3 ms·
Well, because _Beowulf_ is a Christianized retelling of earlier more pagan versions adding in moralizing (and of course involves a fair bit of nationalism/ethni
by gwern 9y ago
Well, 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.
- gwern 9y agoHaving standards doesn't mean a good/evil dichotomy. Do hunter-gatherers have fullblown Western moralizing because they like competent hunters & story-tellers better than incompetent ones? > but don't take my word for it, read Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. I have, and I'm sure you can come up with a better source than that...
- dvt 9y ago> Having standards doesn't mean a good/evil dichotomy. I guess we have a foundational disagreement. If you don't think that virtue/anti-virtue pairs, e.g., courage/cowardice or honesty/deception, are essentially good/evil dichotomies, then what are they?
- Mithaldu 9y agoIsn't any form of "monster" just a cheap "this thing is evil" marker?
- gwern 9y agoI don't think so. Are the monsters in _Shadow of the Colossus_ evil? Are Humbaba or the Bull of Heaven in Gilgamesh evil? After all, Humbaba may have been 'terrible' but that was his assignment from the gods. (Was Satan the tempter in the Book of Job Evil with a capital E?) They may be dangerous to humans and destructive, but they are merely doing their job or following their nature. It might be better to refer to them, Rowlingesque, as 'fantastic beasts' rather than 'monsters' to avoid the loaded connotations.
- goatlover 9y agoAre Jason, Freddy and Michael Myers just monsters? What about the monsters and demons on Supernatural that the Winchester brothers kill because they hurt people? At what point is something a monster that does bad versus a bad guy that does bad?
- gwern 9y agoLet me try again with an even more mundane example. Is a tiger an evil monster just because it may eat people? At what point is a tiger just an animal which does something people don't like vs a bad guy that does bad? How about a landslide? What would it take to make a landslide evil with a capital E?
- dredmorbius 9y agoTiger Tiger. burning bright, In the forests of the night; What immortal hand or eye. Could frame thy fearful symmetry? ... fire of thine eyes ... dread hand... dread feet ... dread grasp ... deadly terrors, etc., etc. Blake.
- goatlover 9y agoIn context of the article, it's the myth of good guys versus bad guys instead of gray characters. That means these characters have moral choices to make. A tiger doesn't understand morality, while Kylo Ren and does, but chooses to do join/stay on the dark side, which means causing a lot of people harm, which he's fully aware of. We don't hold a tiger morally responsible, while most of the beings on the tv show Supernatural would be, since they're capable of making moral choices. Even the ST Borg understand morality, although they consider it irrelevant. But the Federation would probably hold them responsible, if they had the power to put the Borg Queen on trial, like they ended up doing with the Changeling lead female character from the Dominion.