Untitled

[gracetobin25]

Humans, Horses, Tattoos, and Time Response

The aspects of the Pazyryk culture that really interest me are their severe reverence for horses shown through the tattoos and how that relates to them sacrificing their horses for burials. For the culture around tattoos, they “serve to bring into consciousness images and ideas that are culturally or personally important” (188). For the Pazyryks specifically, the tattoos were “meant to be protective” and had a broader significance “to the community as a whole.” (188). That is why the multitude of horse tattoos were so prevalent in their society - the horses protected the humans and were highly valued by the community as a whole. I am interested in the fact that when a human dies, their horse is sacrificed and buried with the human, yet when a horse dies, they are commemorated on the human’s body as a tattoo. This is interesting to me when I think of how equal both humans and horses seemed in their culture, yet they were treated so differently in death. It is stated that the Pazyryk thought of the horse “not as objects or sets but as individual, relational beings” (190). How then, can they justify sacrificing the horse when their human dies? It seems that as the society deems horses as equal partners, either both parties should be sacrificed no matter who dies first or both parties should be tattooed to remember their fallen brother until they should join them in death. 

[theyannyshow]

Great post! You bring up some interesting points that I’m honestly confused about as well. I do think though that this culture still acknowledged the differences between horses and humans, even though they are viewed as much more similar to humans than we would ever agree with today. Ultimately, their role was still to serve and protect human beings, like you said, which signifies the actual importance of humans in this relationship. Horses would be meaningless without people, but people wouldn’t be protected without people. Both depend on the other in a way, but the relationship still revolves around the human beings.

[theyannyshow]

Horses

    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.

[johns-adventures-in-placemaking]

Mentors and Trust

While there are many similarities between the relationship between Ged and Arren, and that of Gandalf and Aragorn, I am most interested in their differences. Yes, both involve wise wizards and men who lack magic, and both pairs go on perilous journeys to save the world, the way they interact with one another is starkly different. I think the root of this difference is in Gandalf’s own sureness in his own powers and limits. At any given time he knows exactly what he is capable of and how he can help. Aragorn trusts Gandalf completely, without question, in part because of this. While he may not understand everything that Gandalf says must be done or will come to pass, he knows that Gandalf is doing everything within his power to make things right. This trust has been built up over years of familiarity, as the two met long before the events of The Lord of the Rings, when Aragorn was much younger, only 25, some 50-60 years prior. Arren on the other hand barely knows Ged, and knows much more about his position as Archmage and the tales of his deeds. Much of the trust Arren does place in Ged is blind. Even Ged himself is much less sure of himself than Gandalf. Not being a being that has existed outside of the universe and time himself he still needs to find the limits of his own powers. As they sail towards their final confrontation Ged says, “A goatherd to set the heir of Morred on his throne! Will I never learn?” (The Farthest Shore pg. 200). Even at the end of his journey as the greatest wizard of all time, he is still surprised at what he can accomplish. Reflecting on it, its honestly no wonder that he doesn’t inspire the same trust in Arren that Gandalf does in Aragorn. 

[theyannyshow]

Great insight! I agree; its much more interesting to look at the differences between the two relationships, the most important probably being this dynamic of trust that you talk about here. I hadn’t considered the idea that Gandalf is sure in his own powers while Ged is not comparably that confident. I think perhaps the main aspect of trust between Aragorn and Gandalf though is that through their years of friendship, Gandalf has proven himself to be what his reputation says he is, and Aragorn trusts that. Ged has not had the same amount of time to that.

[theyannyshow]

Losing Words

      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.

[etrimble]

The Importance of Silk

One interesting point the Whitfield article brings up is the possible reasoning behind the naming of the Silk Road. While silk was important, the name of the route also grew out of an interest to discover the unknown technology (Whitfield 190). Silk production began in China and slowly spread west, and the West had much desire for the secrets of silk production. The spread of silk was also accompanied by an even more interesting spread of culture along the Silk Road. I found the process and development of silk interesting, and it's really cool that Le Guin chose to use magicians for the dyeing process. The loss of magic is then a drastic economic disaster. I like the cross-cutting worldbuilding Le Guin does in Earthsea across the archipelago.

[theyannyshow]

I didn’t read this article, so it’s interesting to hear more about how the trading of silk happens. I think its interesting like you pointed out how the spread of the trading of silk was indicative of the spread of culture, which was touched on in the other article as well. Great post! 

