For Monday: The Last Lais: Laustic, Milun, Chaitivel, Chevrefoil, Eliduc

Final questions! Just answer ONE for Monday (I'll give you a break...); but think about them all as you read. 

Q1: In “Laüstic,” the narrator remarks that “she loved him above all things, both for the good she had heard about him and because he lived close by” (94). In these stories, how can we argue that love is still an arrangement based on proximity and availability? Do women truly get to choose from anyone, or from the best ones? Or just the best ones in their immediate eyesight?

Q2: Discuss how one of these stories might be consciously addressing the so-called “mythology of love” we discussed on Friday. In other words, how is the story trying to symbolically give lessons about love (right and wrong behavior, ideas, values) through the metaphorical events of the story? How can we read a specific character or element of the plot allegorically?

Q3: In the story “Chaitivel,” we are told that “It would be less dangerous for a man to court every lady in an entire land than for a lady to remove a single besotted lover from her skirts, for he will immediately attempt to strike back” (105). Is this chivalry? And if so, is love always couched with a hidden threat? Is romance just another word for rape?

Q4: In the brief tale, “Chevrefoil,” about the fabled lovers Tristan and the queen, Iseult, we are told that “the two of them resembled the honeysuckle which clings to the hazel branch: when it has wound itself around and attached itself to the hazel, the two can survive together: but if anyone should then attempt to separate them, the hazel quickly does, as does the honeysuckle” (110). While this is a poetic metaphor, why might it also be a trouble one to describe “pure” love? What might be a darker interpretation of this legend which we see in other stories?

For Wednesday: Marie de France, Lais (see below)

For Wednesday, read the next four stories: Bisclavret, Lanval, Les Deus Amanz, and Yonec. Then answer two of the following:

Q1: Behind many of the chivalric romances are earlier, pagan stories of magic and witchcraft--notably in Bisclavret and Yonec. How sympathetic is the narrator (or Marie herself?) to these throwbacks to earlier times and cultures? Are they used as a contrast to the more "cultured" people in the stories? Or do they provide a more "pure" or "natural" road to Love? 

Q2: Many of the lovers die or are punished in these stories, notably the wife in Bisclavret, and both lovers (eventually) in Les Deus Amanz and Yonec. Are these stories critical or satirical of the ideals of chivalric love? Or do the deaths make the forbidden love more meaningful and sacrificial? 

Q3: Many Christian writers were at pains to marry their faith to the pagan glories of old, as in Beowulf and The Saga of the Volsungs. Marie de France is often in the same boat, as in "Yonec," when the wife warns her bird-lover that "she would make him her lover, provided he believed in God, which would make their love possible" (88). Do the stories offer a logical way to reconcile the two religions? Or is it a case of "taking the best of both worlds"? 

Q4: Given that the author is a woman, how are the female protagonists depicted in the stories? Is Marie de France more sympathetic to women? Does she offer them more range and characterization? Or is she merely transcribing the stories as she found them, with little attempt to make them more "feminine"? Could a man have written these stories just as well?  

For Monday: Marie de France, Lais: Prologue, “Guigemar,” “Equitan,” “Le Fresne”

Answer two of the following:

Q1: In “Equitan,” the two chivalric lovers are punished in the end of the tale by being scalded to death in boiling hot water (a ghastly end!). Is this story tonally different than the others? Is Marie de France criticizing or satirizing the chivalric ideal? Is this story less tolerant of adultery than the others? Or is there another reason for the lovers’ unfortunate end?

Q2: In “Guigemar,” the knight suggests that “if you remain faithful to each other, the love between you will be right and proper” (49). In general, do these stories support the idea that faithful love between two lovers (by necessity, not a married couple) is morally sound and desirable? Is the narrator’s sympathy with the lovers—or is she merely recording the quaint customs of another people in another land?

Q3: How does the manner of storytelling and the development of the characters in these Lais compare to what we encountered in The Saga of the Volsungs? Do they seem to come from a similar culture/mindset? Or does Marie de France do more (or less) with her mythic material?

