Personal Growth

We read a wide variety of literature this semester. My hope is that something you read: poem, fiction, nonfiction, speech, or article, resonated with your. Pick one thing we worked on this year, and discuss the impact/affect it had on you. Did it change the way you think about something or somebody? Did this piece make you “feel” differently about something or was it simply a decent story – one you enjoyed reading? Consider the “big picture” products that went along with each piece and make connections between the piece of literature and the project. Reflect on what you learned, not just about the piece of literature, but about yourself.  Personal growth is when we grow – by any means – beyond the normal expectations…

I'm actually having a lot of trouble recalling everything we've read. I really enjoyed Beowulf, The Importance of Being Earnest and Hamlet, and parts of The Divine Comedy and The Canterbury Tales were memorable. Beowulf, The Importance of Being Earnest  and Hamlet were probably my favorite things that I read this year, but I'm not convinced that I went through any personal development because of them. I went through personal development, and the stories resonated with me a lot, but that doesn't mean that there is a cause-and-effect relationship, or, at the very least, they weren't the sole cause.

As for why those stories resonated with me, I think it's because the stories are from time periods that are typically romanticized, but the problems being written about are identical to today's society. The same complaints and problems people have today were exactly the same as problems 400+ years ago. It's nice to know that the complaints about my generation being the ruin of society have no substance. It's also nice to know that human behavior hasn't changed a lot.

Looking back on it, a lot of the stories that I like are ones where the characters are well-developed, with clear strengths and weaknesses, and relatable flaws. When human characters are actually human, the stories tend to transcend time. I can relate to Beowulf's quest for glory- it's not hugely different than my desire to go to a good college. His braggart and competitive tendencies are ones that I share, although I am trying to reign this in. I can relate to Hamlet, who is an angsty teenager, because I was (and might still be?) also an angsty teenager. I'd like to believe I'm not, but there are probably people who disagree. The Importance of Being Earnest is something that I mostly found amusing. It's also how I discovered that I will never be an actress. I'm horrible with skits. The stories and poems we read over the year that have dynamic characters are like mirrors, and if you stare at a mirror long enough, you're eventually going to notice something about yourself. 

As for what I've learned about myself, that's a bit harder to place. I'm competitive, I exaggerate things (sometimes deliberately, sometimes through faults with memory), I have emotional control issues, I can't act and I can't sing. I have managed to grow with a lot of these things (not acting or singing, though, I would probably need classes for those.). How this helps me grow is simply that, now that I know that they exist, I can work at them. While my emotional problems are largely under control (save for being grumpy in the mornings), it took a long time and a lot of effort to get that way. I hope dealing with competitiveness and exaggeration don't take as long. 

English assignments did help me grow as a person, that doesn't mean that I'm completely done growing. It also doesn't mean that I like the effort involved in trying to change negative aspects of my behavior, and that it might take a bit for me to recognize that a negative trait exists, and how to deal with it. I' not really sure how to end this blog, so I guess I'll just end it with this:

“Growth is the great separator between those who succeed and those who do not.  When I see a person begin to separate themselves from the pack, it’s almost always due to personal growth…” 

-John C. Maxwell

Also, thank you, Mrs. Jarman for everything you have taught me about literature, the world and myself.

What I want my teacher to know

To be honest I had trouble thinking of something, at first. There's nothing specific to English class I have trouble with. This is more addressed to all my teachers than just one.

I'm at school or on the bus for 13 to 14 hours a day, and I have 6 classes. 2 are college courses and the rest are high school courses.  All of those classes have teachers that say that their class is the most important and the one I should focus on at all costs. The amount of homework and projects I get reflect this attitude.

Most of my homework cannot be done on a bus. A great deal has to be done on a computer. I do what I can on the bus, but it's never enough to keep from having too much when I get home.

I also have chores when I get home and I still have to eat dinner. My chores take some time to complete, and I have to do those before I do homework.

Sometimes I have light weeks for homework, which I'm grateful for. But every two weeks are so, all of my teachers will assign complex projects that take a long time to complete.

Whenever there are projects, I often stay up to work on it for all of that week. I'm naturally an insomniac, but the insomnia and projects combine until there are days I get 2 hours of sleep and still have to go to class.

We also have to do volunteer hours, which are sometimes fun but take time away from school work. They are difficult to get set up and there's no room for events being rescheduled or cancelled. The volunteer requirement is all well and good, and I enjoy parts of it, but they are also time consuming and the amount we are required to do does not match our workload. If I had the time for it, I would volunteer a lot more than I do. As it is, I have done an estimated 100 hours this year, only to have a small percentage count.

