the novel, Jose AB is tied up to a tree and left outside towards the end of the first five chapters.

When the Gypsies first come to Maconda, in the first chapter of the story, Jose AB has the same fascination with their magnets and magnifying glasses as Don Quijote has with the knight errantry of his books. "Jose Arcadio Buendia, whose unbridled imagination always went beyond the genius of nature and even beyond miracles and magic, thought that it would be possible to make use of that useless invention to extract gold from the bowels of the earth" (pg 2). Once the Gypsies leave, Jose AB takes up alchemy and the process of making gold, using the supplies that Melquiades gave him. The town is convinced Jose has lost his mind, just as Don Quijote's friends are convinced he has lost his mind. After the Gypsies leave, Jose AB fails in his attempt to find a passage to the north, and Ursula leaves him. He loses his madness and comes back to reality, becoming a mother for Amaranta and taking care of the house. When Ursula returns, however, he returns to his madness, and dusts off his old laboratory.

In chapter 4, Jose Arcadio Buendia starts his downward spiral. He takes apart the pianola to see its inner workings, but cannot reassemble it correctly in time for the party. Once Melquiades dies, however, it is the end of Jose AB's sanity. Prudencio Aguilar's spirit visits Jose AB, and his memory causes him to lose sleep. Finally, Jose AB loses it and "...grabbed the bar from a door and with the savage violence of his uncommon strength he smashed to dust the equipment in the alchemy laboratory, the daguerrotype room, the silver workshop, shouting like a man possessed in some high-sounding and fluent but completely incomprehensible language...Ten men were needed to get him down, fourteen to tie him up, twenty to drag him to the chestnut tree in the courtyard, where they left him tied up, barking in the strange language and giving off a green froth at the mouth...Later on they built him a shelter of palm branches to protect him from the sun and the rain" (pg 78). This is similar to the end of Part I of Don Quijote. He is forced home by his friends, and left there delirious and unaware of his surroundings.

I think that Jose Arcadio Buendia represents, like Don Quijote, the conflict of madness and reality in the novel. Jose AB's sanity is so tainted by his love for experimentation that in the end he obsessively and maniacally recites Melquiade's Latin chants, and gets tied to a tree like an animal.


2. theme/symbol: love

I think that love is a strongly recurring theme in the first five chapters of the novel. Everyone, at one point or another in the first chapters, professes their love or harbors a love for someone else. Jose Arcadio 'loves' Pilar Ternera, Aureliano loves Remedios, Rebeca and Amaranta both love Pietro Crespi, and Rebeca loves Jose Arcadio. As Rebeca and Amaranta fight over Pietro, Aureliano wishes to marry Remedios, who is still a bed-wetting child, and Jose Arcadio Buendia states "'Love is a disease'..." (pg 68).

Amorous love, however, is not the only kind of love in the first few chapters. There is also the maternal love that Ursula has for her children and Rebeca and Arcadio, and the paternal love Jose Arcadio Buendia feels for the town of Macondo. Ursula takes in Arcadio and Rebeca, even though they are not her children, and raises them with the same maternal kindness that she gives her own children. When Remedios, dies, Ursula orders an extended and extreme period of mourning. "Ursula ordered a mourning period of closed doors and windows, with no one entering or leaving except on matters of utmost necessity. She prohibited any talking aloud for a year and she put Remedios' daguerrotype in the place where her body had been laid out, with a black ribbon around it and an oil lamp that was always kept lighted" (pg 88). Jose Arcadio Buendia also feels a strong love for the town he established, until he goes crazy. He has organized it in such a way that everyone has access to the water, and there is always a constant state of peace in the town. When he has a dispute with Don Moscote, he does not use violence but instead handles the situation with a strange sort of calmness. He has built the town from the ground up, and has a special connection with it.

I think this theme comments on what we have read so far. I think that love can be considered a driving force behind many of the actions undertaken by the characters in the story. Jose Arcadio Buendia has a love for knowledge, which causes him to undertake alchemy. Aureliano loves Remedios, which causes him to teach her and wait for her to mature so he can marry her. He also has a sort of love for the Liberal party, seeing as he takes up the cause after the tampered-with elections, and stages a revolt against the Conservative soldiers in his town.

Grimm's Fairy Tales [Day 2]

Theme: the good guy always gets the girl, in the end
Tales: Rapunzel and Bearskin

One of the most constant themes throughout these fairy tales is the triumph of the 'good guy', and of course his prize is always the girl. He is put through trials and suffering, but in the end is rewarded for his actions. This is the case in both 'Rapunzel' and 'Bearskin'. In 'Rapunzel', Rapunzel is trapped in a tower in a forest by the Witch who had taken her at birth in exchange for radishes. When the Witch discovers she has let a prince into her tower, she cuts off her hair and leaves her in the desert. When the prince comes back, but the Witch is in the tower, so he throws himself out the window, lands in thorns, and wanders blindly. "So he wandered, blind, in the forest, eating nothing but roots and berries, and doing nothing but weeping and lamenting for the loss of his dear wife" (pg 69). And, of course, after all of this suffering, he is reunited with Rapunzel in the end. "...Rapunzel recognised him, and fell upon his neck and wept. Two of her tears moistened his eyes, and they became clear again, so that he could see as well as formerly...they lived together long contented, and happy" (pg 69).

A similar situation happens in 'Bearskin'. After a war, a soldier is wandering around the forest, because he has no other skills but soldiering. He comes across a stranger with a cloven foot, who gives him money but in exchange, "'For the next seven years you must not wash yourself, nor comb your hair or beard, neither must you cut your nails not say one paternoster'" (pg 338), and also must wear the skin of a bear. Bearskin agrees to this, and travels about giving his endless supply of money to those in need. He is betrothed to a young girl, who is not afraid to marry him. However, he must finish out his seven years promise to the Evil One. After his seven years are done, he comes back, looking like a new man. The girl's older sisters become interested, but he remembers his promise to the younger one, and tells her "'I am your bridegroom, whom you first saw as Bearskin; but through God's mercy I have regained my human form, and am myself once more'" (pg 341). As is custom, they kiss, and the other sisters leave in jealousy. We don't see a "and they lived together happily ever after" like we do in 'Rapunzel', but it can be assumed so. Because Bearskin has suffered those seven years, he is rewarded with a girl.

