The Aeneid: Part 2

I think that I already enjoy The Aeneid more than I did reading for last week. I really like how descriptive everything is. Now, we can kind of tend to think of descriptive as excessively full of adjectives, but that is not quite what I mean. What I mean is that it is very easy to tell what Virgil is talking about, and it is very easy to picture it.

I feel like Virgil gets a little bit too excited about Aeneas and his friends being from Troy. It reminds me of that whole scene in The Emperor’s New Groove. The poison. The poison for Kuzco. The poison chosen specifically to kill Kuzco, Kuzco’s poison. That poison? Virgil more or less says the same thing. The Trojans. The Trojans from Troy. The Trojans from Troy that were attacked repeatedly by Juno attempting to kill them because they were Trojans, Troy’s Trojans. That Troy?

I do think that it’s interesting, that when talking about funeral pyres, Virgil mentions boys, unwed girls, and sons. Why is it only important that the girls are unwed?

I do not know why, but I find The Aeneid a lot more difficult to write about than everything else we have read so far. I think that might be mainly because of the fact that there are so many more names to try to keep track of, and many of these names are thrown out once in conversation and then they are not mentioned again. It seems like Game of Thrones in the way that there are so many names, it is almost impossible to keep track of them all, because half of them will be in only one scene, and the other half of them will probably die some tragic and terrible death, anyway. It also might be because a lot of my writing has been quite sassy this year, and it is a lot easier to be sassy when talking about Ovid, because Ovid is sassy, whereas Virgil does not seem to be the sassy type. There is not as much to make fun of in The Aeneid.

I do think that it is really cool that Aeneas got to see Dido again; however, it is quite sad that she is not at rest. They seem to have quite a tragic story. Maybe that is Virgil’s thing. Instead of being sassy, he is all about how tragic a story can be.

Also, it is super interesting that Aeneas asked for his mother’s help, and she sent some doves, her name is not even mentioned, and Aeneas is just like, oh, that is so cool; thanks for the help, ma.

Man, everything Bacchus does seems to be entirely full of useless debauchery. I wonder if the word came from Bacchus’s name, too. Anyway, Dionysus never seemed quite as prolific as Bacchus. Ovid did make fun of him a lot, though.

I like that after Aeneas sees his father, Virgil’s writing is dramatic again. It kind of does one of those “it was only just a dream” type of things. I mean, that is not the exact phrasing, but again, that is more or less what Aeneas realizes.

Out of all the furies, and I think I have heard all their names at one point, I wonder why it  is that Alecto is the one that specifically gets asked for help. She is the one that does most of the dirty deeds required of her, and she is the one mentioned the most. I wonder why she is so much more special than her sister. It is not like between the three of them they only have one eye; that is the Fates. So why is she so special?

The Aeneid

I really like how The Aeneid begins by just throwing you into the fire. This is where the book starts, this is how it starts, here’s a storm, Juno did it, wha-pow. Then, everything leads in to ‘why.’

The Aeneid seems to be a lot denser than Metamorphosis. It reminds me less of a story (or of stories) and more like history, at least in the way it’s written.

I am very curious as to whether or not the Pygmalion that Venus is referring to is the same Pygmalion we read about in Metamorphosis.

It is interesting how much effort Venus is putting in to try to convince her son that she is trying to help him. It is also interesting how Venus does not actually want to listen to his tales of “endless hardship.” Are these tales actually endless, or is Aeneas just being dramatic?

I am really surprised how chill the queen of Libya is at all of these Trojans just showing up. She seems to be incredibly generous, but there has to be strings attached somewhere, right? Unless Jupiter is actually trying to stave off his wife’s anger, and is really trying to help.

Juno really holds grudges well. She permanently hates all these Trojans because of the past. Let it go, Juno.

I am kind of amazed how much Cupid seems to jump at his mother’s requests. I feel like this happens a lot in mythology, which is weird, because often the gods and goddesses do not like to listen to their parents. Maybe it just depends on the parents.

So, we finally have the story of the downfall of Troy. It seems so much less exciting than it has always been made to seem after all these years. The movie Troy actually did a much better job.

