4 ms·

Completely disagree with her thesis. I've studied Beowulf quite a bit, and I've never thought of it as a horror story. Beowulf just doesn't fit the horror genre

by wrp 4y ago

Completely disagree with her thesis. I've studied Beowulf quite a bit, and I've never thought of it as a horror story. Beowulf just doesn't fit the horror genre. > ...horror leaves readers or viewers with...a sense that, even though the story is over, we still have something to be afraid of. Unlike in the horror genre, Beowulf depicts danger coming from a well defined source, and conclusively eliminated by the hero's actions.

yamtaddle 4y ago
I'd agree that the first two sections heavily feature motifs and scenes that read as very horror to a modern audience, however they were original intended. But they're mashed together with roots-in-very-ancient-literature (e.g. Gilgamesh) nigh-superhero stuff that takes the edge off, ultimately, in a kind of jarring way that I expect is off-putting to a lot of modern readers. The third section (the dragon) reads so differently to me that I can't imagine it was assembled around the same time, by the same person. Maybe one of those two things, but not both. And I don't get any horror out of it whatsoever, personally. A kind of apocalyptic-melancholy, maybe, but not horror.
- LanceH 4y ago
  Everything from just one hill past where the townsfolk regularly travel was of the unknown. It was known that something strange could be living out there -- because there were strange things living out there. There was history of weird things happening to people who ventured too far away from the familiar. What we might perceive as expected (OMG a giant white bear!!!) can be very unfamiliar to those who didn't grow up with an ABC book of animals. But really, read the first couple of pages and tell me that it's horror. It's a hero story, and it's not horror -- he's just up against a good villain. It's more of a western -- drifter pulls into town on his horse, gets deputized to take down the out of town rancher demonizing the good people of the town.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    This is... not really in disagreement with what I wrote, I think? I wouldn't call the first two sections horror, but the description of the terror that Beowulf and (later) his mother wreak on the inhabitants of Heorot is quite horror, at least to modern eyes. The way the hall is hopelessly haunted by this terror, much fallen from its glory days in ways that are plainly visible, and the inhabitants unable to escape their fate, is, separately, even pretty damn gothic-horror specifically (the extensive and detailed descriptions of pure carnage and its psychological effects are rather not gothic-horror, but something else). The environs and inhabitants of Grendel's Mother's deep mire-home, for that matter—carnage and terrible monsters are all over in hero fiction, as with The Iliad's blow-by-blow slaughter on the battlefield, or Gilgamesh's forest-monster, but the presentation isn't like that. But overall, yes, it's not really horror because of the figure of Beowulf, who's basically Superman, and has the exact same effect on the story that introducing Superman to many horror stories would. Pretty heavy horror motifs, imagery, et c., but structurally and viewed as a whole, not really horror. I agree that it's not best-characterized as horror, but absolutely see why someone would make the connection, and even think it might be useful to do so. Taking it as a horror-flavored hero tale isn't too far off, I'd say. "Superman wanders into a remote town terrorized by actual demons, and, predictably, easily wrecks their shit and saves (almost) everyone", maybe. The settings and premise are pretty solidly horror and are presented as such, but the story, not so much. Though, again, I get little or none of that from the third act, which is totally disconnected narratively from the first two anyway, aside from also starring Beowulf. It seems far more straightforward to me, and reads a lot like, say, a biblical hero-tale—there's a monster terrorizing the countryside and murdering away much like Grendel, but we don't get the horrifying descriptions of wanton murder, but instead Beowulf's followers holding back and quaking in their boots while he saves the day. Though that one's hard to read with fresh eyes if you've read The Hobbit and/or LOTR, because it has so much influence on them, and I'm sure being familiar with them colors one's reading of that section, with the result that it's hard not to read it as proto-fantasy. The very voice of it even reads more modern and like something from that genre, in sharp contrast to the prior two sections.
