Poor, poor Grendel. What, gentle reader, is this guy's (monster's...) problem? I mean, Beowulf has won, Grendel has lost his arm, and he has been clearly shown that nihilism has failed him. So what gives? Why the pouting? Why the pathetic holding-on to a miserable attitude? Why the need to act so humanly?
To quote Aldous Huxley: "Experience teaches only the teachable."
Your thoughts? Are you teachable? Can you even assess this for yourself? A dangerous notion, that. Trying to self-discover one's ability to accept teaching. Not even criticism, but teaching.
Now hold on. This is not a teacher's rant. This is not about comma rules or MLA formatting or even about how to write the bigger, better thesis statement. No, no, no. This is about learning something. About yourself. About the real world.
About being human. Why is it so tricky to join that club?
Friday, September 30, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
Getting What You Deserve.
According to John Gardner's Grendel, it is Hrothgar who draws first blood. And like any great reference to Rambo, it is expected that the retaliation be spectacular. Gruesome. And final.
Yes, in this story, King Hrothgar strikes first. As he stares up into a tree in which a juvenile Grendel is stuck by the ankle, he ponders some pseudo-religious reason for the tree-spirit-fungus to be angry and then, without any direct provocation, he takes a friend's war-axe and chucks it at Grendel's shoulder.
Yikes!!! Waaaa indeed, gentle reader.
So the root of all the trouble is Hrothgar's hasty turn to violence. Yet it is Grendel who sustains the destruction for twelve "idiotic" years. Who is to blame for this awful scenario, the one who starts it or the one who finishes it?
Now technically, Grendel doesn't finish anything. I mean, he's still attacking a shriveled kingdom by the time Beowulf arrives to clean up the mess. But he has ended other things, like Hrothgar's hope, the Danes' place in the world, and many, many family trees. Surely he is to blame for all the madness, right? Because he would not relent even when he could. Surely, after a certain breaking point, we allow Hrothgar off the hook?
No way. The blame stays with the king. Accountability, baby. Before you disagree and say that's too harsh, consider what it would take for you to throw a battle-axe at someone. Literally or otherwise. Perhaps this level of forethought is not optional after all? Indeed, if I was targeting such an uncertain thing with such a certain degree of poison, then I would deserve every bit of reprisal that came my way. I would not like it, but then that is not what deserving is all about.
Yes, in this story, King Hrothgar strikes first. As he stares up into a tree in which a juvenile Grendel is stuck by the ankle, he ponders some pseudo-religious reason for the tree-spirit-fungus to be angry and then, without any direct provocation, he takes a friend's war-axe and chucks it at Grendel's shoulder.
Yikes!!! Waaaa indeed, gentle reader.
So the root of all the trouble is Hrothgar's hasty turn to violence. Yet it is Grendel who sustains the destruction for twelve "idiotic" years. Who is to blame for this awful scenario, the one who starts it or the one who finishes it?
Now technically, Grendel doesn't finish anything. I mean, he's still attacking a shriveled kingdom by the time Beowulf arrives to clean up the mess. But he has ended other things, like Hrothgar's hope, the Danes' place in the world, and many, many family trees. Surely he is to blame for all the madness, right? Because he would not relent even when he could. Surely, after a certain breaking point, we allow Hrothgar off the hook?
No way. The blame stays with the king. Accountability, baby. Before you disagree and say that's too harsh, consider what it would take for you to throw a battle-axe at someone. Literally or otherwise. Perhaps this level of forethought is not optional after all? Indeed, if I was targeting such an uncertain thing with such a certain degree of poison, then I would deserve every bit of reprisal that came my way. I would not like it, but then that is not what deserving is all about.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Beowulf the Hero and the Man
The new school year has started and with it, as always, comes Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf. I love this story because Heaney's poetry is beautiful and majestic, stark and blunt, big and small, like Beowulf himself. Every year, the great debate rages over Beowulf's larger than life persona and his arrogance, his self-delusion, his boasting. "Be the man I know you should be" he scolds Hrothgar. "I will fight Grendel without swords" he shouts at the Danes. "I did beat Breca" he corrects Unferth.
Is he a punk?
Sure. Why not?
Typically the discussion takes us back to different passages that demonstrate Beowulf's handle on the situation and how those around him seem to receive his boasts. And typically, he comes away fairly clean. But I say let him boast. Let him be arrogant.
Who cares!
I don't. I have decided that I want a little dirt on my heroes. Those who are perfect are also boring. They are self-serving. They are people I don't want to examine. Besides, I propose that Beowulf-as-Hero and Beowulf-as-Man can coexist in the same space. Why does it have to be one or the other, a black and white cookie-sheet cutout of a man? It doesn't. It shouldn't.
Beowulf can get away with a little arrogance here, a blatant boast there because Beowulf, Hero and Man, is made up by his constituent parts. The half moon is still a full sphere in space, even when we cannot see the other side. So too with Beowulf. If he decides to show a part of his Human self, then we still know with confidence that the rest of him, the Hero self, still resides attached, unnoticed for now, in the shadows, waiting to be reflected later. And I am glad for this assessment, that we may allow for this kind of duality. If I were assessed by such an all-or-nothing measuring stick, then surely I would be among the most despicable. Depending on when you caught me.
Beowulf is a hero. And he is arrogant. At times. And I say let him. Because ultimately, when he finally turns his gaze fully at us and we see the whole man, we understand. He is better than Hrothgar, Unferth, Wiglaf, Grendel, Hygelac, us, because Beowulf gets it right most of the time. His tally is better than ours. He is much more Hero than Man.
And even at 51%, this is a good majority.
Is he a punk?
Sure. Why not?
Typically the discussion takes us back to different passages that demonstrate Beowulf's handle on the situation and how those around him seem to receive his boasts. And typically, he comes away fairly clean. But I say let him boast. Let him be arrogant.
Who cares!
I don't. I have decided that I want a little dirt on my heroes. Those who are perfect are also boring. They are self-serving. They are people I don't want to examine. Besides, I propose that Beowulf-as-Hero and Beowulf-as-Man can coexist in the same space. Why does it have to be one or the other, a black and white cookie-sheet cutout of a man? It doesn't. It shouldn't.
Beowulf can get away with a little arrogance here, a blatant boast there because Beowulf, Hero and Man, is made up by his constituent parts. The half moon is still a full sphere in space, even when we cannot see the other side. So too with Beowulf. If he decides to show a part of his Human self, then we still know with confidence that the rest of him, the Hero self, still resides attached, unnoticed for now, in the shadows, waiting to be reflected later. And I am glad for this assessment, that we may allow for this kind of duality. If I were assessed by such an all-or-nothing measuring stick, then surely I would be among the most despicable. Depending on when you caught me.
Beowulf is a hero. And he is arrogant. At times. And I say let him. Because ultimately, when he finally turns his gaze fully at us and we see the whole man, we understand. He is better than Hrothgar, Unferth, Wiglaf, Grendel, Hygelac, us, because Beowulf gets it right most of the time. His tally is better than ours. He is much more Hero than Man.
And even at 51%, this is a good majority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)