My Hero! Me.. Hero?

Campbell paints a hundred heroes across the canvas of time and space, which we can relate to a hundred more from our modern-day experiences. However, what is it about these people that allows us to consider them heroes? Too often we focus on the heroic act rather than the development of the hero when in search of answers. Campbell isolates the idea that all heroes experience "a magnification of the formula represented in the rites of passage: separation-initiation-return"(10). While this is certainly true "in the traditional legend of the Great Struggle of the Buddha"(10) and Aeneas when he traveled to the underworld, is the theory comparable to tasks we face in our daily lives?


Does it take more than an awkward fashion statement to be a modern hero? Is it even something we can see so plainly on a person, or something deeper?

Being a hero is not normally on a daily to-do list, but the idea represented in Campbell's writing is very similar to a positive process of self-change, which we deal with on a daily basis.

Separation refers to the time when "A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder"(10). Now, let's redefine a few words in this sentence in order to refine the context in which we refer to the hero. "Hero"- you. "The World of Common Day"- the realm of mundane, everyday occurrence or feeling, a comfort zone. "A region of supernatural wonder"- change, of any kind. So basically, the phase of separation is where we are separated from our familiar selves. This occurs multiple times throughout our lives, be it adolescence, the college years, middle age crisis, or even losing/finding love for the first time ("rites of passage"(10)).


Separation from familiarity includes positive feelings, like love. Like grief and hardship, they must still be controlled.


During initiation, "fabulous forces are... encountered and a decisive victory is won"(10). This illustrates a sense of understanding we develop with ourselves. After all, what supernaturally wonderful enemy is more frightening than the one we cannot understand? And what is more frightening than realizing that that enemy is you, and only you can find the answer? This presses heroic responsibility on us. Initiation is all about finding the strength and understanding of ourselves that was in ourselves for so long. Often a hero has a power or talent that is unlocked only during his adventure. Much like Hercules, Aeneas, and every video game character we've ever impersonated, we have a skill to unlock, and that's intrapersonal communication. In one of my favorite childhood videogames, Zelda, we played as a young boy named Link. One of the most perplexing opponents in the game was Shadow Link. He was simply a mirror image of the player, and copied his moves almost exactly. It is very symbolic of what we constantly battle.


Link and Shadow Link at war.


Intrapersonal communication in turn only benefits our interpersonal communication. Until we understand ourselves, we cannot possibly begin to advise others in similar situations. During the return phase, "the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons upon his fellow man"(10). These "boons" are simply pieces of advice, understanding actions, and the power to speak with experience. Think of a patient who survived Cancer- they are automatically deemed a hero, and their words of inspiration in a medical anthology are much more powerful than that of someone who has never been seriously ill. One who has never been ill (a philosopher) can only conjecture about what the cancer patient has experienced and defeated. A less rare example is a college graduate. After your great struggle with the higher education system, professors, and homework, your words become valued.



The book "Combat Surgeon in Vietnam" by Dr. Andrew Lovy is a great example of the respect gained through experience, schooling, and hardship.


In this way we can relate two stories as apparently opposite as the story of Buddha's suffering and the Great Greek Heroes. The Greek legends are simply an easily spoon fed version of the more complex concepts Buddha found. Just as "Jason... circumvented the dragon that guarded the Golden Fleece"(10), Buddha circumvented worldly desires in order to reach Nirvana.



Nirvana can be found everywhere! Under trees, behind Dragons...


Conclusively, you are a hero! Unfortunately, your trials will never end. And that, is the meaning of life.

Sharpening the Line

Religion and science are two realms that were not meant to co-exist in one plane. Religion serves an individual's spiritual and emotional purpose, while science caters to the reason and functionality of the universe.


I don't believe science are religion are meant to connect, but be used side-to-side for separate purposes.

By opposing Creationism and Intelligent Design, it is important to note that it is not the same as opposing spirituality and religion. There is nothing scientific about assuming that "gaps in the evolutionary record... can't be explained without God"(The Week, 259). Science requires some kind of evidence that is testable by the scientific process.


The Scientific Method has long been used to provide solid evidence and record observations.

