That if gold ruste, what shal iren do?

Of all the characters that we meet in "The General Prologue," I most liked the "povre Persoun," or poor parson. Out of all the characters, the poor parson seemed the most familiar to me; I think this is because, unlike knights or squires or summoners, the role of a parson is one that still exists in various forms and is, therefore, one that we generally recognize. It is interesting (and I wonder if Chaucer intended this) that the description of the poor parson follows the "Wyf," who lacks charity and commitment to others, and precedes (by several pages, as we didn't read all the way through) the summoner and pardoner, both of whom are vulgar and deceitful. I like that it is broken up this way, and - whether intended or not - emphasizes the parson's admirable qualities and, in turn, the others' unfavorable qualities.

The parson, though poor himself, gives what little income he has to his poor parishioners; his parish is so large and some live far, but he makes visits to all - regardless of weather, illness, or distance; and, most importantly, he strives to be an example of the gospel that he teaches. And he is an example - he doesn't just preach the gospel and act nice, but truly lives his life as Christ did in poverty and as an unyielding figure: the poor parson doesn't run "to London unto Seynte Poules" to take the easy, comfortable positions available to him as a member of the clergy, nor does he scorn sinful men, but rather, he "drawen folk to heven by fairnesse" and leads by example.

My favorite line from this passage is "That if gold ruste, what shal iren do?" The parson, an earthly representative for Christ, is "gold," the bright, desirable, holy character, the shining example of man - and admonishes other clergy members to not be corrupt, to not "rust." I couldn't help but think that it is fitting that we should be reading about the poor parson the week that Pope Francis is to visit the United States. Pope Francis, among many changes he has made in the Vatican, is well-known for his attention to corruption  and abuse within the Vatican and within the Catholic Church as a whole. I think there is some of this poor parson's gold that shines in Pope Francis, and I think it is something to which people are drawn.

Beowulf's Leadership

Beowulf to me is all about image, how  people see us. Beowulf has an image to maintain, not only to the men that came with him, but to the people he decided to help. To maintain his position above the other men, he takes risk and makes impulsive decisions. I know he is suppose to be a "superhero," but I feel that in order to continue the heroic acts and remain a hero in everyone's eyes, Beowulf has to put hi,self in danger and commit dangerous acts to keep that image he built. A leader does not always have to spring into action. He could have lead the people out of the village when the dragon attacked or he could have used his men to fight along with him. As you read the story, you can feel a sense of trust. The men do not intervene in any of Beowulf's fights because they trust him to protect them. Beowulf is an intresting character because he needs others to witness his glory, but does not need them to interfere in battles  that helped him obtain glory. He is a man of the people and they trust him with their lives.

Challenging the Term "Hero" in Beowulf

Like many a reader, I read Beowulf and was in awe of his might, his agility, and his lung capacity (seriously, the dude swam for a week). I also saw that while Beowulf is not of the land under attack, he seems to feel that it's his responsibility to protect it. On the surface, Beowulf is formidable, tough, and gritty. Beowulf no doubt inspired many other archetypal "heroic" saviors, but is he a hero? Merriam-Webster, the great and powerful, says that a hero is "a person who is admired for great or brave acts or fine qualities." Let's pick this apart, shall we?

So a hero must be brave, great, and fine, eh? Or at least their deeds must be. Beowulf's fighting Grendel can be seen as a brave act, since Grendel is a demon with a bloodstained track record. Grendel terrorizes the hall for years and years, and shows no signs of slowing down. Beowulf has undoubtedly heard the tales, but he arrives in Heorot with nothing but the most cringeworthy hubris.
Beowulf proclaims: "Now I mean to be a match for Grendel, settle the outcome in single combat" (29). When I read this, I cocked an eyebrow and muttered "single combat?" But it did not stop there.

"Hand to hand is how it will be, a life-and-death fight with the fiend"

.........What does Mr. Ye Olde Superman do? He throws his blade to the ground and takes Grendel on mano a mano! Greco-Roman style! YEAH!

........Does that not sound a little suspect? 

That, in fact, was the moment I understood that Beowulf was not completely like your garden variety superhuman hunk. If I were to save a town under attack from a monstrous, cannibalistic demon, wouldn't I take every chance to ensure my victory (and, moreover, the citizens' safety)? The tide and tone of character changes when Beowulf announces his plan to fight Grendel unarmed, and I began to see him as less of a hero and more of a brash collector of trophies.