Theme: the thief is always punished
Tales: The Jew Among Thorns and The Master-Thief

Another of the constant ideas throughout these tales is that the thief or evil person is always punished for their actions. In 'The Jew Among Thorns', the Jewish man is punished throughout the story. He follows a fallen bird into a thorn bush, his beard gets caught, and is forced to dance and be torn apart by the thorns. At first, I thought this punishment was cruel, and showed a little bit of the German Antisemitism from the 1930s and 40s. However, in the end, we find out that the Jewish man was actually a thief, and had stolen from people. "'I stole it, I stole it!' cried the Jew; 'but you have honestly earned it'. Upon this the judge caused the Jew to be hung on the gallows as a thief..." (pg 350). Whether or not the Jewish man was a thief, or was bullied into admitting it, it still teaches us a 'lesson'. If we steal or deceive people, we will be punished for it, as we should be.

There is a similar yet slightly different situation in 'The Master-Thief'. The thief tells his parents he is a thief, and even though he tells his parents not to be afraid, his father tells him "'...a thief is a thief, whether clever or not, and I warn you comes not to any good end'" (pg 489-90). His father is, in the end, partly correct. The master-thief goes to the Count's castle, and is put to three seemingly impossible tasks because the Count wants to see how good the thief actually is. However, after he completes the three tasks, the Count tells the thief "'You are indeed an arch-thief, and have won your wager. For this time you may escape with a whole skin, but take care to keep away from my provinces; for if you venture again into my power you shall be elevated on the gallows'" (pg 494). Although the thief is allowed to escape, he is warned with the punishment of death. Also, he is not allowed to keep anything he has stolen, since he has stolen things that belong to the Count.

I find the themes in these tales to be more along the lines of morals, and not the type of themes we found in stories like Don Quijote. I think they are important themes in the Grimm's plan of uniting Germany because they promote ideas necessary for unification. Although they can't promise that every good guy who suffers will get a girl, the idea of being a good person should have resonated with the people reading the stories.

Grimm's Fairy Tales [Day 1]

1. The Disnefication of the Tales

After reading these fairy tales, I find it very strange that some of these stories have become Disney-fied. Disney has done an excellent job of toning down the horror of some of these stories, but the more I thought about it, the more shocked I was that they would make these stories into movies for children. Out of the ten stories for today, I thought that "The Frog Prince", "Briar Rose", and "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" had become the most Disney-fied.

"The Frog Prince" was the one most recently made into a Disney movie ("The Princess and the Frog", or whatever it was). I have not seen it, but I'd imagine it couldn't be so bad, because the story itself is not as chilling as the others. The princess lies to the frog to get her way and then refuses to be his companion, but the worst part in the entire story was near the end, right before the frog turned back into a prince. "This speech put the King's daughter in a terrible passion, and, catching the Frog up, she threw him with all her strength against the wall, saying, 'Now, will you be quiet, you ugly Frog!'" (pg 17). I'm not the biggest fan of frogs and other such creatures, but animal cruelty in any sort of way really bothers me.

It took me a moment to realise that "Briar Rose" was actually "Sleeping Beauty", until I remembered an old book I had that told the story but first referred to the princess as Briar Rose. This story was probably the saddest of the Disney movies, because the poor girl has to sleep for all those years. As I read, I thought back on the movie, and it just occurred to me now how scary Maleficent actually was. She had that horrible strange headpiece, and was generally creepy. It's funny how we don't notice things like that when we're younger.

I have the biggest problem with "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" as a Disney movie. Snow White is only seven, and yet her stepmother is already so jealous of her that she has to have her killed. "Her envy and jealousy increased so that she had no rest day or night, and she said to a Huntsman, 'Take the child away into the forest, I will never look upon her again. You must kill her, and bring me her heart and tongue for a token" (180). That is supremely horrible of someone to do to a poor seven year old. How is she supposed to fend for herself in the forest? Most people aren't so lucky as to stumble upon the cottage of seven little men. And furthermore, what cautious woman would ever stay in an unknown man's cottage? The Disney version leaves out the fact that Snow White is a girl and depicts her as an older, more mature 'maiden'. The movie also happens to conveniently leave out that the witch tries to take Snow White's life two times before the apple, and also fails to mention that the Prince doesn't rescue her with a kiss - he begs for her coffin "'for I cannot live without Snow-White'", and while it is being carried to the castle, the piece of poisoned apple pops out of her throat. The real tale is clearly not as glamorous as Disney wants us to believe.

I think that Disney has helped these stories become 'internationalized' because, honestly, what girl doesn't want to be a princess? I spent countless hours when I was younger parading around in my aunt's old bridesmaids dresses and hideous 80s prom gowns and wearing my grandmother's wedding tiara. I even had a princess birthday party in the first grade, and everyone had to come dressed as a princess (even my little sister, who was only 3 at the time). Even still I wonder what it would be like to be royalty, to have fancy balls and meet princes. But if our mothers had read the actual fairy tales to us when we were little, there would be a much smaller number of girls who wanted to be a princess. I was an avid reader as a child, and read basically everything, but if I had read any of the real stories (and not the watered-down picture books), I would have had nightmares for weeks. I'm still afraid of the dark now, and I can only imagine what reading about a stepmother eating her daughter's heart would have done to me.

I think these stories have become universal because there is no one setting for them. The Brothers Grimm don't come right out and say, 'This story took place in the German wilderness'. We can assume the setting is in Germany, but they could technically be set anywhere we wanted. Also, the stories are fanciful and entertaining. There are princesses across the world, and every girl has at least once dreamed of becoming one herself, or meeting one. I also think the main theme across these stories is that the good always succeed. Snow White lives, and ends up with the Prince. The King's daughter, after she smashes the frog into the wall, lives happily ever after with him. And, of course, Briar Rose is awakened by the Prince, and lives happily ever after. Although no one can always live happily ever after, as we would like, the stepmothers are shut down and the poor princess comes out with the victory.

2. The Function of Gender, As It Applies to Women

I'm going to take a slightly different path with this question. I understand that men have a role in these stories too, but I feel the roles for women are much more restricted. I also feel that women often get a negative association in these tales. The three stories, in my opinion, that highlight the role(s) women play are "The Twelve Brothers", "Little Red Riding Hood", and "The Handless Maiden". And, obviously, any story with a wicked stepmother falls into this discussion.

