Beowulf! A Warrior Exposed.

A cry for help sounds. A woman is being mugged. The thief will surely escape. But wait... is that a mild mannered journalist stripping off his clothes...? Where is this familiar series of events from? You guessed it: Superman. In transition from citizen to crime-fighter, it seems heroes have a strange obsession with getting into the nude. Beowulf, warrior of Geatland,  produces similar action when fighting a cruel monster, Grendel,  for the Danish people-- he boasts that he will fight Grendel wielding no weapon and wearing no armor. It seems to me that this habit of saviors fighting exposed is quite symbolic. The naked hero Beowulf presents himself fully, purely one might say, dressed as he was the day he was born. It would seem this birthday suit was in fact a symbol for the valor and selflessness involved with putting one's life on the line for the sake of the people around them-- completely vulnerable, a hero to the core.

Philosophy?

All pigs eat cheese.

Old Snaggle is a pig.

If Snaggle is sick and refuses to eat, try cheese (64).

A deductively valid argument, or is it? Do all pigs truly eat cheese, or is this just another example of a deductive fallacy?

Ah, the games we as humans play, the philosophy we think we know. But do we know, or do we only think we know?

We theorize what we do not know, we come to conclusions that make logical sense to us, but maybe there are some things we are just never supposed to know. Maybe not everything can be boiled down to "crackpot theories" of science. Are we, in the words of the dragon from Grendel, "insane" to think that we can know everything?

I think not, I think the dragon is correct in saying that we rush to what we do not know and in all actuality, are not supposed to know. Sometimes, we may get lucky. Sometimes, we might grasp aspects of the much sought after knowledge. But, the majority of the time, humans will only come to "insane" conclusions.

Hell, this might very well be a crackpot theory in and of itself.

The Confusion of Stream of Consciousness Narration

Okay, these six chapters took me forever to read. It's not that I didn't like what I was reading (the diction is awesome) it was the fact that the narration jumped around so much. One minute I was reading about a goat and then the next there's something about a dragon. I think I might have read each chapter two or three times and I'm still kind of confused.

Is anyone else having this issue or is it just me?

Quotes Explained

Okay I have two questions about certain quotes from the book that i don't fully understand. One is about "seeing all of life without observing it". What does this mean exactly?
And then the other is "expression is founded on the finite occasion. It is the activity of infinitude impressing itself on its environment".

Bonus Question

3 points to the first person to solve this Anglo Saxon riddle!

A wonderful warrior exists on earth.
Two dumb creatures make him grow bright between them.
Enemies use him against one another.
His strength is fierce but a woman can tame him.
He will meekly serve both men and women
If they know the trick of looking after him
And feeding him properly.
He makes people happy.
He makes their lives better.
But if they let him grow proud
This ungrateful friend soon turns against them.

Illusion, Truth, and Humanity in Grendel

As I was reading Grendel, one of the main themes that seemed to pop out at me was that of truth versus illusion. In Grendel, the villains of Beowulf seem to represent truth: in contrast to the relative ignorance of the Anglo-Saxons, the dragon and Grendel are highly erudite and scientific; the dragon, in particular, represents knowledge in its purest form, as his special perspective on space and time allows him to be virtually omniscient. The Anglo-Saxons, by contrast, represent myth and illusion, as epitomized by the "Shaper" - the  scop, the poet whose words shape the perception of reality. The scop changes the nature of perception, allowing people to see bloody wars as righteous and glorious affairs; the scop creates a better world for the Anglo-Saxons to believe and live in. By contrast, the reality that Grendel and the dragon present is a very grim world, one in which all life is meaningless and hate and violence are the law of the world. Grendel's anger against humanity, then, can be described in terms of illusion and truth: because he represents the harsh truth of the world, Grendel hates humanity for the golden, fairytale myths it uses to hide the dark reality of life. Humanity's ultimate crime, in Grendel's view, is then self-deception; it is the refusal to admit truth but to instead hide behind reality. 


My questions, then, are thus: through the interactions of Grendel, the dragon, and Anglo-Saxons, what does John Gardner say about the nature of reality, myth, and what does this imply about morality and humanity? In our opinion, is he correct?