Learning Reflection

It's been a long time since the beginning of this course and I have enjoyed the entire journey. From the first essay about Joseph Campbell and The Dark Knight, I learned to make sure I integrate quotations, make a strong claim and organize my paragraphs in a coherent order. The next unit was about Grendel from the original Beowulf as well as the novel written by John Gardner. With that argument essay, I met the expectations for quote integration, showing I had improved since The Dark Knight essay. Finally, in our last unit, we became experts on our respective monsters and wrote a narrative from the perspective of that monster. That was my most favorite assignment because it let my imagination go wild and I could, in effect, write about the aftermath of Fenrir's imprisonment and the events leading up towards Ragnarok. Even though the word limit was a bit to little, I think I still managed to convey the irony and effect of a short story to my readers.
 I think the narrative really made me realize why monsters are so fascinating: it is because they are different. We always think about the heroes and how they accomplish their feats, but nobody really thinks about the monster, or tells the story of the monster from its point of view. The audience could be, in effect, missing important points because all of us only focus on the point of view of the hero, and ignore the monster. This difference really adds to the fascination of the monster because we are unfamiliar with its point of view and its perspective. It really fascinated me to read about Grendel and Beowulf's battle in Grendel by John Gardner because it provided a new perspective of a story that is ages old. After reading all the short stories, watching The Dark Knight and reading all those analytical texts on the nature of a monster, I think a monster is someone or something that is bent on some kind of destruction. Fenrir, the Norse wolf, was a archetypal destruction monster, as well as the Joker, who was bent on destroying society to prove that everyone is as crazy as he is. The only thing that differs between monsters is the medium they act through. For example, Fenrir acts through the physical medium, by physically destroying the things around him. At the same time, his destruction affects other mediums, like society. The Joker destroys through the social medium, and that affects the physical medium, for example, when he kills so many people to prove his point.

Beginning the Short Story

The first thing I realized with my short story is that I was not sure where to start. After a bit of thought, I started with a kind of dream that Fenrir was having. I plan on using flashbacks to recount his story to the audience, but it seems a very daunting task to do it all in around 1000 words. The second obstacle was the irony. I plan on making Fenrir seem like a misunderstood "monster" (if he could be called that). My version of Fenrir would be an honourable wolf who was not a coward, and was deceived by scheming gods. But I'm not sure how to do that and put it into my story. So far, I think the irony incorporation is proving to be the hardest obstacle to overcome. What I find exciting is that I can essentially write the aftermath of one of the most famous myths in Norse mythology. I can describe my own interpretations and descriptions of the characters and their personalities, as well as write an account of the processing behind Fenrir's decision, which kind of gives rise to the details that are missing in the actual Norse myth. My draft is coming along a bit slowly, since I'm trying to incorporate irony, but not doing a very good job of it. It's coming along nicely, but I think if I knew more on how to incorporate the irony, it would be moving faster.

Short Story Analysis

I thoroughly enjoyed reading all the short stories because it not only gave me some new inspiration on how to write my short story, but each one of them had their own unique characters and plot that were really interesting to read about. I realized that irony is a big part of the writing of a short story, particularly one in the view of the monster, which is quite unusual in itself. The authors of the stories use a lot of irony in describing the original "heroes" of the stories themselves in the view of the monster. The irony used seems to have been done to satirize the heroes and that they are no better than the actual monster. For example, in "The Hollow Man", Partridge uses irony because the monster categorizes its victims depending on how much it likes them, since it says that it "instantly liked him best." It's ironic because monsters don't usually "like" their victims. In the "Creature from the Black Lagoon", the narrator uses its awareness of its lack of evolution as irony, since it didn't evolve at all since the beginning of time, even though it was born to swim, the narrator was "out of his element." In the "Rakshasi", the narrator says resentfully that her contract could have been "over anytime [Jonathan] chooses." It shows that while she kept her contract alive by doing her master's bidding, the master himself did not keep his own promise to her. There are many other instances of irony throughout all three short stories.
Another thing that I learned from reading the short stories is that they use dialogue to explain or show a specific experience or event. For example, in "The Hollow Man", “"Tomorrow mornin’,” blurted Redbeard, “we’re gettin’ away from here. I’m not dealin’ with no crazy hermit."” It shows the unwillingness of Redbeard to confront the "hermit", or the monster, which gives the monster a motive to mind control Grizzly to kill Redbeard. In the "Creature from the Black Lagoon", there is dialogue between the human characters, but the most important is the internal dialogue that the monster has with himself, in his reflection of his behavior towards Kay: “What was less saddening, finally, than a narcissist’s solitude? I'd been drawn to Kay the way insects singled out the younger shoots or leaves not yet toughened or toxic.” This is also a form of irony, since it's unexpected that the creature would have such thinking skills, able to reflect on his actions. In the "Rakshasi", the author includes dialogue to foreshadow some future events. For example, as Amrita is talking to Catherine, her isha's wife, she tries hinting at obtaining her freedom, but Catherine replies with “‘I know. But his obligation...’”. This foreshadows a later realization as the narrator admits to planting the seed of doubt into Catherine's mind in order to put her plan for obtaining her freedom into action. In fact, at the end of the story, Amrita does get her freedom with the help of Catherine.
In conclusion, irony and dialogue are two among many particular devices that the authors use in their short stories, which were important in driving the story forward.

The Hollow Man: Irony

Norman Partridge uses some irony within his short story "The Hollow Man", which describes a kind of parasitic monster that needs a human host. However, at the same time, it can fly around at will. Partridge uses irony by having his monster laugh at the sight of companions turning against companions and death. He uses irony with the monster's categorization of the four adventurers, saying that the monster "liked [Grizzly] best". It becomes irony because it is the opposite one would expect. Would anyone laugh at death and homicide? No sane human would ever laugh at something as grim as death or homicide. Another thing that was unexpected was for the monster to categorize it's victims on how much it liked them. Did Grendel ever say he liked Beowulf? Did Batman ever say he liked the Joker, the Penguin or Bane? Thus, this is quite an unexpected turn of events. However, later on in the story, we realize that the monster had good reason to like Grizzly, since he was, perhaps, the most fit for survival and the best host out of the four for the monster.
I think this story was very well written because it includes a lot of descriptive detail, which enhances the "showing not telling" theme that is prevalent in most short stories. Partridge also brought out the sinister nature of the monster with the monster's actions, like how the monster laughed at the traveller's predicament. Another thing that made the story grim was the description of the hollow man that the monster inhabited first. It seems like the hollow man had rings in his neck and it was basically a kind of pet of the monster, as well as an extension of the monster. Mixed with the irony Partridge uses, his story is memorable as a frightening account of a parasitic monster.

