Chapter 3 started of with the CIA's expression of joy towards the knowledge that Kuklinski was able to offer them. Kuklinski sent a letter to the CIA saying that he "wanted to be sure he was not taken alive and asked for 'a pill, which would help me to resolve the matter in a critical moment'" (67). Gull, Kuklinski's given code name, was asking for a suicide pill and he reiterates this desire in later conversations, saying, "he would rather die the death of 'a silent hero' and not confess any details..." (86). Kuklinski realizes the gravity of his situation and that he cannot give away any hint towards his secret dealings. His efforts would hopefully reward his country in the end, and he needed the pill so that, if the time was necessary, he could end his life quickly and painlessly.
The rest of this section focused on techniques that the CIA developed to be able to pass on packages of importance to their agents, or double agents, without those agents being caught and "extinguished". The CIA needed techniques to keep Kuklinski alive and the basic techniques of safe drops and invisible ink were starting to fail. This was due to tightened security by the secret service in Poland, East Germany, and the rest of the Soviet territory. These methods that were developed by David Forden and they included the brush pass and car pass. The brush pass was when a CIA employee brings a package under something such as a raincoat and distracts any possible onlookers by shifting the coat to the other arm as he hands off the package to the agent. Forden's main job was to find the routes of the SB and KGB, the Polish and Soviet secret service. He found patterns that did not suit the brush pass and thus developed the car pass. “Forden had notice as he drove around Warsaw that the SB tended to stay sufficiently behind him that if he made a right turn, there was a short gap before he saw the SB car make the same turn. Within that gap, he felt, there was enough time to make a quick handoff to a source through the car window” (81). These passes were made successfully to Kuklinski and other agents in Poland shortly after it was authorized. These were the precautions that Gull and the CIA were taking to make sure that Gull would survive for the longest period of time without being found and, most likely, executed. They had individuals specifically designed to drive in a car with American plates and moniter the SB and KGB's patterns.
This is the extent to which the CIA went to keep Kuklinski safe and operable, and it's pretty amazing.
Weiser, Benjamin. A Secret Life. 1st. New York: PublicAffairs, 2004.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
A Secret Life: Blog 1
Imagine being the individual that decided the fate of the world. Well, even though he didn’t know it, Ryszard Kuklinski was that individual and the biography A Secret Life, is the story of his life. This biography was written by Benjamin Weiser and his primary source for the information contained in this book are the CIA records of conversations that took place in the early 1970s between CIA agents in Western Europe and Ryszard Kuklinski. Mr. Kuklinski was born in 1930 and was a lieutenant colonel with the Polish General Staff, when he decided to make the leap and contact the United States to help him. He had lived most of his life in an occupied Poland. Whether it was the Nazis or the Soviets, he didn’t care, all he wanted was for his country to become a free nation and rebuild what had been taken from them during the occupation of their country. Kuklinski stated throughout his face to face conversations with CIA agents, Lang* and Henry*, two important beliefs. First off, he was not coming to the United States for help; he was merely enlisting this great power to his side in his personal fight against Communism. Secondly, that he had been wondering for many years whether or not coming to the US was immoral, or unpatriotic. A Secret Life, by Benjamin Weiser, is the story of an individual who had one goal, and the two beliefs that led to his goal would be first he would need the help of a greater power than himself, and he asked himself is this truly the best option to help him achieve the goal of liberating his country and founding a new, free Poland.
Kuklinski knew that he would need a great power on his side if he were to have any chance at overthrowing the Soviet Union, who was currently occupying Poland, but he also struggled with the decision about whether or not he should even consider moving forward with his dream. After all the goodwill of his entire nation rested on how well he performed in his goal, and if he were to fail, the entire country of Poland would be lost forever. In the words of Kuklinski himself, slightly paraphrased by Benjamin Weiser,
[H]e did not see himself as an American spy or mole; he always felt that he had acted on behalf of his own country, and that he had in effect “recruited” the United States to work against Poland’s Communist leadership and the Soviet Union. ‘In the beginning I asked myself if I had the moral right to do this,’ he said. ‘I was Pole. I understood that Poles should be free and that the United States was the only country that might support the fight for freedom for Poland. On the other hand, I was providing so much important information, and there always will be this question of whether a human being has this right, based on his own individual decision, particularly if the interest of the whole country and maybe the lives of millions are involved. It was a dilemma, my moral dilemma, but I became convinced that I not only had the right, I had the moral obligation,’ (xv).
