Now that the reading aspect of our class has come to an end, it is a good time to reflect on what has been learned and how it applies in today's world. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that many of the heroes we see in films, on television and in the written stories of today have aspects that are based on some of the heroes we have studied. I don't see any out and out direct copies, but character traits and flaws are present if you are paying attention. It is obvious that writers of today have been inspired by thousands of years worth of stories. We didn't get to read very many, but we probably did get a good representative sampling. After finishing all of the stories for this year's class, it seems like an appropriate time to return to our roots and evaluate the journey of the heroes. Since that was supposed to be our focus in the class, I will give my evaluation of how they performed and their overall ranking.
Gilgamesh started pretty strong. He gets a few points off because he wasn't really a man and had a lot of supernatural elements in play. He also wan't able to successfully complete his task which would have earned him immortality. He needed a little help from his best friend to conquer some foes, but we shouldn't really count that against him too much. Why should he have to work harder than necessary? All in all, he left, he conquered, he returned. The heroic journey was completed and after he died, monuments were built in his honor.
Sakuntala was the title character of our second reading, but she really wasn't the heroine of the story. Our hero was King Dusyanta. For his journey, he is already away from home when our story begins. He sees the woman of his dreams and decides that he can't live without her. Unlike many stories of true love, he decides to make her one of his wives. He gets a few points off for this. In most stories of true love, two people end up together. In this one, the number of people together will be a little larger. It doesn't really fit the modern ideal, but it might work for the time it was written. He gets a few more points off when he can't remember who she was. Now I know that it was a curse and not his fault, but heroes need to be able to overcome these minor obstacles. Eventually he finds his ring and the curse is lifted. But, it takes Dusyanta a long time to find his wife and son so they can be reunited. All is well in the end as they makeup and become a family.
Sir Gawain certainly fits the mold of heroes of today. He may not be as perfect as King Arthur would like him to be, but he does his best. He rises to the challenges he faces, and takes full responsibility for his actions. His journey follows the typical path of having him leave home and then return. One big difference however, is that his obstacles are more mental than physical. Sir Gawain has to defeat his urges more than monsters. He prooves worthy by resisting the opportunity to sleep with a woman he finds more beautiful than anyone in the world. He doesn't tell the complete truth about their encounters, but he does do the right thing. He even accepts a badge of shame that he decides to wear for the rest of his days.
Daoism doesn't really fit in to the heroic journey, so the least said on this the better. Neo works for explaining the concept, but since it wasn't really a reading, I'll choose not to evaluate his heroic journey.
Oedipus doesn't really have enough success in the end to be called a hero. He does follow the heroic journey a little bit. He leaves home, although he is dumped and doesn't leave willingly. He journeys to a different land and has success as evidenced by the fact that he was adopted by the king and was next in line for the throne. He then returns to his original home and kills his original father and marries his original mother. Oedipus's value as a hero is tough to evaluate. He had a lot of interference in his life and many of the choices that were made were not his own. But, it would be hard to evaluate any ending involving the murder of your father and incest with your mother that produces children being rated as anything other than a failure. It works as a story, but it is not so good as a tale of a hero.
The Wife of Bath is sort of a feminist heroine. She doesn't accomplish great deeds in the traditional sense. She does have a journey, but we join it in progress. She has some nice reasons for her views, but in the end, they are just her views and they may be more self serving than heroic. I'll give her points for effort because she lived in a time where Wonder Woman and Buffy would have had a hard time achieving success. Words are all she has, and she tells a good tale. She may not win many converts, but she is clearly a woman ahead of her time.