My religion is important to me. I am not Christian, Jewish or Muslim, so many of our holidays do not fall in line with breaks. Since I was 9, I have been training to be what is roughly our equivalent of a priest, and I have recently hit the second of several milestones for this.

There are a total of 8 holidays, and the celebrations largely consist of prayer. These prayers can be long, and some can last for over an hour.

For the past two years, these holidays have all been during project-heavy weeks. If I can't spare the time to go to sleep, I can't really spare the time to pray.

I find most of my classes easy in terms of content, and extremely difficult in terms of time management.  The grades I get- good and poor- all come at the cost of sleep, a social life, time with my family, time to relax and religious observations.

If there was one thing I wanted my teachers to know, its that the assignments they give do have a cost in their students' lives.

I doubt this is a problem at every school in the country, but our school has a lot more complex parts to it, not just the odd schedule, and assignments that would have worked at a typical high school can't always be applied to students at an early college. Every student at this school have the same things demanded of them as most adults. 13 hours X 5 days = 65 hours a week, which is considered a full time job. We also have lives outside of school with it's own demands, just like adults do.

We have adult schedules and demands, even though we are teenagers. Pretty soon, we will actually be adults, but the 'best years of our lives' will have only been demanding schedules and little sleep.

So please, when a teacher gives out another assignment, think about whether or not you would want to have to do it (or be able to do it) on top of the workload and schedule you already have.

De profundis and Oscar Wilde

“At every single moment of one’s life one is what one is going to be no less than what one has been.  Art is a symbol, because man is a symbol.” - Oscar Wilde

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. It's extremely circular in nature and very confusing. Oscar Wilde is a good author, and I like some of his plays, particularly The Importance of being Earnest, but he seems prone to some very long, flowery sentences. There have been times where I've forgotten the beginning of a sentence when I get to the end of it. Admittedly, the above quote is not long, but I can't make sense of it, especially the first sentence.

Some of Wilde's works are great, an filled with a lot of humor as well. As previously stated, The Importance of being Earnest was a good read and a lot of fun. I like his sense of humor and the little jabs at Victorian society. I've read a lot of his works- including some of the children's stories- and they are all well-written. A lot of his epigrams are true as well, and my favorite is "in life there are 2 great tragedies: one is not getting what we want, and the other is". I think he had to be very in tune with human nature to be able to write things still relevant even after the time period and culture they were written in.

Wilde's thoughts are art a bit hard to place. It seemed to me that he liked art for art's sake. He said, in de profundis that he lived for pleasure, and he cited a lot of types of art as he made that point. I would have thought he liked art simply because it existed, and because it was something a bit out of the ordinary. I've never quite gotten, for example, how a painting of what looks like a yellow apple is symbolic of freedom and open fields. 

In the last few lines of de profundis, Wilde says, however, that art is a symbol, because man is. I could see the argument for the creation of man being symbolic for whatever man is symbolic for. The problem is I don't think man is symbolic for anything. We can create symbols in our literature and works of art, but that doesn't mean that the literature or art itself is symbolic of something else. People in stories and paintings could be used as symbols,  but that doesn't mean the humans, as a species, are a symbol.

Individual humans and individual works of art can be symbolic of something, but not all pieces of art and not all humans are symbolic. A symbol only exists because humans make it into one. This means that while the things humans make can be symbolic to other humans, that doesn't mean the act of creating art, or that art as a whole, is a symbol. I don't see how the creator of symbols- humans- could be symbols themselves.

Satire and a modest proposal

We started a modest proposal recently, and it is creepy. It is a satirical essay by Johnathan Swift, where he proposes a solution for the potato famine in Ireland at the time: eating the babies of poor Catholics.

Obviously, this is not meant to be taken seriously, but the subject of satire has always been a bit odd for me, since I can't easily identify it. The first time I read it, I though Swift was being serious.

The thing I feel the need to focus on is that he specifies catholic infants.

To be catholic at this time was almost like a curse; to be Irish even more so. Anti-catholic sentiment started due to the strained relationship between Mary I and Elizabeth I. Mary I preceded Elizabeth to the throne, and was catholic. During this time, Catholicism flourished and protestants were prosecuted.