It seems interesting to me that (in Aeneas’s story) Venus defends Helen. I have always thought that Helen of Troy was supposedly descended from Venus, and this would add credibility to that theory. However, I believe we might have talked about it before in class, that no one really knows who she is descended from, and that it is possible she is descended from Jupiter. Both seem probable, but I always thought Venus made a lot more sense. Venus is the goddess of love, after all, and while many of the goddesses are known for their beauty, it was always a specialty of Venus: that she could change her form to be whatever pleased people the most. The whole Trojan War started because of the beauty of Helen of Troy.

It is really interesting that the city of Troy is Neptune’s city. It is also really interesting that Juno does not ever really seem to have anything against Neptune. She has no problem with him; she just has a problem with the Trojans.

Oh, look. A dude that is a tree. How surprising. That does not remind me of Metamorphosis at all. I do not think I have ever read a story before about someone getting turned into a tree. Let me guess, he tried to sleep with someone and a god or goddess took revenge. No? Oh, darn. I guess murder and then growing into a tree is not quite as exciting.

I am so excited. Scylla has been mentioned so many times in both Metamorphosis and so far in The Aeneid, and finally we get to interact with that six-headed dragon thing. Yay.

I kind of feel bad for Mercury and Cupid. Mercury more so, but it has to suck being the two gods that get sent to try to clean up messes or take care of everyone else’s problems.

Ovid-Part 3

I saw the name Scylla, and immediately thought vicious dragon-thing that kills people. I think I might be getting my mythology a tad mixed up. I could have sworn she was a dragon, though. I mean, she does end up being able to fly, so same thing, right?

I like how in the story of Minos and Ariadne, Bacchus is kind of a hero. Not really, because it is not like he does not anything massively earth-shattering, but he helps out Ariadne when he does not need to. He does seem to be a bit dramatic, though. Apparently, in some versions, Bacchus ends up married to Ariadne, so maybe that is why he helped her out. Also, there could be a bit of foreshadowing there, because he says, “You must shine forever.” Again, in some versions, Ariadne ends up being a minor goddess. Also, I think it is very important and interesting that Ovid mentions that not even Daedalus could figure out the entirety of the maze.

There were two things that Daedalus warned Icarus about: the sun and the water. I know Icarus was an idiot who flew too close to the sun and fell to his death, but it was, in fact, the water that ultimately killed him.

Atalanta is awesome. What does she get for her trouble? Some dudes want to kill her because of her awesomeness. This upsets me greatly. I mean, yes, there is quite a bit of death in this story, but it seems to me that everyone else (more or less) deserves it. At least you can understand defending Atalanta and someone trying to kill her, and then ending up dead themselves.

I wonder why there is an island called Hedgehog Isles. That seems really random and strange, when generally the names are so much more dramatic or meaningful. As opposed to yes, we like hedgehogs.

It is really interesting that Hunger is not, in fact, a goddess, but is, in fact, a spirit. Also, it is really interesting that she is a she. I do not know why. I would just think Hunger would be a he.

OK, let me tell you a thing. Not only do I love Ovid’s description of Cerberus here, but I have a fun fact. So, Cerberus comes from the Greek word “Kerberos,” which means “spotted.” That is right, my friend. Hades, all-powerful Lord of the Dead, named his dog Spot. This makes me insanely happy.

Pygmalion is a story that I really like, but I think that is mainly just because the play “My Fair Lady” is based on the book Pygmalion (George Bernard Shaw) which drew its inspiration from this story. (“My Fair Lady” is one of my favorite plays.) It is a surprisingly short and happy story.

I am so so happy we get to meet Atalanta again. Atalanta is fantastic. And she can run faster than all the men, too. I wonder if she is descended from Nike or something. That would be cool. If she is not, though, she is still awesome, because she is the best at everything and does not even brag about it. The only reason she wants to race is so she does not have to marry, or will end up marrying someone worthy. She is seriously fantastic. I wonder if Disney’s “Brave” was partially modeled after Atalanta. Also, it is super interesting that this story is told from Venus’s perspective. That is new. I like it. I wonder why Ovid decided to switch it up?  Hippomenes totally cheated, but it was for a good reason. Atalanta herself said she would marry him if things had been different. And then, poof! They were.

Ovid: Part 2

I found what Romeo & Juliet was based off of, and I like Ovid’s version much better. However, the difference between Pyramus & Thisbe and Romeo & Juliet is that no one else dies because of Pyramus, unlike Romeo. I think the reason for no one else dying in the former is because they actually had a relationship and truly loved each other. They were not necessarily stupid, just hasty—they were actually in love, whereas Romeo and Juliet had no relationship and did not love each other—they really were just stupid, and people died because Romeo could not control himself.

