Please post comments, questions, etc. here as soon as you can (ideally Tuesday night)
30 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The story is very confusing. It starts out with what could be an actual story (not just a summary of it), then turns into a summary, then states that parts are missing. It just keeps jumping back and fourth, and we don't get the whole thing.
I agree with Maggie. It can get very confusing since the story moves way too fast. At some parts I couldn't tell if they were dead or not and at the end I couldn't tell if Gilgamesh really died. I also think it was very interesting how Gilgamesh did things by getting his dreams interpreted in different ways.
I agree that the story was confusing, but I also thought it was interesting. I think it tells us a lot about the life and culture around that time period. However, it did seem to drag on a bit and it seemed like they told the story in more detail than necessary. I wasn't sure if Gilgamesh died either. I don't think he died at the very end of the story, but that eventually he died and his story was told on the lapis lazulis.
I will agree that the story is somewhat confusing.
I did find certain things interesting, for instance how Gilgamesh manages to tie stones to his feet, go down to the bottom of the ocean, pluck a plant, and walk right back up. It was also interesting how the story linked the plant to snake skin shedding.
Another thing that I found interesting was how the Scorpions warned how dangerous it would be to go to Utnapishtim (what a name!), yet he meets multiple people on the journey.
I think the story is weird and could confuse a fair amount of people. There are some parts of the story which just don't sound correct. When Gilgamesh ties stones to his feet it is so he can reach the bottom of the ocean, but how does he get back up?
Also, the beginning part of the story was okay, but then near the end, the story sped up and finished too fast.
I agree that it was a little bit confusing, but I think that is becuse parts of the tablets the story was originally recorded on were missing or unreadable.
Overall, I liked the story. It contained a lot of typical characteristics of mythology-monsters, deities, and morals (e.g. boasting is bad, insulting the gods will get you killed, death is inevitable.)
I especially liked the part about the snake, because it was like the reverse of the Bible's Garden of Eden story--in "Gilgamesh," the snake eats the plant to take it from the human instead of tempting the human to eat it. (Also, in this case, the plant is benevolent instead of forbidden).
Although the story was confusing, it was not hard to tell generally what was going on. The finer details seem skewed, but that could be attributed to the unreadable tablets or gradual errors in translation.
I agree with Erica said about more detail than necessary, but I think there were other parts of the story that could have used more detail. Again, this could be attributed to the unreadable tablets.
I found the story interesting. it starts of with another Bible-ish story because Enkidu lost all of his strength after having sex with a woman. This was fallowed by the classic story of they start off fighting and then turn out to be great friends. At the end there is the other pre-Bible, Bible story, with the reverse Adam and Eve. The story would be less confusing without the missing tablets.
I thought that the story was not very confusing if you read it over again. The story sounds just like some of the god stories like Hercules and stories like that. I thought it was interesting how Enkidu turned out to be somewhat of an evil character. He convinces Gilgamesh to kill Humbaba when they don't really have to and he says he is going to kill the god Ishtar.
I also think that it is VERY similar to the bible. especially in dealing with the Noah's arc and the flood. I think that mr. Goldberg said it, but which came first. I don't remember.
Good job with the posting so far, folks. In class, I'd like to focus on the issue that Josh raised -- why did Gilgamesh decide to kill Humbaba, and what does that tell us about life in Gilgamesh's time? When is mercy appropriate and when (if ever) is killing more appropriate?
I think it's very interesting how the dreams Gilgamesh has show the themes of the story and what his true desires are. He seems to fear weakness, want to be well-liked, and loves fame and competition. I think the point is that you may love these things but it's what you do with them that matters. Gilgamesh used his desires to try to become immortal which proved a failure. If you used your desire for competition to improve your talents and strengths.
I think that the story overall was pretty confusing but once I understood it it was pretty easy to follow. The part in the story about Enkidu convincing Gilgamesh to slay Humbaba was odd because Gilgamesh had accepted Enkidu as a friend and trusted him but it seems that Enkidu was sort of a blood thirsty human.
I also think that alot of the story is superficial and could never happen, like the rocks on Gilgamesh's feet or two people cutting down the greatest cedar tree and bringing it back to the city. Overall it was a good story but most of it was unbelievable.
I agree that the story was a little confusing, but Mr.Goldberg did mention that we were getting the abbreviated version of the story so I came prepared. I also agree that it was a little awkward with the switches between quoted text and summary.