There are clearly only four roles a female can play in these tales: maiden in distress, a banished girl, an evil, jealous stepmother, or a witch. In "The Twelve Brothers", the sister is really given an unfair and difficult position. "One day the King said to his consort, 'If the thirteenth child, whom you are about to bring into the world, should be a girl, then shall the twelve boys die, that her riches may be great, and that the kingdom may fall to her alone'" (pg 38). How unfortunate would it be to be that daughter? She's basically being doomed, by her own father, from birth. She goes out to save her brothers, and then ends up being sentenced to 7 years of silence because she makes a mistake and changes her brothers into crows. Of course, she narrowly escapes burning to death and the story ends with a happily ever after. "Little Red Riding Hood" is one of the scariest tales that any child would read. You think you're going to see your grandmother, and you walk in the house and become lunch for a wolf. Little Red is younger than the typical princess, which makes it a little scarier I think. In "The Handless Maiden", the girl is forced to have her hands cut off and wander the world. "Thereupon she laid down both her hands, and her father cut them off" (pg 115).

The term 'fairy tale', in my opinion, implies the female gender. In our culture, no man wants to be referred to as a fairy, because it has come to have a seemingly negative connotation. We also never see fairies depicted as men. For example, we have Cinderella's Fairy GodMOTHER, not godfather. We also have the tooth fairy, who is always depicted as a woman. We have come to accept that if you are a fairy, you must also be a woman.

I think women are given a negative depiction in many of these stories because throughout history, women have consistently been given negative roles. We, because of Eve, are still CLEARLY the reason why men make mistakes and are lead astray, and we use our womanly enchantments to do this (because OBVIOUSLY we all possess the magical abilities of casting spells and enchantments on innocent men). When a woman is given male freedoms, like Chaucer's Wife of Bath, she is looked down upon as rebellious. These stories do not exactly help the image of women. Yes, the Brothers included the Evil One, who comes as a man, but they also have the stepmother-witch who tries to take Snow-White's life three times, and also the old woman who lets Briar Rose prick her finger on the spindle. Even the acts of these evil women are gross. For example, the stepmother in Snow White: "The Queen meanwhile, supposing she had eaten the heart and tongue of her daughter-in-law, did not think but that she was above all comparison the most beautiful of every one around" (pg 182).

Don Quixote [Day 6]

1.

I don't think that Don Quixote has become 'de-quixoticized' at all in the final chapters. I think that throughout the first part of the novel, he has lost some of his naivety and innocence, but he has still retained his imaginary world and continues to live in it. As they are riding along in the ox-cart, Sancho bursts out: "'God save us all and his Holy Mother too!' Sancho exclaimed. 'How can you be so thick-skulled and empty-headed that you can't see that what I'm saying is the plain truth, and that it's more through roguery than enchantment that you're in this mess and this cage?'" (ch xlviii, p448). If anyone has become de-quixoticized, it is Sancho Panza. He is able to recognize the situation that he and his master are in, and he refuses to play along and believe that his master is under an enchantment. Don Quixote, on the other hand, still firmly believes in knighthood and sorcery. He refuses to agree with Sancho's argument, and instead states: "'What you say is true, Sancho,' replied Don Quixote, 'but I have already told you that enchantment can take many different forms, and it could be that these have changed in the course of time, so that what happens nowadays is that the enchanted do all the things that I do, even though formerly they did not'" (ch xlix, p449). He knows that the times have changed and knight errantry isn't all that it used to be, but he still believes that he is a knight.

I think that Cervantes leaves Don Quixote in his imaginary world because he has become such an endearing character. There was a point, in the middle of the first part of the novel, when I didn't like Don Quixote because I thought he mistreated Sancho. However, towards the end, he is so innocently funny that it's hard not to become attached to him as a character. I think that the breaks from his story and the insertion of side stories, although I thought they detracted from the novel, helped in becoming more acquainted with the main character. It also helped because the ending of the first part was quite sad, when Don Quixote is brought back home. "He was peering at them through unfocused eyes, and couldn't fathom where on earth he was" (ch lii, p474).

3.

My most favorite part of this entire story was when Don Quixote, in chapter xlix, took a firm stand against the canon who was slandering his books of chivalry. Don Quixote was always a firm believer in knight errantry and chivalry, but he had never taken so firm a stand as when he did on p453: "'Well, for my part,' replied Don Quixote, 'I consider that it is you who are out of your senses and under some spell, for you have taken it upon yourself to utter such blasphemies against what has been so well received in the world and so widely accepted as the truth that anyone who denies it, as you do, deserves the same punishment that you say you inflict on books that annoy you when you read them. Because trying to persuade anyone that Amadis and all the other knight adventurers that pack the histories never existed is like trying to persuade him that the sun does not give out light, and that ice is not cold, and that the earth does not sustain us'". Everyone has spent the entire first part of the novel calling the hidalgo crazy, attacking him for his ideas or playing along with them to appease him. No one has ever believed him to be in an entirely right state of mind. However, I think this quote was an excellent way of having Don Quixote turn on his attackers. Maybe it's us, the audience, who are crazy. Just because the hidalgo is living in his imagination does not mean he is insane, and should be treated as such. It has been pointed out that he is an intelligent man who can form clear and lucid arguments, and I think it is unfair that the priest, who called him such things and actually enjoyed listening to him speak, would be so malicious as to put him in a cage and drag him home like a prisoner.

Don Quixote [Day 5]

1.

Quote Analysis

"Don Quixote was developing his arguments in such an orderly and lucid way that for the time being none of those listening to him could believe that he was a madman" (chapter xxxvii, pg 355)

and

"Those who'd been listening to him were again moved to pity on seeing that a man who seemed to have a good brain, and could argue clearly about everything he discussed, so totally lost his senses as soon as the talk turned to his detestable and damnable chivalry" (chapter xxxviii, pg 359)

These two quotes reiterate what I think is one of the most prominent themes of the story: is Don Quixote insane, or is he simply made his imagination his reality? I personally think that Don Quixote is living in an imaginary world. If he had lost his mind, as most people and characters in the story thought at first, then he would not have these moments of lucidity. However, in my gerontology class we are discussing dementia, and my teacher told us about a patient she had who at times would become completely lucid and realise that his mind was not what it used to be. However, it is highly unlikely that Don Quixote has 1. dementia and 2. thinks that he is insane. Insane people do not usually realise their insanity, and also, Don Quixote's personality (to me) does not appear to be that of a madman. I still uphold the idea that he has simply replaced reality for his imaginary world.

