Gilgamesh and 1984
Breanna Poole
The ending of this story is akin to that of 1984 by George Orwell -- and by that I mean it felt almost like a trick. After spending hours reading about Gilgamesh and watching him grow and change, I was ready for Gilgamesh to find the plant and then reject it, claiming it is not man's place to be immortal, and the returning home to lead his people. That was the ending I expected.
That was not what I got. I got an ending like 1984, where in the end the entire story was rendered almost moot since the wanted item -- freedom in 1984 and immortality in The Epic of Gilgamesh -- couldn't be obtained anyway.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is an interesting tale and I've enjoyed reading it, but I feel extremely betrayed by the ending. Gilgamesh had shown genuine growth over the story and I thought that when he saw the flower perhaps that would be the moment he learned wisdom and turned down the flower of his own volition. Instead the flower is eaten by a snake and then sheds skin so that Gilgamesh is unable to follow it -- after all the build-up Gilgamesh's genuine moment of wisdom is stolen by a snake.
P.S. I commented on Moriah and Joshua's post.
The ending of this story is akin to that of 1984 by George Orwell -- and by that I mean it felt almost like a trick. After spending hours reading about Gilgamesh and watching him grow and change, I was ready for Gilgamesh to find the plant and then reject it, claiming it is not man's place to be immortal, and the returning home to lead his people. That was the ending I expected.
That was not what I got. I got an ending like 1984, where in the end the entire story was rendered almost moot since the wanted item -- freedom in 1984 and immortality in The Epic of Gilgamesh -- couldn't be obtained anyway.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is an interesting tale and I've enjoyed reading it, but I feel extremely betrayed by the ending. Gilgamesh had shown genuine growth over the story and I thought that when he saw the flower perhaps that would be the moment he learned wisdom and turned down the flower of his own volition. Instead the flower is eaten by a snake and then sheds skin so that Gilgamesh is unable to follow it -- after all the build-up Gilgamesh's genuine moment of wisdom is stolen by a snake.
But although I hated this moment, in retrospect, I would have to say this was the climax that Gilgamesh needed. Gilgamesh is closer to an anti-hero in the eyes of modern readers, he does says and many things that immedailty would blacklist from being considered a hero to modern audiences -- murder one of many things on that list -- and so a moment where he realized he was wrong for searching this flower out would never have stuck for very long.
Though Gilgamesh had shown the ability to change, he still had moments of selfishness and anger even after the event with the snake. He would only later seek out the flower again once he returned closer to death, because Gilgamesh had shown a tendency to be rather impulsive throughout the story. By having a snake eat the flower, it removes the possibility of going back from the equation and forces Gilgamesh to face his mortality in a more brutal but also long-lasting way.
It also works in a meta-sense for the time period -- in the story even the great king and warrior is still nothing more than a play thing for fate and chance, having his own elixir of life -- the flower -- stolen from him and reminds the ancient audience who would have read or heard the tale that they too are just simple humans and should not trifle with things they do not understand. Philosophical questions were only for the ones of higher rank like priests and kings, and this story could have re-enforced that idea to the lower castes who heard the story.
P.S. I commented on Moriah and Joshua's post.
I now have the urge to go back and reread the entire Epic in an Orwellian context… The gods are the hypocritical authoritarian government, Gilgamesh and Enkidu are Party members on a level between the gods’ Inner Party and the common masses, etc.
ReplyDeleteOkay, now I’m looking at this ending entirely differently. Orwell, of course, brought his book to a foul conclusion because his message was partially a warning: “Don’t let the government get too big, or it will hurt you and there will be nothing you can do about it.” Perhaps the Epic was meant to contain a similar warning: “Don’t try to violate the gods’ whims and desires, or they will hurt you and there will be nothing you can do about it.” Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality is, above all, a direct rebellion against the natural order of the world. The Sumerians believed that the gods who control nature actually existed—if Gilgamesh were to be victorious, the tale might inspire other people to embark on their own enterprises against the deities. This wouldn’t sit well with the Sumerians’ desire to avoid their provocation.
The gods control the world. They must be kept happy. Therefore, keep people from angering them by showing that, even if you are the most powerful demigod on the planet, you can never break their will. Be good, rule your city like an obedient human, and don’t try any funny business. Then maybe we’ll be blessed with plenty of cow babies.