I think Darwin supporters are correct when they "say we cannot interpret the source [of DNA] because to do so we are moving into the realm of theology, which only gives subjective, unprovable answers"(Studebaker, 261). John Studebaker's example of carving a name into a tree and seeing a cloud shaped like an animal is not entirely logical. Who is to say that the tree carving was created by an intelligent person, yet the cloud was not the work of god, rather it was "formed by natural causes"(Studebaker, 261). Also, I find many exaggerations in his work. "If [the earth's] tilt were just a bit more or less the temperature variance would be to great to allow for life"(Studebaker, 262) is a grossly exaggerated statement. If the earth tilted, there would be a temperature variance, but as we know through Darwinism, we would adapt to it. The variance of "a bit more or less" of a degree (very technical jargon, there) is not significant enough to destroy life's ability to sustain itself. For instance, look at the extremes in which plants can survive.


The Arctic Cotton Flower survives in harsh weather and poor soil.



On the other hand, even in the searing, dry desert, a cactus and its adaptions allow for it to produce beautiful blossoms like these.


One valid question Studebaker does bring up is "What are the chances of one planet having all the parameters necessary for life-support?"(Studebaker, 262) and the answer is probably one in a million. Lucky for us, there are way more than a million stars and planets. I believe there is life in other places, just life that we are unable to identify or reach. Also, many traits of life are linked, thus simple probability does not apply. Most features are conditional on one another.


The presence of many parameters of life is a complicated probability problem since many are linked.


I disagree with his idea that "a spiritual 'awakening' process [begins] based on simple reason"(Studebaker, 262-263). Spiritual awakening is an internal affair. It is not something you draw for your environment or from what you see. Studebaker himself states that "Christians... know they cannot prove God's existence to anyone"(Studebaker, 262) yet they believe in it. Faith without seeing is important. After all, the Bible itself inquires how "he that loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?"(John 4:20). This encourages faith and a spiritual belief in god, while discouraging the search for scientific evidence of his existence.


Often, seeing is not believing. The essence of faith is to believe in what you don't need proven to you, but what you feel in your heart.


Even if "by examining the apparent design of the created world [we] deduct that a Grand Designer must exist"(Studebaker, 263), who is to say that that grand designer is Christ? This Grand Designer could be any force with whatever name we choose to call it by. There are thousands of gods worshiped all over the world, so why would this intelligent being have to be Christian?



For all we know, Rama could be the force behind intelligent design.


Religion does have it's own power. It brings many people strength, insight, and moral support. However, we can't use it to explain everything in the world. Olasky and Perry have the nerve to relate the teaching of Darwinism over Creationism in our classes to "the abandonment of absolute standards of morality and behavior"(Olasky & Perry, 265) in America. Reality check: We're still a very religious country, and the majority of us don't even really understand Darwinism OR Creationism.


President Bush's largest support group was firmly Christian.


In fact, more individuals are familiar with the principles of Creationism than Darwinism, regardless of what name they may call it. Price reviews the book and points out the fact that "draconian drug laws, dearth of sex education, [and] the pressures of commerce -- are never considered"(Price, 265) as factors.

Is there a compromise? Maybe. Hopkins was definitely on to something when "he recognized the importance of personification... imagining God in the flowers and waters... [and] a belief that they were alive"(Bump, 272).


Pocahontas vouches that everything in nature "has a life, has a spirit, has a name."

He takes a very spiritual view on nature, and although he is "sure of the presence of God in this world"(Bump, 271), it does not necessarily mean that he believes God created each plant individually. We can still accept the idea of Darwinism alongside God if we redefine our image of god as a collective life energy rather than a person. God is a spirit ever-present in so many things, yet we do not doubt what science proves to us about creation. So essentially, the co-existence of Intelligent Design/Creationism and Darwinism? Illogical. The co-existence of religion/spirituality and Darwinism? Quite possible.

The Religion of Reason

DINOSAURS! Just the thought fascinates me. Not only did such amazing creatures exist so long ago, but we have the technology to learn so much about them. If I could have any power in the world, it would be time travel. Even without time travel, our scientists have done a pretty good job.



Imagination and Science combine to give us a good picture of the past.


Aside from the paleontologists, though, there are many men we have to thank. The most obvious is Darwin, but a close second is Thomas Henry Huxley, who supported Darwinism at a preliminary debate in Oxford. It's hard to think that had it not been for his courage and the "extent he carried an unwilling audience with him by the force of his speech"(Huxley, 222), we may not have the Texas Memorial Museum today. If the men at the Huxley-Wilberforce debate could see the dinosaur tracks at the Museum that "document a battle between the theropod and the sauropod"(228) or the Mosasaurus skeleton, a "mythical 'sea serpent'... extinct for about 65 million years"(227), perhaps they would change their minds.


