Final Exam Paper: Introducing the World (due by Friday, May 5th)

Hum 2323

Final Exam Paper: Introducing the World

Knowing what cannot be known—

    what a lofty aim!

Not knowing what needs to be known—

    what a terrible result! (Tao te Ching, Verse 71)

For your Final Exam assignment, I want you to write an ‘introduction’ to the class for the next students who plan to sign up for the course. Remember what swam through your head when you enrolled in this course last fall: what did “global literature” mean to you? Was it a class you sort-of looked forward to, or did you dread it? Or both at once? Now that you’ve completed the course, I want you to reflect upon what you’ve learned this semester about Global Literature: what were the main themes and ideas of the course; what books and characters were you introduced to; what will you most take away from our Global Literature survey? (in other words, what might you actually remember in 5 weeks?)

REMEMBER, you’re writing this to someone who knows nothing about the books in class, so don’t assume you’re writing to me. Introduce some of the key ideas and books to students who have yet to experience them, and might be very skeptical that any of this is information worth learning. You DO NOT have to talk about every book or every idea we encountered, but try to AT LEAST QUOTE FROM TWO BOOKS to illustrate some key concepts or ideas you took away from the course.  Don’t worry about evaluating the course or saying whether or not it was bad or good; instead, just focus on the material and help a potential student understand what they’re going to encounter intellectually, and what might help them keep an open mind when confronted with such diverse and wide-ranging material.

Since this is a Final Exam, you need to write more than one paragraph. There’s no page limit, but try to really be useful to a fellow student by exploring, even briefly, the material in question. The more vague your response, the less you’re going to show them about the realities of taking Global Literature (and the less credit I can give you). This is worth 15 pts (out of 100) so it should help your grade rather than hurt it, as long as you can show me something of what you learned his semester.

The paper is due NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, MAY 5^th by 5pm! No late papers will be accepted since I have to start grading immediately!

For Wednesday: Persepolis, pp. 155-245 (the Vienna chapters)

Read from the chapter entitled "The Soup" through the last chapter in Vienna, "The Veil." It looks like a lot, but these chapters go quickly and are very interesting--there are some very funny and racy scenes ahead, so beware! :) 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: In Iran, Marjane tried to be ‘punk’ and threw herself into American culture and music. How does she try to redefine herself in Austria, and why? Becoming punk almost got her killed in Iran…is this identity just as dangerous to her health?

Q2: What does Marjane find most strange or upsetting about Austrian society? Why is life in the 'free world' less emancipating than she expected? And related to this, how does she use her perspective as an Iranian to critique the Western world?

Q3: What is the difference between revolutionaries in Iran and Austria? Why are the so-called Communists and anarchists in Europe not quite what she expected?

Q4: How might these chapters shine a light on the difficulty of the immigrant experience? Many people here assume they are leeches trying to steal opportunities from American citizens? But how does it look from the other side? 

For Monday: Satrapi, Persepolis, pp.88-153

Read from the chapter "The F-14's" to "The Dowry." This is the end of Part 1 of the book; Part 2 begins her new life in Austria.

Answer two of the following:

Q1: What is the significance of the "key" during the war, and why doesn't Marjane or any of her friends receive one? How does this reveal the despite the change of regime, some things remain exactly the same?

Q2: Despite the extreme circumstances and the completely different culture, why is being a teenager pretty much the same in 1980's Iran as in modern day America? What things did you personally recognize in Marjane's teenage rebellion, and why do you think a girl who faces death for disobedience would still want to be "punk"?

Q3: Why do Marjane's parents send her away to Vienna instead of having the entire family emigrate their together? And why did she have to go now, rather than earlier or much later? What did her parents fear another year or two might bring? 

Q4: Discuss a brief scene in these chapters where the pictures are vitally important: in other words, a scene where a novel couldn't quite do justice to the story. Why is it important to see, and not just hear, about this event? 

For Wednesday: Satrapi, Persepolis, Pages 3-79

In case you have a different version, read from Chapter "The Veil" through "The Trip." 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: In her Introduction to the book, Satrapi writes that “I believe that an entire nation should not be judged by the wrongdoings of a few extremists.  I also don’t want those Iranians who lost their lives in prisons defending freedom…or who were forced to leave their families and flee their homeland to be forgotten.”  How does a comic book/graphic novel help her do this—that is, memorialize those who are forgotten in place of the more visible extremists? 

