Post-modern writers usually used classical literature as a guideline when writing their novels, this was done to convey certain messages which made them have universal relevancy. This will be proven by considering the similarities and differences that Yossarian from Catch 22 has with Gilgamesh from The Epic of Gilgamesh. The focus will be on archetypal plots, characters and themes to prove that Yossarian is based on Gilgamesh.
It is important to note that these two characters are not the same type of hero. Gilgamesh is an archetypal hero whereas Yossarian is an existential hero. As an archetypal hero it was foreseen that Gilgamesh would be a man of authority but Yossarian gained his state of authority due to his bravery. On page 139 chapter 13 of Heller’s novel Catch-22 Colonel Cathcart said “And we’ll make him captain, too.” Thus, Yossarian and Gilgamesh are similar in terms of authority but differ in the means of how they’ve achieved this authorial state. Gilgamesh was born into authority whereas Yossarian was given his authority.
In other aspects they are also very much similar, like when considering how they treat women and the deal they made to stay alive. The women in their lives are seen as stereotypes out of a certain
…show more content…
Bot make deals with other people to help prolong their lives. Yossarian makes a deal with Colonel Cathcart and Colonel Korn where he can go home if he pretends to be friends with them to only find that he was used. Gilgamesh makes a deal with Utnapishtim to attain immortality. Gilgamesh has to stay awake for a week to attain it but he fails almost immediately. Their actions are justified in them constantly admitting that they are afraid of dying. Gilgamesh admits to his fear of dying and tried to do something to save himself. Yossarian admits he is afraid of dying but because he says this people think that he is insane rather than him just telling the truth and being
Gilgamesh’s most prominent characteristic is his bravery. This is exhibited when Gilgamesh and Enkidu decide to fight Humbaba in the Cedar Forest, one of the most feared beings in the world. “Enkidu said, ‘But how can any man/ dare to enter the Cedar Forest?” (pg. 92). Since Humbaba is so feared, no one dared to fight him. Gilgamesh also went on a quest to find immortality. After his beloved friend Enkidu dies, Gilgamesh decides to try and bring him back by finding immortality. This is an epic journey that humans could never accomplish. “This one who approaches--he must be a god.” (pg. 160). Though Gilgamesh is two-thirds divine, finding immortality is still an incredible feat, regardless of whether he became immortal or not. Not only did this journey require bravery, but it also
The famous literary works of Gilgamesh, Ramayana, and The Odyssey have been studied, written about, and heralded in the literary world many times over. Each of the literary pieces has been held in the highest esteem for varying different reasons. Some of them have been because of the literary influences that they have produced over the subsequent years and the religious influences they had. The purpose of this writing assignment is to compare and contrast the religious influences found in each of the literary works.
'No two men are alike in the way they act, the way they think, or the way they look. However, every man has a little something from the other. Although Oedipus and Gilgamesh are entirely different people, they are still very similar. Each one, in their own way, is exceptionally brave, heroically tragic, and both encompass diverse strengths and weaknesses. One is strictly a victim of fate and the other is entirely responsible for his own plight.
Give us a chance to think about the two; Gilgamesh is an awesome warrior as is Hector. They both battled in extreme fights and beat the competition. Gilgamesh did not have the same number of foes as Hector did, but rather he found himself in a fight with the omnipotent Humbaba. At the point when tried Gilgamesh turned out to be awesome in fight. While Hector too had an extraordinary fight in which he killed Patroclus. Hector left his wife and youthful child to battle for honor and pride. He needed to meet the desires
The epic hero’s journeys hold the hopes for future of ordinary people’s lives. The Epic of Gilgamesh was written in approximately 2000 B.C.E which is highly enriched with Ancient Mesopotamian religions, and The Ramayana was written by ancient Indians in around 1800 B.C.E. The stories were written in two different parts of the world. However, these two stories etched great evidence that show people from generation to generation that different cultures and religions are interconnected; they share ideas with each other. Both Gilgamesh and Rama traveled long journeys in these tales. These epic journeys played a role in the creation of different archetypes. We can clearly see that these two tales share similarities between these archetypes. Although
Gilgamesh was a very self confident and at times that self confidence led to him to have little compassion for the people of Uruk at he beginning of the story. He was their king, but not their protector; he kills their sons and rapes their daughters. He felt like he was superior to others due to the fact that he was two-thirds god, his mother was a goddess Ninsun and one third human. This fact is the key to all of his actions. This is also what sets him apart from the hero Odysseus.