To continue on with Josh's question I found myself asking what had Humbaba. It seemed to me that it was more of a hostile takeover and killing of being who was minding their own business rather than the heroic epic that they played it up to be. That also made me wonder whether some of these other tales of great warriors were really as heroic as their played out to be.
I think that the story was a bit confusing because some of it wasn't very detailed and parts of it weren't there. The story was interesting, though, because it shows a little bit of how people during that time might have lived and thought. I also thought it was interesting that the Bible sounds almost exactly like parts of this story.
I also agree the story was quite confusing since many parts were left out. There are many different parts of the story. Gilgamesh thinks he basically gets to do whatever he wants, which is true in some sense because he is the ruler. But when he says he can have intercourse with the bride on her marriage day and other examples, is just not right. It tells us about the culture, government, and a general sense of the environment during that time period.
i definatly agree. the story was very confusing. and i never really found that there was a definate conclusion.
other than that, the story as a whole was very interesting. to me, the most interesting part, or what i found kind of funny, was the harlots. and how sex is like, a big deal. for instance, how gilgamesh says he has the right the like, get sexually involved with every bride on the day of her wedding.
and then, in the beginning when gilgamesh has those dreams that involve his mother pushing him to compete with the meteorite and the axe, what's the significance?
i agreee with aimee, gilgamesh has the idea in his head that he can do pretty much whatever he wants, but some of the things that he says he has the "right" to do. is just absurd and out-of-line.
Mythology in general is very interesting; it's a great tool to help shape civilization. I dunno, maybe that's too vague of an insight for you.
The story of Gilgamesh seems to be a moral tale that instills knowledge of the gods and their ways. Many of Gilgamesh's actions (sleeping with a new bride before the husband does) are shunned by the gods. This (as stated earlier) is the reiterating of a general consensus; most people feel that inter-marital polygamy is wrong. The story of Gilgamesh demonstrates this, Gilgamesh was punished for what he did. If you do what Gilgamesh did you'll be punished, too.
I personally think that this story is like an action fairy tale in a way. I know this sounds very stupid but this story has a sentence saying that they were in a huge fight and then they became great friends. I mean what story is like that besides little kid stories? I didn't understand the point of some of the different tablets because they just seemed to say irrelevant details.
The story was somewhat confusing, but I didn't think it was too confusing to follow. I thought this story was very interesting. Gilgamesh probably thought that Enkidu was right in thinking that letting Humbaba live wouldn't make him seem as heroic and great, but at the same time, it wouldn't exactly be necessary to kill Humbaba because Humbaba was going to allow Gilgamesh what he wanted to do, cut down the cedar trees. Gilgamesh seemed to want to have lots of power and selfish. Seeing as this was mythology, it was very different than a normal story.
About the symbols that we may insert from 2007, there are some semi-universal symbols that come from basic human instincts.
For instance, darkness generally represents evil & death due to the human instinctive fear of the unknown. This results in a fear of darkness and death.
Well, gilgamesh didn't kill himself because he wanted to live forever which is why he had the magic plant, and he worked hard to get the magic plant so he isn't gonna kill himself later, right?
Continuing on our discussion in class today, I did find the story confusing, but it also gave us a great look at what Mesopotamia was like. For instance, the people of that civilization relied on religion to explain things about science that they did not know/understand. It also is an example of behavior of leaders from long ago. Gilgamesh's claim to sleep with a bride before the husband illustrates how many kings with too much power ruled in earlier times.
I am also wondering the same thing as Bretty. After Enkidu died, and Gilgamesh came to a realization that he was going to die, why didn't he kill himself or have himself killed? He was so depressed and not doing anything, so why would he want to keep living?
Continuing with the discussion about the birds in class, I think that the raven being the first one to find land was symbolic of the fact that everything was destroyed and that there would be hard times ahead for Utnapishtim and his wife.
I agree with Andrew. If Gilgamesh was so afraid of death and wanted to live so badly, why would he go kill himself?
Great job with this discussion, folks. You seem to have hit on an important question -- why does Gilgamesh go on? Why doesn't he kill himself?
One answer is that this Epic of Gilgamesh is a hopeful story.
