End of the Year

So this I'm guessing is my last entry, because it's the end of the semester, and we are not reading any more books. We are doing presentations this week, but I do not need to do the presentation, because I (being smart as I am) wrote the easy movie reviews throughout the semester, so I can use this time to study for finals and finish up the last of my homework.

I am very glad I took this class, because it had a lot of readings from books that I have heard about, and books my high school teachers talked about and used examples from, but I have never read from them personally. I really enjoyed MOST of the readings. There were a few that were better than others, and a few I wish I never read, or that I did not want to read. Clouds was my favorite book. It was so modern and comical I really enjoyed it. Dante's Inferno I wish we could have read more of for class, because it was very interesting. I liked it. My mom recorded the puppet show version on vhs, and now I can watch it and compare it to the book. I'm excited for that. It was strange at first, but I kind of like it now.

I would have to say that the Funeral Oration was one of the most difficult ones to read. It was very very confusing! Sophocles Oedipus Tyrannus was very interesting, as well as the Plato readings. The Illiad is a story I read exerpts from in high school, and I really enjoyed them, so I was glad when we started with that reading this semester. It helped to start with something that I am already familiar with!

The City of God exerpt was pretty good. I like allegorical stories. They always have such beautiful meaning. Even if the story is gruesome, the meaning is good. I really enjoyed most of the readings, and I am a little bit sad that this class is ending, because there are so many classical books I would have liked to read and discuss.

Canto XXIV

So according to Dante's Inferno, there are 9 circles of Hell. Each circle represents a sin somebody committed. The further down you go, the worse the sin you committed. The first circle is paradise compared to the 9th circle, so to speak. In class we discussed how Dante and Virgil were climbing down satan, and Virgil twisted himself around, which cause the entire world to flip around too.

So they were still climbing towards his feet, but this time they were climbing up. So North turned to South, and so forth. So South was upwards. This is kind of what happens in Pirates of the Carribean, the third movie, where they have to rock the boat. Up is Down. They have to flip the boat over and then at sundown they are actually facing up. Weird.... It's a mirror image of nature, like toliets. We flush our toliets one way, and on the other side of the world, they flush theirs a different way.

But we also discussed how there are 3 faces, just like God. The trinity is blood red-for Christ, yellow for the the Holy Spirit, and Black for the Father. The reason it is black is because when you think of God, he is white. He is pure. So for Satan, he is black, the exact oposite of white, holy, and pure.

It is almost like when they climbed out, they climbed out as new people. It seems to trigger a resemblance to baptism, or even just birth. They make their journey, and then emerge in a new place, but in the same place at the same time. They traveled down, then back up, but still ended up on the other side of the world.

It is very confusing how it works, but it is interesting just the same.

Dante's Inferno

So we started reading Dante's Inferno, and it is hard for me to follow. The language is beautiful, but I guess I just do not quite get what is going on completely. I failed the reading commentary, because I totally thought that Canto V was on something else. I knew that is was about these two lovers, and that the woman was married to her lover's older brother, but I thought it was talking about those who kill their kin. Since her husband killed them, I thought the whole chapter was on that, not about them per say.

I also cannot believe that I missed the fact that they were in whirlwinds and never to touch each other again. I understood all of that once the teacher explained it, but somehow when I was reading it, I missed that part, or something.

I like the language of the story, and how it is set up, but I am not sure if I like it yet or not. It is kind of confusing, and hard to follow, and I have never really liked death stories. I think they are interesting, but I don't really like them. I like happier stories, like comedies and romances. I like action movies too, but I just have never been into the more gorey, sad, hate, or death stories.

A Story in Black and White

A few weeks ago, we watched the movie "Andrei Rublev" at the coffee shop on second street. We did not watch all of it, simply because it is a three hour movie.

The movie is about Theophane, a master painter, who needs help painting. He asks Kirill to help him paint, but Kirill promises to help only if Theophane sends a messenger to ask for him. The messenger asks for the wrong person and Theophane gets Andrei and Daniel instead.

The movie is very confusing, and names are hard to remember, but it was still kind of interesting. There is a scene where Kirill gets tied to a pole and watches all of these naked people running around singing, dancing, and making love. Its just a free for all lovemaking ceremony.

Another scene involves Kirill traveling the next day and sees two of the naked people getting arrested because they are pagans and were hiding from the religious law. It was weird, and kind of sad.