Richard Owen, a very talented scientist and speaker.


But are Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution truly linked? Ironically enough, Sir Richard Owen, the British scientist who gave dinosaurs their name, presented his research in order to refute the idea of Evolution. Later, it became important evidence that ended up aiding Darwin's book. One great example is the Great Texas Pterosaur. The Pterosaurs "were not close relatives of either birds or bats"(226) but rather "flying reptiles"(226). Why did this species die off completely? If evolution is true, why do we not see any evidence, even if it's not recent, of a similar subspecies?

Here, we can introduce the concept of convergent evolution. This is where two similar species evolve with similar features, but are in no way related to each other. For instance, bats and birds. The fact there is nothing like a Pterosaur indicates that the environment did not favor the Pterosaur for whatever reason.


The Pterodactyl or Pterosaurus is actually much more massive than most of us think.

Smaller animals perhaps survived because there was not a large enough food supply to support the massive dinosaurs. All extinctions and evolutionary features are triggered by an environmental change. With this in mind, it's very interesting to note that in Genesis, it is stated that "a flood was rising from the earth and watering all the surface of the soil"(231). This environmental change apparently spurred god's creation of man. Additionally, the idea that "God made every kind of wild beast, every kind of cattle, and every kind of land reptile"(231) is not totally incorrect. The most common misconception about evolution is that one species transforms into another. This is not true. Apes did not slowly transform into humans. Rather, apes share a common ancestor with us, and we evolved separately in respect to our environments. This is why evolution is described as a "a great tree"(237).


A good example of a phylogenetic tree. Notice that one species does not transform into another, but they branch from similar ancestors.

The only reason this part of the Genesis is incorrect is because all creatures shared one common ancestor, and this was originally a sea creature. There is also indication of this in Genesis since on the fourth day "God said, 'let the waters teem with living creatures'"(231) and on the fifth day, "God said, 'let the earth produce every kind of living creature'"(231). Before it all, on the second day, "God said, 'Let the earth produce vegetation'"(230). These days follow a scientific line of reason. The Evolutionary Timeline shows that 2800 myr ago was the "beginning of photosynthesis by blue-green algae"(241A), then 600 myr ago "eukaryotic cell organisms develop[ed]"(241A), and finally 450 myr ago was the "rise of the... first vertebrates"(241A). Beyond all that, we have to remember the audience that the Bible targeted was not the most educated and everyone, even the prophet, is entitled to a little creative license. (P.S. That was a joke).


God separating land and Earth while creating vegetation before creatures.

And You Bleed Just to Know You're Alive

Although simple, the themes and depth of character make Oleanna quite a remarkable book. Coupled with the derived meaning of the title, we can further explore Mamet's powerful message.


Carol and John in the office.


Firstly, where does the title Oleanna come from? Oleanna was a Norwegian Folk Song that glorified Oleanna as a utopia for those living in a failing community in the arctic circle.


Dense Norwegian forests made living off the land difficult.

There are two main ways I believe we can apply the meaning of "Oleanna" to this play. The first is obviously in regards to education. Carol says and repeatedly ensues to John, "you have no idea what it cost me to come to this school"(Mamet, 21). This college was her version of Oleanna, but like the Norwegian farmers, it turned out not to be such a utopia. She desires to be there, but is challenged. She wished instead for a place where "The cows all like to milk themselves, and the hens lay eggs three times a day."(Folk Song) She takes part of her anger out on her professor, which is the main source of conflict in the play.
John finds himself in a similar situation. His Oleanna is a new home and tenure, but he is also facing problems while in pursuit of it. It seems that the grass is always greener on the other side, or "I Oleana der er det godt at være,/i Norge vil jeg inte Slavelænken bære" ("Oh, to be in Oleanna, that is where I’d like to be/Than be bound in Norway and drag the chains of slavery"(Mamet, 4) in Norwegian).