Then Elizabeth took the throne, and things completely reversed, Protestants who died were put into a book known as Foxe's book of Martyrs and used as a form of anti-Catholic propaganda. Elizabeth began to enact things to discriminate against Catholics, and made worship in the Church of England mandatory.

Those who didn't comply- the Irish, especially- were treated horribly. This treatment led to a lot of Catholics being reliant on potatoes, because that was the only thing they could feasibly grow in large enough quantities to feed their family on the small plots of land they were given.

Then a disease known as blight began to ruin the potato crops, and many Catholics found that they could no long pay their protestant land lords, feed their family or do much else.

This is when many people began to become indenture servants, in hopes of a better life in the colonies that would later become the US.

Indentured servants proved profitable, and many ridiculous crimes began going on the books, to the point an Irish child could be arrested for stepping outside their house (remember, people were losing houses). The parents would be charged for any food the child was given while in jail, even though they were rarely fed, if ever. If the parents couldn't pay, the entire family was shipped off as indentured servants.

Johnathan Swift recommends eating the children of Catholics, to cut down on numbers. He may of been satirizing the treatment of Catholics as well, but its hard to say. He could have had the exact same opinion of them as everyone else at the time seemed to.

Amadeus

So, I just realized that I forgot to do this this blog for a few weeks.

Two weeks ago, we watched the play Amadeus  done by professional actors. It was a great play, and really enjoyable, but not particularly accurate.

In real life, Salieri was also a very respected composer, and even taught Mozart's son. Mozart was actually wealthy, he just didn't know how to manage it.

There was an orchestra on stage, that played all of the various compositions that were referenced in the play, which I really enjoyed. It was kind of like a musical, except there wasn't much singing.

The play seemed based partially on the real life Salieri and Mozart, and partially on the story of Cain and Abel. In the play, Salieri was jealous of Mozart's talent and angry at god for not giving him even part of it. He felt Mozart didn't deserve it, and conspired to ruin him.

There is also a movie version of Amadeus, which follows the same theme.

One ting I didn't understand was why so many lines of dialogue were in Italian and French, because the play is supposed to be for an English-speaking audience. I understand both Italian and French, but I know that most of the audience didn't. If the intention was for the conversation to be private, why was it even part of the play, instead of it happening off screen or as part of the narration?

This blog is shorter than normal, which you've probably noticed. I just can't think of much to talk about.

If youA have an answer for the language question, can you please post it as a reply?

Madness's role in the politics of Hamlet

I don't know if I've missed a few weeks or not, and if I have, I apologize. My brain has felt a bit fried recently.

Anyway, we just covered Hamlet in class, and know we have spring break.

Hamlet is probably one of my favorite plays, because I can understand it without any trouble. This is new for me, regarding Shakespeare. It's about a prince of Denmark whose throne has been usurped by his uncle after his father's death, and his entire life has been turned upside down.

There is a lot of conflict in this play, but my favorite is that of Hamlet and himself. The question of madness is clear in the play: is Hamlet mad or is he actually seeing his father's ghost?

Hamlet's character is, essentially, that of a moody teenager. So bear that in mind when I talk about this.

Hamlet sees his father's ghost, but only after Bernardo and Marcellus claimed to see him and told him where to find it, and Hamlet is only told what he was already convinced of. It's entirely possible that this is just the power of suggestion playing with an already damaged mind.

 On the other hand, it's also possible that the power of suggestion, and the desire to see his father was enough to suspend disbelief and allow for communication, or that the blood connection is somehow playing a role. Shakespeare leaves a lot of the mystical stuff ambiguous- A Midsummer Night's Dream gave you the option of believing that it was all a dream.

 It's not clear if these guards actually saw King Hamlet or if they were just scared and convinced themselves they were seeing a ghost. They mention that the ghost never spoke, and given that it was night at the time, and just before the King's funeral, the thought of a ghost couldn't have been far off from their minds. At night, the shadows and the 'creepy' factor make seeing things a lot easier. Also, the ghost left when one of them pulled out their sword. A ghost couldn't possibly fear harm from a mortal weapon. This lends itself to the idea that what they saw was an animal, and that shadows were playing tricks.

There is also the fact that Queen Gertrude- the late king's wife- can't see or talk to him. The wife of the deceased surely has a stronger connection to and desire to speak with the ghost than 2 random guards? If it's just blood relatives (and guards) that can see King Hamlet, then why doesn't he appear in front of Claudius and chew him out, instead of leaving it to his son?