If you are interested, please read this account from Salon Magazine, where a college professor in 1999 had a powerful moment teaching Gilgamesh: http://www.salon.com/books/ it/1999/09/17/lastyear3/index.html
Diary of a teacher's last year - - - - - - - - - - - - Sometimes we just have to stand aside and let our students become the teachers. - - - - - - - - - - - - By David Alford Sept. 17, 1999 | To be ungracious about it, most of us in this profession are closet prima donnas who secretly or not so secretly want to hold center stage. We may stand aside at the edge of the proscenium like a master of ceremonies shepherding an act, but when the chips are down, it's "God, please give me the glory." Even in the presence of the most scintillating performance by one of "my" students (notice the possessive), there is always some aspect of the spectacle that I manage to take pride in, as if excellence were not really possible without my inspiration. Actually, I am not asking God to give me the credit: I am God. But occasionally a student breaks through the mask and sows genuine humility, which grows for a few minutes in the infertile ground and then withers before the onslaught of ego. Such a moment happened yesterday, in Humanities 1, "Old World Culture," and the event was so stunning, so immortal, I felt like I had experienced a kind of death and transfiguration. The class began with a fairly mundane discussion of the "Epic of Gilgamesh," an old Sumerian story from about the third millennium B.C. I tossed out a list of 34 possible connections between elements of the story and our modern consciousness, such things as "abuse of power" and "civilization vs. nature." We were meandering along in typical classroom conversational fashion: too much of me, not quite enough of them, me feeling clearly in control of the gradual meanings we were together shaping. I asked if anybody could point to parts of the text that particularly struck them and a young mother named Rebeka raised her hand. She asked us to look at a passage in which "Man-Scorpion" asks Gilgamesh -- who has recently lost his comrade-in-arms and brother Enkidu to angry gods -- why he has embarked on his arduous journey in search of everlasting life. Then she read aloud: For Enkidu; I loved him dearly, together we endured all kinds of hardships; on his account I have come, for the common lot of man has taken him. I have wept for him day and night, I would not give up his body for burial, I thought my friend would come back because of my weeping. Rebeka stopped reading, staring down at the page, then repeated, "I thought my friend would come back because of my weeping." Then she stared out the window for a moment, returned to the room and said, "That's it, isn't it. I'm old enough to know what that means. Does anybody else in the room know what it feels like to have weeping not work?" She was quivering, straining to see people in the room clearly. And then she said, "There's more," and asked us to turn to Page 99 in the Penguin edition. Gilgamesh is continuing on his quest for eternal life. She began reading quietly. When he had gone one league the darkness became thick around him. For there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. After two leagues the darkness was thick and there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. After three leagues the darkness was thick, and there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. After four leagues the darkness was thick and there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. She was in a cadence now, almost like a chant. My friend and student Red Dobbins, definitive barometer of inauthenticity, eyes wild like a stallion in heat whenever he gets a whiff of it, was gazing down at the floor. At the end of five leagues the darkness was thick and there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. At the end of six leagues the darkness was thick and there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. When he had gone seven leagues the darkness was thick and there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. When he had gone eight leagues Gilgamesh gave a great cry, for the darkness was thick and he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. The girl in the front row who had been using her chair for a chaise lounge straightened up slightly. I was nodding in time with the beat. After nine leagues he felt the north wind on his face, but the darkness was thick and there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. After ten leagues the end was near. After eleven leagues the dawn light appeared. At the end of twelve leagues the sun streamed out. She stopped, eyes gleaming. "See," she said. "There's no way we can stop. We have to go on, no matter what. It doesn't matter how much darkness there is." The room was silent. Forty students and I listened. I thought of my mom and dad, dead now for 16 years, divorces, lost loves, failures of all kinds, and I was overwhelmed by a deep sense of inadequacy and sadness. I wished I could have slunk down under the desk and found my way to a spot under the pines outside. Rebeka continued, "So, this is an extremely hopeful story. Gilgamesh goes on, like we all do. Even if he fails. He does fail, in the end, but it doesn't really matter. We do all die. There is no everlasting life, but there's still hope." If there had been a clock in the room I would have heard it ticking. I wanted to hand her everything I owned right then and just retire to the mountains and live like a hermit forever. Everyone in the class just sat in silence. Nobody was God. Finally, I stepped back onto the stage. Somebody had to do it. I mumbled, "Thank you. That was great," and dismissed the class. Red Dobbins stopped by the desk to say something. I didn't hear it. Rebeka packed up her books and walked out. I lingered in the room after everybody left, thinking about the miracle of this profession, the vast desert of my psyche and the light that sometimes shatters the gloom.
30 comments:
The story is very confusing. It starts out with what could be an actual story (not just a summary of it), then turns into a summary, then states that parts are missing. It just keeps jumping back and fourth, and we don't get the whole thing.
