Blog #50 Modern Mythology 2020

Aim: How does Beowulf’s battle with Grendel demonstrate the murkiness of good and evil?

In the beginning of the period, we took our short-answer quiz on Beowolf for around 15 minutes. Afterwards, we reviewed the answers as a class and utilized peer grading to mark each other’s quizzes.

PAIR SHARE - THE BATTLE WITH GRENDEL

1.     Does the fact that Grendel eats men change our perception of him?

2. Why could none of their weapons pierce through Grendel? What about if we consider the metaphorical representation of what he is?
3. Why is it significant that Grendel does not die at Herot?

1. We discussed that Grendel had pretty evil characteristics besides eating men. He is a descendent of Cain, who killed his own brother and whose descendents became embodiments of evil, and he killed warriors in the Herot as they slept. Thus, this fact doesn’t significantly change our perception of him. As Victoria said, we didn’t really have high expectations to begin with. However, this characteristic considered alone does not make Grendel evil or a monster. In a sense, a monster “eating men” isn’t that much different from our diet choices. As Jun pointed out, it could just be his preferred nature. However, the evilness in this is that instead of going to other sources for food, like animals or farms in the society, he chooses to eat humans and even more, grabs and targets warriors in the mead hall while they were eating.

2.     None of the Danes and Geats’ weapons could pierce through Grendel because he cast a spell on all of their swords. Grendel as a metaphorical representation could be the inherent evil within human society. The fact that weapons could not defeat him symbolizes how persistent and long-lasting evil can be. Evil, in a sense, is not really an object or being, but more of a force. The need for hand to hand combat shows how eradicating it requires more than just brute force. 

3.     It is significant that Grendel doesn’t die at Herot, but instead, dies offscreen. This shows that his physical death is less important and emphasizes the meaning of his death instead. It also conveys the theme from question #2 again and how evil is persistent and hard to get rid of completely. Anling then introduced a comparison of how just like Cain killed Able and had to endure a terrible life, Grendel had to endure through life with one arm after being defeated by Beowulf.

The picture shows Beowolf ripping off Grendel’s arm. Hanging it on the wall most likely represents Beowolf’s victories and serves as a trophy and celebration of the victory. However, besides to show pride and accomplishment, it is also used as a warning sign against other evils. 

We drew a connection to the story of Macbeth. In the beginning of the story, Macbeth meets MacDonald, cuts his head off and puts his head in the middle of the battlefield to send a threatening message to others that think of or dare to challenge him.

How do you feel about the voyeurism associated with crime and punishment? Would you go to a public hanging today? Does it function as intended, as a warning, or does it do something more?

We all, of course, said that we wouldn’t go to public hanging today. In America’s history, public lynchings were held to execute criminals. We said that people back then may have just went to adhere to the societal norm, not necessarily due to desire to see violence. There is a degree of peer pressure and an expectation to go. Jun pointed out that it was also a source of entertainment back then since there was not much to do at the time. 

These hangings were also used as a warning, like the trophies mentioned previously. Also, just like in Salem, where they held witch trials and executed witches. The trials functioned as a warning for the public to not practice witchcraft and to stay obedient. In our modern society with crime and punishment for recent public crimes like the college scandal, our form of a “warning” is imprisonment, public courts where people can witness, and the force of media spreading information. 

Reflection:

The bell rang before we could officially and directly address the aim about how Beowulf’s battle with Grendel demonstrates the murkiness of good and evil, but from the Do Now review and critical thinking discussions, I was able to understand a lot more about the symbolisms behind Grendel’s character and the reasoning behind a lot of the plot choices in Beowulf. I learned that the battle, while at first I thought was simply just a demonstration of Beowulf’s strength and heroism or a portrayal of good defeating evil, actually had many underlying themes. The twist that no weapons could defeat the monster, only hand to hand combat, illustrates how complex and persistent evil truly is. It is not a straightforward entity that one can easily eliminate with a sharp sword. Hand to hand combat is much more complex, requiring skill, coordination, and agility without a weapon to rely on, reflecting the murkiness and intricacies of evil.