[This weekend’s assignment is after the recap.]

We last left off at “The Crossing of the First Threshold.” We spent this week discussing Campbell’s analysis through the hero’s “Apotheosis.” To sum up our hero’s progress thus far:

• He ((Campbell uses “he,” he should have used “he or she,” but for the sake of brevity and reinforcing gender stereotypes I’ll continue to use “he.”)) becomes aware of another world (on the physical level) and of his own ignorance (on the mental/spiritual).
• He refuses to embark because he is comfy in his home (physical) and knowledge of the world (mental).
• He eventually acquiesces and decides to give himself over to the journey—not truly knowing at this point what that entails—through the help of a mentor (or other “Supernatural Aid”) who gives him the tools (physical) and advice (mental) to help the hero on his way.
• The hero crosses the (first) threshold into this other world (physical) succumbing to the will of the other (mental).

I’ll let Campbell, through our readings from this week, take it from here.

The Belly of the Whale

The idea that the passage of the magical threshold is a transit into a sphere of rebirth is symbolized in the worldwide womb image of the belly of the whale. The hero, instead of conquering or conciliating the power of the threshold, is swallowed into the unknown, and would appear to have died (83).

The Road of Trials

Once having traversed the threshold, the hero moves in a dream landscape of curiously fluid, ambiguous forms, where he must survive a succession of trials (89).

The Meeting with the Goddess

[S]he is the incarnation of the promise of perfection; the soul’s assurance that, at the conclusion of its exile in a world of organized inadequacies, the bliss that once was known will be known again: the comforting, the nourishing, the "good" mother—young and beautiful—who was known to us, and even tasted, in the remotest past (101-2).

Woman as Temptress

The mystical marriage with the queen goddess of the world represents the hero’s total mastery of life; for the woman is life, the hero its knower and master. And the testings of the hero, which were preliminary to his ultimate experience and deed, were symbolical of those crises of realization by means of which his consciousness came to be amplified and made capable of enduring the full possession of the mother-destroyer, his inevitable bride. With that he knows that he and the father are one: he is in the father’s place (111).

But when it suddenly dawns on us, or is forced to our attention, that everything we think or do is necessarily tainted with the odor of the flesh, then, not uncommonly, there is experienced a moment of revulsion: life, the acts of life, the organs of life, woman in particular as the great symbol of life, become intolerable to the pure, the pure, pure soul (112).

Atonement with the Father

[T]he ogre aspect of the father is a reflex of the victim’s own ego—derived from the sensational nursery scene that has been left behind, but projected before; and the fixating idolatry of that pedagogical non-thing is itself the fault that keeps one steeped in a sense of sin, sealing the potentially adult spirit from a better balanced, more realistic view of the father, and therewith of the world. Atonement (at-one-ment) consists in no more than the abandonment of that self-generated double monster—the dragon thought to be God (superego) and the dragon thought to be Sin (repressed id) (119-20).

Apotheosis

Like the Buddha himself, this godlike being is a pattern of the divine state to which the human hero attains who has gone beyond the last terrors of ignorance. "When the envelopment of consciousness has been annihilated, then he becomes free of all fear, beyond the reach of change." This is the release potential within us all, and which anyone can attain—through herohood; for, as we read: "All things are Buddha-things"; or again (and this is the other way of making the same statement): "All beings are without self" (139).

We are taken from the mother, chewed into fragments and assimilated to the world-annihilating body of the ogre for whom all the precious forms and beings are only the courses of a feast; but then, miraculously reborn, we are more than we were (149).

Your Mission

This week we read and discussed the Book of Job through chapter 33, stopping to compare passages to other stories we’ve come across. On Friday you found connection between Zophar’s argument, “The Wicked will Suffer,” and a number of Ovid’s stories, including Tantalus, Minos, Midas, Oedipus. We connected these individuals to what Campbell calls the “Tyrant Holdfast”—the evil ruler who will starve his people to maintain his riches (see “The Hero as Warrior” under “Transformations of the Hero”).

Your goal is to finish reading The Book of Job (here’s where we left off) and record connections between the biblical work and Campbell’s. As I said on Friday, you can write this from any perspective you like (comparing the search for wisdom espoused in Job and Campbell, tracing Job’s hero’s journey, the temptations of each, etc.). Here are the parameters of the assignment:

• Your thesis should be along the lines of “Campbell’s hero’s journey can be seen in (or contrasts with) the Book of Job in this way…” (don’t use those words; merely the intent).
• It should be typed using standard format.
• You should include a Works Cited page citing both works (3/4 down this page are the rules for citing biblical sources).

We’ve moved halfway through the hero’s initiation—from “The Call to Adventure” to the “Supernatural Aid” that helps move the hero toward the realm of the unknown. Tonight you should read through the “Crossing of the First Threshold,” though “The Belly of the Whale” may be too exciting to leave to the weekend.

The following is a quick highlight reel of what we’ve covered so far. If you haven’t been keeping with your notes, this is a good (if sparse) start. Alongside your explanations should be examples from Ovid and your own experience of literature and pop culture. ((We’ve pulled (probably too) heavily from Star Wars in our discussions, but with good reason. (That 45-second clip may not be all that interesting, but check out the related ones; if you’re having trouble with the concept of the Monomyth there are plenty of examples out there.))