Beowulf certainly models what people think of as a hero. He has superstrength, is a master of combat and in the end, leads his people to great victories. He follows the heroic journey by leaving home to seek out adventure. He is probably a little better than some of the others because his journey is made to help other people and is not self serving. Sure, he will get a little more fame and reward, but the Danes are the ones who really stand to benefit from his involvement. After his victories abroad, he returns home and does all the right things and becomes a leader to his people. Even in old age, he has a few tricks left and conquers a dragon. It costs him his life and costs his people even more since he will no longer be able to defend them. But, he was not supernatural and his days were coming to an end soon anyway. Clearly Beowulf is a top rate hero and many of his traits are still in evidence in the media's depictions of heroes being used today in both fantasy and real life.
Othello is a little tougher to evaluate. We come into the story after most of his heroic deeds have been performed. It is a little bit like meeting a gunfighter in old age. You can see that he used to be great, but opportunity does not allow him to show what he is capable of doing. Everything we actually see in Othello can be deemed to be negative. We know of the positives, but they just don't happen in our story. He ends up being a guy who beats his wife, plots to kill her, and then successfully completes his plot. Rather than take accountability for his crimes, he takes the coward's way out and chooses suicide. He would have to be at the lower end of our hero scale and he only gets there at all based on some stories of past greatness that are not really fleshed out too well in the play.
Final Rankings
1) Beowulf (The perfect hero in his younger years who falters late in life just because of old age in trying to recapture his previous glory.)
2) Sir Gawain (He has some similar traits with Beowulf but he doesn't possess any super strength. I almost ranked him number one.)
3) Gilgamesh (He might rank higher, but since he is part supernatural we have to rank him below the mere mortals.)
4) Dusyanta (great in battle, not as great in love)
5) Wife of Bath (She is a heroine in her own mind.)
6) Othello (He has plenty of negatives including the killing of his own wife.)
7) Oedipus (He ranks below Othello because he not only kills one parent, but he sleeps with the other. It is tough to go lower than that.)
Not Ranked: Daoism
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Going Back to the Well
I was really into Othello and was waiting for some unexpected turns in the final act. Unfortunately, instead of coming up with something new and exciting, Shakespeare went back to the well again and re-told his ending from Romeo and Juliet. Our lovers end up dead together with one of them a suicide victim just like in his famous play about Verona's young lovers. Was originality dead? Did Shakespeare have so little respect for his audience that he simply repeated something he has already used hoping that nobody had seen the original?
I am actually kind of a fan of Shakespeare's plays, but I was not real familiar with Othello. This story was really working for me right up until the final act. But the repetition from previous works just killed it for me. I probably need to see this play performed to really understand how it is being presented. I thought the final scenes played like a comedy. Othello smothers Desdemona not once, but twice, and despite that, she still has lines to recite in the play after having the life choked out of her. The same thing happens with Emilia. We are told that Iago has killed her, but then she is able to summon up the strength to get out a final song. I just couldn't belive what I was reading.
I also have trouble figuring out exactly what Shakespeare wanted to say about Othello. In the beginning of the play, Shakespeare goes out of his way to make the audience sympathetic towards Othello. He makes Iago a true villain and stresses that Iago is plotting against Othello. As an audience, we have very little choice to do anything other than root for Othello to figure out Iago's plans and put a stop to them. This is what our hero should be able to do and anything else is bound to make him less heroic. I don't think I am alone in thinking this is the natural course for our play to take. But, Shakespeare doesn't do that. Instead, he take all that sympathy that he has solicited on Othello's behalf and then pulls the rug out on us. Othello ends up being a pretty mean guy who deserves what he gets.
I'm not sure how much of this is tied up with the racism present in the play. It seems like Shakespeare is trying to say that Othello is just reverting back to his savage behavior. It is almost like the audience should expect Moors to be savages and if they were anything else it would be surprising. Othello transforms from the stable leader who had complete command over the room in Venice into the complete opposite in just a couple of days. Othello is basically chasing shadows from the time they arrive on Cyprus. He may be the protagonist of the story, but he is certainly no hero. I'm not sure if there is any historic element to the Othello story or if this is a complete work of fiction, but either way, the ending was a complete let down for me. This is just not the outcome I was expecting. Pretty much anybody we even had a remote interest in during the play is dead or going on trial. The only people who benefit from the events in the play are the minor characters who will be promoted to take the place of our main characters. I knew it was going to be a tragedy, but I don't think it was unreasonable for me to expect something good to come out of these events somewhere. Unfortunately, it just never happened.
