Capstone Projects--HE462, Chasing Medusa Author Title Link
Lindsay Bartel We Still Have Something to Prove click Heather Beatty The Medusa Lisa click Fabi Bouthillette Franklin Roosevelt, the Most Badass Man Ever click Gianni DeMichele Pertrification as a Circle of Paradox click Foster Edwards Medusa as Symbol of Fear click Desiree Gonzales Modern Medusa click Julie Guerre-Chaley Should Females Govern the World? click Josh Knickman Medusa's Ambiguity click Allen Lerner Open and Shut: An Analysis of Medusa's Mouth click Erika Macias SWF In Search of Love click Adrian Martin The Christian Martin click Irish McGhee Worshiping Medusa click Noelle Navas Reality IS Perception click Dave Panton Let Me Be Your Hero click Ali Sposato You Always Want What You Can't Have click Seth Tufvesson Perseus the Hero click
We Still Have Something To Prove Lindsay BartelThe Medusa myth provides the topic for this seminar course, and raises within me great concern about the treatment of women by other women. Medusa is raped by Poseidon in Athena’s temple, and is forever left to suffer alone as punishment for her actions. The innocence of Medusa cannot be assessed, as there is little mention of her actions prior to the rape. But the focus of the myth is not on Medusa’s action of being raped, as there is no mention of a punishment for Poseidon. It is only the punishment that Medusa receives as a result of Athena’s aggression that is concentrated on in the myth. But why does Athena punish Medusa for being the victim of a rape? And why is Poseidon not punished for his actions? These are the questions that I am still bothered by at the conclusion of this course. This aggressive nature between women can be traced from Greek mythology through time, and it still rings true in today’s modern society. Women’s inhumanity towards one another throughout time can be explained as their struggle of expressing power.
Athena hates the gorgeous Medusa, and admits through her actions that Medusa threatens her as a temptress. Athena takes on the role of “woman, the heartless bitch” when she turns Medusa’s golden locks to snakes, labeling her as “woman, the slut”. Vivian Gornick creates these titles for women, which genuinely apply to the immortal Athena and Medusa. Gornick makes the argument that regardless of which title, “Woman, the temptress, Woman, the slut, Woman, the heartless bitch— women all make themselves come up against what they most fear and hate in themselves, pulling one another down, down into the pit of themselves” ww.wcwonline.
org/p-commarchivesummer01.html). Putting the label on Medusa allows Athena to rise above her, making herself look and feel better.When Medusa is the victim of a rape in Athena’s temple, she does not come to her side for support, but capitalizes on the opportunity to eliminate the threatening Medusa. This expression of power and threat can be seen when the A&E network retells the myth, which completely changes the tone of the story. “Medusa was a terrible monster who had laid waste to the country. She was once a beautiful maiden whose hair was her chief glory, but as she dared to vie in beauty with Athena, the goddess deprived her of her charms and changed her beautiful ringlets to hissing serpents” (http://www.loggia.com/myth/medusa.html). By saying, “dared to vie,” the responsibility is put on Medusa, no longer allowing her to be the innocent victim of a rape. This aggressive act of power by Athena highlights the jealousy present between the two females. In studying The Mirror of Medusa (1983),
Tobin Siebers has identified the importance of the rivalry between Athena and the Gorgon. According to Ovid (Metamorphoses, IV. 779ff), the reason for the dispute lay in Poseidon's rape of Medusa inside the temple of the virgin goddess. The goddess is supposed to have punished Medusa by transforming her face, which therefore made Medusa an innocent victim for the second time. However, another tradition, used by Mallarmé in Les Dieux antiques (1880), stressed a more personal rivalry: Medusa had boasted that she was more beautiful than Athena. Everything points to the fact that the goddess found it necessary to set herself apart from her negative double in order to assert her 'own' identity. Common features are numerous. For example, snakes are the attribute of Athena, as illustrated by the famous statue of Phidias and indicated by certain Orphic poems, which refer to her as 'la Serpentine'. Moreover, the hypnotic stare is one of the features of the goddess 'with blue-green eyes', whose bird is the owl, depicted with an unblinking gaze. Finally, because she has affixed Medusa's head to her shield, in battle or in anger she assumes the terrifying appearance of the monster. Thus, in the Aeneid (11, 171), she expresses her wrath by making flames shoot forth from her eyes. These observations are intended to show that Athena and Medusa are the two indissociable aspects of the same sacred power. (http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/a_f/bogan/medusamyth.htm).
Medusa is seen as a rival, and punished for challenging Athena’s power. Athena is described in The Mirror of the Gorgon, as the
Force of reason, who shut up the shrill
foul Furies in the dungeon of the Parthenon,
led whimpering to the cave they live in still,
beneath the rock your city foundered on:
who, equivocating, taught revenge to sing
(or seem to, or be about to) a kindlier tune:
mind that can make a scheme of anything-
a game, a grid, a system, a mere folder
in the universal file drawer: uncompromising
mediatrix.Athena is held in the most powerful regards. Her strength is immeasurable and her reaction of turning her beauty into serpents was simply to prove that she is the core of all terror and that these powerful beliefs about her are in fact true. Athena felt the need to prove to Medusa that she held more power over Medusa, as she eliminated Medusa as a threat to her beauty and success. The greek text, from Apollodorus, Library and Epitome 2.4.3, explains,
The Gorgon's head he gave to Athena…. Athena inserted the Gorgon's head in the middle of her shield. But it is alleged by some that Medusa was beheaded for Athena's sake; and they say that the Gorgon was fain to match herself with the goddess even in beauty. The act of putting the head of Medusa on her shield was to confirm that she retained the power (http://medusa.plush.org/greek-apol2-4-3.shtml)
Athena’s actions, although cruel and malicious, were simply done in a mode to preserve her stature and affirm that her power would not be jeopardized. However, just because there is a justification for her actions, it does not mean that Athena’s punishment of Medusa was right.
Although these Greek figures maintain an immense amount of power with which they control many people and places, their actions towards one another can be interpreted as immature, which would be expected from the maturity level of an adolescent. These immortal women set the precedent that is followed by women of all ages. The struggle for power among females in society can be observed throughout their entire lives, and traced back to begin at ages as young as twelve and thirteen years old. There are probably issues of threatening situations before that, but the jealousy and power struggle that Athena suffered from seem to really come to light among people once the Middle School years begin.
Rachel Simmons observed the students in the ninth grade classroom, and the students described in bold, matter-of-fact voices that their ‘friends’ are disloyal, untrustworthy, and sneaky:
Girls can turn on you for anything. Girls whisper. They glare at you. Girls are secretive. They destroy you from the inside. Girls are manipulative. There’s an aspect of evil in girls that there isn’t in boys. Girls target you where they know you’re the weakest. Girls do a lot behind each other’s backs. Girls plan and premeditate. With guys you know where you stand. I feel a lot safer with guys (Simmons, 16).
They follow the actions and example of Athena, who stops at no cost to retain her control.
These young girls attempt to define their power in the harshest way. Although these girls are juvenile, they seem to have very definite notions of female behavior, as if they knew first hand the way to use each other to move up the social hierarchy and assert their power over others.
There is a difference between girls and boys regarding their tactics of manipulation. I say girls and boys because it is on the immature level of adolescence that I am focusing. Boys must live up to the reputation of “the Man”. Since the dawn of time, the man has been the provider of the family. He is a symbol of force, strength and incontestable power. In a Discover Magazine report, Robert Sapolesky supports patterns for aggression in young males by saying,
He is honored for activity and dishonored for passivity, which renders them vulnerable to the charge of being a non-man. This pattern is also seen across a wide variety of species, including our closest primate 'relatives.' For example, in all mammalian species (including the human), males are reported to be the more aggressive sex. Among chimpanzees, males have been described as significantly more aggressive than females. (http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/Final1.MenWomenandAggress.html)
In compliance to this reputation, boys cannot carry themselves in the same manner that girls do. Competing men show their power over one another in a physical manner, in a way that “they can just fight and have it be over with” (Simmons, 16).
Examples of men showing their power make up our history through wars, killings and fighting. However, females cannot express themselves in this same manner. The depiction of “a lady” does not include violent acts and physical disobedience. “Gender codes reinforce the socialization of girls and women, socializing them to acquiesce in, support, defend, and cling to the traditional set of social roles, and to enforce conformity on other females as well” (Sapolesky 50). Therefore, other means of declaration were developed in which women could demonstrate their power.
Women may not be able to show their strength in a physical fight, but the power that comes from their eyes is of immeasurable strength. Athena proved her power to Medusa by turning her hair into snakes, and dooming her to a life of misery and loneliness. Medusa was cursed with the power of the hypnotic stare, which turned people to stone. Although Medusa is the only person ever successful in this feat, every woman has been given the strength and desire to turn others to stone. It is known simply as “The Look." Some females referred to it as the ‘dirty look’, others called it ‘mugging’, and still others called it ‘looking at someone crazy.’ Despite these different labels, the definitions and descriptions of who uses it, when it is used, and the consequences of the look are remarkably similar. It conveys disgust or disapproval, and involves eye rolling or a glare, throwing the head back, and scrunching the eyes. The Look is meant to stop people in their tracks, making them freeze as if they were turned to stone. It expresses some type of contempt, and is almost always understood by the recipient to contain an underlying negative quality. So although women cannot physically turn others to stone, the paralyzing effects of their glare communicates their emotion, power and status as if they were turned to stone.
Through an informal survey of the females at the Academy, I confirmed that The Look is well known and often used by women who feel the need to authenticate their status in a situation. The documentation from these female Midshipmen cover all realms of aggression, talking with the victims in some situations and the aggressors at other times. The survey consisted of a few questions, such as:- Have you ever been witness to female acts of aggression?
- Were you the victim or the aggressor in the situation?
- What was the situation that made you act or receive the treatment that
you did?
- What do you think were the intentions behind the actions of the aggressor?
- How did you feel after? How do you think the other party involved felt?