I am reminded of Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride. Inigo (for those of you who have not seen this masterful work of cinematic art) is a brilliant swordsman from Spain whose fencing skills put him among the elite of the world. While he is vengeful and headstrong about finding his father's killer, his character contains a Beowulf-esque element of hubris. When Wesley (then in disguise) finds Inigo, they engage in a dazzling sword fight. But before this takes place, Inigo mentions to his fellow cronies that he will duel Wesley with his non-dominant hand. I believe his exact line was:

"I'm going to do him left-handed...It's the only way i can be satisfied...If I use my right...over too quickly"

Now why would Inigo make that decision? Was he heroic for doing so? 

Why would he make the decision to put himself at an apparent disadvantage for any other reason than pride? Inigo and Beowulf share the desire to be known, feared, and respected. They would save a town so the next town could know about it. What makes them different is Inigo grows into a more 3-dimensional character after defeating the man who murdered his father, while Beowulf just fights a dragon with the same attitude he had 30+ years prior and gets killed in the process. 

It's difficult for me to think of Beowulf as a hero now, but I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts. Are his acts more heroic in the connotative sense of the word? Does saving someone, regardless of your intention, make you a hero?

Villains or Naw

Are Grendel and the dragon really villains in Beowulf?  When I was a child, I refused to eat Trix cereal because I felt bad for the way that the children in the commercial treated the rabbit, and I didn’t want to support their behavior. All the rabbit wanted was some of the cereal and he would go through great lengths to try and get some, but the mean children would always take it away from him. I was so enraged by the commercial that one day in Kindergarten, the kid next to me was eating a bowl of Trix and just as he poured all of the contents into his bowl, I snatched the bowl away from him and said “silly “insert name here” Trix are for mean people”. Needless to say, that day I had a five minute time out (a very long time for a kid) and a letter home. I say all of this because, the children in the commercial probably saw the rabbit as the villain, whereas I saw the children as the villains. In Beowulf, although written to seem like villains, Grendel and the dragon are misunderstood just like the rabbit in the Trix commercial.

Grendel really just wants some friends. The guy sits in his cave with his mother day in and day out. I love my mom and I don’t know what I would do without her, but at the end of summer vacation I am always ready to come back to school because I have had too much of her.

Also it was almost as if the Danes were being rude, showcasing their happiness and parading around in “the hall of halls” (pg 7 line 78). I’m sure if they hadn’t have made so much noise Grendel wouldn’t have even known that they were there or happy.  Understandably, Grendel got mad because he can’t party with them and started killing them. It’s that feeling when you are sad, but you are around other sad people so you feel happier. If I were Grendel, while I was killing people I would be thinking “yeah I’m lonely, but at least I’m not about to be eaten”. I know it seems as though I am justifying killing; I am not I am simply saying that I can see what drove Grendel to killing.

 

The dragon, in Beowulf, was sleeping peacefully, when his one of his things got stolen.

Side note: I find it interesting some of the wrong doings in the poem take place a night or while sleeping. Grendel attacks at night and the thief steals from the dragon while the dragon is sleeping. What do you guys think about that?

I know that if someone took my phone and wouldn’t give it back I would be pretty upset and try very hard to get it back. I was always taught that stealing was wrong, so when I think about the thief it seems that he is really the bad guy here. The Geats are being punished because one of them wronged the dragon. It is like when a teacher gives a punishment to the whole class because one person is acting out. As unfair as that may seem, it does lessen the amount of acting out in the future. The Geats are being taught a lesson and hopefully, because of this, no one will steal ever again.
  

Beowulf; Original Hero

When reading this tale of "Beowulf", I could not help but think about how we have our own vision(s) of superheroes, both men and women figures, and how they have almost literally came from the ideals of the great Beowulf. Of course there are flaws to Beowulf and his methods, for example his lack of consideration to long term consequences of his decisions, but we got to see those sides in him that we readers and fans alike, today can appreciate in any comic book or superhero movie. Me personally I follow to the heroes that struggle the most with their own personal issues, or the ones whom kick the most ass without breaking a sweat, whichever or whomever I route for I found myself saying "Whoa, Beowulf is like all of these people, he was the first! How cool is that?!". These connections I have made really got me into my childhood and think about who I idolized for different reasons. Take the time to ask yourselves if this happened to you while you read about Beowulf, and who that other role model might have been.


