1)

She does not fully fit the character of Achilles, in so far as she is not honorable or epic from might and valor. Medea not only kills her brother and children, she also conjured a way for her father to be killed. So, sure, her deeds could be considered epic, not in a hero sense, but in a villainous one. All of her actions were for her and her own “happiness,’ driving her depression after each attempt at archiving her apex of self worth. Going against the “familial code’ and what could be argued the “hero’s code,’ she puts forth a display not notable in terms of hero. Killing his loved ones would be the last wish of Achilles; in fact it wasn’t always his wish on his enemies either.

I think it is safe to say Madea would be considered a hero, but not necessarily in terms of compassion or valor, but rather for protest against socially normalized duties based on sex (biological sexes). She was against female oppression, although only when it allowed her anger to complete horrible acts of revenge. But a hero in terms of Homeric lore, she was definitely the contrary, she did not fight for people or for a noble cause, she fought in an un-noble conniving way, often involving her not getting her hands dirty.

She destroyed everything she loved, and made sure everything she lost suffered out of spite and out of rage. She does fit Achilles in that she is only concerned with her self, just as Achilles has no king, fighting only for glory to extend the remembrance of his name and victories.

2)

Nothing sometimes is the only answer needed; the one who is answerless reaches the conclusion and thus the moral of the story. The conclusion Job reached is acceptance, the “faith,’ in this god character to decide what is meant to happen, but only after a history of complaint and arrogant boasting. Therefore, when god finally did answer him, it was a serious rebuttal, casting shame to Job for his assertion of his divinity.

Perhaps through listing off everything evil he has not done, which according to Job is proof he was good, he missed the main purpose of why he was good to begin with, and through showing the evil he did not do, he was over casting the reasons he did not do them in the first place.

The real question is, is Job so superior that he above all others disserves good fortune? It’s hard to say, because often-old texts like this are rattled with ambiguity, that is why I think the moral to take away from this is that no one is above others and we each get judged equally, in the religious metaphorical sense. Job had some complaining issues directed at god and even by asserting his goodness, he was still complaining. Through showing all his holy qualities he showed his weakness.

There is an Old Norse saying, which I feel correlates well with this story:

“It’s better being alive than lying lifeless; the living man keeps his cow; I saw a fine fire burn bright for a rich man while he lay dead at the door.’ (McDonald and Somerville, 2010:492).

That is to say, even when someone has everything (morality, wealth, etc.), they still have nothing in the end (end here being god’s “grace) or end in reality, which is death. We all must appreciate what we have, rather than living off what we lack.