I am actually kind of a fan of Shakespeare's plays, but I was not real familiar with Othello. This story was really working for me right up until the final act. But the repetition from previous works just killed it for me. I probably need to see this play performed to really understand how it is being presented. I thought the final scenes played like a comedy. Othello smothers Desdemona not once, but twice, and despite that, she still has lines to recite in the play after having the life choked out of her. The same thing happens with Emilia. We are told that Iago has killed her, but then she is able to summon up the strength to get out a final song. I just couldn't belive what I was reading.
I also have trouble figuring out exactly what Shakespeare wanted to say about Othello. In the beginning of the play, Shakespeare goes out of his way to make the audience sympathetic towards Othello. He makes Iago a true villain and stresses that Iago is plotting against Othello. As an audience, we have very little choice to do anything other than root for Othello to figure out Iago's plans and put a stop to them. This is what our hero should be able to do and anything else is bound to make him less heroic. I don't think I am alone in thinking this is the natural course for our play to take. But, Shakespeare doesn't do that. Instead, he take all that sympathy that he has solicited on Othello's behalf and then pulls the rug out on us. Othello ends up being a pretty mean guy who deserves what he gets.
I'm not sure how much of this is tied up with the racism present in the play. It seems like Shakespeare is trying to say that Othello is just reverting back to his savage behavior. It is almost like the audience should expect Moors to be savages and if they were anything else it would be surprising. Othello transforms from the stable leader who had complete command over the room in Venice into the complete opposite in just a couple of days. Othello is basically chasing shadows from the time they arrive on Cyprus. He may be the protagonist of the story, but he is certainly no hero. I'm not sure if there is any historic element to the Othello story or if this is a complete work of fiction, but either way, the ending was a complete let down for me. This is just not the outcome I was expecting. Pretty much anybody we even had a remote interest in during the play is dead or going on trial. The only people who benefit from the events in the play are the minor characters who will be promoted to take the place of our main characters. I knew it was going to be a tragedy, but I don't think it was unreasonable for me to expect something good to come out of these events somewhere. Unfortunately, it just never happened.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Does Iago Want Othello for Himself?
I really enjoyed the first act of Othello because I got to see what an evil character Iago really is. Most of the other stories we have read haven't had villains this well developed. Iago is not a buffoon who is transparent when he is trying to stir up trouble. Iago is really good at it. It is fun to watch a master work in just about any kind of situation, and Iago is clearly a master manipulator. What really sets him apart from Unferth and other characters who have rooted against our heroes achieving their successes is that Iago can really prevent the successes from happening for Othello.
I read and re-read the second and third acts because something just seemed a little off to me on Iago's motivations. As we discussed in class, he is mad at Othello for passing him over for promotion and/or he is mad about the possibility that Othello slept with his wife. I think I misread this situation in class yesterday. I originally thought that Othello sleeping with his wife wouldn't upset Iago because Iago was selfish. Now, after reading and re-reading, I think Iago really just wants Othello for himself. There seems to be a lot of hints of homosexuality present in the text.
Iago is clearly obsessed with sex during the play. He brings it up on many occasions and even rather inappropriately when they are waiting on news of whether or not Othello's ship survived the storm. However, you never see him really have any interest in having sex with his wife. He does seem to have some interest in bedding Desdemona, but apparently it is only as a way to get revenge on Othello. He would seem to get just as much satisfaction out of having one of the other characters bed Desdemona. Although he mentioned wife for wife in one of his rambles, it appears to me that he might be interested in Othello for himself.
