Of Monsters and Men

In the original epic tale of Beowulf, Grendel, one of the primary antagonists, was regarded as nothing more as a monster to be slain by the mighty hero Beowulf. Depicted in the epic as beast-like and inhuman as possible, very few redeeming qualities are afforded to Grendel. However in John Gardner's Grendel, we see a much more human side of the so-called beast. Compared to how Grendel is depicted in the classic tale, John Gardner's novel shows a much more intelligent creature who is capable of thinking and feeling as much as any human. The novel follows Grendel throughout several stages of his life leading up to his fateful encounter with Beowulf. Initially, Grendel is curious and fascinated with the human world, but that interest soon turns into disgust has he discovers mankind's inclination towards violence. As an outsider, Grendel observes the humans as they begin to settle and cultivate land, as well as pillage and murder. Because no one else is able to communicate with Grendel other than the Dragon, Grendel is isolated and must determine the meaning of his own existence. Even Grendel's mother is unable to orally communicate with him, leaving Grendel in a constant state of loneliness, with nothing but his own thoughts to occupy him. Grendel is constantly left to his own devices, forced to discover what it means to share such a violent world with other beings. To that end, he seeks the council of his only friend the Dragon whom shapes the former's personality. Because of the Dragon's long life span and through countless millennia of observation, it has come to conclusion that humans are nothing more than another sheep or bird that will soon die out. Nothing humans create will ever last, and that all things will come to an end. After the visit, Grendel is left with a much more cynical view of life and humanity in general, believing that humans are just horribly violent animals who communicate with each other. Despite initially trying to communicate with the humans, Grendel quickly abandons this line tactic when they attack him out of fear. Grendel instead retreats back into the shadows and continues to observe the humans, including the way treat one another. While humans as a whole disgust him, Grendel is still interested in the habits of humans and the way they think, not unlike watching an animal in a zoo. However, this all comes to ahead when Beowulf arrives to hunt down Grendel, who had been preying on other humans like they prey on themselves. Beowulf could be described as almost inhuman as Grendel, depicted as cold, mechanical and sadistic. Beowulf also begins to whisper to Grendel, echoing the Dragon's own words about how everything dies, but instead insists that all things will be reborn after death. Grendel's final, violent moments were not those of a beast, but as a man. Desperately trying to cling to life, while at the same time knowing that death was inevitable, Grendel's life was filled with more humanity than Beowulf's ever was. Grendel may have born a monster, but he died as a man as a result giving in to the same violent urges.

Two Monsters

Literary works are a product of their time period and the works are influenced heavily by the ideals and beliefs present during the era. The monsters an era produces reflect underlying cultural aspects and the characteristics attributed to a monster embody the social anxieties and stresses of the time. Grendel is one of a few monsters to transcend the barrier of time and become portrayed in different time periods and reflect the aspects of two different cultural influences. Grendel’s development in each portrayal shows distinct aspects influenced by the time period and changes in the human ideology. These cultural differences can be investigated through Grendel’s portrayal in both Beowulf and the story Grendel by John Gardner.

               Beowulf ‘s portrayal of Grendel shows interesting perceptions of evil for the time period. The writing is infused with sacred references and Grendel is portrayed as demonic. He attacks without reason or mercy. These aspects indicate the time period viewed evil as a presence outside of human control. Horrible events were attributed to God’s greater plan and humans are portrayed as helpless in the face of these obstacles. Only Beowulf is able to defeat Grendel and it’s only through God’s will that he has the ability to vanquish the evil. Beowulf doesn’t defeat Grendel using any weapons or protection and this furthers the idea of God’s will being the predominant reason for Grendel’s demise. Grendel acts as a venue to portray human weakness and reinforce the power of God.