Monster Presentations Day 2

After day 2 of expert Monster Presentations, I think the one of the most outstanding presentations was the Kamaitichi by Billy. One reason why his was a good presentation is because he was very enthusiastic about his monster, which was rather infectious and it made me pay more attention. In addition, the visuals were very nice paintings where it visually enhanced his presentation. Another thing that was very good about his presentation is that his monster interested me. The Kamaitachi is a very interesting monster in the sense that it is one being made up of three other minor beings that contribute to the name of Kamaitachi. Another presentation that I thought was outstanding was the one about the Chupacabra done by Jay. He had a very thorough analysis and explanation of the blood-sucking monster, including a classification. Jay's volume was also sufficient so that it was very easy and clear with what he was saying. I think the things that make a good presentation is good volume, visuals and enthusiasm that enhances your presentation.

Monster Presentations Day 1

After the first day of presentations from experts on their respective monsters, I think Sonal's presentation on the Yara-Ma-Yha-Who. The first reason why her presentation is exemplary is because of her eye contact and good volume. Her voice easily carried forth from the front of the room to the audience and it really helped add up to the appeal of her presentation. In addition, she started out nicely with a kind of counterexample with the traditional vampire, saying that the Yara-Ma-Yha-Who is not the traditional vampire, but a special one only found in Australia. The second reason her presentation is good is because of the attractive visuals she included in her presentation. These visuals really gave a good impression on her presentation, making it very memorable. It was a kind of cartoon-y feel to it and it was very simplistic. She had a sequence of visuals of the same cartoon-y feel to it that also gave appeal to her presentation. In addition, her change of tone and and enthusiasm boosted the appeal, which enhanced her presentation. With her visuals, eye contact and volume, her presentation was enhanced immeasurably.

The All Pervading Darkness

When I was a kid, there was a door that linked our living room to the hallway that branched off to the bedrooms. At night when I needed to take a leak, I would always glance at the crack between that door and the wall, just to check if there wasn't anything lurking in that gap. I guess I wasn't really scared of the dark, but of the possibility that something was hiding within, waiting for me to be off my guard. After taking my leak, I would walk briskly back to my room and it was all I could do to keep myself from slamming the door. I was afraid that whatever was lurking there would be following me back to my room. Sometimes I would even feel a presence behind me and I would basically run back to my room and cry myself back to sleep. That door became the bane of my existence as night fell. Every night before I went to bed I looked around the corner of the door just to check, despite the fact it kept me awake during the night.

Grendel Argument Essay Final Reflection

Throughout the creation of this paper, I learned the importance of audience and how, with an audience in mind, it can influence the tone and the connections you make within the paper. With audience, I learned more about using specific phrases or words and putting them into context specific for the audience. With my audience, I have also discovered how the variations of Grendel, whether in the poem, movie, novel or comic, can be related to some kind of hero or villain portrayed in the movies that we see today. For example, within my essay, I linked the portrayals of Grendel in the poem, movie and comic to that of Loki in the Norse myth. Loki is just a simple prankster in the myth and similarly, Grendel is only a simple monster that exists for Beowulf to defeat him. In addition, Grendel's hatred for hypocrisy can be related to the ideology of the Joker from The Dark Knight. In addition, I have learned more on MLA formatting and citing my sources, particularly manually inputting my sources. It's still hard to remember all the MLA formatting, but I think I better understand it, which helps me remember it more. With this argument essay, I have learned more about writing towards a particular audience, connections and MLA format.

Grendel Argumentative Essay Check In

So far in the first draft of my argumentative essay, I've been focusing on concise writing, but enough that my point is still conveyed to the reader. I have heeded the advice Dr. Clark, my instructor, has given me and I have tried to change the way I color-coded my essay in order to separate claims, counterclaims, background and unnecessary sentences. I think my essay is well put together so far, but I still think it could be a bit shorter, and closer to the two page limit (I'm a bit over 2 pages), but I'm not entirely sure what I can shorten or take out. I think I can make some of the longer claims and counterclaims shorter by using shorter words or something like that, but I don't think it will be enough. I think I may have to completely go over the entire essay and rewrite the longer portions into shorter and concise sentences. There may be some more problems, things that I didn't notice, with my first draft, but it's a draft, so I still have room and time to improve it.

Grendel Adaptations

From the film Beowulf directed by Robert Zemeckis, Grendel is portrayed quite similarly to the one found in the epic poem. One of the things that the film accurately captures of Grendel from the poem is the characterization of the ugly brute. The Grendel in the film is indeed ugly, with a lopsided mouth, little eyes, long limbs and ridiculously huge. In addition, his inhuman strength is also shown, as he rips apart Hrothgar's thanes like dolls and throws them across the meadhall as if they were tennis balls. In the poem, there isn't really much about Grendel's appearance besides the description of the arm, and the director seemed to have re-imagined what Grendel looks like. However, in the novel Grendel by John Gardner, there is a more detailed description of Grendel as hairy and ugly (judging from the reactions of the Danes). It seems almost as if Grendel in the film is a walking corpse, with a body pockmarked with holes. It also seems like the Grendel's body is a mass of tendons and muscles, and not covered by skin, giving the impression of a walking corpse. In addition, Grendel's bloodlust and rage is also captured with the unearthly screaming as he enters the meadhall. He proceeds to rip apart the thanes as they try to bring him down, completely demolishing them. This is a big part of Grendel's personality shown in the epic poem as a bloodthirsty monster that hates men and tries to destroy mankind at every turn. Just as a side note, Grendel doesn't end up eating anyone in this part of the film, but may have eaten later. The film clip has basically embodied the character of Grendel, in the sense that Grendel is bloodthirsty, strong and ugly. However, the one thing that the film fails to include is the fact that Grendel is impervious to any sort of weapon that the Danes use against him.

