So You're Convinced English Lit Isn't For You?

You are sitting there, in a dusty old classroom, thinking to yourself, "I have no idea what's going on" while your teacher is explaining to you what the difference between a Petrarchan and a Shakespearean sonnet is and all you want to do is shout
"WHO CARES!"The answer? Nobody, really. But the point is you have to know what the difference is, and you find it outrageously boring. Well, don't despair, for I will help! Instead of you trying to memorize the differences, I will explain by trying to determine, "who wold win in a fight Shakespeare of Petrarch?" and eventually,
What is the most EPIC part of lit?These battles will take place over the next few weeks, and before, the end of January we will know the ULTIMATE CHAMPION is. Not only will you know who the best Lit character is, you'll also have figured out most of the course, I guarantee it! Sooo, let's get ready to RUMBLE!!!

And We Start Off With...

Alright, so we will start off with pool A  which will take us all the way back to Anglo-Saxon times, and finish off around the 17th century. In this pool we will have 8 matchs:

Danes vs. Geats

Knight vs. Sir Gawain

Sir Graeme vs. Sir Thomas Wyatt 
Shepherd vs. Nymph

Robert Herrick vs. John Milton
Satan vs. Beowulf

Sonnet vs. Epic

Petrarch vs. Shakespeare

The winners of these will move on to compete in the next round, the losers will be out of the running for ULTIMATE LIT CHAMPION!

Danes vs. Geats

Who would win, the Danes or the Geats? Lets first do some background on the two. Both are types of peoples found in the Anglo-Saxon epic, Beowulf. The Danes are the ones being tormented by Gendel, and then Grendel's mom, and have to ask for help from the Geat (and epic hero), Beowulf. So I now what you're thinking, the Geats have Beowulf, so they win, like automatically, right? Nope. Its not that simple. because Beowulf is a hero of the most epic kind, unless the Danes did something to offend him, he probably would stay out of it ( or fight on whichever side he felt was the most right). So now that he's out of the way, lets look at the countries themselves. They are separated by a body of water of some kind, so the winner would need to be able to cross it, which we know the Geats can do, as evidenced by the crossing of Beowulf. The winners wold also need a pretty awesome leader, for the whole "rallying of the troops" tradition that's in every war movie. Ever made. In that aspect, the Danes take the lead. Hrothgar is awesome! C'mon, tell me you wouldn't want your king to build the people the equivalent of an all-you-can-drink bar, even if it is being terrorized by some giant, evil monster. Which brings me to my next point, an actual army. Grendel kind of ate some of the Danes best men, leaving the Danes, without some fierce warriors. However, the Geats also lost some men, the bravest and best soldiers that Beowulf took with him on his journey. Also, if you have a guy like Beowulf on your side most of the time, how strong is your army really going to be? If Higlac (King of the Geats) had any common sense, he would of let Beowulf deal with any problems, and basically let his army fall to pieces. Or it could make him have the strongest army since the Spartans, Hmm....
And the winner is...............
The Geats
Obviously. This is a no-brainer. How hard would it be to defeat a country which spends their time getting drunk? Really? Plus, they may all be like super strong and tough like Beowulf. Who knows? 