               Grendel develops in Gardner’s Grendel and is illustrated as an antihero. He is instead humanized and shown to be capable of rational contemplation and deeper analyses. He is no longer portrayed as demonic but rather Grendel is perceived as an oddity, an individual with a unique perception. He is ostracized and alone because of his differences. These differences reflect the nihilistic views of the time period. Nihilism was still developing and not a widely accepted philosophy and Grendel helps to portray these underlying struggles behind the philosophy. Grendel’s relationship with his mother furthers the nihilistic undertones in his portrayal. He is detached and indifferent to her and yet she completely describes his existence because she is his only relationship. The portrayal of Grendel as a unique individual with human qualities brings to light the complexities facing the nihilistic movement during the time period.

               Each of these depictions of Grendel helps to bring to light underlying social conflicts of their respective time periods.

Grendel natured vs Grendel nutured?

            In John Gardner’s Grendel, readers receive a perspective on a monster that was a notorious destroyer in the epic poem Beowulf. Throughout the novel, Grendel is driven by hate and loneliness and ultimately makes his purpose in life hell-bent on hurting the Danes. One reading Grendel or even in Beowulf could see the ugly hate thriving from Grendel and how he contemplates what has a purpose in his life and was doesn’t; overall what is considered good and what is considered bad. Some of the recurring themes throughout Grendel are theory, isolation, heroism, and even at times the essence of nature. An overarching question on Grendel being a monster, was he born evil or was he made evil, or did nature versus nurture take control.
            With the idea of nature, Grendel’s environment and the people surrounding him affect Grendel’s behavior. When the bull tries to attack Grendel he see’s this initial act of violence in the world making him angry. Then when Hrothgar and his warriors act violent on Grendel, he now has motivation to hurt the Danes. Since, Grendel’s first encounter outside his cave was violent, through nature, he is considered violent because of personal experiences or trauma.
            Now you look at Grendel through a nurturing aspect. Grendel did not grow up loved and surrounded by the beautiful things in life. Grendel’s mother was neglectful and unable to communicate with her son, which led to his own isolation, suffering, and unable to comprehend the physical world around him. Through nurture, Grendel is violent because his mother did not give him enough love or teach him about the goodness in the world.
           What really makes Grendel a monster? In Beowulf Grendel is born of Cain, making him naturally evil. In Grendel, Grendel is neglected and left alone, which he in turn eventually becomes evil. On one hand Grendel is evil because the outside world treated him wrong so he wants to bring havoc on the world or specifically the Danes, but in another light, Grendel did not understand the world around him and his mother did not help him discover what was right or wrong. Grendel is a book about perspective.
           In Beowulf, we read about a malicious creature that is evil by every human standard and inherently is evil in a biblical sense. When you read Grendel, we read a story about a creature being misunderstood and guided to be evil and wreak havoc on the Danes. So, is Grendel a monster by the means of his upbringing or the events of his past? Grendel is able to make his own choices, but he is easily influenced by his surroundings, so in way Grendel’s nurture is what makes him evil. If Grendel had learned the morals and more about others, he would then know how to handle attacks or being misunderstood, but inherently if he is able to make his own choices, then he is able to make his own opinions on aspects in the world.

Zero to Hero: Monster Battles Throughout the Ages

Zero to Hero: Monster Battles Through the Ages

Ezra Pound believed that time was cyclical. As depicted in his Cantos, events are constantly reoccurring and tropes tend to reappear throughout history. We can see this firsthand when looking at the biblical tale of Noah and the great flood that wiped out most of humanity, a story that has its origins in the Babylonian epic Atrahasis. It seems that many tales took their lead from Sumerian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman mythology, the Anglo-Saxxon story of Beowulf being no exception. Beowulf, a Geatish hero, resembles the Greek hero Heracles in multiple fashions, but the moment I will be focusing on is Beowulf's fight with Grendel mirroring Heracles' fight against the Nemean Lion.