Iago seems to delight in the fact of disrupting Othello's attempts at sex with Desdemona. He also goes on and on about how much he hates Othello and uses just about every racial slur he can think of when talking about it. I just see this as being like how kids ridicule and taunt the kids that they really like. It is just like a boy saying he hates a girl when he is really interested in her. Iago may protest about Othello just a little too much. This is classic homophobia at work. It just appears that maybe he is interested in bedding Othello. I haven't finished the play yet, so I'm not sure how it all turns out. But, after reading and re-reading, I do think there is something there in the subtext supporting my view on this. I doubt that Iago will ever bed Othello, so we will probably never know for sure. In fact, I find myself doubting that someone as evil as Iago will even survive the play. But, he is like a cockroach and those things have a way of surviving just about any kind of situation that arises.
I read and re-read the second and third acts because something just seemed a little off to me on Iago's motivations. As we discussed in class, he is mad at Othello for passing him over for promotion and/or he is mad about the possibility that Othello slept with his wife. I think I misread this situation in class yesterday. I originally thought that Othello sleeping with his wife wouldn't upset Iago because Iago was selfish. Now, after reading and re-reading, I think Iago really just wants Othello for himself. There seems to be a lot of hints of homosexuality present in the text.
Iago is clearly obsessed with sex during the play. He brings it up on many occasions and even rather inappropriately when they are waiting on news of whether or not Othello's ship survived the storm. However, you never see him really have any interest in having sex with his wife. He does seem to have some interest in bedding Desdemona, but apparently it is only as a way to get revenge on Othello. He would seem to get just as much satisfaction out of having one of the other characters bed Desdemona. Although he mentioned wife for wife in one of his rambles, it appears to me that he might be interested in Othello for himself.
Iago seems to delight in the fact of disrupting Othello's attempts at sex with Desdemona. He also goes on and on about how much he hates Othello and uses just about every racial slur he can think of when talking about it. I just see this as being like how kids ridicule and taunt the kids that they really like. It is just like a boy saying he hates a girl when he is really interested in her. Iago may protest about Othello just a little too much. This is classic homophobia at work. It just appears that maybe he is interested in bedding Othello. I haven't finished the play yet, so I'm not sure how it all turns out. But, after reading and re-reading, I do think there is something there in the subtext supporting my view on this. I doubt that Iago will ever bed Othello, so we will probably never know for sure. In fact, I find myself doubting that someone as evil as Iago will even survive the play. But, he is like a cockroach and those things have a way of surviving just about any kind of situation that arises.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Iago, Our First Supervillain
All semester long we have studdied heroes and their journeys. While the names have changed, for the most part our heroes have triumphed in every story. None of them have achieved all of their goals and all have fallen short of perfection, but they have all been heroic. Finally in Othello we run into the one thing we have been missing--a supervillain. Sure, we've had the Green Giant and he did some nice villainous things, but he relied on the supernatural for his power. Ditto for Grendel and Grendel's mother. Iago is our first true supervillain and because of that, my interest is already peaked for the rest of the story.
Despite the setting of the story, this is the first one that really feels more like a comic book to me. Even though the play is called Othello, he isn't even mentioned until quite a ways into the play, at least not by name. Iago refers to Othello as he or him. He also uses paints a more derogatory racial picture by using "thick lips" or "the Moor" to show us that Othello is dark skinned. As a reader, I was already becoming sympathetic to Othello just because of the way Iago was describing him. Iago takes on villain qualities right from the start of the story. Like all great villains, he has an axe to grind with the hero. Iago thinks he should have been promoted and blames Othello for passing him over.
