Untitled

    For this last discussion post, I read about the Pazyryk culture and what they specifically believe about horses. I think this topic is really interesting when you compare it to how we view the relationship between horses and humans today. Gala Argent, the author of this paper write: “Within  this  belief  system,  animals  are  tied  to  the  unseen  world  in  that  they may undergo  transformations  themselves, and  it is only through  animals  that humans  may  move  between  the  three  levels  of  the  seen  and  unseen  worlds,” (187). In today’s world, we are drifting further away from the spiritual belief or mindset that would have shaped these peoples’ worldviews. This lack of emphasis on the afterlife or spiritual things I think is a cause in the mindset that there is nothing too special about animals, as they don’t have a spirit and we don’t really need them anymore to move between the seen and unseen worlds. Instead, we focus less on nature and more on the self, and how we function as humans in society, which is now totally separate from the animal kingdom or nature. I suspect this is all because we depend on animals much less in modern times than we did when Pazyryk was around, when they would use animals for transportation, crops ,etc.; all tasks we now use human made mechanisms, like cars and machines, for now. This interdependency and emphasis on the spiritual realm is most likely what made the Pazyryks idolize horses so much, and why they were such a huge part of their culture and deaths.

      In this chapter, we get to learn more about the Dragons, and specifically, what happens to them when their speech gets taken away.  Sparrowhawk, after they pass a dying dragon comments, "’They have been driven mad. Their speech has been taken from them. They who spoke before men spoke, they who are older than any living thing, the Children of Segoy -they have been driven to the dumb terror of the beasts,’” (Guin). I think in this context that the Dragons not only had their voices taken away, but possibly part of their sanity as well, maybe as a result of their speech taken away. Without the ability to freely express themselves and communicate, they end up killing each other and acting out of fear. Beyond just losing the expression of themselves, they actually start to lose a bit of themselves as well. I think this makes them unhappy because there is such a close connection between you and your words, or methods of expression. What you create, do and say is often synonymous with who you are and the legacy you leave behind. If you lose self-expression, then how can you be sure of who you are? We see this all across the world where people don’t have the same freedom of speech that we have in the states. There are limitations in creativity, what you say out loud about certain people or even online, and even limitations in the ability to read and write to those deemed unworthy. In the U.S., losing words might not be as obvious as the oppression in other countries, but it is still unfortunately there. I think that for us, this is mostly represented in power; those that have power have more of a voice, which really goes against everything the founding fathers wanted. Those people that are in minorities or poorer might have a political voice on paper, but there are much more inequalities and obstacles that are in their way compared to those that are in a rich majority. Not being able to have that freedom of expression and influence in the real world makes people unhappy, just like the dragons in Earthsea. Those are just a few of my ideas regarding what it means to lose words and how that connects to our current world.

I read Finalyson’s text about the impact of silk on Palmyra. Personally, what I took away from it was that what was more important than the silk itself was the associations that came with it. An important aspect of Silk was that it “was thought to bestow not only economic status to the deceased, but aspects of spiritual power of renewal associated with the soul’s re-emergence in paradise,” (Finalyson 6). Because of how monetarily valuable silk was, it was used to symbolize a dead person’s entrance into paradise. In order for there to be the trade of silk in areas like these to begin with, there had to be people able and willing to buy it. The fact that people were able to afford such an expensive item says a lot about the economic situation of the community and the fact that they were in good standing spiritually. Traders would also have to feel safe traveling from place to place, which indicates peace politically in the Roman empire at this time. Overall, the presence of silk indicates wealth and prosperity. In a time of need, political unrest, etc. the trading of silk would be extremely unsuccessful and ultimately nonexistent.

Originally while reading  “The Wizard of Earthsea” I viewed the Kargish as strong and mysterious. They seemed more like a military strength than anything else, which also seemed a little evil. After reading the second book, the Kargish seem much more terrifying and evil, but not as strong; they seem to be more human. In “The Tombs of Atuan”, Arha is raised to be  the Priestess in a cruel and harsh environment, where the one fun thing they allowed the children to do was fish, and even then, they couldn’t make a sound, or else they “ would never get to the river except to fetch water in summer when the  wells ran low” (Guin, pg.13).They mercilessly tore Arha away from her mother, and then basically raised Arha to be merciless and unfeeling. As a reader, you feel sorry for Arha and really view her as an actual person. The rest of the Kargish seem to still be evil, however, you get a sense of the fear they have of the spiritual realm and of Arha in general. In a sense, you get to see the weakness of the Kargish, and the lack of strength they have, which is really the only impression you get in “The Wizard of Earthsea”, which is really interesting, and adds much more depth to the second book and the characters in it.