Later in the movie, Andrei is confessing to Daniel that he would rather go home and quit because nothing has been painted. They waisted all of this time for nothing, and everybody was bored. The prince they are supposed to be painting for hears about the group leaving, and that some of them are going to go paint for his brother. The prince orders his guards to go and gouge out all of the painters' eyes. He was one upset prince!

The last scene we watched was very confusing to end on. I think everybody was raiding some abandoned or beaten town. They were all on horseback, and some had flags with them too.

My two favorite lines in the movie were both spoken by Theophane right in the beginning of the movie.

"As long as something is beautiful, you can grasp its essence."

"He who increases his knowledge, increases his sorrow."

Beautiful lines!

The Grail.... The Grail!

So.... I'd have to say this is one of my favorite comedies. It is so.... whimsical lol. There are so many random moments in this movie. I love the part with the black knight. He is so desperate to win, he keeps going even after all of his limbs are cut off. (Like that would ever happen!) The big and scary rabbit is pretty funny too. You got this innocent little bunny that pops out of the cave.... and then devours anything that tries to come near it.... That one makes me giggle.

I would have to say though, my favorite part hands down, would be how the soldiers traveled.... On coconut horses.... aka the soldiers themselves gallop as they walk and somebody gallops behind them clapping coconut halves together. That is the funniest element in the entire movie. I definitely would have never thought about that before.

I was very excited to see that we had to watch this movie for this class for a couple reasons. First, I knew I would have to work the night of the showing. Second, because I own the movie. Lastly, I haven't seen the movie in a few years, so it was passed due to be watched! lol

On top of comedy it does have some educational points. It is a midieval comedy, and it does follow the rules, so to speak. It is just funnier than the obviously serious movies set in this time. I like movies with happy endings, which is why I loved Gladiator until the end of the movie... Stupid ending...

Anyways, I do think it was funny that this whole movie, the main characters were on this search for this grail. Just because it was the ultimate of ultimate.

In the beginning of the play and the end, the script reader added several random things to the screen, and the narrator all stated how he was firing people for adding random things. That was pretty funny.

The reason I am jumping around, is because the movie jumps around kind of too. This movie is not meant to be serious at all, so this blog isn't meant to be serious at all (in the terms of following an order and being grammatical lol).

All in all, it is a great movie, and I love watching it. I always laugh, even if it's a stupid part, or I already saw it.

Gladiator.... RawR!

So I finally got to watch Gladiator. It took me forever to get a hold of this movie. Seriously though... it did. I think I've seen this movie once before, but I never really paid attention, so I wasn't sure what was going on. Since I had to pay attention this time for a class assignment, I was able to figure out what was happening.

The theme of the entire movie is "The General who became a slave. The slave who became a gladiator. The gladiator who defied an empire." These words were spoken by Commodus, the King's son. Now Commodus was pissed off because the King was about to die and he was giving his kindship over to Maximus, who wasn't his son, just a general to his army. The King loved Maximus as his own son, because Maximus wanted to do the right thing for the people.

The King said before dying, "Will the King be remembered as a philosopher, a warrior, a tyrant, or an emperor who gave Rome back her power?" By this he meant that when he died he wanted the power to go to the Senate instead of a dictator. He wanted Maximus to be the head ruler because he is not yet corrupted by greed or power. Because of this, Commodus killed his own father by suffocating him as he hugged him. He was crying while doing it because he knew it was wrong, but he was jealous.

After the King's death, Commodus, also known as Caeser now, ordered for Maximus's arrest and execution. Maximus kicks everybody's ass and survives. He had a vision of his wife and son, which woke him up, but when he got to them they were burned to a crisp and hung. He broke down. He buried them and slept.

When he awoke he was being carried by a group of men with animals. He was sold to Proximo and was now a gladiator. Maximus refuses to fight anybody and he ends up cutting out his tattoo that signified he was a general of the Roman army.

For the people's enjoyment, Caeser orders day after day of gladiator games. He says that people will love him for victories and death. Maximus ends up killing everybody by himself during one of the games. He then yells at the crowd telling them their disgusting, and then they cheer for him. Proximo, his owner, was once a gladiator. He becomes friends with Proximo and is taught how to win his freedom. He simply has to "win the crowd."