Starting with the arrival of Beowulf in the Danes, we already see a similarity to Heracles: both heroes are foreigners, coming from another land to solve a monster issue. Even their motivations for setting out on such quests aren't too far removed; both are driven by a debt that needs to be paid (not to mention a bonus of heroic glory on the side). Heracles was atoning for the murder of his first wife by being the glorified errand boy of King Eurystheus; shipped off to Nemea to conquer a beast invulnerable to weaponry. Beowulf is in a similar boat, sailing across the sea to defeat the murderous Grendel whose hide was so tough “that no blade on earth, no blacksmith's art / could ever damage their demon opponent” (Haney 802-803). Upon arrival, both men are welcomed into their respective lands not out of warm intentions springing from the heart, but because they might prove useful in solving a pretty monstrous problem.

So what do these men do when finally confronted by the most dangerous of beasts? Throw their weapons aside of course (with an added perk of no clothing from Beowulf). It's hand-to-hand combat for these guys, nothing else. The reasoning behind this choice of action is solid: Heracles and Beowulf quickly processed that fighting their respective enemies with sword or spear would only be cumbersome since nothing can pierce the monsters' hides. And to top off both these heroes incredible displays of masculinity, Grendel gets to have his arm ripped off by Beowulf while the Nemean Lion is choked out by those chiseled arms of Heracles.

The incredible similarities between these two heroes isn't particularly surprising seeing as all heroes tend to follow the same roads to heroism. It's standard for a Greek or Roman hero to be birthed into an aristocratic or noble family where they can learn the the arts of swordsmanship, archery, wrestling, and speech craft. Each of these activities were viewed as luxuries and therefore not generally doled out to the common rabble in an aristocratic society. These tropes are central to the establishment of a hero not only because they provide all the necessary mechanisms for battling demons and rescuing damsels in distress, but also because they drive the story to an inspirational (if not classist) ending.

Loneliness: an Ingredient in the Recipe for Villainy

I assume I am not overstepping my bounds when I assume that all members of my audience have at least heard of a villain before. They are a necessary archetype (however traumatizing to small children), because where would be the fun without a villain? Even the villains themselves know that. Case in point: Jim Moriarty, from the BBC’s Sherlock, is quoted as saying “Every fairytale needs a good old-fashioned villain”.

Jim Moriarty (played by Andrew Scott) As he appears in the episode "The Great Game"

Now, as monsters are the subject of our course, and monsters are typically viewed as the villains of stories, I believe a reasonable leap can be made from monsters to villains and understanding that they are quite closely correlated. Good? Good. Now moving on to the more exciting bits: where do monsters even come from? This is not going to turn into a talk about the birds and the bees so feel free to dispel all those notions. This post is taking more of a “monsters are formed by nurture instead of nature” vantage so let’s begin! Monsters are essentially the villains of all our stories, doomed to fail from the very first act of villainy committed. Inevitably, some spry young wizard with floppy black hair (or some other suitably scrappy protagonist) will be there to orchestrate their downfall. So let’s rewind back to before Voldemort was Voldemort, back when he was simply Tom Marvolo Riddle.

This is Voldemort for the few people who have not seen/read Harry Potter

And this is baby Voldemort (aka Tom Riddle)

 Now Tom Marvolo Riddle was an exceptionally intelligent lad already turned to petty thievery when he first encountered Albus Dumbledore. Tom was exceptionally gifted but unable to resolve conflict well, resulting in him using his wizard powers to harm those who wronged him. Now, Tom was an orphan, and one can assume that it was an extraordinarily lonely life. We were never shown any friends of Tom’s at the orphanage nor were we privy to any true friends at Hogwarts. Now this might have you thinking, “So he’s a lonely little orphan who grew up to be the most feared dark wizard of all time. Why do I care?” this is a valid statement, however, upon closer examination of childhood classics, to my current obsessions, all the villains I have found have a thread connecting them: loneliness. Think about it. Ursula from the little mermaid: ostracized from mermaid society, the snow queen Elsa: ostracized herself due to her powers, Flowey the flower from undertale (yes I know, a flower): the soul of a long dead prince twisted due to isolation and nihilism, even Moriarty himself: [speaking about Carl powers] “Carl laughed at me, so I stopped him laughing.” Moriarty was bullied. That shows loneliness and isolation if I have ever seen it.