Sir Gawain Vs. Knight

Time for Round 2! In one corner, we have Sir Gawain, knight of the Round Table, one of Arthur's favourite knights, and in the other corner, we have the Knight from Chaucer's frame story Canterbury Tales, one of the only brave and noble characters, and the highest ranking person in the entire book. Lets start it off by saying that they are both knights, good and honourable (well, mostly, Gawain DID have a certain thing for other lords' wives) and both followed the chivalric code. Which means, that they have to be, like, super nice and stuff off the battlefield, but turn into war-crazed maniacs when fighting their enemy (multiple personality syndrome, anyone?) So lets talk about their battles. Sir Gawain faced off with the Green Knight (Ooooo scary...) a mystical, immortal knight, who doesn't even die when Gawain chops off his head. So Gawain fufills his end of their bargain when he goes to meet the Green Knight a year after their "duel", doesn't have the guts to accept his fate ( his head being chopped off in return), has an affair with a married women, takes a magic girdle, and well long story short, everything ends up just fine. WHAT! Their isn't even an epic battle! He ends up with a shoulder wound, a magic girdle, and his debt repaid! He should be a negotiator for the UN...And then there is the Knight. Portrayed as a 30-something guy, with a good heart, and a useless son, this dude really knows how to slaughter some people, an definite advantage. He went through the CRUSADES, people. Do you know what happened in the Crusades? Let's just say, an army of children, that's right, children went into the Crusades, and even they got slaughtered. The guys fighting in the Crusades were heartless, clearly. And the Knight made it through that, and lived to tell his tale? Guy must be one tough SOB. And there is no indication he has ever done anything unsavoury...
And the winner is......
The Knight
Do I need to explain myself?

Sir Thomas Wyatt vs. Sir John Graeme

Alright, moving on, we have Sir John Graeme versus Sir Thomas Wyatt. I know it sounds like another awesome battle between knights, but it's most definitely NOT. These guys are what I like to call the "emos" of the Lit world. Both guys are just angsting for some girl they can never, ever have. Poor, sad, mopey, little men... John Graeme loves beautiful Bonny Barbra Allen, but, alas, she will never forgive him because he slighted her while mildly intoxicated. GASP! ( Moral of the story: Try not to get drunk in front of a girl you're trying to impress, it didn't end well for Sir John here). So Johnny boy gets so upset at the fact that Barbara won;t love him that he dies of HEARTSICKNESS, yes a broken heart (really?!?). And then Barbara realizes how sad she is that she goes and dies of a broken heart too. But don't reach for your tissues just yet, it all ends well for the ill-fated lovers, they get buried together and come back as a rose and a thorn, twined together        ( 1,2.3...... AWWWWW.....) . How special. Now Sir Thomas Wyatt, he was a real person, and really in love with a women named Anne Boleyn, but she was married to the king of England (Henry VIII), and therefore totally OFF-LIMITS. So what does Sir Wyatt do to express his frustrations? Like all of the other macho men of his age, he writes beautiful sonnets to express his feelings.Thus, "Whoseso List to Hunt" was born, a poem with an elaborate metaphor that Annie is a deer, and he is the hopeless hunter trying to catch her, one who eventually just gives up, realizing that there is just no point. But there is no happy ending to this story, Anne Boleyn was beheaded by her husband, and Sir Thomas Wyatt died of illness at the ripe old age of 39.
And the Winner is...........
Sir Thomas Wyatt
This one was a tougher call, but at least Anne Boleyn and Thomas Wyatt had a legitimate excuse for not being with each other. Barabra and John Graeme could have had a happy life together!! But, no, Barbara just had to keep her pride...  Besides John seems like the biggest pansy out there... C'mon, Thomas would have totally kicked his ass.

The Passionate Shepherd vs. The Nymph

So now continuing with our theme of unrequited love, we move on to The Passionate Shepherd by Christopher Marlowe ( you know, that guy who was stabbed) and The Nymph's Reply ( you know that guy who was also killed). So basically what happens is that a shepherd, who happens to be passionate (creative title, I know), happens to be the most whipped guy on the face of the planet, and promises all kinds of stuff to this women that he loves. The woman, or nymph, in apparent true woman fashion, rejects the shepherd. (OUCH! That's gotta sting a little...) And then the poems are done. No death, no battles, no unnecessary suicides. Basically in a word: boring. But what they lack in any excitement whatsoever, they more than make up for in weird poetic types. You, see Passionate Shepherd is a pastoral poem, while the Nymph's Reply is, wait for it, anti-pastoral. But that's not what we're talking about. Who would win between them? Well, on the one hand, the shepherd but be quite charming, and he is a good, honest man. That should count for something, right? As for the nymph, I can't quite decide whether she is one of the very first feminists, or the biggest  gold digger around, I mean, she did reject the shepherd just because he didn't have any money or wealth. She claimed that it was because love was fleeting, but I think she wanted a excuse to reject his proposal. The one thing that we do not know, however, is what happened to these two people. Did the Nymph ever learn to love? Did the Shepherd ever find someone else?
And the winner is.....
The Nymph
She might not be the nicest person is the world, but at least he's not completely whipped like the Shepherd. Learn to stand up for yourself man!