- Do you see this treatment only prevalent in females? Why do you think
we treat each other this way?The results of this questionnaire supported my realizations about the aggressive attitudes of women. These Naval Academy females are the ‘best and brightest’ among the kids in the country, who are thought to have their lives in order and their emotions under control. However, everyone is human, and future Naval Officers are just as susceptible to aggressive acts as the next person. After hearing the results of the interviews, these people showed a noticeable difference in their recollection of the aggressive event. The plebe girls looked back on their ‘bullying days’ as fond memories with smiles on their face. They just attributed their demoralizing actions as “stupid pranks you do in high school. It was just the way we treated those girls.” Popularity was still an important issue in their minds, as their status was justification for the harm they caused in the victim’s life. The plebes were the closest in maturity level and attitude to the young girls that Simmons previously interviewed. As I proceeded to the older participants, a sense of remorse was noticeable in their voice as they spoke of their damaging exploits. However, all the females agreed that their motives were based around jealousy and the need to exercise their power. Every girl that they interacted with posed some type of threat to them, and they all felt it was necessary to “put the girl back in her place” and show her who really had the power. They confirmed their intentions to undermine their victim’s confidence, and were in full agreement with the comment made by Simmons that they wanted to make the girl feel the pain that they sometime felt. They employed all the devices at hand to ensure that their victim felt like “they weren’t worthy," and The Look was often their first move in the attack.
The surprise in the interviewers eyes was noticeable upon the suggestion of linking them to the Medusa Myth, equating their actions to the merciless transformation of Medusa by Athena. Once I put their “high school prank” on the same level of classic Greek myth that carries negative connotation on the surface, the ‘fondness’ of their memory seemed to go sour. The girls did not like being classified as jealous and threatened by their rivals, as it changed the tone of the situation that they so fondly remembered dominating.
The threat that women pose to one another is prevalent in all aspects of life. If a woman feels that she is competing with another for the attention of a man, she will stop at no ends to ensure her victory over the other. The communication of anger is shown primarily through the eyes, which replaces the physical fight that is accepted between boys. Through results of studies and looking into actions of women in history, the truth is seen that the natural instinct of women is not to ban together to build camaraderie after any exposure of threat. The slightest bit of adversity is taken to their advantage to further harm one another as much as possible. All mortal and immortal women demonstrate the need to have control over other women. Poseidon’s rape of Medusa was Athena’s opportunity to convey her power over Medusa by punishing her. A spiteful nature is rooted in all females, just as all males possess at some time the desire to fight. The words in the Poems for the Stone Lady, from the poem,Love, Very Well You Notice How This Woman, capitalize on the cold nature of women, describing that ”she was more cruelty than she was woman,/ so that her heart, no more a heart of a woman,/ is that of some wild beast, hateful and cold;” This emotion of anger and malevolence is experienced first in the younger immature years of our lives, but carries through as situations arise to be the relied upon method of conflict and expression.
It is not until recently that this aggressive nature in females has been publicly addressed in books and courses, and with more discussion of the problem, women’s actions can be understood. Athena’s punishment for Medusa may not have fit the crime she committed. She went beyond the appropriate actions to show the power she held over Medusa. Females’ actions often go beyond what is reasonable because they feel the need to eliminate their threat.
When we can agree that nice girls get really angry, and that good girls are sometimes quite bad, we will have plowed the social desert between ‘nice’ and ‘bitch’. When we have built a positive vocabulary for girls to tell each other their truths, more girls will raise their voices. They will pose and answer their own questions and solve their own mysteries of relationships. (Simmons, 270).
By giving women the ability to speak their feelings, the aggression built up within women will reduce to a minimum, and the future Athena’s will not have to condemn the Medusa’s of the world to a life of misery just to show the power they feel the need to possess.
“The Medusa Lisa” Heather BeattyThe Mona Lisa, or La Gioconda, has been dubbed the most recognized painting in all of history, and yet, it is perhaps also the most mysterious (Encl A). It is famous throughout the world, throughout the centuries, and throughout humanity. It has been studied, analyzed and pondered; yet no one really understands the Mona Lisa. No one knows, nor can ever know, the background behind her story. Historians do not know who she is or where she came from or why Leonardo da Vinci chose to paint her. Was she someone special to him? Did he know her or was he hired to paint her? No one knows for sure. Still, people from every walk of life are drawn to her. She is legendary in the art world and also a common household name. It is an amazing feat that a simple likeness of a young woman, similar to thousands of other portraits, can become so undeniably famous. She possesses an alluring, mysterious quality that draws viewers in to marvel at her. Her calm gaze and serene smile seem to suggest a hidden, even more attractive quality than her physical features. This fascination is not unlike the one found in the story of Medusa. Medusa’s infamous stony stare and gaping mouth have captivated both demi-gods and humans in mythology and literature for centuries, resulting in a fascination with her in the real world as well. Both the Mona Lisa and Medusa possess an indefinable and irresistible quality that has made them immortal, since people for centuries recognize and are drawn to their images. By considering the Mona Lisa in terms of Medusa, the archetypal femme fatale, the Mona Lisa can be better understood, and at least one explanation of the Gioconda can be developed. The two women encompass many similar qualities that are also evident in the femme fatale, which rules Western cultures’ view of woman today. Such attributes include their entrancing gaze, tempting mouths, and exquisite sexuality. Both the Mona Lisa and the Medusa have endured for centuries because of their alluring qualities that represent the archetypal woman as she has developed over the centuries. This idea still exists in Western culture today as the femme fatale.
Both Medusa and the Mona Lisa seem to possess an enchantment over humans, especially men, that results in an undying fascination with their images. They are created in dualities that make them perfect examples of the femme fatale. The femme fatale is the figure who is dangerous yet appealing to the traditional male in Western culture. She is powerful and feminine—in her extreme beauty she holds the power to petrify viewers, either literally turning them to stone in the case of Medusa or frightening them as the Mona Lisa does. She is tempting yet entirely inaccessible. She is the ideal woman whom men yearn to obtain; yet they cannot since she does not exist. In her later development after the fourth century B.C., when she began to tempt as well as simply fright viewers, ala the monstrous Gorgon, Medusa is certainly the image of the femme fatale. She is beautiful and tempting to men, yet her gaze is deadly to them. She tempted Poseidon so badly with her innocent beauty that he lost control and raped her in the temple of Athena. Men are attracted to her despite her power to turn them to stone and end their existence. She is horrifying and powerful, but the idea of her is too intriguing to ignore, and curiosity wins out.
The Mona Lisa holds the same power of petrifaction of her onlookers, although in a less tangible sense. She too is a femme fatale in that she captivates her viewers only to lead them into a trap. She is beautiful and amazing, and viewers become entranced with the idea of her only to realize later that she is not real. She has the power to turn audiences to stone through her alluring features, and then the fatality occurs when they realize she is the femme fatale—completely inaccessible to them.
Medusa’s fatal beauty is also evident in that she must be observed through a medium if the viewer wishes to live through the experience. Men have found resourceful ways to get a glimpse of the Gorgon through reflective mediums such as a shield, water, or mirrors. Certainly Perseus could not have slain Medusa without the shield of Athena that he used to see her reflection so that he could decapitate her. In Rossetti’s poem, "Aspecta Medusa," even Andromeda “Hanker’d each day to the Gorgon’s head: / Till o’er a fount he held it, bade her lean, /And mirror’d in the wave was safely seen” (Rossetti 1). Andromeda’s experience in viewing the Medusa head is also depicted in a painting by Edward Burnes-Jones entitled “The Baleful Head” (Encl B). She, too, yearned to look upon the forbidden Medusa, and was only able to satisfy her need by using another medium through which to view the gorgon’s head.
Similarly, the Mona Lisa can only ever be viewed through a medium. She has and will always be a painting—oil on canvas. When she was alive she was not famous; nor did she possess the famous mysterious air of attraction that she holds today. Only when she became known through paint and canvas did she become the illustrious Mona Lisa. Her slight, evasive smile and following gaze have been made eternal through da Vinci’s painting, and she leaves much more for viewers to speculate about than she ever could have in life. A large part of her intrigue lies in the fact that she is eternally unattainable. She will always be the same young, beautiful girl with the mysterious expression that allures viewers. No one will ever get to know her and discover her flaws and imperfections. There will never be any historical evidence to supplement da Vinci’s painting. Thus she has been immortalized as a beautiful, young, and tempting woman. The modern cliché, “the grass is always greener on the other side,” suggests the same idea in more colloquial terms. Humans always seem to want what they cannot have, largely because they glorify a flawless objective, and they have no evidence against that perfect mental image. A dreamer simply has not been exposed to the imperfections of his goal (the goal could be a relationship, a job, a college, virtually anything), so the imagined good qualities fill the mind and the bad ones appear non-existent. Both the Mona Lisa and Medusa exist as femme fatale figures, in that they survive in the idealism of art, and no one can ever discover their flaws, which in turn makes them fatal by creating a trap for the viewer. Both the flaws of actual women are fatal to him as well as the inaccessibility of what he believes is the ideal woman in Medusa or the Mona Lisa.
Common physical features emerge as symbols of the femme fatale, and the woman of Western culture, in both the La Gioconda and the Gorgon. One of the most prominent features of each is her gaze. Eyes are an important feature of the femme fatale. Similarly, in Iris Murdoch’s A Severed Head, Martin is obsessed with women’s eyes. He is drawn to the “warm, possessive, and coquettish” gaze he shares with his mistress after whom he lusts (Murdoch, 9). Later another woman, Honor Klein, also entrances Martin with her eyes, yet in a different way. Her “narrow dark eyes” hold much more of the femme fatale threat as they are “shot with red” and possessed “something animal-like and repellant in [her] glistening stare” (Murdoch 55-7). The evil that comes forth from Honor Klein’s eyes represents the evil or fatal part of the femme fatale. Medusa, however, is even more treacherous; her stare has proven fatal. The basic mythological explanation is that Medusa’s eyes will turn anyone to stone who catches her glance—a deadly power. However, Medusa’s eyes represent much more than just the physical power to turn men to stone. Catching the stare of Medusa may indeed turn one to stone, but it is not so literal as being transformed into a statue, never to experience physical movement again. It also captivates the viewer, forcing him to stop and to consider her. The Mona Lisa’s gaze is similar. She has never been accused of actually turning an audience to stone, yet an odd transformation does take place when one looks upon her. Both women impose an intangible but threatening power upon those who look at them. Yet, viewers still choose to look at them. They fascinate and capture the attention of audiences, despite the knowledge that looking at them could be frightfully dangerous.
The unique similarity between the pair’s eyes is that they intimidate spectators, but unlike most works of art they seem to be looking back at the viewer. Having art stare at an onlooker is an extremely threatening idea, as it is a complete role reversal. In art, the subject is objectified and viewers seem generally comfortable with that idea. Audiences are not accustomed to the painting having any power because, normally, as viewer’s, they are in complete control. You look at what you want to see, and when you are finished you look away. Or, if a work displeases you, you do not even have to look at all. The viewer is in complete control of the situation. He or she can examine the art in detail and up close while feeling safe. No one is scrutinizing the viewer as intimately in return; he or she is simply looking at an object. Although the Gioconda and Medusa are captured and contained within the frame of art, they still manage to rob the viewers of this sense of invulnerability. They return the stare. Simultaneously, they remain objectified and petrified, holding true the ideal, eternal woman.
