For Monday: Satrapi, Persepolis (Part I)

On Friday, we discussed why comic books are a truly Non-Western form of literature, and examined how they tell stories in a unique way that combines the visual language of art with language itself. We'll recap some of this in class on Monday. I also passsed out the Paper #3/Final Exam assignment, which you can find in the post below this one. MAKE SURE to read it, since it is a major part of your final grade. 

For Monday, read the first part of Persepolis, from the beginning to around the part where her parents send her to live in Vienna. There are no questions for class, but we will have an in-class response when you arrive. So be sure to read carefully even if it is a comic book! 

Paper #3 and Final Exam (Read Carefully!)

I’m assigning these two works at the same time because I want you to choose which one is which. That is, one of the assignments has to be at least 4 pages and use 2-3 of the books from class, whereas the other one only has to be 2-3 pages and use only 1 book from class. You decide which one is which, based on which one you want to spend more time on and feel you can do the best work on. Naturally, the longer paper is worth more (25 pts) and the shorter work is worth less (15 pts).

THE TWO ASSIGNMENTS (You choose which one is Paper #3 and which is the Final)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1: Write a “New Student’s Introduction” to ONE of the books in our class. This Introduction should give a new student a sense of what to expect in the work: what it’s about, what themes and ideas it deals with, and a discussion of a few passages that you find extremely important (be sure to quote and cite them properly). In other words, help give them a sense of what to expect and how to read it to get the most out of the work.

NOTE: If you choose to make this your Final Exam, you must quote from 2-3 other books in class to show how this book shares themes and ideas with these works. This means you’ll also need a Works Cited page if you choose this option, and be sure to follow MLA (or another format that you prefer) throughout. Must be at least 4 pages.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#2: Suggest a new title for this class other than “Non-Western Literature,” which as we discussed a week ago isn’t the best description for a class full of thousands of years of languages, cultures, and ideas. Explain why your title is more representative of the class and use a specific work to justify this, quoting from the work in question to support your ideas.

NOTE: If you choose to make this your Final Exam, you must use THREE works from class to support your new title. Be sure to quote from each work at least once and discuss each passage, using it to explain why your new course title captures some of the themes and ideas found in these works. This means you’ll also need a Works Cited page if you choose this option, and be sure to follow MLA (or another format that you prefer) throughout. This must be at least 4 pages.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DUE DATES:

Paper #3 is worth 15 points and will be due on our last day of class, Friday, Dec.1^st

The Final Exam is worth 25 points and will be due on our Final Exam Day, Dec. 8^th.

For Monday: Kokoro, Chs. 69-89

NOTE: Starting where you left off (around page 117 for you, I think), end with the part where Okusan and Ojōsan leave to visit relatives.

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Why do both Sensei and K distrust (or frankly dislike) women? What seems to repel them about the opposite sex, and what basis do they have for these views? Do you think this is a cultural bias, or something based in their historical moment (the early 20th century)? In other words, does it reflect the way men looked at women in general at this time, or is it a uniquely Japanese/Eastern point of view?

Q2: Why does Sensei fall in love with Ojōsan? What about her contradicts his general dislike of women (as discussed above)? Also, what do you make of his comment that “I felt not the slightest physical urge toward her daughter”? Is that love?

Q3: How are K and the Narrator somewhat alike? What qualities and/or actions make them seem curiously similar, and why might this explain Sensei’s unusual tolerance for the younger student? Might this also explain Sensei’s attempt to ‘save’ the Narrator at the very end of his life?

Q4: When Sensei proposes inviting K to live with him in the boarding house, Okusan “opposed my plan...Bringing in someone like K, she said, would be bad for me.” Sensei seems totally oblivious of her point, and even once K and Ojōsan strike up a friendship, he claims not to notice. Is he truly this oblivious? Or do you think he wanted the two to fall in love to ‘rescue’ him from his own inability to marry her? Did he want to create a love triangle in order to “infuse in him my own living heat”?

For Friday: Korkoro, Chapters 50-69

NOTE: For your edition of the book, start around the passage where the narrator’s father is dying and he starts talking to his brother about the property; finish roughly around the part where Sensei moves into the house with the widow and starts falling in love with her daughter.