Analysis of Lela Zoraida

I thought the character of Lela Zoraida/Maria was a very interesting one. However, I feel like she wasn't entirely necessary to the story. I like Cervante's side stories, because they make the reading go by quickly, but I feel like it detracts in some way from the story of the 'ingenious hidalgo'. I think that the stories cause us to lose focus on Don Quixote's adventures and in that we forget what the story is really about. I think that perhaps Zoraida's 'multiple identities' speak about identity in 17th c. Spain and identity today. Knighthood was about being a good Christian (among other things), so it would make sense that Zoraida wants to convert to Christianity. Today, however, I think that people have multiple identities because we find it hard to identify with only one idea or culture. For example, I see myself as an Italian and Scottish/Welsh, because my grandparents are, but I also see myself as an American, a Catholic, etc. I think that we identify with what our families do/are, but we can't seem to settle on one identity. I think Zoraida has less agency than any of the other female characters in the text. I am probably biased, but I think Dorotea is the female character with the most agency. She is a well-educated woman, and also has a sense of humor. She plays along with Don Quixote's delusions, but not in a cruel or malicious way. I also think she is easiest to empathize with, because she was not born in to fortune and actually faced hardships (unlike Zoraida and Luscinda).

There is one more quote that I found very funny, and it is the following: "'All right then: if this here basin's a helmet, then this here pack-saddle must be a horse's caparisons, just as the gentleman said.' 'To me it looks like a pack-saddle,' said Don Quixote, 'but then I have already stated that this is an affair in which I shall not interfere'" (chapter xlv, pg 419). There is really no analysis for this quote, except that it relates to the theme of Don Quixote's madness. I just thought it was funny how he was so convinced that the bowl was a helmet, but knew the pack-saddle wasn't a caparison as if it were a common fact.

Don Quixote [Day 4]

"'I put all these arguments to him, and many others that I don't remember, but they were powerless to make him change his mind: the man who never intends to pay isn't worried about any problems when he strikes his bargain'" (Chapter XXVIII, pg 255). Dorotea says this when she is speaking about how she was deceived into marrying Don Fernando. However, I feel that it is representative of Don Quixote. He never thinks about the consequences before he rushes to attack someone. The hidalgo "isn't worried about any problems", because he feels what he is doing is right and for the greater good. He has continually shown that he has no regard for the safety and well-being of others, as he is always striking someone with a lance or knocking them senseless. He only realises the depth of what he has done when someone injures him.

"'But it's often said that misfortunes never come singly, and that the end of one is often the beginning of another still worse...'" (Chapter XXVIII, pg 258). Once again, Dorotea was speaking but I felt that it was more appropriately applied to Don Quixote's journey. It seems as though whenever he is done attacking or being attacked, another incident is right behind. For example, after he has scared the poor barber off to win his basin - 'Mambrino's helmet' - there is the incident with the chain-gang of prisoners. I understand that the misfortunes Don Quixote faces are part of the comedy of the story, but I'm starting to think that if he wasn't so brash and thought before he acted, he wouldn't always have his ribs stomped on or his teeth punched in.

"'...fortune doesn't always send the evil complete with its remedy...'" (Chapter XXVIII, pg 259). I saw this as another way to describe the hidalgo's misadventures. There is never a clear way to deal with the situation he puts himself into. If he hadn't meddled, then there would be no situation. But because he does, he gets himself into situations that have no clear way for him to get out. If he was still sane, and could reason like a normal person, he would be able to talk his way out. But because he is constantly bringing up chivalry and knighthood and the world in his imagination, he only angers his victims more, which ultimately leads to injuries on both sides. I think that this quote best describes the situation with the prisoners in the chain-gang. The 'evil' was in letting the prisoners go free, because they beat up Don Quixote and Sancho and stole from them. There was no 'remedy' that came with the situation - the hidalgo was warned not to let them go, but when he did no one was there to tell him how to handle the situation.

"'That's good searching and finding,' Sancho Panza interrupted, 'and even better if my master's lucky enough to redress the grievance and right the wrong by killing that bastard of a giant you just mentioned, and he will kill him if he catches up with him, so long as he isn't a ghost that it, because my master can't cope with ghosts'" (Chapter XXIX, pg 263). This quote doesn't entirely relate to a theme, but I thought it was funny and got a good laugh out of it. Don Quixote is obsessed with magic and enchanters, and I think Sancho's quote summed it all up: Don Quixote wants to believe that these things exist, but he can't handle them when he comes across them. He continually blames his defeat on sorcery and magic, when in truth he just can't handle the situation.

"'And there's something else, too,' said the priest. 'If we leave aside the absurdities that the good hidalgo comes out with concerning his mania, in conversations on other subjects he talks with great good sense, and shows himself to have a clear and balanced judgement. So long as you don't get him going on his chivalry, nobody would say that he wasn't an excellent man of excellent understanding'" (Chapter XXX, pg 279). I thought this quote was really important in the debate over whether Don Quixote is insane or if he is living in a child-like state of innocence and denial. As the priest points out, he is very intelligent with a clear judgement. It is only when he is ranting on about chivalry that he gets lost in his own world. I think it is particularly important that the priest pointed this out, because he was one of the people in the beginning who was set on putting an end to this madness. I also think being away from home has helped Don Quixote realise that yes, he is living in his imagination. In certain scenes, there is a level of self-reflection on his actions that was not there in the beginning (after the incident with the prisoners, for example). I think that Don Quixote is slowly coming back to a more sane sense of mind as he journeys, because he is not confined at home with only his books to keep him occupied.

Don Quixote [Day 3]

After continuing to read the story, I realised that Don Quixote is consistently missing the bigger picture. He always picks and chooses what he wants to see in the situation, and then ignores the rest or blames it on some supernatural force. I noticed this in the scene with the march of the prisoners (chapter xxii). On page 177, Don Quixote sees what is happening but totally ignores important facts and instead makes his own judgments about the situation. Sancho points out that they are a chain-gang of convicts, marching to the galleys. Don Quixote ignores that they are convicts, and becomes outraged at the situation. "'In short', replied Don Quixote, 'whatever the details may be, these people, wherever they are going, are being forced to march there, and are not doing it of their own free will'" (177). Obviously they are not doing it of their own free will; they are prisoners on the way to fulfill their sentences. Because he disregards that fact, he sets them free, thinking he is doing a good deed. Instead, the prisoners turn on him, barrage him with rocks, and then steal his coat and Sancho's. If he hadn't been so narrow-minded, he would have seen the situation for what it really was.

