Dr. Jekyll- 1 for evil scheming which resulted in Mr. Hyde
Mr. Hyde- 6 for children stomping and the overtaking of Dr. Jekyll
Grendal- 7.3 for eating people for 12 years
Grendal's mother- 4.5 for the killing of some men, but she was doing what any mother would do (by that I mean revenge...not murder)
The Dragon- 4 for arson/murder, but he was provoked.
Dexter-6.2 because hey, not like he is eating anyone! plus he is killing creeps!
Medea- 6.3 because she is a woman scorned, which gives her some room to roam, but then again she killed her kids.
Jason- 6.35 for being an unfaithful jerk who started this whole mess.
Maleficent- 5.3 for cursing a child, and for showing people 'all the powers of hell'
Iago- 8 for being manipulative, killing his wife, and causing the death of three others (plus the death of one's future children), and for basically being a terrible person (but an excellent villain)
Othello- 3 for taking Iago's word for the truth and for killing his wife.
Joker- 9 for killing so many people, for having no reason to his madness, and for just being plain awful
Ozymandias- 8.2 for killing tons of people, for taking the future of the world into his hands, for acting like a god when he was not, and for thinking way too highly of himself
Edward Blake- 7 for being brutal, for trying to rape Sally (even though she...wanted it??), but he saw the truth of the world, still no excuse though
Rorschach- 5 because he could be brutal, but he never compromised
Dan Dreiberg (Nite Owl) and Laurie Jupiter(Silk Spectre)- 3 for compromising
Dr. Manhattan- 1.1 because he was my favorite and I am biased....but he did compromise as well
Frau Gothel- 5 for stealing a child
Mother of Rapunzel- 4 for having a crazy craving that ended with her child being taken
Father of Rapunzel- 3 for stealing the lettuce
Cinderella's Stepmother- 4.5 for giving stepmothers a bad name
Cinderella's Father- 3.4 for bad parenting
Cinderella's Stepsister One- 3.3 for being rude
Cinderella's Stepsister Two- 3.3 for also being rude
The 'Wolf'- 7.15 for either raping a young girl, or eating her, neither of which are acceptable
Little Red Riding Hood- 1.4 for talking to strangers
Little Red Riding Hood's Mom- 2.3 for letting Little Red go off on her own
Captain Hook- 5 for being mean to Peter
Peter- 3 for stealing away children
Graff- 6 for knowing what he was doing to Ender, and yet never stopping
Peter Wiggin- 5.78 for being so cruel, sick, and twisted.
Society- 7.32 for fearing something that did not need to fear. For letting the IF train young boys in order to protect them, for not stopping until the 'threat' was destroyed, and a young boy had his innocence taken away
Princess Bride Villains- 4.87 I feel like all of them were basically equal. They were no real threat, yet their actions were not nice at all.

Journal Questions for the Week of November 29, 2011

Q. The Princess Bride has multiple villains. Dicuss how each one reflects/matches a heroic character.

A. Forgive me now for not remembering many of the names (or any of them), but I will try to make my descriptions decent enough. Okay so first is the King, Humberdink, or something like that. I feel like he reflects Westly seeing how their personalities are different. One is hard working, fights, is noble, and cool (I am talking about Westly), the other is a coward, hires others to do his dirty work, and is oddly good at tracking (so the King). Also they are reflected in Buttercup's love. Since Buttercup loves a man like Westly, she couldn't love a man like the King. I also think the Cecilian and the King are similar, just throwing it out there. They both have others do their bidding, they seem tough and threatening but they really aren't, and in the end their lack of toughness shows. Okay so next is Tyrone and the really big guy (he threw the rock at Westly) and the one from Spain. Tyrone isn't noble, he will run away from a fight, and he simply enjoys causing pain, only listening to the King because it gives him the opportunity to hurt people. The big guy and the one from Spain also don't really listen to the short one that dies (specific...I know), because they are noble. The don't run away from fights, and instead fight bravely, and accept when they have lost.

Q. Why does Westly adopt the outside semblance of a stereotypical villain, and does it help him to succeed?

A. I think it helped him see inside the mind of a true villain, and he was trained like a villain would be trained. This helped him to know what his opponent would do, and in a way he got the best of both worlds. He acted like a villain, trained like one, looked like one, yet on the inside he was a hero. Also, he didn't really have a choice to take on the role of a villain. He was lucky enough to survive being captured, it's not like he could refuse to be there and just go back home. Plus if he hadn't had spent five years on a pirate ship, he wouldn't know how to save Buttercup. He wouldn't know how to outthink the villains, or how to fight so well. Then again if he had never been captured there would have been no need to save Buttercup. Anyway, yes Westly's outside semblance of a villain helped him to succeed.

The best part of your answers: the fact that there are basically no names ;)
But seriously, I did like that because I had a very hard time with the names and I like your descriptions better. I think it's valid that Buttercup was unable (and unwilling) to love a man like the king and that does reflect that Wesley and the King were dissimilar. - Kayleethegr8 Kayleethegr8 Dec 2, 2011Kaylee!!

