The Iliad

So I just finished reading the Iliad. The reason I started reading it was to see primarily if I could, which sounds idiotic but is the truth as I am an idiotic person. At first, I was extraordinarily confused and had to jot things down I didn't understand (mostly how Homer used the terms Danaans and Achaeans synonymously when they were really the Greeks) but as I got used to the style I actually got into the story. This is probably because I've obsessed with Greek mythology since infanthood, when I was given my first copy of the D'Aulaires book of Greek myths. So overall, I really liked the book (is it even a book? should I call it an epic or something?) but thought that Achilles was an awful character.

I liked that he was horrid and unsympathetic-- that, in addition the the poetic writing, is what makes the Iliad so unique-- but I feel like you have to like your protagonist at least a little bit. Honestly, at the end I wanted Hector to win and then Zeus to kill them all. There really weren't any characters I was fond of. I am not as sympathetic to characters that are glory- seeking and obsessed with war, and I feel like any characters that aren't like this are portrayed as cowardly (i.e. Paris.) The girls are all useless, and the men you’re supposed to support are all in love with blood. You really have to go along with the war themes-- which I did-- for it to work.

Now, my first major problem with Achilles is his pride. I get that he's a super powered warrior with connections to the Gods-- but honestly? He's angry perfectly righteously because the king has literally stolen his girlfriend (but might I mention that Achilles stole her from her home in the first place) so he makes his soft, irritating and servile mother ask Zeus to make the opposite side in their war win as revenge. To spite the king Agamemnon, but really just to fix his own bruised ego, he will condemn all his friends and comrades to death. Later, when he rejoins the battle, after letting his friend die in his place, he wins (obviously) but acts horrible about it and drags around his ex- adversary’s body around and won’t give the corpse to the poor guy’s dad. It is only after the father appeals to the memory of Achilles’ own father that he concedes. I personally think that this is not an example of strength of character by Achilles, but pity because he can empathize with losing someone.

This leads to my next problem with Achilles, which is his complete LACK OF DEVELOPMENT throughout the story. I know this is a charcteristic of Homer writings, but in this case at least I thought Achilles would change. When I started this book I thought that this was the whole point-- evolving (from an insolent brat who kills mercilessly but runs to his mother over a stolen slave) to a mature and merciful warrior. I was mistaken, though, because Achilles learns nothing throughout the book, though the readers do.  Achilles is shallowly angry at Agamemnon the entire time and cannot let go.  Even when he rejoins Agamemnon he still hasn't learned to let go and still angry. This time, though, he focuses his anger on Hector, who he mauls and destroys. Maybe after the events of the story he learns something, is touched by Hector's father's care, changed by his friend's death, or something, but I'm not so sure. I hope, for my own sake as a curious reader, that he may become a little more bearable later on in his glorified life.

   

A Midsummer Night's Dream

There were two reasons I read A Midsummer Night's Dream. The first was that after Romeo and Juliet I wanted to read something more by Shakespeare, but I'm lazy and wanted to read something easy. The second is that when I was younger I used to be obsessed with the Sisters Grimm series ( it was the next step up from Cinderella) and one of the main characters in that series was Puck. I was really curious if Puck was similarly portrayed in both texts (he was.)

Puck is a servant, but he seems more like Oberon and Titania's mischievous little son. He runs around causing trouble and generally creating problems for the public. Despite this, I think he has good intentions. He is the creator of the main problem in the story when he puts the love potion on Lysander instead of Demetrius. This totally destroys the careful love triangle. This was an innocent mistake however, and he didn't mean to create such angst, though I'm sure he wasn't shedding tears over it afterwards. 

He doesn't really have such great intentions when he gives Bottom a donkey/ass head, but Bottom is an ass, so why not exploit his personality for entertainment? Though his intentions are obviously to make Bottom look like an idiot, at least those aren't bad intentions. He doesn't make someone like Hermia have a donkey head. Besides, Bottom doesn't even really notice his donkey head, as he is too caught up in self love. Unlike Narcissus, who was so stuck up he had to look in the mirror (lake) till death, Bottom is so stuck up that he doesn't even need to see his reflection to assure himself of his greatness. He's on a whole other level.

I also think that when Shakespeare was writing Puck's character, he was thinking about opposite ideas and comparing and contrasting. This is because Puck is kind of a mixture between faeries and something more common. He is graceful and floaty, but coarse and chortley. (Chortley is not a word, but when I picture Puck, he always seems to be chortling.) The whole play is full of contrast: Titania and Bottom are opposites, as are the craftsmen and the faeries. Puck is different from other faeries; more human and more ugly.
 
