Joey Liu, Period 6, 03/12/24

 Joey Liu

Period 6

3/12/24

Research Paper 

Is oral literature still relevant today in the age of electronics and the internet? 

Ever play a game of telephone? A simple verbal message becomes almost cryptic after passing through just a single cycle around the circle. In a world where data and information is stored in a binary system we call the internet, oral literature seems to take on an increasingly obscure role in our society. 

I beg to differ.

Despite obvious setbacks such as a level of subjectivity from the listener’s perspective, oral records have an important role in understanding topics and historical events. It’s “lackadaisical” organization (compared to a written text) actually gives oral communication an edge with the audience. For example, the incorporation of hand gestures and tone changes helps keep the listener engaged, evoking emotions that otherwise would be absent. During the Norse Mythology unit, each group was required to write a story/script based off a minor character in a chapter and then act it out in front of the class. Every short had someone to record the video + script reading. Personally, I enjoyed most of the presentations as one of Netflix’s producers, but the stories that stood out the most were the ones that had tone changes and movements/acting. The emotions I experienced from each telling was far greater comparatively than the readings done at home of, as an example, Stone Blind etc. Tangible outbreaks of laughter from both myself and classmates serve as a clear reminder of the nuances that oral literature covers where written words do not. 

Moreover, oral records serve as a method of firsthand primary sourcing. You get an immersive, full experience by interviewing someone rather than, say, just reading about their work. According to the Smithsonian Institution Archives, it states, “— primary source material—from personal recollections through planned recorded interviews… used to preserve the voices, memories and perspectives of people…a tool we can all use to engage with and learn from family members, friends, and the people we share space with in an interview that captures their unique history and perspective in their own words” (Byrne). This aspect of a direct one way verbal communication is valuable in its own sense. Just imagine that you’re training for an upcoming basketball game. Your coach tells the team that a guest NBA star coached by Michael Jordan will be coming to train with them. Exciting right? Now imagine he instead said that Michael Jordan himself was going to come and give lessons on basketball. Hear the difference? (Not a basketball fan? I bet you still know who Michael Jordan is). 

All in all, humans are human, and the means in which we communicate are multidimensional. It is important that stories continue to be told and retold, fostering the sense of “beneficial subjectivity.” It is important to remember and understand the significance of both oral and written literature in our culture today, thereby ensuring that we gain a more complete understanding of history/cultural heritage and even entertainment. 

Byrne, Hannah. “An Introduction to Oral History.” Smithsonian Institution Archives, 9 June 2020, siarchives.si.edu/blog/introduction-oral-history#:~:text=Oral%20history%20is%20a%20technique,perspectives%20of%20people%20in%20history. 

Songen Tang Period 6 2/29/2024

 Songen Tang

Period 6

2/29/2024

Modern Mythology 2024

Socio-political Consciousness

In a recent lesson, we were discussing government systems that serve to repress its population and it reminded me of the conversations that were especially loud during quarantine and the black lives matter movement. I know that the lesson was talking about state organizations, but private prisons were something that seemed almost unanimously hated during that time. They are still somewhat state organizations because they are funded by the government and part of the prison system but it seems like what makes them seem particularly immoral is the “private” part, while most people still agree that prisons in general are necessary. 

The main argument against private prisons is the idea that they operate as a business and benefit from having full capacity at all times. This obviously goes against the general societal idea that we should have less criminals and therefore less people in prison. In order to have as many people as possible in prison, private prisons employed a wide array of practices. As a business, they have the ability to lobby for stricter laws that would ensure more people are arrested, even if the crimes aren’t deemed serious by the majority of people. Private prisons also have higher rates of recidivism which is likely not a coincidence considering if they focused on rehabilitation, there would be less people incarcerated, and they would receive less funding. I think this is one of the worst things private prisons, and prisons in general, do because by not focusing on rehabilitating criminals, they are causing more crime and raising the cost of prisons because they have to fund another sentence. Another argument against private prisons is that they tend to treat prisoners worse because by spending less money on them, they can increase profit, something public prisons don’t have to worry about.