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Sensei writes that “although I despised women, I could not find it in me to despise Ojōsan...I felt for her a love that was close to pious faith.” Why doe she seem to fall in love with her—and is it truly love? Can a man who claims to despise women suddenly make an exception? And how did she convince him to reform his views?

Q2: Besides the fact that Sensei intends to die, why does he finally decide to tell the narrator his secrets? What does he have to gain from recounting the story of his secret shame? Do you think the narrator understand it himself?

Q3: How are the narrator’s and Sensei’s stories of coming to adulthood similar? Are both of them “egotists,” as the narrator’s brother calls Sensei (and people like him)? Do we begin to understand the hidden attraction of the narrator for his ‘teacher’ as we read his letter?

Q4: At the end of Chapter 62 (in my edition), Sensei writes, “But I believe a commonplace idea stated with passionate conviction carries more living truth than some novel observation expressed with cool indifference.” Why might this be an idea we’ve previously encountered in other works in the class? What idea is Sensei actually trying to get across here?

For Wednesday: Kokoro, Chs.26-49 (see below)

* I realize your book doesn't have chapter breaks, and I'll get my hands on your copy as soon as I can. So start with the chapter that begins, roughly, "In the first days of summer, when the cherry boughs..." and end somewhere around the chapter/part that begins "My father's conditon deteriorated to the point where the fatal blow seemed imminent." 

No questions for next time--we'll do an in-class writing response. As you read, keep thinking about Sensei and the Narrator's relationship, and what the attachment primarily consists of. Is it love? Infatuation? Idolization? Something else? What about Sensei's relationship with his wife? Is it based on pity or convenience? Does he despise her as he does the rest of humanity--or is she the exception? And when the Narrator returns home, how does he change among his family members? Does he begin to live a new life? What prevents him from forming the attachments Sensei expects him to find/make?

See you then! 

For Monday: Sōseki, Kokoro, Chs.1-25

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In some ways, Kokoro is a novel about the traditional Japanese way of life giving way to the modern, Western world. How does the narrator and some of the other characters represent this change? Where else does the novelist show us these changes?

Q2: Several times, the narrator proclaims Sensei as a remarkable man and a philosopher. On one occasion he even exclaims, “I genuinely regretted the way the world ignored this admirable man” (Ch.11). How does the narrator communicate his greatness or uniqueness to the reader? Why is he a “sensei,” which is a term of respect which literally means “one who comes before,” but often connotes a teacher or wise man?

Q3: Sensei tells the narrator in Chapter 7 that “No time is as lonely as youth.” Why might youth (the age many of you are now) be lonelier than adulthood or old age? What do we lack in youth that we gain (or see) when we get older?

Q4: At one point, Sensei tells the narrator that “You had the impulse to find someone of the same sex as the first step toward embracing someone of the opposite sex...But I’m a man, so I can’t really fill your need” (Ch.13). Does the narrator want him to fulfill this need? Is he in love with the older man? Or is it, as Sensei suggests, a way to ‘test’ his attachment to another human being? 

For this Week: The Picture of Faith

Remember, this entire week (or part of the week, if it goes faster) we're going to read your images of faith/belief and discuss how they relate to the quotes you've chosen. This is our "text" for the week and you must be present to discuss your picture/description. This is a small part of your Paper #2 assignment, but an important one, since it can help you write the paper (it's kind of like a warm up). Also, you can hear other people talk about their images and that can help you consider how you plan to approach your subject. 

If you haven't given me your image and passage already please do so immediately. I will randomly go through the images in class, and the less images I have, the more time we'll spend discussing each one. So, if we run out of time and your image hasn't been discussed, you'll get a zero for this (easy) part of the assignment. So don't be left in the cold! 

See you next week...

For Friday: Narayan, The Guide, Chs.10-11

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: How does Raju’s transformation begin in prison? Why is it appropriate that he became a visionary in the place where his vision was most restricted?

Q2: Since most of the novel is actually Raju’s narration of his story to Velan, to expose the hypocrisy of his career as a guru, how does Velan respond to this? What might this say about the nature of Velan’s faith—and what he sees in his guru?

Q3: What makes Raju finally decide to make “an earnest effort; for the first time he was learning the thrill of full application, outside money and love” (189)? Is this, too, tinged with a secret motive? Or has he finally decided to become the guide every expects of him?