This is Flowey the flower. More on him to come. 

 Now let’s tie this to the monster at the center of it all: Grendel. In Grendel, we notice that Grendel is fairly isolated. The only true friends he has are the scheming dragon and his nonverbal mother. He is able to speak, yet the humans (who he could have found a source of companionship with) either, choose not to or cannot understand him. Thus Grendel is isolated with only the excellent moral compass of the dragon to be a role model and eventually driven to nihilism.
 In the unethical research of Dr. Harry Harlow on rhesus monkeys, he noticed infant monkeys separated from their mothers and brought up in isolation tended to become psychotic. I believe this finding can be applied to Grendel due to the fact that although his mother is present, she is not a "sentient being" on the same level he is.Overall, this can be seen even as isolation from mother.  In short, although money may be a cause of a lot of evil, loneliness can factor into that root of all evil as well.

               

Grendel: Villain Or Tragic Hero?
In Beowulf, Grendel is Portrayed as nothing but a monster. He swoops into the hall, murders and pillages the place, then returns to his evil underground underwater lair. He is described as nothing more than a villain that Terrorizes the community. None can stop him but the famed Hero Beowulf, who selflessly fights and defeats the beast. Grendel is said to be strong and immune to blades and that he eats his victims.
Other versions of the story however, depict a different picture. The book Grendel, by John Gardner depicts the monster as more of a sad misunderstood character. He is shown to be incredibly lonely with no one to converse to, and upon his first interaction with humans, they are the initial aggressors, not he. Grendel constantly frets over the meaninglessness of his life and becomes quite discontent and irritated with his life and loneliness. He doesn't believe in true hero chivalry, and fails to see the point of being a hero at all. Grendel suffers horribly from his near constant isolation and for much of his life, the only thing he interacted with was his mother, who cannot speak.
Grendel''s first interaction with humanity sets the tone for the rest of his life. Grendel is attacked by Hrothgar, and is never shown anything but violence by them. Can we really fault him for turning against humanity and terrorizing them the way he does?
All of Grendel's life, he is isolated, with nothing to do except wallow in his own misery with absolutely no one to talk to. the first time he meets humans they almost kill him, and his visit with the dragon doesn't help facilitate good feelings towards others. It could be said that almost anyone in Grendel's situation might decide to become a "Monster" of sorts and terrorize others. Grendel simply does not know better and when he is essentially goaded by the dragon it becomes hard to really fault him.
In the original Poem, we simply do not know enough about Grendel to determine if he is a true villain, we never see his point of view. Grendel certainly appears to be the villain, he merrily murders people regularly, and theres a lot to be said that upbringing or not, Killing is still killing, and Grendel's actions are still not justifiable no matter the consequences. I can agree with that statement, but its hard not to empathize with Grendel when the story is told from his point of view. I'm not saying i think Grendel is justified in his actions, he isn't but i definitely cannot say that in his shoes i would act any differently than he does. Isolation and violence are a recipe for disaster, and Grendel was the perfect combination, I do not condone his actions, but i do think that we shouldn't judge too harshly after viewing things from his side of the street.

The 13th Warrior: Like Beowulf, But With Muslim Poets, A Thousand Grendels, and Ridiculous Viking Action

Some might not know that two adaptations of Beowulf were released in 1999. The first, starring Christopher Lambert, might be so bad it's good at best. The second is actually pretty great, in spite of its dubious distinction as Hollywood's biggest box-office bomb. The 13th Warrior, first released in 1999, had some high-quality talent behind it: it was directed by Die Hard and Predator director John McTiernan, was based on a Michael Crichton novel entitled Eaters of the Dead, and stars Antonio Banderas in the lead role. Yet, what makes The 13th Warrior so entertaining is its bridging of two distinct periods of history into a neat adaptation of the Beowulf mythos - albeit with just one major threat. Well, I'm sure the "bloody battles and carnage" promised by the MPAA in their R rating for this film play a part, too.