My personal theory is that Gertrude and King Hamlet married for politics, and Gertrude actually loved Claudius, which is why they get married so soon after King Hamlet's death, which seems to be supported by Claudius referring to Hamlet as "our son", as if he genuinely wanted it Gertrude's son to think of him as his father. The general practices of royal families at the time period were to marry cousins and other relatives, so the thought of marrying your dead husband's brother probably wasn't so weird back then. It also meant that a lot of royals had medical problems, some of which could affect the mind. Look at George III.

Claudius has probably known Prince Hamlet for some time, perhaps his entire life (especially if he loved Gertrude). My theory is that Prince Hamlet had psychosis and hallucinations his entire life, leading Claudius to fear for his ability to rule. When Claudius died, he did what he felt was best for Denmark, and took over the throne, also allowing him to marry the woman he loved, essentially killing two birds with one stone. Prince Hamlet's madness got worse, and eventually turned into murder attempts (which it seems likely Claudius knew about). Denmark needed a competent leader, especially with Fortinbras trying to invade, and any risk of Hamlet killing him to become leader would have been disastrous. (apparently, "family" was pretty disposable in this time period...)

Now, Claudius develops a convoluted plan to kill Hamlet, instead of just stabbing him in his sleep or something (which, now that I think of it, I can't recall any mention of Hamlet actually sleeping in this play). Murdering his nephew within months of becoming king would have damaged his entire rule, but an accidental sword wound, from rough housing he tried to stop (right after claiming Hamlet as his own and complimenting his skill) would make him look tragic and heroic.


While I doubt Claudius is actually a kind person, I don't think he- or anyone in this play- is actually a villain,

Obviously, there is not a clear answer to anything I just said- the play is from Hamlet's perspective, who isn't exactly unbiased. Personally, I think a version form either Queen Gertrude's of Claudius's perspective would be fascinating.

Percy Jackson and the knightly virtues

Compose a character study of a favorite character (from any contemporary book, movie, or TV show) as seen through the seven knightly virtues. Your reader response essay should describe what the chosen character does throughout the course of the movie/story that indicates how he or she demonstrates at least three of these virtues. The essay should describe the sacrifices the character makes in order to remain true to these ideals, and how the knightly virtues are central to the conflict of the story line.

The contemporary code of chivalry has 7 aspects: Courage, justice, mercy, generosity, faith, nobility and hope. I'm going to focus on courage, hope and justice.

The first book of the Percy Jackson series is Percy Jackson and the lightning thief.

 Percy Jackson is obviously brave- even when he's absolutely terrified, he's willing to stand and fight, even without any previous training. This is shown when he fights Mrs. Dodds in the first chapter, and again, even more prominently, when he fights the Minotaur- without any weapons, even- to defend his unconscious friend.

He also has to be extremely brave to accept the quest to find Zeus's lightning bolt, which leads into the idea of his sense of justice. While his justifications lie in simply wanting to clear his name and bring back his mother, he is still going on a quest to locate and return something stolen. The quest is extremely dangerous and it would have made more sense to take a less dangerous quest at a later time.

Despite this, Percy's sense of justice- he has been falsely accused, and something important has been stolen- outweighs this, and his bravery combines with this to encourage him on his quest. He is shown to break some rules, however, this mostly seems to occur when there is a clear and present danger to others- such as the Chimera at the St. Luis Arch.

It should be pointed out that there is a parallel between Zeus and Percy in this book: Something central to Zeus's power and identity has been stolen, and Percy's mother, who is central to Percy's sense of self and life over all,  was kidnapped. Percy goes on the quest more out of a desire to free his mother, but the parallel still exists.

On the surface, Percy is extremely pessimistic and sarcastic. Deeper down, though, there is a sense of hope- he never gives up on the thought of bringing his mother back from the dead, even with the lack of a successful precedent. So even if he is pessimistic regarding his chances of passing a math test, he holds out hope for the things that do matter.

Percy is an unconventional display of the knight's virtues, but nonetheless they are present and the subversion to the expectations regarding his actions and character make the series an engaging read,

King Arthur and Canterbury tales

We are reading Arthurian myths in English. I like them a lot primarily because they've never really ended. Even today, you can find new versions of them all over the place.

BBC recently had a version that I particularly enjoyed, although it wasn't exactly accurate.

Even in music, it shows up. The song "Mordred's Lullaby" by Heather Dale was surprisingly accurate, though it was told primarily from the perspective of Morgan Le Fay.