I found out a thing—Ovid actually does use some Greek names that do have Roman counterparts: for example, the god Pan; he uses both terms “faun” and “satyr”; Boreas, the god of the North Wind; Iris, goddess of the rainbow; and the titan Themis, who was actually a good titan.

I think it is really interesting that in this version of Ares and Venus the god who wishes they “could be shamed like that” is not named, and in one version, it’s Hermes (Mercury). I also really like how Ovid mentions that “This story went the rounds of the sky for a long time afterwards.” Also, “afterwards” has apparently always been used, and so has “afterward,” and both are correct, which is really interesting. There are so many interesting things I’m learning today! Maybe this is just me…

Ambrosia, the food of the gods, is finally mentioned.

Whoa, Leucothoe’s father was a very extreme individual. It was clearly not his daughter’s fault that the Sun took her.

I feel like Ovid throws out these little bits of humor. “‘Real gods can do anything!’—Bacchus, however, was not included among them.” Basically, Bacchus? Yeah, he’s not a real god. Shh, don’t tell him. He might get offended. But he sucks. “Daphnis, turned to a rock by a nymph’s proud anger against her rival—lovers can be so wickedly jealous!” Basically, isn’t it so so funny how lovers get jealous sometimes and someone ends up dead? Or they turn in to an animal or an inanimate object! That’s so hilarious! Ovid must have been a crack-up at parties.

I was not expecting such a gruesome death of a baby. That was very unexpected, and kind of depressing, and definitely violent. Athamas should get locked up for that. Or, you know, at least see a therapist or something.

OK, so I think the second Leucothoe is different than the first Leucothoe, if only because the accents on their names are different, but if I am wrong, and they are the same, why do we find out about Leucothoe’s merging before we find out how she came into existence? That does not make sense. Unless they really are different, in which case, why do they have the same name?

Gods and goddesses seem to live by extremes. They do not seem to be happy very often. This might just be because someone always does something stupid against someone else, but this strange rivalry had to come from somewhere.

Another fun fact: Jove is another name for Jupiter. So, when people say “by Jove” they are really saying “by Jupiter” or “by Zeus.”

Why does the Sun have no other name than the Sun or Hyperion’s son? He is called by neither his Roman (Helios) nor his Greek (Sol) name.

I wonder why Venus mentions her Greek name. Does this mean all the gods are aware of their other selves? I wouldn’t be surprised, but that is probably one of the most interesting things I learned.

Ovid

I really like that every single god and goddess has their very own distinct personality. In relation to what we have read before, we did not really learn any specifics, or at least specific character traits, about any of the other gods. I kind of wish the book had a handy-dandy little chart that transposed the Roman version of the character to the Greek version of the character, because I know all of the main gods, but other characters are more difficult, and there are a lot of minor gods, too. I have to think about the Roman version in terms of the Greek version, I do not know why.

I have never really liked Juno (or Hera) but I always more or less understood why she was so grumpy. I think that is emphasized even more in this. More or less the entirety of problems in mythology could have been solved if Jupiter (Zeus) *cough cough* decided to keep himself to himself (and his wife). Instead he had to mess things up by getting involved in (more or less) every possible female he could. It makes so much sense why Juno was upset, because not only was her husband sleeping around, but he was sleeping around and having children. So there were all these children descended from Jupiter that were running around reminding Juno that they were her husband’s, but they were not hers.

I think it is really interesting, that out of all the major gods, Apollo is the only one who does not have name change. I mean, technically he does have two names, but he is referred to by both, more or less equally, and he is still referred to as Apollo. I really want to know why this is. This seems like it could be very significant. Also, Minerva is the only major god(/goddess) that has a different main trait, per se. Athena is the goddess of wisdom and battle strategy, and the goddess of weaving, as well as a few other things. However, the Roman goddess of war is not Minerva. This was a very interesting distinction that was made between the Greek and Roman counterparts, especially since the other major gods more or less all kept their same significant traits. It was very much a purposeful slap in the face to Minerva.

I feel really bad for Callisto. Ovid makes a point that it was very  much not her fault what was done to her, and obviously, she still had to leave Diana, but what happened was not her fault.

