3 ms·

I know this. What's your point? My argument still easily defeats the original article.

• krapp 9y ago
  My point is only that we can't really know whether Grendel is supposed to be some meaningless animal force or symbolic of something with a moral dimension because the original story and its context is lost to time.
  • dvt 9y ago
    You don't have a point. Ms. Nichols' argument is that moral face-offs are (and this is an exact quote) "a recent invention that evolved in concert with modern nationalism" -- Beowulf -- Christianized or not -- is a hard counter to that argument. Christ was born, and Beowulf was recorded, much earlier than modern nationalism. For what it's worth, I can even win the harder argument (considering Beowulf as a piece of non-Christianized Norse mythology), but that's beyond my scope. Margins too small, etc.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]