RSS

Literature Commentary: The Epic of Gilgamesh

Long, long ago, I recall reading the story of Gilgamesh in an anthology of myths entitled “The Great Deeds of Superheroes.” Shortly thereafter, I had nightmares about being stalked by the evil ogre Humbaba. Little did I know that fourteen years later, I’d find myself writing a much more comprehensive analysis of one of the West’s earliest literary works.

The Epic begins by introducing Gilgamesh, king of the Sumerian city of Uruk. Gilgamesh is a tyrant and a womanizer, and his people beseech the gods for relief. Enter Enkidu, a beast-man of unparalleled strength – created for the sole purpose of defeating and humiliating Gilgamesh. After a wrestling match in which Gilgamesh proves himself the stronger, the two become best friends. They proceed to defeat not only the aforementioned Humbaba, but also the rampaging Bull of Heaven. The latter act incurs the ire of the goddess Ishtar, who smites Enkidu with a fatal illness. Upon his friend’s death, Gilgamesh is overcome by a terrible, all-consuming fear of the grave. He proceeds to seek out the wise man Utnapishtim (the Sumerian equivalent of the biblical Noah) who has been blessed by the gods with eternal life. Braving lions, scorpion-men, and stone-giants, he finds Utnapishtim’s island and learns the secret of immortality: a thorny plant growing at the bottom of the sea. Unfortunately, the plant is stolen by a serpent while Gilgamesh sleeps, rendering his search futile.

The “Epic of Gilgamesh” is both a religious treatise and a seminal work of ancient literature. Exploring issues of friendship, mortality, heroism, and humanity’s relationship to the divine, it lacks the expected “happy ending.” Rather, the Epic is a cautionary tale identifying man’s failings without providing much hope for the future.

Gilgamesh’s fundamental flaws are clearly pride and indecision. At the beginning of the book, his arrogant hedonism leads the gods to punish him by sending Enkidu. Later, his killing of the Bull of Heaven offends the gods yet again – resulting in the death of his best friend. Gilgamesh also is a passive figure, reluctant to act without external stimuli. He only chooses to face Humbaba after Enkidu’s arrival, and is only motivated to pursue immortality after Enkidu’s death. Most damningly of all, he timidly refuses to test the “plant of immortality” himself, deciding instead to observe its effect on someone else. This provides the necessary opportunity for the snake to steal away his chance at everlasting life.

The vision of the afterlife offered by the Epic of Gilgamesh is hopelessly bleak. As he dies, Enkidu warns Gilgamesh that he is not going to a pleasant destination. According to Enkidu, souls (represented as humans covered in mangy bird feathers) cower in a bleak city of dust, eating clay to survive. This sharply contrasts with the views of other ancient religions (such as the Egyptians and the Greeks), which promised their adherents some form of eternal bliss. Interestingly, it is unclear from the Epic what role the gods themselves serve in the Sumerian afterlife.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is a classic work of myth, and a must-read for all who desire a fuller understanding of ancient Sumerian culture. It does contain mild sexual implications (Enkidu is “tamed” by a prostitute), but such content is not included to titillate. While the story is dark, brooding, and ultimately remains unresolved, it offers a glimpse into the hopelessness of Sumerian religion. Having read the Epic, I could better appreciate the eternal promise offered to Abraham in Genesis 12. This was the great benefit of reading the Epic – its despairing philosophy dramatically contrasts with the hope and freedom offered to the great Old Testament saints.

The Epic is definitely an important piece of Western culture, and a fascinating window into ancient Mesopotamian civilization. And, if you like books like the “Odyssey,” it makes for a good read.

VERDICT: 8/10
A unique perspective on both Sumerian culture and timeless human weakness.

Addendum: Changes coming to Literary Analysis!

As many of you are aware, I’m currently enrolled in college and don’t have much time for outside reading or moviegoing. (My local library and movie theater have been replaced by an Amazon Kindle and a Netflix-equipped laptop.) In light of this, I’m planning on making a few changes to Literary Analysis. While I’ll still write detailed commentaries on classic literature and current theatrical releases, I’m also setting up a Twitter feed for Literary Analysis (http://twitter.com/litanalysis) to provide “mini-reviews” of popular DVDs, CDs, and books. It may take a couple of weeks for this to get established, but I’m looking forward to exploring new venues for discussion.

 
7 Comments

Posted by on October 19, 2010 in Classic

 

Movie Review: “The Social Network”

There’s some irony in the fact that I’m writing a review of the Facebook movie…for my Facebook page.

“The Social Network” is director David Fincher’s fascinating look at the birth of Facebook, and the men responsible for its creation. It is a story of entrepreneurship and theft, and of friendship and betrayal. More than anything else, though, it is a study of Mark Zuckerberg – Facebook’s enigmatic creator, and the world’s youngest billionaire. Thrown into the mix are some intriguing concepts of greed, integrity, and intellectual property rights, elevating “The Social Network” from a simple biopic to a critique of our culture.