The Odyssey-Part 2

I really enjoy all the descriptions in The Odyssey. Everything is really easy to imagine, and I still really like the format of all the different stories.

Everything seems really dismal for all the heroes in general. Their lots in life seems to be incredibly difficult, dangerous, and emotionally damaging. In The Kingdom of the Dead, every hero—most whose names have been mentioned in relation to how awesome of hero they were—had a tragic end. They spent so much of their lives in this drastic situation, a tightrope of life and death, and they all ended up in the exact same place, without ever having the chance to live their life. Their lives were determined, more or less, the moment they had a god or goddess for a parent. But they all still were more or less destined for the same fate, the same end. Heroes do not seem to survive very long, and the gods and goddesses do not really let them. It really seems like the only way a demigod would be able to survive for very long is if they managed to avoid having any of the gods or goddesses know they exist: no great or powerful deeds, no quests, nothing. If they lived their life quietly, then they would have a significantly less blatant chance of angering someone who could kill them—and has absolutely no problem whatsoever killing people. The gods are way too emotional.

I still really do not understand why everyone wants to kill Odysseus. It honestly does not seem like he is worth the effort to try to kill him. Obviously no one has succeeded thus far, and since apparently none of the gods and goddesses can actually work together well enough to off him, and no one can quite work together well enough to save him entirely, everyone should just give up their dreams of revenge or heroics and let the guy live his life (more or less) in peace. If he really is so important, he would be better off left to his own device actually able to make a difference than dragged all over the place in attempts to kill him.

I am also seriously impressed with how easily women seem to swoon over him. Odysseus really does not seem that great. He is not dead yet, great. There are easily hundreds of thousands of men who are also not dead yet. Get over yourself.

Why do you think, out of all the possible people to talk to Odysseus, why was it Achilles who went through the list of the dead?

Do you think Odysseus would have made it this far without the help of any gods or goddesses, or anyone else? Do you think he was strong or smart enough to figure everything out on his own?

Why do you think, out of all these people and heroes, why is Odysseus so important?

Homer's Odyssey

I like The Odyssey way better so far than The Epic of Gilgamesh. I love learning about the Greek gods and goddesses, though. And as much as I love Genesis, I also like The Odyssey better. The Odyssey seems to have a lot more action than both The Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis. The Epic of Gilgamesh did have a lot of action, but that action always seemed very passive to me, I guess.
I like all the other characters more than I like Odysseus. He is incredibly lucky that so many people liked him, because he really does not seem that intelligent. So far the only thing he really has going for him is the debate and escape from the Cyclops Polyphemus. To be fair, he did help his men several times, but he is recounting his tales to the Phaeacians. We do not really know whether or not Odysseus is a reliable narrator. I feel like he very well could be, but everyone embellishes stories at least a little when they tell them. On the other hand, he does actually seem to listen to the requests of the gods and goddesses helping him out, and there is something to be said for that. The goddess Ino gave him a veil to help protect him from Poseidon, and when he was more or less safe, he obeyed. There is something to be said about that. It seems like out of any of his personality traits, his confidence is probably the one that got him in trouble in the first place, and probably is the one that gets him in trouble the most.
What on earth did Odysseus do to piss off Poseidon? It generally takes a lot to anger him, as opposed to angering some of the other gods, who already have terrible tempers, like Zeus or Ares. Poseidon is generally a lot more laid back than some of the other gods. Odysseus is seriously lucky that Athena likes him, and that she along with others are trying to help protect him. Most gods do not forget other people’s mistakes that easily, although they all seem fairly excellent at forgetting their own.
I seriously love Calypso’s character. Her story is so interesting, because she did not actually do anything wrong besides support her father Atlas in the Titan war. He was cursed to have to hold up the world, and he couldn’t put it down unless someone else agreed to hold it, and she was forced to live on an island in the middle of nowhere all by herself, with only Hermes as the occasional visitor. On top of that, sometimes men (like Odysseus) would wash up on her shores, but she was cursed to fall in love with only men who could leave. Only once she fell in love with them would they leave her behind, never able to find the island again. Also, her speech to Zeus about double standards is fantastic. She really knew how to use her words.
I really like all the separate stories in The Odyssey, and how they all come together in one big story. I am not a huge fan of Odysseus’s character, but he does have a few, minimal really, redeeming qualities.
Which story do you think best shows Odysseus’s character? Why?
Which god (that we find out about) has the worst temper? Which one has the worst temper?
Do you think Odysseus would have been able to do as much as he did and make it as far as he did if he had not had help from so many of the gods and goddesses? Why?

