Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@nate1234 I believe, if the Greeks had not created the gods of Olympus, it would have actually had a positive affect on the development of their culture. As you mentioned, they used the gods to explain the unexplainable. If the gods hadn’t been invented, what would they have used to explain the seemingly random, phenomenal events in nature that they observed? Perhaps this would’ve encouraged them to pursue an explanation through other means, such as math and science. For example, if they had not created Poseidon and assumed his anger as the cause for tidal waves, they could have discovered through scientific methodology the real reason behind the phenomenon. If they had not invented tales of the deities to explain the loop of seasons, perhaps they would have made an effort to observe the ever-changing night sky and discover the true explanation. Do you think their made-up tales of their deities to explain the unexplainable actually hindered their ability to discover the real reason behind the natural phenomena they observed?
@426624gardner I believe, in a sense, that they did make their gods nearly impossible to please. As you mentioned, they had gaping holes in each of their souls, and that comes from not knowing the one true God. As long as they sought to fill that hole with superfluous things, such as their deities, that could not provide what they wanted, they would never truly be happy. (This is, of course, assuming that they based their own happiness on whether or not the gods were pleased.) Thus, they believed that their gods were never truly pleased with their actions because they never felt the happiness that supposedly came from pleasing them. This brings us back to people finding their purpose in life. If their purpose was to please their gods and they somehow failed to do so, do you think that they lost their sense of motivation for living?
One reason why we mythologize is to give meaning to life. Humans have been gifted with the extraordinary capability of logic, reason, and curiosity. With this great intellect comes the burden of curiosity and doubt. Mythology was used to give people peace about the philosophical question, “What am I doing here?” They created stories to satisfy this troubling thought and tales about deities in the heavens to quell their sense of hopelessness. They believed that if the gods created them, it was for the gods that they were to live. Humanity was convinced that the deities were fully in tune to and intertwined with their everyday lives, which gave them a sense of purpose and something to strive toward. Their main goal in life was to please the gods, and it was in this that they also found their motive to live. Do you think that humanity would have had a harder time finding their purpose in living if they hadn’t had the gods?
@sofiahmckeown
I believe if Lancelot had not placed such a high value on being successful, his road to self-discovery would have been much smoother and he would’ve been more comfortable in his own skin being who he was, rather than attempting to find some identity in being successful. He had thought that being successful would bring him happiness, but once he became the best knight, he was constantly threatened by himself to remain at the top. Do you think he would have had a sense of self-worth if he hadn’t been the best knight of the Round Table?@426624gardner
Arthur’s ideal of “Might for Right” affected the entire Round Table. It revived the code of honor, or chivalry, that knights were sworn to. Before it was enacted, knights often took advantage of their positions to act upon their own desires, putting the safety of others at risk. Knights often did unmoral things for their own enjoyment. When Arthur pressed the idea of “Might to Right,” he salvaged the honor of the knights and returned them to their former glory. Do you think that without this revival, the knights would have fallen apart?@sofiahmckeown
I believe many leaders in our country today understand the concept of “might for right.” Their intentions are pure, but the way they attempt to act upon this ideal is often skewed. Using strength to defend those who cannot defend themselves has turned into getting involved in situations where there is no immediate threat. Using might to uphold what is right has turned into becoming the judge for what’s right and wrong. What would you say?@isaiahlee25