I agree with Maggie. It can get very confusing since the story moves way too fast. At some parts I couldn't tell if they were dead or not and at the end I couldn't tell if Gilgamesh really died. I also think it was very interesting how Gilgamesh did things by getting his dreams interpreted in different ways.
I agree that the story was confusing, but I also thought it was interesting. I think it tells us a lot about the life and culture around that time period. However, it did seem to drag on a bit and it seemed like they told the story in more detail than necessary. I wasn't sure if Gilgamesh died either. I don't think he died at the very end of the story, but that eventually he died and his story was told on the lapis lazulis.
I will agree that the story is somewhat confusing.
I did find certain things interesting, for instance how Gilgamesh manages to tie stones to his feet, go down to the bottom of the ocean, pluck a plant, and walk right back up. It was also interesting how the story linked the plant to snake skin shedding.
Another thing that I found interesting was how the Scorpions warned how dangerous it would be to go to Utnapishtim (what a name!), yet he meets multiple people on the journey.
-John
I think the story is weird and could confuse a fair amount of people. There are some parts of the story which just don't sound correct. When Gilgamesh ties stones to his feet it is so he can reach the bottom of the ocean, but how does he get back up?
Also, the beginning part of the story was okay, but then near the end, the story sped up and finished too fast.
I agree that it was a little bit confusing, but I think that is becuse parts of the tablets the story was originally recorded on were missing or unreadable.
Overall, I liked the story. It contained a lot of typical characteristics of mythology-monsters, deities, and morals (e.g. boasting is bad, insulting the gods will get you killed, death is inevitable.)
I especially liked the part about the snake, because it was like the reverse of the Bible's Garden of Eden story--in "Gilgamesh," the snake eats the plant to take it from the human instead of tempting the human to eat it. (Also, in this case, the plant is benevolent instead of forbidden).
Although the story was confusing, it was not hard to tell generally what was going on. The finer details seem skewed, but that could be attributed to the unreadable tablets or gradual errors in translation.
I agree with Erica said about more detail than necessary, but I think there were other parts of the story that could have used more detail. Again, this could be attributed to the unreadable tablets.
I found the story interesting. it starts of with another Bible-ish story because Enkidu lost all of his strength after having sex with a woman. This was fallowed by the classic story of they start off fighting and then turn out to be great friends. At the end there is the other pre-Bible, Bible story, with the reverse Adam and Eve. The story would be less confusing without the missing tablets.
The first bible reference I mentioned is refering to the story of Samson, who was long hair but once he lets a woman cut it off he loses his strength.
I thought that the story was not very confusing if you read it over again. The story sounds just like some of the god stories like Hercules and stories like that. I thought it was interesting how Enkidu turned out to be somewhat of an evil character. He convinces Gilgamesh to kill Humbaba when they don't really have to and he says he is going to kill the god Ishtar.
I also think that it is VERY similar to the bible. especially in dealing with the Noah's arc and the flood. I think that mr. Goldberg said it, but which came first. I don't remember.
Good job with the posting so far, folks. In class, I'd like to focus on the issue that Josh raised -- why did Gilgamesh decide to kill Humbaba, and what does that tell us about life in Gilgamesh's time? When is mercy appropriate and when (if ever) is killing more appropriate?
I think it's very interesting how the dreams Gilgamesh has show the themes of the story and what his true desires are. He seems to fear weakness, want to be well-liked, and loves fame and competition. I think the point is that you may love these things but it's what you do with them that matters. Gilgamesh used his desires to try to become immortal which proved a failure. If you used your desire for competition to improve your talents and strengths.
I think that the story overall was pretty confusing but once I understood it it was pretty easy to follow. The part in the story about Enkidu convincing Gilgamesh to slay Humbaba was odd because Gilgamesh had accepted Enkidu as a friend and trusted him but it seems that Enkidu was sort of a blood thirsty human.
I also think that alot of the story is superficial and could never happen, like the rocks on Gilgamesh's feet or two people cutting down the greatest cedar tree and bringing it back to the city. Overall it was a good story but most of it was unbelievable.
I agree that the story was a little confusing, but Mr.Goldberg did mention that we were getting the abbreviated version of the story so I came prepared. I also agree that it was a little awkward with the switches between quoted text and summary.
To continue on with Josh's question I found myself asking what had Humbaba. It seemed to me that it was more of a hostile takeover and killing of being who was minding their own business rather than the heroic epic that they played it up to be. That also made me wonder whether some of these other tales of great warriors were really as heroic as their played out to be.
