Talk about contrast from our last book! Fate plays out exceedingly well for Beowulf, compared to Oedipus. Both men are good intentioned and heroic, but fate deals Beowulf the better hand by far. He’s a hero in the old fashioned sense, being incredibly strong and courageous, defeating monsters and saving lives. Something that stuck with me was the constant emphasis on glory. This isn’t a new theme in this course, but I still feel the need to comment on it. The thing with glory and fame for me is that, as much as Beowulf is emphasized as a perfect hero in many ways, his motives seem much less honorable when they seem to be done simply for the glory. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as there’s little fun in a perfect character who isn’t at least a little selfish or flawed. I guess I’m just wondering at the definition of a hero. We’ve spent all this time wondering at the definition of monster, we may as well think about hero as well. If we were to presume Beowulf’s only motive for killing all those monsters was fame, we would probably think of him as slightly less heroic. But if we say his only motive was to bring peace, and the glory simply came as a bonus, he’d seem more heroic for his selflessness. In the poem, I think Beowulf has a fairly healthy dose of both, but this is just for the purpose of my wonderings. Since this was written, how has the general definition of ‘hero’ changed? Just something to think about, as a “modern hero” is probably fairly different from Beowulf, evil dragons and monsters aside.

Beowulf reminded me of The Odyssey in many ways. They’re both poems, of course, and the main characters can be easily compared and contrasted. Odysseus was made to seem heroic because of his wisdom and cunning, while Beowulf was glorified by his strength and bravery. They both achieved fame and admiration in the end, prominently though adventure and overcoming monstrous obstacles. However, one significant difference between the two is that Beowulf does not seem to change much. His character doesn’t have a drastic change of perspective or understanding, I’d say, the same way Odysseus does.

On a side note from the text itself, I have to say to was nice to have pictures on the side, childish as that sounds. They didn’t contribute much to my understanding of the text itself, but there was definitely some interesting historical context to be found.

Prior to Arts One, I had already read Beowulf. It is an absolutely epic poem, and regarded as the longest standing piece of English Literature (albeit Old English…). It tells of the triumphs and tragedies of Hrothgar and beyond; and how Beowulf fought the antagonizing monster, Grendel. There have been a variety of translations and unfortunately I didn’t get the chance to purchase the curriculum assigned version; however I have read at least 4 different translations of what is, essentially the same tale.

Before this school year had started, I had looked ahead at the reading list and the sight of Beowulf brought me much excitement. It is the perfect piece of literature to encompass the theme of “monsters” as well. It also has come connections back to previous material we have studied; such as Genesis. Grendel, one of the three monsters Beowulf encounters, was a descendant of Cain, of the noteworthy fratricidal story in Genesis.  The term monster was one that referred to birth defects, which were  interpreted as an ominous sign from God—a sign of evil or of bad things to come.

An aspect that I thoroughly enjoyed in Beowulf is that the description of Grendel never comes full circle. It is up to the reader to form in their head what Grendel looks like. We get all sort of adjectives (subjective to the translation you read), but it is truly up to your imagination in the end. My only really beef with Beowulf as a text is that it seems all the characters are pretty one-sided… they all have respective foils and their seems to be a lack of ambiguity in all of them. Mind you, it is an ancient text and it doesn’t follow the expectations of literature today, but it would have been nice to see some questionable motives from Beowulf. As it stands, the text convinces one of the complete evilness of Grendel. The dragon’s tale is possibly ambiguous but it never gets enough development for us to care for it.

And for those who have yet to see the movie version; be warned. It is chocked full of cheesy cover-ups and the animations falls right into the uncanny valley….

Anyways, definitely an awesome read. Looking forward to going to town on the essay for it! (Sorry Oedipus, Beowulf is more of a man than you’ll ever be.)

After I have finished diligently reading my texts and sit down to write this blog, I usually feel obligated to create some sort of commentary on the profound subtext. I feel the need to talk about what this REALLY means and why some character is a metaphor for the complexities of life etcetera etcetera. I mean, that is one of the main points of ArtsOne after all, and I like doing it. But sooner or later I have to admit my inner 10 year old self still has just as much power as my university self when it comes to thinking about literature.