Iago takes great pride in being the villain. Like all great supervillains, he thinks that he is smarter than everybody else in the story. He loves to demonstrate his intellect by showing the reader that he knows exactly what will happen. He has everything all figured out. Because of the way he is plotting his revenge, we have another situation of dramatic irony just like in Oedipus. Iago is proud of his plotting and it is clear he will let nothing stand in his way in his quest for power. He practically delivers Othello to Brabanzio after he gets Brabanzio worked up enough. I just knew that there was going to be a huge fight when Othello and Brabanzio met up. Imagine my surprise when Othello becomes a different kind of hero. After being labelled as a savage and a barbarian, Othello has a kind of quiet calmness about it. He is the personification of restraint. Instead of the conflict I felt like I had been promised, Othello is skillfully able to avoid it because he is such a natural authoritarian. Rather than a great fight scence, instead we have to settle for the two men to take their case to the Duke. Iago, our supervillain, has had his initial plan thwarted. But anybody who has ever read a comic book knows that he has more plans that he is still waiting to unleash. The play may be called Othello, but so far it is Iago's story that has drawn my interest.
Despite the setting of the story, this is the first one that really feels more like a comic book to me. Even though the play is called Othello, he isn't even mentioned until quite a ways into the play, at least not by name. Iago refers to Othello as he or him. He also uses paints a more derogatory racial picture by using "thick lips" or "the Moor" to show us that Othello is dark skinned. As a reader, I was already becoming sympathetic to Othello just because of the way Iago was describing him. Iago takes on villain qualities right from the start of the story. Like all great villains, he has an axe to grind with the hero. Iago thinks he should have been promoted and blames Othello for passing him over.
Iago takes great pride in being the villain. Like all great supervillains, he thinks that he is smarter than everybody else in the story. He loves to demonstrate his intellect by showing the reader that he knows exactly what will happen. He has everything all figured out. Because of the way he is plotting his revenge, we have another situation of dramatic irony just like in Oedipus. Iago is proud of his plotting and it is clear he will let nothing stand in his way in his quest for power. He practically delivers Othello to Brabanzio after he gets Brabanzio worked up enough. I just knew that there was going to be a huge fight when Othello and Brabanzio met up. Imagine my surprise when Othello becomes a different kind of hero. After being labelled as a savage and a barbarian, Othello has a kind of quiet calmness about it. He is the personification of restraint. Instead of the conflict I felt like I had been promised, Othello is skillfully able to avoid it because he is such a natural authoritarian. Rather than a great fight scence, instead we have to settle for the two men to take their case to the Duke. Iago, our supervillain, has had his initial plan thwarted. But anybody who has ever read a comic book knows that he has more plans that he is still waiting to unleash. The play may be called Othello, but so far it is Iago's story that has drawn my interest.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
13th Warrior
The 13th Warrior makes a decent film version of the main events in Beowulf. If you are looking, you can find most of the things that are important in the story. But unlike the story, this Beowulf never reaches old age. I enjoyed seeing a visual representation of Beowulf and he did look much like I imagined. One of the main differences I noticed was that this version of Beowulf was neither Batman nor Superman. This Beowulf was merely a man. A great warrior of a man, but a man nonetheless. His warrior exploits met my expectations until his confrontation where he was poisoned. It was hard to see the great Beowulf killed by a young woman. I realize that he killed her, but it seemed to me that a warrior of Beowulf's stature should have never allowed her to get close enough to poison him. Unlike the story version, I don't think this Beowulf entered into the encounter expecting to lose his life. But, even though his demise was already assured, it did lead to his great victory in the final battle. When I reflect on the movie, the picture in my mind that I am most likely to remember is Beowulf sitting on his throne dead.
I read up some on the movie and it appears that there is an even better version of the story on some reels in Hollywood somewhere. The director John McTiernan (also directed Predator and Die Hard) turned in a cut that was about two hours and fifteen minutes long. It didn't test well, so they fired him and brought in Michael Crichton to do some reshoots and cut down the length of the film. Most people who have seen both cuts seem to enjoy the original cut more and say that it is more faithful to the Beowulf story.