This quote showed jumped out at me because we are supposed to be discussing moral dilemmas and issues, and this is exactly what Kuklinski is saying. If Kuklinski had come to the conclusion that putting the lives of millions in jeopardy was too big of a risk to take, the Cold War would probably have erupted into not a Hot War, but a scalding, scorching, end of the world, judgment day, extremely Hot War. In fact, the simple truth is that, if Kuklinski had not acted in this way, I would not be able to write this. Not because he no longer was an important figure, but because there would be no more Earth. So, Kuklinski did follow through with his plan and we know in hindsight that simply continuing with his ambition was able to save the world from complete and utter destruction.
* These names were changed to protect the identity of the agents.
Weiser, Benjamin. A Secret Life: The Polish Officer, His Covert Mission, and the Price He Paid to Save His Country. 1st. New York City: PublicAffairs, 2004.
Kuklinski knew that he would need a great power on his side if he were to have any chance at overthrowing the Soviet Union, who was currently occupying Poland, but he also struggled with the decision about whether or not he should even consider moving forward with his dream. After all the goodwill of his entire nation rested on how well he performed in his goal, and if he were to fail, the entire country of Poland would be lost forever. In the words of Kuklinski himself, slightly paraphrased by Benjamin Weiser,
[H]e did not see himself as an American spy or mole; he always felt that he had acted on behalf of his own country, and that he had in effect “recruited” the United States to work against Poland’s Communist leadership and the Soviet Union. ‘In the beginning I asked myself if I had the moral right to do this,’ he said. ‘I was Pole. I understood that Poles should be free and that the United States was the only country that might support the fight for freedom for Poland. On the other hand, I was providing so much important information, and there always will be this question of whether a human being has this right, based on his own individual decision, particularly if the interest of the whole country and maybe the lives of millions are involved. It was a dilemma, my moral dilemma, but I became convinced that I not only had the right, I had the moral obligation,’ (xv).
This quote showed jumped out at me because we are supposed to be discussing moral dilemmas and issues, and this is exactly what Kuklinski is saying. If Kuklinski had come to the conclusion that putting the lives of millions in jeopardy was too big of a risk to take, the Cold War would probably have erupted into not a Hot War, but a scalding, scorching, end of the world, judgment day, extremely Hot War. In fact, the simple truth is that, if Kuklinski had not acted in this way, I would not be able to write this. Not because he no longer was an important figure, but because there would be no more Earth. So, Kuklinski did follow through with his plan and we know in hindsight that simply continuing with his ambition was able to save the world from complete and utter destruction.
* These names were changed to protect the identity of the agents.
Weiser, Benjamin. A Secret Life: The Polish Officer, His Covert Mission, and the Price He Paid to Save His Country. 1st. New York City: PublicAffairs, 2004.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Outside Reading...It's amazing!!!
I decided that this week, I wouldn't have look around on the internet. Instead, I am going to write about the book(s) that I am reading. I am currently awaiting my turm on the library's waiting list for Superior Saturday, by Garth Nix. Superior Saturday is the 6th of 7 books in the Keys to the Kingdom series. The series centers around Arthur Penhaligon. A normal kid who happens to come across the first key, which allows it's possesor to complete control over the lower House. The House is a mysterious universe that exists parallel to our own and has some correlations to our world, such as the prophecy that states that the human who comes in possesion of the first key will be the Rightful Heir to the entire realm of the House. Arthur faces a lot of opposition throughout his quest from the 7 "demons" who split up the House when the Architect, the creator of the House, disappeared. These "demons" are Mister Monday, Grim Tuesday, Drowned Wednesday, Sir Thursday, Lady Friday, Superior Saturday, and Lord Sunday, which happen to be the names of the 7 books in the series. Awesome series. Read it.