The Call to Adventure

This is an example of one of the ways in which the adventure can begin. A blunder—apparently the merest chance—reveals an unsuspected world, and the individual is drawn into a relationship with forces that are not rightly understood. (46)

As a preliminary manifestation of the powers that are breaking into play, the frog, coming up as it were by miracle, can be termed the "herald"; the crisis of his appearance is the "call to adventure." (47)

The Refusal of the Call

Often in actual life, and not infrequently in the myths and popular tales, we encounter the dull case of the call unanswered; for it is always possible to turn the ear to other interests. Refusal of the summons converts the adventure into its negative. Walled in boredom, hard work, or "culture," the subject loses the power of significant affirmative action and becomes a victim to be saved. (54)

Supernatural Aid

For those who have not refused the call, the first encounter of the hero-journey is with a protective figure (often a little old crone or old man) who provides the adventurer with amulets against the dragon forces he is about to pass (57).

The Crossing of the First Threshold

[T]he hero goes forward in his adventure until he comes to the "threshold guardian" at the entrance to the zone of magnified power. . . . Beyond them is darkness, the unknown, and danger; just as beyond the parental watch is danger to the infant and beyond the protection of his society danger to the member of the tribe. (71)

For those interested, and excellent translation of the complete tale of Kamar al-Zaman and Princess Budur is here:

. . . ‘an men / Gang [na] agley.

I’ve uploaded several journal articles to the folder in Google Docs. Read over a few ((You’ll be using several in your analysis, so any work you do tonight can go towards that.)) —during class tomorrow you will choose one to present later in the week.

Here is the plan (with dates!).

Tonight:

1. Wrap up your reading of Maus.
2. Skim through the articles in the Docs folder, choosing a few that look interesting (for your group’s discussion and your own research).
3. If you’ve already finished Maus, begin work on your analysis by reading one or two of the articles and working on your hypothesis.

Tomorrow (Wednesday 23rd):

1. Read and discuss the articles you skimmed (or read) last night.
2. Choose one article to read thoroughly and present to the class. You may run your presentation as you wish, but your goal should be to help your audience understand the article (they will have read it the night before) and the place of the argument in the context of our discussion of the work. You will need to cover the following:
   1. The author’s thesis
   2. Clarification and examples of any major points
   3. Examples of the author’s argument in areas of the text not explicitly mentioned in the article (I will have a copy of Maus that you can project, if you wish)
   4. Questions and comments for class discussion.
3. Write a synopsis (individually) of the article to be turned in the day you present.
4. At the end of the hour I will let you know which group will be presenting on Thursday.

Thursday 24th–Wednesday 30th:

1. If your group is presenting, you will have the full period. You may wish to divide the major points in the article among the members of your group, then come together for comments and discussion, but it is up to you.
2. If you are not presenting, read the article the night before and come to class with a copy. Be prepared to ask questions about the work (for clarification) and comment if necessary (in support or rebuttal).
3. All should take notes with the development of your thesis in mind, asking questions of the class if you are having difficulty with its formulation or support.
4. In the evenings you should be reading the article to be presented the next day (or skimming it if you’ve already read it) and working on the outline of your analysis. Let me know when you have finished the outline (shared through the Docs); I’ll give you feedback before you begin your rough draft.

Thursday 31st:

1. Come to class with a rough draft and works cited for your own analysis. (Google docs is fine.)
2. You will have all hour to work on it in the lab; if you finish, you should trade with another for editing and support.

Friday 1st:

1. We will discuss the analyses and reflect on the process, planning for further investigation of the medium in the weeks to come.

Whew.

That may have been overly specific, but I hope it clears up any questions you may have about our process. Let me know if you have any further questions.

[A copy of this is also in the communal folder in Google Docs.]

We embarked on our graphic journey last week with a discussion of Scott McCloud’s definition of comics. In this definition, McCloud emphasizes the sequential nature of graphic storytelling, arguing that the transition from frame to frame and the closure necessary to make the narrative complete is what distinguishes comics from other media. For contrast, we read and discussed Robert C. Harvey’s definition in his essay “How Comics Came to Be.” Harvey takes exception to McCloud’s exclusion of single panel comics (especially political and “gag” cartoons), emphasizing the juxtaposition of words and images in his definition.

Next week (March 21-25) we will continue our study of Maus and the graphic genre in general. Here is the plan:

Read over the essay “Reading Visual Narrative: Art Spiegelman’s Maus” by Jeanne C. Ewert. I passed these out in class, but you can access a copy in the communal folder ((Log in to the Google Docs account you used in my class previously. If you don’t see a folder called “Community Files,” send me an email and I’ll add you to the list.)). Write a synopsis of the article (this should be no longer than 500 or so words, due Monday) and read and journal over Maus in light of the author’s claims. Some questions to get you started:

• Ewert notes that “Spiegelman’s drawings tell the son’s version of the father’s story” (88), contrasting the words of Vladek and the images of Spiegelman (the author). Does this disconnect between what is related by Vladek (as in Figure 2 where the father states that he saw no orchestra) and what is drawn by Spiegelman (the orchestra behind the workers) appear elsewhere? What does this tell you about the story? It doesn’t seem to be just an account of Holocaust survival.
• Later, under “A Mouse’s Tale” (a title taken from Carroll?), Ewert traces the “origins of Maus . . . to the ‘funny animal’ genre of storytelling, of which the best known example is Walt Disney’s menagerie” (92). What effect does the representation of Jews as mice and Nazis as cats have on your reading of the narrative? How does Ewert see it?

We will discuss the story and Ewert’s analysis on Monday.

Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy is in! For those who asked for a copy, head to B&N at 41st. Stay tuned for The Hunger Games…