The ultimate female figure resembles a Madonna figure—pure, good, beautiful and desired. In fact, the Mona Lisa was originally the “‘Madonna Lisa,’ [which equates to] ‘Madame Lisa,’ [which] soon got nicknamed down to ‘Monna,’ and then, much later, further down to ‘Mona’” (Gopnik 2). Thus the Mona Lisa’s original name suggested the pure and attractive qualities of the Madonna, the Virgin Mary. The Mona Lisa and Medusa hold all these virtues, yet, the difference from the typical Madonna lies in the power of their frozen stance because these women are able to turn the tables and scrutinize the viewer. The Medusa is the more dangerous since the viewer requires another medium to feel secure in that he or she will not transform into a stony lifeless figure as well. But even farther, the element of narcissism exists there as well. How can she look back at you? Her ability to see back destroys any sense of what is real and thus petrifies her viewers. A real painting could not see.
Is this a contradiction? Critics consider realistic paintings to be those that resemble humans or life as closely as possible. The Mona Lisa does just that, yet she makes us uncomfortable because she is actually real only as paint on canvas. She cannot possibly see into this world. Can she? If she could, what would she see? That, too, petrifies viewers—the idea that she is studying them as closely as they study her and can see into what is real about them. Steven Z. Levine calls this a “vain pursuit of a mobile reflection” (Levine 102). He goes on to explain how people search for a reflection of themselves in art, and their view is constantly being construed by changing “frames of interpretation” such as time, intentions, meanings, circumstances, etc. The most horrifying part of viewing art is the sudden realization, occurring after hours of petrification, studying and pondering, that you suddenly, “with blinding tears in [your] eyes, see that Nothing’s there…then efface the dual foils of the Imaginary and the Symbolic, and find ourselves for once in the fatal face of the Real” (Levine 102). Thus, the Medusa and the Mona Lisa rob viewers of the escape into fantasy that is usually achieved by looking at artwork. You can no longer drift away into a visionary world and forget about one’s own faults and insufficiencies because these women look back at you and force you into truth—a truth that crushes the hopes of an ideal world/relationship/job/etc. They are the femme fatale; they draw you in only to remain unattainable and leave you surrounded with a world of imperfection. This apparent contradiction is what the femme fatale is about—she appears to be the image of perfection; however, this perception is only a manifestation of the viewer’s own hopes for perfection. If one could get to know her, he would discover she is not at all perfect. She only appears so from a distance. But the Mona Lisa and the Medusa do not even allow the viewer to get this far in the process. By staring back at the audience, they force it to see that, no matter what, it is living in a world of deficiencies.
Another vivid feature in both the Mona Lisa and Medusa that represents their female attractiveness is their mouths. Mouths, similar to eyes, are an attractive feature in women in Western culture. Another modern cliché states, “The first thing I noticed was his/her smile.” Also, some of the most stunning, unattainable, and famous female figures of modern times have famous and beautiful smiles. Take for instance Julia Roberts, whose captivating smile has entranced audiences for years. Also, where would Angelina Jolie be without her famous pouty and sexy mouth? These women’s mouths have become almost icons of their beauty and fame. Similarly, Medusa and la Gioconda posses fascinating traits within their mouths that draw the viewer to them, giving them an inexplicable, appealing, and dangerous quality.
The mouth of the Gorgon is visually menacing and poses a threat to onlookers. She is constantly portrayed with an open, gaping mouth that appears to be consuming all that is around, yet releasing evil at the same time. One of the clearest examples of the gaping, evil image of Medusa is depicted in Caravaggio’s shield (Encl C) that shows her wide-open mouth and evil stare threatening with unimaginable evil and horror. The gaping orifice could suggest numerous things to different viewers. For instance, the deep, dark opening could be letting out nameless evils that could be held back if only her mouth would close. The dark orifice seems to bleed out evil and represent her sinister powers.
To Dr. Sigmund Freud, the open lips support his castration theory—a terrifying idea to men. Freud claims that all men inherently fear castration from the time they first view female genitalia and realize women do not have penises. In Freud’s theory the Gorgon’s head represents the female genitalia or lack of a penis (Freud). The open mouth then becomes even more threatening to men, as it could be the instrument of castration they so desperately try to avoid. However, the paradox lies in the fact that although it could be potentially harmful to men, there is still an intense appeal and magnetism about the femme fatale’s beautiful mouth. The attraction is so strong, in fact, that men are willing to put aside their reservations and allow themselves to be drawn to the female in spite of the fear of what may happen. This phenomenon defines the femme fatale: the women who is so appealing that men will put aside all fears in order to attempt to be with her, despite the dangers involved, as in the case of Medusa.
The mouth of La Gioconda presents a far less terrifying, but equally alluring image. Her mouth is closed; however, her lips appear to be either slightly parted or on the brink of leaving each other’s company. She does not appear ominous but instead enigmatic and aloof, again suggesting her feminine inaccessibility. Her smile seems to imply that she knows something we do not and is even slightly smug about it. This specific expression has even been termed a “Mona Lisa smile” in today’s culture. For instance, in a modern poem the phrase appears: as boyfriend and girlfriend fight, the female is described as wearing “a 15 cent Mona Lisa smile on her face” (Bukowski ll 36-7).
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of la Gioconda’s smile, however, is the way it escapes the viewer when he or she looks at it. Upon first glance at the Mona Lisa she appears to have a slight smile. But, when you look directly at her it fades, and you realize she is not smiling at all. Look away and the sequence will happen over and over again. Is she smiling or not? The Italians had a name for the phenomenon when the painting was born—sfumato. Sfumato, by definition, means “blurry, ambiguous, and up to the imagination” (Blakeslee 1). Italian critics seemed to believe that the Mona Lisa is doing whatever the individual’s imagination wants her to do. Each viewer reacts differently to the ambiguity of her features, making it impossible to create a set definition of the painting. If you prefer her to smile, she does. If your mood is darker, then she will not smile for you, according to the Italian’s theory. However, more recently, Dr. Margaret Livingston, a Harvard Neuroscientist, developed a more concrete and scientific explanation for the elusive smile that haunts Mona Lisa’s lips:
…An individual’s center of gaze is focused on Mona Lisa’s eyes with less accurate peripheral vision on her mouth. This focus picks up shadows from the Mona Lisa’s cheekbones, which suggests a curvature of a smile, but when the viewer’s eyes then shift to her mouth, the shadows of her mouth elude the viewer. The smile appears present and then gone because of the visual processing. In particular, that of the peripheral area surrounding the fovea, where individuals see black and white, motion and shadows. Therefore, Mona Lisa’s smile is the outcome of one’s peripheral vision based on the facial contours (Blakeslee 1).
Whatever the reason for her ambiguous smile, the fleeting nature of it adds to her unobtainable and mesmerizing charm of ‘woman.’ When you look away from her lips, the smile appears again and draws you back to her. The psychological effect is a paradox—attraction to something that is gone when you try to observe it directly, so it immediately becomes more attractive in the psyche. The absence or loss of the smile is more enthralling then actually seeing the lips themselves. Thus, the perfect woman, the dangerous and beautiful femme fatale, is built up again in the mind because she is so fleeting that no one can actually view what is really there. The idea of a more appealing woman gives the viewer something for which to strive in his imagination, because the notion of her is smiling mouth is more appealing than her actual painted mouth. Both the Italians’ theory and Dr. Livingston’s suggest that the secret to the mysterious smile lies within the psyche of the viewer. People, especially men, react differently to her features, thus explaining the different interpretations of her smile. Yet no matter what the interpretation, even in the case of Freud’s horrifying castration complex, the enigmatic smile lures audiences in because she is the archetypal, dangerous woman whom people seek.
One scholar, Robert A. Baron, has gone so far as to link the Mona Lisa’s smile to the mouth of Medusa by analyzing a recreation of the portrait with a wide, gaping mouth in place of the tempting smile (Encl D). Additionally, the portrait has been printed as a mirror image—la Gioconda faces the viewer’s right side instead of the left. In explaining the disturbed portrait, Baron states:
The creator of this image, clearly fusing two icons, has taken the image of Leonardo’s Mona Lisa—understood universally as the epitome of aesthetic transformation, purposefully reversing the image as testimony to the last image that the gorgon saw. In a word, the artist has created a double-edged metaphor of the artistic process, which on one level fixes reality into something still and immutable, and on the other forces the observer, qua Medusa, to confront him-or herself (Baron 3).
By directly connecting the two iconic female figures, the creator of the image is displaying how the Mona Lisa and Medusa relate. The mouth is clearly an important feature by which both women are recognized. Medusa is more noticeably threatening and dangerous, yet in a more perverse way very attractive. The Mona Lisa’s mouth is more visibly alluring and attractive and much less terrifying on the surface. Yet, these women both appeal to viewers and terrorize them equally. The variation depends on which qualities are more visibly displayed in each. A melting ofthe dualities of Medusa and the Mona Lisa into one image, “the Medusa Lisa,” shows that the women are both highly attractive and extremely fatal.
The other concept that the “Medusa Lisa” can explain is the idea of a composite woman—or the archetypal ‘woman’ of Western culture. Perhaps the ideal woman does not exist—she never has and she never will. This idyllic image is just a composite image created in the male psyche. By compiling all the favorable qualities that males find in different into one woman, they thus create an “ideal woman” who only exists in their psyche. This is the femme half of the femme fatale. The fatale part occurs when men realize that this faultless woman does not exist. Thus, the fatal attraction to an icon that is entirely unattainable occurs. For example, in Russell Hoban’s The Medusa Frequency, Herman Orff falls in love with an idea of a woman that he has created out of his experiences with many women throughout his life. The women include paintings he has seen, women in literature he has read, and women he has actually met. The result for Herman, too, is fatal. He spends his life hunting endlessly for the woman he has envisioned and ends up alone, disillusioned from his exhausting searches for the archetypal woman (Hoban). However, the image discussed in Baron’s essay deals with the same issue—it meshes together features of both Medusa and Mona Lisa, two female icons, in order to create an image of classic woman.