An alternate application of the title would be to Carol's strange disposition and situation. Carol yells, "I don't want revenge. I WANT UNDERSTANDING"(Mamet, 28), indicating that she has been previously disgruntled. She accuses John of not being able to relate to how students (possibly her) "Overcame prejudices. Economic, sexual, you cannot begin to imagine. And endured humiliations I pray that you and those you love never will encounter"(Mamet,28). She despises him for not having to suffer the hardships she may have. Following the theme of power, she picks on him out of so many others because she finds a means of exploiting him. Instead of appreciating his help and kindness, Carol despises him for "All [his] silly weak guilt"(Mamet, 31) claiming that "it’s all about privilege"(Mamet, 31). This further confirms her bias and hatred. When an individual is so filled with rage, they need a just reason to retaliate. I believe that Carol is simply venting behind the guise of political activism. Perhaps when she yelled, "I don't want revenge. I WANT UNDERSTANDING"(Mamet, 28), she meant it in a different way, and not in reference to the conversation at hand. She wanted to be understood in terms of whatever difficulties she previously encountered. The only way for someone to understand the hatred and injustice she felt was to experience it first-hand, and that is exactly what she set up for John. She put him in a position where he could finally understand her, thus explaining the meaning of the her final line, when John almost hits her with a chair, "...yes, that's right"(Mamet, 47). He understood her, he suffered as she did. She finally experienced her twisted Oleanna. Mahatma Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind," encouraging people not to seek revenge as a form of consolidation. That sounds like solid advice for Carol!

Gandhi's idea of peace was one Carol did not choose to follow.


Her character reminds me of the song Iris by the Goo Goo Dolls. Instead of interpreting the "you" in this song as a person or lover, imagine it as a reference to her vision of Oleanna. Also pay attention to the starred verse. The lyrics read:

"And I'd give up forever to touch you

Cause I know that you feel me somehow

You're the closest to heaven that I'll ever be

And I don't want to go home right now

And all I can taste is this moment

And all I can breathe is your life

Cause sooner or later it's over

I just don't want to miss you tonight

And I don't want the world to see me

Cause I don't think that they'd understand

When everything's made to be broken

I just want you to know who I am

**And you can't fight the tears that ain't coming

Or the moment of truth in your lies

When everything seems like the movies

Yeah you bleed just to know your alive**

And I don't want the world to see me

Cause I don't think that they'd understand

When everything's made to be broken

I just want you to know who I am

I don't want the world to see me

Cause I don't think that they'd understand

When everything's made to be broken

I just want you to know who I am

I just want you to know who I am

I just want you to know who I am

I just want you to know who I am

I just want you to know who I am."

I don't understand the footage much, but audio definitely adds another dimension.


She chooses to "bleed just to know [she's] alive" and take refuge in pain by inflicting it rather than finding understanding peacefully. She wishes her misfortune upon others in order to resolve her own problems. Perhaps being hated brings her to life, and she enjoys the feelings because being beaten is something natural to her. These ideas could possibly be games she sets up for herself because she spends her time wallowing in self-pity for no explainable reason. This inspires the audience to respond with a very strange sense of pity for her.


River City Rebels' album title, "Hate to be Loved" suggests that some people, like Carol, prefer to be hurt in order to feel comfort.


This is a very strong statement about political activism. Perhaps their anger is misplaced and those businessmen who are often attacked are as innocent and good-willed as John. His excited nature on the phone allows the audience to connect with him as he babbles, "Well, yes, I’m I’m … no, I’m sure it’s signif … I’m sure it’s significant"(Mamet,7). When he reaches out to Carol, he continues to build a rapport. When the audience discovers that Carol's actions have lead him to admit that he "[hadn't] been home for two days... Thinking this out"(Mamet,36), they continue to sympathize with him rather than the cold and calculating Carol, whom John asks, "Don't you have feelings?"(Mamet,29). These characterizations are quite opposite to our regular views of activists and those they oppose.


Most individuals fighting the government or system are seen as peaceful animal lovers, not vengeful angsty children!

Ahimsa: Easier Said Than Done

Ahimsa is very important to me. The world would be beautiful if we could all practice Ahimsa, but tragically, it is difficult to do so alone. That sounds terribly conformist, but we must keep in mind that the vulnerable spirits of adolescents on their own for the first time do not make good test subjects.

I grew up with a very gentle and protected view of the world. I never had any reason not to simply love and embrace all that was around me. Even when others were rude to me or I was teased throughout elementary and middle school, I never felt any kind of anger towards them, but simply forgave them immediately and adopted "a mental attitude in which hatred [was] replaced by love"(115). I did not even realize that I was practicing Ahimsa, but it fact, "Ahimsa is forgiveness"(115). I was there to help out anyone I could and do whatever I knew was right. Eventually, I think people realized on their own that I was a very simple person, and they left me be.