The point is, Beowulf is gratuitously cool. I think later i’d like to talk about how such a classic, now cliched type of story attracts our attention, but for now i’d like to talk about whale beasts! And underwater battles! And dragons! And sword fights! Maybe I identified with this style of descriptive poetry, maybe I am a sucker for this type of  imagery. Whatever it is, the idea of a hero diving under the water on a stormy ocean to kill nine (NINE!) sea monsters still makes me want to find a stick and run around the forest killing imaginary foes.

This leads me to some more respectable ruminations. Beowulf is proud and confident. He eschews weapons for bare hands. He is the original hero. Again, we see a hero getting rewards and fame using his brute strength. But there is an intersting contrast between him and Hrothgar. Hrothgar is an old man who can’t defend his kingdom. He is helpless in the face of challenge. And yet he is still portrayed as a “good king.” It is not strength that makes him good, but wisdom and kindness. If I had to pick a theme for this tale, i’d say it centres around ideas of young and old, and how we carry ourselves as time passes. The poet seems to place more value on the feelings of pride and bravery than pure strength in itself, and while he recognizes that Beowulf is strong, he spends more time on his heroic nature than is actual physical nature.

And there is depth here, without a doubt. Often old Hrothgar will take half a page at the end of a battle or before a feast to reflect on the danger of having too much power, the fragile nature of life, and other such ideas. All his premonitions and predictions come true, and although they were nice, I was sometimes left wondering what they were meant to accomplish in the broader storyline. Beowulf dies, and some wars will probably happen. People will continue to get power and then die. Is this story just a cool story with monsters? Are we MEANT to take more from it? I’m not sure.

God is still around too. Everything Beowulf does is aided by (one) God, and made possible by God. It seems we’ll never shake this God fellow.

See you tomorrow!

Prior to this course, I had never read Beowulf.  In all honesty, I had no idea what it was even about, and my only perceptions of it came from my friends’ reviews of the terrible animated picture (which I never saw) and my mother’s distaste for the work. Needless to say, I was not excited.

However, upon reading the tale, I noticed just how religious of a work it was. From my past recollections, I would never have guessed that there would be so many references to Christianity, especially as during this time, there was still widespread pagan belief. The descriptions of Grendel coming from the sin of Cain was very strange, considering the context of the time. I feel as if latter individuals added in the Christian descriptions in order to fit their religious beliefs.

When Beowulf asks to see the dragon’s gold at the end, as well as the curse upon the objects, I found that this held religious connotations as well. It signifies not only the importance of selflessness, but also reflected the idea of Heaven. Heaven does not necessarily mean Christianity, as Germanic pagans believed in the afterlife as well. By having only those who have no desire to possess the riches have the ability to hold them signifies the “exclusivity” of the afterlife. This idea reflects the Christian ideology, however, as only those following in the path of Christ can be saved. This Christian ideology reflects not only religious beliefs, but also the idea that those with pure intentions will hold the riches in life.

Near the end, I was surprised at how the death of Beowulf was not only the death of a hero, but also symbolized the death of a civilization. As the Geats are left defenseless, and the onslaught of the Swedes coming, it demonstrated the demise of greatness. This greatness is not only left to a particular society, but in general. Just as life inevitably ends, all good things eventually perish as well.

To be frank, Beowulf    was nothing like I expected. The amount of symbolism and references, combined with such a beast of a protagonist, shockingly gave me a very pleasurable and enjoyable reading experience. In the end,  Beowulf    symbolizes not only the fallibility of life, but also the merit that each individual must find within himself.

Beowulf is another one of those tales that are meant to be heard rather than read, preferably with a gruff and atmospheric voice in this case. It is a tale of epic proportions that is the perfect story to recite around a dinner table or bonfire in a crowd of drunken men. It is a viable method of getting the morale and blood of soldiers rolling high before a large battle. It is even a fairly effective propaganda tool for implanting the ideals of a “hero” into youth. What it isn’t, however (or at least not intended to be), is a deep, multi-layered story. It isn’t The Odyssey, isn’t Medea, isn’t Odysseus, and definitely isn’t The Republic, the last of which goes without saying. What it is in our modern perspective is a historical work, the kind which we analyze not because of its philosophical meaning but because of its cultural context. Not to say that it doesn’t have any merits as a work of literature (Tolkien can attest to that), but the truth is that if some random person wrote the exact same story using modern writing conventions, the majority of readers would call it a crappy story. Now, that actually applies to quite a few books in our reading list, but it’s especially clear with this one, at least in my opinion.

