Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

8. Why do you think attaining the Grail must involve choosing the correct Grail from all the false ones? What might this imply about the search / the notion of the quest?

Isn't the epitome of an ideal always about achieving perfect simplicity without any distractions or complications? That is why it makes sense to me that the simplest Grail would also be the best (or correct) Grail. However, it is human nature to be distracted by less beneficial, but very tempting, offers: that's why we have procrastination on facebook, credit card debt, and obesity. That's also why those other, fancier, Grails, look like they would suit the part - they've got all the trappings of having the piety along with the greed and the lust and the carnal pleasures. However, achieving that holiness that makes one worthy of the Grail is about being pious (or boring) enough to give up the good things in life in favor of the right things in life.

9. Why do you think the Grail cannot (1) move beyond the Great Seal and (2) is lost. What is it about the notion of a Grail that is ALWAYS unattainable (as we saw in all three of our Grail quests – Perceval’s, Persse’s and now Indiana’s)?

Who do YOU know who is perfect? No one! That's why the Grail is unattainable. Who would be worthy of its powers? Who could possibly be so free of flaws that they could be entrusted with its use? If Indiana Jones had been able to keep the Grail, I think that having its powers in his power would have eventually corrupted him. Indiana is certainly a very idealized character, but he does has flaws. That's the only reason he's interesting! Let's face it, gossiping about someone's drunken hookup is much more fun than talking about someone who turned in his income taxes on time. Indiana Jones wouldn't have fallen for the blonde professor if he were flawless enough to truly "not trust anyone" and/or able to resist his throbbing desire for her.

Extra Credit Time!

Here is a chance for you to get some extra credit for FYS 100. It will make up for two missed blogs, or if you've done them all, this will count as extra credit toward your blog grade.

This is what you should do: Come to the Hartt Dances performance at Millard Theater (in the Hartt School building) on Friday, December 4 or Saturday, December 5 at 7:30 PM, or on Sunday December 6th at 3 PM. Since you are all students at the university, you get 1 free ticket with your student ID. To get a ticket, you can go to the Lincoln Box Office at Lincoln Theater during their business hours, or just get to the theater an hour (or less) before the show to get a ticket.

Once you have seen the show, write a paragraph or two about the medieval themes or values that you saw in the different dances. You can pick one dance to write about, or a few of them. Some medieval themes that you might see are chivalry (especially prevalent in partnering between a man and a woman), court life, and magic. However, I'd love to see what YOU can come up with!

Email your responses to me at fastow@hartford.edu by December 12. I'll email you back to let you know that I got your extra credit.

Perceval Begins

2. Describe the first scene concerning Perceval’s encounter with the knights in the Waste Forest. How does Chrétien portray Perceval? And the knights? What image of knighthood does the text portray? And what is Perceval’s perception of knighthood? How do these portrayals conflict with one another? Why do you think Chrétien does this?

Before Perceval sees the knights, he thinks that they are "devils [that are] more frightening than anything in the world" (382). His foolhardy decision to strike the "devils" rather than cross himself shows how his character is impulsive and rash - aspects that sometimes prove beneficial, sometimes negative. When he finally sees the knights, however, the "glittering hauberks and the bright, shining helmets, the lances and the shields - which he had never seen before - and when he beheld the green and vermilion glistening in the sunshine, the blue and silver," he was "captivated and astonished" (382). Basically, Perceval is a child, because shiny toys are enough to convince him that devils are angels.

Perceval's perception of knighthood is that knights are superhuman - that they are holy, Godlike, and perhaps even better than God (definitely blasphemous). To Perceval, they are the manifestation of idealized beauty. But the knights themselves are self-centered and mean. They seem to be entirely caught up in pursing their quarry of knights and ladies, and they make fun of Perceval in his ignorance, rather than treating him with chivalrous kindness. The knight who is the head honcho is certainly having a good time talking to Perceval and making fun of what a "dolt" and "Welshman" he is. So while the knights certainly look the part, they don't act it.

Chretien creates this dichotomy to show that things are not what they seem - a life lesson that the naive Perceval is bound to learn soon. For instance, it is not enough to take advice at face value - because however well-meant, Perceval totally bungles his encounter with the lady in the tent. (Maybe he's never seen a lady before?) Perceval, like a toddler, follows the literal words of his mother's advice without understanding the intention behind them. Perceval seems to not know or care the difference between taking and giving, stealing and receiving. He comes out from the tent with the lady's ring, which he somehow sees as a token of her esteem. But of course it's not, because he took it from her, it wasn't given to him (which is what a token is, of course). In this unrealistically complete absence of a morally-based, common-sensical internal compass, Perceval displays an almost Machiavellan manner: it doesn't matter to him what means he uses to achieve the end he wishes. To Perceval, a ring taken is as good as a ring given.