College was a different ballgame. Uprooted from all familiarity, suddenly it was much more difficult to "put up with criticisms, insults, rebukes, and assaults"(115) all while attempting to discover myself. I became hotheaded and easily frustrated. When I realized that I had not done well, and those who were selfish, unkind people had, it was difficult to "not harbour anger"(115). After all, don't the good always win? Shouldn't we be rewarded for being good people? No, it isn't enough to only love.

Teen angst stems from the "soul search" associated with new freedoms.

Before we can truly love, we must fail. We must hurt. We must at one point desire deeply to "retaliate [or] wish to offend... under extreme provocation"(115). We "may fail a hundred times"(116), but the beauty is that we "will slowly gain strength"(116). Ahmisa is much more than and idea... it is a way of life.

I believe that at the core of integrity is Ahimsa. It encompasses all that most people, regardless of culture or creed, see as "a good person". This is mainly because "non-injury requires a harmless mind, mouth, and hand"(114). Now let's stop right there- that's a pretty darn hard thing to do! Jesus Christ instructed that "If a man takes away your jacket, give him your shirt also"(116). This seems similar to the idea of "killing someone with kindness", but the two are actually very different, and Ahimsa plays a large role in their reasonable differentiation.


A cute symbol for "killing someone with kindness." :)

When killing someone with kindness, we are hoping for a response from them that allows us to feel victorious. When Jesus was preaching, I believe he meant that we must bring ourselves to a point where "all hostilities are given up"(117).

I think the best part of "positive, cosmic love"(115) is the happiness it brings the practitioner. "Minor, everyday stressors effect health and mental well-being" as confirmed by psychology researchers Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, and Lozarus as early as 1981. Recent research by Bolger, Kessler, and Schilling of the University of Michigan proved in an experiment testing 242 individuals' stress on a case-by-case basis that "interpersonal conflicts were by far the most distressing events." Ahimsa eliminates this and leads to a healthier, happier life. This is a probably explanation for the "hidden power in Ahimsa that protects its practitioners"(118).

Another very interesting topic is the claim that "creatures will approach the practitioner with no fear and do no harm to him"(117). As incredible as it sounds, I believe that it is very possible. Small children and animals can both sense hostility. This seems to be a talent we lose as we grow older. We are fooled by the fake fronts many people put on, perhaps because we don them ourselves. I'm not the first to notice this connection between animals and children. In the 1970's, there was a popular song called "Bless the Beasts and the Children" by Carpenters. One of the most interesting lines is "Bless the beasts and the children/For the world can never be/The world they see." Peace and bliss is something the singers have deemed impossible after facing the cruel reality of the world. But I believe through Ahimsa it is possible to regain a experienced version of this state.


Bless the Beasts and the Children Single Cover

Children often get along with animals easier than adults, and I believe it's because they often harbor such curiosity and love for these creatures. I remember thinking as a child that I was invincible, and no animal could ever hurt me because I loved it. From what I remember, I was never attacked by an animal. I never had a problem approaching stray cats that would normally shy away at the sight of a human. Ahimsa is essentially a pure outlook on life, but much more mature and developed than what we experience in childhood. I know that children sense hostility very well, because I often photograph small children. When I'm tired and I'm having a bad day, no matter how much I joke or fake laugh, babies sense my frustration. Frustration can be such an "strong, controlling... overpowering emotion"(125) that it is often difficult to truly conceal. On days where I am rested and happy, there's not a toddler in the world I can't get a smile from. Often, the child's own parents can't get them to smile because they are so nervous and frustrated with the process. This just goes to prove that emotion overrides familiarity to a certain extent.


Young children are very sensitive to our underlying emotions.


The ability to practice Ahimsa at all times and not only those happy days thus brings an individual strength with people and a certain confidence. Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Junior are two great examples of this. They were both able to non-violently make a difference in the world. "Gandhi organized several non-cooperation campaigns"(119) which made quite an effect in his lifetime, but more importantly he created a political style that carries on today in India. Gandhi's children and their children continue to serve as prime ministers and members of the parliament even today. He also "opposed partition and the creation of a separate Muslim state"(119), which many people have turned their concerns to in recent years. Although the recreation of one India is unlikely, Gandhi's view of peace between the two religions, which he was fasting for when assassinated, is finally being recognized. Had he not been assassinated, the whole geography of the Indian subcontinent may have been different.