The comic strip from Beowulf: Dragon Slayer Issue #1 portrays the appearance of Grendel as an ugly brute as well, with long canines and sharp claws. Similarly to the film clip from Beowulf directed by Robert Zemeckis, Grendel has claws instead of fingers. In addition, in the comic strip, Grendel is able to lift two men like they were pillows and throw them around like he was having a pillow fight with himself. Similarly in the film, Grendel is able to throw around full grown men as well. Thus, the comic strip also accurately captures the strength and ugliness within the poem. In addition, the comic strip also shows the big part of Grendel's character, which is a bloodthirsty monster who wants to kill mankind. While it is only comic violence and no blood or gory bits are shown, it could be inferred that Grendel has at some time killed the thanes of Hrothgar in his raids in his rough treatment of them. Thus, the comic strip also, like the film, embodies Grendel's basic character as a bloodthirsty monster that is strong and ugly. However, the comic strip is completely missing the part that Grendel is impervious to weapons, and while it may show it later, the comic strip, in so far, fails to show the almost invincible nature of Grendel. An interesting thing is that in the comic strip, Grendel is capable of thinking as he schemes and complains of the Danes. This is also shown in the novel Grendel by John Gardner. The Grendel portrayed in the novel is capable of cognitive thinking, as well as speech. However, the language that Grendel speaks is not exactly the same as the language of the Danes, but it is similar enough that the Danes, particularly Unferth, one of Hrothgar's thanes, can understand him. Technically, this is not a failure to embody Grendel, but since the poem does not show that Grendel is able of thinking, it could be considered a "failure". So far, throughout the comic strip, the character of Grendel has been portrayed relatively accurately, only leaving out some of the details.

Nihilistic Dragon

The dragon within Grendel by John Gardner is depicted as a nihilistic creature, and it almost imposes it's views on poor Grendel. Throughout the chapter in which the dragon is speaking, it is evident that the dragon is an existential nihilist. In a part of his conversation with Grendel, the dragon says that the "essence of life" is discovered within the "frustrations of the established order", and that the universe resists any attempts of "complete conformity" (67). This is an example of nihilism, particularly the part about the universe refusing conformity, but it is also an example of cosmic nihilism*. When the dragon says that the "essence of life" is found within the "frustrations of the established order", it may be interpreted that life itself is inside the frustrations of a chaotic system. With that in mind, it is possible to conclude that the dragon thinks that nature, or life, is basically indifferent, and may be hostile to humans. With this hostility, the essence of life emerges. Grendel is a prime example: since he is not human, one can assume he is with natural forces. These natural forces, or Grendel, come to destroy the established order of humans, causing an adverse effect of blossoming culture. The dragon confirms this by saying that Grendel is the "brute existent" that the Danes "learn to define themselves." (73). Grendel, and the rest of the forces of nature, are the ones drive mankind "to poetry, science, [and] religion" (73). This is an example of cosmic nihilism in the dragon.

Since nihilism is the philosophy that everything eventually turns out to become meaningless, there is no point to pin meaning to any thing within the universe. This is why the dragon claims that the universe resists the attempts of conformity to human interpretations. For example, the Shaper is someone who helps the Danes pin a meaning on to things that are happening around them, like Grendel attacking Heorot. The Shaper sings in his song that essentially, Grendel is a part of "the terrible race God cursed" (51). The dragon states that the Shaper's words as "illusion" (62), meaning that they are just a facade that provided the people with a structural framework for them to live by, familiarize themselves with, and make it become a part of their culture. In the Beowulf epic poem, the Germanic warrior culture of the Danes, Geats and Swedes are always referenced, and some of these values appear within Grendel. A prime example is Unferth's argument against Grendel about the meaning of the word heroism, and how a hero is one who "sees values beyond what's possible" and that is the true "nature of a hero", and that makes "the whole struggle of humanity worthwhile"(89). At this time, Grendel does not agree with Unferth's definition, and the dragon more so. The dragon, due to his extensive knowledge of the past, present and future, considers the history of man just a "swirl in the stream of time" (70), let alone the values that they held dear to them. Due to his supposed huge cache of knowledge, almost everything becomes inconsequential and insignificant to him, which is why he is also a moral nihilist as well as an epistemological nihilist**. As a moral nihilist, the dragon rejects the values and morals that man holds dear, because they are inconsequential. These values essentially become meaningless in the dragon's wide scope of past, present and future, and thus mean nothing to him. As an epistemological nihilist, the dragon denies the truths and meanings that the humans pin to specific phenomena because of the same reason: in his wide scope of past, present and future, the history of man and his values, truths and meanings are only a "temporary gathering of bits" and just a "few random dust specks" (70), merely "a ripple in Time's stream" (71). Thus, the dragon disregards the values, truths and meanings of mankind as trivial in his vast view of time.

Just as a side note, this reminds me a lot of Joker from The Dark Knight film. The Joker believed in the philosophy of a life without rules was the best one, and it relates to nihilism. As stated before, nihilism is the philosophy that everything is meaningless, and so there is no point in trying to place limitations, or force things to conform to you because it will essentially turn out to become a wasted effort. This is similar to Joker's ideals because he thinks that rules will only get in his way when he wants to do something, so without rules, he won't be limited. Nihilists have the same view, but differing results, meaning that they also think that rules and limitations are pointless, but not because they want to achieve something, but the fact that nihilistic philosophy states that rules and limitations are pointless. So, in a sense, Joker is a nihilist, and I think he is most likely a moral nihilist, and possibly an epistemological nihilist.

Anyway, back to the dragon. Since the dragon fulfils the requirements of a moral nihilist, epistemological nihilist and cosmic nihilist, the dragon can be considered as an existential nihilist.

I used an essay as well as a SparkNotes report to help me compile this analysis of the nihilism of the dragon as portrayed in Grendel by John Gardner.