Part of the argument for keeping private prisons is that they cost less than public prisons and therefore are saving government money. However, there are also arguments against this fact. Because prisoners in private prisons tend to stay longer and recommit more often, it might balance out the lower cost per sentence. Private prisons also don't tend to take prisoners who require higher security which also helps them lower the cost. A better argument for private prisons, in my opinion, is that they might help innovate the prison system, if they were to be rewarded for lower rates of recidivism instead of higher, they might outdo the public prisons which have hardly changed. This might also cause the opposite problem, however, where prisons are trying to get rid of prisoners who are not ready in order to increase profit, so maybe it's best to just try and limit the exchanging of money in our justice system. 

Ethan Cadotte, Period 7, 3/19/2024

Ethan Cadotte Period 7 Modern Mythology 2024

Research Topic: Cinderella

Ethan Cadotte PD 7

Despite being a topic that was covered in the very beginning of the year, I wanted to revisit the story of, “Cinderella”. I found the history of fairy tales to be quite interesting and significant in showing how society has changed throughout time through the lens of something that is as simple as a fairy tale, and so I wanted to save this subject for my final blog. Before this class, I had not known that there were other versions of fairy tales that we would see on television, often a production made by Disney. The curriculum has opened my eyes to the grim and harsh reality of the original fairy tales and their storylines. 

There is some controversy surrounding the first Cinderella story, but the earliest story with similar components of the Cinderella story was told by Strabo, a Greek historian. The story tells of someone named Rhodopis who had his sandal stolen by an eagle and dropped on the lap of the King of Egypt. The king then, stricken by the beauty of the sandal, went searching for the woman that wore it. It is a rather short storyline, but seeing how it has evolved over time into a story of malice, magic, and love is incredible to witness. 

After the story of Rhodopis, there were stories created with the elements of Cinderella that are more commonplace amongst more modern versions of the story. These elements include magical entities, evil stepmothers, and a protagonist that is a mistreated woman. One of the earliest versions of Cinderella that incorporates these elements is a story about Yeh-hsien, a girl with an evil stepmother that has a best friend goldfish that her evil stepmother resents and eventually kills. Yeh-hsien was then told by a stranger to pick up the fish bones and they turned into a nice dress and slippers to attend a festival. She loses a slipper that is found by the king, and he leaves it out for her to find. When she finds it and takes it home, the king and his men follow her to find out who she is. In stories like this, I find the part of each story where the, “magic happens”, to be very interesting. I find that every magical aspect has almost direct correlation to the culture of the people that made them. This is quite obvious because the people that made their own versions of the story would obviously use their own culture, however it is the only aspect that I see changed from story to story. In the story of Yeh-hsien, the fish bones that grant her the dress and slippers have meaning in Chinese culture. After a quick search, I found that the meaning of the fish in Chinese culture is wealth, and the meaning of the fish bones is happiness and safety. In one of the more famous versions of the story made by the Grimm Brothers, originating from Germany, the, “Cinderella”, of the story cries under a hazel tree and is then gifted with the garments for the festival. In Germanic culture, hazel trees represent several great qualities like wisdom, protection, rebirth, etc. 

The aspect of magic in each of these Cinderella stories is a direct representation of the culture in which they originated from. Taking a deeper look into the magic that occurs in these stories gives us better insight into how the people of the time lived and the things that they believed in. Fairy tales like Cinderella and many more, can allow us to peer into the lives and beliefs of societies that have thrived throughout history.

Sources: 

Ciucci, C. (2021b, November 22). A history of the cinderella fairytale. BOOK RIOT. https://bookriot.com/the-history-of-cinderella/ 

Charles Gian, Period 1, 3/14/24

Charles Gian

Period 1
3/13/2024
Modern Mythology 2024

Research Paper: Nihilism

We’re a blip in the history of the universe. One tiny speck of more-than-average intelligence out of 70 quintillion planets. Planets get old, kaput, form a new planet, and the cycle continues. Like the famous quote goes, time stops for nobody. Everything goes to an end with enough time, just like how we will eventually, so what’s the point? Why do homework, why battle taxes, why challenge yourself and, inevitably fail, if you could just do nothing? Why do anything at all?