The final glaring similarity between Medusa and la Gioconda is the underlying tone of sexuality present in both of their images. Their fascinating eyes and their tempting mouths ooze with sexual desires. The mystery and enigma surrounding them also contributes to the sexual aura of the women. Sex has been a theme in almost every work written concerning Medusa. In The Gift of the Gorgon the couple’s sex life is displayed for us to analyze (Shaffer). In Chimera, all three of the novellas focus on sex and sexual issues (Barth). Similar topics arise in A Severed Head and in various poems involving Medusa. Medusa holds a disturbing sexual appeal; thus the issue of Medusa and sex cannot simply be avoided.
Before her rape in the temple of Athena, Medusa was an extremely beautiful creature, with long flowing hair that tempted Poseidon so much that he could not resist sexual intercourse with her. The descriptions of her before the rape are easy to understand because they conform to the universal conception of beauty. However, after her rape, Athena punished her by making her a horrifying monster with snakes for hair and the power to turn men to stone if they looked upon her. This new version of Medusa is harder to accept as beautiful, yet she still holds the appeal to men, and she continues to do so through artwork today. The threat that she poses by turning men to stone, or by castration, or whatever evil power she possess, seems to tempt men even more. Why? The exhilaration of doing something dangerous or forbidden is even more attractive to humans than a conventionally beautiful woman who is ‘safe.’ The satisfaction of overcoming a precarious risk to achieve the goal becomes even more alluring than the girl herself and this exact notion defines the girl as the femme fatale.
Mona Lisa’s sex appeal, in contrast, is far less threatening than that of Medusa. She is described as containing a “sphinx-like sex appeal” (Gopnik 4) that suggests a more traditional attraction, which is more overtly engaging than the menacing yet sexy charm of Medusa. The Mona Lisa has a gentler, kinder type about her, yet she still holds that underlying power that is explicitly clear in Medusa. Looking back to the image of the two women meshed together, the reader can see that, although articulated in dissimilar ways, the Mona Lisa and Medusa are indeed expressing the same sort of sexual power:
One should not fail to mention the erotic dimension of Mona’s open mouth. The gorgon, of course, was a horrific creature, described as having snakes as hair, huge wings and a round ugly face. How curious then that the artist of our advertisement chose to meld a reference to the gorgon with an eroticized rendition of the Mona Lisa. One can only surmise that the artist in this way is exploring the complimentary and contradictory natures of fear and sexual desire, of repulsion and attraction, of all-consuming beauty and repulsive horror (Baron 4). The juxtaposition of the two images again bonds the Mona Lisa and Medusa inextricably, and it demonstrates the similarities in their sexuality.Through a vigilant assessment of both Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa and the myth of Medusa, one can see that the two are intertwined in so many areas relating to sexual appeal, allure and fascination that they are indeed both excellent representations of woman in Western culture that has emerged from the femme fatale. Both women’s enchanting eyes and magnetic mouths in addition to their sex appeal and complete inaccessibility make them the ultimate “femme fatale” figures. In addition, considering the Mona Lisa in terms of the gorgon allows one to reach at least one feasible explanation for the enigma surrounding the famous work of art that has remained a mystery for centuries—that her appealing qualities which are similar to that of the femme fatale and Medusa have granted them an allure that eternally attracts and tempts audiences worldwide.
Works Cited
Barth, John. Chimera. New York: First Mariner Books, 1972.
Baron, Robert A. “Mona—The Medusa Equation and the Pregnant Mona Lisa.”
http://www.studiolo.org/Mona/MONA38.htm (01 Dec. 2002).Blakeslee, Sandra. “What Is It With Mona Lisa’s Smile? It’s You!” The New York
Times 21 Nov. 2000, sec. F.3.Bukowski, Charles. What Matters Most is How Well You Walk Through the Fire.
The Viking Press 1999.Burnes-Jones. “The Baleful Head.” 1887.
Caravaggio. “Medusa’s Shield.” Circa 1590.
Da Vinci, Leonardo. “La Gioconda.” Oil on canvas. 1479-1528.
Freud, Sigmund. “Medusa’s Head.” Sexuality and the Psychology of Love. 1922.
Online. http://www.cc.utah.edu/~aga0889/laugh3.html (04 Dec. 2002).Gopnik, Blake. “Mona Lisa’s Little Secret; A Historian Deconstructs the Celebrity
Painting.” The Washington Post 07 Feb. 2002, sec. C.01.Gescheidt, Alfred. “Mona Lisa Revisited.” Greeting card. 1991.
Hoban, Russel. The Medusa Frequency. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1987.
Levine, Steven Z. “Virtual Narcissus: On the Mirror Stage with Monet, Lacan,
and Me.”American Imago 53.1 (1996): 91-106. 02 Dec. 2002
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_imago/v053/53.1levine.htm.Murdoch, Iris. A Severed Head. New York: Penguin, 1961.
Rossetti, Dante Gabriel. "Aspecta Medusa." 1870.
Shaffer, Peter. The Gift of the Gorgon. Viking.
Franklin Roosevelt, the Most Badass Man Ever
Fabian Yves BouthilletteWhen you hear “macho,” what do you think of? You probably think of guys that walk around trying to show off their muscles, acting bigger than they really are. For example, that guy in the weight room who wears a shirt two sizes too small to create the illusion of being buff. Maybe that same guy is trying to brag about his latest conquest in a sporting event. Even more likely is that he is trying to brag about a recent conquest over a woman. Comedian Denis Leary finds macho males so amusing that he wrote an entire essay on the subject called Are You Man Enough? Leary opened his essay with the following paragraph:
Here's a cold hard fact that you must now chew and swallow: if you are reading this, you are not macho. Period. Case closed. Real men do not read anything other than GUNS AND AMMO, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED, or SHAVED BEAVER (1).
By using Leary’s logic, if you are currently reading this capstone essay, then you too cannot possibly be macho. Now, before you feel insulted, it would probably be wise to define “macho.” Leary says that he “…can only assume that "macho" comes from "machismo," which sounds a hell of a lot like machine. Being macho implies a tough, hard, blocklike approach full of pistons and rods and axles and other big steel-type stuff” (3). Funny, but no. In fact, “macho” is characterized by machismo, but is defined by a “strong sense of masculine pride “or “an exaggerated masculinity” (Merriam-Webster 697). Therefore, when I used the term “macho males” above, I was being redundant.
For the sake of this essay, I would like to also use another definition of machismo found in the tenth edition of the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary issued to me on the very first day of my life as a midshipman. The dictionary says that machismo is “an exaggerated or exhilarating sense of power or strength” (697). It is my belief that men in particular are in constant search of “an exaggerated or exhilarating sense of power or strength.” This has been true since the beginning of time. To help facilitate men in their venture for machismo, “God” created women. I put God in quotations because “God” is just some guy writing his version of how life came to be. And then some other guy back in ancient Greece created the myth of Medusa. Medusa, a woman so horrifying that she turned any man that looked upon her into stone.
Potentially, Medusa would have turned women into stone as well. However, no woman ever felt the urge or need to go find Medusa. Only men ever undertook the quest to find Medusa and chop off her head. But why did a man (because it was surely a man) invent the myth of Medusa? The man who invented Medusa was simply looking out for his own gender. He felt the need to create an obstacle of monumental proportions for men to overcome in their quest for machismo. That obstacle was, and still is, FEAR.Fear truly is the ultimate obstacle. It was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt who once said "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!" Men truly understand this concept. This is why so many men found it necessary to triumph over Medusa, the ultimate symbol of fear. Even though one man, Perseus, ultimately succeeded in taking out Medusa, fear is something men still try to overcome everyday.
Fear manifests itself in many forms. Young children are afraid of the Boogie Man. Young teenagers are afraid of not being popular. Most of us, however, are afraid of being rejected. This fear of rejection brings me back to the essay Love is Dangerous by my good friend Allen Lerner. This essay, of course, is infamous for being the inspiration for my essay You Want Me to Put My Penis Where? Let us begin with Allen’s thoughts, and the fear of love, as represented by Medusa.John Barth’s interpretations of the myth of Medusa in his book Chimera show that partaking in love is the same as partaking in the ultimate of risks and fears. People put themselves on the line mentally, physically, and morally when believing in love. This makes the fear of rejection very legitimate. There are no guarantees in love, and in love you will find the opportunity for the ultimate of successes, and the ultimate of failures. A man who is successful at love should certainly feel the “exhilarating sense of power” associated with being macho. Maybe, but maybe not.
Two of the important relationships in Chimera are between Shah Zaman and Dunyazade, and Medusa and Perseus. Shah Zaman is guilty of saying one thing to Dunyazade and then having his actions show otherwise. Whether or not we, the readers, and Dunyazade should believe Shah Zaman is trivial by the time we get to the bed scene. By the time Shah Zaman is tied naked to the bed with Dunyazade ready to castrate him, Shah Zaman has realized that there is no way he is going to get Dunyazade to truly understand his mind, nor is there any need to. Shah Zaman only needs to get Dunyazade to trust him. If he can get her to trust him, then she will not castrate him, and then Shah Zaman would have overcome the fear of being castrated and achieved his goal of love with Dunyazade.
Shah Zaman takes on a great risk, perhaps the ultimate risk, by putting his family jewels on the line. In the end, overcoming the fear of castration to then actually put himself at risk is what makes his relationship with Dunyazade work. Shah Zaman played a mental game with Dunyazade, a game that he won at great risk. He achieved machismo by earning “an exaggerated or exhilarating sense of power or strength.” However, one must always remember that overcoming the fear of love and castration could never have happened without the existence of a woman, in this case Dunyazade. There would have been no risk without a woman. For this reason, I cannot say with absolute certainty that a man should feel exhilarating power when achieving a victory over a woman. Obviously, the woman holds at least a marginal bit of power, for without her there would be no obstacle to overcome.