*Cosmic nihilism is also similar to, and may also be known as, the philosophy of Cosmicism
**Epistemological nihilism is also similar to, and may also be known as, philosophical skepticism

Grendel and Irony

In the first three chapters of the novel Grendel by John Gardner, the reader is able to notice that some things about Grendel's character, from the epic poem Beowulf, are reiterated and reinforced in the novel. However, there are some things about Grendel that are new, surprising and unexpected. For example, the fact that Grendel is a sentient and intelligent being is extremely unexpected because in Beowulf, Grendel is shown as a savage monster that lives only for the hunt for humans, the satisfied feeling of being well-fed, and the salty taste of human blood. The fact that Grendel is a sentient and intelligent being is also part of an ironic situation in the story. An event that is ironic is when it does not turn out to your expectations, but on the contrary, turn out to become the opposite of your expectations. In the case of Grendel, when he gets stuck in the tree and met humans for the first time, it is ironic that even though Grendel and Hrothgar (and his entourage) are sentient and intelligent entities, they don't realize that they are similar until much later, and only Grendel makes the connection. The confrontation ends with all hell breaking loose as Hrothgar hurls a battle axe at Grendel, while Grendel's mother comes charging down the mountain. You would expect Grendel to realize immediately that Hrothgar and his entourage are also capable of thinking, much like how he is, but he doesn't realise until they start attacking him. He realises with a sudden jolt that mankind wasn't a "dull mechanical bull" but were "thinking creatures, pattern makers, [and] the most dangerous things [he'd] ever met." (27). As Hrothgar's thanes attack Grendel, he shouts "'You're all crazy,' [he] bellowed, 'you're all insane!'" (27). This is ironic because Grendel doesn't realise that he is basically the same as the humans in all but appearance only. You would expect Grendel to understand this when he hears them talking, but he doesn't until it's too late. Eventually, Grendel comes to the conclusion that humans are the monsters, while the humans are coming to the conclusion that Grendel is the monster.

The First Chapter of Grendel

From the very first sentence of Grendel by John Gardner, the reader observes that Grendel can speak. Grendel is not the savage monster that only wants to kill Hrothgar's retainers, thanes and people, but he is capable of speech. From this, the reader can infer that with coherent speech, Grendel is also capable of cognitive thinking. This holds true later on as he thinks to himself about how springtime has come, and even contemplates his existence. Another thing that we know from reading the first chapter of Grendel is that his bloodlust is virtually uncontrollable. Grendel swims to the surface of the haunted mere "as mechanical as anything else" (pg. 9) and makes his way to Heorot, to sate his appetite and anger, all the while having his "fists clenched at [his] lack of will". This fact shines a new light on Grendel within the Beowulf epic. In the epic poem, the poet describes Grendel as a mindless beast that rampages through Heorot to eat Hrothgar's people. However, within just the first chapter, we can see that Grendel cannot control this bloodlust, almost as if it were a part of the curse cast upon the offspring of Cain. The reader can infer that Grendel's hunger for blood is as ancient as the curse placed upon him, and cannot be denied by him, which drives him to kill. Finally, one last thing that we know from the first chapter is that, while Grendel cannot control his thirst for blood, it is almost as if he enjoys it. As he describes his sally into Heorot, he satirises the reactions of the people. For example, Grendel admires the "old Shaper", who is probably a musician, because he can jump "out the back window with his harp at a single bound, though as blind as a bat." (pg. 12). Another example is the way he ridicules the drunken warriors who blow out the lights and cover up the fires, because he can see in the dark as if it were day. Grendel even laughs aloud at the antics of the thanes as they shout "their meady, outrageous boasts, their heavy swords aswirl like eagles' wings." (pg. 12). Thus, from just the first chapter, the reader can infer that Grendel is capable of speech and cognitive thinking, which also means he is basically human except in appearance. He also cannot control his bloodlust, but at the same time, enjoys it as almost like a hobby. Or a late night comedy show that doubles as a "all you can eat" buffet.

Grendel's Mother and the Hydra of Hercules

As Seamus Heaney says in the introduction of Beowulf, Grendel and his mother are “figures who do the devil’s work...who call up and show off Beowulf’s physical might and his superb gifts as a warrior.  They are the right enemies for a young glory-hunter.” Thus, Grendel's mother is an obstacle, for Beowulf to overcome and show off his strength and his natural talent for battle. An example of this in other stories is the hydra from one of Hercules' adventures. The hydra, also known as the Lernean hydra, had nine heads, and of the nine, eight were mortal and the ninth was immortal. The hydra was an obstacle that brought out the quick thinking and immense strength of Hercules. Like Beowulf, Hercules was gifted with superhuman strength, and Hercules used this to his advantage as he grappled with the hydra, armed with nothing but a club and his bare hands. While Grendel and his mother are examples of monsters, or obstacles, that are placed in the hero's way to display the hero's traits and talents, the Lernean hydra serves this purpose in Hercules' adventures to show his quick thinking and how he uses his strength in handling the monster. Grendel's mother presents a tough battle that Beowulf "barely survived the battle under water" (page 115 line 1655), and only by using his God-given gift of strength as well as some quick observations, Beowulf just managed to use the giant blade to slay Grendel's mother. Hercules, on the other hand, confronts the venom-spitting Lernean hydra by smashing the mortal heads in with his club. However, for every head that was destroyed, two more would grow in their place. Hercules and his nephew Iolaus, used some quick thinking and burned the stumps of the heads to prevent the heads from growing back. Eventually, Hercules cut off the immortal head and buried it on the side of a road with an enormous rock on top of it, to prevent it from growing back into another hydra. Without Hercules' inhuman strength, he would not have been able to hold the hydra's heads still to smash them, or even put the heavy rock on top of the immortal head to prevent it from growing again. Thus, Grendel's mother and the Lernean hydra are similar monsters that display the respective hero's traits and talents as a warrior.

Just as an aside, while Grendel's mother and the hydra are similar, Beowulf and Hercules are quite similar heroes as well. While Beowulf does receive some "magical boons" to fight Grendel and his mother, the weapons become useless under the supreme protection of Grendel's skin. With the exception of the giant's blade and Beowulf's chainmail shirt, there weren't really any other boons given to Beowulf to defeat Grendel and his mother. Hercules also did not receive any magical instruments to defeat the hydra, relying only on his nephew, his strength and his quick thinking.