[theyannyshow]

Silk Thingz

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.

[johnathanmolina]

Rituals

The article about these people was interesting with the emphasis and capitalization of death. “The graves themselves are part of the effort made by Ur’s rulers to establish the legitimacy of their governance by demonstrating their sacred, holy and non-ordinary status.” (124, Dickson) It is also said that the leadership potentially used this ritualistic sacrifice and death to almost terrorize the people. This type of fear tactic made me think of the control and power the people in the Kargish lands had on the children. They did not have a lot of freedom and instead found fishing people the most exciting thing growing up. This is not the worst existence, but they could still be treated much better. “ The best thing that could happen was to be allowed to go fishing in the murky green river that flowed through the desert a half mile northeast of the place;” (18-19, Le Guin) The reverence that is generally seen in the Kargish lands also helps with the idea that the children and people would be apt to follow these rituals.

[theyannyshow]

I didn’t even make this connection to when they take the children! For the community and kids as well, this is used as a separation tactic and a way to make them feel powerless. Because they are separated, they also probably feel more special and are much more willing to believe and do what they are told. Great connection and post!

[theyannyshow]

I found this article really interesting in terms of using Archeology to determine what is true and not true about the image a certain society chooses to portray. As Dickson says: “The grave sites contain the remains of political dramas or spectacles. They display only those aspects of society favourable to the powers that orchestrated the dramas. The tensions, ambiguities and social conflicts that must surely have existed in the city are not apparent,” (32). With the Tombs of Atuan, the priestesses supporting Tenar almost orchestrate this drama of appearances and superficiality. For some of them, they don’t even really believe that Tenar is the priestess reincarnated, or that she is deserving of the position she holds. From the outside looking in, the tombs, records and traditions may all look like what they are meant to look like, in terms of Tenar being the one with the power, confidence and control. Looking at it from the inside however, we can see the flaws and reality of the situation. Tenar is not as in control as she might seem, and most of the Priestesses are actually pulling the strings and controlling her because of how young and inexperienced she is. For me, it got me wondering how much of our own political system in the US is a performance? We only see what they want us to see for the most part, but not the inner-workings and relationships that can end up affecting the effectiveness of a political system or religious power.

[theyannyshow]

Tombs of Atuan

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.

[aarons-hon-394-blog]

Tao Te Ching and the Many Reflections of Ged’s Journey

The Tao Te Ching is a work that is entirely about looking inward, reflecting on one’s self, and coming to a deeper understand about yourself and the world you inhabit through its teachings.  Much of Ged’s journey in itself within the first novel is based around these concepts as well as the balance that revolves around them.  These concepts that he learns are no bettered mirrored than in the excerpt about “Soul Food”.

A major teaching throughout all of the experts of the Tao Te Ching is the concept of balance in life  The excerpt of “Soul Food” exemplifies this idea, arguing that there cannot be one thing without something being created to be its opposite, stating examples such as, “Everybody on earth knowing that beauty is beautiful makes ugliness. Everybody knowing that goodness is good makes wickedness. For being and nonbeing arise together; hard and easy complete each other; long and short shape each other; note and voice make the music together; before and after follow each other” (Guin 4).  At the end of his journey and after all the trails and tribulations he has faced, the Wizard of Earthsea must come to terms with and accept the fact that one man cannot be wholly good nor evil and must face his shadow and accept it within himself to become whole once more.  To ignore one side is to ignore reality and the fragile balance that holds it together.  With that in mind, the end to this expedition firmly cements that one must be incredibly careful in handling said reality, noting that, “…the wise soul does without doing, teaches without talking” (5).

(Art by https://www.deviantart.com/howleglass/art/Ged-and-his-shadow-416956230)

[theyannyshow]

Great post! I agree; both texts heavily revolve around the idea of evil existing because good exists, and vise versa. I think that that’s probably the main similarity, but of course, self-discovery is a factor in it too. I like how you made the point that according to Earth sea, no man can be wholly good nor evil, and Ged has to face his shadow to become whole. I hadn’t made  that connection before; great job!

[theyannyshow]

A Hero’s Quest

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.

[tale-of-two-places]

Kargad Vikings

Le Guin mentions that the Kargad Empire is a large empire, extending from the Northern Reach to the Eastern, and spread across different islands. It stands to reason, then, that the Kargs have two benefits to raiding and enslaving: they could use the resources provided by free labor, and, more importantly in this case, razing civilizations to the ground and removing the population in turn removes the civilization.