However, I noticed a couple of changes in Don Quixote's character. The main change that bothered me was the way he has taken to treating Sancho. In the beginning, they were friends and there was no master-squire restrictions on either of them. Then, suddenly, in chapter xx, Don Quixote tells Sancho, "...'I have never come across any squire who talked to his master as much as you do to yours. And in truth I consider it a great fault in both you and me; in you, because you show me scant respect; in me, because I do not make you respect me more...you should infer, Sancho, that a distance must be kept between master and man, between lord and lackey, between knight and squire'" (164). Sancho, throughout the story, has been the only one who has stayed by Don Quixote's side, and defended him in his ridiculous adventures. I think it was wrong for Don Quixote to turn like that on his only companion, simply because Sancho possesses more wits and reason than does Don Quixote.

Another change I noticed in Don Quixote is that he has now stopped blaming his failed misadventures on wizards and sorcery. There were two instances of this that I noticed, one in chapter xx and one in chapter xxiii. In chapter xx, after their run-in with the fulling-hammers, Don Quixote realises that he mistook the mills for something other than what they really were. This angers him, and he snaps at Sancho for teasing him about it. "'...do you fancy that, if these were not fulling-hammers but some perilous new adventure, I should have failed to display the courage needed to undertake and conclude it? Am I, perchance, sir, obliged - being, as I am, a knight and a gentleman - to identify and distinguish between sounds, and tell whether they come from fulling-mills or not?'" (163). The other example is Don Quixote's anger at not recognizing the nature of prisoners in chapter xxiii. After they attack him and Sancho, he tells his companion, "'I have always heard, Sancho, that to do good to low-born rabble is to cast water into the sea. Had I believed what you said, I should have avoided this vexation; but the damage is done now, so one must be patient and learn one's lesson for the future'" (186).

This self-reflection would never have been present in earlier chapters. Earlier, when Don Quixote would misinterpret a situation, he would shrug it off and blame it on enchantments and wizards. Now he gets angry when he makes a mistake, and is no longer brushing it off and putting the blame on his enemy Freston, who was apparently the reason all his other adventures ended in failure.

Don Quixote [Day 2]

I thought that the 'play on authorship' seemed to appear the most in chapters 10-18. I also thought that the idea of reality vs. imagination was especially prominent in these chapters. I realise it was apparent in the first set of chapters, but the adventures Don Quixote undertakes in these next chapters really emphasize his confusion with what he sees in his mind and what is actually happening in front of him.

The play on authorship occurs in chapters 14, 15, and 16. On page 112, in chapter 14, Cervantes reminds us that this isn't his story, but in fact a history that he is copying down. "But events didn't turn out as he expected, according to what is related in the course of this true history...". A few pages later, Cervantes begins chapter 15 with the mention of the author of this history. "The wise Cide Hamete Benengeli says that as soon as Don Quixote had taken his leave of his hosts and of everyone else at Grisostomo's burial, he and his squire rode off into the forest where Marcela had disappeared" (115). Cervantes is continually reminding us that he did not write this story. This reminds me of medieval authors, such as Chaucer, who, when retelling stories by other authors, would point out that they themselves didn't write this story, so if the reader has a problem with it, it's not his fault. The third play on authorship occurs on page 125 in chapter 16. This time, Cervantes makes mention of the type of author Cide Hamete Benengeli was. "...according to the author of this history, who makes special mention of this man, because he knew him very well, some people even claiming that the two of them were related - quite apart from the fact that Cide Hamete Benengeli was a careful and meticulous historian, something that's obvious enough, for he refused to pass in silence over the happenings related so far, even though they're so petty and trivial, which should serve as an example to those grave historians who recount events so very succintly that we can hardly catch a taste them and, out of carelessness, malice or ignorance, the most substantial part is left in their inkwells". It is clear that Cervantes takes some issue with the way Cide has written this history, which makes sense because he is a Moor, and the Spaniards didn't particularly care for the Moors.

I think the reason for the plays on authorship is that Cervantes wants this book to actually seem like a historical text. In his prologue, he speaks to his friend, who tells him to add in Latin phrases and all these other things to make his story more credible.

Throughout the story so far, Don Quixote has had a hard time discerning reality from his imagination. He mistakes the windmills as giants, and the herds of sheep as advancing armies. However, the reason behind all his confusion is enchantments and his enemy, the enchanter Freston. Whenever he comes back to reality and realises things aren't what he imagines them to be, he blames it on the fact that the evil enchanter must have cast a spell and changed them. When Don Quixote and Sancho are beat up at the inn, the officer from the Holy Brotherhood isn't a man but in fact "the enchanted Moor". Later, when they have left the inn, Don Quixote is still going on about enchantments, and how the inn was enchanted, and how "they must have enchanted me; for I swear, by my body and bones, that, had I been able to either climb or to dismount, I should have exacted such revenge..." (137, chapter 18).

While it is comical that Don Quixote is living in his own imagination, it is also very dangerous. All the adventures he and Sancho undertake have ended in injury. He has really not been able to help any women or orphans, or conquer other knights. All the people he should be fighting against and defeating, those who are actually 'bad' people, like the Yanguas muleteers, end up hurting him and leaving him half-dead.

Don Quixote [Day 1]

I don't particularly find Don Quixote to be as 'radical' a character as he is perceived to be. I have read parts of the story before, and it was always described by teachers to be about a 'madman' or someone who has fallen into insanity. I know that Cervantes refers to his character as a madman, but I don't think it is insanity that is driving Don Quixote. His thought process is comical, but not something that is particularly 'insane'.

"And so, by now quite insane, he conceived the strangest notion that ever took shape in a madman's head, considering it desirable and necessary, both for the increase of his honour and for the common good, to become a knight errant, and to travel about the world with his armour and his arms and his horse in search of adventures, and to practise all those activities that he knew from his books were practised by knights errant, redressing all kinds of grievances, and exposing himself to perils and dangers that he would overcome and thus gain eternal fame and renown" (27). I don't see this as radical in any way. Yes, I realise that it is a bit immature for a gentleman of 50 to want to embark on a journey. But it is clear that Don Quixote has reverted back to a state of childhood, and the innocence that comes along with it. He is innocent because he has pure intentions - he does not set out to kill people or pillage and plunder, but instead sets out to become famous by redressing wrongs. This idea is very childish, because as children we tend to have these grand ideas about how we are going to become famous and save the world. There is no harm in him polishing up his armour, making a cardboard helmet visor, and riding around on a rickety old hack. He isn't leaving behind a life of fortune and luxury in pursuit of some wild dream; he is further diving into a dreamworld of books and chivalric tradition.