The first person that came to my mind from my childhood was the hero known as Batman. The man of a thousand talents with the deepest darkest side that sometimes he could not even comprehend, also has the innate ability to leap without looking, which in a monumental way helped him keep the people around him safe, but the affect on him was much more conflicting than what met the eye. Sound familiar? Batman had his own golden rule not to kill anyone, which was a great moral for anyone who believes in one true form of justice, but what about the long term consequences? For example, when his enemies were able to escape prison and committed those same horrible crimes again and again, much like the Joker had. Beowulf too had a rule of his own making, that no one should have to fight his battles putting themselves in danger to protect him, which in the end unfortunately got him killed. A long term consequence of that was he had no heir to the thrown before he met his end. Any superhero that we can think of has his or her conflicts between right and wrong, but in these scenarios it all comes down to their decisions to put themselves and the people around them at risk because of it. But hey, Batman can do it all.

Cocky bastard.

I really appreciated the original superhero mentality brought out in Beowulf, and the thought that this is what most of us, myself in particular, look for in a superhero made the whole controversial side to him so much more enjoyable. Getting to know the hero for who they are make it harder to judge, but just appreciate what happens throughout the tale. Does Beowulf do this for you guys too? Or am I just crazy?!?!?!?!?!?

"Yeah he's crazy it's okay just go with it"

Following in the footsteps of...

Family plays an integral role in our upbringing, that was evident even in a poem as old as Beowulf. When Queen Hygd offered the thrown to Beowulf, he refused. He knew that the rightful king should be Heardred. Even though Beowulf served the young king until his death. In that time, it was rightfully so that an heir was to be left. Beowulf had no heirs, but successfully ruled as king for 50 years.

How we are perceived by our family and friends can certainly define how we shape our lives. For me, I know that being the middle child has guided my course of actions to a degree. My older brother was an excellent athlete, while not the best in his academics, he shown in the sport of golf. My youngest sibling was just that – the youngest, thus giving him the ‘get out of jail free card’, which he used regularly. As for me, I excelled in my academics, but I never really stepped out of my comfort zone to do much else. My parents knew they wouldn’t have to be concerned about me, so I always seemed to fly under the radar, if you will. I took the course I was naturally gravitated to; graduate from high school, then go to college. I took a few years after high school to work and explore other options, but this surprised my family at first, as it was out of the ordinary for me.

Both of my parents went to four year colleges, so for me to veer from the path of righteousness, was unheard of. Out of my siblings, I was supposed to be the one who followed this course of action. If not I, then who else? I want to draw a vague comparison between my situation and the one of this poem. Beowulf didn’t accept his role as king until after the death of Heardrad. The young king was the rightful successor to his father’s thrown. But as I previously stated, it didn’t matter that Beowulf wasn’t the king by blood, he took on the challenge. His arrogance aside, is it safe to say that he ran a kingdom that flourished?

I’ve never been partial to the phrase, “following the footsteps of…” Is this to say I will do everything I am expected to do, simply because someone before me did so? Should I have taken the path of medicine or entrepreneurship, like my parents had? I struggled with these internal questions in those years between high school and my next step. I mean, what better way to further myself in a field than to use my own last name? I would have a job right out of school if I want it, working for my father at his company. Some are expected to do this, while others use it out of laziness or a sheer lack of interests in other areas. I decided to make the precarious choice to major in English. I was deterred from this decision many, many times, from various people in my circle. Even ones who didn’t know me that well. I adamantly denied that this was the wrong road for me to take… which I attribute to one of my favorite quotes:

“Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Leaders

You are either a leader or a follower. There are people who seem to be the leader of the leaders. That class president and number one jock that shows you up at everything, who the entire school loves. But out of all the class presidents only a few go on to be real leaders. It is a very special person who can convince people to follow them. One thing I think pretty much everyone can agree on is they have to be fair and just, another one that comes to mind, is kindness. Confidence, self awareness, adaptability, empathy, bravery, honor, and intelligence seem to be some of the main ones as well. What other qualities would you expect of your leader?
                                                     
I would say that these qualities are expected in most leaders, past and present. Would you agree? Beowulf is described as a good leader. He seems to be fair and just from what we are given and he doesn’t show any blatant cruelty. The way he jumps into situations shows that he can adapt to different situations and that he is very confident in himself and he displays a kind of intelligence. He shows his honor when he tries to make his fights fair.