Q2: Why do you think Satrapi tells her story from the perspective of a child?  Since a child knows very little about politics, religion, or war, this would seem a very limited perspective to discuss history and extremist governments.  What does it allow her to do, say, or reveal that an adult narrator might not? 

Q3: How does Satrapi try to communicate the more ‘non-Western’ elements of Iran through the novel?  In general, why might this novel—though written in French and published in Paris—be a work similar to The Mystic Masseur?

Q4: In the comic, Satrapi remarks that "it was funny to see how much Marx and God looked like each other" (13). Why was Marjane brought up to revere writers/thinkers such as Marx, when we're often taught to despise them in the West? Why might she see Marx as, like God, merciful and omnipotent? 

Scissortail Creative Writing Festival Extra Credit

Starting on Thursday, ECU hosts the Scissortail Creative Writing festival, which features dozens of writers from all around the country who come to Ada to read their works. Each session is about an hour long, and will feature anywhere from 2 to 4 writers, each one reading for about 15-20 minutes. There are also 3 special sessions on Thursday and Friday night, as well as Saturday afternoon: these are our ‘featured’ writers, who get an entire hour to read from some of their latest works. You can find the entire schedule at: ecuscissortail.blogspot.com

If you answer these questions (and do a good, honest job) I will reset your absences to the limit (of 4), and/or give you credit for a few missed responses (in case you've missed too many of them). In other words, this assignment could help fill some deficiencies in the class. But if you don't have either problem, I'll simply give you some extra credit points on your final grade, which could help knock you over if you have a border-line grade. 

PROMPT: I want you to attend AT LEAST ONE session at the festival and write about it following the template below. We won't have class on Friday, so that will hopefully give you a little freedom to attend one of the Friday sessions. Or you can attend more than one and decide which one you want to review--or combine them all into one big session in your questions. 

Answer ALL FOUR QUESTIONS for the session you attend, and give some thought/detail to your answers. You won’t get full credit if you give a one-sentence response or it sounds like you didn’t actually attend the session. Just give your honest response and explain why you felt/answered this way.

Q1: Which of the authors interested you the most and why? Was it a specific poem or story? The way they read and presented their work? Did it remind you of something else?

Q2: Did you feel the writers in this session worked well together? Were they all very similar, or were they all very different? Why do you think they were chosen to read together? How did one reader help you appreciate another one? Did they build up to a climax? Or was the first one the best?

Q3: What makes hearing a writer read their works a different experience than simply reading them yourself? Which writer was particularly effective at doing this? Do you think hearing it helped you appreciate or understand a work that you might not have otherwise? Or would it have been easier simply to read it? What is the biggest advantage (or maybe, the biggest disadvantage) to hearing a work read aloud?

Q4: In general, how did the audience react to these authors/works? Did certain works get more response than others--and if so, why do you think so? Did people laugh? Were they completely silent? Did they applaud? Make appreciative noises? Did people seem to 'get' these writers, or did some leave them scratching their heads? How could you tell? 

The questions are due NEXT MONDAY, April 10th by 5pm. 

For Monday: Naipaul, The Mystic Masseur, Chapters 9-11

NOTE: Try to finish the book or get as close as you can for Monday's class. We'll have a Book Exam over the novel on Wednesday, so at least finish for then (and bring your book to class). 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: How does Naipaul satirize democratic elections in a ‘brand new’ postcolonial nation like Trinidad?  How does the system not work—and how is the very idea of democracy often misunderstood by Ganesh and others? 

Q2: Once the American soldiers arrive in Trinidad, America begins to have a much more profound influence on Trinidadian life than Britain.  Where do we see the “American” influence in its day-to-day life?  How does Ganesh himself try to institute “American” popular culture? 

Q3: Once Ganesh enters politics he emulates the reforms and ideals of Gandhi, who liberated India from British control.  But is his mimicking sincere or somewhat hypocritical?  Gandhi followed the teachings of the Gita as his polestar: does Ganesh? In general, what kind of political leader does he make?

Q4: How do you understand the end of the book, when the Narrator, now a grown man, encounters Ganesh in London?  Why does he change his name to “G.Ramsay Muir”?  How does he respond to the Narrator’s advances? 

Paper #2 Assignment: Colonial English, due Friday, April 14th!