The Canterbury Tales was written by Chaucer. The one thing I find most impressive is that all of the characters seem like they could actually exists. They aren't characters you would forget.

What I found equally fascinating is how a lot of themes were developed, especially how marriage was a motif. The concept of lies and deceit came up a lot, in almost every story, simply because they were telling stories. Every story, whether fiction or non-fiction, is a lie of some sort. Non-fiction is still filtered through the consciousness and prejudices of t he person telling it, leading to a form of self-deception.

There is a character in the Canterbury Tales called Chaucer, and at times I wonder if he was included as a joke.

The character and author are vastly different people. The character is accused of being sullen and silent, a far cry from the author. He is also the narrator, writing it all from memory. No one seems to want to hear the character's story, even though people from all over read the author's story during high school. It seems like the author is poking fun at his own points, by showing such a blatant example of misrepresenting himself in a story that has multiple layers. Not only are the characters all misrepresented by themselves, they are misrepresented even more by the narrator, who is himself a misrepresentation of the author.

I'm not sure if anything I just typed makes sense, but if it does, or doesn't, please let me know in the comments.

general recap and Dante's inferno

I just realized I've skipped over Everyman and the Canterbury tales.

Anyway, just as a general recap- Everyman is a morality play about how every man will inevitably die and that worldly pleasures can't accompany you into death, just your good deeds. It is pro-church.

The Canterbury Tales were written by Chaucer and are about a group of people telling tales while on a pilgrimage. Chaucer is surprisingly critical of the church, with the only clergy member who is good being the parson.

We are also reading Dante's Inferno, which I have mixed feelings on. It is an exceptionally well-written poem, but it's not really the piece of art its often held up as. The Inferno is part of a larger work known as the Divine Comedy, and it wasn't meant to be art so much a it was an act of revenge.

In Pope Boniface VIII's reign, the republic of Florence was pretty divided over whether or not he was a good person.The Neri (black) Guelphs felt that the pope was good and the Bianchi (white) Guelphs were wary of him. Dante was a Bianchi Guelph. Anyway, when the then-pope appointed Charles De Valois as a general peacemaker for Tuscany, Dante traveled to Rome to talk to the pope about it. while Dante was there, the pope ordered Valois to enter Florence with an armed militia and overthrow the established government with a more religiously appreciative one. It should be pointed out that Dante was a politician. The pope then fined Dante for being in Rome, and the new government of Florence decided to ban him from ever returning. (This decision was not repealed until 2008.)

This is when Dante started to write the Divine Comedy. 

Dante is really good with rhyming and can make things stick in your head, which is one way to ensure his story got remembered.

What is especially important is that there were many dialects of Italian at the time, but there was also another division: there were 2 separate  and very different versions of Italian, both with their own individual dialects. One was spoken primarily by the nobles and one spoken primarily by the commoners.

Dante wrote the Divine Comedy in common Italian.

Even with a lot of people unable to read, and without the printing press, the story still was heard and and passed around. In fact, it's seems likely that Dante himself read it to commoners to ensure that it spread. He was, after all, the one who would primarily benefit from others hearing it.

Now onto the actual story and how it's just a particularly well-written bit of revenge. Dante had every reason to hate Pope Boniface VIII when he wrote the poem. In the poem, the then-pope has a special place in hell: circle 8. Dante comes across Pope Nicholas III in the third sub-ring, the one that represents simony, who mistakes Dante for Pope Boniface VIII. When the confusion is cleared up, Nicholas III comments that he foresees that Boniface VIII will join him soon. Later on in the poem we are reminded of Pope Boniface VIII's feud with the Colonna family, leading to the destruction of the city Palestrina, the death of 6,000 innocents and the destruction of both Julius Caesar's home and a shrine to the Virgin Mary. Boniface VIII's fate is confirmed by Beatrice, when Dante finds her in heaven.

Also in the poem Dante meets St. Peter, who denounces the papacy, calling it a blood-filled sewer with a vacant throne.

It should be pointed out that the 8th circle contains those whose misdeeds are second only to that of Judas. One has to wonder why the pope didn't send an assassin after Dante.

Dante was probably laughing in his grave when Italy became a single state, and had to decide on a single unifying language, because they chose the language of the Divine Comedy for it, ensuring that his work lived on forever. He also, probably, got another laugh when Florence decided to repeal the ban and asked for Ravenna, the city Dante moved to and died in, to exhume his body so it could be buried in Florence. Ravenna has refused to this day.