My second series is the Alex Rider series. However "kiddish" it may be, it tells a great story about a teenage spy for the British Secret Service. Alex hates this obligation but is continually forced back into the service by a form of blackmail, such as sending his only guardian, Jack, back to the US. Alex has been all over the world, from the Caribbean, helping out the CIA; to China, fighting local gangs; to the Alps, stopping a cloning system; to outerspace saving the entire US eastern seaboard from a falling "space hotel". Another great series. Read this too.
The third series that I'm currently reading is the Gatekeeper series (Necropolis, the final book, came out today!!!!!!!!! This may be the highlight of my week. It's been a really boring week.) The series, and the Alex Rider series, is written by Anthony Horowitz. In this series, 5 children from across the world are reincarnations of the original 5 heroes. They have to stop the Old Ones from taking over the world. The Old Ones were trapped by the original 5 heroes underneath the Nazca lines in the Nazca Desert. In the last book, Necropolis, the Old Ones have taken over Beijing and renamed it Necropolis, City of the Dead. Beijing is the city that the 5th hero happens to be living in, so I'm really excited for my chance to read the book. Another great series. Read this too.
The book I'm actually reading right now is Inkdeath. This is the third book in the Ink series by Cornelia Caroline Funke. (The first is Inkheart, and the second is Inkspell.) This series is about a Mo and Meggie who have the power to read characters in and out of stories. This book starts out in the world of Inkheart, a book written by Fenoglio. (Ya, I know, the main characters are in a book, Inkheart, in a book, the actual "Ink" series? Yes.) Mo has assumed the role of the Bluejay, a robber who has bound death in a book for the Adderhead, the bad guy. However, this book ensures immortality, but also ensures eternal aging. So, the Adderhead is trying to catch Mo and make him change the book. This is another great series. And guess what, read this too!
I know this is a lot of books to read because counting all the previous books in these series you have to read...7+6+4+3=...20 books. So, read them anyways. You won't regret it.
My second series is the Alex Rider series. However "kiddish" it may be, it tells a great story about a teenage spy for the British Secret Service. Alex hates this obligation but is continually forced back into the service by a form of blackmail, such as sending his only guardian, Jack, back to the US. Alex has been all over the world, from the Caribbean, helping out the CIA; to China, fighting local gangs; to the Alps, stopping a cloning system; to outerspace saving the entire US eastern seaboard from a falling "space hotel". Another great series. Read this too.
The third series that I'm currently reading is the Gatekeeper series (Necropolis, the final book, came out today!!!!!!!!! This may be the highlight of my week. It's been a really boring week.) The series, and the Alex Rider series, is written by Anthony Horowitz. In this series, 5 children from across the world are reincarnations of the original 5 heroes. They have to stop the Old Ones from taking over the world. The Old Ones were trapped by the original 5 heroes underneath the Nazca lines in the Nazca Desert. In the last book, Necropolis, the Old Ones have taken over Beijing and renamed it Necropolis, City of the Dead. Beijing is the city that the 5th hero happens to be living in, so I'm really excited for my chance to read the book. Another great series. Read this too.
The book I'm actually reading right now is Inkdeath. This is the third book in the Ink series by Cornelia Caroline Funke. (The first is Inkheart, and the second is Inkspell.) This series is about a Mo and Meggie who have the power to read characters in and out of stories. This book starts out in the world of Inkheart, a book written by Fenoglio. (Ya, I know, the main characters are in a book, Inkheart, in a book, the actual "Ink" series? Yes.) Mo has assumed the role of the Bluejay, a robber who has bound death in a book for the Adderhead, the bad guy. However, this book ensures immortality, but also ensures eternal aging. So, the Adderhead is trying to catch Mo and make him change the book. This is another great series. And guess what, read this too!
I know this is a lot of books to read because counting all the previous books in these series you have to read...7+6+4+3=...20 books. So, read them anyways. You won't regret it.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
A picture
So here's my picture. I hope it makes up for our dismal performance in class today.
Composititon: The picture is of the stairs in my house leading up from the basement. The steps are in some light and the line between the shadow and light creates a leading line that leads our eyes throughout the picture, from the light stairs to the dark door.