One aspect of the movie I particularly enjoyed was the fleshing out of the other warriors that traveled with Beowulf. It was nice to see their personalities and see how fiercely loyal they were to their leader. These were clearly examples of his followers from the stories where he fought Grendel and Grendel's mother. These hardened warriors would have followed him to Hell if he would have asked. I found it interesting that Antonio Banderas's character had that same type of loyalty. He was not one of Beowulf's warriors and he had to have known that there was a good chance he wouldn't be coming back from the invasion of the enemy's lair. I thought that having the teller of the story participate in the adventure was a nice change from the original Beowulf story we read. I like seeing the story from a particular point of view instead of just from some narrator who is all knowing. All in all, it wasn't a bad adaptation, but I do wish I could see the original cut some day.
I read up some on the movie and it appears that there is an even better version of the story on some reels in Hollywood somewhere. The director John McTiernan (also directed Predator and Die Hard) turned in a cut that was about two hours and fifteen minutes long. It didn't test well, so they fired him and brought in Michael Crichton to do some reshoots and cut down the length of the film. Most people who have seen both cuts seem to enjoy the original cut more and say that it is more faithful to the Beowulf story.
One aspect of the movie I particularly enjoyed was the fleshing out of the other warriors that traveled with Beowulf. It was nice to see their personalities and see how fiercely loyal they were to their leader. These were clearly examples of his followers from the stories where he fought Grendel and Grendel's mother. These hardened warriors would have followed him to Hell if he would have asked. I found it interesting that Antonio Banderas's character had that same type of loyalty. He was not one of Beowulf's warriors and he had to have known that there was a good chance he wouldn't be coming back from the invasion of the enemy's lair. I thought that having the teller of the story participate in the adventure was a nice change from the original Beowulf story we read. I like seeing the story from a particular point of view instead of just from some narrator who is all knowing. All in all, it wasn't a bad adaptation, but I do wish I could see the original cut some day.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
More Beowulf
I have a real interest in the fact that there is not much background info on the Beowulf story. Since only one copy was found, we don't even know whether or not it was famous. Mr. B will probably appreciate this, but I can't help but envision a scenario where this was some monk who used his writing as a release from his normal life. Maybe he was the original comic book junky who tried to find an outlet for his creative side while obeying his oath to God. It could even be that maybe he wrote this thing and never let anybody else see it. Emily Dickinson wrote over 1800 poems, but fewer than a dozen were ever published during her lifetime. Plus, those that were had significant alterations to meet the standards of the day. Maybe the Beowulf author was like Emily. We assume that this was a fairly well know tale of its time, but there is just no way of knowing for sure.
The Batman vs. Superman discussion in class really got me thinking about Beowulf in a new way. I hadn't really thought about whether or not he was like one or the other. I never really thought about the fact that he might not be a normal man. I know he did some superhuman type of things, but I dismissed those as being the tall tales that legends are made of. To be Superman, he would clearly have to be superhuman. I know that Mr. B is like me in Batman being his favorite because he used to think that anybody could be Batman. He doesn't believe that any more, but I'm not willing to give up on that scenario. Now clearly I can't be Batman, but maybe a really dedicated son of a billionaire could be. He could arm himself with all of the gadgets he would need and he could train in all sorts of martial arts to become a champion in that arena as well. The hard part would really be keeping his identity a secret. With today's facial recognition software even Batman couldn't keep Batman's identity a secret. That said, I see Beowulf as the Batman of his day. Instead of going after criminals, he defended his people against the monsters of the time. They didn't have supervillains (or if they did, we don't know about it), so he defended them against the things that upset the status quo. He was clearly a champion's champion and someone that people could easily respect.