    - LanceH 4y ago
      Not disagreeing with you at all. Just saying that "horror" and fear of the unknown was much more normalized in times where you could quite easily be lost in the woods and eaten by a bear (or witch or dragon). What they might view as normal life would be a horror or dystopian setting for the modern reader. > The very voice of it even reads more modern and like something from that genre, in sharp contrast to the prior two sections. I've read criticism that the whole thing is closer to the modern novel than virtually anything else for centuries. And it really rang true on my most recent reading of it, unfortunately many years ago. I'm going to need to revisit.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > I'd agree that the first two sections heavily feature motifs and scenes that read as very horror to a modern audience Demonstrated well by The 13th Warrior (which excludes the third section.)
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Also, the (now quite old) video game Darklands, which takes a "what if the stuff dark-ages people thought was real... was real" approach, and the result is surely horror.
ctdonath 4y ago
Likewise. Have read it several times, clearly heroic action (albeit perhaps gruesome), never seemed "horror". Never occurred to me there was "something to be afraid of" after the overwrought funeral, at least nothing more than the usual risks of existence in the age. Horror evokes existential dread, a [quasi-]supernatural threat against an unwilling [relatively] impotent protagonist, often with an ambiguous ending. The monsters may be terrifying to the Danes in general, but they are not the protagonists. Action evokes willing combat, antagonist(s) viewed as challenger or threat to vanquish by a duty/honor-bound protagonist. Beowulf travels far to engage the heard-of horror, as challenge for pride and later protecting his people. Beowulf sees the first monster as a voluntary challenge, the second an obligatory follow-up, and the third a duty. Any subsequent vague threats are just the way of humanity; this is not "and they lived happily ever after."
nix23 4y ago
She already shows her lack of knowledge in her first sentence -> "The Dark Ages"
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  As far as I can tell the term remains in limited use by modern scholars, largely to describe periods & places of the time span traditionally so-labeled that happen to be particularly lacking in primary sources so are indeed, in that sense, "dark", as in lacking illumination and obscured. Seems to me that usage would fit OK for the setting of Beowulf. Or it may have been employed in the colloquial sense, which also seems fine and clear, IMO.
  - nix23 4y ago
    No just no, you don't use that term if your a knowledgeable middle-age historian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Yes just yes. Since that supports exactly what I wrote.
      - nix23 4y ago
        >>and today's scholars also reject its usage for the period. >>The majority of modern scholars avoid the term altogether due to its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate. That's NOT what you wrote....
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        To quote myself: > in limited use Which is supported by the article you cited. My only point was that its presence wasn't necessarily reason to decide the author doesn't know what they're talking about. I also think the "poetic" sense of it, in context, is wholly enough to defend its usage here against such out-of-hand dismissal of the author over it. Since I did provide two reasons someone who's not unqualified to write on this topic might choose to use it. In general I find that fans of fields tend to be more pedantic about this kind of thing than practitioners, sometimes to the point of being wrong from the perspective of those in the field (see: "the US isn't a democracy, it's a republic!")