Raffield argues that the Vikings were active slavers but had different reasons for enslaving people. But ultimately, for whichever reason they enslaved, Vikings believed it to be “A form of ‘social death’, whereby the captive is robbed of their social identity and rendered as a ‘nonbeing’ in the eyes of their captors” (683) and it was “A by-product of more formalized warfare and conflict” (686). For Vikings, enslaving was strategic, and for the Kargs it is much the same. They don’t seem very intelligent to me given their response to Duny’s magic, but, as a people, they likely understand that more people in their capture means less people in opposition to them. 

[theyannyshow]

Great post! I agree, I think the slavers most likely had a few reasons for raiding and enslaving the population. Its also important to note that they killed a lot of the men of the town, which is a little unusual, but still lines up with what Raffield says in his paper. 

[theyannyshow]

Kargish Raiders

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.

[tale-of-two-places]

The Artist Formerly Known as Sméagol

Livingston does a great job describing the connection between Tolkien’s experiences in WWI and The Lord of The Rings, especially in the PTSD that Frodo experiences once his journey begins to come to a close, PTSD from Weathertop, the ring, Shelob’s lair, and the journey as a whole. While I think all of this is well-founded and I largely agree with it, I couldn’t help but think of another character who exhibits similar symptoms throughout the story: Gollum.

Try to disagree with me when I say Gollum’s kind of messed up, in the head and probably the rest of his body if we’re being realistic here. As stated by the title, Gollum was once just the Hobbit Sméagol, not much unlike Frodo. And I think that it’s easy to forget or ignore that he is also a victim, a victim of the ring and of Sauron. But specifically, we see this as he guides Frodo and Sam through the Marshes and Shelob’s lair through the mountains and into Mordor. We see it when they encounter the wraith over the Dead Marshes, “Gollum would not move. He stood shaking and gibbering to himself” and by his volatile reaction to actually seeing the wraith (Tolkien, 783-784).

He also seems to have some sort of fear of the sunlight, which is likely just a symptom of his condition, along with his multiple personality disorder that the ring has brought on. But when he mentions his fear of “The Yellow Face” (capitalized no less) which can’t see him in the shadows, I was reminded of the visual of Sauron’s eye, thinking perhaps that’s what Gollum was thinking of (773). We know that Gollum was at one point in the hands of Sauron, or rather his servants. But we don’t know exactly how awful that experience likely was for him, we only catch glimpses of it. But I think he’s clearly experienced some very traumatic things over his life, just not in quite the same way as our friends Frodo and Tolkien.

[theyannyshow]

Wow, great job! I didn’t even think about Gollum and all the PTSD he probably had. Like you said, its often easy to forget that Gollum himself is a victim and I agree, looking at his behavior, it definitely seems like he suffers from some sort of PTSD. Great insight here!

[theyannyshow]

Shell- Shocked Hobbit

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. 

[theyannyshow]

Evil Looking In All the Wrong Places

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.

[gracetobin25]

The Concept of the Hall Response

In “The concept of the hall in Old English Poetry,” Hume writes, “the hall was pictured, for poetic purposes, as a circle of light and peace enclosed by darkness, discomfort and danger” (64). As this article relates to Theoden’s hall, I would argue that this definition directly states all the wrong things coming from Wormtongue’s lies and deceit. Theoden’s hall is not a circle of light. In fact, it is said that “inside it seemed dark” (512). Furthermore, the outside of the hall is not dark. When describing the guards outside of the hall, Tolkien writes, “Their golden hair was braided on their shoulders; the sun was blazoned upon their green shields, their long corsets were burnished bright” (510). This indicates that the darkness is coming from within the hall and the uncorrupt people surrounding the hall are the beacons of light. Wormtongue is the bearer of darkness, discomfort, and danger throughout the hall as he poisons the king with his speeches. Once Wormtongue is eradicated, the hall begins to match Hume’s description as a beacon of light in a darkening Middle Earth. Thus, this article points out everything wrong with Wormtongue’s terrible influence of the hall as Tolkien builds an unpoetic hall only to be freed later in the chapter by Gandalf. 

[theyannyshow]

Great post! I didn’t even think about that aspect of the outside being light, and representing the goodness of the people outside the hall! Its also neat how the darkness starts from the inside, the king’s most trusted advisor.