Celestina Caboose

Question 1: Melibea and Calisto must meet in the dead of night, in the darkness. What does this reveal about the nature of their desire for one another, especially when you consider their references to images of light (i.e. stars, the moon, bright beams radiating form Melibea, etc).

I think that this shows that their love - or lust, really - is based on foul values. The fact that they have to sneak around to consummate their affections for each other, and the way that their relationship is hidden, shows that their love is not virtuous or strong enough to withstand the scrutiny of daylight. If Melibea and Calisto's love was really as powerful as they say it is (not, of course, as powerful as they imply with their actions - their actions are much weaker than their words), then they would be emboldened to break society's taboos and declare publicly their love for each other. If Calisto is really as fine a gentleman as Melibea says he is before she kills himself, there would be no logical reason why they couldn't be married and live happily together. However, because Melibea and Calisto are really in this big stew because they wanted physical gratification and a fun distraction, the foundation of real love - a selflessness that makes you want to provide for the other person and keep them happy and safe - is absent.

Question 2: Melibea calls what she and Calisto have“love” – do you think either of them really loved each other, or does Melibea’s suicide have more to do with her shame than anything else? Do any of the characters exhibit actual love? If not, why is love referred to so often?

Lust is what this really is, and love is the sugarcoated version of it. When these characters say they're lovesick, they really mean that they are super horny and can't wait to jump in bed with each other. But out of respect for society's rules and their own selfish desires to stay in the comfortable and respected statuses that they already inhabit, Melibea and Calisto call their lust by a sweeter name. Even a man with money can't acceptably go around making dangerous schemes just for the sake of a good lay (not even Hugh Hefner). It would be irresponsible and downright stupid. Do these characters ever praise the other in anything but looks? Rarely. I think this proves that their relationship is not built on deep appreciation for the other's entire being and personality, but on a much shallower physical attraction. However, by bringing emotion into the picture - even fake emotion - Calisto and Melibea get to scheme away with the support of society's infrastructure (namely, their servants and the local old whore) - and it's OK then, because it's all in the name of "love."

Question 5: Who do you see as the victim(s) in this story? Are there any real victims? Is everyone to blame? Are some characters more to blame than others?

I would have felt bad for Parmeo - but when he crossed over to the dark side, he lost my vote. I think that Celestina does an excellent job of showing the human flaws that everyone has - magnified by the drama of fiction and the rules of society. There is no faultless character in this tale. Calisto and Melibea are blinded by lust; Celestina, Parmeo, and Sempronio by greed; Alisa and Pleberio by a desire to maintain their status. Even the servants who are supposed to have their masters' best interests at heart don't have the guts to follow through on any protective motives. Even Lucrecia, who senses that things will not turn out well, silences her inner alarm clock and just goes along with Melibea's plotting. I think that all the characters are to blame, and the absence of any "faultless" character makes me less eager to point fingers and name some characters that are more blameworthy.

In the end, I think that the system is to blame. If everyone in this tale could just have their sexual fun without having to worry about what others would say about them or how it would affect their futures, then all the negative implications that come with their hookups would be neutralized, and no one would have to die! However, with medieval taboos being what they were, and what with the lack of contraceptive devices, the importance of religion, and the value placed on a bride's virginity, this kind of ideal solution is a fairy tale.

Celestina Day 3

2. How do you explain Areusa and Elicia's comments about Melibea in Act IX? Is this mere jealousy or is something more going on here? (Or, you can comment about this entire scene within Celestina's house -- what does this scene reveal about this house and what occurs here?)

Areusa and Elicia don't say very nice things about Melibea during lunch. In fact, Elicia says: "Well, if she's lovely, then I'll be damned. She hasn't got anything at all lovely about her to look at - except to someone with diseased eyes ... She only has the sort of beauty you buy at a shop ... If she looks pretty it's because of the fine ornaments and all the make-up she puts on." Through a strong use of language, Elicia states that Melibea is no naturally stunning beauty, but, at least in terms of appearance, certainly knows how to use her wealth to her advantage. This could be seen as jealousy, but it's also a statement about social class and money. Of course upper-class women who don't need to work for a living and who have at their fingertips the funds for nice clothing, jewelry, and cosmetics will be able to look nicer than a lower class of women.