I believe White’s intention for having Elaine in this novel is to add drama, which keeps the story fresh and realistic, and also intrigues many readers. Elaine also adds dynamic to Lancelot’s journey of self-discovery, and she prevents the plot arc from becoming a boring turn-off for the audience, but rather a wholesome, realistic situation that we can relate to. The way that Elaine contrasts Lancelot also encourages readers to root for him in his endeavors. Do you think that she was an unnecessarily dramatic addition to the story?War is a delicate thing. Throughout history, there have arguably been many pointless wars and countless disagreements that could have easily been avoided. Humans seem to have an odd fascination with war. The theme is prevalent throughout “The Once and Future King,” from the very first chapters to the last sentences. The speaker in the quote from “The Goshawk” shares the same philosophy as Arthur – that wars can be meaningless and that there are many more important things in life that such great amounts of time and energy can better be spent doing (“…I would rather shoot rabbits than people”). Even in his youth, Arthur learned from his lessons as different animals that there are many different sides to violence. From the ants, he learned that blind faith is often detrimental; from the geese, he learned that working alongside their kindred spirits in a peaceful environment is much more effective than fighting; from Archimedes, the owl, he learned that killing only when necessary is much more honorable than killing for sport, which is a human past time. In human history, war was often used as a superfluous way of exerting some sort of superiority over others, or as an unnecessary way to settle a disagreement between two governments. In “The Once and Future King,” St. Toirdealbhach made a comment about wars not being what they used to be, and that they were so big and grand that it was difficult to determine what was being fought over. The Orkney brothers instantly remarked that without big wars, there wouldn’t be nearly as many men to kill. This is the type of complex that often begets such meaningless battles that cost many lives. Arthur, however, understood the importance of “Might for Right,” and fighting only for what is absolutely necessary. He later pondered at the very end of the novel that wars are often fought over imaginary borders, thus inferring that many battles in his lifetime were useless. Do you think it is possible to have honorable aspects to war?
In today’s society, we often allow the opinions of others to determine our value. The way our peers view us dictates how we view ourselves. For Lancelot, I believe he allowed his self esteem to be too dependent upon how well he fit into his society, and how well they in turn accepted him. His culture seemed to glorify knighthood. Thus, when he became the greatest knight of the Round Table, he felt more comfortable in his own skin. Camelot’s society seemed to promote a sense of self-worth only if greatness was achieved. Although it is important for an individual to strive to be their very best, it is not necessary or healthy even to rely on success to feed self-value. When Lancelot loses his virginity by being tricked by Elaine, every ounce of self-esteem he thought he’d had vanished, simply due to him believing he was no longer the best knight or could no longer perform miracles. Do you think Lancelot’s path to self-discovery would have been different if he had never been tricked into sleeping with Elaine?
@abbieflorita I believe that if White used plain jokes to provide the humor in his story instead of the irony and sarcasm that he did, it would not be as enjoyable. The humor would seemed forced, and many of the plain jokes would go over the audience’s heads simply because the certain time periods involved (when the book takes place, when it was written, and the present day) all have different styles of humor. Irony and sarcasm are universal and are not changed by time. Therefore, in using them, T.H. White successfully imbued his novel with enjoyable, timeless humor. Did you find that the humor used in the story was somewhat childish?
@benjamminn For me, the humor in the book preserved the story and made it memorable. Simply the fact that it is a fantasy novel with unicorns and griffins makes it intriguing, but the humor and the creativity with which it was written allows it to resonate in the minds of readers. Do you think that T.H. White used too much humor or that some of the more outrageous aspects of the story were overkill?
Humor is an important device used in many novels. It allows the author to connect with the reader by finding common ground. It also allows readers to find common ground with the characters and relate to them. White uses humor as a way to highlight the serious aspects of the novel. If the entire story has a stern voice, then the parts that are meant to be more serious than the rest of the book will be insignificant. Therefore, White uses both the presence and absence of humor to set the tone for the reader. King Pellinore tended to be a very light character. He and his adventures with the Questing Beast served as the comic relief of the story. Therefore, the parts of the story that didn’t involve him and the Questing Beast had a naturally more serious tone. Overall, the humor in the novel prevents it from being too monotonous or uninteresting. It allows the readers to connect to the story in a more light-hearted way, and I believe it contributes to the novel being such a beloved classic today. The same goes for all of classic literature. Laughter is one of the most treasured of human capabilities. Using humor allows authors to connect to their audience. Do you think that many of the jokes in The Once and Future King weren’t as effective, simply because in our modern day we are used to a different style of humor than what the author used?