Satan vs. Beowulf

 All right, this is it, the big one. The two epic heroes, fighting for the chance to continue on. Both are from the two most epic pieces of work, Beowulf and Paradise Lost, if just in length and intricate plotline. One is from the oral epic that was told during the anglo-saxon times, before William the Conqueror come over to England , and "civilized it", and the other was written by a stuffy latin master, John Milton, who was simply trying to write the best thing ever written. No big deal. Now Beowulf was the one who was trying to rid the Danes of the horrible monster, Grendel. Which, in true epic hero fashion, he did with great success, savagely ripping off his arm and hanging it to the ceiling. Ouch, that's gotta hurt. Now Satan has a much more interesting story. He tried to oust God (yes the one and only) from heaven, but him and his archangels couldn't quite get the job done, so God has to create a place for him to suffer in, called, you guessed it, HELL. And yes it did hurt when he fell from heaven, just to answer your cheesy question. So, yes it is slightly contested as to whether he was really a hero or not, but for all intents and purposes, he will be a hero. So, now that we have some background, who would win, if these two were to ever battle it out?
On the one hand, Beowulf has super-human strength (but so does Satan) but he also had good character and strong moral fibre (and Disney taught us that good always triumphs over evil), but he is the only one of his kind, and no matter how strong he is, he's ultimately alone. Satan has a whole bunch of evil minions to help him do his bidding, like Beezlebub. He also has an entire kingdom of criminals, ones who probably might help him out. However, he is kinda attached to a lake of fire though, and constantly in pain, so he might be a little weaker than he would have been pre-skirmish with God.
And the winner is....
SATAN

Yes, I realize that he is evil, not a very nice person at all. But the only person that he lost to was God, the supposedly Almighty power. My bet is that he would be able to beat anyone else who comes in his way, even tied down in Hell. Beside Beowulf is only human, and a human who doesn't believe in God (religion wasn't yet created when he was around), so where is he going to end up? Hell. Case closed.

Sonnet vs. Epic

Alright, two of the most famous and most common types of written works that young scholars such as myself are privileged enough to study, the sonnet and the epic, two very different styles of writing, and two of the most popular. Sonnets are 14 line poems which usually have a specified rhyme scheme and meter. They can be further subdivided into 2 separate categories, Petrarchan, and Shakespearan. Oh dear, I think I swallowed a textbook... Anyways, the only difference is that Petrarch used a different rhyme scheme (which conveniently gave ABBA a name), and that Petrarch was a monumental creeper ( like 300 of his sonnets were about 1 woman). Sonnets were usually about love, but sometimes they could be about dying or any other cheery events going on in your life. Epics, well, they deserve their name. They are huge poems that tell a story, but not just any story. There are massive battles, huge fight scenes-the literature equivalent of the best action movie you've ever seen. The poet even has to ask for help from a muse, for fear of the dreaded writer's block. I mean it takes commitment to write an epic, but they are really quite long, and the collective ADHD  of my generation basically means their kinda obsolete. But sonnets are short, simple and appeal to many people, for you don't really require an extensive working knowledge of every Greek and Roman god that ever lived.
Who would win?
The EPIC
I think that they're pretty evenly matched, but the epic just nudged the sonnet out of the competition, by being, well, epic. I mean you don't really hear kids going around and saying, "Whoa man! That was soooooo sonnet!" Right?