I find it quite endearing how innocent Don Quixote is. I don't envision some withered, dusty old man when I read about him. He is vibrant and imaginative, in no ways old and withered. I think it is almost cute how it takes him four days to think of a name for his horse, because he wants it to be the greatest name ever. "He spent four days considering what name to give his nag; for (he told himself) it wasn't fitting that the horse of such a famous knight errant, and such a fine horse in its own right, too, shouldn't have some name of eminence; and so he tried to find one that would express both what it had been before it became a knight's horse and what it was now..." (28). He isn't just concerned about making himself the greatest knight, but is also concerned with making sure his horse and love interest are also of the greatest quality (at least in name).

However, there is one scene that I find to be a bit radical. When Don Quixote is keeping the vigil in the courtyard, two muleteers come out to give water to their horses. There is only one problem, and that is that Don Quixote's armour is in the water trough. He asks them, first, to not remove the armour - "Take care what you do, and touch it not, unless you wish to pay with your life for your temerity" (38). He has not yet made a statement as bold as this, let alone a threat, so it seems that it would not go anywhere and be an empty assertion of his 'power' as a knight. However, to prove his point when they do move his armour, "he dropped his leather shield, raised his lance with both hands, and dealt the muleteer so powerful a blow to the head that he fell on the ground in such a sorry state that had it been followed by another blow he wouldn't have needed a doctor to treat him" (39). This is a very rash action, and he proceeds to do it again to the second muleteer, this time splitting his skull into three pieces. The innkeeper tells the comrades of the fallen men not to worry because Don Quixote is a madman and will walk away from any charges. Regardless, this action was not like anything Don Quixote has done before, and I thought it was strange that he would act so rashly.

One thing I noticed about Don Quixote is that he, unlike Perceval, has somehow managed to follow in the true path of knighthood. "Once he'd made these preparations he decided not to wait any longer before putting his plans into action, encouraged by the need that he believed his delay was creating in the world: so great was his determination to redress grievances, right wrongs, correct injustices, rectify abuses and fulfill obligations" (30). Perceval, when he sets out on his knightly quest, only wants to do it for the fame and perceived glory that come with knighthood. He wants to be as beautiful as the 'angels' he saw in the forest, and wear armour and joust and fight. While Don Quixote wants the fame, I think his innocence keeps him on the right path of knighthood. I think he is able to see the true meaning of what it is to be a knight, and his intentions clearly mimic that.

Dante's Inferno [Response 5]

"Who could ever, even with unbound words, tell in/full of the blood and wounds that I now saw, though/he should narrate them many times?/Every tongue would surely fail, because our/language and our memory have little capacity to comprehend so much" (Canto 28, ln 1-6, pg 433).

I think that this quote comments on the work as a whole. The farther Dante the pilgrim travels in to Hell, the worse and more grotesque the punishments get. I think that this quote represents Dante's overall experience through the Inferno. There is so much horror that although Dante writes about it, we can never fully comprehend what he sees. There are no words possible to describe it, nor have we ever seen anything like this that our memories could create a true image of what he is telling us.

This relates back to the themes of myths in many ways. First, all of Dante's narrations are stories. Although they are stories, they still include a search for meaning. When Dante sees the punishments of Francesca and Paolo, for example, he realises that he could meet the same end for his actions on Earth. Myths are also timeless, as is this story. We are all familiar with the idea of Hell, and if we are Christian (or more especially, Catholic), we are taught that if we commit sin and do not repent, we will end up in Hell. Hell is always portrayed as a fiery pit, but Dante's depiction shows us a more human side to it, with immense pain and suffering. In this way, his Inferno makes Hell more horrible and real concept.

"'Death has not reached him yet, nor does guilt/lead him,' replied my master, 'into torment; but so/that he may have full experience,/I, who am dead, must lead him through Hell...'" (Canto 28, ln 46-51, pg 435).

I find this quote to be representative of the work as a whole, but I also have some issue with it. Virgil is right, death has not sent Dante into Hell. But I think that guilt, on some level, has lead him down there. He has strayed from the "right" path, and now needs to see the horrible things that can happen to him if he continues to stray. When he sees the punishments of Francesca and Paolo, he becomes afraid this will happen to him because of his love for Beatrice. If he hadn't done anything wrong, he wouldn't have been afraid of this punishment. The same goes for the situation with Brunetto Latini - Dante has a desire to join the homosexuals, then becomes worried he could suffer the same punishment. He shouldn't have to worry about suffering these punishments if he had not done anything wrong, but he is clearly feeling some amount of guilt for whathe has done.

Also, on the level of myth, Dante is lead through Hell to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. He must experience all of these horrors so that he can rise up and become a stronger and more righteous man.

Dante's Inferno [Response 4]

Question 3

I found it strange that the demons were in charge of the 5th bolgia. In only two other canti have beasts actually been in control of the souls; in Canto 6 there was Cerebus, and in Canto 17 there is the Geryon. However, these two creatures are more beast-like than the demons. Yes, the demons have claws and wings, but they walk on the ground and are more human than a three-headed dog. Also, the demons are given names like "Curly Beard", "Little Big Dragon", and "Ruby Face", whereas Cerebus and the Geryon are creatures from Greek mythology. I was surprised that the demons would be so stupid to let the souls trick them. Evil Dog even realises the Navarrese is trying to trick him, and points this out to the other demons. "At that Evil Dog lifted his snout, shaking his head,/and said: 'Listen to the trick he's thought of, so he/can jump back in!'" (Canto 22, ln 106-108). After the soul admits that yes, he is being tricky, Harlequin jumps in and decides it would be a good idea to let him try to outdo them.

This could say a lot about the power of the demons. At first, I thought it was weird that these demons are essentially in control of the souls in this level, and yet they give in so easily to temptation. After thinking about it however, maybe it shows that the demons, like everyone else, find it hard to resist temptations and sometimes give in. Also, when I first read the question as to who is really in control, I automatically assumed it was Lucifer. That doesn't make sense thought, because why would he let his own henchmen be fooled by humans? I think that God is the one here who is in control, and must be keeping these people in a continual cycle of deceit and trickery. The demons snare a soul, the soul tricks the demon into freeing him, and the soul wins until it gets snared again. This cycle of deceit also fits in well with the circle of Hell they are in. The thought that God is ultimately in control of everything fits in with Dante's world view. The goal of his journey is to achieve, eventually, salvation and only God can control whether Dante ends up in Heaven or Hell.

