Skip to main content

Intentionality behind the fighting -Emma Kate Patterson

 Does the glorification of fighting provoke more violence in the book? Throughout the book we see fighting being glorified and rewarded. This can be both positive and negative. It can be positive in a sense that those who fought deserve a reward for fighting and winning the battle. This can be seen in modern terms when our military is rewarded for fighting. Our military fights to protect our freedom and for that they deserve a reward. They also risk their lives to protect us and deserve to be rewarded for that. Our military fights to protect us when it is necessary but in the book we see that Beowulf not only fights to protect and win but he flaunts his win and give no mercy. The difference in our military and Beowulf is the intentionality behind the fighting. Our military fights to protect our country and it’s people but the intentionality behind Beowulf’s fighting is questionable.

It is because of Beowulf’s unnecessary brutality that I must question if the reason he fights is for the attention and rewards or if it is for the betterment of his community. We see in the book where Beowulf says,” My plan was to pounce, pin him down in a tight grip and grapple him to death- have him panting for life, powerless and clasped in my bare hands, his body in thrall.” (Heaney, 65) By this quote we can see that Beowulf wanted to be brutal. Prior to this Beowulf talks about how he wanted the people to see the monster with their own eyes. This makes me assume that he sought attention from the people and wanted affirmation from them. Due to Beowulf’s cruelness and attention seeking behavior I must question his intentions behind fighting. 


I commented on Leanne White’s and Abigale Bell’s post. 

Comments

  1. Emmett BryantFebruary 22, 2021 at 3:21 PM

    This is a really good point. It begs the question, "Is fighting necessary?". Of course we know it is (hence, your remark about the bravery of our military), but clearly at times the cruelty involved in fighting is not needed, as you clearly showed through Beowulf. Beowulf did not have to fight Grendel, he could have stayed on his homeland, but he chose to cross the waters and kill the monster for the Danes. What were his motives? I think you said it best: attention and affirmation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Caroline TuckerFebruary 22, 2021 at 11:29 PM

    This is an aspect that is constantly seen in literature and history. There has not been one literature class in which this has not been talked about. It is a part of history and hopefully people will learn. The idea that Beowulf takes it to far is, in my opinion, correct and him doing so will come back to hurt him.

    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...
2 comments
Read more

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.
3 comments
Read more

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...
2 comments
Read more