Antonio Banderas plays Ahmed Ibn Fadhlan, or Ibn for short, an exiled Muslim court poet who travels to the Old Norse kingdoms as an ambassador. A nearby Viking village is facing an ancient evil power, and their residents consult an oracle, who states that of the team of 13 warriors who are made to vanquish the evil, one must not be Norse. With Ibn completing the band of 13, they set out to eradicate the village of the fearsome Wendol.

There is still a set of fearsome antagonists in this depiction of Beowulf - on a side note, that hero is called Buliwyf here - but the main threat in The 13th Warrior comes from a set of monsters called Wendol, ancient evil beings that only appear in the mist and feast on human flesh. In spite of Eaters of the Dead being an oddity in Crichton's bibliography, since it's not a techno-thriller on the level of, say, Jurassic Park, he still does not hold back when describing a mysterious threat like the Wendol, and McTiernan directs accordingly. 

As such, unlike their namesake Grendel, the Wendol are not even remotely humanized. Think of a thousand or so Grendels on horseback, depicted neither as the boisterous and massive sort in the epic poem, nor as simultaneously lovable and hateable as Gardner's Grendel, but as the typical ancient evil that feasts on humans and must be vanquished at all costs. It's definitely a contrast. The appearance of the Wendol adds to the mystery - they look like Dementors with fangs, but also tribelike.

It seems to me like both Crichton and McTiernan were trying to embody the lack of spirit discussed at length in Beowulf with the Wendol, especially since they are viewed as such a great fear, and the fact that the Vikings in this alternate history are willing to consult with an oracle in this instance. The oracle is probably the most important woman in this film, actually. Yet, she is shrouded in a cloak, and speaks in an Old Norse dialect - the audience only understands through Ibn's interpreter Melchisidek (played by Hollywood legend Omar Sharif).

Alas, in a somewhat underwhelming change, there's no dragon in The 13th Warrior, nor in Eaters of the Dead - just a horde of Wendol that they call the "firewyrm" or "fire-serpent," which consists of a formation of Wendol carrying torches. Still, it makes for a particularly awesome fight scene in a film full of them, and this adaptation blurs the lines between human and monster even more. 

Finally, there's The Mother of the Wendol, who has a claw that, naturally, poisons and eventually kills Buliwyf at the end. She is depicted just as savagely as the rest of the Wendol, as seen here.

So that, in essence, is The 13th Warrior, a unique and uniquely gory Beowulf adaptation in the sword and sorcery mold, but with plenty of tricks up its sleeve.

Sex Sells: Grendel's Hot Mother

We live in a world full of sexism against women and men with fragile masculinities, and unfortunately, with men having a great majority of the power, that means that their depictions of things will tend to be pretty biased. As a way beef their egos and channel their masculinity, men tend to resort to taking any idea of a female antagonist and do one of two things with it: either the female is made to be overly disgusting (“ugly” if you will) or some sort of “sexed-up” seductress.  In many cases, it tends to be the latter, and this stereotypical depiction devalues the female character, because it judges the character simply based on appearance, as men often tend to do with women.

This trend can easily be seen with Grendel’s Mother in her depictions in the “Beowulf” movies that have come out in recent years. Her original descriptions in Beowulf describe her as monstrous, hair, ugly and other similar characteristics. Already, we can see the first depiction of a women, ugly and monstrous, from the original material. In addition to this, she is also given the purpose of exacting revenge for her fallen son, something which is very uncommon for women to do in this time period. She is also given acidic blood, just to drive home the monstrous factor. However, in the movies, the “monstrous” depiction is thrown out the window in favor of the sex factor.