Petrarch vs. Shakespeare

Two giants of their time, the Italian revolutionist and Shakespeare, who could be the most famous man in the world (after Walt Disney) battling it out. Who will win? Who will lose? Who will I chose? Lets start with the numbers; Shakespeare wrote 38 plays, 154 sonnets, and 2 long narrative poems, while Petrarch 1 epic poem, 366 sonnets and various other works in Latin. Alright so far it's 1-all. While Shakespeare was considered the British father of poetry, Petrarch was considered the Father of Humanism, which as far as I know is like being the King of the Renaissance, so I think Petrarch wins that round. But Petrarch is hardly known today amongst the general public, but Shakespeare is quite well known. I mean who's heard of a Petrarch festival? They both helped to revolutionize the sonnet though, each developed their own method  of writing these simple, effective works of writing. Petrarch loved ABBA, he used it to help design his rhyme scheme, while Shakespeare used a simple (boring) rhyme scheme of AB AB etc... Lame. I expected better from the "Father of English poetry".  Both were used quite often after they were long gone, but those writers who wanted a challenge preferred to attempt the Petrarchan sonnet. But...
Who would win?
Petrarch
Its hard to compare these two awe-inspiring authors, but Petrarch told me to "Take a Chance on Me", that "The Winner Takes All". It's hard to reason with that logic.

Rape of the Lock vs. A Modest Proposal

MMM.. Good!

 Now on the surface, these two don't seem to have much in common. Rape of the Lock is a mock epic written by Alexander Pope, about, what is essentially, a haircut. A modest proposal is a leaflet written by Jonathan Swift, about eating children (no, I'm not making this up). But both are satire of the cleverest kind, aimed at making fun of the wealthy (WE ARE THE 99%!). Now Pope chooses to satirize how the rich made things that really weren't that important, really important (oh my God guys, she's TOTALLY wore that dress to Lord Pompous' ball too), that there might actually be things more useful to life than how many petticoats one's wearing. Swift takes a meaner, or if your prefer the actual term Juevenalian, satire, to display how the poverty and overpopulation is a true problem, and needs to be fixed by the English. But you have to admit, he makes a damn logical argument for eating children. Baby back ribs anyone? Now I must say, as an English snob, Rape of the Lock is written in a much more interesting way, with whole parodying of Paradise Lost thing (even if Rape of the Lock has a much different context today that it did when it was written....). But, the subject matter of A Modest Proposal is both astonishing and utterly brilliant so...
Who would win?
A Modest Proposal
Which would you prefer to read about? A really dramatic haircut? Or solving the worlds problems by eating excess babies?

Robbie Burns vs. William Blake

Now here we have, perhaps the most unfair match that I have ever cooked up. And I admit that freely and without guilt. On one side there is Robert Burns,also known as Rabbie Burns, Scotland's favourite son, the Ploughman Poet, Robden of Solway Firth, the Bard of Ayrshire and in Scotland as simply The Bard, and on the other side is William Blake, who today is considered a poetical genius, but had little of the success that Burns had. In fact, most people Blake was indeed, to use the cliche (sorry), mad as a hatter. If had to compare Blake to anyone in the world it would be Vincent van Gogh (whose last name is literally pronounced like you're  trying to cough up a hairball). Both were vastly unappreciated, passionate, talented, artistic, and reputedly crazy. To be fair though, Blake didn't cut off his ear or kill himself, but otherwise they are practically the same person. Blake wrote a fair few number of poems, the most well-known being Songs Of Innocence and The Lamb and The Tyger (yes spelled with a "Y", I already told you he was insane), and he helped to inspire the Romantic age. So basically if he was born, like 50 years later, he would be just as successful as say Keats or Shelley. And as for Robert Burns, well the name kind of speaks for itself, well that and the fact that he has his own holiday. But just for giggles, I'll tell you what he wrote: mostly poems about his native Scotland, notably To A Mouse, and To A Louse ( again, not making this up), and also helped inspire the Romantic poets. Oh, and he died when he was only 37, just like van Gogh. Weird...
Who would win?
Robert Burns

Burns wins, obviously, as far as this contest goes. But as for the best use of the English language that I can understand? Blake definitely would win. Sod off if you don't like it ye wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie!