Camera Angle: The picture is taken from a low angle to show the door as an ominous obstacle that we wouldn't want to have to approach. (My dad thought that it was a high angle and it seemed like you were descending into the abyss.)
Camera Distance: The picture is a medium shot because the door is shown with the surroundings that lead up to it. It's kind of a close shot because you see the stairs and the door and nothing else. It depends if you consider the subject of the picture to be the stairs and the door, or only the door.
Lighting/Shadows: The beginning of the stairway is in the light, but the shadows gradually creep across the stairs and soon the whole top of the stairs is shrouded in a dark, menacing, gloom.
History of Photography and Film
Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, photography didn't start as it is now? I'm just kidding, if you seriously thought that photography hasn't evolved just like everything else then you ... umm...ya... nevermind. Anyways, my parousal of the Internet has led me to an article that tells about just that, the evolution of photography. This article was written to tell about the emergence of film and photography in our culture. “Photographic imaging”, a fancy-shmancy way of saying photography began a long, long time ago. The Camera Obscura was a box that allowed light to enter and create images. When photographers placed silver coated glass plates into those boxes, the chemical reaction, blah, blah, blah… You get the idea. Photography was born! This “camera” took a long time to set up, take the picture, develop the picture and what not; they were also taking pretty bad pictures, “crude” as the article says. So many photographers in later generations decided to find a way to simplify the process. Machines came out that developed pictures faster. The bulky “cameras” became smaller and easier to manage. Also, the camera came out of the studios and into the hands of the public. This is possibly one of the greatest public technological releases ever. World War II saw an evolution of cameras to a more similar model to today’s. The single lens reflex allowed for better focus and greater range of distance. Finally, we had the instant camera. Released to the people in the 1960’s by Polaroid. This was believed to be “idiot proof”. It had everything from the “permanent electronic flash” to an “automatically controlled shutter speed” along with better focus and lighting. This new realm of photography got its time to shine during the Vietnam War. The popularity that it experienced was so great that every home owned at least one camera. Cameras now a days come in all sorts of varieties, and which the computer, printer, and Internet, we are now able to share photography like its original pioneers would never have imagined. As the article says, “Photography has come out of the darkroom and onto the CD Rom” (3).
Works Cited:
"History of photography and film." eSSORTMENT. 2002. Pagewise. 23 Oct 2008.
Works Cited:
"History of photography and film." eSSORTMENT. 2002. Pagewise. 23 Oct 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Death for Life?
In my most recent navigation of the World Wide Web, I managed to come across a very interesting bit of new Buddhist traditions. In Nakhon Nayok, Thailand, an individual experiences a temporary death and is soon reborn with completely new karma, as if they were a completely different person. This ceremony is called the coffin ceremony. A 39-year-old woman from Bangkok has been applying for a visa to the Netherlands, but has not yet received her wish. Well, after her temporary death she prayed again and, along with all the other individuals who died and were reborn, got her wish. So, these people sort of contemplated a temporary death and after a long slumber, awoke a completely new person. I believe that I may have heard that somewhere before. Perhaps these lines from Siddhartha, “Perhaps he had really died, perhaps he had been drowned and was reborn in another form…this Siddhartha was somewhat changed, renewed” (91). Siddhartha, the savior of these people, contemplated and may have done the exact same thing that they have just started doing. So, has this tradition that recently commenced in Thailand really that new? Didn’t Siddhartha try it over 2400 years ago? Either way this story relates to our school experiences by showing that Siddhartha’s “practices” are still being followed or “reborn” today. I hope you enjoyed my presentation of my weekly browsing of many completely irrelevant stories and occasionally, as shown here, some relevant ones from the Internet.
"In latest Thai fad, a taste of death brings hope for better life." The Buddhist Channel. 11 Oct 2008. AFP. 11 Oct 2008.
"In latest Thai fad, a taste of death brings hope for better life." The Buddhist Channel. 11 Oct 2008. AFP. 11 Oct 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Mrs F's first,and hopefully last, question on the Odyssey
2. Is Odysseus a hero of modern times?
His lies, pride and murderous ways can be considered metaphors for larger, universal truths. Or perhaps in these modern times we need to redefine what we want in our heroes.