Take for example this picture of 1999’s Grendel’s Mother. She is portrayed by a blonde, obviously attractive woman in racy clothing. It’s pretty easy to see that they are going for sexy vibe. And if you couldn’t tell from just looking at her, the director’s actually CAST a playboy playmate to play her! Her purpose in this movie is not revenge, but a form of child support. She shows up and explains to everyone that she had an affair with Hrothgar and that the resulting offspring was Grendel. Gone is the story of revenge for her murdered son, and is instead replaced by a story about her seducing the king. Now her character has transitioned from a grief stricken mother, to a malicious seductress. How can it get worse? The answer: the 2007 version of Beowulf

They aren’t even being subtle here. Here is Angelina Jolie, who had been named the sexiest woman alive at one point, nude and covered in gold paint (not shown in the picture is her high heels). If you weren’t sure that they were going for sex appeal yet, I think this makes a pretty good argument. And they went even farther; Grendel’s mother proceeds to seduce and sleep with Beowulf. It is then revealed that Hrothgar also slept with her, and again we find out that Grendel was the offspring born out of this. To be fair, in this movie she actually does react out of revenge for her son and that the whole point of sleeping with Beowulf is so she can bear another son, but this still deviates from her actions in the original text.

These two depictions represent the exact opposite of the original: she was wild, grief-stricken, vengeful, monstrous in the original, but is now instead depicted as calm, collected, and sexy in these movies. But why?  She was perfectly fine in the original, but Hollywood is so obsessed with appealing to men’s sense of sex that they threw out the source material. And this is only one example of the use of sex in media. They are many, many more.

Beowulf and its Female Characters

Beowulf is set in a highly male-dominated world governed by wars, honor, and violence. The role of women in this world seems to follow a pattern: either used as peace weavers to avoid warring tribes or used as trophies for show. Men in Old English literature are always seen as the heroes, while women are not. Wealtheow, Hygd, Hildeburh, Modthryth and Freawaru all fall victim to their role deemed to them by male society. Wealtheow was given to Hygemod as a trophy to avoid war, Hygd avoids responsibility, Hildeburh and Freawaru failed as peace weavers, and Modthryth denied her true identity for her husband.

The only female character that declines to conform to gender expectations and embodies male-like characteristics is Grendel’s mother. Grendel’s mother does not fall victim to the patriarchal society and breaks through gender boundaries that were set by men. She challenges the way women are portrayed to be, and she decides to create her own fate. In the past, these gender boundaries were placed by men to show their “superior position” however, Grendel’s mother pushes through these boundaries thus posing a threat to male authority. This is the real reason why Grendel’s mother is portrayed as an atrocious monster. Her overstepping boundaries and not being like the other women during this time period was so unthinkable that had she had to have attributes of a monster.

 In the poem, Grendel’s mother has the role of a warrior: a position that was only seen with men. Grendel’s mother challenges the stereotype of a passive female when she barges into Heorot hall and takes on Beowulf in her home. “So she reached Herot, Where the Danes slept as though already dead; Her visit ended their good fortune, reversed The bright vane of their luck. No female, no matter How fierce, could have come with a man’s strength, Fought with the power and courage men fight with…” (Heaney 101). This quote shows that the narrator is concerned more about Grendel’s mother gender as the most horrific factor, rather than the attack itself. It also shows that Beowulf respects Grendel’s mother enough to know that she is a strong warrior and that he could maybe die by her hand. It seems as though that Grendel’s mother is alienated from the Danes because of the accepted norms of women at the time. The Danes were most frightened that Grendel’s mother had the strength equivalent to that of a man, thus it would be unspeakable to be defeated by a woman.

Another way Grendel’s mother breached the gender boundaries was her involvement of avenging her son’s death. Vengeance is typically a masculine attribute, especially in the Anglo-Saxon period where families had to get revenge (or get paid a fair price) for the deaths of their loved ones. It is surprising how Beowulf or other men never faced consequences for the murders they committed, unlike how Grendel’s mother does. There seems to be a double standard when Grendel’s mother tries to avenge Grendel’s death, which is more justifiable than Beowulf avenging Aeschere’s death (a man who he barely knew). However, Beowulf is shown to be the hero while Grendel’s mother a stone cold killer. In conclusion, the narrator in Beowulf was attempting to describe Grendel’s mother as a woman who possessed masculine qualities and was only evil due to her gender. The power that she had challenged the ideals and norms a woman was supposed to embody during that time period, and so she became something that the Danes could not relate to, a monster.