In the “Perseid” chapter both Medusa and Perseus take significant risks in the name of love. Medusa must trust that Perseus is her true love, or else she will remain a Gorgon forever. Perseus must trust that as his love for Medusa is true, he will not turn into stone when he looks at her. Medusa puts herself on the line in hopes that she will no longer be a Gorgon. Perseus is putting his life on the line in hopes that he will regain a love that he once had with Andromeda. Remember that in “Perseid,” Perseus is portrayed as a washed-up hero. His love with Andromeda has dwindled greatly. Therefore, Perseus is willing to take great risk (his life) to regain “an exaggerated or exhilarating sense of power or strength.” Perseus is very unsure of his love for Medusa. His doubt is portrayed in the following passage:
…Next day she was quieter than usual, and that evening she told me very gently just what you said a while ago: in effect, that I loved her less than she me, and was still bound with half my heart to Andromeda. I wished then I’d had a kibisis for myself, to hide my shame; I swore I did love her, if anyone, as much as I could, not really knowing her and all— (107-108)
Perseus wants to love Medusa with all of his heart, but he is just not convinced that he does; neither is Medusa. Yet, Medusa is willing to take the risk, and finally so is Perseus. Perseus puts his life on the line to regain true love. Shah Zaman did not need to get Dunyazade to understand his true thought process; he only needed to get her to trust him. Perseus too did not need to get Medusa to understand his true thought process; he only needed to get her to trust him. To earn the trust of the women, Perseus and Shah Zaman put their life and penis at risk, respectively. Overcoming fear in the pursuit of love is a difficult and risky task. Love is never certain. Exposing our vulnerabilities is what makes love so exhilarating, like an extreme even where life is at stake and there are few safeties in place to prevent mishap, in love there is much placed in jeopardy and no guarantee made (Lerner 3).
That quote is part of what inspired me to write "You Want me to Put My Penis Where?" However, when I initially wrote that essay, I had it in mind to defend Freud’s castration complex. When I finished the essay and read it to myself for the first time, I realized what I had actually done was show that the fear of castration from oral sex is simply another obstacle for men to overcome and earn machismo. By comparing Shah Zaman and Perseus I compared the fear of castration and death, and made the two out to be very alike. Therefore, overcoming the fear of castration from oral sex is a legitimate way to earn “an exaggerated or exhilarating sense of power or strength.”
It is safe to say that most men are drawn to oral sex. But why? Well, some may think that the answer is obvious. It feels great, and gives the receiver a sense of power over who is giving the oral sex. However, the exact opposite is true. It is the giver of the oral sex who is in power. Medusa’s open mouth could be an invitation for a male to receive oral sex from her. Even though Medusa is not aesthetically appealing, the appeal of oral sex still exists. But should a man really trust Medusa with your family jewels? Should a man trust anyone with his family jewels? The answer does not really matter, as most men usually do not pass up the chance for oral sex.It seems very ironic to say that men are trying to gain a sense of power, or machismo, from a woman who is the one with the power when giving oral sex. However, this statement perfectly exemplifies what I am trying to argue when I say that man invented woman in order to create a conflict to overcome. When a woman has power during oral sex, it makes it infinitely more risky for a man to receive oral sex. Therefore, when a man does successfully receive oral sex without being castrated, he has made a huge achievement. Oral sex would not have near the draw that it has now if there was no risk of injury from oral sex.
Medusa does represent both fear and attraction. This is why overcoming Medusa, and everything she represents, is the ultimate of achievements. Man invented Medusa. He did so because it gives him the chance to prove himself, to prove that he is macho, to prove that he is in control when it comes to love. Man relishes the threat of being castrated. Yes, Medusa does provide the fear of getting a penis chopped off (or bit off), but she also provides the excitement of throwing oneself into … an extreme event where life is at stake and there are few safeties in place to prevent mishap… (Lerner 3).
Thus far, I have tried to show that man has a need to overcome conflict. By overcoming conflict, he will prove himself macho. He will lead a more exhilarating life. To maximize the exhilaration, man needed to create great obstacles. Therefore, he created the myth of Medusa. Medusa represents both a great fear and a great attraction. And since fear itself is the greatest fear to overcome, overcoming it constitutes the ultimate of achievements.
Above I mentioned the thrill of being part of an “extreme event.” In today’s pop-culture, extreme sports have become a benchmark for measuring one’s ability to overcome fear. Therefore, by studying extreme athletes, one can better understand what goes through the minds of men, and what was going through the mind of Perseus on his journey to behead Medusa.
An article entitled “The Psychology of High Level Sport: Is it Extreme?” addresses the motivation and risks involved with extreme sports. The authors, J.R. May and E. Slanger point out that the risks of extreme sport are both physical and psychological. Physical risks include illness, injury, and death. Psychological risks include high levels of stress, burnout, and low self worth for not achieving elite goals. Yet, the psychological benefits of extreme sports are significant. They include mastery of an activity of a very high level, excitement, adrenaline rush, feelings of uniqueness, and a sense of accomplishment (May and Slanger).
The authors also believe that the following factors are important to achieving lofty goals: judging self as capable of handling an activity and possessing a desire for mastery. consider Perseus and Shah Zaman again. I would argue that both judged themselves as capable of handling an activity and both possessed a desire for mastery. In both their cases, they desired to master fear, which lead to the mastery of a female, which led to the earning of her love. Also, in both cases, great physical harm was risked. Perseus risked death. However, both earned a sense of accomplishment and probably feelings of uniqueness. By presenting this comparison, I hope it is clear that dealing with love and fear is a dangerous prospect, but the benefits, for many, will outweigh the risks.
An articled entitled “Peak Performance” by Karlene Sugarman presents information on how athletes can achieve peak performance, or what is more commonly known as being “in the zone.” Sugarman lists the following adjectives to describe the feeling of being in the zone: relaxed, confident, completely focused, effortless, automatic, fun, and in control. Would you use any of these words to describe Shah Zaman or Perseus? I would. These two men, in the face of extreme peril, somehow managed to stay relaxed and focused. Consider the following passage:
“I have it! Come sit here beside me. Please, do as I say! Now lay that razor’s edge exactly where you were going to put it before; then you can make your move before any marksman can draw and release. You’ll have to hold me in your other hand; I’ve gone limp with alarm.”
Dunyazade wept.
“Come,” the King insisted: “it’s the only way you’ll be convinced I’m serious. No, I mean right up against it, so that you could do your trick in half a second. Whew, that gooseflesh isn’t faked! What a situation! Now look here: even this advantage gripes you, I suppose, since it was given instead of taken: the male still leading the female, et cetera. No help for that just now. Besides, between any two people, you know—what I mean, it’s not the patriarchy that makes you take the passive role with your sister, for example. Never mind that. See me sweat! Now, then: I agree with that Genie of yours in the matter of priorities, and I entreat you not only to permit me to tell you a story, but to make love with me first.”
Dunyazade shut her eyes and whipped her head from side to side.
“As you wish,” said the King. “I’d never force you, as you’ll understand if you’ll hear my story. Shall I tell it?”
Dunyazade moved her head indifferently.
“More tightly. Careful with that razor!”
“Can’t you make it go down?” the girl asked thickly. “It’s obscene. And distracting. I think I’m going to be sick.”
“Not more distracting than your little breasts, or your little fingers…No, please, I insist you keep hold of your advantage! My story’s short, I promise, and I’m at your mercy. So: (Barth 41-42)Wow. Who is in control in that passage? The guy who is about to get his penis chopped off? Or is it Dunyazade, the woman about to do the chopping. I think it is fair to say that Shah Zaman possess some of the traits of an athlete in the zone, specifically, relaxed and confident.
In Shah Zaman and Perseus, we clearly have two people possessing machismo. According to Karlene Sugarman, they have the traits of a very mentally trained athlete. According to J.R May and E. Slanger, they both understood the risks of performing at a high level and reaped the benefits. By today’s standards, Shah Zaman and Perseus would be two of the most macho guys around. But what good is it to be macho in today’s world? I will refer back to Denis Leary to explain what has happened to the perception of machismo:
I think the death of macho is easily located on a very recent map. Sometime in the late '70s-right around the time the Village People released "Macho Man" and Barry Manilow sang "Copacabana" and Robby Benson was mewling his way into the hearts of teenage ultra-virgin, men made a serious mistake. We started TALKING to each other. We stopped punching each other and began discussing why we wanted to punch each other. I'll bet my right nut that if I had done some research, I would have found a dramatic decline in facial cuts and brain contusions starting in 1977. Now we're supposed to be sensitive. We are supposed to share our feelings and cry at funerals and care about our hair. We're, in short, supposed to be women. Hello, my name is Shirley. Touch me in the morning (6).
Actually, what Denis Leary has to say is almost true. He obviously seems upset about the disappearance of the traditional macho definition, but it is probably for the better. Nonetheless, I believe I have an acceptable alternative to being called macho that Perseus and Shah Zaman would most certainly accept. They are really “heroes.” There is a definite tie between machismo and heroism. In fact, I believe it is impossible to be a hero without being macho. And it is impossible to be macho without many of the traits that it takes to be an extreme athlete.
But ultimately, what makes a hero a hero? A hero must have great courage, and is admired for his great accomplishments. Therefore, a hero needs a goal that is difficult to attain, and takes great courage to attain. The Motivation to Climb, an online book by Howard Peel addresses how to define a hero, and ties heroism with machismo.
Peel wonders why people climb at all. In his studies, he finds that many climb because they are simply inspired by the idea of reaching a given summit (Chapter 1). He points out that many people who often do not associate themselves with climbing will undertake the task of climbing Mount Everest just to prove something to themselves.Modern commercial expeditions market the ascent of many mountains as being just another experience to be purchased along with any number of other 'extreme' experiences from running with the bulls in Pamplona to going powder skiing in Colorado. Others are drawn to climb a mountain such as Everest because they have been inspired by the writings of others, the mythology surrounding the peak, a desire to experience at first hand what climbing such a peak is like or a need to assert themselves in the their own eyes and the eyes of others. It would appear that many 'macho' or 'military' types are particularly motivated by the kudos which is thought to arise from having climbed a notable peak. It might be argued that such individuals are attracted to the idea that climbers are not only determined, physically strong, 'good team players' but at heart they are, in a sense, 'heroes' in the traditional mould (Chapter 1).
With wars not occurring on a regular basis these days, and the days of chivalry long gone, it truly is difficult to find heroes. However, Peel manages to do so in mountain climbers. Notice, Peel believes that “macho” types are drawn to climbing mountains as they will receive kudos for doing so. He then says that the kudos they receive will lead to their being labeled as heroes “in the traditional mould.” The absence of war means that there is an absence of opportunity for people to prove themselves heroes. By undertaking difficult tasks, however, people can get themselves labeled as heroes in the modern world.
The modern definition of a hero, according to Peel, is a person who stands alone. I never considered that when thinking of Perseus or Shah Zaman; however, I would be greatly mistaken in saying that Perseus stood alone. Perseus’ need for help is an important issue that needs to be addressed.