Grendel in Beowulf

Grendel, as portrayed in the epic poem Beowulf, is an evil, destructive and bloodthirsty entity, and the Beowulf poet uses a wide variety of descriptive vocabulary and poetic devices to show the reader Grendel’s monstrous nature.

The Beowulf poet uses many poetic devices to bring across Grendel’s evil traits, which the reader was also able to infer Grendel’s destructive nature. Throughout the poem, particularly the scenes before and during Beowulf’s fateful encounter with Grendel, the poet uses kennings to bring Grendel’s evil nature to the fore. For example, the poet uses the phrase “The bane of the race of men” (713) to show how Grendel was plaguing King Hrothgar and the Danes. Another example when the poet describes Grendel as “The dread of the land” (761), further emphasizing how the people regard Grendel. While some may argue that the poet’s views may not be the people’s views, King Hrothgar says that “with all the grief Grendel has caused” and the destruction and “havoc” that he had “wreaked upon us in Heorot,” (474 to 475) it shows that King Hrothgar, speaking on behalf of the Danes, hates Grendel as much as the poet. With the use of kennings, the Beowulf poet brings out Grendel’s evil nature and it shows both in the way the poet uses the kennings, supported with the people’s reactions towards Grendel.

The Beowulf poet brings out the bloodthirsty nature of Grendel using alliteration and accentual meter. For example, Grendel strikes "suddenly" in the mead-hall, and then he “maul[s] a man” asleep on the bench, and “bit[es]" into his "bone-lappings, bolt[ing] down his blood” (743). The poet uses alliteration to powerfully accentuate and bring forth the murderous nature of Grendel. With the alliteration in “mauled a man”, it provides vivid imagery of a man getting completely lacerated, but it also uses accentual meter to give this poem the familiar rhythm that can be seen in modern rhyming poems. In the line “bit into his bone-lappings”, the poet uses the kenning “bone-lappings” to, most likely, substitute bone marrow. The alliteration combined with the accentual meter gives the reader a feeling of inexorable horror, as Grendel continues to tear the poor man to pieces, quickly finishing his appetizer and looking for the next meal. The accentual meter is heavy on "bit" and "bone-lappings", which combines with the alliteration and kenning to produce a very graphic image. With the alliteration, accentuated words, and diction, the poet gives the reader a better image than just the words alone.

The Beowulf poet also describes Grendel physically, as well as his destructive nature. An example of his destructive nature is in Grendel's "loathsome tread" and a "baleful light, flame more than light" that "flared from his eyes" (726). The poet uses the word baleful, which means menacing, and coupled with the fiery description of Grendel’s eyes, it gives the reader a feeling that Grendel is out for blood and destruction. The description of Grendel’s arm may also serve as a point of reference to the rest of his body. The limb is covered with “nail[s]", "scale[s]", and "spike[s]" that are like "barbed steel” (983-986). From this description, the reader may infer that the rest of Grendel is just as scaly and spiky as his arm, and just as hard as “barbed steel”. With this physical description, it pins a shape to Grendel, even though it is out on a limb (get it? based off a limb?)

Beowulf and Poetic Devices

One verse in the epic poem Beowulf that poetic devices helped me understand the meaning is on page 41, line 607 to 609, "Then the grey-haired treasure-giver was glad; / far-famed in battle, the prince of Bright-Danes and keeper of his people counted on Beowulf," These couple lines in the poem was after a long dialogue between Beowulf himself and one of King Hrothgar's thanes Unferth. Thus, it was a bit disorienting to hear "the grey-haired treasure-giver", but the key is the word "treasure-giver". When Beowulf first proposed his plan to King Hrothgar, Hrothgar agreed and promised compensation in the form of riches. Therefore, the word "treasure-giver" is a kenning of the word king. In addition, the word king gives an impression of wealth and riches, therefore the word "treasure-giver" could only refer to King Hrothgar. The kenning poetic device helped me decipher who the "grey-haired treasure-giver" was. From understanding the kenning, it allowed me gain a better understanding of what was going on in the poem. In addition, while the alliteration may not actually help me understand the meaning of the poem, it helped me understand why the poet picked certain words over others, and it also explains why the poet used the kenning "treasure-giver" to create alliteration with "grey-haired".

The Dark Knight Essay Reflection

Today in class I wrote an essay on the monstrous nature of the Joker from The Dark Knight directed by Christopher Nolan. I thought with my preparation, it was a relatively good essay, but due to my previous failure at an essay, I didn't know what to think of my work. I thought it was pretty good in the sense that I linked all my points to the term "forfeited humanity" which was the main point of my essay. The Joker was someone who had abdicated his humanity by destroying the pillars that support society, like the late Commissioner Loeb. Thus he fits into Stephen Asma's definition of monster, as proposed in his book On Monsters. Another thing is the Joker fits into the category of societal monster, which basically terrorises society and destroys it. In this case, the Joker is destroying society to prove that everyone is messed up as he is, especially when society is ruled by nothing. Finally, the Joker is a monster because he is awakening something that should be left alone, which is the chaos-infested society that comes with an anarchic outlook. The Joker doesn't fit under Edith Hamilton's definition of monster, as put forth in her book Mythology, because the Joker isn't simply an obstacle for the hero to overcome and attain glory. Batman does not gain anything from defeating the Joker. Joseph Campbell's definition of monster also does not fit the Joker because, as Campbell says in The Power of Myth, the monster is also a "dragon" the hero must defeat to obtain the "dragon's hoard". But again, Batman does not gain anything by defeating the Joker, besides a transformation of consciousness. Thus, the Joker only fits into Asma's definition of monster, which is "someone who, by their own horrific actions, abdicated their humanity."

From the research process and watching the film, I have come to learn a lot about archetypes, the true themes and meanings at work behind the film, and perhaps most of all, the true intentions and nature of the Joker. I also learned more about the term monster and now I know what the term actually means, which will help me judge if the person is actually a monster or not. In addition, I have learned the value of perspectives, and that looking at something in a different perspective can sometimes completely change the entire situation. Thus, to be able to have a valid solution to a problem or dilemma, I learned that you must take into account the many different perspectives. In this case, the two main perspectives was that of the Joker, who claims he is not a monster, and my claim that he is a monster. If I could do the essay again, I think I would link my points to some kind of outside connection that was related to the Joker in some way, for example, a different monster in a different movie that was similar to the Joker. It was truly an eye-opening experience for me, and I will never look at the Joker in the same way ever again.

