Skip to main content

What is a Hero? - Leanne White

Beowulf is the hero in this story. That is clear when he is introduced and hears about the beast wreaking havoc on the people, and when he actually slays Grendel and then must fight Grendel's mother. But what I want to talk about is how we know he is a hero not solely based on his actions. We can see what type of character he is based on the way is written to carry himself and to speak. 

I've learned that in Greek literature, a hero is not always the perfect protagonist who does the right thing and saves the day, but rather someone who has shown great strength and accomplishment, or who had power or favour from the gods. Beowulf is similar and yet very different. While Beowulf had shown great strength and accomplishment, he also might be seen as arrogant, vain, or pompous. That is how we know he was a hero. He was written with such boastful demeanour, not as vanity, but because that is customary heroic behaviour.

When I read Beowulf in high school, we learned that in Anglo-Saxon literature, somewhat like the Greeks, authors like to paint their heroes in a way that can come across as arrogance to show the reader that this person will be the hero in the story.

I commented on Racheal Gregson and Brooke Hutcheson's posts.

Comments

  1. You make a great point. The heroes in Greek culture were shown as the the overarching, powerful leaders, but they were not very humble or very approachable. Those heroes are completely different than we think of nowadays like Marvel.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like that you pointed out that hero’s in Greek text are made to look arrogant. I did not know this so I assumed that Beowulf was an arrogant person.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That makes a lot of sense when you think about. We see satirical movies about heroes being pompous and air-headed but those are just jests at what heroes were seen as during those time periods. Many times, they had to act brave and courageous because they had many common people looking to them as a fountain of strength and hope. This became increasingly more prevalent during the knight-era.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I do find it funny how, for many years, heroes were presented as being a bit more arrogant and pompous than we would see as appropriate today. These ancient heroes thrived within the morally gray area as not all of their actions were very heroic.

    Today, many of the heroes that we root for are humble underdogs. These newer characters possess sound morals and down-to-earth attributes that we ourselves can better relate to.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Agreed! I've always thought Beowulf to be a bit too arrogant for my liking, but I can't really blame him for how he was written. Like you said, the criteria for heroes was a bit different back then, and over the years, people's preferences have changed as they always do. Confidence, not internal morality/integrity, was the key back then.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...