Dramatic Monologue vs. Villanelle

 The dramatic monologue and the villanelle are probably unknown to those who haven't taken a course in English Literature, and I feel that its time to change that, and obviously the best way to do that would be to see which one would win if forms of poetry could fight, which I know they can (my psychiatrist disagrees...). Where was I? Oh yes, the dramatic monologue. Dramatic monologues are usually quite long pieces (not epic long, but longer than a sonnet), which are spoken from the perspective of someone, called the speaker, which reflect an emotional time in their life. So in simple terms, the facebook status of every angsty teenager around...
These events can range in severity from growing old, to being a seriously deranged psychopathic killer. Usually the language is commendable, the poems interesting.  Now villanelles, are a little more complicated, they are derived from French poetry ( just another example of the English trying to be better than the French-they can't get over the Battle of Hastings, clearly) and the main aspect of villanelles is that every line has to be one of two rhymes. Yes a whole poem, with only 2 possible rhymes. C'mon that's got to be difficult. I guess that's why most villanelles end in words with A LOT of rhymes, like day, night, or so, and why the language is simple. These poems usually don't tell a story, but rather express a single thought or emotion. So..
Who would win?
Dramatic Monologue
In a ring, I think that the dramatic monologue would just confuse the villanelle with its many words and story-telling. The villanelle would get confused and shout "But that doesn't rhyme! You can't do that!", and promptly be so upset that it would knock itself out.

Mariner vs. Baron

All right lets do it! Lets get down to it! If you have somehow been living without the unicorn English Literature textbook (Gasp! Blasphemy!), you might not realize that I am of course talking about the Mariner from Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Coleridge, and the Baron ( no, not the Bloody Baron, although you have no idea how much I wish that were true), the Baron from Rape of the Lock by Alexander Pope. Now these two have some similarities: both did something to make other blame their back luck on them, both of them are nameless, both are characters created to prove a point. Although to be fair, the Mariner shot a bird, and is used to help explain to readers that nature is precious, and the Baron just gave someone a bad haircut, and proves that coffee isn't for everyone. But the Baron is armed and dangerous, ready and willing to cut up the Mariner's sea snake army at the slightest indication from his accomplice, Clarissa. Don't call it a match yet though! The Mariner retaliates by commanding his zombie crew to attack, if only they listened.... Maybe the Baron's muse can help him out here, maybe Life-in Death will lend a helping hand. The Mariner does earn brownie points for the use of internal rhyme in his tale; but will the mock epic writing of Pope ensure that the Baron comes up on top? Both earn my full support as excellent, and exciting pieces of writing (they do make a nice break from LOVE and DEATH- the 2 most cliche themes of writing. Ever.)
And the winner is....
The Mariner
 While the Baron was distracted by the Starbucks vendor, the Mariner pulled out his trusty friend, his crossbow, and shot the Baron. Don't worry though, he was put in the heavens as a star, right next to the constellation of the Sirens, while the Mariner was doomed to wander to Earth indefinitely and tell people how he's reformed from his murderous past. That's right-he became a motivational speaker.

Duke of Ferrera vs. Ulysses

We know that the Dramatic Monologue won in its category, but what will happen when we put 2 of the dramatic monologue's finest together and tell them to brawl? One's a duke, but one's a king, and a war hero, so who would win?  The Duke of Ferrera, the speaker in Browning's My Last Duchess is powerful and wealthy, but also arrogant, with a twisted sense of justice, while Ulysses the speaker and title of Tennyson's poem (I think I'm docking points for the lack of creative title) was once mighty and powerful but is now aging, down but not out. Now while the Duke cannot deny that he has a violent streak a mile wide (He killed his wife-for smiling), it is implied that he is too good and proud and pompous to actually kill anyone himself. But Ulysses, he was in the Trojan war, so would have no qualms about killing, but hasn't had to do anything like that since the war, which was a long time ago. Ulysses is a king though, with an entire army to command, and how much power does a simple Duke of Italy have? How big is Ithaca anyways? I also wonder if Ulysses would actually make it to Italy, he is known for getting lost, and what's his status with the Grecian gods? That would easily determine his fate.
Who would win?
Ulysses
He might not be the youngest or strongest, but at least he isn't a slimy sociopath with a knack for taking people out, like he's the mob or something. Besides kings always beat dukes. It's like a cardinal rule of noblemen.