A hero is not necessarily one who is remembered specifically or one who receives praise for his/her works. A hero is someone who does what is right even if it means putting themselves in danger. In this case Odysseus can be recognized as a hero who puts himself at risk to save others, his companions on his journey, or his family. However, a hero also does not lie and receive personal gain through deceit. A hero in today's society is someone who does what he can to try and preserve life and peace in the world. Odysseus is a lying, and deceitful individual who also shows kindness and mercy when the time calls for it. So Odysseus is a hero by his era's standards, however in modern times, although he may be able to slaughter many, many of the firefighters, who rescued individuals from the wreckage caused by 9/11 and are therefore considered to be heroes, but that would not make him a hero, it would simply make him a jerk that who be universally disliked.
Odysseus is a hero by the standards shown in The Odyssey. He always remained true to his cause and never permanently fell into the lap of any of his distractions. In Homer’s time period a hero was someone who could manipulate their way through any obstacle and cut down any individual in his (or her) path. This is exactly where Odysseus’ brains and brawn came into play. He used trickery to force Circe to release him, and he used his brawn to conquer the suitors in the final battle. When Odysseus came to the Circe’s island, he and his men were famished. They ate and slept for two days straight. On the third day, Circe welcomed them in and after they had all ate their fill; she turned them all into pigs. Odysseus felt guilty and he knew he needed to get his friends back. So, he devised a plan, with the help of Hermes and his magic herb that repelled Circe’s magic. When Hermes gives Odysseus the herb, Homer says, “With that the giant-killer handed over the magic herb…and Hermes showed me [Odysseus] all its name and nature.” When Circe attempted to charm Odysseus, Odysseus tells his listeners, “But I, I drew my sharp sword sheathed at my hip and rushed her fast as if to run her through—She screamed…” (239-40). Odysseus shows his side of heroism here with one, his compassion, and two, his trickery and deceit. He feels very upset and as though he needs to get his shipmates back. So, Odysseus does have a soft side as well as his sly, tricky, and clever side.
This side is shown when he uses trickery, the herb that he received from Hermes, to overcome Circe’s will. Hermes and Odysseus devised a plan to allow Odysseus to defeat Circe, and have his comrades returned to human form. His comrades do die, however, during one of the many obstacles they still had to face. However, Odysseus was to fight the final obstacle on his own. Odysseus uses his “brawn” side to fight the suitors. When he was fighting the final battle in the halls of his house, Odysseus commands, “Friends! Now it is for us to hurl at them [the suitors], I say, into this ruck of suitors! Topping all their crimes they’re mad to strip the armor off our bodies!” (447). And Homer tells us, after the slaughter of the suitors, “Odysseus scanned his house to see if any man still skulked alive, still hoped to avoid black death” (451). Odysseus shows courage when he calls for himself, Telemachus, the cowherd and the swineherd, to attack some of the finest men in all of Ithaca. He also shows how he isn’t a hero when he scours his whole house, just to see if someone is trying to escape him. He could have just dealt with not killing 1 or 2 of the suitors. Also, heroes don’t go around killing people, even if those people are threatening their family. They get rid of them, instead of killing them. So, although Odysseus may be a hero by the standards shown in his era, the heroes that we want today are not ones who simply kill or trick people in their way.
Odysseus is shown as a strong, independent character and those are some qualities that we want in our present-day heroes. However, Odysseus also lies and does not trust anyone. These are traits that are not shown in our present-day heroes. Heroes these days are just expected to be some of the nicest people you have ever met. They should always tell the truth and trust everyone they meet. This just goes to show that Odysseus is not, and cannot be, a hero by our standards. When Odysseus is living on Calypso’s island and Zeus makes her give up Odysseus, she tells Odysseus,
“ ‘No need, my unlucky one, to grieve here any longer…now I am willing, heart and soul, to send you off at last…And I myself will stock her [the raft that was to be built] with food and water…’ …Odysseus shuddered at that and broke out in a sharp flight of protest. ‘Passage home? Never. Surely you’re plotting something else, goddess, urging me—in a raft—to cross the ocean’s mighty gulfs’ ” (157-8).