I’ve heard this constant buzz throughout my life, and I’m sure you’ve heard it too. This constant denial of any reasoning in life, the sly little devil on your shoulder, that you should just give up and let time take its course on you. It’s always intrigued me, but I’ve never paid much attention to it, as I’ve always been steered on a set course for my whole life. Now, with more freedom comes more choice, and I hear the buzz picking back up. What is Nihilism and where does it come from?

Summarizing one of Friedrich Nietzsche’s definitions of Nihilism, a renowned German philosopher, Nihilism is “... the negation of life through its subordination to a ‘higher realm’”. Nietzsche’s definition of Nihilism is more based on religion, where this “higher realm”, or higher being, is actually just fiction, lies that give people purpose in life. Without this “made-up” religion and higher beings, they would also see from the same perspective as him. However, people are so caught up in religion, and the “lies” as he puts it, that almost any other viewpoint seems alien. Everyone else falls victim to this, in a religion or not. We completely put our faith in science, believe it’s completely rock-solid in the discoveries we have today, and are extremely confident in explaining almost everything about this planet and our universe. However, within these fundamental bases come tiny little “lies”, gaps, or inconsistencies in science. For example, it’s well known that the Big Bang was the event which started the universe off, eventually leading to the creation of space, our stars, and our planets, over time. Keep in mind though, that it’s all just a theory. Once you start looking into ideas like this further, small fundamental questions like “How did we come about?” still haven’t been answered yet. The Big Bang theory does explain a lot, and connects with the findings we have today, but what caused it? What caused this massive explosion out of nowhere, from nothing, to kickstart our universe? Does science really explain what the world and universe is governed by and describe it, or is it all just fancy terms made up to sell that we know what we’re doing, and that more people should further this research of lies?

As in Gardner’s Grendel, the humans in the story, notably the shaper, just sing lies and make up stories about wars between their various groups, encounters with monsters, and the Gods which look after the humans. Grendel even imitates being The Great Destroyer to Ork, one of the priests. Humans in the story completely believe in their religion. All of Grendel’s nihilistic thinking was kickstarted by the Dragon. This further emphasizes that sometimes we need to listen to the other side, no matter how crazy or against what you believe it is, as they could be speaking the truth. Maybe there really is no meaning behind life, but it’s just up to us to create meaning for ourselves.

Works Cited:

Nietzsche’s Shadow: On The Origin and Development of the Term ..., journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0191453720975454. Accessed 13 Mar. 2024. 

Puiu, Tibi. “There Are over 700 Quintillion Planets in the Universe -- but There’s No Place like Home.” ZME Science, 15 May 2023, www.zmescience.com/feature-post/space-astronomy/astronomy-articles/how-many-planets-universe/. 

Rin Tung, Period 6, 02/27/24

Looking at Grendel’s mother, the first depiction of her in Grendel by Gardner is that from Grendel’s perspective, his pale slightly glowing fat mother. The life-bloated, baffled, long-suffering hag. And later that she loved him but seemingly in a distant, strange way. It still describes her as “one thing” with Grendel — “like the wall and the rock growing out from it”, mentioning her physical attributes and behavior with “she would reach out her claws and seize me” or “smash me to her fat, limp breast as if to make me a part of her flesh again”, “she hurls herself across the void and buries me in her bristly fur and fat”, even.

And maybe how Grendel sees his mother is how Gardner interprets the character from the original Beowulf, or maybe even a projection. She is motherly but beast-like. Instinctual. She does not speak nor understand speech nor understand Grendel’s mind, only really knowing that he is her child, loving him in the most primitive of ways.

