It really is a shame, as a few other of my classmates could tell you that we have to blog about Beowulf, for a second month in a row(which is my fault actually i guess) because personally, I think Wuthering Heights and Hamlet are both far more interesting than Beowulf will ever be, even if the author decided to throw in seven more dragons, a band of ninjas and some angry centaurs for him to fight. The story couldn't get that much more interesting only because...well its kind of predictable.
Apparently, there are at least ten other critics who disagree with my previous statement so much that they felt the need to write some fancy critical reviews about it. I agree with most all of their statements, and they did make me realize some interesting details that I hadn't before. Kathryn Hume makes the point that we as readers never see the human side of Beowulf in a sense that we never hear his monologues. Not once do we see him reflect upon his victories, or the tragedies in his life, not one "i think/feel/wonder," nothing that would make us feel he is human. In another extreme a play like Hamlet, where his thoughts and emotions are clearly spread before the reader.However, we don't necessarily need, Beowulf's emotional process spelled out to understand the kind of person he is. He is a human, in a sense that we see his grief over death and even in the end, regret that he had no son to pass his title to.
Each critic has his own stance that argues the theme and context of the story quite validly. However, personally, I like Tolkien's statement more than the others. I believe, as Tolkien does, that Beowulf is not a common man, but he is a common hero, as is his plight. The poem in my opinion is not about who Beowulf and what he feels. The debate over whether the story has christian or pagan influencing elements does not matter, because the story is universal in every culture. Tolkien breaks down the theme into man versus monster. I think this statement sums up all we need to know about the story Beowulf. Yes, the conversation between the characters, and the turmoil between countries was interesting and informative, but in short, every monster slashing hero story is going to be like this to some extent. The hero and his party cheer when they win, and there's probably going to be a lot of alcohol when they do, but this is all to be expected. Of course this is not what Tolkien was not trying to say exactly, but it reinforces the fact that Beowulf's story is one so common that it is universal, and every country and every religion most likely has one of similar merit. Tolkien ignores Beowulf as an original character, and I don't think that he is. Although his thought process is revealed through his actions, his story is not totally original enough to emphasize Beowulf s character of having that great importance in the real meaning of the story. In my opinion, theme is a more important feature in Beowulf than character. It is about, as Tolkien states "initial success and final defeat."
I find few comparisons between Beowulf and the other books we are reading at this time. The story of Beowulf is about gaining honor, enough so to be remembered after your death. Beowulf seeks to accumulate respect through his victories and gain everlasting fame. In the play Hamlet, Hamlet speaks of honor, in defending his fathers, as his mother had disgraced him by marrying his uncle. Though honor does not nearly have as much importance in Hamlet as in Beowulf, it is both something they are trying to protect to some extent.
Fame, though it does not have as much emphasis in today's society as it had then is still something people struggle to deal with. People "look up" to celebrities, blindly calling them their heroes in a similar fashion to Beowulf s' men had. Honor on the other hand, in America at least, has little importance if any. In middle eastern counties, tied closely to religion honor is most prevalent and disgrace to your family means death or worse.
In short, the article was confusing to read, because I kept forgetting which way I had flipped the page last, the spell check on here wants to change the Wuthering in Wuthering Heights to Withering(which could be appropriate if you think about it) and I really enjoyed not being in school for seven days.

October Monthly Blog: Grendel and Beowulf

Yes, I know this is quite late, but in my defense...well actually I dont have quite a good enough excuse besides the fact that saturday is a terrible, random and obscure date to have something due, especially if that saturday lands on a busy weekend. Hopefully I could get some credit for entering this...well for what I will write after I stop complaining about my life as most blogger s do.