So far, I have established that to be macho or to be a hero you need some kind of difficult task to overcome. Therefore, man created the myth of Medusa. Medusa provides the ultimate of tasks to overcome as she represents both fear of death and fear of love. When Perseus beheads her, he overcomes both fears. However, he does not do so without help. For some reason, man gave Perseus the assistance of Athena, a woman! Why on earth would man give Perseus the help of a woman when Perseus is trying to establish himself as a hero by overcoming a woman? Athena practically does all the work for Perseus anyhow. She gives him all the tools and the entire gouge on how to go about slaying Medusa.
The simple explanation is to point out that although Athena is a woman, she is still born of a male. In the story, she is born of Zeus in an asexual manner. In real life, a male storyteller creates her. Although her gender is female, she still represents a man as much as her aesthetics show her to be a woman. Interestingly Athena's appearance contrast with that of Medusa, who is often considered to look just as much like a man as like a woman. Her aesthetics are what remain ambiguous, while her personality remains very much that of a female’s. The exact opposite is true for Athena. Athena’s lack of ambiguity in her personality may be an explanation for why she takes the Gorgon’s head and makes it an integral part of her persona by placing it in her aegis.
The beheading of Medusa has been described as a representation of man’s need to separate and categorize and itemize. When you take Medusa’s head away from her, she blatantly looks like a woman by many artists’ accounts. Cellini’s Perseus and Medusa statue comes to mind with the head of Medusa held high and the well-figured (actually attractive) female body of Medusa lying below Perseus’ feet. Therefore, when Athena takes the Gorgon head, she makes herself a complete person with a complete personality, and she incidentally makes Medusa a beautiful woman again. However, Athena with her ambiguous personality could not have been the one to behead Medusa. She needed Perseus, a man with the urge to categorize, to carry out the task for her. Therefore, making Athena, the person that empowers Perseus, a female is a genius move. I have maintained throughout this essay that overcoming fear and love are what give men the ultimate sense of machismo. By showing Athena in need of a man, the creator of the Medusa myth is only contributing to male dominance over females, and therefore, male dominance over love that only enhances the sense of machismo and heroism desired by men.If I were Christian, I might be able to argue that “God,” or some other all powerful sentient being in command of the universe, created woman to serve man’s need for machismo. However, I am not Christian, therefore I must address the myth of Medusa with some reason and logic. It was a plain mortal man who created Medusa. That man, like all other men, was blessed with the overabundance of a certain hormone in his body. That hormone is testosterone. For that simple genetic reason, men find it necessary to beat their chests and prove that they are better than everyone else. Fortunately, that is not the entire truth these days, although Denis Leary would have us believe otherwise.
Yes, men often need a way to prove their worth or superiority to others. Therefore, men do embrace machismo, and try to earn as much of it as they can. Flying down a hill on a skateboard, jumping out of a plane at 30,000 feet like Allen Lerner will be doing when he is a Navy SEAL, or climbing Mount Everest will definitely prove that you are “the man.” However, never forget that the only reason these feats are considered macho is that they involve overcoming great fear to put oneself at great risk. Could a woman ever be considered macho for overcoming great fear? Sure, but less women are ever going to put themselves at risk because they simply do not have the testosterone or the desire. Therefore, Medusa is a woman, and her downfall represents an achievement of monumental proportions for the male gender.
Bibliography
Barth, John. Chimera. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972.Leary, D. (2002, December 2). Are You Man Enough?. [Online]. Available: http://www.cataclysm.net/leary.txt
Lerner, Allen. “Love is Dangerous”
May, J.R. and Slanger E. (2002, December 2). The Psychology of High Level Sport: Is it Extreme?. [Online]. Available: http://www.unicaen.fr/unicaen/sfps/pdf/congres2000-symp9.pdf
Peel, H. (2002, December 2). The Motivation to Climb. [Online]. Available: http://www.therockzone.co.uk/therockzone/web-book/mtc1.html
Sugarman, K. (2002, December 2). Peak performance. [Online]. Available: http://www.psywww.com/sports/peak.htm
PETRIFICATION AS A CIRCLE OF PARADOX
Gianni DeMicheleThis title alone will cause you to become petrified! But that is exactly what petrification is: uncomfortable, threatening, ironic, confusing, and an abandonment of security. It seals a certain moment, feeling or desire forever. This is why it is difficult to study petrification: it is difficult to discover what it is that captivates us and leaves us inert. The underlying cause of petrification emerges in romantic love and the resulting desire to maintain the romance forever. Petrification secures that which fascinates us and then eternalizes it.
A petrified individual is, somehow, in his safe haven. In this safe haven of romantic love where he cannot be hurt, he can only admire that which he loves and gives eternal life to, thus perpetually sustaining the romance of the relationship. Romantic love is the central theme of petrification because petrification occurs when one yearns for or loves another. Petrification is repeated, just as romance must be repeated and recreated to keep a relationship thriving. Petrification is protection, a protective state that shields us from our feelings when we do not know how to command them.
Petrification is also troubling to us because it forces us out of a comfortable position and into a threatening one. It is threatening because we realize that we are in awe of something we find beautiful. Naturally, when we find something beautiful, we want to petrify it and preserve it forever. Strangely, petrification is the desire to preserve the one who petrifies you.
Such literary masters as Dante, Petrarch and Shelley confront the issue of petrification in their poetry. Their works display petrification occurring on two levels. First, the observer becomes petrified by his fascination in a woman and he, in turn, petrifies this “fascination” so that he may grant her immortality. Life’s romantic experiences are circles of petrification. One falls in love and becomes petrified; he then petrifies his object of affection; and the object petrifies him and so on. The experience becomes liberating. He falls in love, loses command of his emotions and becomes petrified, and then he petrifies the woman he loves, only to bring her immortal life through some work of art or poetry. Two petrifications exist, the petrification of the observer and the petrification of the subject. Both types of petrification cause the one being petrified to feel alive and give eternal life to the one who petrifies him.Medusa’s story is petrification and therefore she causes her audience to become aware of its own petrification. However, while Medusa invites her researchers to investigate petrification, the Muses are responsible for providing these researchers with the ability to petrify through art, “lyric poetry, epic poetry, and sacred song,” etc (Ovid). Whether one petrifies another through artwork, a picture, or poem or becomes petrified when gazing upon another, petrification brings that object to life or makes that lover feel alive. Petrification and life thrive through one another. Shelley’s response, as noted by Mc Gann, "On The Medusa of Leonardo da Vinci," raises the idea that Medusa’s petrification is a paradox of life and petrification:
This unusual Medusa, . . . is not murderous but humanizing. The fascination she arouses has been translated into a sympathetic process because she is the symbol of . . . a beauty cursed through no fault of her own anywhere evident in the myth, the painting, or the poem. Moreover, she impresses forever upon the sympathetic observer the very essence and source of her dazzling beauty: her image is sculptured on the gazer's soul, which is turned to receptive stone; or, alternatively, the melody of her musical beauty, the painted hues of her exquisitely rendered likeness, both become part of the gazer's now humanized and harmonized life. The stanza asserts, in other words, the transference of the creative power of the imagination from the Medusa to the sympathizing gazer (McGann).
The “gazer” has been petrified, but he has also petrified her because he preserves her in a work of art or literature. He will continue to be petrified by her; she will continue to be petrified by him; and the circle continues.
The poetry of Shelley and Petrarch raises two questions: Have I ever been petrified? Have I ever been in love and desired to give my lover immortality so that I would never be without her? Undeniably, he has been. He asks these questions and then realizes that he has experienced the Medusa gaze. He has experienced the fascination of something beautiful and frightening. His petrification occurs because he cannot take his eyes from the woman he loves and he is frozen by his emotions. It is frightening because he becomes threatened by what he feels. Her beauty may fascinate him or he may fear falling in love with her and finding out that she does not love him. Either way, his raptness causes him to be petrified by her. He is aware that falling in love with her will require him to give a part of himself to her and submit to her, and this is what scares him, rendering him petrified. Still, he is completely in awe of her beauty and feels the need to eternalize her. By petrifying her and transforming her into poetry or a piece of artwork, he is preserving her beauty and petrifying qualities.
Medusa’s petrification surrounds us; representations of petrification appear in movies, magazines, articles, books, art museums, and relationships. These are the different aspects of petrification, as it occurs in different forms. For instance, an author may petrify the one he loves through a poem and, at the same time, humanize her. This is stated by Jerome McGann, who examines the way in which Percy Bysshe Shelley responds to Medusa, “Shelley's fragment on the Medusa's head is, like the ode, an allegory about the prophetic office of the poet and the humanizing power of poetry” (McGann). Perhaps any poet becomes petrified each time he gazes upon the one who fascinates him. The result of this is his need to petrify her in return, so he writes about her, therefore freezing her forever on a page, but giving her, at the same time, eternal, human life. The poem will be read and each time it is read, she is brought to life. And thus, once more, petrification becomes threatening. It is threatening because it forces him to be aware of his feelings. When one is petrified he feels scared, threatened and vibrant all at once. Romantic love is scary, threatening and vibrant. This is why it is safer for the author to write about his object of affection and petrify her instead, so that he may safely gaze upon her from his pages of poetry and not become petrified the way he does when he looks at her directly, in the flesh. Anyone who becomes petrified may be doing so, partially out of caution and the desire to protect oneself. He who is petrified is safe from actually acting on his emotions. He is stiff and stationary. He will not take her in his arms and kiss her and risk being rejected. He stares at her as an object of his affection, as a spectator of her beauty, romantically fantasizing about her, but never pursuing her, all because he feels safer by never taking the chance of being with her. Petrification is protective and preserving. Poetry is the preservation of romantic love.
Poetry and art are representations, petrifications, of the beautiful, the sexual, the intriguing, even the violent. When exploring the beauty and ugliness of Medusa, which causes petrification, it is important to recall the myth that tells how Pegasus was born from Medusa’s blood. His hoof grazed the ground on Helicon, thus giving way to the Muses and sacred fountains. (Ovid online Metamorphoses) Dante’s Rime Petrose: Love, Very Well You Notice How This Woman, is a direct result of the “Muses” and addresses this very issue of romantic petrification. Dante utilizes his poetry to express how he stares at his “Stone Lady” (While, Dante’s “Stone Lady” is akin to Pygmalion’s “Stone Lady,” Pygmalion’s is an actual statue) and becomes petrified because he wants to express his love to her, however, he felt that he could not have her, so he wrote to her:
Tis from her eyes sweet light descends to me
that makes me care no more for other women.
Oh, if she only were a kinder woman to me,
who call her name by night and light!