Areusa's comments reflect similar ideas of jealousy and class differences. And Areusa starts in on Melibea's body, it's downright cruel: "God's my witness, if you had ever seen her before you had breakfast, you would get so sick at your stomach you couldn't eat all day long ... Really, for a young girl, she has breasts as big as if she had had three babies already. They look just like two big gourds. I never saw her belly, but judging from the rest of her it must be as flabby as an old woman's of fifty." Both Areusa and Elicia's association of sickness with appreciating Melibea's beauty imply that it can't actually be that bad - between their disgust and Calisto's admiration, I am led to believe that both sides are exaggerated. Furthermore, Areusa's revulsion at Melibea's breasts and stomach reflect, surprisingly, a very contemporary idealized female body image: slender and streamlined. Considering that medieval women were most valued as baby factories, it is rather odd that Areusa would so hatefully deride these motherly elements of Melibea's anatomy. It could be that Areusa, a lower-class woman who is already pregnant, knows that having a child will incur financial difficulties and probably prevent her from working when she is about to have another mouth to feed. Furthermore, in her field, it is unlikely that she will be able to count on a husband to help support the baby. So it's likely that Areusa's comments spring from jealousy not of Melibea's looks or wealth but from Melibea's likeliness to achieve security in life. After all, Melibea, as an upper-class woman, will eventually be encouraged to produce legitimate heirs, receive care throughout her pregnancies, and be honored as a mother - all events that most women would love to experience, but that the lower classes may not have the means to reach.

Celestina Day 2

1. At the end of Act III we see Celestina preparing her thread with a potion for Melibea. How do we see her lack of confidence? What do you make of this?

I don't see a lack of confidence here; in fact, I see overconfidence. The lack of confidence comes afterwards. But first, she threatens the god Pluto, "Lord of the Infernal Regions Subterraneous, Emperor of the Court of the Damned [and so on]," that if he doesn't do her bidding, she will "savagely accuse [him] of continual deceptions; and [she] will with harshest words squeeze out [his] name for all the world to hear." Wow! So this old whore with peeling makeup is going to battle a bona fide god if things don't go her way? If this isn't a prime example of an overestimation of one's own powers and skills, I don't know what is.

Some might say that in this passage, Celestina's threats are idle and empty. Perhaps she is just saying these things to boost her own ego. But I think she is a little off her rocker, and that she means what she says. Also, she has played enough tricks in her lifetime to expect this one to work. As Celestina gets the prep work done, I believe that she is not lacking in confidence but that she is simply doing a thorough job, one that she feels will ultimately procure the correct result.

It is only after she comes down from the high of magic-making that the doubts start to set in. I have to say that, for Celestina's worldly character, this sudden self-doubt comes as a surprise after such powerful exclamations previously. What I think is that this self-doubt serves a dramatic purpose: of creating a fear in the audience (or readers, as the case may be) that Melibea and Calisto won't work out. Of course, in the end they won't, and so Celestina's fear is a kind of foreshadowing of the very end of the play, when things are bound to fall apart. But in the meantime, things have to get better before they can get worse, and so I think that Celestina's dread here simply serves the purpose of creating rising dramatic tension and establishing dramatic irony.

trick or treat?

The stories from these two days deal with trickery (not a new topic in the Decameron).
I'd like you to write your own questions for two of the tales and then answer them, keeping in mind the notion of trickery (for instance -- Why do you think it is such a common theme running throughout these 100 stories? What is it to trick, to be decieved, to 'succeed' at trickery, etc.?).

What comes of trickery - good or bad?

This question can apply to any of the tales, but I'll apply it to Day 8, Story 3, where Calandrino goes along picking up black rocks that he thinks will make him invisible. His companions (certainly not friends) Buffalmacco and Bruno think to have a good time playing around with Calandrino, but what of his poor wife? At the climax of the tale, Calandrino takes out his pointless anger on her: "Running in a fury at his wife, he laid hold of her by the hair and throwing her down at his feet, cuffed and kicked he in every part as long as he could wag his arms and legs, without leaving her a hair on her head or a bone in her body that was not beaten to a mash, nor did it avail her aught to cry him mercy with clasped hands." What a horrible description of domestic abuse! How graphic (and how interesting that it is told by a female narrator)! There is no way around it: this is a really brutal beating for no good reason. It is utterly stupid of Calandrino to take out his own anger on his faultless wife, but to me, it is just as bad that Buffalmacco and Bruno paid no regard to the potential side effects of their prank.

This bit of trickery did not end well - it ended with a bloody act of violence against an innocent bystander. In the Decameron, many tales involving trickery pan out for the best. But although his particular tale does "work out" because everyone is reconciled at the end, the conclusion seems superficial and unsatisfying. For me, a tale that involves real physical damage to an innocent party taints the dubious element of "fun" in a deception. The moral of the story, I think, is that deceiving a fool is as good as indiscriminately taking an axe to everyone around him. An unstable person, faced with false information, will yield unpredictable results ... so remember, if you must trick, trick with care.