Q4: How do you think we’re supposed to read the ending? Do you think the rains are coming—and does this matter? Is the manner of Raju’s death (if he dies) noble, or is he simply trapped in the role fate laid out for him? Has Narayan redeemed his hero, or just caught him in an inescapable trap? 

For Wednesday: Narayan, The Guide, Chapters Eight & Nine

NOTE: Remember that I’ll be gone on Monday due to a dental procedure out of town (ugh). So we’ll have to reschedule class for Wednesday, at which time we’ll discuss the next two chapters. If you missed class on Wednesday (before break), I handed out the second paper assignment, which you can find below. Read it carefully, though I’ll discuss it again on Wednesday.

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: At the end of Chapter Nine, Rosie says, “I felt all along you were not doing right things. This is karma. What can we do?” (170). Do you think Narayan agrees with this? Are all of Raju’s problems due to his karma—or his refusal to follow his duty? Or does Narayan offer more “Western” reasons for his ultimate failure?

Q2: How does Raju manage to jumpstart Rosie’s career as a dancer? How might this be linked to his abilities as a guide and a guru? What glimpse of his character do we get here, and how might it explain the villagers’ fascination with him in the ‘present’?

Q3: According to Raju’s family, Rosie is a “saithan,” or she-devil who has possessed him and made him betray his family. Even Marco, her own husband, dismisses her as an abomination. How does Narayan want us to view this “modern” woman with her love of ancient tradition? Is he suggesting that such women have no place in Indian life? Or is he more sympathetic to her than to Raju himself?

Q4: In Chapter Nine, Raju reflects that “I’ve come to the conclusion that nothing in this world can be hidden or suppressed. All such attempts are like holding an umbrella to conceal the sun” (156). How might this connect to similiar wisdom in the Tao te Ching or The Bhagavad Gita. What me he—or Narayan—actually be saying in this passage?

Non-Western Literature, Paper #2: The Picture of Faith

Our last two works, The Bhagavad Gita and The Guide are both about the nature of faith and enlightenment, and how we can recognize the presence of the divine. In one work, Krishna turns out to be a lowly charioteer, and in the other, a crooked guide suddenly assumes the role of Mahatma for an isolated village. Each work also tries to illustrate what faith looks like, so we can see the “moon” behind the finger and clearly distinguish the two. Though the two works might not completely agree with each other (Narayan is writing a thousand or so years later), they both believe there is indeed a moon to be found if we look carefully enough, even if others deny its existence.

PART ONE: So for your second paper, I want you to find your own illustration of faith. By this, I mean find an image (photo, painting, etc.) that represents something about how you express or illustrate the concept of “faith.” Whether you consider yourself religious or not, we all understand the concept of faith and believe in something, even if only a vague notion of good and evil, or justice, or love. Find an image that represents some aspect of this and describe it in the beginning of your paper: assume we’ve never seen it, so describe it as accurately as possible, while also interpreting for us (explain why it represents your notion of faith).

PART TWO: After you describe your image, I want you to add a significant quotation from any of the works from class (from Writings from Ancient Egypt to The Guide) to caption your image (a few sentences to a paragraph). Imagine this image will be on display with the caption below it, as a way of explaining the image. Choose a passage that you feel can help “illustrate” what you saw in the picture or can help illustrate the words. In the paper, I want you to introduce the work and context of the passage (explain where it comes from), and then analyze the quotation, explaining what you think it means and how it relates to your work of art. Remember, you can choose any quotation you think is useful, but choose something that would help someone see more in the image and about your faith.

ALSO: After you write your paper, e-mail me your image and passage. I will paste all of them into a Powerpoint file and we will share them with the entire class. Don’t worry, this will be very informal; all I want you to do is briefly explain the image and quote when I flip through your slide. This is meant to be an interesting way to share our ideas and take a brief interlude from the normal business of class.

REQUIREMENTS

• At least 2-3 pages, double spaced
• Detailed description and analysis of the work of art
• A pertinent quote from one of the books which is quoted and given appropriate context, and then discussed with the photo/painting
• DUE DATES: Need Picture & Passage by Friday, October 27th; Completed Paper due no later than Friday, November 3rd (the last day of presentations)
• We will present/discuss the images on the week of September 30th in random order, so be ready to discuss it. The paper is worth 15 points, and the presentation is worth 5 points, so skipping or not being prepared will affect your grade. 

