Skip to main content

My Time has Come... // Ian Blair

    The last part of Beowulf reminded me of how Master Oogway left Shifu the responsibility of training the dragon warrior. I think it’s actually kind of fitting that he knew his time had come, yet he dove into battle against the dragon anyways knowing there would be even more glory awarded to his legacy if he went down fighting. Higlaf seemed to be placed in a position in a way so that the story of the Geats could have been continued after Beowulf’s death. Perhaps in a lost story somewhere? 

    A big question I’ve wrestled with throughout this epic is Beowulf’s fate when it comes to being remembered as a great hero or a glory-hungry fool. As I highlighted before in previous classes and blog posts, I’ve noticed a pattern of Greek, Roman, and now Medieval heroes being characterized by a respect for the deity (or deities) of their specific world. This to me points out that Beowulf is counted as the former, achieving great success in his time traveling and slaying monsters and beasts. The next question that came to mind is what kind of hero do we define Beowulf as? Christian? Medieval? Something else entirely? My answer would be to look at his characteristics as an individual to see what virtues he held. A civilization that writes a hero story typically puts its valued virtues in the hero’s personality so they are promoted in the minds of the children and younger generations, so virtues such as generosity, strength, righteousness, etc. clearly point to him being a Christian hero because of the fact that these virtues are like the virtues that biblical scripture values as well.

    I think the downfall of Beowulf was ultimately his pride and pursuit of glory despite having already achieved unrivaled glory and fame in the world during his time as King of the Geats. His speech before facing the dragon tells the entire story:

 

“Beowulf spoke, made a formal boast for the last time: ‘I risked my life often when I was young. Now I am old, but as king of the people I shall pursue this fight for the glory of winning, if the evil one will only abandon his earth-fort and face me in the open.’” (Beowulf, 171).

 

    He chooses a path of fighting a beast such as a dragon in single combat when he’s well over 70, maybe even 80, years old! He could have taken a small army of men to the vault and slayed the dragon without much difficulty and it would have saved his life in the process. I guess having all the power and glory one could achieve at the time simply blinds someone from the first rule of warfare: Never underestimate your opponent.

 

p.s. I commented on Abbie's and Emma Kate's posts.

Comments

  1. Yes, thank you for giving that nod to Kung Fu Panda in your post. Even before I knew what yours was going to be about, I kid you not, I actually read the title in Oogway's voice. Now, onto the point you proposed. It is a mystery why Beowulf chose to do most of his fighting alone, even when he didn't have to. Even though he technically won, I felt like he didn't really get what he wanted in that last battle; he didn't get to see the glory they honored him with.

    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...