So what really happened in this poem? To sum it up, some great king decided to create a great hall and party all day long in it. As a result of this incessant noise-making, Grendel became grumpy and decided to eat them all so that they would finally give him some peace and quiet (and because he was evil and hungry and all that stuff). Then, wanting to get his partying days back, the great king called for the extermination of the party-crasher but was met with continuous failure, despair, and the transformation of his party buddies into high-protein meals. Then came Beowulf, one of those rare lunatics who can actually back his boasting with divine muscles, along with his own party buddies who all turned out to be useless except for one. Beowulf heard about the great party king’s woes of only being able to throw sad one-man parties in his hall and decided that he would put an end to grumpy Grendel—with his bare hands, because he’s that awesome. Hearing this, the great king was delighted and decided to throw a huge party (because he’s the great party king), until night came and went back to his sleeping chambers so that he could party another day. Beowulf, waiting in the hall with his mostly useless party buddies, was eventually met with grumpy Grendel coming for a late night snack. After munching on a party buddy who was probably useless anyway, Beowulf did his battle cry and ripped Grendel’s limbs off. So came the sad end of grumpy Grendel, who limped away and died in a ditch somewhere, a damned soul who just wanted some peace and quiet but was too shy to ask. The great king returned to a victorious Beowulf, and they all started partying again. Upon hearing about her son’s vicious murder, however, Grendel’s mother was enraged (who can blame her) and decided to take up Grendel’s noble cause of party-crashing. Thus, she came in and did away with the great king’s best party buddy, bringing him to despair as his parties will now never be the same again. Hearing this, testosterone-permeated Beowulf decided to take revenge for Grendel’s mother taking revenge on her son who Beowulf killed in revenge because Grendel exceeded his diet quotient for the past seven years. Deciding, however, that even he was not awesome enough to do this barehanded, Beowulf took a powerful sword that turned out to be useless and entered the lake where Grendel’s mother dwelled alone (because his party buddies were clearly useless by this point). After a huge struggle in which Beowulf actually managed to find a sword that wasn’t completely useless, he slayed Grendel’s mother and brought her head back on a pike so that everyone could see how much of a lunatic he was. Discovering that all his troubles were gone, the great party king partied happily ever after and Beowulf went back to do more of his lunatic deeds, the last of which involved killing a dragon with his one not useless party buddy supporting him. He died, his men got treasure, and he got a giant sea beacon built for him so that everyone would know how awesome and how much of a lunatic he was in times to come. The end.

Beowulf

This was my second time reading “Beowulf”, having it for the first time back in Grade 12. But back then we didn’t read the entire poem in my English Literature class; we read only an excerpt and we didn’t go into great detail about Beowulf’s battle with Grendel’s mother or with the dragon.

There was one thing that I noticed about “Beowulf”: Every character fits into one of two categories. You’re either good or you’re bad. For instance, Beowulf is 100% good or 100% hero. He never fears and puts every effort into winning a battle against a monster. Grendel and his mother are 100% monsters and evil to the core. There are no redeeming qualities about them at all. I find that in the real world, nobody is 100% good or 100% evil. We’re all somewhere in between. “Beowulf”, on the other hand, believe that you’re either black or you’re white. There are no shades of grey in human nature. I prefer reading the ancient Greek tragedies because I find that they are better able to portray human nature. The Greek tragedies focus on believability and the complexities of human nature rather than on shining the limelight on one individual. This was one of the reasons why I didn’t find “Beowulf” that appealing. The whole play simply consists of Beowulf defeating various monsters and how he manages to bring home great rewards. I liked the epic poem overall (certainly much more than Plato’s “Republic”!) but I felt that it lacked certain qualities that I look for in a good read.

What would’ve made me favour “Beowulf” more is if we were told more about Grendel and his mother. I honestly find them more interesting than the heroic Beowulf. Other than the fact that we’re told they live isolated from human beings and that they enjoy devouring human flesh, there’s not much else that we’re told about them. They’re the outsiders, just lurking beyond the reach of humans. Every so often they cross that boundary between human and monster. When they do, they wreck destruction. I think that the writer of “Beowulf” must’ve been a rather narrow-minded person because he was able to perfectly categorize every character into the insider and outsider category, the all good or all evil. The writer also tells people of the consequences of having the outsider (aka. the monster) cross into the “insider” category. Is the writer trying to state that people should simply kill all the outsiders and create a world where everyone is all-good?

