While analyzing the characters in class today, I thought the references to hero culture were very interesting. One person I found particularly interesting was Hrothgar, and his building of Heorot. It was presented that Hrothgar built the hall to be glorious and beautiful, a place in which he could share his wealth with any and all. I liked this, because it seems that Hrothgar is aiming for glory through construction, rather than destruction. Instead of seeking out something to destroy, as Beowulf does, he instead puts his energies and resources toward the creation of something beautiful to be enjoyed by everyone.
I suppose the question is this: who is nobler, the destroyer of evil or the creator of good?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Your question flashes at me in the form of a philosophical question. I would argue that the destroyer of evil is nobler than the creator of good. The ‘creator of good’ would just be redundant or another way of branding the 'destroyer of evil.' What I mean is, both titles are intimately related and I don’t think it’s possible to separate the two. The one who is out to destroy evil would have meant that there already existed a form of good which aimed to destroy the evil that breeds. Thus, there would be no need for a creator of good, because in the act of destroying evil, it would be creating good. Does that make sense?
I agree with aslan. If you destroy evil I believe that you are creating good. It may not be a material thing such as the great hall but it is the overall presence of goodness. I think this is much more powerful than the material objects anyhow. It is also questionable if Hrothgar created this hall for more selfish intentions of his own personal enjoyment rather than the that of his people. But then again you could ask did Beowulf just destroy Grendel for fame or to actually rid them of evil...
I also agree that the destroyer of evil is more nobler than the creator of good. Hrothgar did indeed build a glorious hall to share with all and he was a wonderful king to his people, but a terrible monster was slowly devouring his kingdom, Grendel. Beowulf is responsible for the slaying of Grendel. If Beowulf had not destroyed the evil, then evil would slowly overcome the good, so then what use is any of the good when it is overrun by evil? It no longer exists, evil will spread if it is not removed.
Is Batman nobler than Harvey Dent (pre-insanity, of course)? A lot of the time, the destroyer of evil is tainted or warped by the evil he fights, where the creator of good has no such taint. Dealing with an existing flawed situation is more realistic than trying to build a perfect world, but trying to build a perfect world is nobler to my way of thinking. It seems like a creator of good often becomes the destroyer of evil in the good they created.
Post a Comment