Gilgamesh is an example of someone who had many flaws and faced many struggles but, in the end, changed his attitude and became a better person. In the beginning of Gilgamesh, he is described as doing whatever he wants and being juvenile in a way. For example, in the text it says, “he was their shepherd, yet powerful, superb, knowledgeable and expert, Gilgamesh would not leave young girls alone, the daughters of warriors, the brides of young men.” With his second half, Enkidu, they entered into the first step in becoming a hero according to Campbell, the separation, by going on an adventure. At this point in the story, Gilgamesh is very arrogant. While traveling to Cedar Forest, Gilgamesh tells Enkidu, “let me go in front of you, and your voice call out: ‘Go close, don’t be afraid!’ If I should fall, I should have won fame. People will say, Gilgamesh grappled in combat with ferocious Humbaba… ensure fame that will last forever.” Next is stage two, the initiation, of the Campbell’s hero journey. Gilgamesh undergoes a trail to begin his transformation, he must fight the Bull of Heaven. Gilgamesh’s supportive side is starting to show when he tells Enkidu that they will win if they fight together. After killing the Bull of Heaven, Gilgamesh’s confident attitude is shown once again. The next trial he faces is the death of Enkidu. He starts to show emotion when he says, “for you Enkidu, I, like your mother, your father, will weep on your plains… I will lay you to rest on a bed of loving care… and I myself will neglect my appearance after your death.” At this point his character has been greedy and then he showed his fear and supportive side. The last stage in the hero’s journey is the return. Enkidu’s death sent Gilgamesh on an adventure to fight death. From this adventure he learned his biggest lesson from Utnapishtim. He learns to appreciate life, and
Gilgamesh was an arrogant tyrant of his city-state who was obsessed with increasing his own influence and power while Aeneas was more aloof, letting the gods and the fates guide his actions in life. Aeneas acted as a perfect pawn of the gods and was tossed around at their whims. Gilgamesh on the contrary took fate into his own hands and attempted to gain immortality by seeking out the immortals. Gilgamesh was a man who wanted more power than mortals were allowed and wanted his influence to be known forever. Aeneas simply wanted to fulfill the prophesy of founding Rome and making his Trojan followers happy.
I would describe the Mesopotamians ideal of kingship as courageous and a shepherd of the people. The basis of the monarch’s legacy is his arrogance, courage, beauty, and god like self.
The Epic of Gilgamesh has many similarities to the Bible, especially in Genesis and it’s not just that the both begin with the letter “g”’! One major similarity being the flood story that is told in both works. The two stories are very similar but also very different. Another being the use of serpents in both works and how they represent the same thing. A third similarity being the power of God or gods and the influence they have on the people of the stories. Within these similarities there are also differences that need to be pointed out as well.
The Epic of Gilgamesh. Trans. Benjamin R. Foster. Text. Martin Puncher. New York: W.W and Company, 2013.Print.
The epic begins with the men of Uruk describing Gilgamesh as an overly aggressive ruler. "'Gilgamesh leaves no son to his father; day and night his outrageousness continues unrestrained; And he is the shepherd of Uruk, the enclosure; He is their shepherd, and yet he oppresses them. Strong, handsome, and wise. . . Gilgamesh leaves no virgin to her lover.'"(p.18, Line 23-27) The citizens respect him, but they resent his sexual and physical aggression, so they plead to the gods to alleviate some of their burden. The gods resolve to create an equal for Gilgamesh to tame him and keep him in line. This equal, Enkidu, has an immediate impact on Gilgamesh. When they first meet, both having never before met a man equal in stature, they brawl. "They grappled with each other, Snorting like bulls; They shattered the doorpost, that the wall shook."(p.32, lines 15-18) In giving Gilgamesh a real battle, Enkidu instantly changes him; having this equal gives Gilgamesh a sense of respect for another man. These two men fighting each other creates a serious mess, but they both end up without animosity toward the other.
The story itself reflects an image of the cultural situation in which it was conceived. One major difference between this ancient society and our own is the way in which we sustain our leaders. Gilgamesh's character, whether based on an actual person or not, is portrayed as a very powerful and proud person. He was created to be better and stronger than common man and he is favored by the gods. This portrayal of a super-human king indicates a deep respect for leadership by those who told this story. Likely, these people lived under the rule of a monarchy in which the King was the all powerful leader and lawmaker. In today's society though, it is not common for one person to have unlimited power. Our governments are designed to divide ruling power between numerous parties; in order to keep any one person from becoming all powerful. Today's society would not tolerate a king who could do as he pleases, even if he were a noble and just man. In the story, Gilgamesh's super-human strength and power are not always convenient to his subjects. "His arrogance has no bounds", and "his lust leaves no virgin to her lover," yet the people respect his authority. The supremacy of Gilgamesh in the story reflects the feelings toward leadership held by that society which created the story. The respect they had for an all powerful monarch is hard for us to understand today. Our society looks down on those who rule as dictators and labels them tyrants and enemies. It is odd to imagine living in a society where a king is to be respected.
The Epic of Gilgamesh. Trans. Foster, Benjamin R. New York: W W Norton & Co Inc, 2001. Print.
The Epic of Gilgamesh and The Odyssey both are held in high respect by literature analysts and historians alike for the characterization of the hero and his companion, the imagery brought to mind when one of them is read, and the impressive length in relation to the time period it was written in. The similarities that these two epics share do not end with only those three; in fact, the comparability of these works extend to even the information on the author and the archetypes used. However, The Odyssey and The Epic of Gilgamesh contrast from one another in their writing styles, character details, and main ideas. Both epics weave together a story of a lost man who must find his way, but the path of their stories contrast from one another.