In the original Beowulf, Grendel’s mother’s identity and standing in the story remains unsolved. The ides aglæcwif has been painted mostly as a monster woman since Klaeber’s version. Ides is widely accepted and agreed to be the lady, so is the term dis. The Dísir, the fate goddesses of Norse mythology, are really simply “the ladies”. Dís has also been argued to be the original form of valkyrie. Both Wealtheow and Grendel’s mother are ides, possibly representing the different aspects of the valkyrie.

But yet, the aglæca is used to describe both Grendel, his mother, and Beowulf himself. In the case of the former two, the monster, the demon, the fiend. To Beowulf, the warrior, the hero. Arguably, aglæca is simply a warrior, a fierce fighter; making Grendel’s mother, the ides aglæcwif, a lady woman-warrior. If there were no differentiations between the depiction of the hero and the antagonists other than the sexes, then at no point is her monstrosity ever mentioned or described. And frankly, that may be all that she was in the original Beowulf — a fierce, female warrior.

Then where does the monstrosity, the beast-like aspects first emerge? Maybe it's simply the way that aglæca’s original meaning isn’t agreed on, forcing later renditions to build her entire image on what we know of her, a descendant of Cain. Maybe it's the same way Medusa has been slowly painted as a villain, a monster. Maybe it’s the way an unnamed strong and fierce woman, only fighting and killing for the sake of her child dying to her victims’ hands — maybe such characterization makes her monstrous. She is simple minded, unbothered and uncaring, except when it comes to her child, and at that point she would stop at nothing to protect him, to avenge him. Maybe it is that motherly instinct that paints her as a fearful figure to the patriarchal eye; maybe it is the way that she displays every aspect of a hero, but the fact that she is female takes away all of her benevolence.

But one thing is certain, she is always described as a motherly figure. Fierce, ruthless, but loving in her primitive and simple minded way. She simply runs on instinct, to protect her child and uncaring of everything else. If such is her character, then does it matter if she is a monstrous being? If being fiercely motherly, or even a strong woman automatically paints a character as a monster, then how many other female figures in our literature and mythology from a more patriarchal time are wrongly categorized as villainous or evil?

Morgan Lee, Period 1, 3/11/2024

Morgan Lee, Period 1, 3/10/2024, Modern Mythology 2024

Literature Circle - The Song of Achilles By Madeline Miller - Critical Theory Analysis

SPOILER ALERT

    Looking at a text through a feminist criticism lens requires acknowledging that it was written in a male dominated society and examining how gender stereotypes and patriarchal tendencies can skew our perspectives. The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller is a modern retelling of The Iliad, focusing on the tales of the hero Achilles, told from the point of view of his companion, Patroclus. This novel leads us through their whole lives, from their childhoods to the end of the Trojan War. While the queer aspect is undeniable, as Achilles and Patroclus’s relationship and eventual tragic romance is the main focus of the story, there are many female characters who also play large roles. Because this takes place in Ancient Greece, all of these women were victims in some form or another, due to their role in society.

The first character we will explore is Thetis, a sea-nymph and mother of Achilles. Thetis never wanted to be Achilles’s mother, but it was prophesied that her son would be stronger than his father. To prevent this, the gods wanted to ensure that the child was half mortal, despite Thetis only being a minor god. They awarded Peleus, King of Phthia, the “honor” of being Thetis’s husband. The gods instructed Peleus on how to sneak up on Thetis, and despite her efforts to shapeshift and escape, he was able to successfully assault and impregnate her. After giving birth to Achilles, she was made to stay on land for a year to raise him. Thetis’s character is powerless in most of the book. She never wanted to be a mother, yet was raped and forced to conceive a child. Achilles was prophesied to die at a young age, and again, she was unable to prevent this, only able to watch as her son’s hubris led to his demise. Thetis is a god, yet was unable to do anything to prevent her molestation and her son’s death just because the gods had decreed it so. Thetis turned bitter, rightfully so, and disapproved of Achilles becoming romantically involved with Patroclus. For most of the book, Patroclus depicts her as this controlling and unreasonable mother, who is full of hatred. However, when thinking about it, she has a right to be this bitter. She never wanted a child yet was forced to, she would at least want her pain and suffering to pay off in some way, thus, she would intervene and try to do what she thinks would be best for her son. 