To serve her anywhere and anytime
Is my sole longing for all length of time. (43-48)Dante is in love with a woman who has petrified him. She will not come to him willingly. He wishes for her to be “kinder” to him and he wishes to “serve” her. She does not come to him, perhaps because she wants to protect herself and not become petrified, just as he does not want to be petrified by her. Dante’s thoughts control him, and thoughts can be one’s enemy, for thoughts will cause a man (or woman) to mentally focus on the one he desires and therefore become physically immobile, stiffened, petrified. Dante’s thoughts force his petrification upon him. He looks at this woman and marvels at her beauty. Therefore, he writes about her in his poetry, petrifying her. He can safely gaze at her from his poetry. He can reread his lines dedicated to her, giving her immortality and perpetually maintaining his love and desire for her, while protecting himself. This paradox of petrification exists here because it is simultaneous. He is scared of the feelings he is experiencing and becomes immobile, but at the same time, he gives eternal life to his petrifying assailant through his poetry. This is also what Shelley’s response to the Medusa myth explores, “the fact of the viewer being turned to stone is caused by the "grace" rather than the "horror" of his lover” (Roberts). Shelley’s responds to Leonardo da Vinci’s Medusa:
Yet it is less the horror than the grace
Which turns the gazer's spirit into stone.
Whereon the lineaments of that dead face
Are graven, till the characters be grown
Into itself, and thought no more can trace;
Tis the melodious hue of beauty thrown
Athwart the darkness and the glare of pain,
Which humanize and harmonize the strain.It is Medusa’s “grace,” just as it is the lover’s “grace” which turns the poet (Shelley in this case, but also Dante or Petrarch) into stone, the “viewer/audience becomes the monumental record of the subject's beauty” according to Shelley’s poem (Roberts). Romantic poetry is the result of the poet’s attraction to his lover’s beauty. “Shelley believed in the power of beauty - that it was potentially radical, dangerous” (Roberts). This is why petrification becomes frightening, beauty is powerful and it causes the actual petrification as a result of fascination. As Roberts points out, Shelley’s poem "The Witch of Atlas" also incorporates beauty, love and petrification. Shelley also raises the issue of idolizing those whom we love in a response to his wife, Mary. Doesn’t poetry do just that? Idolize those that cause petrification and whom the poet himself is in love with or in awe of? Indeed it does. The following stanzas from Shelley’s response to Mary and "The Witch of Atlas" represent this idolization and petrification:
If you unveil my Witch, no priest nor primate
Can shrive you of that sin.-- if sin there be
In love, when it becomes idolatry. (46-8)
For she was beautiful - her beauty made
The bright world dim, and everything beside
Seemed like the fleeting image of a shade:
No thought of living spirit could abide,
Which to her looks had ever been betrayed,
On any object in the world so wide,
On any hope within the circling skies,
But on her form, and in her inmost eyes. (137-44)The “wizard maid’s” beauty is captivating because she turns the “bright world dim,” she freezes and petrifies her surroundings. Shelley also refers to Pygmalion and his statue, Galatea. Pygmalion idolized “perfect beauty” in his own statue that he created and brought to life through his own petrification:
In beauty that bright shape of vital stone
Which drew the heart out of Pygmalion. (327-28)
Some artist that his skill should never die,
Imagining forth such perfect purity. (335-36)Shelley is suggesting here that beauty causes petrification. Pygmalion created his lover; he petrified her before she was ever animate. Athena breathed life into his statue and Pygmalion then became petrified himself by her beauty and his love for her. Ceaselessly, the circle continues. How we respond to the beauty before us is the effect of petrification. The desire to petrify beauty is also present in Shelley’s poem, "Hymn to Intellectual Beauty":
Of human thought or form, where art thou gone?
Why dost thou pass away and leave our state, (15,16)
Frail spells whose uttered charm might not avail to sever,
From all we hear and all we see
Doubt, chance and mutability. (29-31)
Depart not--lest the grave should be,
Like life and fear, a dark reality. (47-48)Shelley is in awe of a “beautiful spirit” and he does not want this moment of admiration to end, he wants to capture her and keep her forever. He wants to petrify her.
Petrarch also writes about the woman he loves and compares her to Medusa. According to Thérèse Migraine-George, “Laura is also compared to Medusa several times in the Rime sparse, which further stresses Petrarch's painful, both somatic and semantic petrification” (Migraine-George): I will follow the shadow of that sweet laurel/through the burning sun or through the snow,/until the last day closes these eyes. (16-18) He will continue to be petrified by her “until the last day closes these eyes” and the petrification ceases. This poem clearly represents the petrification caused by romantic love and the beauty of an individual:
Never have there been seen such beautiful eyes,
dissolving, melting me as the sun does the snow, (19,21)
I fear I first will change this face and this hair
before she will with pity raise her eyes,
she, my idol sculpted in living laurel, (25-27)He is mesmerized by her beauty and immobile, standing still, “dissolving” and “melting” in his place. He “fears” he “will change this face and this hair” because he wants to immortalize her, however, he may sacrifice some of her beauty if he does so. She is his “idol” which is “sculpted” in this poem and he may never be able to replicate her “perfect” beauty through his own petrification of her.
Migraine-George continues to point out that Petrarch draws a close parallel between his feelings for Laura and the response to Medusa:
I would not go to see her otherwise,
Than to see the face of Medusa,
Which made people become marble. (179.9-11)
Her very shadow turns my heart to ice
And tinges my face with white fear,
But her eyes have the power to turn it to marble (Migraine-George).He is petrifying Laura in his poem; however, she in turn is petrifying him. This is the paradox of petrification. It is a constant circle, a continuous event, even though; petrification itself is the act of rendering one motionless. Petrarch like Dante has admitted his own petrification because of his love for Laura, and he petrifies her in return by writing poetry about her. “Her eyes have the power to turn it to marble,” suggests that she does not leave him pale and featureless, instead, she too turns him into a work of art and gives him life just as he does for her. They share a petrified life. Such as Ovid’s Pygmalion and Galatea shared a petrified life. Pygmalion wanted his statue to come alive, for as real as he made her and felt that she was alive, he wanted her to be physically mobile, not petrified in her ivory. Although his statue was a petrified figure of art, she was real and alive to him. The Pygmalion story offers the representation of petrification through a work of art. Art is a symbol of eternal life, for it freezes and preserves an image of beauty, ugliness or even violence in a single pose. Art is a pictorial representation of life. When one looks upon a piece of artwork, he feels as though there is something alive in that art. Again, the petrification circle is present because a subject has petrified the artist and he in turn, captures that subject in a work of art. An observer then comes along, views the art and is himself petrified as well, by the image.
This is evident in society today. Magazines such as Cosmopolitan, Vogue, Vanity Fair and Glamour place super models on their cover pages. In essence, these men and women are more alive on these pages than they are in real life. Why? Because this is the way that society views them, as inanimate objects representative of beauty, love and vibrant life. We want to preserve them because gazing upon them reminds us of what is beautiful and has petrified us from the beginning. We feel alive. Shelley stated in his "Defence of Poetry": “Poetry is a sword of lightning ever unsheathed, which consumes the scabbard that would contain it” (Shelley). This is what happens when we try to petrify something we love! We become consumed by the subject which petrifies us! The result is our own petrification! “ . . . Shelley's Medusa is based upon a struggle which destroys something in order to preserve what is vital. The balance Shelley aims at is destruction and preservation” (McGann). However, we are afraid of the destruction and that is why we strive to preserve it through art, movies, poetry or photographs. Petrification is a way to hold on to something, to “feel” safe and find security in admiring and idolizing that which we love. However, if we don’t petrify it, it will only destroy us! We only begin to feel alive when we love someone or something and naturally, we want to preserve this subject and give it immortality.
Beauty is usually what captivates and motivates the individual who is petrified and the actual petrification, respectively. I’ve often found a relationship between the movie, Great Expectations and the Medusa myth. First, a movie does not petrify an image the way a painting or sculpture may, a movie captures the movement and life of the beautiful object. The camera allows that which is beautiful to be animated while the camera is still, acting as a petrified observer. All the film can do is capture these images and commit them to a video so that these images of beauty can be viewed repeatedly. The “beautiful” is captured and petrified on video, while the viewer will become petrified each time he watches the video. Again, another encircling petrification paradox exists.
In the movie Great Expectations, Finn, a poor, young boy is sent to the wealthy, broken-hearted woman, Ms. Dinsmoor, and meets her niece, Estella. He quickly falls in love with Estella and will love her for the rest of his life. Ms. Dinsmoor laughs at him saying, “She'll only break your heart; it's a fact. And even though I warn you, even though I guarantee you that the girl will only hurt you terribly, you'll still pursue her” (Great Expectations). In the movie, Finn freezes when he first sights Estella and throughout the film, he has the same petrified look when he sees her. Ms. Dinsmoor asks him to draw for her and he draws pictures of Estella. Later in the movie, as an adult, when he and Estella meet again, he asks her if he can draw her and she allows him to. He draws her naked, committing her image to paper. Her image is petrified and so is Finn as he looks at her. Each time they meet he becomes speechless and can barely whisper words to her, but he continues to draw her. His gaze is intently fixed on her in every seen. This is the petrification of love. He is awestruck when he looks at Estella and absolutely in love with her. His fascination with her causes him to be petrified but then he, in turn, petrifies her by committing her image to paper as artwork. His passion for her proves that the vivacious feeling of being alive is present when one is petrified and petrifies another. It is a constant circle. Petrification occurs, the person feels alive; he petrifies his lover and gives her eternal life. The process repeats continuously as one continues to love another.
Medusa’s petrification is about the struggle of submitting to emotional feelings, deciding whether to suppress those feelings or act on them. Petrification is the discovery that a man cannot exist without a woman and a woman cannot exist without a man. It is the harmonious circle of petrification. The story Chimera depicts this in a conversation between Medusa and Perseus. In Chimera, Perseus tells Medusa it is he that discovered her and allowed himself to see her beauty, he tells her, “Now listen and believe me, if there’s any truth in words: it wasn’t you who discovered your beauty to me, but I who finally unveiled it to myself” (Barth 132). Discovering beauty is essentially allowing oneself to become petrified. Because discovering beauty means welcoming the opportunity of falling in love which means opening oneself to the possibility of becoming petrified. This is what Shelley, Dante and Petrarch explore through their poetry. Petrification can be beautiful and it can be deadly, depending on how one reacts to beauty. In art and poetry, it is the birth of life, eternal life and immortality. This is essentially Medusa. She can be beautiful and deadly, in art, literature and life. Medusa is in all of us and around all of us, it just depends on how we “see” her. Perseus took a chance and lifted the veil of love. He found Medusa and the woman he longed to be with under the veil in Chimera. Just as one may be petrified of lifting the veil, the one underneath the veil may be petrified of allowing the veil to be lifted. This is where the balance is reached and the “dynamics of the relationship” occur. Romantic love is about balance, fear, and taking chances. The circle continues on and the petrification is the result. It is about giving and taking, petrifying and setting free. One simply needs to keep his eyes open and look at his Medusa. Petrification is about the response to the struggle for control over one’s emotions and feelings.