Genesis Part 2

It is interesting how focused the whole lens of the book of Genesis becomes. I have never really noticed that many literary things about it before. I also think it is really interesting that I did not notice this until today, since the book gets equally as focused with what we read last week, and where we left off, with Jacob and his wives, is exactly what the rest of Genesis focuses on. I think the only reason I did not notice before was probably because I did not think it was strange, but then we mentioned it in class, so my attention was drawn to it.

I always felt bad for Rachel in this story. Jacob wanted to marry her, and her dad was just kind of a jerk, and then he tricks Jacob into marrying Leah, and only after 7 more years of work does he get to marry the daughter he actually loved. I also felt bad for Leah. At this point, neither she nor Rachel or happy, but Leah gets to have thirteen children, and no matter how hard Rachel tries, she only ends up having two. Also, it always seemed to me like Leah was in on her father’s treachery, which made me not like her, but it seems highly probable that she did not really have any other choice. Even if she did like Jacob, which it seems like she did, at least a little, it would suck to marry someone that you knew for a fact did not love you. Especially when all they tried to do after that was marry your little sister. This just seems like everyone involved, besides Laban, was stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I am still kind of surprised that everything worked out so well. I mean, yeah, Jacob and his wives and his children ended up running away from Laban, but that seemed to magically all work out, even though Rachel was a thief and lied about it. I also really never understood (and still do not) why Rachel decided to steal the household gods in the first place (household gods? Are those, like, smaller than regular gods, but still bigger than apartment gods?). They seemed like a really useless thing to steal, and definitely a really strange thing for Laban to chase after them just to get back. I feel like it was just an excuse to see if they had stolen from him in any other way. He was incredibly greedy, which did not end up working out for him in any way, shape, or form. Still, it seems like Laban would have figured out that someone was lying, or at the very least had a temper tantrum because he did not end up getting what he wanted.

On to the matter of Jacob’s sons. Seriously, everyone in this family seems unhappy and incredibly upset with their lives, except they all work out in the end, which seems like something we would classify as fairytale-like today. Which is kind of interesting and strange, thinking about the Bible having the first fairytales. Anyway, I digress. I always felt really bad for Joseph, because the poor guy gets thrown down a hole, by all his jealous brothers, and guess what, his mother is extremely upset because she thinks her only child is dead. She had one child, and then her sister’s sons all thought it would be a brilliant idea to throw him down a hole and hope that he died, but not bother to verify that information. Which explains why Joseph was the genius who managed to help run a country and they were not. That always seemed like a weird segue/outcome. Still does.

Why do you think the book ends the way it does, with Jacob’s death?

Why do you think the Pharaoh’s wife was so interested in Joseph? Why did she try so hard to get him into trouble?

Why do you think Joseph was so willing to forgive his brothers, even after they threw him down a hole, despite the fact he had not seem them for like twenty years?

Genesis

One of the differences between The Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis is that Genesis actually has a backstory that is quite extensive. To be fair, almost the entirety of Genesis is backstory, though. However, The Epic of Gilgamesh has a little bit of backstory mixed in with the story, but there really isn’t a whole lot. Genesis dumps everything on you all at once, although not in a bad way. Genesis literally spells everything out step by step.

Gilgamesh was praised almost incessantly by the writer and by other characters within the story; however, Adam and Eve are not made out to be perfect. They are never made out to be something that they are not, and they both make the same mistake. They ate from the tree, even though God said, “You shall not eat from it and you shall not touch it, lest you die.” They both seem infinitely more human than Gilgamesh, who seems almost untouchable. The only negative thing that really happens to him is that he loses his best friend.

The Epic of Gilgamesh seems to be a lot more action, whereas Genesis is almost always consistently cause and effect. God says [insert phrase here] and something happens. When people listen to God, everything works out, and when they don’t, bad things happen. It seems pretty simple.

This happens time and time again; first with Adam, then with Noah, then with Abraham and his wife, Sarah. All these people listened to God and were blessed, and when they did not, there were consequences. However, this should not make it seem like God is not merciful, though. God talks to Abraham, and he wants to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham tries to fight for the town’s survival. He talks God from saving the town if there are only 50 people who are innocent down to only 10 innocent people, and God still sparing the city. This clearly shows that God is merciful.