At any rate, I thought the story we read, written in Grendel's perspective was quite interesting actually, contrary to most people who really hated it. It seems that lately the class is reading stories that revolve around flaws in people, and the errors that arise from their ignorance. The AP question we responded to last friday was a good example of how ignorance breeds destruction, something which I think is a good statement to sum up the past few stories we have read. In the poem about the history teacher preaches to the children, about a world that is softened by statements such as the ice age was the "chilly age,"and tragic wars were downplayed. That poem shows, in the end, that the teacher caused the children to be ignorant to the facts of life, who bullied those who were smart enough not to believe the teachers lies. The statement that ignorance breeds destruction shows itself here that, it eventually destroys society. The characters in Beowulf are ignorant to the intelligence and sophistication, in a way, of Grendel and the Dragon. Clearly, both characters, perceived to be monsters, were creatures capable of higher level thinking, as Grendel and his mother were advanced enough to have reasoning ability, and the Dragon was wise and intelligent, speaking of the nature of men. Beowulf's men ignored the fact, or simply could not see that the Dragon and Grendel were not beasts on the inside, but saw only what they wanted to see: monsters that could be fought and killed, prizes to be won, and things that would make them heroes. Both Grendel and the Dragon saw through the ways of men, and thought them to be primitive and cowardly. The men in this story, similar to Oedipus, lacked the ability to see the truth. Although both stories have different plots, they have a similar theme. Oedipus lacked the sight to see that his fate was not avoidable, to trust in others, and Beowulf was too ignorant to see that the Dragon and Grendel were advanced creatures. Because both characters were ignorant to the facts, destruction arose. Oedipus blinded himself, and Grendel, his mother, and the dragon were killed. My main point here is that in all three stories, the characters ignorance to the facts creates their eminent downfall. The barbaric actions of the characters in Beowulf to Grendel reveals the nature of their society. I think that ignorance is a main theme lately in the books we are reading, and that preaches a moral. Even in society today, we see the implications of the "ignorance" of countries. We have preventable situations such as global warming, for which the whole world is responsible, or the amount of deaths in, say, hurricane Katrina. It could be said that our wastefulness and ignorance to our actions could have prevented the destruction of the ozone layer, or that if there had been a larger, communal country wide effort, the country could have amassed more help to save lives after the hurricane. Either way, these things are arguable. Some could say that in both situations, we have done everything we could have. However, it is certain that we see sheer ignorance in society through out history in this country and throughout the world. This is why these themes are written into books like these, because they happen in real life and are universal.
Once again I apologize for the lateness of this blog. It would be nice if i could get some credit for it anyway.

September 2009 Monthly English Blog

One of the questions that we questions we as a class never directly addressed during the Socratic Seminar about the fountainhead was question 5, asking about the relationship between the physical description of the characters in novel and the buildings they design and construct. I thought this question was particularly interesting because it was something that I was actually thinking about as I read the story, before I even read the questions, and I think it was a very creative idea for Rynd to compare the physical descriptions of the characters, and make them similar to their building concepts. For example, Howard Roark was described as tall, lean and angular, such as in the description of his hands and body movements even in the very beginning of the story as he stands on a cliff. His personality was stone cold and he said nothing that need not be said, similar to his buildings, he added nothing that had no purpose, like in the Heller House for instance, unlike his contrasts, Guy Francon and Peter Keating. Modern buildings such as the ones Roark drew were tall and angular with straight lines and little curves, show similarly to Roark's body structure, tall and muscular. Guy Francon on the other hand was described as very fashionable and flamboyant, keeping up with the desires of the public, both fashionably and architecturally as traditionally styled buildings were in demand from the public. His buildings like his personality, varies depending on what other people want it to be, similarly to Peter Keating,he adopted and added personalities to suit the needs of others, like the unnecessary pillars and moldings of the buildings that merely mimic those of ones famous from the past. Even in John Erik Snyte's firm, the buildings his employees design show resemblance to their actual personality, Gothic, Renaissance, etc. As it seems, Rynd employs stereotypes, or archetypes of sorts to make her characters real. Their architecture mimicking their appearance and personality, as we might say that as a stereotype that the hero character is strong and muscular and the sidekick is less so. I think that the factor of the characters mimicking their creations was a creative and innovative idea, that though is similar in other works, like in the case of a hero being powerful or a villain having an actual evil appearance stereotype, I like that she used stereotypes in a way unique to the story and I think that it is one of the greatest defining characteristics of the novel.