Angelo, the next Faustus

I cannot decide who upsets me more Angelo or Faustus. they have both made really bad decisions, which will eventually end in someone's death (that much is certain). I can already tell that Angelo is going to anger me throughout this entire play. Seriously, if being an scumbag was a crime he would have been sentenced to death before this play even began. He is the perfect example of how not to get a girl, especially, a girl who is training to become a nun. Really Angelo? you're already engaged. I want his fiance to find out what a cheating bastard Angelo is, it's poetic justice, actually, it is justice.  If this is similar to any other Shakespeare play that I have read then Angelo will eventually get what he deserves (which in my opinion is no less than imprisonment for life, which in Shakespeare pretty much translates to, he's gonna die before the play is over).  I think that may be one of my favorite parts of reading Shakespeare, it is like with superheros, the bad guys are always punished. Granted the difference is that in a Shakespearean tragedy the good guys usually die too but hey, what are you going to do.

The Duke is intriguing character to say the least. I am curious to see what he does with his "spare time." Am I the only one who is really curious as to why the Duke chose to go undercover as a friar? I feel like there is a really interesting back story here.

Isabella, so far I like Isabella as a character. She is smart (thus far), she is kind, and she is virtuous. I am curious to see Claudio's reaction to Isabella's decision to let him be killed instead of giving up her Chasity in exchange for his life. Isabella is certain that he brother would not want her to give up her morals so that he can live but is this what Claudio wants. He is in love with Juliet and he is waiting to die so his mindset might be skewed due to circumstance. Claudio is Isabella's brother and as far as we know they have a good sibling relationship. Is Isabella willing to lose her brother in the name of God or will she change her mind? Is she making the right choice? Can her decision be justified?

Superheroes and Disguised Villains in the Slaughterhouse

  

  When I started to read Beowulf  I was determined to NOT think about the guiding questions with which we were provided.  However, the question about superheroes stuck in my mind as I
read.  Why do we really enjoy superheroes? Why do we idolize them? Is a superhero automatically a good leader because he or she is a superhero? What is a superhero? At first meeting, Beowulf would not be my kind of superhero. Sure, many heroes are entitled to a certain amount of pompousness, but Beowulf lays it on thick. My first reaction is to automatically dislike him.  But is that the point? There must be a reason for his over-confidence. I think of my favorite superheroes.  Superman.  Batman.  Spiderman.  Iron Man.  The last one is the only “confident” superhero that comes to mind.  Most are humble, lay low.  Iron Man is much like Beowulf: throwing boasts around and such.  What is it about Beowulf (but not Iron Man) that irks me so?
            First of all, the only reason Beowulf comes to help the Danes is to satisfy his manly ego.  He comes to their aid, not to help an ally, but to prove he is superhuman.  It’s almost as though he thinks he is divine.   In one of the many “boasts” he makes he says, “Now I mean to be a match for Grendel, / settle the outcome in single combat” (425-426).  He’s surrounded by a bunch of wimps who throw around insults, really.  Of course he looks like God.  The king builds a magnificent mead-hall simply to get drunk and wallow in his misfortunes.  What I want to know is if Hrothgar has any better ideas than to send off his men to get mangled by Grendel.  Instead, he sits on his throne and cries about the mutilation of his kingdom.  And they STILL sing him praises.  When Beowulf defeats Grendel, the poem even says, “Yet there was no laying of blame on their lord, / the noble Hrothgar; he was a good king” (861-862).  WHY????  Does the status of the nobility really mean that a king is held in high regard no matter what? Even if he drinks and cries while his people are slaughtered.  Of course Beowulf is held in high regard. His statistics are impressive, I will admit.  But what do the Danes have as an example? A king who admits his brother would’ve made the better king. Is Grendel really the demon? Or is Hrothgar the one who belongs in hell for not defending his people?