I think that the story was a bit confusing because some of it wasn't very detailed and parts of it weren't there. The story was interesting, though, because it shows a little bit of how people during that time might have lived and thought. I also thought it was interesting that the Bible sounds almost exactly like parts of this story.
I also agree the story was quite confusing since many parts were left out. There are many different parts of the story. Gilgamesh thinks he basically gets to do whatever he wants, which is true in some sense because he is the ruler. But when he says he can have intercourse with the bride on her marriage day and other examples, is just not right. It tells us about the culture, government, and a general sense of the environment during that time period.
i definatly agree. the story was very confusing. and i never really found that there was a definate conclusion.
other than that, the story as a whole was very interesting. to me, the most interesting part, or what i found kind of funny, was the harlots. and how sex is like, a big deal. for instance, how gilgamesh says he has the right the like, get sexually involved with every bride on the day of her wedding.
and then, in the beginning when gilgamesh has those dreams that involve his mother pushing him to compete with the meteorite and the axe, what's the significance?
i agreee with aimee, gilgamesh has the idea in his head that he can do pretty much whatever he wants, but some of the things that he says he has the "right" to do. is just absurd and out-of-line.
Mythology in general is very interesting; it's a great tool to help shape civilization. I dunno, maybe that's too vague of an insight for you.
The story of Gilgamesh seems to be a moral tale that instills knowledge of the gods and their ways. Many of Gilgamesh's actions (sleeping with a new bride before the husband does) are shunned by the gods. This (as stated earlier) is the reiterating of a general consensus; most people feel that inter-marital polygamy is wrong. The story of Gilgamesh demonstrates this, Gilgamesh was punished for what he did. If you do what Gilgamesh did you'll be punished, too.
I personally think that this story is like an action fairy tale in a way. I know this sounds very stupid but this story has a sentence saying that they were in a huge fight and then they became great friends. I mean what story is like that besides little kid stories? I didn't understand the point of some of the different tablets because they just seemed to say irrelevant details.
The story was somewhat confusing, but I didn't think it was too confusing to follow. I thought this story was very interesting. Gilgamesh probably thought that Enkidu was right in thinking that letting Humbaba live wouldn't make him seem as heroic and great, but at the same time, it wouldn't exactly be necessary to kill Humbaba because Humbaba was going to allow Gilgamesh what he wanted to do, cut down the cedar trees. Gilgamesh seemed to want to have lots of power and selfish. Seeing as this was mythology, it was very different than a normal story.
if gilgamesh was so upset, and he knew he was going to die, then why didn't he just kill himself.
About the symbols that we may insert from 2007, there are some semi-universal symbols that come from basic human instincts.
For instance, darkness generally represents evil & death due to the human instinctive fear of the unknown. This results in a fear of darkness and death.
The point was for Gilgamesh not to kill himself. He was trying to find eternal life, not end his life.
Well, gilgamesh didn't kill himself because he wanted to live forever which is why he had the magic plant, and he worked hard to get the magic plant so he isn't gonna kill himself later, right?
Continuing on our discussion in class today, I did find the story confusing, but it also gave us a great look at what Mesopotamia was like. For instance, the people of that civilization relied on religion to explain things about science that they did not know/understand. It also is an example of behavior of leaders from long ago. Gilgamesh's claim to sleep with a bride before the husband illustrates how many kings with too much power ruled in earlier times.
I am also wondering the same thing as Bretty. After Enkidu died, and Gilgamesh came to a realization that he was going to die, why didn't he kill himself or have himself killed? He was so depressed and not doing anything, so why would he want to keep living?
Continuing with the discussion about the birds in class, I think that the raven being the first one to find land was symbolic of the fact that everything was destroyed and that there would be hard times ahead for Utnapishtim and his wife.
I agree with Andrew. If Gilgamesh was so afraid of death and wanted to live so badly, why would he go kill himself?
Great job with this discussion, folks. You seem to have hit on an important question -- why does Gilgamesh go on? Why doesn't he kill himself?
One answer is that this Epic of Gilgamesh is a hopeful story.