Good, Evil...and Chaos?

The most outstanding quotation that characterised the Joker's monstrous nature is when he is in the interrogation room with Batman and he says, "See I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve." Perhaps the most terrifying thing about what he says is that he doesn't think he is a monster. While, perhaps psychologically, his way of thinking makes sense, my interpretation is the Joker thinks that he is an example of humanity in a world that is ruled by chaos and anarchy, where morals and ethical codes have no power. In the scene where he is burning his share of the money as a pyre for the accountant Lau, he says that he doesn't want fame, power or money, he just wants to show that deep down inside everyone is just as mad as he is. His argument is that while people claim that they will never do what the Joker claims they will under any circumstance, that is only because they are in a structured society that doesn't need them to do that. But once people are faced with death, that will all change and everyone will adopt the Joker's anarchistic outlook to avoid death. Thus, there is the Joker's philosophy that he is "just ahead of the curve" and that he is exhibiting these behaviours earlier than others. Therefore, one can infer that the Joker considers himself as a superhuman, or a human with an increased capability in something, and not as a monster. He thinks of himself as an "evolved human" in a particular set of circumstances. This is, in essence, why this quote shows that the Joker has a monstrous nature: he thinks his actions are justified and that he is not a monster as society thinks he is, but he is just a manifestation of what humanity will become after he has destroyed society. This quotation also shows the monstrous nature of the Joker because he doesn't consider himself as a societal monster. I think that the Joker considers himself as a saviour that intends to bring his own definition of "peace" to the world by destroying society to start from scratch: starting a world ruled by anarchy and chaos.

Related to that is how Harvey Dent, the "white knight" of Gotham City, fell from his position of good. Harvey Dent, in a sense, became the Joker's first convert. The Joker tells Dent in the hospital: "Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I’m an agent of chaos. Oh and you know the thing about chaos, it’s fair." After getting his face burned off and his fiance killed because of police officials that the Joker bribed to capture him and Rachel Dawes, Dent is filled with a strong hunger for vengeance and revenge, and the Joker plays on this to make Dent see his twisted philosophy. My interpretation is that he considers chaos as a just force, and what is ironic is that Dent, the "white knight" and attorney, agrees to join the Joker in his mission to spread chaos and destroy society. In addition, when the Joker said to "upset the established order", I think he means to tell Dent to do things in a way that followed no specific pattern or "honour code", but to do things almost randomly and chaotically. This may have led to Two-Face's adoption of leaving his victim's fate to the flip of a coin.

I think the Joker is a monster because he doesn't consider himself a monster, but almost a "hero" that has the ability to bring "peace" to the world, letting chaos and anarchy rule. I believe that he thinks he is an "evolved human" who exhibits certain traits that everyone will show once he has destroyed society, and the reason why he wants to destroy society is because he wants to bring about his definition of "peace", which is a society ruled by chaos. The Joker is an agent of chaos, and he works unpredictably, which "upset(s) the established order, and everything becomes chaos". Therefore, the Joker is a monster of chaos.

Batman's Journey

In this second part of the film, Batman is going through a series of "trials" along with Commissioner Gordon and district attorney Harvey Dent. This is a section of the Hero's Journey as postulated by Joseph Campbell. Another scene in this part of the film is Bruce Wayne "receiving" new gadgets and a briefing from his company associate Mr. Fox who also designs Batman's equipment, which is a part of the hero's journey where the hero receives some "magical" equipment to help him in his task. With the new equipment, he flies to Hong Kong and orchestrates a dangerous plan that ultimately kidnapped Lau, the accountant, and brought him back to Gotham City. Another trial is when the Joker announces that innocent people will die each day unless the Batman revealed himself. The Joker gives various clues to indicate which people will be targeted and so Batman tries to stop them from dying with the help of Commissioner Gordon. However, while two of the three targets die, the last one, Harvey Dent, manages to escape due to some quick thinking on Bruce Wayne's part and the Batman emerges to confront the Joker and the assassins after Dent. The confrontation ends after Batman saves Rachel from falling to her death. Another trial occurs when after a series of events where one of the mob bosses, Sal Maroni makes Batman realise that people are dying because Batman refuses to reveal his identity. Coming to terms with this was another trial for the dark knight albeit in an emotional sense. Another part of the Hero's Journey found in this part of The Dark Knight is while Dent is not actually Batman or the major hero, when Dent claims he is Batman and is put into custody, it represents the "fall" of the hero or something along the lines of the "Apostasis" stage in Campbell's mono myth. Another stage of the mono myth shown in this part of the film is "Atonement", without the father. Batman basically realises, or atones for, his sins by planning to reveal himself. However, that is thwarted when Dent reveals himself to be the Batman.

Like what Snyder said in his interview with The Japan Times, Superman doesn't get a lot from humanity by saving the world, and this is more so for Bruce Wayne and Batman. Even though Bruce Wayne is extremely wealthy, Batman is an outcast, as Alfred says, but only the Batman can "make the choice that no one else can make. The right choice." But besides making the right choice, Batman doesn't gain the gratitude of the masses by saving Gotham becoming overrun by criminals. Like the way Harvey Dent is "the hero with a face", Batman is, perhaps, the true hero working behind the scenes. This particular part of this movie is really interesting because Dent is the "white knight" who is the public hero and In addition, the way there are Judeao-Christian themes that are prevalent in The Man of Steel, there are a lot of archetypes in The Dark Knight. For example, Alfred is the teacher and advisor, Mr. Fox is the "divine entity" that supplies the hero with equipment do his task, and the Joker is the monster that the hero must slay to achieve his goals and ultimately, transformation of consciousness.