Wow, after the tragedy of Oedipus and the hell that was Plato, this was awesome.   On several occasions, I wanted to go put on my mail shirt, get my pattern-welded sword, holster my linden-wood shield and step right into my dragon boat.  Unfortunately I don’t have any of those items so all I could do was read onward.  I found Beowulf to be a really entertaining read, although there were some things that stood out to me in particular.

My expectations of Beowulf greatly influenced my reaction to it.  So the elements of religion in Beowulf poked out at me many times.  It contrasted greatly to what I knew about Viking mythology.  Before reading Beowulf I assumed that Beowulf was a Viking saga, and thus expected gods such as Thor or Odin.  However, what I saw instead were references to the Christian god.  This surprised me greatly and threw me off at occasions when I expected a reference to the god of war THor, instead I got a reference to God or Lord.

My assumptions on Beowulf’s Viking background made me think of a ruthless warrior and fighter.  Instead, what I saw was a loyal man, courteous and fair, who tends to rely on his own hands to get the job done.  Albeit, he seems to lack in strategy or cunning like Odysseus, but he makes up for it, by sheer unbreakable will and courage.  In a sense, I found him to be basically the earliest form of an archetypal hero.  In that sense, he is much different from Homer’s hero of Odysseus, who is a cunning hero, ruthless and a sly tongue.  Beowulf is from a much older stock of hero, more similar to the heroes of the pre-Homeric times and yet different.  Unlike a pre-Homeric hero who relies on Arete or prowess in Battle, part of what makes me think Beowulf as a great hero is his loyalty to his people and his comrades.

That being said, Beowulf is kind of a Gary Stu.  Which is a phrase used to describe overly perfect characters created by authors.  Not only is Beowulf somehow in possession of inhuman prowess in strength and combat, with all the fame that goes to his head and the sudden turn of events that led him to become king, it is shockingly surprising that he doesn’t become a corrupt ruler.  Either Hrothgar’s discourse on the dangers of power, were more shocking than I interpreted it, or Beowulf is seriously so hero-like that when the dragon comes along, he goes right out to meet it instead of sending someone else to kill it.

That’s my thoughts on Beowulf

Vincent

Just finished Beowulf and have to say it was a pretty easy read. The poem’s short enough to read within a few hours and the plot transitions pretty well from one part to the next. The real difficulty in reading Beowulf is understanding the context of the era and value system of the time. Since the poem takes place in 7th century Nordic lands, most readers will find themselves lacking any insight of the culture of the Dark Ages. No need to feel guilty though, most historians and archaeologists have a scarce understanding of the people of the period as well.

History has a tendency of repeating itself, and it seems that although Homeric and Germanic culture were separated by roughly a millennia, the cultural values of honour, strength, and skill in battle are still prevalent.

Beowulf is a man in the prime of his youth who seeks to aid the foreign land of Denmark, against a looming threat. Grendel, a swamp beast, has continually terrorized King Hrothgar’s halls out of spite and jealousy. Fear has kept the people of Denmark from retaliation, even the King has failed to seek action against the abomination.  Our hero Beowulf rises to the occasion not out a sense of moral obligation or goodness, but for sheer honour.The characters Hrothgar and Beowulf serve as clear contrasts to one another, mostly due to their ages.

Beowulf is still young and careless, he has not yet achieved a sense of purpose or obligation. His youthful courage is in actuality recklessness, and grants him the ability to act quickly and decisively. He wishes to extend his honour and title through acts of glory. Hrothgar on the other hand in in the later years of his life, and has achieved much. He has fostered a family and an entire kingdom is dependant upon him. He has failed to act upon Grendal out of his fear of death, but more importantly out of a sense of duty. His loss would be too great for his people.

The brashness of Beowulf does not appear to fade with his age. Even after 50 years have passed he boldly rises to the occasion to personally defeat a threat to his people and lands. Beowulf has ascended to the role of King of Geats and has ruled valiantly for decades. His leadership has kept his kingdom secured against rivalling tribes out of fear of his greatness. His choice to personally assault a dragon may seem courageous but is ultimately careless and reckless. When he arose to the duty of King his duties changed from that of a warrior to that of a leader. His role is not needed in brute force, but in govern ship.His death leaves feeling of paranoia among the people of Geats. Their lack of leadership wounds their kingdom and leaves it easy prey to enemies.

Beowulf’s life ultimately reflects a sense of duty that comes with age and obligations onto others which are absent in bashful youth. I’m sure our parents understand this conflict.