5 ms·
This article is embarrassingly wrong. In every single interpretation of the monomyth, we have a hero that strives to be victorious over some form of evil -- oft
by dvt 9y ago
This article is embarrassingly wrong. In every single interpretation of the monomyth, we have a hero that strives to be victorious over some form of evil -- often times at great cost. But Ms. Nichols is being disingenuous by cherry-picking The Iliad (which is politically complex) -- why not Beowulf, or The Odyssey -- where we have very clear cases of antagonists and protagonists. Also, the argument that moral face-offs are "a recent invention that evolved in concert with modern nationalism" is so unequivocally wrong, if you said it, you'd be laughed out of an undergraduate English class.
Morally relativist and historically revisionist BS.
- hacknat 9y agoIn Beowulf the antagonist is a monster, she at least gives a corollary in the Arthur legendarium. Also, who is portrayed as being evil in the Odyssey? The only two examples I can think of are the suitors and Polyphemus, but the text refers to Odysseus being cunning against these foes rather than “morally justified”. Odysseus even plays the suitors game, because in that culture their behavior is justified. Honestly I think Odysseus is one of the most morally ambiguous characters in all of literature, he’s practically the first anti-hero, to use him as a counter example seems like a huge stretch to me.
- dvt 9y agoWait, are you seriously saying that Grendel and his mother have no moral valence in the context of Beowulf? As far as the Odyssey is concerned, Athena (Odysseus' patroness and mentor) is literally the god of wisdom and justice. If that's not at least some indication that what he's doing is justified, I don't know what is.
- hacknat 9y agoI think you’ve made a straw man of her argument. She didn’t claim there was no morality in the ancient world or no moral perspective in the folklore, just that there are no good guy/bad guy tropes. I have yet to see you give a textual example, at least in the Odyssey, that contradicts her.
- dvt 9y agoI didn't make a straw man, I literally quoted her. Moral face-offs are not a "modern invention" -- I can give very concrete examples: see Odysseus vs. the sirens, Odysseus vs. Polyphemus, Odysseus vs. Circe, Odysseus vs. Poseidon. Obviously, we won't have a Christian morality in an ancient Greek text, but Odysseus, at every turn, exemplifies the Greek virtues. The virtues he probably most aligns with is justice and courage.
- markbnj 9y agoWhatever "moral valence" they do have, you've put there in your reading of the text. Beowulf is just a story about a famous warrior who takes a group of his supporters to help a king with a monster problem.
- dvt 9y agoReally? Why is Grendel characterized as "evil" and a "fiend in hell"? Why does Beowulf exemplify traits of courage, bravery, and self-sacrifice? Why is Beowulf already famous for his "good" and "glorious" deeds? I was re-reading the intro, and ran into this gem[1]: 105 the wretched creature ruled for a time since him the Creator had condemned with the kin of Cain; that killing avenged Totally forgot about this literal reference to Cain (of Cain and Abel fame). I mean, you're about as wrong as wrong gets. [1] http://www.heorot.dk/beowulf-rede-text.html http://www.heorot.dk/beowulf-rede-text.html
- krapp 9y agoBecause the story of Beowulf that we have is a Christianized version, rewritten by monks. We have no idea what the actual moral framework or symbolism of Grendel was, or wasn't, in the original story.
- dvt 9y agoI know this. What's your point? My argument still easily defeats the original article.
- gwern 9y agoWell, because _Beowulf_ is a Christianized retelling of earlier more pagan versions adding in moralizing (and of course involves a fair bit of nationalism/ethnicism although most people tend to ignore the allusions to the backstories and dynasties because it's hard to keep straight even if it's equally hard to miss that Beowulf dying is considered very ominous for the survivors), so it follows the same pattern as King Arthur discussed in OP: what was originally a relatively neutral set of stories about a warrior fighting monsters then becomes morally inflected - Grendel is not just a bandit or some monster, but he's a descendant of Cain, the first murderer and fratricide, inimitably evil and opposed to all mankind and core Anglo-Saxon moral values like hospitality and feasting which he cannibalistically perverts, and his dam can only be slain by a weapon from Genesis.
- dvt 9y agoEven if this were true (it isn't; the Norse had nine virtues), that's not the argument she makes. Jesus was born way before "modern nationalism."
- gwern 9y agoYes, it is. The moralized version is the retelling by later authors for other purposes, as part of the overall gradual transition, as OP exemplifies by King Arthur or the Brothers Grimm. Jesus was born way before King Arthur too. Beowulf would only be a counterexample if the retelling & famous version had deleted the moralizing, rather than rather hamhandedly and awkwardly jamming on the Christianizing and moralizing onto the poet's oral sources. Thus, Beowulf is an example of OP's claims, not a counterexample as you claim.
- dvt 9y agoYou're missing the forest for the trees. I don't care if you like or dislike Christian morality. The Norse themselves had their own moral standards (nine virtues, as I mention). If you were courageous, for example, you were "good" -- if you were a coward, you were "bad." That standard (the good/evil dichotomy) has always existed -- but don't take my word for it, read Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.