"The poem's theme and the heor's goal are one." George Clark made this statement in his analysis of Beowulf in regards to its hero and theme. Many scholars have studied this poem over the years. Debates rage about who the author(s) was, the purpose of the poem, and how the hero and theme are related. After analyzing all views on the argument, Clark came to the decisiosn that theme and hero were one in the same. After reading his analysis, I find that I am in full agreement. It could be stated that Beowulf's goal was to fulfill the theme of the poem. The poem's theme is to lead a life worth remembering. This life is one of success and honor. Every man should strive to live up to his father and to avoid shaming his children. In my eyes, this is exactly what Beowulf did. He wished to fill the gigantic shoes of his father and uncle. At the same time, he wanted those around him to remeber him kindly. Honor and chilvary were the ultimate goals for Beowulf and the theme.
George Clark quotes Kathryn Hume as stating "'We know too little of his everyday humanity, his normal human feelings, to be able to see him as an extension of ourselves.'" I could not disagree more with this statement. I view Beowulf as the perfect hero. Humes is stating that there is no personal connection between Beowulf and the reader, to me this is what makes him perfect. Choose your favorite hero and I guarantee you, it would be a hard thing to find someone in agreement. Humes is right, there is nothing specific to connect hero and reader. At the same time, there is nothing to separtate the hero from the reader. What one reader connects with, another may not. Any past struggles or emotions are alluded to so broadly in the text that anyone can connect with it. Beowulf is expressed as a typical man. The only exaggerated aspect is his strength. Beyond that, Beowulf could represent any man anywhere. The fact that Beowulf lives up to the poem's theme, indicates that all men are capable of such a feat. Beowulf's heroic qualities are obtainable by the common man. That is what makes him such a wonderful hero for me, he is not Superman. He is a regular man living life in the best way imaginable.
Beowulf 's theme is the same as its excellent hero. Beowulf does not have an obscure theme that is hard to find. Nor does it have a hero that exceeds normal expectations. Beowulf teaches its readers to lead a life full of honor and chilvary. More importantly, it teaches that any man is capable of just such a feat. Most people today think of Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man when they think of fantasy heroes; Beowulf certainly does not make the list. But he should. Today's society often looks for an escape when they are reading. However, the escape is short lived. Reading of the grand hero may give the reader enough courage to face the problem he ran from, but it will do little to carry him through life. Beowulf is not a momentary escape. Beowulf provides its readers with the tools to handle any battle. It gives the reader the sense that no challenge is to great for the ordinary man. Beowulf gives power to the ordinary man. It makes him the hero.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Changing History
What I learn in school is always correct. Well, as a little elementary school student I may have believed this. But as I got older, I reliazed that this may not always be the case. Teachers make mistakes and subjects are constantly evolving. For instance, one lesson stressed in the sciences is that the "facts" we study are actually theories. Tomorrow, everything we have learned could be turned upsidedown. However, no one has ever told me that history is recorded incorrectly, nor in fact that there is no way to accurately record history.
Beowulf and Grendel were excellent examples of how there are two sides to every issue. In Beowulf, Grendel is depicted as a heinous monster. A monster that goes on killing sprees with no provocation. He is an unnatural evil thing whose death deserves to be gruesome and painful. In Grendel, Grendel is a young creature that attempts to fit into man's society. However, man is a pitiful group of braggers and so-called "heroes". Despite the fact that in Grendel mankind is something to be ashamed of, Grendel still wishes to be accepted by these great beings. When he enters a hall extending the hand of friendship, he is attacked and driven out of the hall. Is it no wonder that he retaliate? In mankind's society, such a treatment to another being would have caused a greater retaliation. What is more, it would have been expected and approved of. Instead, Grendel is painted as an evildoer. Both authors told the same story, from two different points of view. However, the stories could not have been more different.
History is very much like Beowulf and Grendel. In school, Americans learn about the great feats of George Washington and our other founding fathers. Of how our ancestors shook off the chains of England's tyrannical rule and established the wonderful country of America. English students learn how the ungrateful colonists rebelled against the great and wondrous rule of England. This is not the only example, either. Years from now, my children will learn how terrorists attacked our great nation on September 11. In foreign countries, some children will learn how freedom fighters took a daring attempt against the oppressive United States. The facts and numbers may be the same, but the change of a few adjectives, and history is completely rewritten.