Calypso is finally offering Odysseus what he has been longing for the whole time he’s been on the island. She is willing to help him get off her island, and immediately he becomes skeptical. If a modern hero was trapped on an island in the middle of nowhere and was offered a way to leave, he would thank his hostess and kindly accept the offer, instead of questioning the hostess and being hostile to someone who is offering their help. So, Odysseus is a questioning individual who doesn’t trust anyone, least of all someone who as kept him captive.
Earlier during his journey, Odysseus was held captive by another magical creature, Polyphemus the Cyclops. Odysseus lies to the giant one-eyed monster and although it may have worked and he did escape his pride, which is not a trait that is shown in many modern heroes, gets in the way. As he is escaping on his ships, he yells back to Polyphemus, “Cyclops—if any man on the face of the earth should ask you who blinded you, shamed you so—say Odysseus, raider of cities, he gouged out your eye, Laertes’ son who makes his home in Ithaca” (227). In response, Polyphemus prayed to his father, Poseidon, saying, “…grant that Odysseus…never reaches home. Or if he’s fated to see his people once again and reach his well-built house and his own native country, let him come home late and come a broken man—all shipmates lost, along in a stranger’s ship—and let him find a world of pain at home!” (228). Odysseus’ pride leads him to taunt Polyphemus, and in the end, the Cyclops’ prayer makes him lose all his possessions, his shipmates; his ship and almost lose his life many times. This pride is not a welcome attribute to many common heroes of today. Pride makes one unhealthy and makes them think that they are better than everyone, which was Odysseus’ thought when he yelled to the Cyclops.
Finally, present day heroes are not deceitful, they may fight battles, but they don’t massacre every last enemy soldier. They are trusting and they are not laden with pride. So, do we need to change our thoughts on what a hero is? NO!!!!! Our heroes may get massacred by Odysseus’ kind, but in today’s society, a kind, caring, trustworthy and modest hero is the kind that would be accepted versus one who is deceitful, massacring, prideful.
His lies, pride and murderous ways can be considered metaphors for larger, universal truths. Or perhaps in these modern times we need to redefine what we want in our heroes.
A hero is not necessarily one who is remembered specifically or one who receives praise for his/her works. A hero is someone who does what is right even if it means putting themselves in danger. In this case Odysseus can be recognized as a hero who puts himself at risk to save others, his companions on his journey, or his family. However, a hero also does not lie and receive personal gain through deceit. A hero in today's society is someone who does what he can to try and preserve life and peace in the world. Odysseus is a lying, and deceitful individual who also shows kindness and mercy when the time calls for it. So Odysseus is a hero by his era's standards, however in modern times, although he may be able to slaughter many, many of the firefighters, who rescued individuals from the wreckage caused by 9/11 and are therefore considered to be heroes, but that would not make him a hero, it would simply make him a jerk that who be universally disliked.
Odysseus is a hero by the standards shown in The Odyssey. He always remained true to his cause and never permanently fell into the lap of any of his distractions. In Homer’s time period a hero was someone who could manipulate their way through any obstacle and cut down any individual in his (or her) path. This is exactly where Odysseus’ brains and brawn came into play. He used trickery to force Circe to release him, and he used his brawn to conquer the suitors in the final battle. When Odysseus came to the Circe’s island, he and his men were famished. They ate and slept for two days straight. On the third day, Circe welcomed them in and after they had all ate their fill; she turned them all into pigs. Odysseus felt guilty and he knew he needed to get his friends back. So, he devised a plan, with the help of Hermes and his magic herb that repelled Circe’s magic. When Hermes gives Odysseus the herb, Homer says, “With that the giant-killer handed over the magic herb…and Hermes showed me [Odysseus] all its name and nature.” When Circe attempted to charm Odysseus, Odysseus tells his listeners, “But I, I drew my sharp sword sheathed at my hip and rushed her fast as if to run her through—She screamed…” (239-40). Odysseus shows his side of heroism here with one, his compassion, and two, his trickery and deceit. He feels very upset and as though he needs to get his shipmates back. So, Odysseus does have a soft side as well as his sly, tricky, and clever side.