Q4: Since chivalric love places an emphasis of love outside of marriage, how do these stories treat marriage itself? Is marriage a necessary evil? Or just an evil to be avoided? Since most of the people reading her lais would be married, how would they seem themselves presented in the tale?

For Monday: The Saga of the Volsungs, Chs. 31-44

As usual, answer two of the following:

Q1: Chapter 31 is one of the most fascinating chapters in the book, right up there with Brynhild's argument with Gudrun. Though the lovers are reunited here, it's hardly a tearful reunion: indeed, they're both at each other's throats. How does the author give Brynhild more depth in this chapter than simply a love-struck woman or even a woman-scorned? Who seems to come out the victor in this 'duel' between lovers?

Q2: The book often invokes the idea of fate, usually saying that "no one can withstand his fate" (90). Based on its use in the story, is fate a moral/ethical force like dharma or karma? Is it the will of God (or Odin)? Or is it something else, a sinister force that is indifferent to men and women? Is there any way to change or appease one's fate? Does anyone seem to outlive it?

Q3: Since this work is written from a slightly Christian perspective, and has a knowledge of the Christian/Western world, does it ultimately make out women (and wives, especially) to be copies of the Helen of Troy trope? Do women such as Brynhild, Gudrun, and Signy destroy the brave deeds of men? Is the narrator laying too much of the blame on women...or is he allowing them to write their own story? 

Q4: Gundrun outdoes both Brynhild and Signy in her malevolent revenge against her husband, Atli (borrowing a trope made famous from the Greek myth of Medea). However, unlike the other two women, she is allowed to survive his murderous rampage, and the narrator even states that "Gudrun did not want to live after these deed" (105). Why do you think she survives everyone to become the last woman standing? 

A Few Ideas About Paper #3...

Some people have expressed difficulties with this paper assignment, and it is tricky at first. The best way to approach it is to look around you: look at your FB feed, look at news stories, look at people's shirts, or the covers of magazines...what "heroes" keep popping up? What heroes have we created in our own culture that have transcended their moment in time, or the book/movie they came from? What heroes do we know outside of their original work?

A few examples off the top of my head:
* Superheroes such as Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Wonder Woman, Captain America, Joker, etc. 
* Characters from famous books such as Harry Potter, Bilbo Baggins (or the Hobbits in general), Sherlock Holmes and Dracula (a little old, but still in the general range of 'modern'), Conan, Tarzan, Edward and Bella, etc.
* Musicians such as John Lennon, Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Johnny Cash, Hank Williams, Tupac, Bob Marley, etc. etc. 
* Characters from film/tv such as Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Princess Leia, Captain Kirk, Spock, anyone from GOT, Stranger Things, etc. etc.
* Characters from manga and anime
* Or anyone you feel has cultural significance and has outgrown their original work--think of heroes that inspire fan fiction, shirts, posters, biopics, etc.

ALSO, when comparing them to The Ramayana and Hong Gildong, you don't have to find a hero who resembles Rama or Hong Gildong exactly. Instead, look at these heroes and ask yourself, why did they become so big? What did they do or accomplish that made them assume mythic status, or simply acquire so many fans or devotees? Then consider how your hero did the same thing in a different way. Obviously your hero probably didn't string a gigantic bow or fly on the clouds, but how did they accomplish a great feat (thought impossible at one time, perhaps), or do some extraordinary performance that made everyone in awe of them?

Above all, have fun with this assignment!  Good luck and let me know if you have any questions! 

For Wednesday: The Saga of the Volsungs, Chs.15-30

Answer two of the following as usual: 

Q1: Though the Sagas are traditionally in prose, many feature extended poems throughout the narrative, often referencing mythical events and famous battles. What do you make of the long poem Byrnhild recites in Chapter 21 concerning the runes? Why did the author take such pains to include this? Do you get the sense that it's an original work or something age-old that he included in the narrative for authenticity? 