With this, Caeser tries everything in his power to have Maximus killed. Nothing works. Maximus has all of the gladiators work together, and most of them end up surviving each game. After one game, Caeser's sister visits Maximus to make a plan for his escape. (She is worried about her son dying because Caeser threatened her.)

After Maximus beats the undefeated Champion Titus, who was retired for 5 years, he is now known as "Maximus the Merciful," because he refused to kill Titus when Caeser gave the thumbs down.

Caeser decides to fight Maximus himself. Right before he rasing them up to battle, he stabs Maximus in the lower part of the stomach. He then orders for his wounds to be hidden by his armor. (Dirty bastard) They then raise the platform and they begin their duel. Caeser sucks ass pretty bad, and Maximus ends up killing Caeser with Caeser's own hidden blade that he used to stab Maximus before the duel started. After he kills Caeser he dies peacefully because he can see his wife and son waiting for him on the other side.

This is the stupidest ending in the entire world. Why the hell did he have to die??? He totally liked the other woman and her son too. He should have lived and been able to rule, since he went through all of those hardships. Good movie. Stupid movie ending.

On the Shortness of Life

Seneca wrote a book called "On the Shortness of Life." In 41 C.E. he was exiled in Corsica. And exiled person should feel two things: 1. Shame (towards himself and his family) and 2. Fear for his life, and fear for his family.

Now in this book, he writes a letter to his mother. He writes to her because he is worried that she is worried about him. He writes about how she might have arguments against exile, and and he tries to respond to all of them. Two examples would be that she could say how it is unbearable to be deprived of one's country. To this he would say that there are more foreigners than natives living in the empire, and that everthing is in motion. (Why is there anything bad about somebody moving to a new place?) She could then say that an exile would miss his clothes and his house. Well to this, he simply says that the human body needs as little coverings as he needs food. It's simplicity to the fullest. (No pun intended)

This book can make somebody feel very sympathetic for him. And when they find out how he really lived, then they can get pissed off. This man lived nothing like he did in the book. He is technically a hypocrite.

I thought this book was sort of bland, and kind of boring. I am glad we did not have to focus on it that much!

A Tale of Two Cities...

Just kidding, kind of. We really read about two cities, but not the same as the book itself. We read about the Earthly City and the Heavenly City. One city glorifies itself, while the other city glorifies God. They each have their own nature, and cannot agree upon laws or religion.

The first city, the Earthly City, focuses on itself, and it's assets. It loves to rule itself and seeks profit for it's own glory and praise. They are possessed by pride and think that they are wise. They have corrupted the thought of God and made it into man. This city will not be everlasting, but the people here rejoice in the things they have. They believe in power, money, and fame. They want it all for themselves, and thank nobody but themselves when they get it. This city is divided by wars and hatred for each other, because everyone is self-serving. They are in a sense bonded to their earthly goods. When they are victorious, the victory is prideful and life-destroying. Unfortunately, since they are so focused on earthly goods, they constantly wory about any coming disasters that may befall them. The Earthly City believes in multiple gods. They even assigned every aspet of human nature to a god. There is one for the body, one for the soul, one for parts of the body, onr for each feeling or emotion, and one for every action. They are very full of gods.

As for the Heavenly City, it is a city that glorifies God. They do not care for worldly assets, they care for the eternal and the everlasting. They seek to worship and praise God in everything they do. There is no human wisdom in this city. There is only godliness, which seeks to worship God and gain reward in the society of the saints, holy angels, and men. This city lives by faith, and makes use of earthly peace only because it must, until the mortal condition will pass away. They believe in the worship of one God, and one God alone. To God alone can a service the Greeks called latreia be done.

These cities never agreed on laws or religion, and therefore the Heavenly City had to dissent and become obnoxious to those who thought differently than them. They needed to force it. There was much insight in this reading, and I think it's crazy how to the beginning of time, there was always a heavenly and an earthly something or other.

Senecen Tragedy

Senecen (Greek) Tragedy is very different from Roman Tragedy. These types of tragedies are not meant to be performed. The Greeks, really didn't have drama or plays. They preferred Colosseum-type entertainment (such as gladiators). In Greek dramas, there is no humanity. Readers cannot identify to any character, and they do not learn anything by the end of the play. It is pretty much pointless.

Thyestes is the last tragedy that we have to read this semester. It is actually the most violent and most gruesome drama every created by an ancient playwright. It is a critic of Nero's reign. Nero is supposed to be Atreus, and Seneca is Nero's advisor in the play. (Seneca put himself into the play.)