Gandhi fasted for Peace in order to protest the partition.

Gandhi has always been a hero in my home, as my grandfather wrote and protested the creation of Pakistan alongside him, and my father took his example by becoming a lawyer in India who worked to give legal justice to those who could not normally afford it. Everything can be worked out peacefully as long as people are willing to try and be patient. Gandhi also make an impact outside of India. Dr. King was actually influenced by his work. "He opposed the Vietnam War and demanded measure to relieve poverty"(120) while simultaneously fighting for the rights of the black man. Although he was the "pastor of a church in Montgomery, Alabama"(120), he practiced Ahimsa simply by following the bible. This extends the universality of the concept. More than a religion, I believe it is a moral code that we can all live by, as long as we allow it to consistently "[arouse] intense enthusiasm"(124) in us.

Dr. King was a man immersed in and enthusiastic about his work- two great steps towards success."

Disrupting Space.

What is it about creating a building that so intrigues us? What is it that leads us to classify and respond emotionally to different types of buildings? Perhaps is is the time period they are associated with. For the Littlefield Home, some may relate it with Medieval Times, the Civil War, or even Music, since it was "used as music practice rooms in the fall of 1957"(346). More importantly, I think it is the influence of shapes and the disruption of space. We characterize shapes in many ways and do not give them much credit. After all, a circle is a circle and a square is a square. What's so inspiring about that? But take six squares, create a box, and tip each of the top corners with a sphere and suddenly the same squares are bold and strong, those same circles fluid and majestic. The more we deviate from these simple patterns, the more we embrace the idea that "we must not say the same thing over and over again... we must no more expect to derive either pleasure or profit from an architecture whose ornaments are of one pattern"(Ruskin, 535) the closer we are to creating art.

I absolutely love how beautifully Ruskin personifies Gothic architecture. "An elastic tension and communication of force"(Ruskin, 535) is most definitely present in the Littlefield House.

Balance and harmony are depicted in the architecture of the Littlefield home.

Even from this distance, it is apparent that the individual and robust elements of this architecture are all dependent on each other and communicating force. We can very romantically view the relationship betweens parts of the structure as conversations in gravity rather than sound. Perhaps one of the most alluring factors of the home is that despite its "perpetual variety of every feature"(Ruskin, 535), there is a certain balance and harmony that ties all of the "roughness of the work"(Ruskin, 535) together in a neat bow.

The asymmetry of the poles at the Littlefield home entrance represent a disturbed, intriguing balance.


The Littlefield House fits Ruskin's idea of a Gothic structure due to its "steep gable"(Ruskin, 535) atop the roof and its "pointed arches with gables"(Ruskin, 535) over doors and windows. Identifying these shapes is not enough, however. What do these particular traits inspire? The grandness of a structure is reinforced by the steep, mighty, and tall gable atop it. When we look up to a structure whose top we feel we cannot reach, we tend to feel smaller and humbled. The arches over the windows give way to an imagination very in touch with nature. Doors and windows are glorified and accentuated because like eyes are windows to our souls, these passages are our means of connection to the outside world.

An aerial view depicts the tall gables and ornamented windows.

Utilizing our sympathetic imaginations, we can animate these portals as well as the grotesque figures that often dot Gothic architecture. This only adds to the beauty, grandeur, and wonder of the style.

Pugin is particularly inspirational because he was "filled with a fervent desire to express his faith through architecture"(on Pugin, 524). Architecture is a form of expression little recognized today amongst bland modern buildings, however it has historically been a great form of expression for religious institutions.

Take for instance, the Milan Cathedral. It is one of the largest Gothic works still standing. Both exterior and interior are equally breathtaking and detailed.


Grand arches line the halls and a high ceiling adds to the beauty.

The towers and the detail of their work are almost as amazing as the attractive asymmetrical pattern in which they are placed.

One tower on the left rises above the others.


Deviating slightly, it is also interesting to note the unique architecture of other faiths and the statement they make. In a Muslim Mosque, we see elements somewhat similar to gothic architecture, such as high ceilings and a multitude of arches. Arches are much more simple and plain. Asymmetry remains present but less extreme and dyes are lighter, natural colors. This can be attributed to the availability of resources in respective areas of the world.

Tall arches are once again present in prayer rooms, perhaps encouraging the same humbling sensation that Gothic architecture does.