For Monday: Narayan, The Guide, Chs.6-7

Photo by Steve McCurry

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Why does Raju agree to fast for two weeks in knee-deep water even though he knows he’s not the savior they expect? Does he begin to believe in his own power and his divine “role”? Or is he merely buying time and hoping against hope?

Q2: Marco and Rosie both seem to represent “modern” India, one that has one foot in the East and one in the West. Does Narayan suggest that they have made the inevitable compromise of the postcolonial world? Or does he intend to satirize one—or both—of them?  In his mind, can you be a Western Indian, or is such a marriage doomed to failure?

Q3: What is the significance of Rosie's dancing in the novel?  Why is her husband so disgusted by it, and why does it even shock Raju's mother?  How might this relate to the caste system, which even after Independence continues to shape the society’s values?

Q4: To return to our in-class writing question on Friday, can a man be a guru or even a Mahatma even he secretly doesn’t believe in his own power? The villagers consider it a great honor to even stand near him, not realizing that he is secretly thinking of food and escape. Is this proof that he is ‘evil’ or fraudulent...or is this merely a necessary stage in his Enlightenment? 

For Friday: Narayan, The Guide, Chapters 1-5 (only added one chapter to last Wedneday's reading)

NOTE: Since I got the impression that not everyone had read the novel, I want to do an overview of the first Four Chapters, as well as add Chapter Five for Friday. No questions, but we will do an in-ciass response when you come to class. I talked a bit about the difficulty of being a postcolonial writer in class on Wednesday, so consider how Narayan writes between two worlds--English and Indian--and what he translates for a Western audience and what he doesn't. Also, consider how much of Raju's story is specifically Eastern--drawing on The Bhagavad Gita, in particular.

See you then! 

For Wednesday: Narayan, The Guide, Chs.1-4 (pp.1-40)

Photo by Steve McCurry 

For Wednesday, start reading Narayan's The Guide, a novel that brings the 'Non-Western' world into the 20th century.  In this book, Raju, a con-man and criminal, has recently been released from jail and winds up being mistaken for a holy man by a local peasant.  While conning this peasant and his village, Raju begins narrating the story of his life which leads up to his arrest; the result is the story of one man's struggle for identity in the midst of India's own identity crisis after over 200 years of British colonization. We’ll talk about some of the context of India, colonization, and the use of English as an ‘Indian’ language in class, since this book is not translated—it was actually written in English.  

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Even though Narayan wrote the novel in English, he also spoke Tamil, a South Indian language, so he is in effect writing from two cultures.  Even though the story is ‘translated’ into an English-language novel, are there some practices or concepts he doesn’t translate? What aspects of the book seem to need more translation or explanation, and why do you think Narayan didn’t provide this?

Q2: Remember that The Bhagavad Gita urges us to “do thy duty, even if it be humble, rather than another’s, even if it be great. To die in one’s duty is life: to live in another’s is death” (20). How might this explain why Raju agrees to be a holy man for the village? While some would call him a criminal, how does Raju see—and defend—himself?

Q3: How does Raju find his calling early in life?  What attracts him to the role of a 'guide,' even though he has very little knowledge to begin with?  Consider his statement on page 36, "I learned much from scrap."

Q4: How might Raju’s saintliness, at least in the eyes of the villagers, echo the events of Kumare? What do they see/find in him, and how much of this is through his own doing? If we all seek the guru inside us, what are they looking for—and finding—in Raju?

For Friday: Finish The Bhagavad Gita, Chs.16-18

No questions, but we'll do a brief in-class response to an important idea/passage from the last three chapters on Friday. After this, you'll get a nice break because (a) we'll be moving onto modern works--all from the 20th century, and (b) we'll screen a film in class next week and discuss it as a break from heavier reading. Stay tuned to learn more about it...

For Wednesday: The Bhagavad Gita, Chs. 12-15

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In Chapter 13, Krishna is explaining the ‘freedoms’ needed to break away from ignorance, among which is, “Freedom from the chains of attachments, even from a selfish attachment to one’s children, wife, or home; an ever-present evenness of mind in pleasant or unpleasant events” (63). Does this mean that human relationships are ‘evil,’ in that they create delusion and lead men and women away from the light of truth? Is human love wrong or deluded? How did you read this passage/chapter in light of the rest of the book?