Your description of Westley, "he acted like a villain, trained like one... yet on the inside he was a hero," reminds me of Dexter! Ahh, the parallels of villainy. I agree that Westley didn't really have a choice in taking on the role of villain, and I also agree that in the long run, it helped him. I'm willing to bet little farmboy Westley didn't known 98% of the maneuvers Dread Pirate Roberts Westley used to save Buttercup. PS, I just noticed Voldemort isn't on your Villains Scale! Haha get 'im on there guuurrl! That guy's a meanie. - mlerussell mlerussell Dec 3, 2011

I like the idea of buttercups love being a reflection between Humperdink and Westly. I didnt think of that before, but that i am it makes sense.- Dec 5, 2011 ps I also thoroughly enjoyed your descriptions of each of the characters.

I love that you pointed out the paradox of Westly needing to have been captured to have the skills to save Buttercup but if he hadn't been captured he wouldn't have needed the skills. I hadn't realy noticed that before.-sdimpfel

I totally agree with your thought on why he needed to be the pirate in order to have the abilities to save Buttercup. I also think that the Cicilian and Humperdinck are kinda a like. They seem to only have courage when others do their dirty work. - HeyThereAri HeyThereAri Dec 6, 2011Ari

Journal Questions for the Week of November 22, 2011

Q. When Ender found the queen's egg, he decided not to tell the world until he was sure they could accept it. To that end, he wrote a book about the Buggers and their point-of-view, hoping to elicit empathy in mankind. The problem with this is that, when Ender does decide to reveal the truth, his lie will be viewed as a deception, and any empathy he has managed to cultivate may fall prey to suspicion. How can Ender prove to the world that he (and ultimately humanity) wasn't being manipulated by the Buggers?

A. I think the best way for him to prove that he wasn't being manipulated is the fact that he killed the Buggers. If Ender had been manipulated, if the world had been manipulated, then the Buggers could have stopped their destruction. Why would the Buggers want to be destroyed and have to start over? If they had that kind of power, they could have stopped it all from happening. They could have controlled Ender to not kill them all, they could have prevented it. Ender would also need to remind the world how the Buggers stopped attacking when they realized that humans were thinking, living beings. If the Buggers can have compassion, why can't we?

Q. From Jamie's presentation: Why do you think Disney chose to portray Hades as an evil villain to Hercules?

A. I think Disney chose to portray Hades as an evil villain, because the whole theme of the Underworld can be seen as evil. People can relate the Underworld to Hell, and as we all know Hell is not a good place to be. Therefore we can related Hades to the Devil, which we also know is not a nice guy. So instead of trying to be true to Greek mythology, with all its complications, Disney could use something we already know. They made the comparision simple, Greek Underworld is like our Hell, and Hades is the ruler, therefore he must be evil.


Journal Questions for the Week of November 8, 2011

Q.. Make a case for Peter Pan as the villain of the story. Also, please update your evil-o-meter if you haven't recently.

A. Peter Pan stole away a mother's children. Mrs. Darling was, obviously, upset when she found her children missing, and Mr. Darling goes so far as to confine himself to a kennel. Peter Pan can be seen as villianous because he took Wendy, John, and Michael away from their homes. Also, if Peter had it his way, the three Darling children would have stayed on Neverland. He would have them forget their mother and father, and stay with him. He showed no regard towards other people, especially when his decisions had an affect on others. He was a selfish boy, who also forgot Tinkerbell- who loved him. He so easily threw people away, and picked up more people to use, never even remembering why he did something.

Q. From Sam's presentation: Was Snape mostly a villain? Why or why not?

A. From the minimal knowledge I have about Snape, I would say he was mostly a villain. He got the love of his life killed, oh and her husband, and almost her child. Then he was horribly mean to her child, almost adding insult to injury. Hey I got you killed, and now I hate your kid. Also, he seemed to just do a lot of villanious things, and apparantly had to do some of them to keep his cover. Well, why did he join the evil side in the first place? He had a choice then, and he chose wrong. Yes, people can change, and perhaps he did, but I think he was mostly villainious.

Q. From Kharli's presentation: Did Spike deserve redemption after what he tried to do to Buffy?

A. I think he sorta kinda did deserve redemption. Raping a woman, or even trying to rape a woman, is never right, but from what I got from the presentation is that Buffy always said no before she said yes. The screaming could have been a clue to Spike though, but she had let him take advantage of her before. Why would this time be different? It was still, in no right okay though. In fact it was wrong....very wrong....but maybe he does deserve redemption, but I feel like Spike would need to take it up with a higher power than myself.


I enjoyed your case for Peter Pan being the villain. I never thought of him stealing the children. That is an evil act. What a turd. ~Ari

Journal Questions for the Week of November 1, 2011

Q. "[M]ost of us never really grow up or mature all that much -- we simply grow taller...the child we always are, whose needs are simple, whose daily life is still best described by fairy tales [remains]."-Leo Rosten We began the semester looking at a children's work. What new insight can you bring to the child-centered works we'll be looking at the for rest of the semester? What can be gained by this exploration?

A. Child-centered works are never as simple as they seem, at least that is what I learned from our discussion. On the surface it is a story we all know and love, but when you dig deep there is so much to be said about it. By exploring this, we see where stories get their base from. Deep inside every story is a simple version of it, just like deep inside every children's story is a complex version. I feel like that last sentence made no sense, but well you know. Children's work has the basic concepts, good guy, bad guy, happy/sad ending, not too long of a plot. It is basic, and from this plain structure it can be expounded into numerous ideas and works.