Paper #2: Colonial English

INTRO: V.S. Naipaul notes that for Ganesh, “It was a strain for him to talk correctly, and the woman noted, with obvious satisfaction, that he was moving his lips silently before every sentence, as though he were mumbling a prayer” (114). He only becomes aware of his ‘colonial’ English when he has to play the role of a proper guru, one that sounds learned, as if he had read thousands upon thousands of books. However, even though he has heard this English before, and probably learned it in school, it isn’t natural to him. The language that he grew up speaking was different, both in sound and in syntax, and merely adopting another English isn’t quite as easy as it seems—as this passage proves.

PROMPT: I want you to write a paper about your own personal ‘English.’ This isn’t something most of us think a lot about, at least not until it’s brought to our attention by someone who speaks differently—or thinks we do! Discuss how you became aware of your own unique dialect of English, and what it means for you to speak this way. Do you take pride in it? Are you ever embarrassed by it? Whom do you identify with because of it? What groups or people welcome you simply because of your language, and which ones might not? What words and phrases are unique to your culture/area, and might not be used or understood by others? You might also think how you picked it up, and especially if you moved around as a child, which ones you were exposed to, and which ones you kept.

REQUIREMENTS: While writing your own personal history with ‘English,’ I want you to find someone out in the world who you identify with because of their language. It should be someone we might know or could see in the media, etc., so that we could hear them, too. Explain why you recognize their English and how it makes you feel you share the same culture. What do they do that you recognize and you do yourself? And do you want to emulate them even more—speak like them, pronounce words this way, etc? Or is it something you want to get away from, and they merely remind you of your secret linguistic ‘shame’?

ALSO: You must quote some passage from The Mystic Masseur to support your ideas and discussion about language and culture. Be sure to explain where the passage comes from, what’s going on, and what the passage means. Just throwing in a quote without context that doesn’t make sense probably won’t be very convincing.

NO PAGE LIMIT—that’s up to you. Be creative and think about how language reflects who you are, how others see you, who you were taught to be, and maybe, who you strive to be.

DUE FRIDAY, APRIL 14^th BY 5pm

For Wednesday: Naipaul, The Mystic Masseur, Chapters 6-8

NOTE: Since a lot of people clearly are behind in the reading, we'll double-back and discuss Chapter 6 again, and only add two more chapters to the reading. Again, if you can't get exactly to Chapter 8 it's no big deal, but get there as soon as you can! 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Throughout the book, Ganesh claims that fate is working through him, and that like the Tao, he is simply following the 'flow' of its will. As he writes at the beginning of Chapter 7, "Everything happens for the best. If, for instance, my first volume had been a success, it is likely that I would have become a mere theologian...As it was, I found my true path" (101). Does this book have a spiritual element where hidden forces (like the Tao, karma) are working towards Ganesh's success and enlightenment? Or is this another instance of Naipaul's satire? How seriously should we take Ganesh, after all?

Q2: Why does 101 Questions and Answers on the Hindu Religion become "the first best seller in the history of Trinidad publishing"? What makes the public's indifference turn to eagerness and adulation? What might this say about the nature of "best sellers" in any country, at least according to Naipaul?

Q3: How does Ganesh cure the young boy, Hector, from his ailment? Is this scene an instance of high comedy in the novel, or is it supposed to be more profound and spiritual? Is this why people start thinking "that Ganesh was the only true mystic in the island” (128). Is he just better at fooling the locals than the competition? Or does this scene show us the master at work? 

Q4: Where else in these chapters does the author seem to be skirting the line between ridicule and satire? Remember satire uses humor to show us the problems with society, and to point out possible solutions. Ridicule, however, is simply used to mock people and ideas. Are there any passages that make you question his intentions, or that you find offensive? You might also consider the use of a certain work that is taboo in 21st century America, but he uses very casually in a few passages. 

For Monday: Naipaul, The Mystic Masseur, Chapters 4-6

Read as much of the next three chapters as possible, but don't worry if you don't quite finish Chapter 6. We'll spend the entire week finishing the book, so you'll have plenty of time before the Reading Exam the week after next.

Answer two of the following…

Q1: As the hero of our tale, Ganesh undertakes the most heroic task of all: to become a writer of books. What obstacles does Ganesh face on his path? Why is writing a book all that more difficult in a postcolonial country than, say, in England or America (where it's hard enough!)? 

Q2: In Chapter Four, Naipaul writes, “It was their first beating, a formal affair done without anger on Ganesh’s part or resentment on Leela’s; and although it formed part of the marriage ceremony itself, it meant much to both of them. It meant that they had grown up and become independent.” What do you make of this scene and others like it? Is this simply part of the "Indian” culture of Trinidad...or does this result from the conflict of East and West on the island?