Q2: Throughout the book, and especially in these chapters, Krishna warns of the danger of following thoughts of “I” or “mine.” What is wrong with a sense of self? Is it possible to be without such a sense? Why might the individual consciousness be the root of all delusion, according to Krishna? What might this mean to a culture (Western/American) that believes individuality and personality is the most important thing you own?

Q3: Elsewhere in Chapter 13, Krishna says that “when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting others; then he goes indeed to the highest Path” (64). Isn’t this a contradiction? If Arjuna kills warriors on the other side—warriors that are also him—isn’t he hurting himself by hurting others? Is there another way to read this?

Q4: According to Chapter 14, what is the significance of the “three constituents of nature,” Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas? How do we know if our work falls under their shadow, and how can we escape it?

For Monday: The Bhagavad Gita, Chapters 7-11

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In Chapter 11, Arjuna begs to see Krishna’s divine form, as it truly exists; once Krishna gives him the ability to do so, he sees a bewildering number of forms and visions. In one of them, he sees Krishna as a “vast form, reaching the sky, burning with many colors, with wide open mouths, with vast flaming eyes,” who eats the greatest heroes and crushes their heads “into powder” (55). Why does Krishna, who claims to be “whatever is beautiful and good”(51) also appear as a monster and a killer? And how might this remind you of something else we read earlier this semester?

Q2: Krishna is very critical of those who merely follow the laws (Vedas) or who worship expecting an eternal paradise at the end. Strangely, he seems more tolerant of people of others faiths, or even of people with little faith at all, but who exhibit a “pure heart.” Why would someone ignorant of the laws often have a better chance at salvation than those who know and study them religiously, according to the text?

Q3: These chapters talk a little more explicitly about the concept of Karma, and how it shapes the lives and fates of men and women. What is Karma and how does it work, according to the text? Also, based on Karma, why is Arjuna’s refusal to fight rather pointless?

Q4: In many religions, the world is seen as a constant struggle between the forces of light and darkness, good and evil. While this does play a role in The Bhagavad Gita, why is the idea of good vs. evil not entirely correct, according to Krishna? Why is this, too, a mark of delusion which leads men to suffering? (you might also consider how the text relates to the Tao concept of yin/yang).

For Friday: The Bhagavad Gita, Chs. 3-6

There are no questions this time, since we only scratched the surface during Wednesday's class. So we'll recap some of what we discussed as well as uncover a few more details from Chs.3-4, as well as a few ideas from 5 and 6 if time allows. When you arrive in class, we'll have an in-class response based on a passage/idea from Chs.3-4. 

I also hope to return your papers to you on Friday. Besides your paper grade, I'll also include a sticky note with how many absences/missed responses you have since we're nearing Mid-Term. 

See you on Friday! 

For Wednesday: The Bhagavad Gita, Parts 1-4

NOTE: The Bhagavad Gita is actually a small part of a much larger work, and thus occurs in the middle of the action. To give you some context, I’m quoting from our Introduction which gives a very succinct overview: 

“The Bhagavad Gita takes place at a critical point deep within the Mahabharata. Two vast armies stand mustered almost ready to close in battle. The assembled warriors come from the length and breadth of the known world. The dispute they hope to resolve is one of kingdom and honor between rival sets of cousins, the Pandavas, sons of Pandu, and the Kaurvas, sons of Dhritarashtra, Pandu’s blind elder brother…Arjuna, the most distinguished warrior in the Pandava army, surveys his adversaries and expresses to Krishna, his charioteer and great friend, his resolve not to fight. The opposing forces contain many with whom the Pandavas have no quarrel: moreover, these include highly esteemed teachers and elders. Arjuna’s scruples center on the imagined personal consequences of fighting: his guilt for the decimation of his people. Krishna speaks with him—the Bhagavad Gita is their dialogue—until he is once more resolved to fight.”

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Despite all the strange and exotic names used in this book, what makes Krishna’s dilemma a completely universal (and relatable) one? Quote a specific passage from the opening pages that might be asked today, and is a legitimate response to the horrors and complications of war.

Q2: What does Krishna mean when he says, “And do thy duty, even if it be humble, rather than another’s, even if it be great. To die in one’s duty is life: to live in another’s is death” (20)? Does this statement justify murder and bloodshed? Isn’t he suggesting that since Arjuna was born a prince he has to fight and kill like a prince? Do you find this a convenient statement, or does it have another meaning?