    Deidameia is the princess of Scyros and King Lycomedes’s daughter. When Thetis was trying to prevent Achilles from going to war (which leads to his prophesied death) she stowed him away on Scyros, disguised as a girl. She then forces Achilles to have sex, and consequently marry, Deidameia, who is aware of Achilles’s actual identity. However, once Patroclus locates and reunites with him on Scyros, she is sworn to secrecy by Thetis and forced to give birth in exile. Thetis then takes the child from her and raises him away from the influence of humans. Deidameia’s story, in particular, focuses on the struggle for power in a matriarchal society and how women could have their whole life ripped from them. When Patroclus first meets her, she is effectively at the peak of her power. Despite being princess, she essentially runs Scyros due to her fathers old age. When she harbors Achilles, she is the only one who knows the truth about his identity. However, this all changes when Patroclus finds Achilles. In order to keep Achilles as her husband, she threatens to reveal his secret. On a whim, she loses all of her power. Thetis forces her to keep her mouth shut and makes her give birth to her child secretly. She could no longer run the kingdom, as it would be increasingly obvious that she was pregnant, and she couldn’t even keep her own child. As a last ditch resort, she even tries to ruin Achilles and Patroclus’s relationship. She describes having sex with Achilles in order to turn Patroclus jealous. When that doesn’t work, she has sex with Patroclus, trying to see what Achilles sees in him, but not her. Patroclus allows this, out of pity because he is partially to blame for her dreadful situation, but also because he knows she is jealous of what he has and that his relationship with Achilles is strong enough that this won't be an issue. Deidameia is desperate to cling on to her power but ultimately fails. She was a rare case of a woman holding power, and yet she still lost it all due to factors outside of her control.

    Briseis was a peasant living on the outskirts of Troy. She was captured early on in the war during the raids. She was offered as a prize, a mistress for the generals of the army. Achilles, at Patroclus’s insistence, claimed her in order to save her from being used by the other men. She eventually was able to build a close friendship with Patroclus, helping around camp and accompanying when Achilles went off to fight. Eventually, when Achilles defies Agamemnon, he takes her forcefully and plans to rape her. Achilles, with his pride wounded and against Patroclus’s wishes, allowed this as it would give him a valid reason to attack Agamemnon and prove that the army is useless without him. Briseis lost her whole family and previous life due to the war, a war raged by men trying to get vengeance on other men. She had to live through a senseless tragedy just due to the greed of men and the need for honor and glory. Even in camp, though she was treated well by both Patroclus and Achilles, never once being used for her “intended purpose” (sexual release), she was still expected and relegated to do tasks that would be seen as traditionally done by women. She would help cook and help Patroclus gather items such as herbs that could be used for healing. Furthermore, she would eventually take on a motherly role towards other captives that Achilles claimed and Patroclus took in, helping them get settled in and teaching them Greek. Briseis’s whole life was turned upside down because of the war, and despite eventually finding a sense of normalcy and safety during the war, it becomes obviously how easily this illusion could be shattered just due to her gender.

    Besides the fact that this book takes place in a time and place where society was obviously male-dominated, this book doesn’t have a fully reliable narrator. Telling the story from Patroclus’s point of view leaves out a lot of the nuance and detail in regards to the women in the novel. His perspective is skewed because despite being weaker than normal, he is still a man. He isn’t able to fully or accurately comprehend and convey the women’s emotions and circumstances, which downplays their struggles in the book. 

 

Vincent Chen, Period 7, 3/12/2024

Vincent Chen Period 7 3/11/2024 Modern Mythology 2024

Socio-political Consciousness

Democracy. Demos, or the people, and kratos, meaning power. Put together, it means the government of the people, or democracy. But is it really? Over the past few years, we were shown again and again that our voices did not reach our governments. The Roe v Wade overturn, the increase in shootings, or recently, how a lump of cells are counted as life in Alabama. We tend to just chalk it up to be the faults of government officials, and continue complaining. But where does the problem really lie? In the corrupt and increasingly unfit to govern politicians, or is it elsewhere? 

