As usual, answer two of the following for Friday's class:
Q1: What echoes of The Ramayana do we see in this work, despite Hong Gildong lacking its obvious mythic/religious dimension? Why might the audience that appreciates one find much to sympathize with in the other?
Q2: Hong Gildong states that "Kings, lords, generals, and ministers are not made from a special blood," which is an old Chinese saying. Is the purpose of this work to question or contradict the social order of Korean society, which like India has its own caste system based on birth and rank? Can we consider this story a myth for common people?
Q3: The Minister's wife, more or less Hong Gildon's stepmother, is conflicted by their plan to kill him, even though "it was a necessary thing to do for the sake of the family." However, she goes on to admit, "how could I be honored by my descendants when I have committed such a heinous act?" (15). From what we can glean from these opening pages, what would be the duty of a wife in this situation. Would it be acceptable (or understandable) for the family to kill him for the greater good? Or is such an act clearly murder no matter how it's justified? Would some notion of "dharma" color her decision?
Q4: Why would Hong Gildong, a frustrated but otherwise obedient young man, agree to rob a venerated Buddhist temple with the bandits? This would be like Robin Hood leading an attack on a cathedral and pillaging all of its loot and holy items! Consider, too, his comment shortly afterwards: "We may be outlaws living in a mountainside hideout, but we will not commit acts of treason by stealing the property of the common people or inflicting harm on them" (32). How does robbing a Buddhist Temple play into this statement of ethics?
No comments:
Post a Comment