This side is shown when he uses trickery, the herb that he received from Hermes, to overcome Circe’s will. Hermes and Odysseus devised a plan to allow Odysseus to defeat Circe, and have his comrades returned to human form. His comrades do die, however, during one of the many obstacles they still had to face. However, Odysseus was to fight the final obstacle on his own. Odysseus uses his “brawn” side to fight the suitors. When he was fighting the final battle in the halls of his house, Odysseus commands, “Friends! Now it is for us to hurl at them [the suitors], I say, into this ruck of suitors! Topping all their crimes they’re mad to strip the armor off our bodies!” (447). And Homer tells us, after the slaughter of the suitors, “Odysseus scanned his house to see if any man still skulked alive, still hoped to avoid black death” (451). Odysseus shows courage when he calls for himself, Telemachus, the cowherd and the swineherd, to attack some of the finest men in all of Ithaca. He also shows how he isn’t a hero when he scours his whole house, just to see if someone is trying to escape him. He could have just dealt with not killing 1 or 2 of the suitors. Also, heroes don’t go around killing people, even if those people are threatening their family. They get rid of them, instead of killing them. So, although Odysseus may be a hero by the standards shown in his era, the heroes that we want today are not ones who simply kill or trick people in their way.
Odysseus is shown as a strong, independent character and those are some qualities that we want in our present-day heroes. However, Odysseus also lies and does not trust anyone. These are traits that are not shown in our present-day heroes. Heroes these days are just expected to be some of the nicest people you have ever met. They should always tell the truth and trust everyone they meet. This just goes to show that Odysseus is not, and cannot be, a hero by our standards. When Odysseus is living on Calypso’s island and Zeus makes her give up Odysseus, she tells Odysseus,
“ ‘No need, my unlucky one, to grieve here any longer…now I am willing, heart and soul, to send you off at last…And I myself will stock her [the raft that was to be built] with food and water…’ …Odysseus shuddered at that and broke out in a sharp flight of protest. ‘Passage home? Never. Surely you’re plotting something else, goddess, urging me—in a raft—to cross the ocean’s mighty gulfs’ ” (157-8).
Calypso is finally offering Odysseus what he has been longing for the whole time he’s been on the island. She is willing to help him get off her island, and immediately he becomes skeptical. If a modern hero was trapped on an island in the middle of nowhere and was offered a way to leave, he would thank his hostess and kindly accept the offer, instead of questioning the hostess and being hostile to someone who is offering their help. So, Odysseus is a questioning individual who doesn’t trust anyone, least of all someone who as kept him captive.
Earlier during his journey, Odysseus was held captive by another magical creature, Polyphemus the Cyclops. Odysseus lies to the giant one-eyed monster and although it may have worked and he did escape his pride, which is not a trait that is shown in many modern heroes, gets in the way. As he is escaping on his ships, he yells back to Polyphemus, “Cyclops—if any man on the face of the earth should ask you who blinded you, shamed you so—say Odysseus, raider of cities, he gouged out your eye, Laertes’ son who makes his home in Ithaca” (227). In response, Polyphemus prayed to his father, Poseidon, saying, “…grant that Odysseus…never reaches home. Or if he’s fated to see his people once again and reach his well-built house and his own native country, let him come home late and come a broken man—all shipmates lost, along in a stranger’s ship—and let him find a world of pain at home!” (228). Odysseus’ pride leads him to taunt Polyphemus, and in the end, the Cyclops’ prayer makes him lose all his possessions, his shipmates; his ship and almost lose his life many times. This pride is not a welcome attribute to many common heroes of today. Pride makes one unhealthy and makes them think that they are better than everyone, which was Odysseus’ thought when he yelled to the Cyclops.
Finally, present day heroes are not deceitful, they may fight battles, but they don’t massacre every last enemy soldier. They are trusting and they are not laden with pride. So, do we need to change our thoughts on what a hero is? NO!!!!! Our heroes may get massacred by Odysseus’ kind, but in today’s society, a kind, caring, trustworthy and modest hero is the kind that would be accepted versus one who is deceitful, massacring, prideful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)