Q3: Defending his book to Beharry, Ganesh exclaims, “Is a damn good book, you hear.”  Why does Ganesh so overestimate the quality and importance of his book?  What do we see (thanks to the narrator) that he is blind to?  How might this reflect the colonial limitations of this world as Naipaul sees them? 

Q4: In Jamaica Kincaid’s A Small Place (a non-fiction work about the Caribbean island of Antigua), she writes that “people in a small place cannot give an exact account, a complete account of events…The people in a small place can have no interest in the exact, or in completeness, for that would demand a careful weighing, careful consideration, careful judging, careful questioning.” Why are the people of Trinidad so unwilling to judge and question their world? Is Ganesh the exception to this—or is he just as “small” as the rest of them? 

For Friday: Naipaul, The Mystic Masseur, Chapters 1-3

 

NOTE: A “masseur” is a term denoting something between a sage, a mystic, a spiritual healer, and a prophet.  Part of the comedy of this work is how Ganesh enters into this profession, and whether or not V.S. Naipaul feels there is anything heroic in his career: can a man with the wrong intentions come out right?

Answer TWO of the following…

Q1: What role do books and knowledge (esp. English/European knowledge) play in Trinidadian society?  How might this play into the conflict between East and West that we’ve seen in previous works?  Consider Ramlogan’s comment, “This reading, sahib, is a great great thing” (34). 

Q2: In Chapter One, Naipaul writes that “I myself believe that the history of Ganesh is, in a way, the history of our times” (18). In what way might Ganesh’s early career mirror the struggle of many citizens in the postcolonial world? Why is it difficult for Ganesh to find himself and establish a career and a life for himself?

Q3: When this novel was written, Trinidad had only recently gained its independence from Britain (in 1962). Yet how is Trinidad still very “British” in its ways and ideas, and how it this often comically portrayed by Naipaul? You might also consider why the society clings to these colonial ideas instead of replacing them with more native laws and ideas.

Q4: Naipaul writes much of this work in dialect, capturing the natural speech of the island and the Indian communities of Trinidad. Why might this be important for a book with such a non-English of view? Recall an earlier class where we discussed the great literary debate of postcolonial societies: which language to write in? How does Naipaul have his cake and eat it, too, in this case? 

For Wednesday: Last Two Akutagawa Stories: "The Story of a Head That Fell Off," and "Horse Legs"

Here are your LAST TWO stories before Spring Break! Please read both of these short, but strange stories, and answer two of the questions below for Wednesday's class:  

Q1: In “Horse Legs,” when Hanzaburo abandons his wife and runs off into the wild, a newspaper article comes out condemning the government for “having neglected our urgent need for a law prohibiting insanity” (141). Why does this article seem to think going mad is a choice, rather than an affliction? And what does he seem to think it allows normal, working class men to get away with?

Q2: What do you think Major Kimura means in “The story of a Head That Fell Off,” when he says, “It is important—even necessary—for us to become acutely aware of the fact that we can’t trust ourselves” (119)? Is this the true moral of the story? Or yet another unreliable narrator imposing his view on the reader?

Q3: Despite the level of satire, “Horse Legs” is also a kind of modern-day fable or fairy-tale. What might be the metaphorical significance of a normal man, in a normal job, who suddenly dies and returns to life with horse legs? How might this represent something ‘real’ in our own world? Do people sometimes wake up with ‘horse legs’? (not literally, but symbolically???)

Q4: When the Chinese soldier, Xiao-er, looks back on his life on the moment of death, “he recognized all too well the ugliness that had filled it” (116). What ugliness do you think he (and Akutagawa) is referring to, and how might this connect with previous stories we’ve discussed?

For Monday: Akutagawa, 3 stories: "Dr. Ogata Ryosai," "O-Gin" & "Loyalty"

Instead of giving you another set of questions (really!) I'm going to let you simply read these three stories and we'll do a brief in-class response on Monday. But as you read, here are some ideas to think about to help you:

SOME CONTEXT: These stories both take place closer in time to the present, and showcase a time when Japan is coming into contact with foreign ideas--in this case, Christianity. "Dr. Ogata Ryosai" is a Buddhist doctor who is very suspicious of the new Christian converts in his village (he doesn't understand them, or their customs, which is why he calls the crucifix a "kurusu" and Christians "Kirishitan"). 