Q. From Angelica's presentation: (H. H. Holmes) Why are people so fascinated by things that are so gruesome and morbid?

A. I am crazy fascinated by the Holocaust. Yes, I know how horrible this may sound, but just let me explain. I do not think it was right, or okay in anyway, in fact I think it should have never happened, but....I find it really really interesting. I mean I have gone so far as to buy a History channel documentary on Hitler and the Holocaust, and then proceeded to spend the next few hours watching it. The Holocaust is horribly gruesome and morbid, but when I watch the documentaries I always want to know more. I want to see more pictures, hear more stories, no matter how morbid they are. But why? Well for me, it's because it is something untangible. I wasn't alive then, I don't think I would want to be, and things like the Holocaust aren't supposed to happen. We would never condone this happening, but when it does it peaks our interest. To see what people did in these situations, to see the decisions, the conditions, the brutality- it's horrible, but because it doesn't happen everyday, it's interesting.

Q. From Stephanie's presentation: Many times people blame their actions on demons--why is this an excuse that people use?

A. Okay, I will answer this, but first you need to watch this video, especially around 2 minutes and basically answers the question.

So, basically people use demons as an excuse cause they are bored (if you don't get this....then watch the dang video!). But on a more serious note, I think it just sounds better to say 'the demons made me do it', than to admit that there is something mentally wrong with you. I think the demon excuse is used for the same reason as the 'plea insanity' excuse. You get a lesser sentence when you plea insanity, than if you simply plea guilty. So why not take a lesser punishment for the same crime?

Oh and here is more factual evidence, in the form of an animated show


Children's stories definitely have the potential to be very deep. We are (I am) easily duped into thinking that just because something is for children that means it can't have an intense plot oranything. So in that way, I agree with you. - Kayleethegr8 Kayleethegr8 Nov 8, 2011Kaylee

Journal Questions for the Week of October 25, 2011

Q. Do you think there is a standard of morality that can be applied, regardless of external details and situations? That is, is there anything that is inherently good or evil?

A. I do not think that anything is inherently good or evil, I just think some people are more predisposed to being good or evil. And maybe I just say that because I feel like it is not okay to look at a baby and be like "Oh, you're an evil one, and there is nothing we can do about it. Evil, pure evil." Sometimes, though, there are murderers, or criminals that came from great families, and yet they are still criminals. So what made them that way? I still feel it is not okay to just say they were born that way. That they were an evil baby, born to be a criminal, I mean wow that is just such a happy thought to think that your child will be a criminal no matter what you do. So, no, I guess for my hope in humanity, I do not think anything is inherently good or evil.

Q. From Ari's presentation: was Lord Voldemort born evil or was he a victim of his upbringing/life circumstances?

A. So I do not know much about good ol' Lord Voldemort, so from what I got from the presentation I must say I think he was a victim of his upbringing. It did seem like he was predisposed to being a villain though. He was born outside of an orphanage, where his mother died shortly after. Talk about a great first few days of life. Things didn't start out well for him, and then growing up in an orphanage triggered his inner villain to start growing.

Q. From Lena's presentation: How does the vampire lore of today reflect on society and what do you think the next era's lore could hold?

A. Today's society loves a good romance. Vampire lore of today makes vampires more human, that way it isn't so weird to want to have a relationship with one. We want to sympathize with them, and then have them fall in love with us. I think vampire lore of the future could transform vampires into superheros. I mean, vampires are now going to high school, they are socializing with people, and falling in love with humans. Soon they will be going out in the day, outing themselves for the world to see, and maybe using their powers for good.

I liked your comment on vampires. Superhero vampires would be pretty cool. I thought it was interesting how you thought that Voldemort was a victim of his upbringing.
- jserru jserru Oct 29, 2011jaclynserru

I agree about the superhero vampires. I also think that your idea behind a blank slate at birth makes a lot of sense too. Why should our lives be pre-determined at birth?- Droybal Droybal Nov 1, 2011

Journal Questions for the Week of October 18, 2011

Q. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"--who watches the watchmen. How can this idea relate to our overall study of villains in this course? Who should be responsible for monitoring what's happening in the world? How do you see your own role?

A. So who watches the villains? In our study, heroes watch the villains. It seems like the heroes never have to go to work, or study for a test, or have a lunch date with their mom. Their lives seem to be dedicated to 'watching' villains. But in the same regard, then who watches the hereos? Most of them seem to be outside of the control of the government, and they seem to be so idolized that no one really has to watch them. Reality is though, that there is no Superman who can dedicate his life to stopping crime. I think it is each individuals responsibilty to moniter what's happening in the world. In the U.S. we get to vote for our President, our Congressmen, the people who are in charge and have the power to do something. We need to monitor this, we need to make informed decisions, and be aware. I do not think one person, or one body of people should be responsible for monitoring what's happening in the world, because I feel this would be too invasive. How do you monitor the world without delving into people's lives? That is probably why some (or it seemed like most) people did not like the Watchmen, because they were taking it into their own hands, and not letting the people have a say.