            

Beowulf, the Hero?

“Oh isn’t Beowulf the monster?” My younger sister asked me once while talking about the story. An automatic no came out when I thought about it more and realized that though he is not the monster, I cannot fully accept him as a hero either. Reading the whole story I felt this way and could not quite place why until reading Grendel. The fact of the matter is, is that I do not find him to be entirely likable and do not see him as a true hero in the sense of the word. The way that he is depicted and viewed as by Grendel was very similar to the way I already felt about him. What was it that made him unlikable to me?

According to the Miriam-Webster definition of the term, Beowulf is a hero. He is a mythical or legendary figure with strength, he is admired for his achievements, and he is the central character, yet he still seems to be lacking.

When we meet him, Beowulf takes it upon himself to sail to Heorot Hall along with some companions to help defeat Grendel, although no one really asked him to. So he sails to the land of the Danes, not entirely sure of the danger, but sure that if he is not allowed to help, that Hrothgar will “endure woes and live with grief for as long as his hall stands,” (Heaney 21). So, to begin with, Beowulf comes to an enemy land without being asked and assumes that he is the one only one who will really be able to help Hrothgar.

After defeating Grendel Grendel’s mother attacks. Beowulf recognizes that it is out of grief for her son’s death, and that it is unlikely to really happen again because of that; yet, when asked to defeat her as well, he decides to kill her too- essentially letting himself get put into a dangerous situation for no other reason than pride. Even later with the dragon when he knows he is old and may not make it, he still goes to his possible deathbed- not out of duty, but more out of a pride.

Throughout all of his life, it seems that his main motivation in doing great deeds is more because he is aware of the image that it will provide (that of a hero) and not just because it would be the right thing to do. In a time of superheroes who do things because they feel it is their responsibility to do so and are aware of the cost that it may take on their personal life and image (think Batman deciding that it is for the best he is viewed as a villain), Beowulf comes off more as a stereotypical jock who wants the fame associated with being good at something than the ability to know that he did something because he believed in it. This image is especially felt in Grendel as Grendel could be viewed similarly to the kid who is not accepted because he is different and who is defeated by the jock, Beowulf. 

I guess I wasn't the only one who felt this way

Savvy Queens

           In Beowulf, we are introduced to many women. Some are tragic, some cruel, and some are utterly forgettable, but here I would like to focus on two certain women, Hygd and Wealtheow.  Both the brides of great kings, they are described as young, generous, courteous and set the perfect example of how a noble women should behave in that time period. These women are the epitome of a good queens but even so, how much power do they really wield?

            Most people would argue, not much. Everyone knows that women in that time period didn't have as much freedom. They were seen as unequal to the men and were expected to take care of the household and children. But with Hygd and Wealtheow we see something a little different. While both queens are still expected to run everything in the home, they also manage to make some political stances. Wealtheow for example, makes a speech to Beowulf and the other men in the mead hall. In her speech, she implies that since Hrothgar has adopted him as a son, she knows Beowulf will do right by her kin. Wealtheow's speech can be seen as her way of ensuring protection from Beowulf in the future and keeping the throne within her family. By calling Beowulf out like this, she is playing on the pride that men of the time are known to have.

            Now we move on to Hygd who plays a very large role in Beowulf's story, in which he eventually becomes king. We know that she offers Beowulf the throne over her own child after her husband's death. Beowulf does ultimately refuse, but I think this offer shows the queen's intelligence and political savvy. With the knowledge that the kind is dead, and her son is still too young to run the kingdom, she makes the best decision she can in order to keep the peace. By offering Beowulf the crown, Hygd ensures the safety of her kingdom and her son.

            The women of Beowulf may have not had great deal of freedom and choices but I believe they did what they could with what little power they had. While things like speeches and gift-giving seem small in comparison to the great deeds of Beowulf and other men in the poem, I believe that the women of this story used their cunning to keep the peace in their household the best way they saw fit.