Class Assignment - Quickwrite - Returning Home

If a person has been away from home for many years, his/her reaction may be one of joy. However, it would also depend on the circumstances. For example, if that person was home from fighting a war, that person would probably be happy to see his/her family again after a long time, and glad to be alive to come home. However, if the person came home after running away some years ago, that person would probably feel nervous upon the return. However, I do believe that one emotion always associated with returning home is 'relief'. Home is where someone belongs, and feels safe at. Everyone feels relieved when they go somewhere they feel safe about. In Odysseus's case, at first when he returns home, he was probably wary of all the suitors and the different situation within his own country. But as he is reunited with his wife, he feels joy, love, and relief to be home.

Difference Between The Odyssey Movie and Original Book- Cyclopes scene

Firstly, in the book, it had said that the Cyclops was carrying a load of dry boughs on his shoulder when he came in, however, in the movie, he was not carrying anything. In the book, as the story continues on, the Cyclops continues doing his chores until later when he lit the fire did he see the visitors, whereas in the movie, he immediately notices Odysseus and him men in his cave. In the book, Odysseus explains that they were from the battle of Troy and introduced which kingdom they were from, whereas in the movie, only the Cyclops introduced himself. In the book, Odysseus and his men waited until the next night to stab the Cyclops, and used the time in-between when the Cyclops was out to sharpen the mast. In the movie, Odysseus and his men fed him the wine first, then, on the same first day, stabbed him. In the book Odysseus gave him the wine the next day, which caused him to sleep, and then he used this opportunity to stab him. Then, the Cyclops calls for his brothers, who reply to his calls, whereas in the movie, the brothers do not reply anything. In the book, the men then tie themselves onto the sheep and wait until morning to escape, using the sheep as cover. In the movie, however, the Cyclops immediately rolls away the rock, and the men just slip by his feet, with the exception of one who covers himself with sheep skin. In the book, everyone who survived up until then doesn't die during the escape, whereas in the movie, the man who played the flute died. In the book, the men then take the sheep with them, whereas in the movie,  they just leave, and taunt Poseidon on the way (in the book Odysseus just calls out to taunt Polyphemus himself). Also, in the book, the story of the Cyclops ends at night, where Polyphemus "stretched his hands out in his darkness toward the sky of stars", and in the movie, it is seen as daylight.

Class Assignment - Quickwrite - The Odyssey, A Hero

A hero is someone who is willing to sacrifice himself in order to achieve good for others. Normally, heroes possess qualities that make them an example to others to follow, such as by teaching a moral lesson, or shows specific characteristics. However, although this is the 'default' definition of heroes, there are many 'heroes' that have proven otherwise. For example, there are heroes that boast of their powers and achievements, which is not exactly the best moral lesson to teach children. Moreover, although heroes are normally portrayed in myths and legends to appear 'out of the world', there are many everyday heroes. For example, many consider Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. a hero, since they both stood up for their own people and defied the prejudiced public. I think heroes should  be brave, selfless, and humble. The two traits, brave and selfless, are quite universal. However, humble is not necessarily universal. For example, many Greek heroes boast of their achievements and abilities (which many times arouse the anger of the gods, unfortunately).

Organization Hoax - Berlin's Cannibalistic Restaurant

About a year and a half ago, the website for 'Flime' mentions the opening of a new restaurant. On the website, shockingly, there was a plea for consumers around to donate a part of their body for their 'upcoming menu' and offering to pay for the cost for any hospital costs. They also ask for any 'open-minded' surgeon. The restaurant cites its inspiration from an indigenous Brazilian tribe called Waricaca, which is a tribe engaged in cannibalism, often believing that eating the human parts of a dead friend or family shows a connection between the living and the dead and helps with the mourning. They even named a couple of dishes they were to serve at the upcoming-restaurant. Obviously, this organization and restaurant received countless criticism and public outcry on the disgustingness and outrage on the promotion of cannibalism. Moreover, this had coincided with the recent event of cannibalism in Germany whereby a technician had been eaten by a self-confessed cannibal. However, on the day the restaurant was due to open, the website admitted that it was a hoax. It was an attempt by a German Vegetarian organization to raise awareness about eating meat, and its parallelism with eating human flesh. They use the line: "Every piece of meat is a piece of mankind" to emphasize their point. Although this was only a means of raising awareness, Flime had attracted much criticism for this method being inappropriate. Many critics and government officials had stated that the publicity they got for the 'cannibalism' far out-weighed their attempt to raise awareness about vegetarianism. I think this was a good comparison between eating meat and eating human flesh. On the other hand, although they had made a good point, I don't think that they should have used this as a way to raise awareness, particularly since there is actually a little cannibalism going around Germany, so they shouldn't have left it out in the open like they are promoting it. But also because of this event, German police are now taking a little more time to investigate underground cannibalism that is going around Germany.

Class Assignment - Quickwrite - Appearances Can Be Deceiving

A lot of times, people are misled by the way others look. For example, when I was in Belgium, because I looked asian, most westerners directly assumed that I was Japanese, so would try to greet me in Japanese. Personally, I have many times assumed that a movie is bad just by watching the trailer. The same could be said about the saying: Don't judge a book by its cover. Many times the books appearance may be misleading. Though for me I'm not necessarily affected by the book's cover, most times I judge by the length of the book. Thicker books may put off people easier. However, I have discovered that the lengths of books don't make it slow or boring. For example, the "Chaos Walking" trilogy are three very thick books, however, the pace of the book moves very fast and there is almost always a twist at the end of every chapter. Other things that might be misleading to people is the appearance of someone. For example, if someone wore glasses and carried around a big bag full of books, the first impression people get of the person is that perhaps he is a nerd. They might not know that maybe he was born with near-sightedness, and was just carrying the books for his friend. People are often misled by their first impression. The modern mind is shaped by the media, and what we are taught. Through television and books, we are taught different stereotypes that are imprinted inside our heads, thus, giving us the image of the 'nerd'. Also, past experience may shape our way of thinking. Someone who has been through a hard life will definitely get different first impressions than those that have led a good life. But these first impressions are given to us through 'first glances', when we don't know fully well about the person or thing. In order to break this 'first impression', we must try to get to know the person or thing better. Often, people are surprised to see that their first thought of the person or thing is wrong. So we must learn not to make judgements too quickly, and to, instead, keep an open-mind until we know the person or thing fully.