@isaiahlee25 I see what you’re saying about their relationship potentially being better, but not perfect, and I agree. As for the eldest son getting everything and the younger siblings getting nothing, from Biblical times to the present, it was widely accepted that the eldest son received the inheritance of the family. While I don’t personally believe in this concept, it was very common in those days and shouldn’t have caused too much controversy.
@aubreypem Arthur seemed to learn his most valuable lesson from being transformed into a badger. Although he learned many important morals and learned much in the way of humility during his time as other animals, he wasn’t ever put into a position where he was tested on what he was taught until he was turned into a badger. This was the only time he had some sort of superiority (before he became king), and thus had little idea what to do with the concept other than exert this new power over others. This is seen when he threatens to eat the hedgehog. However, Arthur recalls his lessons and decides against it, which is why I believe his time as a badger was the most important of them all. It proved that he could endure the temptation and it prepared him for the crown.
@isaiahlee25 I believe Kay and Arthur didn’t share the same closeness as Agravaine, Gawaine, Gaheris, and Gareth did simply because the latter group of brothers lacked the competition complex that Kay and Arthur had. The Orkney brothers bonded through their endeavors to earn their mother’s approval, as seen when they worked together to catch the unicorn. Meanwhile, Kay, being Sir Ector’s biological son, was destined for knighthood while Arthur was only destined to be his squire. This alone created a rift between the two, but what contributed to making it bigger was Kay’s haughtiness and constant desire to assert his superiority over Arthur. This is seen when he made sure everyone, especially Sir Ector, knew that he killed the griffin, and when he refused to let Arthur handle Cully at the beginning of the story despite the fact that Arthur could do it better. Do you think that Kay and Arthur’s relationship could’ve been a little better if Kay had not acted this way?
The differences between the relationship of Kay and Arthur and the relationship of Agravaine, Gawaine, Gaheris, and Gareth are drastic. However, they all stem from the same cause. Young boys and girls tend to idolize certain people or objects, and they tend to reflect the traits of those that they look up to. Merlyn had a positive influence on the young lives of Kay and Arthur. The magician taught them important morals and valuable life lessons. Therefore, due to his tutoring, they grew into courageous young boys who were brave enough to rescue Dog Boy, Friar Tuck, and Wat from Morgan le Fey. However, the influence of Sir Ector, along with the knowledge that Kay was destined for knighthood and Arthur was simply meant to be his squire created a rift between the brothers and locked them into a competition that would continue for years to come. Meanwhile, the Orkney brothers shared a much closer bond than Kay and Arthur. This was mainly due to the lack of competition between the four; rather, they were bound by the mutual desire for their mother’s affections. The outlook on life that Agravaine, Gawaine, Gaheris, and Gareth shared, however, was not particularly as noble as Kay and Arthur’s. Their mother was cruel, therefore influencing them to act likewise, as seen when they beat their donkeys excessively and unnecessarily on a ride to the beach. Furthermore, the stories and tales of St. Toirdealbhach sowed a bloodthirsty seed in the boys’ minds. Remarks such as the one they made about small wars being meaningless because there are not as many men to kill are evidence for this fact. The comparing and contrasting that T.H. White does between both groups of boys is similar to that which he does between the two kingdoms. This is a common device used in literature. It’s seen in A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens (between England and France) and even in The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. (Though the author doesn’t explicitly compare our present day world with the dystopia within her novel, she uses key phrases in her writing in order to indirectly encourage the reader to subconsciously compare both worlds.) Switching between two settings is a way to aid the reader in comparing without making it blatantly obvious and uninteresting. It is a way to motivate the reader to pick out the similarities and differences between two places. This creates a more diverse scene in the audience’s mind. It is also used to link two or more places together. I believe White introduced the readers to the new kingdom and switched between Orkney and England so that the readers could familiarize themselves with it before the two kingdoms combined due to Arthur and Morgause’s affair. Do you think that switching back and forth between England and Orkney disrupted the flow of the narrative, or was it smooth and practical?