       Empathy, bravery, and self awareness seem to be harder to see in Beowulf. Though he is fair, he doesn’t seem to be empathetic. I see this mostly when he faces Grendal as well as when he marches out to fight the dragon. Beowulf seems to be constructed to be the poster child of bravery but is he
                                                        
actually brave? He doesn't overcome anything. He doesn’t seem to be afraid at all. So is he really brave? Self awareness seems to be the one that ends up being his downfall. He can not see how much his own pride is affecting him, especially when it is the cause of his death when he goes up against the dragon.
                  Can Beowulf really be seen as a “good leader” despite his flaws?

Grendel vs. Hitler?

**Disclaimer**: This blog post is not made to offend anyone. It is only here to have the readers reflect, think, and start a discussion. If there are any historical inaccuracies, let me know!

Anyways, let's get on with it! What makes a villain?

In Grendel's case, he was ostracized by his society and went on a murderous rampage, killing countless men, women, and children, every night for twelve years. SOMETHING must have pissed him off in order to pull that off. He was also Beowulf's first antagonist. Oh, and let's not forget he was practically cursed at birth just because he was a descendant of Cain. Sounds like villainous behavior to me.

Now, some may read that paragraph above and sympathize with Grendel. Grendel has fans! Some may say that Grendel is misunderstood; maybe he has a grudge and his crimes can be forgiven because of something that had happened to him in his past. Well, it's also not his fault who his ancestors were; he was screwed from the beginning!

So, how can we take what we know of Grendel and relate it to current events? Does Grendel sound like anyone we learned about in history? And if so, would you still be rooting for him?

The one person that came to mind when I thought of Grendel was.... Adolf Hitler.
.
WHAT!?!? OH, NO SHE DIDN'T!!
.
Yes. Yes, I did.

Classmate #1: "But.. uh.. Grendel didn't have millions of people supporting him."
Classmate #2: "He's also a fictional character, so don't take this so seriously"
Classmate #3: "I still can't believe you said Hitler."

Believe it.

Now, I'm not saying Grendel is Hitler. I'm saying the behavior is pretty much the same. Hitler, before his rise to fame, was ostracized from his society. He was just a grunt soldier in the German Army with big ideas and no one to back him up. He even went to jail for five years!
Villainous Trait #1: Ostracized from society? Check!

Hitler held a mean grudge. He blamed Jews, homosexuals, pretty much everyone for Germany's fall after the Treaty of Versailles. With that grudge, he decided to fix Germany's "Jew" problem and exterminate them.
Villainous Trait #2: Murderous Rampage? Check!

Now, if you factor in historical rumor, gossip, and maybe some fact: His mother being a Jew, and Hitler himself being a homosexual, that might be cause for him to get pissed about who he became due to his parents. He was also one of the world's biggest antagonists. Every country in the world (except for Hitler's allies) hated this guy.
Villainous Trait #3: Cursed Parentage and Huge Antagonist for the World? Check and Check!

Grendel didn't have fans the way Hitler did. To our knowledge, he wasn't as charismatic, he didn't write a book, and he wasn't even in a position of power. He had his mother, probably his ONLY fan. But, even if you have one person supporting you, don't you feel like you could take on whatever you set your mind to? You may feel like the world is against you, but if you call up your Mom/Dad/Grandpa/etc. etc. they can quickly change how you feel about the world and yourself. So, yes, Grendel didn't have millions of fans, but he did have one.  Hitler probably started out with one, as well. Hitler offered a new Germany and his fans were so desperate that they didn't care how they obtained it. Can you blame them? Whose to say that if Grendel went to the next town over, he wouldn't have gained some support?

 We see this recurring throughout history even today! Any terrorist group in the world probably had a leader that started out just like Hitler. All having a dream and willing to do the unthinkable to attain it.
- Al Qaeda                   - Boko Haram             - ISIS                      

So the question I'm posing to all of you guys is: Do you still support Grendel? If so, why? Are there any other similarities/differences I didn't mention that you think should be addressed? Do you agree with me or am I totally wrong? Let's open up the comments section to a great discussion!