Q3: In a passage that sounds like the Tao te ching, Krishna says, “The unreal never is: the Real never is not” (11). How might this connect to an important idea in the Tao te ching and does it mean the same thing here?  Isn’t this a complicated way to say “real things are real, unreal things are unreal”? Or is it trickier than that?

Q4: One of the central teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism is right action—or as Krishna says, “Set thy heart upon work, but never on its reward” (13). Why is this important? If the job gets done, and the work is good, does it matter in what spirit the work is done? Can anyone really tell if a building is constructed by someone who doesn’t want money?

For Wednesday: Finish the Tao te ching

No questions for Wednesday--we'll have an in-class writing response based on some aspect of the remaining poems. Here are some ideas you might want to consider...

* "It is on disaster that good fortune perches"

* "it is because the sage never attempts to be great that he succeeds in becoming great"

* "to rule a state by cleverness will be to the determent of the state"

* "the virtue of non-contention"

* "I dare not play the host but the guest"

* "My words are very easy to understand and very easy to put into practice, yet no one in the world can understand them or put them into practice"

* "A man is supple and weak when living, but hard and stiff when dead"

* "Straightforward words seem paradoxical"

For Monday: Tao te Ching, Book 2: Poems 38-60 (pp.45-67)

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Many of these poems seem to suggest that it is better not to know than to know; better not to go than to go; better not to do than to do. Is this a philosophy of being lazy and ignorant? If so, why should we read a book at all? What IS the meaning of these seeming paradoxes (look at Poem 47 (XLVII) in particular.

Q2: We discussed the idea that these poems might have been intended for a ruler to guide his people, and several poems in this selection also use the language of an emperor to his empire. Why might this also be an effective metaphor for someone who wields no power and is just a normal man or woman in society? Why might it be important to think of yourself as the ruler of a vast kingdom?

Q3: One of the most famous statements in the Tao te ching occurs in poem 56 (LVI): "One who knows does not speak, one who speaks does not know." How does this echo an actual statement (or statements) in The Teachings of Ptahhotep or The Satire of the Trades? Why do you think both cultures place such importance on the art of speaking (or being silent)?

Q4: "The Way" cannot be explained or shown, but hinted at through a series of metaphors. Which metaphor in these poems did you feel was most effective at helping you 'see' some aspect of this teaching? Briefly discuss how the metaphor works in its poem. 

Non-Western Literature, Paper #1: An Ancient Conversation

“My words are very easy to understand and very easy to put into practice, yet no one in the world can understand them or put them into practice” (Tao te ching, Poem 70)

INTRO: For your First Paper assignment, which also functions as an exam over our first two books, I want you to consider the ‘conversations’ two ancient works are having with each other. Even though these works are written in two different cultures in some cases a thousand or more years apart, they each represent a non-Western point of view, and express similar virtues and philosophies. Each one plays on the idea of paradox and the difficulty of expressing the ‘truth’ for people to read and follow.

PROMPT: I want you to write a paper examining one work from Literature from Ancient Egypt and at least one poem (though you can use two) from the Tao te ching. By “examining them,” I mean I want you to consider how each one is having a similar conversation about truth, beauty, life, death, enlightenment, art, writing, or virtue. Discuss how each one is talking about the same basic idea in different ways; for example, if an Egyptian poem speaks about the importance of using “right speech,” how does a poem from the Tao te ching do the same thing, but from its own unique perspective? What would they both agree on, and where might they slightly disagree?

REQUIREMENTS:

• Try to imagine that the two works are sitting at a table having a conversation together. The topic is the connection you see between both works. How would they discuss it? Show us how each work develops the conversation over a few beers.
• QUOTE from each work: if you think the Egyptian poem says that death is an illusion, show us where you see that—what lines, what words. It’s okay to summarize what a poem is saying, but also try to analyze it—show us how the work says what you think it does.
• When you quote a work, be sure to introduce the poem and then put the page number in parenthesis at the end. For example… In the Tao te ching, the poet writes that “My words are very easy to understand and very easy to put into practice” (77). We’ll talk more about integrating quotations into a literature paper in class soon.
• The paper should be at least 3-4 pages double spaced (and typed, naturally).
• The paper is due by 5pm on Monday, September 18^th [no class that day]

For Friday: Tao te Ching, Poems 20-37 (pp.24-42) or to the end of Book One

Answer the following question--only ONE!