In the House of Atreus, there is a history of repeat canabalism and insest. A really gross part was when Pelops was cut up by Tantalus, his father, and fed to the gods. All of the gods knew what was going on, except Thetis, Achilles' mother, who actually ate his shoulder. (Sick!) The gods then pieced him back together. Every part is accounted for, except for his shoulder, so they made him a new shoulder out of ivory. (This shoulder is the equivalent to Achilles' heel.)

This was a crazy story to read. It was greusome, pointless, and violent. Who cuts up theirr own child just because they want to trick the gods? The only one who is fooled is Thetis.... but luckily she only ate the shoulder. I am very glad we didn't have to read very many of these types of tragedies. It is good literature, but bad at the same time.

The Song of Roland

This is a poem telling the story of the betrayal by Ganelon towards Roland by selling him out to the pagans. The man's only request: he gets to kill Roland. This guy comes up with a plan to split Charlemagne's army up, half would go through the mountain pass towards home, and the other half would stay. In reality, only Roland and 11 other barons stay with 20,000 men fighting under them.

When they realize they are against an army with over 200,000 men, they really only need to kill the other 12 leaders from the opposing army. Once a leader is killed, there is no need for his followers to stay and fight. (There is 20,000 followers per leader) So after killing off 10 out of 12 leaders, Roland's group of 20,000 is now only facing 40,000 people. Not as bad of odds.

The way these people fought in these days was by jousting to the death. (What a weird way to battle!) The leaders joust it out with others just standing around watching!

Now the story itself is cut into three main pieces. The first part is Ganelon's treason. He betrays Charlemagne by setting up the plan to split up the army. He sells out Roland to the opposing army only for the pormised price that he alone gets to kill Roland.

The second piece is the battle itself. This is where Roland's army kicks the opposing army's ass. Each leader from the opposing army was killed off, one by one, by Roland's leaders. They fought by jousting. The most gruesome death is in section 109. This is where Roland kills Chernubles.

The last part of the poem's story is Roland's death. We haven't read that section yet, but it is supposed to be the most climatic part of the poem. In section 110, Roland's death is actually fortold. (One thing that was crazy was the unexplained solar eclipse and a storm with an earthquake at high noon.)

This poem is actually Christian allegory. Charlemagne is supposed to be Christ. Ganelon is Judas. Roland is Peter. Charlemagne is like Jesus by leaving the fighting group and coming back later with vengance. Ganelon is like Judas because he betrays Charlemagne by selling him out to the pagans. (Just like Judas sold out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.) Roland is like Peter because he denies calling Charlemagne back to fight three times. (The only difference, is Peter denied Jesus because of shame and fear, Roland denies Charlemagne out of honor.)

What a funny play...

So this past week we were reading "Clouds," by Aristophanes. This was one messed up play. I thought it was funny, but I didn't like the nastiness in the content. There were a lot of crude remarks made by Stepsiades, aka Stupid, throughout the whole play.

So the purpose of this play is Stupid asks his son to go to the Pondertorium to learn how to argue the "Lesser Argument," aka the "Wrong Argument," so Stupid can get out of his own debts. He blames his son for his money problems, saying that it was his son who wanted to ride horses, bet on horses, and have everything horse around him. His son refuses to go, so Stupid decides to go instead. He doesn't want to learn knowledge, just how to get out of paying all this money.

He goes to the Pondertorium and meets wise old Socrates. He sees things that look weird, such as students studying what was beneath the earth with their noses to the dirt, while at the same time studying the stars with their asses. He doesn't like the fact that he has to be wrapped up in a flea-infested blanket in order to learn knowledge. He is so dense, in fact, that he takes everything Socrates says either litterally, or he doesn't understand it all.

He actually thought that Zeus makes rain by pissing. He makes all sorts of fart jokes in relation to thunder. Later, when asked if he had a grasp of anything yet, he replys with "My right hand has a good grasp on my prick at the moment." What a rude man. I think this guy should be kicked in the face.

I definitely did not get too much into this book simply because it was a little too vulgar for my liking. If it was a newer play, I don't think it would have bothered me as much. But classical works, I just expect better writing. Or, I guess, I like nicer writing.

Overall, it wasn't a bad book, I just don't like classical works to be vulgar I guess. I expect them to hold some kind of stature I guess.