Beowulf didn't have outer space rocks to weaken him. Instead it just took the good old fashioned aging process. He still could do more in his senior years than anybody else could in their prime. Even though he had lost a step, he was still more than able to defeat the dragon which the author seems to portray as his greatest opponent. I think Beowulf was expecting the fight to be his last one and he probably knew that he was unlikely to survive the battle. He went out on his own terms and while his people were worse off for it, he did what he had to do. It is just by chance that this story survives today, but as it clearly serves as a model for many of the comic book heroes that our society spends big dollars watching in movies. Who knows what kind of entertainment we would have without Beowulf being in our lives? It makes our world more interesting, and we are all probably better off for it.
The Batman vs. Superman discussion in class really got me thinking about Beowulf in a new way. I hadn't really thought about whether or not he was like one or the other. I never really thought about the fact that he might not be a normal man. I know he did some superhuman type of things, but I dismissed those as being the tall tales that legends are made of. To be Superman, he would clearly have to be superhuman. I know that Mr. B is like me in Batman being his favorite because he used to think that anybody could be Batman. He doesn't believe that any more, but I'm not willing to give up on that scenario. Now clearly I can't be Batman, but maybe a really dedicated son of a billionaire could be. He could arm himself with all of the gadgets he would need and he could train in all sorts of martial arts to become a champion in that arena as well. The hard part would really be keeping his identity a secret. With today's facial recognition software even Batman couldn't keep Batman's identity a secret. That said, I see Beowulf as the Batman of his day. Instead of going after criminals, he defended his people against the monsters of the time. They didn't have supervillains (or if they did, we don't know about it), so he defended them against the things that upset the status quo. He was clearly a champion's champion and someone that people could easily respect.
Beowulf didn't have outer space rocks to weaken him. Instead it just took the good old fashioned aging process. He still could do more in his senior years than anybody else could in their prime. Even though he had lost a step, he was still more than able to defeat the dragon which the author seems to portray as his greatest opponent. I think Beowulf was expecting the fight to be his last one and he probably knew that he was unlikely to survive the battle. He went out on his own terms and while his people were worse off for it, he did what he had to do. It is just by chance that this story survives today, but as it clearly serves as a model for many of the comic book heroes that our society spends big dollars watching in movies. Who knows what kind of entertainment we would have without Beowulf being in our lives? It makes our world more interesting, and we are all probably better off for it.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Beowulf (Fate Again?)
Beowulf is perhaps the greatest hero we have covered so far this semester. In his first two adventures, he established himself as a true hero by defeating Grendel and his mother. While they were great victories, they happened so quickly that he really didn't have much time to show maturity and moral development. That is what makes his final adventure against the dragon so memorable. Fifty years after the previous adventures, we get to see a wiser individual who is still strong enough to get the job done even in old age.
The structure for the final part of his story was quite a bit different than the first two parts. While we were kind of in the moment during his fights with Grendel and Grendel's mother, in this one we have a lot of flashbacks that show Beowulf's development as a leader. We start fifty years after his previous victories, but by the end of the story we have pretty much been able to piece together all of the main events over the fifty year gap. I was particularly impressed with how Beowulf didn't immediately make a grab for the throne when Hygelac died. He did the proper thing and supported the rightful heir to the throne. We have already established that Beowulf was a great warrior and he probably wouldn't have had any problem taking over the kingdom through conquest. I think this showed great restraint on Beowulf's part and I'm not sure that many of the other characters we have covered would have done it the same way.
It is interesting to see Beowulf's development into a great king. By waiting for the chance to be king, he prooved himself worthy of being king. That is why it is particularly interesting to see how it all ends for Beowulf. He has showed great wisdom throughout the story right up until he fights the dragon. The story does a great job at telling how a king must ignore his own glory and do right by the people. Beowulf had already shown to be a great hero during his warrior days. He knows the responsabilities of being king and yet he chooses to ignore them. It is a rather unusual decision for him to fight the dragon in light of his knowledge about what his death might mean for his people. His death leaves them without a true leader and might signal an end to their kingdom.