The Not-So-Funny Joker

Right off the bat in the movie The Dark Knight directed by Christopher Nolan, The Joker shows his true colours as someone who is destructive, self-serving and ultimately, cunning. Throughout the entire bank robbery, The Joker had a smaller plan going in action at the same time, which was to reduce the number of accomplices one by one as they completed each stage in the robbery. So as the robbery went on, there was one less person to receive a share of the cash, until there was only one survivor: The Joker himself. This really showed his cunning and ingenuity in planning. This was further emphasised by the fact that he used a school bus as an escape vehicle, using the innocence of children as a cover up for his heinous crime. The Joker's elaborate planning reminded me of a movie called Now You See Me directed by Louis Leterrier. In it, there were four talented magicians that followed an elaborate plan to perform magical performances and ultimately bring ruin to specific companies and firms. In the movie, it was obvious that everything was planned to the last detail and the four magicians were always three steps ahead of the authorities. 

In my discussion with Daniel and Riley about the types of monsters, we considered people like The Joker and we called their category "societal monsters". They were immoral, had a murderous nature, but they were human, like the rest of us. Another criteria we considered was "Nature vs. Nurture", meaning whether the people were born evil and immoral or if it was nurtured within them by factors like the environment they grew up in. In the case of the Joker, he is definitely a societal monster because, while he is human, he is immoral and has a murderous nature. As shown in the first few scenes of the film, he disregards the lives of his teammates as passing thoughts and does not hesitate to kill them all. This behaviour was nurtured because the backstory of the Joker is that his father was a gambler and a drunkard and he cut open the Joker's cheeks because he was "too serious". The father's behaviour obviously brought about some kind of change in the Joker, which in turn resulted into the mindset that the Joker has today. However the one thing that I admire about the Joker is that he always comes prepared with some kind of plan. While the plan may include blowing himself up, he doesn't care, as long as he takes others down with him, another example of his murderous nature. In the scene when they mob bosses are having a wireless conversation with Lau, the Asian accountant, the Joker walks in and makes an outrageous proposition. The mob bosses are, understandably, outraged and attempts to stop him. The Joker puts a pencil through the eye of one of the goons and intimidates the rest of them, showing that he means business. However, when things got really ugly, he whipped open the front of his coat and revealed grenades tied to a thread on his thumb. The Joker was someone who always came with some sort of plan, no matter how deranged it might be.

In conclusion, from the first couple scenes, the audience sees the Joker as a so-called "societal monster", someone who is immoral, has a murderous nature and a behaviour that was nurtured from the environment he grew up in. The Joker was cunning, selfish and prepared at all times, which makes him a fitting match for the Batman and one of the most terrible societal monsters in fiction.

Socratic Musings on Monsters

When the teacher asks you to answer a question with a question, you realise the "class discussion" was going to turn into one big chain of questions, and almost inevitably, confusion. However, coming away from today's Socratic Seminar, I discover that I learned some new things that were posed by my classmates through questions, but at the same time added more questions to the ones that were answered.

One of the things that came up in our discussion was, perhaps, a solution to the overarching question of how to define and why we define things as monsters or monstrous. The main idea that the class seemed to agree upon was that it all came down to what kind of perspective you looked at it from, or what kind of "monster lens" as the instructor put it. The monster itself/himself/herself may actually think that what they're doing is the right thing. One of the examples to the "monster lens" idea that came up was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. The Americans thought they were doing the right thing because, one, it would hopefully end the war quicker, and two, it was a sort of act of revenge for the Pearl Harbour bombings. In comparison, the Japanese thought they were doing the right thing by bombing Pearl Harbour because they wanted the oil embargo placed by the US to be lifted. They probably also thought that they were fighting for the correct ideologies. So this poses the question: who is the monster? Is the US the monster for killing thousands by dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki but ending the war? Or is it the Japanese who thought they were fighting for the right ideologies and a lifting of the oil embargo? Who is right and who is wrong? What is the criteria for this "monster lens"? Who is the monster? 

Another thing that came up in our seminar was the misunderstood monster. Are monsters actually "good", but misunderstood so that they appear evil? Take the monster from the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. In the beginning, his intentions were good and didn't mean to hurt anyone, albeit for a short moment. However, since Victor Frankenstein, his own creator, shunned him, as well as the rest of society, the monster grew angry and decided to seek revenge against his creator, leading to the deaths of Frankenstein's family. This is a classic case of the misunderstood monster because the monster from Frankenstein only wanted to be loved by his creator and the rest of society, but that didn't work out. Thus, while the monster didn't want to become "evil" at first, society shaped him to become the monster that we know today. This is based on the perspective or lens that society views Frankenstein's monster. We return to the World War II America and Japan comparison. Who is the monster in this situation? Again, it depends on how you look through the lens. Is the monster from Frankenstein really a monster? Like Stephen T. Asma said in his book On Monsters, the monster may just be an "accidental monster", or one that is dangerous but not intentionally so. It all depends on context and perspective. Speaking of perspective, as I was looking through some blogs on perspectives, I came upon an interesting blog post from the blog Zsolt Fabók called "Context and Perspective". The author explains how context and perspective do matter and he poses some situations in which, while not exactly the same as being a monster, still makes me think about how a monster is labeled.

One final thing that we discussed in our seminar was how do people who label monsters benefit from it or justify their label? From Stephen T. Asma's book On Monsters, Asma says that his brother holds the view that those who label people as monsters stand to benefit from that kind of labelling. For example, political campaigns, especially modern ones, have some kind of mudslinging aspect to it, where candidates subtly comment on how their opposition is bad by listing some examples, and perhaps even exaggerating them, to attract an audience. While this is not the same thing as labelling someone as a monster, the candidates are still benefitting from this negative mudslinging in political campaigns.

So to put everything in perspective (haha see what I did there), I learned from our seminar that some monsters are misunderstood as evil, through the treatment that society gives them. Another thing is that there is a "monster lens" that we must look through to determine who is the monster and who is not. However, even that is subject to which perspectives you are looking through. Finally, the big theme of perspective. Context and perspective matter, as the Zsolt Fabók author says, and unless we can understand the context and perspective, we will never understand the full scale of the issue. 

The Tale of Theseus versus The Tale of Perseus Archetypes

There are many archetypal connections between the story of Theseus and Perseus and one of them is the hero out to prove his worth. While this also encompasses the hero archetype, I think this is also a specific kind of archetype. You have your ordinary hero who saves the planet, but then there's another type of hero who embarks on a quest in order to prove their worth and their heroism.

