DJ #2 Beowulf

Line 169 “He was kept from approaching; he was the Lord’s outcast.”

The  question this line raises to me is, Was Grendel the Lords outcast to begin with or was he just an outcast to the people? I think that Grendel was just an outcast to the people before he started killing everybody. I think that the Lord had the idea to make all of Cain’s ancestors feel pain by making them all outcasts to people. Each of Cain’s descendants had the ability to choose a better route than Cain did. Grendel did not take a better route because he let his Jealousy and rage get the better of him and started to kill people. To sum up I think that Grendel had the opportunity to be better than an outcast in the Lords eyes but failed because he couldn’t hold it together.

DJ #1 Beowulf

Line 102-107 “Grendel was the name of this grim demon haunting the marches, marauding round the heath and the desolate fens; he had dwelt for a time in misery among the banished monsters, Cains clan, whom the creator had outlawed and condemned as outcasts”

            Grendel is exiled because he cannot speak English and is a demon thanks to the fact that his ancestor is Cain who was exiled for killing his brother Able out of jealousy. This links to Grendel because of the fact that his jealousy stems from the fact that he can’t be happy and feast and have fun with the people in Heorot. Every night he can hear them living it up and having a grand time while he is on his own. His Jealousy turns to rage and he kills 30 people in one night. He continues to kill every night out of rage. The question I pose is where does his rage originate from. Is it his ancestors fault for making a mistake or is it his fault?

Critical Thinking

Mathlouch the king of the Irish was not a outstanding king, because he lacked some very key things to be a great leader. One of the characteristics that Mathlouch drastically needed to improve on is that he needed to be stronger willed. When people can just approach a king and tell him he is doing something wrong, then the king either needs to evaluate the situation or at least have the backbone to stand up for what is right. Like in the case with the giants. The giants where doing nothing wrong and things where peaceful for a full year, until a group of people made a complaint. In this situation as a king you should show the quality of being wise. If you are wise you can evaluate the situation and make a well thought out decision on whether or not to believe the people. If evidence does not favor the giants then do the right thing and punish them, in this case by death.  If evidence favors the giants let things be pleasant for another year before you fold under the pressure of people who are not even close to as far up the chain of command as you are. Another quality that Mathlouch lacks is that he is unjust. This is shown when his brother Efinisien mutilates Bendigedfron’s horses mostly out of his hatred of the irish: after this happens Mathlouch says that he can’t punish him because he is his own brother.  Regardless of who it is that commits a crime if you are a just and noble king then all will pay the same for their mistakes. This same lack of justice was shown but in the opposite way when he was told by his people that the giants where reeking  havoc, and without a second thought he put the giants to death. So in all mathlouch was a pretty lousy king in many ways.

Death of Conchobhar

I think that the short story, The Death Of Conchobhar, was put to paper from the spoken story by someone who was not pagan, because if the person was pagan then they wouldn’t have mentioned Jesus in the story. Pagans didn’t believe in Jesus.  The problem with my theory is that a Christian person in this time wouldn’t have written this story because Jesus died for peace not to be avenged, so when Conchobhar in the end says he wants to fight to avenge Jesus that contradicts Christian ethics. At the same time as I say this the bible can be interpreted in many different ways, so I very well could be wrong. Another thing that bothers me is that as a Christian myself I have always heard in church and learned from my family that is not a sin to be vain but it is frowned upon by the general Christian public. So I feel that if a Christian person would not zoom in on the fact that the main character of the story was known for being cocky, vain, and arrogant.