This is a literary criticism discussing the theme of good vs. evil in Beowulf:
Why is Beowulf important? by Araby Greene, Univ. of Nevada:
"Beowulf is a true hero -- one who is flawed, yet uses his weaknesses to his advantage. Beowulf had made the best of all he had, putting each imperfection to work in the service of his integrity. Thus, his real strength lay in the balance of his person --which is, perhaps, another way of saying that he was strong because he was good, and good because he had the strength to accept things in him that were bad. Beowulf was the rare kind of a person who makes strength out of his own weaknesses. Beowulf examines the Anglo-Saxon's fears of the unknown. The fears of death, failure, and the future are mixed with a fear of natural phenomenon not understood during the Middle Ages. Its message is that evil destroys itself; good cannot destroy evil because good cannot destroy. The theme of Good vs. Evil - Black vs. White - Light vs. Dark is evident in the characters of Beowulf and Grendel. Beowulf calls out, 'I am light.' He appears white. Grendel hates light and lives for the darkness. He is pictured as black and torches go out when he passes. Beowulf burns Grendel with the touch of light and heat."
To a certain extent, I agree with what the author has to say. I agree that Beowulf was a hero and the theme of Good vs. Evil is prevalent throughout the text, yet I dont think that there is much of any evidence supporting the authors main ideas. For example, the author says, "Beowulf is a true hero - one who is flawed, yet uses his weaknesses to his advantage. Beowulf had made the best of all he had, putting each imperfection to work in the service of his integrity." The story of Beowulf is considered to be an epic poem (as we learned in class), therefore Beowulf cannot be a flawed hero, or in other words, a tragic hero. Beowulf's death may have been tragic, but that does not make him a tragic hero. And furthermore, there is no textual evidence that addresses Beowulf's flaws or weaknesses. Beowulf is presented to the audience as a valiant hero, not a shrinking violet, therefore the author is not justified in saying that Beowulf is a flawed hero. In addition, the authors thoughts on good vs. evil don't quite make sense to me. The author points out that the reoccuring theme in Beowulf is that evil destroys itself because good cannot destroy. If we look at the text of Beowulf, and only that, then perhaps the author makes a point about good always prevailing over evil, because in the real world, good always wins over evil. However the author makes a mistake in pointing out that good can never destroy. In the text, Beowulf pulls out Grendel's arm with his bare hands and leaves the monster to die. Beowulf also slays Grendel's mother, the Troll-Wife, with is sword, and before falling to his death, Beowulf slices the head off of the dragon. Based on the text, the authors contradicts himself when saying that good cannot destroy, because in every incident mentioned above, Beowulf, who represents good, kills (destroys) some form of evil. With that said, the author cannot apply his thoughts about evil destroying itself to any real life incidents. If everything evil destroyed itself, then we could no longer say that good prevails over evil. If good cannot destroy or overcome evil, then good has not won over evil. Good has merely sat on the sidelines and watched evil perish.
Geoffrey Chaucer began writing The Canterbury Tales sometime around 1387 A.D.; the uncompleted manuscript was published in 1400, the year he died. Having recently passed the six hundredth anniversary of its publication, the book is still of interest to modern students for several reasons. For one thing, The Canterbury Tales is recognized as the first book of poetry written in the English language. Before Chaucer’s time, even poets who lived in England wrote in Italian or Latin, which meant that poetry was only understandable to people of the wealthy, educated class. English was considered low class and vulgar. To a great degree, The Canterbury Tales helped make it a legitimate language to work in. Because of this work, all of the great writers who followed, from Shakespeare to Dryden to Keats to Eliot, owe him a debt of gratitude. It is because Chaucer wrote in English that there is a written record of the roots from which the modern language grew. Contemporary readers might find his words nearly as difficult to follow as a foreign language, but scholars are thankful for the chance to compare Middle English to the language as it is spoken now, to examine its growth.