Sources:

http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/circle8a.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Boniface_VIII#Posthumous_trial

http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/textpopup/inf0601.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/return-of-dante-the-guelphs-and-the-ghibellines-850012.html

http://www.literarytraveler.com/articles/dante_florence/

1 in 7 billion

Mrs. Jarman had us watch the discovery video from 2011 about the rising population and the problems that causes.

The land mass of earth is 57,308,738 square miles . There are roughly 7 billion people on earth, meaning that the population density of the entire planet is 123 people per mile, so about the same as North Carolina right now.

This means that land is not the problem; resources, infrastructure and education are.

So which of these gets addressed first? Should any of them be placed above others in terms of importance?

Personally, I would say no. 

Resources, infrastructure and education all need to be improved and all at the same time:
A poor infrastructure means resources don't get distributed correctly and it means people would have trouble getting to their schools. Resources mean that people won't be able to live because they don't have food or water, etc. Education is necessary because that would allow the citizens to create for themselves what they need. It's that whole "teach a man to fish" idea. It is also necessary because fertility and education have an inverse relationship.

When these three things are set up, all else follows.

There is more information here in this blog if you are curious:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text

Thor comics and Beowulf

I like comic books, Thor comics in particular. I also like Beowulf.

While reading Beowulf it occurred to me that it was really similar to the basic plot of the Thor Comics.
As I've already stated, Thor is pretty much the most human-like of the gods, and Beowulf is pretty much the most god-like of the humans.

There are many similarities between the two:

 Both are portrayed with blond hair:


http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11115/111150906/3805463-2230489458-Thor-.jpg



http://schoolworkhelper.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Beowulf.jpg

Both start of arrogant and wanting glory (with a desire to defend others as well):
Thor in the comics and the movie is banished form Asgard for excessive arrogance, but despite this, a lot of the time he fights is rooted at least in part in a desire to defend others. In the movie, he didn't attack the Jotuns until they invaded Asgard, and went initially to Jotunheim to investigate whether or not it was a planned attack or a group of extremists. Clearly, that plan fell to pieces.

Beowulf is fighting Grendel partially for glory, and partially as a favor to Hrothgar, in order to help defend Hrothgar's people. His motives are just as mixed as Thor's, but there is still noble intent.

 Both are high up in society:
Aside from the fact that Thor is a god/super-powered alien, he's also a prince.
Beowulf is a member of King Hygelac's court and related to him, giving him a claim to the throne.

Both are big and have super strength:
Thor is a god, so super strength comes naturally, in fact this is why Stan Lee designed for him to be a god/super-powered alien in the comics, to justify him being stronger than any human.

In the poem, Beowulf is described as having the strength of 30 men.

Both are portrayed being big and muscular (see pictures above).

Both mature over time:

The plot of Beowulf is action-packed and interesting, but just as important is that Beowulf matures into a wise king.

Thor comics show him maturing into a wise king as well.

Even how they mature is similar, they go up against a lot of foes and learn from them.

Given how similar these two are, it seems highly likely that Stan Lee drew inspiration for the Thor comics from Beowulf.

Beowulf's quest for glory

The purpose of Beowulf's quest for glory is initially to establish a name for himself.

Beowulf is a nobleman, with many relatives who are kings and a father who served in Hrothgar's court. Beowulf's father is Ecgtheow and his grandfather is also named Beowulf (changed to Beow in some versions). In lines 262 to 266 he refers to his father as a "noble vanguard-warrior".

The point of him being a nobleman is to make him a more appealing hero. The noblemen were supposed to be heroic and great with many deeds to their names and be the great leader that could effortlessly get rid of any enemy.

Beowulf is not the leader of the Geats at the beginning of the poem, but he is a member of the court of king Hygelac. So he is of noble birth and is essentially a knight at the time, with a claim for being King of the Geats at a later point.

Obviously, Beowulf is aware of his lineage, because he spends a fair bit of time discussing his ancestors and what they did. He spends time discussing what he did as well, but before he fought Grendel, he mostly just talks about defeating ogres and opponents in battle, which, while impressive,  is rather vague. The ogres and opponents are never named. "I defeated 5 ogres" is not quite the same thing as "I defeated the fiend from hell, Grendel, who terrorized the meadhall Heorot". Named opponents are more impressive.