Q. From Jaclyn's presentation: Are privateers less admirable than pirates because they had permission to be "bad?"

A. I do not think privateers are less admirable, because if you are willing to be "bad" and you get permission, what makes you different from the pirates who were also willing to be "bad". If anything, the privateers were playing smarter instead of harder. If a privateers wasn't willing to kill people, or do "bad" things, then they wouldn't be a privateer. So they could have just gone off and been a pirate, and been hunted and hung if caught. But no, they got permission and still got to do all the same things without the fear of being hung. Some may see that as being weak, or too chicken to just go be a pirate, but I think it is rather smart.

Q. From Daniel's presentation: Do Eddie Brock (Venom) and Cletus Cassidy (Carnage) share the same levels of responsibility for their actions?

A. Yes. Because killing is killing. So let's say someone killed a child, another criminal killed an adult male. Does the child killer hold more responsibility because he killed a child? No. Both killed, and yeah it may play on the emotions more if a child was killed, but they both still killed. So just because Cletus didn't really "choose" to be Carnage, doesn't hold him any
less responsible than Eddie. They both were villains, and yes there are varying degrees, but they were still both villains.


I agree with you, a villain is a villain no matter what.
- jserru jserru Oct 20, 2011Jaclyn

I agree that they are both still villains, but if a life is a life and killing is killing, is a villain who kills a spider just as responsible for a villain who kills spider-man?- lduran02 lduran02 Oct 24, 2011

Journal Questions for the Week of October 11, 2011

Q. We have discussed how when something defies what is natural, we find it scary, but what makes something unnatural? There are a lot of elements to our world that are not natural, i.e. cars and computers, and yet we do not find them scary. What causes this difference?

A. We do not like unnatural things that harm us, I feel like this is the big difference. Cell phones, computers, cars, Ipods, they are all designed to help us. Technology is supposed to make our world easier, but it always accepted. Think of the 68 year old, sweet grandparent who refuses to get a cell phone for whatever reason. They probably don't want one because they find them scary. Our gradparents grew up in a time without all of this technology, so when it was invented-it was scary. The only reason we aren't scared is, because to us, it is natural. We can't imagine a world without a cellphone. I wouldn't even be able to post this wiki without a computer. Maybe when we are 68 years old and sweet, something will be invented that will be unnatural to us, and try as our grandkids might, we will refuse to get that new piece of technology.

Q. If you had only this movie (The Dark Knight) to judge Batman for his actions, what would you define as heroic? Would you define anything he does as villainous? From where do your decisions originate?

A. The most heroic thing Batman does (in my opinion), is at the end when he takes the blame for Dent. Batman's whole thing is that he will be what Gotham City needs. Sometimes he does things that people don't like, but it's what they need. For a far off example, take a child and cough medicine. Cough medicine tastes disgusting, so the child does not want to take it for obvious reasons, but they need to because it will help them. Batman is the parent, Gotham is the child, and Batman's actions are the medicine. For Batman, heroic means stepping above yourself and sacrificing yourself for what you care about. In the process though he does do things that can be seen as villainous. He goes against the law, he let people die because he wouldn't reveal himself, and he wouldn't kill Joker. If he had just killed Joker right away, a whole lot of stuff could have been avoided. The moment Batman stepped up at the end, he showed that he was a true hero. But in the same regard, the moment he didn't step up and let Dent claim he was Batman, well he saw that he was also villainous. Villainous because he is human, because there is no such thing as a 'super-hero', only people trying to do what is right.

Q. We'll begin our discussion next week talking about The Dark Knight. Develop your own question to kick off discussion and post it here.

A. My question would have to be, why did Batman say he was going to get Rachel when he went and got Dent? Did I just hear it wrong? And if I did, well why did he go to get Dent?

I love your example of the "68 year old, sweet grandparent". Haha. Also, to answer your question: Batman thought he was going to Rachel. The Joker, knowing that Batman would chose Rachel, told Batman the opposite locations so that Batman would end up saving Dent instead. - Lenarama Lenarama

I love your comparison between Batman and medicine. I think you are entirely right that he is heroic because he is willing to be whatever Gothem needs. -stdimpfel

Journal Questions for the Week of October 4, 2011

Q. Make a case for Iago as villain, and then, using at least two pieces of the same evidence, make a case for Othello as villain.

A. Iago is a villain for the basic fact that he manipulated people to get what he wanted. But what did he want? He wanted Othello to 'pay', he wanted to ruin him, yet he sacrificed others to do this. Iago is a villain for his lack of empathy. He used all of the characters as pawns in his little game of evil chess. He used Emilia to get the handerchief, but once she was about to tell on him- he killed her. He used Roderigo in order to try to kill Cassio, but once he was all used up he left him to die. He used Cassio as the main pawn in order to frame
Desdemona of having an affair. He sacrificed others in order to obtain his goal. He also used others, by lieing to them and playing on their wants and desires. Roderigo wanted Desdemona, and Iago played on that want. He also used Othello's feeling of 'not being good enough' for Desdemona against him.