This is why Puck is my favorite character in the play (and probably everyone else's as well, but I'm not going to lie and say another character for the benefit of being original.) He is human and makes mistakes, but laughs through them and through life. I seriously wish I could laugh at my problems like he does, because I think that I could be so much less stressed and worried all the time if I did. I love fairy tales and have been obsessed with Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty etc. since I was a kiddie, but as I grew older, I began to  resent all of their perfection. What Shakespeare does so well is give his ethereal characters flaws. The faeries are supposed to be pretty perfect, but Puck is far from perfect. Titania is a stubborn drama queen. Oberon is obnoxious and has a selfish side. They are also both extremely self- righteous. Their brattiness and Puck's non faerieness is what I love about the play. I actually think that, though Romeo & Juliet is considered the better play, the characters are generally more interesting in A Midsummer Night's Dream. Romeo and Juliet are pretty great people. Maybe if Juliet was jealous and suspicious and Romeo was a drunk, but they still were madly in love, I would like it even more.

Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen

In Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen, the two main characters, Mr. Darcy and Lizzy, are the two most commonly examined. However, I personally think that Miss Bingley is more interesting; she is my favorite character.

Miss Bingley is the one most often portrayed as a villian (besides Mr. Wickham, of course) but I think that she is misunderstood. As the book is primarily from Lizzy's perspective ( though it is third person) it is Lizzy who you root for the entire time, you want Lizzy, to marry Mr. Darcy. You certainly don't want Miss Bingley. But is she really so bad? The book has the word "pride" in its name, and that is mostly about Mr. Darcy, who you love despite, and perhaps even because of his pride. But Miss Bingley is different. She never gets over her pride, which, in the first place, is false.

With her belief in marriage depending on social classes, she must have been extremely deluded to think that Mr. Darcy would sink so far down as to marry her. She is the daughter of a tradesman, her wealth  is nothing to his-- his uncle is titled. Thinking that it would be suitable for Darcy to marry her but not suitable for him to marry Lizzy is very hypocritical. After all, Lizzy is a gentleman's daughter. A poor country gentleman's daughter might, in the eyes of someone so very stuck up, be above a rich tradesman's daughter.

Going by this reasoning, the type of reasoning Miss Bingley surely used on others but not on herself, her own brother, Mr. Bingley, had married above himself. Jane, Lizzy's sister, is a gentleman's daughter too.  Miss Bingley should not have disapproved. In this way Miss Bingley's whole personality is contradictory, which makes her such a good and complex character.

Though she is prideful and arrogant, and not at all likeable, I feel that she can be sympathetic, if not so sympathetic as Darcy. She is certainly not a villian, but a young woman who wants to get further up the social ladder. This is nothing unusual; everyone is desparate for popularity-- it is human nature. And so is her longing for riches. Why do you think the lottery is so successful? Miss Bingley, in my opinion, is just a normal person surrounded by people who make her look terrible-- she looks greedy next to Darcy (who has no need to be greedy because he's already loaded), cruel next to her brother (who would make anyone appear cruel; he's just naturally kind- hearted, as is Jane), and shallow next to Lizzy (who has no marital or monetary ambition.)

Sense and Sensibility, by Jane Austen

In Sense and Sensibility, a book by Jane Austen, the character John Willoughby is a major playor. Everywhere  he scampers, he leaves broken hearts in his midst.  His charming personality and handsome nostrils would draw women in, and he would evidently have no serious feelings for any of them.

Take Colonel Brandon's ward Eliza-- she is hooked right in, impregnated, and then left alone with no help. Willoughby is too cowardly to approach his own child (or children, as there could have been many more instances before the start of this book.) He gets everyone in love with him-- even sensible Elinor is rather fond of him\at a point. Marianne, however,  becomes infatuated with him. They see each other every day and give each other hair locks and she takes take part in some unladylike behavior for him. Then comes the wealthy Miss Grey. She is very rich-- Marianne is not any longer-- and he wants money. So he leaves Marianne on "business" to town (the business, of course, being courting Miss Grey.)

When Willoughby marries Miss Grey, at least he is settling down. He won't be running around breaking so many more hearts. But this idea of learning, and being less of a player I believe did not start with Miss Grey, but with Marianne. He was most likely in love with her, and certainly was exceedingly fond of her.Just having the experience of actually caring for someone can be very changing-- especially when you cannot have them.

Mr. Willoughby exits the book the villain, but a changed man. He cares for Marianne, but is to marry Miss Grey, due to his own actions. He has to live with himself and his guilt-- to acknowledge that he is the reason for his misery. He is not happy with Miss Grey, but after a while learns to become a decent husband. As he explains to Elinor at the end of the book, he knows that he would have been happy with Marianne, but what really would have made him happier-- a loving wife or a load of money?