Q1: Though these poems can be considered philosophical meditations, or even the basis for a kind of religion, what if they were meant for far more practical purposes? Some suggest these poems were meant as a guide for a ruler to keep control of his kingdom--as a kind of political manual. Choosing one of the poems in this section, discuss how it might help a ruler consolidate his power, keep the people happy, win foreign wars, and/or quell any potential rebellions.

A few ideas to consider:

* "Between good and evil, how great the difference?"

*"Bowed down then preserved"

* To use words but rarely is to be natural"

* He who boasts will not endure"

* "That which goes against the way will come to an early end"

* "If you would have a thing shrink, you must first stretch it"

For Wednesday: Lao Tzu, Tao te Ching, Poems I-XX (1-20)

For Wednesday's class, read through the first twenty poems in the Tao te Ching slowly...don't read them the way you would a novel or short story. In fact, I care less that you read them all then you read a few of them carefully and more than once. Remember our discussion on Friday about metaphors and how a metaphor can transform a common experience into something unique and complex--and help you experience it from the poet's point of view.

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Discuss an important metaphor in one of the poems: what do you think this metaphor is trying to compare--what experience/idea to what experience/idea? Why is this useful? For example, Poem XII (12) says, "the sage is/For the belly/Not for the eye." What does it mean that the sage/teacher is meant to be "eaten" and not "seen"? 

Q2: Many of these poems play with the idea of paradox--two ideas that would normally cancel each other out. Discuss one such paradox and why this paradox is not only possible, but enlightening to consider. For example, "use will never drain it." How is this possible?

Q3: Many of these poems can seem repetitive, using the same ideas and even the same language from one to another. Why do you think this is? Does one poem build on the other? Or do they represent different voices, each one offering slight variations on the same theme or idea?

Q4: Discuss a poem or passage that seems hopelessly confusing or impossible to 'translate.' Why is this? What language, metaphor, or paradox seems too dense to penetrate? Do you have any guesses or ideas? 

For Wednesday: Last Egyptian Readings--see below

For Wednesday: “Be a Writer” and “The Teaching of Khety” (pp.284-298)

NOTE: These are our last readings from the book Writings from Ancient Egypt, so be sure to buy the next book, Tao te Ching which we will start discussion after Labor Day. Be sure to keep this book, though, since your first paper assignment will ask you to use it!

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: How does the piece “Be a Writer,” resemble the soul’s argument in “The Dialogue of a Man and his Soul”? How could we argue that this is another subversive work that defies the powers that be and makes writers more important than kings or gods?

Q2: Both of these texts were used in scribal schools to train future scribes: so the students would copy these works over and over again until they mastered the difficulties of hieroglyphic writing. How might these works have also functioned as propaganda for the future scribes at the academy?

Q3: According to “The Teaching of Khety,” what are some of the social taboos that lower-class Egyptians try to avoid? Why is it necessary for some of the lowest, most labor-intensive jobs to break these taboos and force the workers to abase themselves?

Q4: These are some of the earliest writings about school and the purpose of getting an education. How do some of these sentiments relate to modern-day reasons for going to college and getting a degree? Do we still argue these same points today? And if so, is there an element of propaganda in how we encourage people to follow one profession (requiring advanced training) over another?

For Monday: “The Teaching of Ptahhotep” (pp.255-274)

NOTE: I will ask the “China” group to initiate our discussion on Monday—refer to your handout for the group breakdowns.

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Much of this work is devoted to “instructing the ignorant in knowledge and in the correct method of perfect speech, which will be beneficial to the listener but of no use to the neglectful” (257). According to these maxims, what is “perfect speech,” and how can one master the art of speaking? Does “perfect speech” change depending on who is speaking (high class, low class)? Or is it a universal law/art?

Q2: Though these maxims teach us a lot about how Egyptians viewed morality and conduct, they also reveal much about women in the ancient world. What role did women play and how were they viewed by the “wise men” of the kingdom? What ‘dangers’ did women pose to ‘virtuous’ men?

Q2: Though Ptahhotep claims that speech is important, even more important is the art of listening. According to the Epilogue, “As for the fool who does not listen,/He can do nothing./He sees wisdom in ignorance,/usefulness in harmfulness” (273). Why do you think Egyptians placed such importance on listening, and what else might listening consist of besides simply hearing others speak?