In the story, "O-Gin," the narrator is the opposite of the doctor, a Japanese-Christian convert who sympathizes with his fellow Christians, O-Gin and her family. 

In "Loyalty," however, we're back in a medieval Japanese world, with its strict politics and social obligations. 

* Consider how each story dramatizes the struggle between duty and desire, or love and caste. Why do so many of the characters seem to go against their duty and choose love? Is this a 'selfish' attachment?

* What makes the narrators of the first two stories unreliable? Why can't we trust Dr. Ogata Ryosai or the narrator of O-Gin? What makes their views and storytelling a bit too limited?

* Why do the servants respond so differently to the demands of the master of their House in "Loyalty"? Does the story suggest which one is right? What are the implications for each one's decision?

* In these stories, what makes Japanese culture such a difficult society to navigate? Why is it so hard to follow the rules?

* Even though these stories are about Buddhists and Christians, how might the Bhagavad Gita weigh into their conflicts of duty/dharma and love/attachments?  

For Friday: Akutagawa, "Hell Screen"

Only ONE story for Friday, but it's a doozy: the 'horror' story, "Hell Screen," which is equally weird and disturbing. But I think you'll see many of the same themes from "Rashomon" in this story, too.

Answer two of the following:

Q1: "Hell Screen" is a horror story in the vein of Edgar Allen Poe or even Steven King, and is certainly like many of the horror movies we watch today. It's also based on a very old Japanese folk-story that Akutagawa re-told and transformed through his own imagination. In general, why are we drawn to stories of murder, monsters, and hellish torments? What makes them so popular, and why might Akutagawa be tapping in to these very qualities in this story? 

Q2: The painter, Yoshihide, claims that he can only paint what he has personally observed with his own eyes—and nothing else. This often leads him to observe rather gruesome spectacles, such as rotting corpses and chained prisoners (and at the end of the story, something even worse). Responding to criticisms of this practice, he responds, “Other painters are such mediocrities, they cannot appreciate the beauty of ugliness” (48). Does this strike you as a very Tao-like sentiment, that true beauty is also to be found in ugliness? Or is this a misinterpretation of the Tao te Ching?

Q3: Why is it significant that both the painter and the monkey share the same name: Yoshihide? While many claim that each one looks like the other, even the daughter protects the monkey because "I can't just stand by and watch my father being punished." Besides this grotesque comparison, what else does Akutagawa make with this curious reflection? 

Q4: Each of these stories is told by a Narrator, who, like the characters from “In a Bamboo Grove” doesn’t have complete knowledge of the story. For most of them, this is a story they have only heard second-hand, that happened long ago, and might never have happened at all. How does the storyteller in one of these stories color the narrative and influence what we see and how we read it? How might we also read it against their interpretation?  

For Wednesday: Akutagawa, Stories: “Rashomon,” “In a Bamboo Grove,” and “The Nose”

Answer two of the following for Wednesday’s class:

Q1: “Rashomon” is the basis for the frame story in Kurosawa’s film, but he changed it significantly by adding two characters from “In a Bamboo Grove,” and removing the old woman. However, what aspect of the story remains the same and helps us see his overall theme in the film? In other words, why might this story have given him the idea for the entire movie?

Q2: Why do you think both “Rashomon” and “The Nose” focus so much on grotesque facial features—a pus-filled pimple and a dangling nose? What do they tempt the world to see/feel about such people that we associate them with a physical imperfection? And why do they make a convenient literary device?

Q3: On page 13, Tajomaru says to the judges, “When I kill a man, I do it with my sword, but people like you don’t use swords. You gentlemen kill with your power, with your money, and sometimes just with your words: you tell people you’re doing them a favor.” Why might this comment say a lot about how we read the morality of this story: who else ‘kills’ people with words?

Q4: Though the character of Zenchi Naigu in “The Nose” is a Buddhist priest, how might we read his character through the lessons of The Bhagavad Gita? Why might this entire story almost be a cautionary tale included in the Gita itself? What is his ‘sin’ or crime in this story?

For This Week: Kurosawa's Rashomon (1950)

Remember we're going to finish Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon for Wednedsay's class, and then we'll discuss it on Friday. The questions that are due on Friday (not Wednesday) are below. Don't forget the Paper #1 assignment which is due on Monday (no class that day)! The post below this one has that assignment in case you misplaced it. 