Othello is a villain because he played off of his feeling of 'not being good enough' for Desdemona. He could have asked her 'Hey, Desdemona, are you sleeping with Cassio?', but he didn't becaue he believed so firmly that she was cheating on him. He already felt that he was not good enough for her, so when he heard of her 'straying' he tried to deny it but eventually let his insecurities get to him. Othello also used others by lieing to them. He did this with Desdemona, because instead of just asking her out front, he used his words and almost manipulated her into admitting that she cheated on him (even though she never did, but to Othello he had enough evidence against her). He would ask her questions that no matter what she said, she would be wrong. Like when he asked her for the handerchief, and she said she did not have it on her. If she had said she had it on her, then he would have thought her a liar. I'm not saying he 'wanted' her to cheat, but in a way he did because he did everything he could to convince himself. He is also a villain because he killed Desdemona, which is frowned upon.

Q. From Tyler's presentation: What is one character (hero or villain) so far that we have looked at that could have an undiagnosed mental disorder?

A. For some obvious reasons I think Medea had a mental disorder. She overreacted to things, like really overreacted. Also she had a fear of abandonment, she couldn't stand being left by Jason. She also looked out for herself before others, she killed her own kids, which leads to another thing- she must have lacked feelings in order to kill her kids. She also let her scheming overtake her. So I do not know exactly what she had, but she had something.

Q. From Emily's presentation: Pick 2-3 villains (from anywhere) and draw parallels between them; looking at actions, appearance, backstory, etc. How are they recycled villains?

A. Mother Gothel from Tangled-
Features: green eyes (hint of blue)square facePink lipsWears maroon-ish colorWears earrings
Personality: demandingoverbearinguses child for own benefitstries to stop child from having fun (aka leaving the tower)

Lady Tremaine from Cinderella (the wicked stepmother)-
Features: green eyestriangle shaped facepink lipswears maroon-ish colorwears earringsangular nose
Personality: demandingmakes child do chores (uses for own benefits)tries to stop child from having fun (aka going to the ball)

I think these two are similar due to how they treated 'their' children. Gothel tries to keep Rapunzel from going outside, and she uses her to keep her young. Tremaine (did anyone even know she had a name...I didn't) tries to keep Cinderella from going to the ball and she uses her to do all of her chores. They both look slightly similar, with the colors they wear and how they both wear earrings.

I completely agree with you that Medea had a mental disorder. I mean no one goes to such far lengths without being messed up in the head. Lady Tremaine and Mother Gothel are both evil step mothers! I never connected them as being so similar. I enjoyed your explanation.'
- HeyThereAri HeyThereAri Oct 11, 2011~Ari

Journal Questions for Week of September 27, 2011

Q. How do female villains differ from male villains?

A. Female villains, I think, are more devious. Female villains do not want to get their hands dirty, so they use charm (or force) to get little minions that will do their evil deeds. Like with Maleficent, she didn't do anything herself until the end when she turned into a dragon. Medea sent her children to deliver the garments to the princess, but then again she really dirtied her hands when she murdered her children. Male villains are more brute, do it themselves kinda evil people. Dexter was a do it himself kinda guy, and so was Jason (cause it wouldn't have been as effective if he had someone else cheat on his wife for him....). Female villains also seem to not be so, unattractive. No offense male villains, but it never said anything about Medea being ugly, and Meleficent was pretty. But the Joker has a skin color problem, Mr. Hyde was 'deformed', I guess the only one who doesn't look odd is Dexter. I should also mention that these facts don't really apply to Grendal and his mother, because they aren't human, so they play by their own rules.

Q. How is color used to portray aspects of good and evil in Sleeping Beauty?

A. In Sleeping Beauty dark colors are used to portray evil. Meleficent is pretty dark, with her black and dark purple attire. Also she has a bit of a sickly green skin color thing going on, so that adds to the darkness. All of her minions are dark brown, and her raven is black (like all ravens....). Her castle is a dark grey, and is surrounded by black clouds. Light colors are used to portray good, just look at the three fairies outfits. Pink, blue, and a cheery, bright green. Also Aurora has hair like sunshine and lips the color of red roses, and all of that sounds pretty bright and light to me. Whenever there was a bright scene with lots of color it normally was a happy scene, but as soon as things got dark you could bet Meleficent was around.


Journal Questions for Week of September 20, 2011

Q. In Medea, there are several characters who know of Medea's plans, and yet they do not try to stop her. Why do these characters let villainy happen? Do the gods approve of her choices? What are the implications of their approval or disapproval?

A. I think that the characters let villainy happen because they are in support of her, also they do not want the implications that can come with getting involved. They are there to hear her out, agree with her on most points, and then just let it happen. The worst part of it though is when they hear the children being murdered and do nothing. Technically they couldn't have done anything, seeing how the Chorus is just a place for ideas, opinions, and re-caps, they aren't really supposed to alter anything. But besides that, I think they didn't get involved because it was Medea's choice, her bidding. They were her children, and yes it is all wrong, but they had no say whether the children lived or died. I also think the gods approved of her choices. Seeing what Medea in today's culture, well it is unacceptable and horrible. But think of what Jason did to her. He left her, betrayed her, he took away everything she had, she would probably never re-marry and now she was getting exhiled. Also Medea probably felt so stupid because she gave up everything for this man, she loved him, trusted him, and then he betrayed her. He weighted the 'scale of injustice', he needed to pay for what he had done, but Medea evened the score. Yes killing children is bad, but that's all she had to use against him, to even the score. She had nothing, so she made it so he had nothing. Since the Chorus and the gods approved, it left this feeling of 'man...this is wrong'. It let Medea an 'out', she killed people, did evil, and then she got away with it, with approval even, which looking at now just seems wrong.