by wrp 4y ago

yamtaddle 4y ago

I'd agree that the first two sections heavily feature motifs and scenes that read as very horror to a modern audience, however they were original intended. But they're mashed together with roots-in-very-ancient-literature (e.g. Gilgamesh) nigh-superhero stuff that takes the edge off, ultimately, in a kind of jarring way that I expect is off-putting to a lot of modern readers. The third section (the dragon) reads so differently to me that I can't imagine it was assembled around the same time, by the same person. Maybe one of those two things, but not both. And I don't get any horror out of it whatsoever, personally. A kind of apocalyptic-melancholy, maybe, but not horror.

LanceH 4y ago
Everything from just one hill past where the townsfolk regularly travel was of the unknown. It was known that something strange could be living out there -- because there were strange things living out there. There was history of weird things happening to people who ventured too far away from the familiar. What we might perceive as expected (OMG a giant white bear!!!) can be very unfamiliar to those who didn't grow up with an ABC book of animals. But really, read the first couple of pages and tell me that it's horror. It's a hero story, and it's not horror -- he's just up against a good villain. It's more of a western -- drifter pulls into town on his horse, gets deputized to take down the out of town rancher demonizing the good people of the town.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  This is... not really in disagreement with what I wrote, I think? I wouldn't call the first two sections horror, but the description of the terror that Beowulf and (later) his mother wreak on the inhabitants of Heorot is quite horror, at least to modern eyes. The way the hall is hopelessly haunted by this terror, much fallen from its glory days in ways that are plainly visible, and the inhabitants unable to escape their fate, is, separately, even pretty damn gothic-horror specifically (the extensive and detailed descriptions of pure carnage and its psychological effects are rather not gothic-horror, but something else). The environs and inhabitants of Grendel's Mother's deep mire-home, for that matter—carnage and terrible monsters are all over in hero fiction, as with The Iliad's blow-by-blow slaughter on the battlefield, or Gilgamesh's forest-monster, but the presentation isn't like that. But overall, yes, it's not really horror because of the figure of Beowulf, who's basically Superman, and has the exact same effect on the story that introducing Superman to many horror stories would. Pretty heavy horror motifs, imagery, et c., but structurally and viewed as a whole, not really horror. I agree that it's not best-characterized as horror, but absolutely see why someone would make the connection, and even think it might be useful to do so. Taking it as a horror-flavored hero tale isn't too far off, I'd say. "Superman wanders into a remote town terrorized by actual demons, and, predictably, easily wrecks their shit and saves (almost) everyone", maybe. The settings and premise are pretty solidly horror and are presented as such, but the story, not so much. Though, again, I get little or none of that from the third act, which is totally disconnected narratively from the first two anyway, aside from also starring Beowulf. It seems far more straightforward to me, and reads a lot like, say, a biblical hero-tale—there's a monster terrorizing the countryside and murdering away much like Grendel, but we don't get the horrifying descriptions of wanton murder, but instead Beowulf's followers holding back and quaking in their boots while he saves the day. Though that one's hard to read with fresh eyes if you've read The Hobbit and/or LOTR, because it has so much influence on them, and I'm sure being familiar with them colors one's reading of that section, with the result that it's hard not to read it as proto-fantasy. The very voice of it even reads more modern and like something from that genre, in sharp contrast to the prior two sections.
  - LanceH 4y ago
    Not disagreeing with you at all. Just saying that "horror" and fear of the unknown was much more normalized in times where you could quite easily be lost in the woods and eaten by a bear (or witch or dragon). What they might view as normal life would be a horror or dystopian setting for the modern reader. > The very voice of it even reads more modern and like something from that genre, in sharp contrast to the prior two sections. I've read criticism that the whole thing is closer to the modern novel than virtually anything else for centuries. And it really rang true on my most recent reading of it, unfortunately many years ago. I'm going to need to revisit.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
> I'd agree that the first two sections heavily feature motifs and scenes that read as very horror to a modern audience Demonstrated well by The 13th Warrior (which excludes the third section.)
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Also, the (now quite old) video game Darklands, which takes a "what if the stuff dark-ages people thought was real... was real" approach, and the result is surely horror.

ctdonath 4y ago

Likewise. Have read it several times, clearly heroic action (albeit perhaps gruesome), never seemed "horror". Never occurred to me there was "something to be afraid of" after the overwrought funeral, at least nothing more than the usual risks of existence in the age. Horror evokes existential dread, a [quasi-]supernatural threat against an unwilling [relatively] impotent protagonist, often with an ambiguous ending. The monsters may be terrifying to the Danes in general, but they are not the protagonists. Action evokes willing combat, antagonist(s) viewed as challenger or threat to vanquish by a duty/honor-bound protagonist. Beowulf travels far to engage the heard-of horror, as challenge for pride and later protecting his people. Beowulf sees the first monster as a voluntary challenge, the second an obligatory follow-up, and the third a duty. Any subsequent vague threats are just the way of humanity; this is not "and they lived happily ever after."

nix23 4y ago

She already shows her lack of knowledge in her first sentence -> "The Dark Ages"

yamtaddle 4y ago
As far as I can tell the term remains in limited use by modern scholars, largely to describe periods & places of the time span traditionally so-labeled that happen to be particularly lacking in primary sources so are indeed, in that sense, "dark", as in lacking illumination and obscured. Seems to me that usage would fit OK for the setting of Beowulf. Or it may have been employed in the colloquial sense, which also seems fine and clear, IMO.
- nix23 4y ago
  No just no, you don't use that term if your a knowledgeable middle-age historian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Yes just yes. Since that supports exactly what I wrote.
    - nix23 4y ago
      >>and today's scholars also reject its usage for the period. >>The majority of modern scholars avoid the term altogether due to its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate. That's NOT what you wrote....
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        To quote myself: > in limited use Which is supported by the article you cited. My only point was that its presence wasn't necessarily reason to decide the author doesn't know what they're talking about. I also think the "poetic" sense of it, in context, is wholly enough to defend its usage here against such out-of-hand dismissal of the author over it. Since I did provide two reasons someone who's not unqualified to write on this topic might choose to use it. In general I find that fans of fields tend to be more pedantic about this kind of thing than practitioners, sometimes to the point of being wrong from the perspective of those in the field (see: "the US isn't a democracy, it's a republic!")