Why are there really only two parties in congress? Why is it that every election always comes down to the two parties, and there have never been an independent president since George Washington? Can we truly pin all the fault on the corruption of the electoral process, or perhaps do we have to take part of the blame somehow?

The median age of members of the 118th senate is 65.3 years old, the average being 64 years old. The older generations, consisting of boomers and the silent generation constitutes 54% or the majority of Congress. The oldest member is 87, and still serving. While age could be an asset, as it comes with experience, I believe that in this rapidly modernizing and revolutionizing world of ours, we need to have representatives with the insight ad knowledge necessary to understand and lead our country through this ever-changing landscape of world diplomacy, economics, and domestic affairs. Take the recent congressional hearing regarding Tik Tok and social media. Without fully understanding how filters work, or how wifi connects a device, (evidence being the Texas congressman exposing himself that his For You page was filled with underage girls dancing “provaccatively”, and not understanding how an algorithm works) I do not believe that decisions should be made rashly regarding their usage. 

In light of the upcoming presidential election of 2024, we again seemed to have limited ourselves to only two “realistic” candidates, one being from the democratic party, and the other from the republican party, again. We seem to be blind to the fact that there are more candidates, other than just the Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden. No, we chose to be blind to the fact that there are more than two viable options. An interesting conversation I had recently, when I had voiced my opinion on potentially voting for a third party candidate as my very first election, I was met with a response, “you are just going to throw your vote away”. Perhaps this mindset is what really contributes to millions of votes being “thrown away” every year, the mindset that independent third parties are never going to win. If we all agree to vote a third party candidate, then perhaps we will have a viable third party in our country. 

Now going back to my previous questions, whose fault is it really that we have representatives that perhaps do not have the full mental capacity or knowledge needed to make informed desicions? Sure we can blame it on the redrawing of district lines in electoral votes, or the numerous shenanigans and corrupt tatics that allow politicians to win a seat, but I believe that we ourselves have a huge part in this as well. In a study done by Harvard’s Institute of Politics, the number of americans aged between 18-29 who declared that they will “definitely vote” in the upcoming presidential elections has decreased from 57% to 49%. Why? Is it because in light of the recent developments and increasing exposure of the tactics used by politicians to unjustly claim power, or because that they feel that their voices were useless, and they were powerless in the decisions of their government? If that is the case, then it is all the more reason in voting.

We, as the younger generation need to increase our voter turnout, as it is up to us to change the world that we live in. While many of us may doubt our power in government, or may think that our futile efforts wold amount to nothing, it is essentially these doubts and feelings of futility that creates reality. In psychology, it is know as the self-fulfilling prophecy effect, what we believe in, we will unconsciously act towards that, making it a reality. So to change that, I urge that all of us to go out and vote. We can change our world! No matter how futile you believe that your singular vote is, know that there is power in numbers. One cannot change the world alone, but only one is needed to ignite the spark that will set the world alight. 

Don’t believe it? Well, history has shown time and time again that only one is needed to ignite the spark that changes the world. From the civil rights movement’s Martin Luther King Jr, to the one intellectual that stood up to the US government and called for ceasefire in Vietnam, time and time again, their valiant efforts allowed for positive change on our country. 

But does this mean that I am encouraging you to go out and immediately vote for the third party candidate? No. As always, do your research before voting. Follow your own beliefs, and no one elses. If you believe that your goals and vision align with the republican candidate, then go for it. If it aligns with the democratic then vote democratic party. What I am saying is that do not be confined and narrow your choices to only two, there are more, and do not harbor the mindset that your vote does not matter. It matters, and it could be the vote that changes the trajectory the country is going. The power lies in the people, us. It always has, it is now time to wield that power for democracy. 

Demos, or the people, and kratos, meaning power. The power of the people. It is time to vote, and change the world.