Genesis gets more and more in-depth the farther you get within it. The stories start out shorter and simpler, and then they proceed to get more and more complex. You delve more into everyone’s lives the farther you get into the story of Genesis. By the time you get to Jacob, it seems like we learn about almost his entire life.

Another similarity seems to be in relation to how people (in Genesis) are described and how gods (in The Epic of Gilgamesh) are described. In Genesis, there is generally a long drawn out explanation about who is descended from whom, and when the gods are described, there is a long drawn out explanation about who they are related to and what they can do (what they are the god of).

I am enjoying this translation far more than I thought I would. It is not as dense as most things in relation to Genesis. The notes are also surprisingly interesting and helpful.

1. Genesis mentions Nephilim, and in class it was brought up that Gilgamesh could have been a descendant of the Nephilim. Do you think this is still a possibility?

2. Which character seems to have the best life or make the least amount of mistakes in Genesis? It seems like almost all of the characters do something stupid at one point or another in time: again, they all seem incredibly human, unlike Gilgamesh.

3. Do you think the blessings God gives seem to make the commands to follow worth it? This is obviously up for debate, but good things happen when people listen. However, every once in a while people argue with God about whether or not he can actually provide what he says he will.

The Epic of Gilgamesh

I think the travels of Gilgamesh and Enkidu were probably the least interesting part of this section. It was a small section, but they did almost the exact same thing every day. In general, when someone goes on a journey there’s danger and fighting, but this was very simple. The dreams were the most exciting part of this, and they were just kind of intense.

I really like the descriptions used throughout this epic. Everything seems vibrant and full of life. There’s also a surprising amount of specificity. There’s a lot of specificity mentioned in relation to distances and heights, but what surprises me is that there are also general descriptions, with scenery and color.

Enkidu and Gilgamesh have an excellent sense of teamwork. I think is obvious in many different ways: when they are traveling to take down Humbaba, when they are traveling to take down Ishtar, and the actual combat with Ishtar. They both communicate while they are attempting to bring Ishtar down. They also plan out how to destroy him before they actually make it that far.

It’s really interesting that as interested in treasure and glory as Gilgamesh is, Enkidu never really has that same kind of drive. It seems like he could honestly care less whether or not he has anything of the same things Gilgamesh seems to crave.

Enkidu is kind of dramatic. He spends multiple pages basically romanticizing his death. So far, I believe that’s the most anyone has talked at one time throughout this epic. I was expecting a dramatic battle to the death, but I certainly wasn’t expecting Enkidu to simply drop dead from illness. That makes his monologue significantly more dramatic. Also, it’s kind of depressing that he doesn’t die in battle, because as he says, no one will remember him. I’m impressed, however, by how much Gilgamesh mourns his friend. The second longest amount of time is spent with Gilgamesh incessantly praising his dead friend. Gilgamesh also is dramatic, so it doesn’t seem quite as unexpected as it was when Enkidu did the exact same thing.

I think it shows how much Gilgamesh appreciated his friend in relation to how after he’s done mourning, Gilgamesh decides to wander aimlessly for a while. However, it’s probably not a good idea for this scorpion thing to continue to compliment Gilgamesh, as it already seems whatever anyone says goes to his head. However, as much as every single person Gilgamesh seems to mention about how amazing he is seems to give substantial evidence that he is probably as impressive as everyone makes him out to be.

I’m kind of wondering about the significance of lapis lazuli. This is something incredibly specific that they’ve mentioned many times.

I’m slightly concerned about how willing Gilgamesh is to listen to this person, just so he doesn’t have to worry about death, at least temporarily, and hopefully in the long run. I am impressed, however, with how much of a hard worker Gilgamesh is. He does all this work on his own, with no guarantee of an outcome of immortality. He obvious really wants immortality, but if the main reason is because of Enkidu dying, then at least that is slightly redeeming. If the only reason he wants it, however, is because he wants to be immortal and is using Enkidu’s death as an excuse, then there is absolutely nothing redeeming about that whatsoever.

I’m disappointed with how the most exciting parts are when all that is happening is excessive monologue. I’m interested to see where this goes from here. The title for the next section seems like an interesting segue.