If you are interested, please read this account from Salon Magazine, where a college professor in 1999 had a powerful moment teaching Gilgamesh:
http://www.salon.com/books/
it/1999/09/17/lastyear3/index.html
Diary of a teacher's last year
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Sometimes we just have to stand aside
and let our students become the teachers.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By David Alford
Sept. 17, 1999 | To be ungracious about it, most of us in this profession are closet prima donnas who secretly or not so secretly want to hold center stage. We may stand aside at the edge of the proscenium like a master of ceremonies shepherding an act, but when the chips are down, it's "God, please give me the glory." Even in the presence of the most scintillating performance by one of "my" students (notice the possessive), there is always some aspect of the spectacle that I manage to take pride in, as if excellence were not really possible without my inspiration. Actually, I am not asking God to give me the credit: I am God.
But occasionally a student breaks through the mask and sows genuine humility, which grows for a few minutes in the infertile ground and then withers before the onslaught of ego. Such a moment happened yesterday, in Humanities 1, "Old World Culture," and the event was so stunning, so immortal, I felt like I had experienced a kind of death and transfiguration.
The class began with a fairly mundane discussion of the "Epic of Gilgamesh," an old Sumerian story from about the third millennium B.C. I tossed out a list of 34 possible connections between elements of the story and our modern consciousness, such things as "abuse of power" and "civilization vs. nature." We were meandering along in typical classroom conversational fashion: too much of me, not quite enough of them, me feeling clearly in control of the gradual meanings we were together shaping.
I asked if anybody could point to parts of the text that particularly struck them and a young mother named Rebeka raised her hand. She asked us to look at a passage in which "Man-Scorpion" asks Gilgamesh -- who has recently lost his comrade-in-arms and brother Enkidu to angry gods -- why he has embarked on his arduous journey in search of everlasting life. Then she read aloud:
For Enkidu; I loved him dearly, together we endured all kinds of hardships; on his account I have come, for the common lot of man has taken him. I have wept for him day and night, I would not give up his body for burial, I thought my friend would come back because of my weeping.
Rebeka stopped reading, staring down at the page, then repeated, "I thought my friend would come back because of my weeping." Then she stared out the window for a moment, returned to the room and said, "That's it, isn't it. I'm old enough to know what that means. Does anybody else in the room know what it feels like to have weeping not work?" She was quivering, straining to see people in the room clearly.
And then she said, "There's more," and asked us to turn to Page 99 in the Penguin edition. Gilgamesh is continuing on his quest for eternal life. She began reading quietly.
When he had gone one league the darkness became thick around him. For there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. After two leagues the darkness was thick and there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. After three leagues the darkness was thick, and there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. After four leagues the darkness was thick and there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him.
She was in a cadence now, almost like a chant. My friend and student Red Dobbins, definitive barometer of inauthenticity, eyes wild like a stallion in heat whenever he gets a whiff of it, was gazing down at the floor.
At the end of five leagues the darkness was thick and there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. At the end of six leagues the darkness was thick and there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. When he had gone seven leagues the darkness was thick and there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. When he had gone eight leagues Gilgamesh gave a great cry, for the darkness was thick and he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him.
The girl in the front row who had been using her chair for a chaise lounge straightened up slightly. I was nodding in time with the beat.
After nine leagues he felt the north wind on his face, but the darkness was thick and there was no light, he could see nothing ahead and nothing behind him. After ten leagues the end was near. After eleven leagues the dawn light appeared. At the end of twelve leagues the sun streamed out.
She stopped, eyes gleaming. "See," she said. "There's no way we can stop. We have to go on, no matter what. It doesn't matter how much darkness there is."
The room was silent. Forty students and I listened. I thought of my mom and dad, dead now for 16 years, divorces, lost loves, failures of all kinds, and I was overwhelmed by a deep sense of inadequacy and sadness. I wished I could have slunk down under the desk and found my way to a spot under the pines outside.
Rebeka continued, "So, this is an extremely hopeful story. Gilgamesh goes on, like we all do. Even if he fails. He does fail, in the end, but it doesn't really matter. We do all die. There is no everlasting life, but there's still hope."
If there had been a clock in the room I would have heard it ticking. I wanted to hand her everything I owned right then and just retire to the mountains and live like a hermit forever. Everyone in the class just sat in silence. Nobody was God.
Finally, I stepped back onto the stage. Somebody had to do it. I mumbled, "Thank you. That was great," and dismissed the class. Red Dobbins stopped by the desk to say something. I didn't hear it. Rebeka packed up her books and walked out.
I lingered in the room after everybody left, thinking about the miracle of this profession, the vast desert of my psyche and the light that sometimes shatters the gloom.
Post a Comment