After being dumped by his girlfriend, Mark (Jesse Eisenberg), at the time a student at Harvard, takes revenge by setting up “Facemash.com”. By hacking into the Harvard student image directories, Mark creates a website enabling guys to rank girls based on their “hotness.” His project is wildly successful – the flood of network traffic that night brings the Harvard campus network to its knees. Impressed by his work, the two Winklevoss brothers contact him with an idea of their own: an elite, Harvard-only online social network (primarily for dating purposes). But Mark – along with his friend and roommate Eduardo (Andrew Garfield) – isn’t interested in creating a mediocre MySpace imitation. He takes the Winklevosses’ idea and modifies it, crafting a similar website but without using any of the brothers’ code. The resulting site – TheFacebook.com – instantly becomes a massive success on campus.

But of course, innovation requires money. Mark appoints Eduardo as the company’s Chief Financial Officer, tasking him with the financial management of the fledgling corporation. A conflict soon mars their relationship – Eduardo believes the company needs on-site advertising in order to remain viable, while Mark feels advertising will make TheFacebook “uncool.” To settle the dispute, Mark calls in Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), famed founder of the illegal-music-sharing website Napster. Sean has plenty of suggestions for TheFacebook (including a slight name change, to “Facebook”) but Eduardo is uncomfortable with Sean’s involvement. The resulting disagreement sends Mark and Eduardo to opposite sides of the country: Mark (along with Sean and a team of programmers) moves to California to continue developing Facebook, while Eduardo moves to New York in an attempt to solicit financial support for the website.

From this point, the story follows the pattern of many corporate dramas. I won’t spoil any key plot elements, but suffice it to say that the actions taken by Mark and Sean torpedo their relationship with Eduardo.

Perhaps the most interesting element of “The Social Network” is the way in which the director depicts Mark’s transformation from a naive, nerdy college student into a ruthless, cold-hearted businessman. This is accomplished predominantly through the toxic influence of Sean, whose “cool” persona is hopelessly alluring to Mark. Sean’s utter lack of concern for the welfare of others rubs off on Mark, leading to the breakdown of his relationship with Eduardo. “The Social Network” also serves as a sharp critique of our society’s obsession with success. Even at Harvard, Mark’s fixation with Facebook-oriented projects alienates those around him. He gains some measure of notoriety after the initial releases of Facemash and TheFacebook, but such popularity ultimately proves superficial. By the end of the film, he has emerged as an arrogant businessman with no real friends – a lonely billionaire.

Issues of faith and worldview are never directly addressed. Mark and his business partners frequently act amorally, making decisions without considering their ethical consequences. Characters frequently act out in petty, vindictive ways throughout the course of the film.

From a cinematic standpoint, “The Social Network” is outstanding. The performances by Eisenberg and Timberlake are especially notable – Eisenberg is perfectly believable as the slightly tortured genius Mark, while Timberlake perfectly captures Sean’s egotistic, devil-may-care attitude. A tightly plotted script – alternating between college flashbacks and future lawsuits – keeps the story moving along at a fast pace.

As anyone who’s seen the trailers already realizes, there are some content issues (mainly due to frequent scenes of college partying). The movie contains several sexual situations (nothing extended or explicit) and a few scenes where female characters are wearing little more than lingerie. There are a few harsh expletives (including f-words) thrown in as well. Overall, “The Social Network” earns its PG-13 rating, and would likely not be suitable for viewers younger than 15 or 16.

“The Social Network” is a masterful piece of filmmaking. As a corporate drama, it works perfectly. However, as an factual biography…it may not be quite so exceptional. The film portrays Mark Zuckerberg as an insensitive egomaniac (albeit a haunted one). One can only wonder how the real Zuckerberg would respond to the film’s allegations – and as many of the facts surrounding the birth of Facebook are surrounded in clouds of legal secrecy, “The Social Network” may or may not be entirely accurate. In the coming weeks, there will probably be a good deal of speculation about the truth behind the movie.

Should you see it? If you’re reasonably interested in the modern Internet culture, or if you enjoy business-related dramas, “The Social Network” is for you. There are some problematic elements, but the target audience for this film is reasonably adult (I didn’t see anyone under 15 when I went to the theater). “The Social Network” is a well-acted, well-directed warning against obsession and greed that will likely prove thought-provoking for many members of our society.

At the very least, you’ll be thinking about it the next time you check your Facebook.

VERDICT: 8.5/10
An eye-opening story of one man’s struggle for success, regardless of the cost.

Normalized Score: 6.9

 
3 Comments

Posted by on October 1, 2010 in Contemporary