Was the fight with the dragon fated to happen? Did Beowulf have no choice in the matter at all? It certainly seems like fate plays a big role in the end of his story. Beowulf clearly sees his time on Earth is coming to an end. Therefore, maybe he sees the conflict with the dragon to be inevitable. He doesn't have the strength that he used to have and thus the dragon has time to inflict a fatal blow on Beowulf before Beowulf's fatal blow to the dragon. Beowulf has won his people a great treasure, but at what cost? In the end, despite his wisdom, he was unable to escape the warrior culture that dominated his early life.
The third part of the story really had a movie quality to it. The dragon part reminded me of Reign of Fire. Beowulf's final battle reminded me of the early 70s western The Wild Bunch. In that film, a bunch of aging gunfighters know that their time and era in the old west has come to an end and they go out in a blaze of glory by shooting it out with an entire army surrounding them. Perhaps this is what Beowulf was thinking when he challenged the dragon. His time was at an end and he was going to go out in one last blaze of glory.
By defeating the dragon he was able to show his people that the old man had a little bit of greatness left in him still. His followers didn't believe it anymore since all except for Wiglaf left him during the fight. This was a real contrast to how they all stood and waited during his fight with Grendel's mother. Beowulf was a champion again and died right after the battle. This is kind of like a quarterback winning the Super Bowl and retiring after the game. Maybe he was fated to have one more championship before his death.
The structure for the final part of his story was quite a bit different than the first two parts. While we were kind of in the moment during his fights with Grendel and Grendel's mother, in this one we have a lot of flashbacks that show Beowulf's development as a leader. We start fifty years after his previous victories, but by the end of the story we have pretty much been able to piece together all of the main events over the fifty year gap. I was particularly impressed with how Beowulf didn't immediately make a grab for the throne when Hygelac died. He did the proper thing and supported the rightful heir to the throne. We have already established that Beowulf was a great warrior and he probably wouldn't have had any problem taking over the kingdom through conquest. I think this showed great restraint on Beowulf's part and I'm not sure that many of the other characters we have covered would have done it the same way.
It is interesting to see Beowulf's development into a great king. By waiting for the chance to be king, he prooved himself worthy of being king. That is why it is particularly interesting to see how it all ends for Beowulf. He has showed great wisdom throughout the story right up until he fights the dragon. The story does a great job at telling how a king must ignore his own glory and do right by the people. Beowulf had already shown to be a great hero during his warrior days. He knows the responsabilities of being king and yet he chooses to ignore them. It is a rather unusual decision for him to fight the dragon in light of his knowledge about what his death might mean for his people. His death leaves them without a true leader and might signal an end to their kingdom.
Was the fight with the dragon fated to happen? Did Beowulf have no choice in the matter at all? It certainly seems like fate plays a big role in the end of his story. Beowulf clearly sees his time on Earth is coming to an end. Therefore, maybe he sees the conflict with the dragon to be inevitable. He doesn't have the strength that he used to have and thus the dragon has time to inflict a fatal blow on Beowulf before Beowulf's fatal blow to the dragon. Beowulf has won his people a great treasure, but at what cost? In the end, despite his wisdom, he was unable to escape the warrior culture that dominated his early life.
The third part of the story really had a movie quality to it. The dragon part reminded me of Reign of Fire. Beowulf's final battle reminded me of the early 70s western The Wild Bunch. In that film, a bunch of aging gunfighters know that their time and era in the old west has come to an end and they go out in a blaze of glory by shooting it out with an entire army surrounding them. Perhaps this is what Beowulf was thinking when he challenged the dragon. His time was at an end and he was going to go out in one last blaze of glory.
By defeating the dragon he was able to show his people that the old man had a little bit of greatness left in him still. His followers didn't believe it anymore since all except for Wiglaf left him during the fight. This was a real contrast to how they all stood and waited during his fight with Grendel's mother. Beowulf was a champion again and died right after the battle. This is kind of like a quarterback winning the Super Bowl and retiring after the game. Maybe he was fated to have one more championship before his death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)