This week was not so good

So this week I have been very under the weather, so I was not able to get all of the readings done. I read monday's reading, "Crito" by Plato. I liked these two chapters that we read, for the most part. I can understand both sides of Crito and Socrates' argument.

Crito wants Socrates out of jail. He lists several reasons to back up his side of the argument. He is scared about his own reputation, and thinks that if he doesn't bail Socrates out of jail, he will be considered a bad person. He also says that he can make sure Socrates is comfortable in exile, no matter what his needs are. He tries to argue that if Socrates stays in jail, he is actually harming himself and aiding the state in injustice. His very last plead to Socrates used his family abandonment to try and persuade Socrates to escape.

Of course Socrates does what he always did in the marketplace. He proved to Crito why he could not escape using logic. Even if the state is being unjust, if he escaped, he would be unjust as well. He also would be considered a hypocrite, becase he could not be a philosoper if he did not stick to his word.

I feel bad for Socrates, because he knows he is right. He knows he has done nothing wrong. And he also knows that if he "did the right thing" and escaped, he would actually be technically doing "the wrong thing." I don't think I could be friends with somebody like this, mainly because I sometimes get upset when I am wrong, and to have somebody sit there and explain, and make me see exactly why I am wrong, and why the other thing is right would drive me crazy. I would never condemn a person for that, but I would probably tell them to shut up and then walk far away from them.

I am hoping that I can get caught back up this week, and get all of my readings done as well.

Just Another Day

This week was nice with only having one day of class and all. Wednesday's reading was very hard for me to follow. It was the Pericles' "Funeral Oration." Apparently it was his famous speech for soldiers who died in war. At first, I really didn't think this speech was very appropriate for a funeral, it just didn't seem like it was meant for that purpose. Closer to the end of the speech, I was able to see some relations to funerals. There were several confusing words and phrases throughout the entire reading, this was definitely not my favorite reading. Friday's reading was from "The Trial and Death of Socrates" by Plato. We read the chapter titled "Apology." It was not actually an apology, but more of Socrates' explanation to the jury about his false charges that were brought against him by Meletus. He was charged for being a Sophist, which is just a fancy word for somebody who makes people pay them in order to hear "wise words." They were pretty much just like lawyers, because they taught people how to argue and win, not teaching them real truth. He was also charged with corrupting the youth, and not believing in the gods, but in other new spiritual things. This part is funny. Meletus is charging Socrates with not believing in the gods, making him an atheist. But then he is also charging him with believing in other new spiritual things, making him not an atheist. So these two charges pretty much cancel each other out.

I really liked the Greek definition of wisdom. It is "knowing the limits of your knowledge; comes from knowing that you don't know, rather than assuming specialized knowledge makes you wise." These are some profound words. I like how the Oracle says that Socrates is the wisest man alive, simply because he knows that he doesn't know anything. He goes around trying to find someone wiser than himself, but finds no one. And why is that? Because everybody else thinks they know everything. They can't admit that they really don't know shit. That makes me laugh. Another way of defining wisdom is "the lifelong pursuit of knowledge." Because it is pretty much impossible for any human being on earth to know everything, nobody is truly wise. But if they are constantly out there searching for the truth, that makes them wise.

I think that this chapter was kind of neat. I am almost (not quite, but almost) anxious to read the next chapter for next week.

Sunday is the End of My Week

I don't know when the end of the week is supposed to be, but for me, my week is Monday-Sunday lol.

So this week was books 16, 18, 22, 24, and teh last 17 lines of 23. Book 16 is about how Achilles' friend Patroclus dies. I can feel Achilles' pain in this bok. Patroclus wears Achilles' armor to pretend to be him, so that Achilles' could kill man-killing Hector. The only thing Patroclus could not wield was Achilles' spear. Only Achilles could handle such a heavy weapon. I can understand Achilles' rage after his friend was killed. He was out to get Hector, that's for sure.