So few people consciously realize the unstability of history. What people learned of history in school, people accept as cold, hard facts. One reason for this is that unlike in the sciences where we are told that not everything is 100 percent true, it is implied that everything learned in history is 100 percent true. So few in America question whether the what the colonists did was reasonable or not. However, subconsciously, people are aware of how history is not set in stone. People often wonder aloud how such and such an event will be recorded. This implies that there can be more than one view to an event. Unfortunately, not many bridge the gap between the subconscience and conscience.
Nothing can truly be done to fix history. When it comes to mankind's history, it is impossible to find an impartial account. Even if the historian has no ties to the event, the historian may have his own view, or his sources may be biased. In my examples, it can be seen how just one or two words, or even the rearranging of a sentence can change history. History is so easily influenced by those who are writing it. I believe that the only measure that can be taken against this dilemma is allowing students to know, from an early age, that history is subject to influence. We cannot change how we record history, but we can change how we view it. After this class and reading Beowulf and Grendel, I know I will veiw history differently. I will always wonder how others view the events of today's society. In this manner, I think we may be able to keep an accurate record of history. When we compare our views with others' a common ground may be reached, and that will be where true history lies.
Beowulf and Grendel were excellent examples of how there are two sides to every issue. In Beowulf, Grendel is depicted as a heinous monster. A monster that goes on killing sprees with no provocation. He is an unnatural evil thing whose death deserves to be gruesome and painful. In Grendel, Grendel is a young creature that attempts to fit into man's society. However, man is a pitiful group of braggers and so-called "heroes". Despite the fact that in Grendel mankind is something to be ashamed of, Grendel still wishes to be accepted by these great beings. When he enters a hall extending the hand of friendship, he is attacked and driven out of the hall. Is it no wonder that he retaliate? In mankind's society, such a treatment to another being would have caused a greater retaliation. What is more, it would have been expected and approved of. Instead, Grendel is painted as an evildoer. Both authors told the same story, from two different points of view. However, the stories could not have been more different.
History is very much like Beowulf and Grendel. In school, Americans learn about the great feats of George Washington and our other founding fathers. Of how our ancestors shook off the chains of England's tyrannical rule and established the wonderful country of America. English students learn how the ungrateful colonists rebelled against the great and wondrous rule of England. This is not the only example, either. Years from now, my children will learn how terrorists attacked our great nation on September 11. In foreign countries, some children will learn how freedom fighters took a daring attempt against the oppressive United States. The facts and numbers may be the same, but the change of a few adjectives, and history is completely rewritten.
So few people consciously realize the unstability of history. What people learned of history in school, people accept as cold, hard facts. One reason for this is that unlike in the sciences where we are told that not everything is 100 percent true, it is implied that everything learned in history is 100 percent true. So few in America question whether the what the colonists did was reasonable or not. However, subconsciously, people are aware of how history is not set in stone. People often wonder aloud how such and such an event will be recorded. This implies that there can be more than one view to an event. Unfortunately, not many bridge the gap between the subconscience and conscience.
Nothing can truly be done to fix history. When it comes to mankind's history, it is impossible to find an impartial account. Even if the historian has no ties to the event, the historian may have his own view, or his sources may be biased. In my examples, it can be seen how just one or two words, or even the rearranging of a sentence can change history. History is so easily influenced by those who are writing it. I believe that the only measure that can be taken against this dilemma is allowing students to know, from an early age, that history is subject to influence. We cannot change how we record history, but we can change how we view it. After this class and reading Beowulf and Grendel, I know I will veiw history differently. I will always wonder how others view the events of today's society. In this manner, I think we may be able to keep an accurate record of history. When we compare our views with others' a common ground may be reached, and that will be where true history lies.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Are We Individualists?
Americans take pried in the fact that we are a country of individuals. This is the one nation in the world where someone can be completely themselves and not face pursection. We are a country of individuals, or are we? Many obstacles the characters from The Fountainhead, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and The Power of One had to overcome to be individuals, still face Americans today.