Q. From Kaylee's presentation: Choose either (a) or (b) (a) Is Mao's quotation, "In this world, revolution is the mainstream" still true? (b) Do you have a limit or a threshold of how many people can die before a cause becomes unjust?

A. a) If you look at revolution as meaning a change, then yes I think revolution is still mainstream. We all want change, Obama's campaign slogan revolved around change. Thing can be better, things must be better, and no one can agree on what 'better' means. Some people try to bring this change by laws and politics, some by rebellion or social outcrys. We want a 'revolution', whether this means a revolution in healthcare, a revolution with the economy, or a revolution in politics, as people we are always striving to improve, which brings change, which in a way brings along revolution.

Q. From Lawrence's presentation: Everyone has an inner beast, an animal hidden within the subconscious. What is yours and why?

A. My inner beast...first animal that came to mind was a koala, because I enjoy my daily naps, and my sleep, and I am rather aggitated when I am awakened. Koala's are rather peaceful, simple life they like to eat and sleep, two of my favorite past times. I feel like a koala isn't really a 'beast', but I don't see myself as ferocious like a tiger or a bear or whatever, so I guess we will just leave it as this. So yes, I my inner beast is a koala, be afraid, be very afraid.

I like your inner beast. :). I also basically said the same thing about revolution. - Lenarama Lenarama

I also think the basic human desire to improve fuels constant revolutions. Good evidence with Obama's slogan, also! - mlerussell mlerussell Sep 27, 2011

I agree with your reason that the chorus did not intervene with the murders. They basically just looked the other way... I also thought it was kind of funny how you put Jason just above Medea on your villain-o-meter.- Droybal Droybal Sep 27, 2011Daniel

Journal Questions for Week of September 12, 2011

Q. Why do you think that Dexter is a series that enjoys popularity in our particular moment in history? Could it have been popular at another time? Why or why not?

A. I think Dexter could only be enjoyed at this time in history. Putting out a show about a murderer so many odd years ago would not have been popular. It would have been weird. Honestly, you couldn't put out a show like this before HBO. Sex and the City? I mean c'mon that show would not have been able to be aired on cable. Then others realized that sex sells (Showtime) and then they started up shows that have out of the box or raunchy themes. So sex sells, and now murder sells. Odd. Also a show like this would not have been popular in a time without an Xbox or Playstation. All sorts of games now are having you shoot people in the head (thumbs up for Call of Duty), and this desensitizes us. Cable TV also desensitizes us with shows about murder (wanna hear about wives who killed their husbands? Watch Snapped!). So if we weren't desensitized and didn't have mediums to convey shows like Dexter, then no it would not be popular.

Q. What parallels can you draw between Dexter, Dr. Jekyll, Batman and Superman? Go beyond the surface. How are they different from characters like Beowulf?

A. Dexter to me is what Batman would be if Batman went that extra mile to actually killing the Joker. Lord knows Batman is not a fan of the Joker, but he doesn't kill him, he won't kill him. Why? Well maybe it's just cause it's a children's TV show, or maybe there is something lodged deep in Batman's subconcious that does not allow him to kill. Either way, if Batman did kill his name would be changed to Dexter. Yes, yes I know there are a lot of differences between Dexter and Batman, but at least on the most basic level there isn't much seperating the two. Dexter and Dr. Jekyll? Hmmm well I suppose they relate in the way that they both have this created 'other' self. Dr. Jekyll kept up appearences (ya know, until he died), he didn't just go out and let everyone know he had an evil side stomping on children. No, that wouldn't have been smart at all, in fact that would have been very dumb. Dexter is the same way, he keeps up appearences. He works for the police department, he has a girlfriend, has a good relationship with his sister, owns a boat and a nice apartment, he doesn't look like the kind of guy to go around killing, but he is. Now for Dexter and Superman, I don't think they are alike at all. Superman is too goody goody. I suppose the only parallel relates to the 'secret identity', except for the fact that Superman doesn't kill. And yet all of these characters are different from the characters from Beowulf. I think mainly because the of the time period they were written/created. Beowulf was written in a time where villainy was different, yes still villainy but it was with monsters like Grendel. It was super obvious villains and men fighting for honor, fame, fortune, all that good stuff. But now the villain is a good lookin, hard workin, girlfriend havin, murderer? Yeah, different.

Q. From Miles's presentation: Why is the character of Dracula/the drinking of blood considered sexual?

A. Dracula=sexy because Dracula=dangerous. Drinking of blood=sexy because drinking of blood=forbidden/frowned up. Time has proven that vampires are just, sexy. They are dangerous, they can kill you, they tend to be good looking, they are powerful, they are forbidden, they are not real, basically they are a fantasy, and escape from reality. Look around and you will see so many sexualized vampires. True Blood? Basically porn for the body. Twilight? Basically porn for the heart. Interview with a Vampire? Basically porn for the educated. The Count from Sesame Street? Basically....oh....uhhhh....nevermind. Anyway you get my point. The point that is often looked past is the whole 'they can kill you' thing. Maybe more importantly that they will kill you. But looking past the whole 'murder' thing, the dangerous appeal, the supernatural power, well it seems to be sexy.