3 comments:
This is a literary criticism discussing the theme of good vs. evil in Beowulf:
Why is Beowulf important? by Araby Greene, Univ. of Nevada:
"Beowulf is a true hero -- one who is flawed, yet uses his weaknesses to his advantage. Beowulf had made the best of all he had, putting each imperfection to work in the service of his integrity. Thus, his real strength lay in the balance of his person --which is, perhaps, another way of saying that he was strong because he was good, and good because he had the strength to accept things in him that were bad. Beowulf was the rare kind of a person who makes strength out of his own weaknesses. Beowulf examines the Anglo-Saxon's fears of the unknown. The fears of death, failure, and the future are mixed with a fear of natural phenomenon not understood during the Middle Ages. Its message is that evil destroys itself; good cannot destroy evil because good cannot destroy. The theme of Good vs. Evil - Black vs. White - Light vs. Dark is evident in the characters of Beowulf and Grendel. Beowulf calls out, 'I am light.' He appears white. Grendel hates light and lives for the darkness. He is pictured as black and torches go out when he passes. Beowulf burns Grendel with the touch of light and heat."
(response to above literary criticism)
To a certain extent, I agree with what the author has to say. I agree that Beowulf was a hero and the theme of Good vs. Evil is prevalent throughout the text, yet I dont think that there is much of any evidence supporting the authors main ideas. For example, the author says, "Beowulf is a true hero - one who is flawed, yet uses his weaknesses to his advantage. Beowulf had made the best of all he had, putting each imperfection to work in the service of his integrity." The story of Beowulf is considered to be an epic poem (as we learned in class), therefore Beowulf cannot be a flawed hero, or in other words, a tragic hero. Beowulf's death may have been tragic, but that does not make him a tragic hero. And furthermore, there is no textual evidence that addresses Beowulf's flaws or weaknesses. Beowulf is presented to the audience as a valiant hero, not a shrinking violet, therefore the author is not justified in saying that Beowulf is a flawed hero. In addition, the authors thoughts on good vs. evil don't quite make sense to me. The author points out that the reoccuring theme in Beowulf is that evil destroys itself because good cannot destroy. If we look at the text of Beowulf, and only that, then perhaps the author makes a point about good always prevailing over evil, because in the real world, good always wins over evil. However the author makes a mistake in pointing out that good can never destroy. In the text, Beowulf pulls out Grendel's arm with his bare hands and leaves the monster to die. Beowulf also slays Grendel's mother, the Troll-Wife, with is sword, and before falling to his death, Beowulf slices the head off of the dragon. Based on the text, the authors contradicts himself when saying that good cannot destroy, because in every incident mentioned above, Beowulf, who represents good, kills (destroys) some form of evil. With that said, the author cannot apply his thoughts about evil destroying itself to any real life incidents. If everything evil destroyed itself, then we could no longer say that good prevails over evil. If good cannot destroy or overcome evil, then good has not won over evil. Good has merely sat on the sidelines and watched evil perish.
Geoffrey Chaucer began writing The Canterbury Tales sometime around 1387 A.D.; the uncompleted manuscript was published in 1400, the year he died. Having recently passed the six hundredth anniversary of its publication, the book is still of interest to modern students for several reasons. For one thing, The Canterbury Tales is recognized as the first book of poetry written in the English language. Before Chaucer’s time, even poets who lived in England wrote in Italian or Latin, which meant that poetry was only understandable to people of the wealthy, educated class. English was considered low class and vulgar. To a great degree, The Canterbury Tales helped make it a legitimate language to work in. Because of this work, all of the great writers who followed, from Shakespeare to Dryden to Keats to Eliot, owe him a debt of gratitude. It is because Chaucer wrote in English that there is a written record of the roots from which the modern language grew. Contemporary readers might find his words nearly as difficult to follow as a foreign language, but scholars are thankful for the chance to compare Middle English to the language as it is spoken now, to examine its growth.
Post a Comment