Anthony Scalia
Throughout the history of literature, evil creatures are often described as mystical and inhumane, but are they simply metaphors for the evil made by real people? While the official author of the poem is unknown, it written by an Anglo-Saxon poet, who most likely lived the experiences of having incompetent kings rule over much poorer areas. In the classic poem, Beowulf, the titular character is a hero who travels to slay a monster, Grendel, who has killed thirty people. While it is never specified in the poem, the monster is often referred to a “beastly” and “inhumane,” which leads the reader to believe that he is not a human, a descendent of magical beings. While battling, Beowulf does not kill the monster, but instead takes off his shoulder and arm so the monster can suffer.
It is quite possible that Grendel is strictly a metaphor for these kings who lived in wealth while watching others in poverty. In history, Beowulf was recited for kings for entertainment purposes, which is ironic because if the metaphor connection is true, kings would hope for the hero’s victory while not noticing that they were the monsters. In the poem, the monster slays thirty people after he is disturbed by their noise, representative of decisions that kings would make if they were disturbed by the common people. When Beowulf only takes part of the monster’s arm, it is symbolic demonstrating that you cannot destroy true evil completely. The character takes his arm as a sign of victory and hangs it up. It represents the power one has when they obtain a small victory. Yet, evil is still alive, no matter what form it is in. Even if you destroy one evil person, (Grendel) another one (his mother) comes along, and so forth.
Anthony - I completely agree with you when you say that the monster or monsters in "Beowulf" could be a metaphor for the very kings to whom the poem was recited. Kings throughout history seem to have a knack for killing subservient people on a whim, just like Grendel. However, the difference I see is in the fact that the king didn't necessarily carry out all of the killing directly (even though I suppose it could be argued that, for all intents and purposes, he did even if he only ordered the deaths). Grendel, on the other hand, uses his own hands and mouth to kill and eat all of his victims. Now that I think about it, this could actually be painting the kings in an even more negative light than only as mindless murderers--if they directed others to kill inferior people, then they are essentially cowards; at least Grendel did the deeds himself.
ReplyDeleteFrom a writing standpoint, I'm not sure if the main idea of your essay is to compare Grendel to kings or to point out how there is no way to destroy evil completely. Other than that, I like a lot of the ideas presented in your essay.
Anthony,I appreciate the fact that you have introduced a new theory about the significance of Grendel in your essay! I had not thought of the possibility that Grendel is representative of unjust kings, before reading your essay. I think it is great that you have proposed a new idea rather than relying on what we have discussed in class! Toward the end though, you talk about evil yet fail to relate it to the king theory. I would advise you to make a clear connection between the two.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, this essay is exactly what you and I were discussing on the floor during one of the class's discussions, so I couldn't agree more with the notion that monsters are simply incarnations of our own fears. Still, I feel like your essay could use some more support. I got what you were trying to say right in the first sentence, but after that, where do you really really expand on it? You're a great writer with respect to making your reader be swayed to your own beliefs, but as for the specific standpoint that you want your reader to have, the reader may be unsure as to which side to take. Expansion on that as well as saying circumspect about that will lead to a superb essay.
ReplyDelete