Q. From Hunter's presentation: Why did Jack the Ripper get away with his crimes when the media coverage/police investigation so great?

A. I think Jack the Ripper got away with it because people got all caught up in the hype. He was the evil Justin Bieber of his time....let's delve deeper shall we? Okay so Justin Bieber- super dreamy hair and has girls fawning over him. He is all hype, but when you push past the hype you see the truth! You see that he is all hair and his words that mean nothing! You see how he is murdering the world of music! But long as he has clear skin and songs about babies the hype will not be pushed past and the truth will not be seen. Now that probably seemed way out there, hold on, I'm gonna bring it all together now. Okay so Jack the Ripper- crazy scary, mass murderer, really liked chopping people up. This was crazy during that time (it would be crazy now!), and everyone wanted a piece of it. Everyone was reporting about all the things he did, everyone was scared half to death, and the fact started getting clouded by the hype. People wanted to find someone, blame someone, put this psycho away, but with the media breathing down your neck trying to get every gruesome detail, it's a little hard to focus and see the truth, see who really was Jack the Ripper. Make more sense now? Hopefully, but I guess basically all I'm sayin is that Jack the Ripper got away because there was so much going on, so many opinions being thrown around, so many stories and rumors, and so much fear that things started getting muddled.

I like how you used Justin Bieber in your example. Your description of why Vampires were sexual was creative. I love how you named various shows that had vampires in it. I liked that you compared each character to Dexter.
- jserru jserru Sep 14, 2011Jaclyn

I may be very wrong, but I thought Batman wanted to kill Joker and superman stopped him? Anyways, I completely agree with your thoughts on why dracula is sexy, girls are just attracted to danger and they usually have some sort of protection, like twilight, Edward is always there to protect Bella, giving this hope to viewers that if they had a vampire boyfriend, they would also be protected. -Jamie

Journal Questions for Week of September 5, 2011

Q.The poem Beowulf expresses distinct characteristics that are necessary for an individual fulfill to be a good king, as we discussed in class. What guidelines are implied for successful villainy?

A. Guidelines for a succesful villian (from what we have seen so far)-
  • must look strange (this may be in a deformity, essence of pure evil which distorts appearence, or simply being a dragon)
  • must commit a crime of a serious matter (killing, cannibalism, stealing, being devious)
  • must be clever (whether this be to simply not get caught, or to wear a pouch to store your kill)
  • must lurk in the shadows (because your deformity would be way too obvious in the day time)
  • must not have sympathy, or a moral compass (no crying for who you robbed/killed/did evil to)
  • must have a reason for villiany (aimless killing may be bad, but killing with a purpose is evil)
  • must be confronted by good (aka no unchecked evil deeds)
  • and finally- must eventually lose (this may be by dying, or by simply getting all of your evil deed thwarted by a hero)

Q. Create your own Villain-O-Meter. As the semester progresses, rank each villain we encounter on the scale, compared to the others. You can use a 1-10 ranking system, a chart, or whatever way you choose in order to show the relative positions of each baddie.

A. Villian-O-Meter is located at top of page, and will remain there through the semester. Each baddie shall be ranked on said scale and appear at top of page.

Q. How would you characterize a successful class discussion? What features are present? Which are absent? How would you suggest we best accomplish such a discussion?

A. A succesful class discussion is one where each memeber of the class leaves with a better understanding of the subject. I think features that are present for our class our the ideas. I do not want to blow our own horns, but I think we are some smart cookies. We seem to have vast and different ideas, which is good when it comes to one simple subject matter. What is absent is organization and imput from everyone. I feel like when things are hectic, and the person with the louder voice wins, people with softer voices don't get a chance to speak. I think we need to share the floor more, be more attentive to others, and keep it up with our smart ideas.


I loved your villain-o-meter. I is so creative. Your description of a villain is good too!!!! I agree that a successful class discussion is when one leaves with a better understanding.
- jserru jserru Sep 8, 2011Jaclyn

I am digging your Villain-o-meter. And i agree with your guidelines for a successful villain. can you think of any instances where the villain wins?-Tyler Jimenez

Journal Questions for Week of August 30, 2011

Q. Abraham Lincoln wrote that “the true rule, in determining to embrace, or reject any thing, is not whether it have any evil in it; but whether it have more of evil, than of good. There are few things wholly evil, or wholly good.” Relate this quotation to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

A. This quote relates to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, because Jekyll was trying to create something wholly good and wholly evil. Jekyll wanted to seperate himself, have his evil side and his good side. Unfortunately as Abraham Lincoln said, few things are wholly evil, or wholly good. Hyde and Jekyll could not stay seperate, eventually they began to mesh together. The meshing together was made worse because of the power Hyde had gained. The evil began growing, and soon it overtook the good in Jekyll. Jekyll would have never been perfect, but at one point he was more good than evil. During this point he would have been described as 'good'. The moment the balance of power changed, the moment the evil in Jekyll (Hyde), overtook him, then he was described as 'evil'.