There were two quotes that stood out to me. The first quote was in Canto 23, on page 353, when Dante is walking with the lead-robed friars. "I began: 'O friars, your evil...' but I said no more,/for into my view cam one crucified to the earth with/three stakes./When he saw me, he twisted himself all over,/puffing into his beard with sighs; and Brother/Catalano, who perceived it,/told me: 'That one staked there at whom you are/looking counseled the Pharisees that it was/expedient to put one man to death for the people'" (ln 109-117). I thought it was appropriate that Caiaphas, the man Brother Catalano points out, was crucified. He played a role in condemning Jesus to death, and now has to suffer the same death eternally. I thought it made sense that everything came back full-circle.

The other quote that stood out to me was in Canto 26, on page 405, when the flame of Ulysses is speaking. "'O brothers,' I said, 'who through a hundred/thousand perils have reached the west, to this so/brief vigil/of our senses that remains, do no deny the/experience, following the sun, of the world without/people./Consider your sowing: you were not made to live/like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge'" (ln 112-119). I thought the last part of the quote was particularly important, especially given the thoughts Dante had for the naked men in Canto 16. Also, the farther Dante goes into Hell, the more beast-like and animalistic the condemned become. These people have committed such sins that they eventually ended up losing their human traits, having given into their desires and not using their knowledge.

Dante's Inferno [Response 3]

Question 3

I thought that the image of Geryon was strange, and I had a hard time picturing what he would look like. The closest image in my mind was that he looked somewhat like a centaur, except with a serpentine tail instead of a horse tail. However, even if I can't picture it exactly the way Dante describes it, he does a good job trying to paint a picture of the creature. "And that filthy image of fraud came over and/beached its head and chest, but did not draw up its/tail as far as the bank./Its face was that of a just man, so kindly seemed/its outer skin, and the rest of its torso was that of a serpent;/it had two paws, hairy to the armpits; it had back/and breast and both sides painted with knots and little wheels/.../its tail was wriggling, twisting/upward the poisoned fork that armed its tip like a scorpion's" (Canto 17, ln 7-15,25-27). I think that Geryon's variety of body parts symbolizes fraud. Those who committed fraud deceived someone else, and I believe that Geryon's body is meant to deceive those who see it. As Dante the pilgrim points out to us, "Its face was that of a just man". The monster is horrible, but it tricks Dante into seeing it as just and kind.

The point of fictional literature would, in a sense I suppose, be to trick the reader into believing something the author created. When we read works of fiction, we tend to lose ourselves in the world the author has formed. I myself get very absorbed in the books I read, and sometimes have a hard time coming back to reality, and remembering that the things I read do not exist in my actual life. Therefore, it is possible to say that Dante committed fraud by tricking people into immersing themselves into fictional worlds when they read his books. However, I don't really see this as fraud. It's not as if authors set out to intentionally harm people when they write. When I think of fraud, I think of taking money from people and things like that - that actually hurts people. Fictional literature is meant as an escape, where you can go for enjoyment and relaxation.

Question 5

Canto 19 is a very radical canto. Dante the pilgrim (and Dante the author) is clearly a devout Christian, as mentioned, with the whole point of his journey serving to put him back on the right path toward (eventual) salvation. However, Dante puts many church leaders and popes into this third subcircle. Dante starts out the canto addressing these sinners, and mentions their sins. "O Simon Magnus, O wretched followers, you who/the things of God, that should be brides of goodness,/rapaciously/adulterate for gold and silver..." (Canto 19, ln 1-4). As the canto progresses, Dante even mentions some of the condemned clergy by name, which is highly risky, given that he could be punished for his views. For example, he points out the sins of Boniface, who is Pope Boniface VIII and who was alive when the poem took place. "'Are you already standing/there, are you already standing there, Boniface? The/writing lied to me by several years./Are you so soon sated by the wealth for which/you did not fear to marry the lovely lady/fraudulently, and then to tear her apart?'" (Canto 19, ln 52-57).

I see this illumination of the flaws of the Church as part of Dante's "midlife crisis". I feel like while he loves the Church, he realises that its leaders aren't perfect but have flaws like everyone else. Obviously, if someone so looked up to and respected as a clergy member makes a mistake or commits a sin, it is looked down upon more severely than if an ordinary citizen did. I have been raised a Catholic, but I constantly question things that we are supposed to accept and go along with. It's not so much that I have questions with the Bible and Jesus' teachings as I do with the Catholic church as an organization. We, the parishioners, are expected to live a life free of sin, yet we constantly hear stories about how priests are abusing and molesting young children. Yes, they are given their punishment, but what kind of an example does that set for the people who look up to them? Also, I was under the impression that members of the clergy were supposed to take vows of poverty, yet each Sunday the church is continually asking for more and more money. I know the church needs money to be maintained, but I feel that asking for the money is going against the poverty pledge. I believe church leaders should live the life they preach, and I think that that is the point Dante is trying to make. If they lead a fraudulent and deceitful life, then they will receive a proper punishment for that, as shown by the upside-down sinners in baptismal fonts with their feet on fire.

Dante's Inferno [Response 2]

"Why do you kick back against that Will/whose ends can never be cut short and which has many/times increased your suffering?/What is the good of butting against fate?" (Canto 9, verses 94-94, pg 145). I found these lines to be representative of the entire set of canti, and also as to why Dante the pilgrim ventured into Hell. The part of these lines that really struck me was when the man "who was walking across the Styx with dry feet" comes out of the smoke and asks the pilgrim Dante, "What is the good of butting against fate?" To me, it seemed like this was the line that should alleviate all of Dante's fears. He was worried throughout the first set of canti that he would end up like Paolo and Francesca because of the love and the desire that he felt for Beatrice.

I interpreted the line to mean that Dante the pilgrim was not to end up in Hell, that it was not his destiny to be put to such a fate. Clearly, we know that Dante does not end up remaining in Hell because he continues on to Purgatorio and Paradiso, and is narrating the story to us after it occurs. But for someone who was not familiar with this, this might be a clue to them that Dante is not meant to be down here. Also, to bring back up the theme of love and Paolo and Francesca, Dante's fate will clearly be different than theirs. First, he and Beatrice did not commit the same 'sin' as did Paolo and Francesca, and also, Beatrice has already made it to Heaven. If Dante were to be confined in Hell because of his love for Beatrice, I would imagine both would be there together.

