Crazy Capitalization

Has anyone else realized that Milton capitalizes practically every third word in the book? I understand capitalizing some words for emphasis, but I think he does so often that the impact tends to wear off. Why does Milton insist on going overboard with capitalization?

The Son of God

In the beginning, there was only God, who created all life, correct? If so, everything that God created would be, in essence, his (sorry, his/her/its) child. If this is true, how can "The Son of God" be more of God than Satan. They were both born from God, so they should both be God's sons, and there for equal, but clearly, it is not so. Does anyone have a solution to this conundrum?

Free Will

I talked to Coach Crook about a question that arose in class one day. Why doesn't God just kill off Satan if he knew that Satan was going to rebel against him? Since we have free will, we have the ability to choose between God and Satan. We are his children, and he wants us to have a good life. But, he can't force his love upon his children. Everyone has a choice. If one turns towards God, then that exemplifies God's glory, good triumphing over evil.

2nd in Command

I know this is a little late and not what we're reading right now.

Before Satan fell, he was the "right-hand man" to God. But once God created the Son of God, Jesus, the Messiah, ect, he was demoted to his "left-hand man." Once in Hell, Satan told Beezlebub that he was 2nd in command. Wouldn't you think that Satan would realize what a risk you run when naming someone your "right-hand man" or 2nd in command? He is his own case in point: when Satan was God's 2nd in command he began to feel that he was better than God and that his true deserved position was head honcho. Couldn't this same jealousy and resentment grow in Beezlebub? What is it with these powerful, smart people creating problems for themselves??

Vito is God

If Vito from The Godfather was literally God; that would make Micheal, Satan. Think about it. I assume "Vito" means life, like in vitality or Spanish "viva", and Micheal was the favorite son. Although both Micheal and Satan begin their live following their fathers' wishes, they soon revolt and all things of goodness are taken out of their lives. In Satan's case, he is banished from heaven to hell, and in Micheal's case, he looses his family and is forced into solitude. Although I can't know this for sure, even though Micheal makes a lot of decisions that Vito wouldn't have approved of, I still feel that Vito loves him in the same way that God still loves Satan after his rebellion.

Democracy?

Today in class Coach Crook mentioned that the devil will create a fake democracy in hell. We also touched on the topic of how God gives everyone the choice to be good or to be evil. If God promotes free choice than why did he punish Satan for choosing to overthrow him? Is God really any more noble than Satan?

Hope in Hell

In Paradise Lost, John Milton describes hell as a place where "hope never comes," but later Satan says "we may with more successful hope resolve/ To wage by force or guile eternal Warr..." (66, 120-121). That seems contradictory to me. Does Milton mean to specify that "good" hope does not exist in hell? Then again, hell is supposed to be absolute torment, but it seems that the fallen angels take some sort of comfort in the fact that they will not repent but continue to rebel.

Jewish View on the Devil

So after our discussion in class today I started to wonder what the Jews believe about the devil. So after looking around chabad.org i came across some interesting points in this article: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1093498/jewish/Can-You-Sell-Your-Soul-to-the-Devil.htm

"we see that G‑d created an angel to play the role of provocateur; that he is a messenger of, and subservient to, G‑d. He was not a fallen angel or sent to Hell, where he began fighting G‑d; he was created to be Satan. Neither does Satan spend his days stoking the flames of hell with his pitchfork. He is a presence on earth with a mission: to provoke people to disobey G‑d's will."

"There is no power of evil independent of G‑d; otherwise this would imply a lack of G‑d's all-inclusive control and power. To quote the Book of Isaiah:

"…from the place where the sun rises until the place where it sets, there is nothing but Me. I am G‑d, there is nothing else. [I am He] Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil; I am G‑d Who makes all these."3

Obviously then, the satan is not an autonomous force who opposes G‑d and recruits people to his militia. Rather, the satan is a spiritual entity that is completely faithful to its maker"

We were discussing today in class that everything God creates is good. However, God was the creator of hell and of Satan. I think some of the points I pulled from the article help answer our questions.

"Brave" Satan

In class today we talked about why Satan rebelled against God. And, we touched on the word brave. I believe that when someone is brave, or has courage, he takes a stand against a being who has been doing something wrathful. From that, I think of Robin Hood. And, I don't think this applies to Satan because God was never acting badly. God is the essence of good, so Satan wasn't brave.

Anthony

In the scene when Kay tells Michael about the abortion, they mention that something is wrong with their other son Anthony...What is it? Could it be that he is very quiet just like Vito as a child?

Movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PaliLAQT8k

This movie says Shakespeare 'never wrote a single word,' and that his entire career was basically a farce!

Godfather Part 2 Ending

Did anyone notice Michael's face when the camera zoomed in? Half of his face was covered by shadow...does that mean something about his character? I feel like he's always in his "family business" mode. We all know that everyone compares him to his father, but times have changed. And although Michael tries his best to provide for his family, he never spends time with either of his kids. Perhaps he thought he had time to fix everything with his family, but the damage is already done.