Oftentimes in fantasy literature, it can be tempting to never ask the question “ Why?”. Why would the main protagonist risk their lives to be a hero and save the day, even if it seems absolutely insane? I think there are some common themes in the stories that follow the “hero’s journey”. In “A Wizard of Earthsea”, on page 239, it says that Vetch thinks that on the journey, Ged would look “ across the waves and miles and grey days yet to come, the thing they followed and the dark end of their voyage”. I feel pretty safe in saying that for most of us, if we felt like we would fail at something, especially to the point of death, there is no way we would try to do it. However, in this book and even the LOTR trilogy, it seems to be that the main protagonists do not believe their acts of heroism will end well. Infact, they seem to believe that they will die in the process of their heroic actions. So why would they still attempt to act heroically if they thought they would die? I believe it's because they believe that their actions will make an impact for the better. Even if they have to die, or the odds are against them, they still try to complete the quest because of a faint hope that they will be able to solve the problem and save everyone but themselves. I also believe that the protagonist in some ways is usually wrapped up in the problem or even the solution. If this is the case, then they typically feel a sense of responsibility to at least try to fix the terrible thing that’s happening. If they can do anything to help save the fate of other people, then they will. This also speaks to the personality or character of most hero characters; they are very unselfish and look to the wellbeing of the whole rather than just themselves. Both of these aspects tie into what makes the hero’s quest worth it, and are a huge reason why they make the quest to begin with.

Even though the Kargish raiders were in this very briefly, I still think there are a few things that stood out to me about them in light of Raffield’s arguments about Vikings. Mainly, in the first Chapter of Earthsea “They fought through that town, took it, burned it; leaving their ships under guard at the mouth of the River Ar they went up the Vale wrecking and looting, slaughtering cattle and men,” (Le Guin 9). In Raffield’s text, he discusses how they used ships a lot for the transport and keeping of slaves. The fact that the ships are specifically mentioned shows how these ships served as the base of operations for the raiders, as opposed to them approaching by land. They are very similar to Vikings in this sense. These raiders also leave behind a path of destruction. The houses are set on fire, the entire village is looted and both cattle and men are slaughtered. Raffield mentions this destruction Vikings left behind in the places they invade as well. What is also pretty interesting about this is that the raiders killed men instead of capturing them as slaves. This supports what Raffield said about Vikings taking people as captives in order to have servants helping around the village instead of selling them in order to make money, otherwise, they definitely wouldn’t have purposely killed them. More likely than not, this indicates that they took some people for servants, and had no need for the rest, and so they just murdered them. Those are a few connections that the Kargish raiders have to the Vikings described in Raffield’s paper.

I read the reading where it discusses the influence Tolkien's time in war had on his writing and found it extremely interesting. Personally, I do think that his time in war influenced LOTR in more ways than he is willing to admit, even if it was unintentional. Once you go through something like fighting in war, how could that not impact the way you write? As a writer, your characters are going to be impacted by the reality of your life and your experiences, whether you realize it or not. And that’s just considering the little things. Not the life changing, near death experience of fighting in a war. Livingston discusses how Frodo seems to very explicitly struggle with the symptoms of PTSD, and says that  “he cannot escape the incommunicable fear and trembling of his past and inexplicable guilt of living” (pg 88).Knowing Tolkien's experience in war, and seeing the detail in which Frodo struggles, I think it would be very hard to deny that Tolkien's war experience did not at all shape what he wrote in The Lord of the Rings. This of course, is not a bad thing at all, it just shows that Tolkien's reality was changed by this experience, and his writing reflects that. In fact, it's a great thing, because it makes the characters much more relatable and realistic. This connection to what Frodo is going through adds a lot of depth to the writing that wouldn’t be there had Tolkien not gone through that. 

It's always been interesting to me to think about how evil always ends up looking the other way when it comes to stories. Of course, this is partly because most of the time, good will win, and in order for them to win, the villain typically needs to be unaware and vulnerable in some way. It just so happens that this vulnerability is, a lot of the time, them simply looking in the wrong place. In the LOTR, Gollum says that the Eye of Sauron is always watching the main road leading up to the gates, and that “His Eye watches that way all the time” (pg. 625). I feel like he's always watching that direction because it's where he is the most vulnerable. Villain or not, people will usually think more about what they feel the most vulnerable in just because it's the nature of having insecurities. With villains, I can imagine that that is only heightened because of the amount of power they may feel they have to hold on to. Although Sauron may seem extremely powerful, it's that power that may be his weakness; he has more to lose, and he knows it. There is also the other point of the amount of self-confidence power brings. Sauron most likely thinks himself superior to other beings, and so underestimates them and thinks they would all try to get through the main gate. One of the main ideas of the LOTR trilogy however is that the very creatures and people he would underestimate the most are the ones that eventually destroy the ring and all of Sauron’s power. These Hobbits don’t have any power to lose, which is part of the reason they end up destroying the Eye of Sauron.