Book 18 is about the Shield of Achilles. I did not know how much detail went into the making of armor in those days. Hephaestus was the crippled craftsman to make his shield. I love the thorough description of the 9 different sections of Achilles' shield. The earth, sky and sea, the sun, the moon, and the celestial constellations are in the center of the shield. This is like the center of his worldview (like the sun). The two cities, the City at Peace and the City at War, scene was very interesting. In the City at Peace there was a scene of two men quarreling over a murdered family member. Instead of killing each other over it (like the City at War would have done), they decided to have a judge make the final decision. There was also a field being tilled, a king's estate with the harvest being reaped, and a vineyard with people picking the grapes. There was a pasture where some cattle were being violently killed by some lions. And next to that bloody scene was a sheep farm with sheep. My favorite scene was the dance floow, where men and women were dancing. I really enjoy going out and dancing with my friends. I thought the river of ocean was neat, how it surrounded the entire shield, like a protective barrier for his protective armor. I do think it is funny how there is not mention of the gods, since not only is he half-god, but the gods are a big part of this time period.

Book 22 and 24 describe the death of Hector, as wella s how Achilles' shamed him. After killing Hector, Achilles was so filled with rage that he dragged Hector's body from his chariot for 12 days around Troy. He woke up every morning, tied Hector's body to his chariot, dragged him around the walls of Trow, and then went back to his tent to eat breakfast. I cannot believe this continued for 12 days straight. All I can say is wow. What an asshole. I can understand his hurt for his friend, but seriously, that is just low. He should be ashamed of himself. I am glad that he gave Hector's body back to Priam so Hector could have the burial that he deserved. It made me sad to learn that Hector had to die. I knew this before I even got to read that part, but I really liked Hector. He was fighting for his country, his friends, and his family, while Achilles was just in the fight for revenge. He is stupid. I definitely do not like Achilles.

I do hope the other books we read at least have a little bit happier story line, and maybe even a happy ending. I did enjoy thi sbook very much though because it was quite descriptive, like many stories from this time. I have read several different excerpts from The Illiad many different times in high school, and even once freshman year of college. I am glad to have been able to divulge deeper into the meanings behind the words this time.

The Easiest Day

Well I have to say that this week will probably be the easiest days of class. During this first week, we discussed the common history of the Greeks, as well as read the first and sixth book of Homer: The Illiad. I have to say that there are way too many names to remember right now! I am glad that the book follows only certain characters, because I couldn't remember every "This person is the son of this person, and they are from here, and killed this person," live.

I think it is funny how gods are made in man-like image, and if a mortal man is compared to a god, it is an insult. (Since the Gods are fickle creatures.) I can already tell that I am probably going to really like this class, if I can learn to understand the language used.

In Book I, the story follows Achilles, who is very moody and angry. He is only out there for his own glory. He even begs his mother at one point to help him commit treachery towards his fellow Achaean's, to prove his worth to them. He may have been on the same side as Agamemnon, and was one of his "highest knights persay," but they definitely did not get a long.

I can understand both sides of the story, where Achilles stands up to Agamemnon, but Agamemnon is the king, and I guess he does deserve the best. You do not challenge your king. Agamemnon was acting kind of like a baby when he decided to give back Chryseis to her father, Apollo's priest Chryses, and demanded that everybody give him prizes to make up for it. Achilles stood up and said he didn't deserve their prizes, because the gods (and the priest) only requested Agamemnon's prize, not everybody elses. I would be pissed if I was told to give up my stuff because somebody else lost theirs, but I guess I would also be pissed if I had to give up my stuff and somebody tried to challenge what I wanted.

In Book VI, the story focused more on Hector. I do like Hector better. He is fighting not only for his own honor and glory, but also for his home, his family, and his fellow Trojans. He does not go to see his mother to cry to her, but to ask her to gather the other older women to pray to Athena for help. He refuses the wine she offers him, to keep his head straight. He then goes to see his brother, and finds him adoring himself in his armor. He first makes fun of him and ridicules him, and then tells him he needs to be out there fighting. Paris agrees with him, but says he needs to wait a little bit, but will meet up with him later. I think he is just scared.

After visiting his brother, he goes to find his wife and child, and has to ask a servant where they are. They were watching the battle. I feel bad for his wife, because she is there crying wanting him to be with her and their son. But I also think she is a little bit of a whiner. She kind of goes over the top by bragging about having nothing left. (I mean I can understand losing her family, but she doesn't need to shove it in his face.) He is Troy's best fighter, and he isn't trying to just get his glory fix, he wants to save Troy's glory, and save his wife, son, and all of the other women and children.

I enjoy this story, even if it is very brutal, bloody, and hard language sometimes. There may be a lot of names to remember, but it is something that I can actually read and enjoy. I hope that the other stories are just as good.