Answer TWO of the following for Friday's class:

Q1: Why does the film include a 'frame' story with the characters huddling under the city gates (the "Rashomon" is a great gate in the city of Kyoto), telling us about the story of the samurai, his wife, and the thief? Why not simply have those characters tell their story themselves? What does bouncing back and forth from one layer to the other allows us to see or think about?

Q2: The story of the murder is told from several different narrators: the witness (who tells his story twice), the priest, the thief, the wife, and the samurai (who is dead and tells is through a medium). Though the essential story is the same, what aspect changes the most from story to story? Why do you think this is?

Q3: Related to Q2, is there someone's story we're meant to believe more than the others? Is someone more reliable or trustworthy? Or does someone have less to lose than the others? Consider that they each tell things about themselves that are unfavorable, and few of them come off looking good in any version.

Q4: One of three men hiding under the Rashomon tells the others, "unless you're selfish, you can't survive." Do you think that's the true moral of the story: that in the end, you have to look out for yourself? Does that explain the actions of most of the characters in the film? 

Q5: One extra question to consider: why might this story be more effective in black and white than in color? In other words, why might a modern-day version of Rashomon lose something in the translation? What makes the old-fashioned style of the 1950's ideal for telling this type of story? 

Creative Paper #1 due February 27

REMEMBER: Reading Exam #2 is scheduled for today (Friday). If you miss class it's your responsibility to reschedule it next week. You must take it next week to get credit for it (you can't take it 2-3 weeks later, for example).

Below is the Creative Paper #1, which is basically like your mid-term assignment for the class. Start thinking about it, since you still have over a week before it's due. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. 

Creative Paper #1: Seeing the Way

INTRO: For your first paper, I want you to think about how we describe or discuss something that really transcends language, and that we almost have to see, or experience, to truly understand. The Tao te Ching and The Bhagavad Gita are so many things—both everything and nothing—which is too vast for our limited minds to contemplate. But like poetry itself, a metaphor can bridge the gap between the seen and unseen, the known and unknown. So what VISUAL metaphor could help us ‘see’ some of the meanings and ideas in either book, and lead us close to ‘meditation’ from ‘practice’?

PROMPT: I want you to find a work of ART somewhere out in the world that you think provides a useful metaphor for seeing or discussing a pair of passages from the Tao te Ching and The Bhagavad Gita. By “work of art” I mean one of the following:

• A painting (famous or not)
• A drawing or illustration (famous or not)
• A poster or album cover
• Comic book illustration (a cover or an individual frame)
• A photograph
• A sculpture
• A building/structure

In other words, the work of art should be something we can see and contemplate/interpret. For your paper, I want you to do two things: (a) introduce the work in question by describing it and helping us ‘see’ it without the use of an image, and (b) use it to ‘read’ or interpret two related passages (one passage from each book). Don’t choose two random passages: make sure each passage seems to express similar ideas or concepts. Be specific, and use the artwork as a visual metaphor; try to imagine that the work of art is literally based on the poems. What would it show us? What would it explain? What would it clarify?

REQUIREMENTS

• This should be about 3 pages long double spaced, but you can do more (that’s a minimum).
• You must describe the work of art to someone who has never seen it, and feel free to tell us why it moves you, or interests you—but make sure we can ‘see’ it (don’t rely on a picture, and you don’t have to include an image).
• You must quote from the poem and show us how individual lines can be seen in the work of art itself.
• As you write, try to go beyond practice and really concentrate, meditate, and even surrender. In other words, communicate and think—don’t just write for a grade.  
• DUE  MONDAY, FEBUARY 27 by 5pm (no class that day) 

Revised Schedule

NOTE: The questions for Wednesday's class are in the post BELOW this one.

Below is the revised schedule from this week until Spring Break. Because of all the snow/ice days, we keep getting slightly off track. I've only changed a few dates, and pushed back your paper assignment by one class day (now on Monday, the 27th instead of Friday, the 24th). After Spring Break, the schedule will resume normally as outlined on the syllabus. 