In sharp contrast, we can observe the architecture of a Buddhist Shaolin Monastery or Temple. It is similar to Gothic architecture in the fact that grotesque statues are present, and the edge of the rooftops are very ornamented. However, temples are typically very symmetrical, square, and not very tall.

Ornamented, yet simple.

Gawain the Medieval Abraham

During Medievel times, the majority of England's population was god-fearing, yet uninterested in history and illiterate. I believe the oral tales of King Arthur and his Knights served to reinforce the moral lessons of the Judaic religions. As the poet says before beginning his tale, "if ze wyl lysten pis laye bot on littel quile,/I schal telle hit astit, as I in toun herde, with tonge"(30-32). Here he confirms the oral tradition ("if you will listen... i shall tell... as I in town heard... with tongue").


Bards were Medieval storytellers. The original author of Gawain and the Green Knight cannot be traced because the story was told (and probably altered) by so many bards.

There are a few differences in the situation and character of Prophets and Knights, but I believe this was chiefly in order to allow for the masses to relate to the Knights and easily continue the oral tradition. Through comparison of character, reaction, and situation of Abraham's Sacrifice and Gawain and the Green Knight we can identify this correlation.

Abraham was asked by god to sacrifice his son as a symbol of utmost trust and dedication. As Abraham remorselessly takes a knife to his son's throat, an angel replaces his son with a sheep, and he slays the sheep instead. God commends Abraham on his loyalty and faith, and all is well.



An Angel stopping Abraham from taking his son's life.


Similarly, Gawain's mission was naught but a trial. There is no real danger involved; simply the illusion of it. He who is good and honest is always saved. This alludes to the idea of Heaven and Hell. He who is good will be rewarded.

One key difference is the initial reactions of Gawain and Abraham. Abraham, completely trusting of God, does not fear the consequences of God's requested actions or what he must do to complete his trial. Gawain, although he too trusts in his own goodness and follows the code of Chivalry (aside from the girdle deception), fears for his life. During his journey, Gawain "fonde nozt hymn byfor pe fare pat he lyked"(694), and was clearly upset, nervous, and worried about his encounter with the seemingly magical Knight.


Although he is afraid, Gawain nobly confronts his fears.


This fear was ultimately what caused the desperation that led him to deceive the King and keep the Morgan Le Faye's girdle. Here, we must note that this was an oral tale, and perhaps these flaws in character were developed over time. This made Gawain more relateable. This minor flaw relates back to Heaven and Hell. Those who commit minor sins can be forgiven and still permitted to enter Heaven. This characterization is more comforting to the common man than the Abraham's flawlessness.

Another method of making Gawain more human was when Gawain himself ruled out the possibility of magical aid, stating "paz my hede fall on pe stones,/i con not hit restore"(2282-83). The Green Knight initially picked up his own severed head, which Gawain knew he would not be able to do.




The Green Knight, riding off with his severed head and worrying Gawain.


Upon leaving Camelot, "greythed is Gawayn Gay/and laght his launce right thore/And gafe hem all good day,/He wende for evermore"(666-669). Basically, Gawain prepared for death, yet did not flee from his destiny.

The final piece of evidence that I believe confirms this religious parallel is the factor of the trial-maker's motivation. God had a reason to test his prophet Abraham's loyalty and goodness. The tale of Gawain and the Green Knight indicates no real motivation for the Green Knight to test Gawain's goodness. I suppose Kings get bored, too? The Green Knight does display god-like qualities. "Hit is a figure pat haldez fyne poyntez... and ayquere hit is endelez"(627-9). He is shown to be reasonable, fair, and "endless". In his punishment of Gawain (the small nick on the neck), he once again exhibits the quality of fairness. Overall, the idea of a divine or magical trial is an unrealistic one. In The Believer (2001), Danny commits random acts of violence against those with a religious appearance. As he beats an innocent man in a deserted subway, he yells, "You think this is a trial?! You think God is testing you? This is NOT a f***ing trial! This is real! Where is your God now?"



Danny, played by Ryan Gosling, following a Jewish man into a deserted subway to commit a heinous hate crime and test god himself.


This accentuates the viewpoint of a religious skeptic or realist. Only in religious texts are the ideas of salvation, goodness, and forgiveness displayed. Thus we can conclude that the role model of Gawain closely shadows that of Abraham.