Dylan Thomas vs. Thomas Gray

 Now I'm sure that you're asking, what do these 2 have in common (besides the name Thomas)? Well both have some pretty clear opinions on death (cheery, I know) which in turn gave them their most famous poems, Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night, henceforth shortened to Do Not Go Gentle, and Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, henceforth shortened to Elegy, respectively. Now Thomas expressed a somewhat unreasonable, if charming viewpoint in Do Not Go Gentle; that people ought to fight death (haven't we already heard about this from John Donne?), that no one has the right to just give up and let death take them. To be fair Mr. Thomas, they don't really have a choice.... Do Not Go Gentle was written at the time of Thomas' father's death, so the opinion is a valid one, valid enough for Bob Dylan to re-name himself after this guy. Gray expressed the polar opposite impression, in his Elegy, he believes that death isn't an entirely negative thing. He believes that many lives were robbed, that potential was not always reached, but that death is the greatest equalizer. It really doesn't matter who you are, you will die, the only mystery is when and where ( I now feel a sudden need to plan out my funeral...), Gray's view is slightly more grim, but realistic, and oddly it has an almost carpe diem ring to it; it encourages you to go out and live your life before it's taken from you.
Who would win......
Thomas Gray
Even if you just read through the poems, Gray's Elegy makes you think, think about your life and the lives of others cut short. Thomas' poem has a cool idea, but doesn't quite invoke the same emotional response.

George Gordon, Lord Byron vs. Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Two men with unnecessarily long names, 2 well-known greats of English poetry of 2 completely different eras, Byron was the leading Romantic poet of his time, Tennyson, a favourite of Queen Victoria during her reign. Both were known to be brilliant in their own time, both seized their lives and did what they wanted to do. Byron is known for his lengthy narrative poem Childe Harold's pilgrimage, Tennyson for his various body of works but especially for his works based on myths, like Ulysses. Byron was at the forefront of the Romantic period, and his poetry reflected the views of that time, respect the environment, challenge what was considered normal, and reject what the authority was telling them. So I guess he was really a hippy.... Tennyson was a more traditionalist reflecting the stability of the times. However, Byron wasn't the most stable guy, it is rumoured that he might have suffered from bi-polar, where as Tennyson was perfectly sane. Not entirely sure if this hurts or helps Byron, a lot of great people suffered from serious mental issues...One thing I know for sure is that Tennyson was born in Lincolnshire, and that's where many awesome people come from. I would know, I'm one. Now as for the actual body of work, Tennyson did produce more shorter works, where Byron produced fewer long ones. Byron did die when he was 37 though (WHOA! THE SAME AGE AS VAN GOGH!!), so that sort of accounts for that.
The winner is....
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
The final decision came to me when I realized that Byron did create the Byronic hero, which on it's own is fine. But when terrible authors like Stephenie Meyer get a hold of those things, tragedy happens. Essentially Byron created Twilight. Not cool...

Pool C Begins!

 Now that we've completed the first round of eliminations, we are 1 step closer to finding out the ULTIMATE LIT CHAMPION! Exciting isn't it? Now here's the lineup for the next round, there proves to be some interesting matches:
Geats vs. A Modest Proposal
Knight vs. Ulysses
Thomas Wyatt vs. Thomas Gray
Nymph vs. The Lamb
Satan vs. Mariner
John Milton vs. Robert Burns
Epic vs. Dramatic Monologue
Petrarch vs. Tennyson