REVISED SCHEDULE 

M 13                The Bhagavad Gita, Parts 11-14

W 15               The Bhagavad Gita, 15-18

F 17                Reading Exam #2 

 

M 20               Film: TBA

W 22               Film Continued 

F 24                Film Discussion/In-Class Writing 

M 27                Creative Paper #1 due [no class] 

MARCH 

W 1                 Akutagawa, Stories TBA

 

MARCH

F 3                   Akutagawa, Stories TBA

 

M 6                  Akutagawa, Stories TBA

W 8                  Akutagawa, Stories TBA

F 10                 Reading Exam #3 

 

13-17                Spring Break

For Wednesday: Finish the Bhagavad Gita! (sorry--for some reason this didn't post; you can have extra time to respond)

This is our final reading and questions for The Bhagavad Gita, so read these passages with an eye towards the Reading Exam on Friday. It will be similar to the last one, but not obviously the same questions about people needing advice. But the same basic format. Answering these questions will help you think on your feet with these exam, since the more you write about these works, the easier it is to "meditate" or "surrender" to them later. 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: What do you make of the curious contradictions that seem to creep into the work, especially around Part 16? Though Krishna says that through love all men will be saved, and even the worst sinners can be saved through a single act of selflessness, here it also says that "[sinful men] come not to me, Arjuna; but they go down the path of hell" (75). What do you think he means by "hell" (since that's an English word) and do you read this as a contradiction? 

Q2: In Book 18, Krishna says that "if one merely sees the diversity of things, with their divisions and limitations, then one has impure knowledge" (81). What do you think he means by the "diversity of things"? What might this say about modern society, which values diversity, choice, and endless combinations? 

Q3: One of the more controversial passages for the modern reader is also in Book 18, where it explains the roles/duties of the various castes. The Western world typically reads these as social hierarchies that bestow status and rewards on the 'upper castes'. But is this how the Gita explains them? Is one caste inherently better than another, despite the nature of the work? 

Q4: Krishna calls all life "puppets in a play of shadows" (85). Why might this be a fitting title for the entire work? And how might this phrase work almost equally well for the Tao te Ching, too? 

For Monday: The Bhagavad GIta, Parts 11-14 (in-class response on Monday)

Remember, no questions for Monday's class, since we're going to have an in-class response instead. Here are some ideas you might consider as you read, however, at least ONE of which will make an appearance in class (hint, hint):

* Arjuna asks to see Krishna in his god form, so he can truly believe/understand. In general, why are we not allowed to glimpse the divine directly? Does Arjuna agree with the censorship of the divine form?

* Many people simply can't devote their entire life to meditation and/or concentration on the divine. So how do we do good works? Is Yoga the only way? What if one is too sick or poor to do it properly?

* Krishna tells Arjuna that “concentration is better than mere practice, and meditation is better than concentration; but higher than meditation is surrender in love of the fruit of one’s actions, for on surrender follows peace” (60). What did you make of these 4 steps to enlightenment? While all of them are 'good,' why is meditation better than concentration, and concentration better than practice? 

* If you followed the Tao te Ching as closely as possible, and really practiced its teachings, do you think you would reach Brahman? Is the Tao basically "Yoga"? 

* In part 13, it says that someone must be free of the selfish attachment even to one's children and family. Do you think this means that everyone must be ultimately without any kind of emotional attachments? Will loving your children excessively lead you away from Brahman?

* What do you think Krishna means when he says, "when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting others: then he goes indeed to the highest Path" (64)? Is Krishna is Visnhu, one of the supreme gods, how can Arjuna also be God? Or Me? Or You?

For Friday: The Bhagavad Gita, Parts 6-10

 

Answer TWO of the following for Friday's class...

Q1: In Part 7, Krishna says that “Among thousands of men perhaps one strives for perfection; and among thousands of those who strive perhaps one knows me in truth” (36). If we replaced “perfection” with “Tao,” how might this make more sense (and relate to a similar idea in the Tao te Ching)?

Q2: Krishna is very critical of those who merely follow the laws (Vedas) or who worship expecting an eternal paradise at the end. Strangely, he seems more tolerant of people of others faiths, or even of people with little faith at all, but who exhibit a “pure heart.” Why would someone ignorant of the laws often have a better chance at salvation than those who know and study them religiously, according to the text?

Q3: These chapters talk a little more explicitly about concepts that we’ve embraced here in the West, such as Karma and Yoga. Which of these concepts changes the most for you in the reading? Why have we slightly (or completely) misunderstood the concept based on how it’s used in the Gita?

Q4: In many religions, the world is seen as a constant struggle between the forces of light and darkness, good and evil. While this does play a role in The Bhagavad Gita, why is the idea of good vs. evil not entirely correct, according to Krishna? Why is this, too, a mark of delusion which leads men to suffering?