Q4: Are there parts of the maxims that seem contradictory or simply confusing? Could someone really follow all of these as a whole? Or do you feel they were meant to be read in part, or simply for the reader to take the parts he most desired? (and if so, what might these say about rules of conduct in general?)

For Friday: "The Dialogue of a Man and His Soul" (pp.115-122)

Remember, no questions for Friday's class, but we will have an in-class writing based on the reading, "The Dialogue of a Man and His Soul" on pages 115-122. As you read, consider some of the following ideas, any one of which might make an appearance on Friday:

* What disagreement is the man having with his soul? Why does he feel his soul "leads him astray"? 

* Do the "soul's" ideas represent what we imagine our soul would tell us today? Why or why not?

* The soul says "Look, it is good to listen to people! Be happy and forget all cares!" This sounds like the servant's words to his master in "The Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor." Does this suggest that the soul is right? Or is the soul the one not listening?

* Why does the man think his name "stinks"? What crimes/sins has he committed?

* Why does the man see Death as a deliverance rather than an evil? How does he use words/metaphors to explain his own vision of death?

* How does the dialogue end? Who wins? What point of view? Or is it too incomplete to tell?

Also, I will call on members of the "China" group to read some of their responses aloud in class. Check your handout to see if you're in that group so you don't get surprised! (unless you like surprises!) 

For Wednesday: Writings from Ancient Egypt (see below)

For Wednesday: Writings from Ancient Egypt: “The Cannibal Hymn” (pp.89-92) & “The Great Hymn to the Orb” (pp.101-105)

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In many ancient societies, the king was seen as the living embodiment of the gods or a specific god, or else their direct intermediary on earth. According to “The Cannibal Hymn” what is the king’s relationship to the gods? How does the hymn/song help the listener ‘see’ Unas’ position in the relationship between gods and men?

Q2: Psalm 104 from the Old Testament seems to echo many of the ideas in “The Great Hymn to the Orb,” which was written much earlier—and as the Hebrews lived among the Egyptians, it makes sense that they would have heard or read it. Why do you think the writers of a monotheistic religion would borrow (or be inspired from) this earlier poem, even though the Egyptians were more or less their enemy (and certainly not believers)?

Q3: Though written almost a thousand years apart (around 2350 BCE and 1350 BCE), what similarities do both works share in terms of language, the identity/power of the king, and conception of the divine? In other words, how do we know that the same culture wrote both poems, even though Egyptian culture had changed/matured by the time “The Great Hymn” was written?

Q4: “The Cannibal Hymn” contains surprisingly lurid imagery, as it imagines the king feasting on the bodies of gods, using “the legs of their elders” in his cauldrons and “their women’s legs” to scrape out his pots. Why would a culture want to celebrate a king who is basically a “cannibal,” even if he didn’t literally eat their corpses? Why might this have been an effective image in ancient times?

For Monday: Writings from Ancient Egypt, "Tales of Wonder" (see below)

For Monday: Tales of Wonder (pp.235-250): “Prince Bauefra’s tale,” “Prince Hordefef’s Tale,” “The Tale of the royal children,” and “The Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor”

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: “The Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor” is probably the most famous work of ancient Egyptian literature, since it is more or less complete, and tells an actual (recognizable) story. Why else do you think it has become so popular, told and re-told over 4,000 years? What makes it memorable, interesting, or mysterious?

Q2: The first three tales are a bit fragmentary (we’re missing pieces of them), and in general, they aren’t as easy to follow as “The Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor.” What aspects of one or more of these stories seems unexplained or confusing to you? Why do you think this is? Do you think it’s a forgotten part of their culture, or was it meant to be confusing to its readers?

Q3: All of these tales are “frame narratives,” meaning that someone is telling a story to a second party, giving us in essence two levels of narrative. Why do you think it’s important for a story to depict the act of telling a story? Explain how the double narrative helps us understand the story, or provides a useful function to the actual story itself.

Q4: How do these stories depict the morals and values of ancient Egyptian society? According to them, what rules and customs did they follow? What was “good behavior” vs. “bad behavior”? What did they think of their superiors and inferiors? And by extension, what did they want their readers to learn about these relationships (since stories usually teach lessons, especially in the ancient world)?