"But certainly, if I remember well/.../on every side of this deep, foul valley trembled so/that I thought the universe must be feeling love, by/which, some believe,/the world has often turned back into chaos:/and at that point this ancient cliff, here and/elsewhere, was broken down" (Canto 12, verses 37-45, pg 187). I read the text notes on these lines after I wrote it down as a verse of interest, but I don't entirely agree with what the notes have to say about the lines. The notes explain that this refers to the traditional explanation of the sun darkening on Christ's death, with both Heaven and Hell acknowledging "that he was the Creator who had died". The notes also mention that Albertus Magnus wrote that "so many signs appeared" upon Christ's death because "the entire universe exclaimed that it could not endure that death". The notes mention, as a last thought, that the Greeks believed the universe alternated between strife, which drives things apart, and love, which brings things back into the original chaos.

However, I don't entirely agree with what the notes are saying about these lines. I understand Dante the author wrote the Divina Commedia as a religious work, but I interpreted these lines about love and chaos in a much less religious sense. The line in this group that really led my interpretation was when Virgil says "I thought the universe must be feeling love, by/which, some believe,/the world has often been turned back into chaos". I thought this meant that not all types of love are "good", and can cause harm - as a warning to Dante the pilgrim. In a religious context, love for God is good, but lust and physical desire are not good. The mention of the Minotaur in the beginning of the canto also made me think about the idea of how love can cause chaos. The Minotaur was created when King Minos' wife fell in love with a bull, and acted on that love. Because of these things, I imagined these lines were a warning to Dante about his love for Beatrice. In Canto 5, Dante falls into a swoon because he is worried that his love will cause him to end up with the same fate as Paolo and Francesca. This line, appearing later, just seemed to me to reinforce the idea of what can happen when you let your desires and emotions get the best of you.

In Canto 13, there was a line I found very interesting. I didn't entirely find any symbolic meaning in it, but it stood out to me and I wrote it down. In Canto 13, Date the pilgrim and Virgil come across the men who have been turned into trees. One of them speaks, and tells the travellers, "Like the others, we will come for our remains,but/not so that any may put them on again, for it is not/just to have what one has taken from oneself" (verses 103-105). The entire theme of the Inferno is justice, mainly divine, but still justice nonetheless. I thought the idea of not getting back what you have taken was a clever punishment. The other souls in the other layers of Hell all have their bodies, regardless of their punishments. However, in the second subcircle of the seventh layer, these souls are confined to the bodies of trees. They do not get their earthly bodies back, which makes their punishment cruel, yes, but I think much more of a punishment than being confined to walk in circles all day. I didn't really think much about the different punishments until I read this line and thought about it, and after thinking about it, I decided this was by far the most cruel but most just punishment.

Dante's Inferno [Response]

Question 1

"In the middle of the journey of our life, I came to/myself in a dark wood, for the straight way was lost./Ah, how hard a thing it is to say what that wood/was, so savage and harsh and strong that they/thought of it renews my fear!" (pg 27). Dante begins the first canto with a haunting description of where he was. The way he describes the setting makes it very easy, in my opinion, to visualize where he is and put yourself into the story, as if you are the narrator himself. He begins the story in a very dark tone, which sets the mood for the following canti. As the story progresses, there is no light that breaks through the gloom he is in; it only gets worse as he travels farther into Hell. I think his opening lines were a good lead-in to later events.

The main theme Dante continually touches on in the first canto is his unending fear. I found his description of the animals that were coming at him to be particularly fearsome. "He appeared to be coming against me with his/head high and with raging hunger, so that the air/appeared to tremble at him./And a she-wolf, that seemed laden with all/cravings in her leanness and has caused many/peoples to live in wretchedness,/she put on my so much heaviness with the fear/that came from the sight of her, that I lost hope of/reaching the heights" (pg 29).

This journey is not a fun journey, nor is it a journey most people would willingly want to embark on. If Virgil wasn't sent to be his guide, I don't think Dante may have ever gotten past the hungry animals and made it on the journey at all. Dante's continual state of mind is fear, which is only somewhat relieved when Virgil appears to him. As Dante tells us, "When I saw him in the great wilderness, 'Miserere/--on me,' I cried to him, 'whatever you may be,/whether shade or true man!'" (pg 29). However, although Virgil is being realistic, I don't think he helps Dante's fears much when he tells him that he must choose another path if he wishes to escape, "for the beast at which you cry out lets no one/pass by her way, but so much impedes him that she/kills him;/ and she has a nature so evil and cruel that her/greedy desire is never satisfied, and after feeding she/is hungrier than before" (pg 31).

Question 2

Out of the six canti that we read, the fourth canto made the greatest impression on me. Dante and Virgil had just entered the first circle of Hell; Dante perceives Virgil as being afraid and wonders how he, who is so full of fear, can follow someone sent to be a leader but is fearful himself - "And I, who had perceived his color, said: 'How/can I come, if you are afraid, who when I have fears/have ever brought me strength?'" (pg 71).

Virgil's description of why the souls were down in the first circle raised some issues with me. "My good master said to me: 'You do not ask what/spirits are these you see? Now I wish you to know,/before you walk further,/that they did not sin; and if they have merits, it is/not enough, because they did not receive baptism,/which is the gateway to the faith that you believe./And if they lived before Christianity, they did not/adore God as was needful...'" (pg 73). I find this statement particularly hard to justify. I find it hard to believe that a God who is supposed to love all his children, who created man in his image, would condemn people to Hell just because they were not baptised. What about those who are not Christians? Did God not create them? In my English class, we were discussing Pelagius, whose beliefs go against this idea that baptism is needed for salvation. He denied that idea of original sin, instead believing that people are not born inherently sinful and can still achieve grace through good works. But, as Virgil points out, having merits alone is not enough.

What I don't understand about this canto, however, is why the quartet of poets - Homer, Horace, Ovid, and Lucan - and the great figures of the past are allowed into the castle with the green meadow. If they are like the other "sinners" condemned to the first circle, why do they get special treatment? Are the other people not good enough to be allowed into this sanctuary, or does Dante simply not mention them? He seems to focus on only the great poets and philosophers, and not the other "common" people that he sees.