In the case of Perseus, he unintentionally embarks on what is supposed to be an impossible quest to kill Medusa the Gorgon in order to give the king Polydectes "the perfect gift". With the divine guidance and aid of Athena, the goddess of battle strategy, and Hermes, the messenger god, Perseus manages to kill Medusa and returns with her head as a gift to Polydectes. However, Perseus, accidentally or no, holds the Gorgon's head eyes forward and turns everyone in the banquet hall to stone. So Polydectes and his courtiers never really got to acclaim Perseus with the honour he had set out to achieve, but at the end of the day, he acquitted himself with enough honour by ending Polydectes' cruel reign.

In the story of Theseus, he has to travel to Athens and show his king father a particular sword that was kept for him, and right off the bat, instead of traveling the safe route of the sea, he decides to trek overland to Athens where there are bandits at every corner. He kills almost all of them and becomes popular and well known throughout Greece as the protector of the weak and travellers along the road. This is not the only time Theseus tries to acquit himself with honour. Because he is a danger-loving individual, he decides to become a tribute to enter the Labyrinth to kill the Minotaur. With his bare hands. He succeeds and wins the hand of Ariadne, who gives him the way out of the Labyrinth in the first place, due to her unconditional love for him. This is a bit of a spoiler alert, but this reminds me of a section in the book series A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin. In the second book, A Clash of Kings,   Theon Greyjoy has to prove to his men from the iron islands that he was not "softened" by living with the Starks for ten years, and that he is a trueborn man of the iron islands and will pay the "iron price". Thus, he sets out to kill the last two remaining male members of the Stark family to prove himself to his men.

In conclusion, the archetype that the tale of Perseus and Theseus have in common would be the hero trying to acquit himself with honour or by proving himself as a better man. In the case of Perseus, it was killing Medusa and bringing her head back, turning a tyrant and his court to stone in the process. In the case of Theseus, it was ever-present in the many adventures he had, from his journey to Athens to his encounter with the Minotaur.

The Tale of Perseus and Medusa Archetypes

The tale of Perseus is a archetypal adventure with a little bit of romance and tragedy to spice up the story. Perseus must embark on a long quest to prove his worth to his fellow men, receiving gifts and aid along the way, slaying monsters, and ultimately achieving his goals. It is a long journey and Perseus has many tasks to complete and fulfil before he can even find the monsters, let alone slay them. This rather reminds me of the Alex Rider series by Anthony Horowitz. The series is about a teenage spy who receives gadgets and gizmos to perform missions for London's MI6 spy agency, much like how Perseus received his sword, shield, wallet and winged sandals from Hermes and Athena. Similarly, Alex Rider had to do his own research and reconnaissance in the field for a while before he managed to uncover the sinister plot that is about to befall the entirety of England, while Perseus had to go to different places, find different people, and gather the resources and information in order to find and slay Medusa. Another archetype prevalent in the story is the archetypal monster. The Gorgons are described as scaly, winged and snaky hair, and it is similar to most evil monsters that are described in books. For example, this reminds me of the basilisk or Voldemort's snake from the Harry Potter series by JK Rowling. The monsters in question are described using adjectives that mean monstrous, ugly, and horrifying. Finally, there is the archetypal happy ending that comes after the long quest and the hero lives in relative comfort with family, the damsel in distress that he saves, or both. In this case, Perseus ends up living happily ever after with his new wife Andromeda and his mother Danae. Most fairytales have this sort of ending, and there is no end to the list of stories that I could put up here, but one prime example would be the all time classic: Cinderella. In the tale of Perseus, he ends up marrying Andromeda, a maid he rescues from the clutches of a monstrous sea serpent, and lives happily ever after in Greece. In Cinderella, after running away from the banquet and leaving her glass slipper, the prince she dances with vows to marry the woman who's foot fit the glass slipper. There are many different versions of this tale, and I know of one which tells a gruesome account of how Cinderella's two step sisters cut off a big toe and a part of their heel to fit their feet in, but nevertheless, they all end with the same ending: Cinderella marrying the prince and living happily ever after.

Medusa from Clash of the Titans (1981)

In the first couple seconds of the clip from Clash Of the Titans (1981), the scene already gives the audience a hint at the evil nature of Medusa, which in turn infers her identity as a monster.

The first thing that comes to mind is that Perseus is slowly creeping down into the lair with a sword and shield, which immediately screams “DANGER” at the audience. The second thing that comes to mind is that the surroundings are dark, and lit by torches flickering in their sconces. This gives the audience a feeling that you cannot exactly see everything within the lair, and most of it is covered in darkness, adding to the mysterious and suspenseful feeling. The third thing that appears are the stone statues of the men that Medusa has frozen before. They emit a sense of foreboding, and almost a sense of absolute terror as the audience looks at the terrified faces of men as they froze over. This reminds of a book series that I've read called Percy Jackson and the Olympians by Rick Riordan, which tells a modern version of the slaying of Medusa among other adventures by the same hero. Another thing that appears are the sinister silhouettes of Medusa, and the snakes in her hair were particularly striking. The final thing that shows that Medusa is a monster is the suspenseful music with the loud and soft contrasts in it that scare and frighten the audience.

Later on in the clip, the audience gets their first glimpse of the horror herself. The first thing that comes to mind is that Medusa is most definitely not something human, and it really adds to the definition of being a monster. In addition to that, the writhing snake hair also adds to Medusa’s frightening appearance, contributing to her monstrous identity. The rest of Medusa’s body is also scaly and it adds to the monster definition because snakes are often associated with evil, and it also serves to complement Medusa’s hair. The ugly grimace that is frozen on her face also serves to terrify the audience and contribute to the definition monster because most things that we consider as monstrous are often ugly as well. Finally, throughout the clip, Medusa is almost always cast in some kind of shadow or darkness, whereas Perseus, no matter how dark it gets, almost always has light shining on him. This shows the contrast between light and darkness, and also between good and evil. Since monsters are always associated with evil, the audience infers that Medusa is the monster.

In conclusion, the surroundings within the scene, like the shadows, writhing silhouettes, eerie music, stone statues and the flickering light give evidence to Medusa’s identity as the monster. In addition, her own appearance contributes to her identity as a monster, like the writhing hair, the scales, the ugly facial expression and the shadows surrounding her.