I love how your a die hard romantic and even though I haven't got a chance to read your responce for this week, your ideas and points were very helpful to me in class it helped me sight better and understand so thank you.
- CarolineNess CarolineNess Sep 1, 2011

Journal Questions for Week of August 23, 2011

Hello, my name is Reina, and yes in the picture I am fawning over a Titanic exhibit at Planet Hollywood. So I suppose that is a great place to start! I am a fan of all things romantic (especially movies, such as Titanic). I enjoy the simple things- oreos, a comfy sweatshirt, convenient ways to check facebook, and a good nap. I dislike being cold, early mornings, and the feeling you get as soon as your alarm goes off. I am majoring in Elementary Education, and I hope to also earn my Special Education degree/certification. For my future career as a teacher...well I hope to become this-

2) Imagine you are watching the news, when the newscaster announces that there was an explosion at the bank. It was reported that a man with a strange face had dropped a bag of marbles, when suddenly the marbles exploded. Authorities were unable to catch the man, and it has left your community on high alert. Now let’s say a high number of people were turning up at the hospital, all with the same symptom- hysterics. After some investigation, the evidence led back to the man at the bank. Then numerous other robberies, explosions, things of a disastrous nature began happening. If this really happened, we would all be freaked out. This man would have his own special made my Oprah, his face would be all over the news, and people would be praying that this man would be caught. But now, let’s turn this man into a cartoon, give him some witty lines, give him the ability to make you laugh, and stick a vigilante to stop him and suddenly….it isn’t so scary anymore. This is why we watched a children’s movie in a college class. Because behind the comical lines, the studly appearance of Superman and Batman, and the way Louis Lane could so easily change her mind- there was true villainy. If the events that occurred in the movie happened in real life, well the Joker would be the most wanted man and strike fear into the hearts of many. He may have been designed to make children laugh, but when you really think about the things he does- it’s scarier than a simple children’s movie.

LecturesSepetember 28, 2011. I attended a lecture entitled The Legal Context of Privacy in the 14th/15th Century English Spaces. It was held in the Cherry/Silver room in the SUB, and I found this lecture by looking on the Honors website schedule of events. The lecture basically covered privacy in the 14th and 15th century in Londan, England. The speaker read a portion of her thesis (or some paper) to us, so the lecture used rather large and complex words that I had trouble keeping up with. Also I was the youngest person in there and probably the only one who wasn't a grad. student, so I felt a little out of place. The lecture revolved around court cases that neighbors had against each other that had to deal with privacy. Examples are: one guy sued another guy for having a 'dirty latreen' that he could smell, another man sued his neighbor because his neighbor's windows were less than 16 feet in height and his neighbor could see his 'private business'. Since these people had to live so close together, there was a lot of issues with their privacy being violated and this lecture discussed that.

October 31, 2011.I attended a lecture called The Gender of Cosmopolitanism: Women Writers and their Heroines Abroad, 1769-1810. This lecture was also held in the Cherry/Silver room in the SUB, and I found it on the honors website. This lecture was held by the same people that held the first one I went to, a feminist group that has their researchers come and speak. First off, I should have looked up the world 'cosmopolitanism' before I went. I feel like that would have made the lecture much easier to understand. The only thing I knew about 'cosmopolitanism' is that is sounded like the magazine Cosmoplitan, which I found out had nothing to do with the lecture. So the lecture was about women writers, and how they did not really have a 'home'. Once they were married their 'home' country became that of their husband. She told stories about how some writers would try to get back into their country, but couldn't. They would be exhiled, in a way. She also talked about the heroines, and how women wrote about heroines that travelled. These heroines did not just stay at home, they experienced, and in the eyes of some- didn't have much virtue. Male writers would write the women only travelling a one to two day trip away from home, which isn't that far. A lot of French names were used, and terms that I was really confused about. I feel like this lecture was more confusing than the first one, but from what I understood about it- it was interesting. She talked about emotions, and attachments that women writers made. Also how women writers wrote cross-cultural heroines. Their heroines would be from Italy, but be French of birth, but speak English with an Italian accent. The heroines of the time were cross national, and paved a way for the more modern heroines.

November 18, 2011. I attended a lecture called Chicana Art: Feminist Visual and Literary Production in the Borderland. This was held in the Cherry/Silver room in the SUB, and was found on the honors website. This lecture was also held by the same feminist group that held the other two lectures I attended. There were two speakers this time, both discussing Chicana art. I didn't really understand much from the first speaker, she was reading from her dissertation, or a paper of some sort. Since she was reading, the words she used were very intellectual, and the sentences long, and it just sounded odd. But I did understand a little bit of it. She was talking about La Machina (I believe that was the name) and La Llorona, and how Chicana artists represented them. Both figures have negative stories in mainstream society, but through representations in art these images have been shown as more good than bad. The second speaker talked about lesbian Chicana artists, one inparticular- Ester Hernandez. This artist painted images that showed women in different roles, or as being more masculine. She also painted about the working class, and poverty along with the economy. One picture we were shown was of a man chipping away at Lady Liberty, revealing a Mayan statue underneath. The statue had revealed breasts, which was no common of the Mayan statues, but it also wore a skirt that was typical of a man. We saw some of her works, and were told influences the artist had. Overall it was an interesting presentation, I just wonder why lesbian Chicana artists are classified differently than just Chicana artists? Maybe it is because lesbian artists want to be known as being lesbian, but they are still Chicana and still artists.