Father and Son

Pauline Kael's review of Godfather part two definitely made me appreciate Coppola's directing style. I agree with the audience's desire to see more of Don Vito during the early 1900's because it helped me see a better parallel between Michael's method of handling the family business and his father's foundation for the family. People react differently to Michael's power and his father's. Kael described Don Vito as a Robin Hood character when the Italian community seeks his protection and friendship. Michael, on the other hand, looks like a Robin Hood gone bad from my view. He rarely is seen doing any "good deeds" for others and expresses an appetite for more power than his father left him with. Although Michael might detest being compared to his father, it's hard not to see the shift from a family oriented business to the stress on money and power Michael brought with him.

The "new" Godfather

The members of the Corleone family and Family, I noticed, are always bringing up Vito.  This has got to bother Michael.  It seems like they are always comparing him to his father.  Even in the trail Vito was brought up.... Also, is "Godfather" not the name given to every new leader in The Family?  I thought that Michael is now the Godfather, but no one calls him that.  Does he have to earn it?

Othello and the Godfather

In an earlier post, I compared Barzini from the first Godfather to Iago and Micheal to Othello. I think it is an apt metaphor because Barzini is the one who initiates Micheal's decent to violence by shooting Don Vito. So if the movie continues to somewhat reflect the play, Micheal will have to cause, either directly or indirectly, Kate's death because Kate mirrors Desdemona. I'm calling it- Kate is going to die and it will be Micheal's fault somehow.

New Category

Please note that I have added a new category for your comments relating to The Godfather.

Othello as a Tragic "Hero"

For the play to be a tragedy, Othello must be a tragic hero.Yet, looking back over the play, I don't know if he deserve such a title. In my mind, a hero must gain the sympathy of the reader and fight evil. Othello does neither. The only two views I see of Othello are the overly confident general from the first act and the crazy paranoid husband from the end. Also, he never seems to be heroic. He never makes any attempt to fight Iago on anything. Can such a jealous, manipulable man be called a tragic "hero"?

Iago's name

Iago is another name for Jacob, meaning “heal grabber;”  in the Bible, Jacob is Esau’s sly twin who tricks Esau out of his inheritance and then dresses as Esau to recieve his father's blessing.

Just an interesting tid-bit I found.  Iago is very sly and cunning and uses trickery to get his way.  I bet Shakespeare did that on purpose!

Iago

Iago is really really really truly evil.  In the last scene he could have denied the accusations, but he all but fessed up to it.  I think that Iago knew all along that he wouldn't "get away with it."  But I also think that he wanted everyone to know that he fooled them all.  Iago is so sadistic that he recieves more gratification in seeing, for example, Othello's anguish at knowing that he unjustly killed Desdemona, than he would have if he had gotten away with it (and survived).  Iago seems to just live for the despair of others, and once he reached what in his opinion might have been the most despair he could have possibly caused in one day (and one room!), he saw no more purpose in living or talking.  Iago was motivated to do evil for the sake of simply doing evil, and he was motivated to live by evil alone; so once Iago had achieved that height of evil which he wanted to, he saw no purpose to live.

The Moors in Spain

Today in Spanish, my teacher showed us a documentary on the history of Islam in Spain.  The narrator explained that when the Catholic Monarchs first came to rule, they tried to destroy all evidence of Muslims in Spain; these Muslims were called the Moors.  I know we talked a little bit about this in class, but the Moors were descendents from northern Africa who conquered and ruled the Iberian Peninsula, which they called Al Andalus, for nearly 800 years.  Al Andalus was made up of what are now Spain and Portugal.  The documentary went on to say that propaganda sparked by the Crusades depicted the Moors as dark-skinned, savage, blood-thirsty enemies, which was not true.  The rest of the video was about the cities and Islamic castle that the Moors built.  I really like it when my classes overlap, and I thought it was interesting learning more about Othello’s background.

The Moors in Spain

Today in Spanish, my teacher showed us a documentary on the history of Islam in Spain.  The narrator explained that when the Catholic Monarchs first came to rule, they tried to destroy all evidence of Muslims in Spain; these Muslims were called the Moors.  I know we talked a little bit about this in class, but the Moors were descendents from northern Africa who conquered and ruled the Iberian Peninsula, which they called Al Andalus, for nearly 800 years.  Al Andalus was made up of what are now Spain and Portugal.  The documentary went on to say that propaganda sparked by the Crusades depicted the Moors as dark-skinned, savage, blood-thirsty enemies, which was not true.  The rest of the video was about the cities and Islamic castle that the Moors built.  I really like it when my classes overlap, and I thought it was interesting learning more about Othello’s background.

Interesting Article

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/nyregion/othello-at-the-shakespeare-theater-at-drew-university-review.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Iago&st=cse

I find it interesting how this reviewer basically has the same opinions of the play as we do. It's great to see our class being as introspective as a professional! Referring back to what Molly was saying, it seems inaccurate for the play to be named "Othello" as most of our attention and energy is spent on Iago. This article seems to agree with Molly, Iago clearly dominates the stage.