Indeed, petrification reminds us that we are alive and feeling. What happens when two people fall in love? Their gazes meet and everything around them disappears, they only see one another. A single moment of petrification exists. However, fear exists, the fear of feeling really alive. Then, when these two lovers are about to kiss for the first time, their breath is absent and they become frozen in place, petrified. These images are what make artwork, pictures and movies fascinating and beautiful to us, they are the illustrations of petrification and the visual aspect of petrification being brought to life.
Petrification reminds us that when we think we have life figured out; something comes along and tells us – You have not yet lived! Life is breathed into you the moment you are petrified. Petrification. How do we define it? Or do we defy it? I believe we do both. It happens to everyone, to both sexes and it happens most times when you do not even realize it is happening. For some, it may be the breathtaking moment when you first lay eyes on someone and realize that it is the person you want to spend the rest of your life beside…for others, it may be the single moment when they realize this relationship cannot go any further. This is what Dante and Petrarch dealt with, their feelings of being in love. It must end now; you must freeze in that specific moment and terminate everything you’ve known to up to that point. Doesn’t the actual moment of petrification depend on when exactly it occurs? Petrification happens when romantic love exists. The moment of awe, falling in love and the moment of being scared of losing that which you have fallen in love with is romantic love. It is the beginning and the end of the relationship. Petrification is the moment when one says yes or no to an engagement, or never tells the person she loves that she has always been in love with him. Or it could simply be choosing a life with someone else or remaining alone, or choosing to only ever merely observe the individual you are in love with.
This is petrification—the constant struggle for power and control over one’s OWN emotions and feelings. According to one professor in the English Department, Mr. Noland, “Discovering literature is discovering your own story about yourself. However according to Hoban, in The Medusa Frequency,"you must be careful because that story will attack you and it will take you over,” it will petrify you. Once one enters the circle of petrification, he cannot leave it. There is truth and discovery in Medusa. That is why she petrifies us. She is the mirror of our own fate. As soon as we open our mouths to speak about her, we are frozen because we realize we are discovering and researching ourselves. We have an essential need and that is to be discovered. Falling in love is discovering life and falling in love is risking petrification. Ultimately, petrification is the result of discovering eternal, beautiful, life filled with love that will be eternalized forever. It is the paradox of being petrified and alive, all at once.
Works Cited
Dante, “Rime Petrose: Love, Very Well You Notice How This Woman.”
http://ww.italianstudies.org/poetry/stindex.htm. Online. 6 Sep. 2002. 24 Sep.
2002.
Barth, John. Chimera. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Gilbert, Helen. The Serpent's Gaze: Re-working Myths for a Feminist Australian Drama.
http://www.arts.uwo.ca/%7Eandrewf/anzsc/anzsc10/gilbert10.htm. Online.
04 December 2002.
Great Expectations. Dir. Alfonso Cuaron. Perf. Ethan Hawke, Gwyneth Paltrow.
The Movie: Great Expectations.
http://www.foxmovies.com/greatexpectations/tale/index.html. Online. 03 Dec
2002.
McGann, Jerome. The Beauty of the Medusa: A Study in Romantic Literary Iconology.
http://www.otal.umd.edu/~eshevlin/mcgann.html. Online. 04 Dec 2002.Migraine-George, Thérèse. Specular Desires: Orpheus and Pygmalion as Aesthetic
Paradigms in Petrarch's Rime sparse.
http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/cls/36.3migraine-george.html. Online. 04 Dec 2002.
Ovid. “Minerva on Helicon.” Metamorphoses.
http://www.tkline.freeserve.co.uk/Webworks/Website/Metamorph5.htm. Online.
05 Dec 2002.
Roberts, Hugh. "Dialogue on “On The Medusa of Leonardo da Vinci."
http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mforum.html. Online. 04 Dec
2002.
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. "On The Medusa of Leonardo d Vinci."
http://www.rc.umd.edu/editions/shelley/medusa/mforum.html. Online. 04 Dec
2002.
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. "TheWitch of Atlas."
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/FrankenDemo/PShelley/witch.html.
Online. 05 Dec 2002.
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. "Excerpts from The Defence of Poetry."
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/defence.html. Online. 05 Dec 2002.
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. "Hymn to Intellectual Beauty."
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/FrankenDemo/PShelley/beauty.html.
Online. 06 Dec 2002.
Stanford, Ann. In Mediterranean Air: The Women of Perseus. New York: Viking.
Medusa as a Symbol of Fear Foster EdwardsAncient myths perform several functions. Their descriptions of gods and goddesses and their exploits on earth were the basic building blocks for ancient religions. They were a form of entertainment for the ancient Greeks and Romans that created them as well as for the modern societies that came after. The composition of the different stories and their oral delivery to the audience could even be called an art form that pre-dated literature in the illiterate ancient world. Of all of the functions of myths, one of the most interesting is a myth’s ability to portray the human condition and show modern audience how little human beings have changed since ancient times.
The basic truths about humanity that ancient myths explore have remained unchanged since the stories came about. In fact, myths explained the truths about humanity so well that modern art and literature have been hard pressed to find unexplored areas of the human condition to probe and define. In this way, myth appears in modern literature and art that seeks to explain the same basic truths of human existence. These types of myth appear over and over again in different forms, but still maintain their original affiliation with a particular human trait. The story of Medusa is one such myth.
Medusa has been a figure in art since her story was passed down by the Greeks in the 7th and 8th centuries B.C. (Felman 485). From the dark ages to the renaissance, and through to the modern age, the figure of Medusa has been a staple of writers and artists trying to define the human experience. Her appearances over the centuries have taken a multitude of forms using many different mediums, but the basic characteristic of the human experience that her story explains has remained the same. Humanity’s capacity to feel fear is the thread that ties together every conception of the Medusa myth, both ancient and modern.
Like Medusa, fear manifests itself in many different forms. It is such a basic human emotion that its root cause cannot be pinned to a single source. Because the Medusa myth attempts to describe the nature of fear, the true character of Medusa is just as elusive as the emotion itself. Throughout history, her different manifestations tackle different aspects of fear in an attempt to display the various causes of the emotion in their true form. Over the centuries the character of Medusa has grown to embody many of the core causes of human fear including the fear of death, castration, and even the fear of entrapment with no means of escape.
Most of the first conceptions of the Medusa myth manifested themselves in the form of apotropaic art. “Throughout Greek and Roman art the Medusa head - with grinning mouth, staring eyes, and protruding tongue - appears as a protective ornament, whether worn on armor, carved on statues of Athena, or incised on tombstones” (Garber 82). These fearsome masks embody one of the most basic fears of the human condition, the fear of death and the unknown future that death brings. Death is one of the few uncontrollable constants in everyone’s life and the production of apotropaic art that Medusa inspired was an effort on the part of early people to control this ultimate common denominator. The people that created the Medusa myth so feared the unknown world beyond their own that they developed this fearsome character to protect themselves from the evils of the other side.
Medusa’s association with death and the uncontrollable started with the very first versions of her story. In fact, some historians believe that early people’s association of a Medusa-like face with evil spirits and the dead may have given birth to the myth itself. “The object comes first; then the monster is begotten to account for it; then the hero is supplied to account for the slaying of the monster” (qtd. in Garber 83). Interestingly, instead of representing a fear of death that humans have, these masks are supposed to convey this basic human fear onto the spirits that would threaten the life and well being of their owner. Medusa’s association with the fear of death and the unknown in these pieces of art cannot be ignored.
The fear of death and the unknown is certainly one of the most basic forms of fear. Apotropaic art and the different manifestations of the Medusa head latch onto this fear and try to harness it for the protection of the community or the individual. These pieces of artwork may have been the first conceptions of the Medusa myth, but they are certainly not the only side to this many faceted character.
After the art of Greece and Rome was created, the figure of Medusa came more to symbolize the fear humans have in association with relationships and male/female interaction. One such fear that the Medusa myth captures very well is the fear of commitment and, more importantly, the fear of being trapped or confined in a relationship. Medusa’s ability to permanently freeze people into stone statues points to this fear of being trapped forever. A modern work that utilizes the way Medusa embodies the fear of being trapped is The Gift of the Gorgon by Peter Shaffer.
The play highlights the rocky relationship of Edward and Helen Damson. Their marriage is plagued by Edward’s infidelities as well as his obsession with writing plays. His writing comes before everything in his life, including his wife and son. In the play Edward takes the part of an abusive and unfaithful monster who has trapped his wife in their horrible relationship. Like Medusa turning her victims into stone, Edward has made his wife the victim by imprisoning her in a relationship from which there is no escape. The meat of the play describes the horror involved with being trapped in such a relationship while the title reminds the reader that Shaffer’s intention is to relate the marriage of Edward and Helen to the horrific relationship Medusa has with her victims. Again, relationships that refer to the Medusa myth are fearful because their members are permanently and irrevocably trapped. Even when Edward tries to give his victim, Helen, a way out, he fails. His “gift” to her was to be the revenge she takes on him by cutting his body with a razor implanted into a bar of soap. Edward plans that his resulting death by suicide will free his wife from her prison and allow her to live her own life. Edward’s attempt fails simply because Helen continues to live alone under his shadow, still petrified by his power. For Helen there is no way out in the same way that Medusa’s stone victims have no method of escape.
While The Gift of the Gorgon does highlight the human fear of entrapment that the Medusa myth embodies, the end of the play makes an interesting diversion from this type of fear’s general precept. What makes Medusa’s power so frightening is that there is no escape. There is no way out and no way to return to unpetrified life. In The Gift of the Gorgon, the victim of the Gorgon’s power is able to escape in the end. Even though the Gorgon himself fails to unpetrify his victim, Helen is able to reanimate herself by forgiving her husband for his transgressions. The final scene has Edward dancing on his writing desk, taunting his wife f