Q2: In Chapter 23, the rapid-fire narrative stops dead for an entire chapter about Sigurd's appearance, which almost never happens in the Sagas. What does the writer want us to see/understand about Sigurd that we didn't previously know? And why doesn't this happen the first time we meet him, rather than at this point in the story? 

Q3: One of the most powerful lines in the story occurs at the end of Chapter 27, when Brynhild tells Gudrun the meaning of her dream, and she responds, "The grief of knowing such things overwhelms me" (78). Why do the characters in this story often ignore their fate, or plunge heedlessly ahead, even knowing what awaits them? Is this a fatal flaw, or a cultural virtue? 

Q4: If you know Tolkein's work (The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit) how do these chapters evoke many of his scenarios and ideas? How might he have drawn inspiration from this work, particularly through many of the themes he employs throughout the work? 

For Monday: The Saga of the Volsungs, Chs.1-15

For Monday, read the first fifteen short chapters of The Saga of the Volsungs (to the chapter entitled "Regin Fashions Gram" if you have a different edition). 

Answer two of the following as usual:

Q1: The Sagas were always written in prose, as a way to capture the down-to-earth speech of the people and to impart legendary events with an air of realism. Discuss other aspects of the style of these tales which make them different from our other readings. How can you tell this isn't supposed to be "high" language (like poetry) but something more "low" and accessible?

Q2: The ethics of this work are the most exotic of all of our readings so far: Signy, for example, callously directs her brother to slay her children and even disguises herself as a sorceress in order to sleep with him. How might this complicate the definition of "heroes" and "protagonists" in this work? What seems to make the "good guys" good, if anything? Do the Volsungs follow a different code than others in the land? Or are they simply stronger/more cunning?

Q3: Though this is a strongly patriarchal world where men fight the battles and rule the kingdoms, women play a surprisingly large role in the story. How do they compare to other women we've seen, particularly in The Odyssey and The Ramayana? Are they variations of Helen of Troy, or do we see a new figure emerge in this story? 

Q4: Considering that this work was recorded by a Christian Icelandic scribe from pagan sources, why do you think he/she decided to preserve it? Did they see it as a profound work of literature? A valuable work of history and culture? Or something else? What would prompt a Christian to see something of value in this very dark and (to some) repugnant story?

Paper #3 assignment: Hero Worship

Paper #3: Hero Worship

“There really is no Western counterpart in either the Hellenic or Hebraic tradition to the influence that this originally secular story, transmitted orally through many centuries, has exerted over millions of people…The Ramayana continues to have a profound emotional and psychological resonance for Indians” (Pankaj Mishra, Introduction to Narayan’s The Ramayana)

Both The Ramayana and Hong Gildong are folk epics that have become something much more profound in their respective cultures: The Ramayana has almost become a religious text, and is often read as such, while Hong Gildong is a folk hero beloved (or at least known) by all Koreans with phrases and ideas that have passed into common speech. As such, both ‘secular’ stories have become ‘religious’ in their cultural significance and timelessness, allowing them to be re-read and re-intepreted on a variety of levels.

SO, for your Third Paper assignment, I want you to discuss a modern hero (of any sex) whose story you feel is on the verge of making the leap from the secular to the religious. What heroes do we venerate in our society, telling the stories over and over like a mantra, and arguing over the “correct version” and getting outraged when someone tells the “wrong” story? How do we see parallels between these works and one of the new myths of our 21^st century society? How could a character in a book, a movie, or even a musician in a band assume national and even religious stature?

SOURCES: Use both texts to compare to your modern myth: show how Rama, Gildong, or others act similarly or shed light on how we read and interpret this hero. Also consider if the stories told about your hero echoes any of the key events/controversies in both (or either) books. I also want you to find AT LEAST TWO sources on your modern myth: for example, if you’re writing about Harry Potter, find two articles, books, or something academic that discusses some aspect of the stories.

DUE IN TWO WEEKS: Friday, November 15^th by 5pm [no class]