Beowulf is fighting Grendel because Grendel is widely known as a terror, and he wants to be known as the one who defeats that terror.

There is an interesting bit where Beowulf is speaking:

I have also heard       that the evil creature

 in his recklessness     heeds not weapons; 

then I it scorn --      so that for me Hygelac may be

my liege-lord        blithe in his heart-- 

that I bear a sword     or broad shield,

yellow-rim to war        but I with my grip 

shall fight with this fiend

Beowulf states that he will fight Grendel without weapons to make Hygelac "blithe in his heart". Blithe means happy or joyous. Part of the reason is for personal glory, but these lines (433 to 439) also make it appear that he is fighting to bring glory to the Geats and to Hygelac. This makes sense given that in Scandinavian society, ideas of individualism weren't as common as they are today.

Later on, when he is King, he fights the dragon in order to defend his people. (lines 2312 to 2399 is it being discussed how Beowulf became king and him making his decision to fight the dragon.)

Overall, it appears he fights for glory, and while the glory is partially for himself, he seems to be fighting for the glory (and, regarding the dragon, safety) of the Geats as a whole.

Thor vs. Beowulf, a comparison

This blog is for my English class. We are reading Beowulf, an Anglo-Saxon poem from around the 6th century A.D that took place in Geatland (now called Sutton Hoo) and Denmark.

The main character is Beowulf, whose name literally translates to "Bee-wolf", and is understood to mean "Bear".  "Bear" is not the first thing I though of.

This is:


"You'll release the dogs, or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark, they shoot bees at you?" 
Note: Credit goes to Matt Groening and the show The Simpsons.

Now onto a somewhat more serious topic of discussion. I am a fan of Norse mythology (not the Stan Lee version, the real version). I have a copy of the prose Edda, which consists of all the Norse myths that survived. 

My favorite myths were about Thor. Thor was kind of the everything god. He had a part to play in just about every part of life. He was the protector of man, the god of storms, the god of agriculture, the god of healing, the god of law, the god of marriage, the god of commoners and probably a lot of other things that branch off from these.

The myth that should probably be mentioned is Thor's death during Ragnarok.       

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Ragnarok, it's basically the gods' last battles with their various foes and against the Jotuns in general. Thor's foe is Jormungandr, also known as Jormungand or the Midgard Serpent (and is technically his cousin. Godly families are a bit odd). Jormungandr is the ultimate serpent, he is so large that his body wraps around the entire Earth. Thor kills Jormungandr in their last battle, but is fatally poisoned in the process. Even more insane, Thor knew he would die this way, and did so anyway, because he needed to protect people from it. Thor's sons, Magni and Modi, inherit Thor's weapon, Mjolnir. 

Now onto the story of Beowulf. Beowulf was human, not a god. Beowulf's main story revolves around his defeat of Grendel, Grendel's (otherwise unnamed) mother and a dragon. It is the dragon I'd like to focus on.
A dragon is also a type of ultimate serpent, one that can breathe fire and fly. In Beowulf, they are also venomous. Beowulf is an old man when he faces the dragon, and. aside from Wiglaf, is alone when he does so. 

Anyway, given that Wiglaf doesn't seem to take any part in the actual fight until the very end, Beowulf fought the dragon alone. He managed to get close enough to stab it in it's weak spot, the stomach, but not before the dragon bit him in the neck. This is when Wiglaf steps in and stabs the dragon a second time in the stomach.Beowulf stabs it again- with a dagger this time- in the side. The wounds, combined, kill the dragon. Beowulf is fatally poisoned and dies. Wiglaf becomes his heir, and gains the kingdom and so on. Now, Beowulf couldn't have known for certain that the dragon would kill him, but it had to be a distinct possibility in his mind. He seems to realize his chances aren't good, because he seems sad and reflective before the fight, and he was probably around 70 years old when he fought the dragon. 

Now for the less obvious parallels: The Norse Edda and the Story of Beowulf were written down at roughly the same time.

Thor's death represents the end of the old gods, and Scandinavia being taken over by Christianity.

After Beowulf's death, it is implied that Geatland is taken over by the Swedes. His death shows the fall of Geats.

Thor, the most human of the gods, dies. His death is the death of Scandinavian religion. Beowulf, the most godly of the humans, dies. His death is the death of Scandinavian sovereignty and culture.

What do you think? please leave a comment and let me know. (Also, please let me know if I used "sovereignty" right. I had trouble thinking of a word to use.)