Geats vs. A Modest Proposal

 This might just be the strangest, most peculiar match-up of the whole tournament.... In one corner we have the mighty Geats, the anglo-saxon army, and in the other, we have one of the most famous examples of satire, the infanticide-promoting A Modest Proposal. Well, how should I compare thee? Certainly not to a summer's day. While I do believe that A Modest Proposal would win in a battle of wits, in a test of shear cleverness, that the Geats wouldn't even be able to spell their own name, it is an entire army trying to fight one, well-spoken man. Unless the speaker could convince the Geats that eating their children would be the best way to combat their problems.... Which is entirely possible, but remains unlikely, they were anglo-saxons not cannibalistic neanderthals. And the Geats didn't even speak the same language as the speaker, so persuasive powers mean nothing if you can't be understood so....
The winner is....
THE GEATS

I was rooting for the projector of A Modest Proposal, but lets be as realistic as possible (if thats even achievable?), if he was transported to the homeland of the Geats, he would be slaughtered by the war-like nation before he even had a chance to suggest that eating children was a viable option for overpopulation problems.

Knight vs. Ulysses

Two very noble men, two very important people of their time, 2 men with not enough respect or time for their sons, two warriors. The knight of the Canterbury Tales and Ulysses of the same-named dramatic monologue have more in common than meets the eye. So similar, in fact that how am I to decide between the pair? Lets start with basics, like how the knight is of a much lower standing than the King of Ithaca. But the knight appears to have a higher power on his side, having been said to be very pious and follow the laws of chivalry, where as the ancient Greek gods seems to always be squabbling as to whether Ulysses is a decent guy, it took 10 years for them to let him come home, and the knight could take advantage of that pretty quick. Besides who want to watch a fight that takes 10 years to resolve? ( But isn't that the plot of the Illiad?) Still Ulysses has an army of questionable size (size of Ithaca still undetermined), while the knight might be able to round up some soldiers of dubious ability and that would be it. Both men are determined, however, to make something of the rest of their short lifespans before they bite the dust, especially Ulysses, who is bored of his life in Ithaca. ( God it must be soooo boring to be a king and have everything done for you, I feel so bad...) But in the end only one will stand tall and be proclaimed winner.

And the winner is.....
Ulysses

While he might be a bit whiny about his first world problems, Ulysses does have the power and prestige to wipe out the knight. But, in fairness to the knight, he would give it his best shot and deny, even on his death bed,that he had ever been beaten, that it was "just a scratch". Hmm that reminds me of another knight, wonder who that could be?

Thomas Gray vs. Thomas Wyatt

It's time for the (2nd) battle of the Thomas's! Besides their names, the 2 didn't really have all that much in common, one was too busy pining over a girl to get anything done, and the other was obssessed with death, and spent his time pondering why some dead people were remembered more than others to get anything done. Now we have already established that Thomas Wyatt was a bit of a whiny prat who fancied himself in love with Anne Boleyn, who was conveniently married to the king so that Wyatt had the perfect excuse to never, ever talk to her. Well unless he wanted his head to be mounted above the good king's fireplace... And Thomas Gray, well he spent his days roaming graveyards, which eventually did pay off- Elegy Written in Country Churchyard is a very critically acclaimed piece even if the name is a bit wordy and has no mystery. But looking at is family, I can understand the guys obsession with death- he had 11 brothers and sisters who all died before the age of 5. If that were me, I would spend a lot of time in a graveyard too. But I don't have to, thanks to modern medicine ( and basic hygiene...)! So who should win, the morose man obsessed with the art of passing on, or the smitten sir, who did introduce the English to the sonnet, but died with little prestige to his name? Which should triumph, love or death, the sonnet or the lyric?

And the winner is......
Thomas Gray

While his Elegy may seem to be simply about how death conquers all, including the love that tears Thomas Wyatt apart, his message can be interpreted (only by English majors) as more than that, as a message to grapple life, and swallow your pride and go for your goal, and ignore the risks that might be there. The worst thing that could happen is that you could die, right? Which is a lesson that Mr. Thomas Wyatt could have used.