The characters Stephen Deadulus and Peekay shared many obstacles that we, as Americans, still face. Stephen Deadulus and Peekay were pulled in all different directions by those who cared for them. Attempting to please everyone they cared for, these two characters loss a sense of who they were. Only by drastically separating themselves physically from these influences could they find themselves. For many Americans, this act could be seen as moving away to college. Unfortunately for us, this does not give the separation we need that Stephen and Peekay found. With today's fast modes of communication and transportation, we never truly leave those who influence us. We never get the chance to stop trying to please those around us and start living for ourselves.
Living for yourself and being an individual was a large part of Ayn Rand's philosophy in The Fountainhead; this philosophy has to overcome many obstacles both in the text and in today's world. The one thing Howard Roark could never do was compromise on his architecture. Architecture was the median through which he experienced life. A compromise in architecture would have been a compromise of Howard and his life. From a young age, Americans today are taught to share, compromise and collaborate. Rand never implied that these are bad, when used in the correct way. Compromising on something we feel passionate about, is compromising ourselves. For instance, I am a very passionate runner. Nothing feels worse than when my teammates decide to cut a workout and I agree. It truly feels like I am compromising myself. It is at these times that I wish I were more like Howard, Stephen, or Peekay. Past the influence of others and compromising, there is still one obstacle the individual must overcome.
In both the books and life, the hardest obstacle to overcome is the fact that the individual is not the norm. The individual scares the other characters in the books, and it scares Americans. The solution to this is to destroy the individual. This can be done in two ways. The first is by those who care for the individual, who try to have him assimilate into the collective. The second is by those who do not care for him, in which case they ostrascize him. Our culture accepts individuality within a range. This can be seen in the many trends of the today. If we were a true group of individuals, there would be more styles of clothes, more genres of books, more artists, etc. There would be no strong trend. Our idea of individuality is allowing multiple trends to be in style at once. However, this is only making collectivism in pockets. Everyone of us has a group or title we could belong under. None of these titles are simply our name, the individual us.
The characters Stephen Deadulus and Peekay shared many obstacles that we, as Americans, still face. Stephen Deadulus and Peekay were pulled in all different directions by those who cared for them. Attempting to please everyone they cared for, these two characters loss a sense of who they were. Only by drastically separating themselves physically from these influences could they find themselves. For many Americans, this act could be seen as moving away to college. Unfortunately for us, this does not give the separation we need that Stephen and Peekay found. With today's fast modes of communication and transportation, we never truly leave those who influence us. We never get the chance to stop trying to please those around us and start living for ourselves.
Living for yourself and being an individual was a large part of Ayn Rand's philosophy in The Fountainhead; this philosophy has to overcome many obstacles both in the text and in today's world. The one thing Howard Roark could never do was compromise on his architecture. Architecture was the median through which he experienced life. A compromise in architecture would have been a compromise of Howard and his life. From a young age, Americans today are taught to share, compromise and collaborate. Rand never implied that these are bad, when used in the correct way. Compromising on something we feel passionate about, is compromising ourselves. For instance, I am a very passionate runner. Nothing feels worse than when my teammates decide to cut a workout and I agree. It truly feels like I am compromising myself. It is at these times that I wish I were more like Howard, Stephen, or Peekay. Past the influence of others and compromising, there is still one obstacle the individual must overcome.
In both the books and life, the hardest obstacle to overcome is the fact that the individual is not the norm. The individual scares the other characters in the books, and it scares Americans. The solution to this is to destroy the individual. This can be done in two ways. The first is by those who care for the individual, who try to have him assimilate into the collective. The second is by those who do not care for him, in which case they ostrascize him. Our culture accepts individuality within a range. This can be seen in the many trends of the today. If we were a true group of individuals, there would be more styles of clothes, more genres of books, more artists, etc. There would be no strong trend. Our idea of individuality is allowing multiple trends to be in style at once. However, this is only making collectivism in pockets. Everyone of us has a group or title we could belong under. None of these titles are simply our name, the individual us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
