|
|
Post by hannahlewman on Jul 19, 2013 0:39:48 GMT
One aspect of Grendel I keep noticing is the juxtaposition of the brutality of nature with the civility of art and culture, and the blurring of the lines between these opposites. Hrothgar and his people seem to commit acts that are quite ugly and cowardly while praising themselves for loving the beautiful and honorable, characteristics represented by the Shaper's song. It seems that humans want to create beauty to destruct them from their own hideous behavior, that's why they praise the Shaper's song so highly. Grendel notes this tendency in the Danes when he states, "Did they murder each other more gently because in the woods sweet songbirds sang?"(Gardner 49).Though this question is clearly sarcastic and mocking, it led me to the question: is it wrong to love beauty and want to create it if one also puts forth ugliness into the world? This question applies to both the humans and Grendel, so feel free to answer for either.
|
|
rishi
New Member
Posts: 38 
|
Post by rishi on Jul 25, 2013 4:09:00 GMT
I believe that in an ideal world, it is wrong to love beauty and want to create it if this beauty is accompanied by ugliness such as hate and destruction. However in a practical world, we must weigh the benefits and evils of beauty and ugliness respectively in order to differentiate between what is acceptable and what is not. Although I recognize that you are asking your question in a general sense, I want to first refer to Grendel to elaborate on and support my previous statements, and then I will respond in a broader scope. (So, in other words, this is going to be pretty long).
Ideally, it is wrong to create and love beauty if it brings about ugliness. We can infer from the passage you quoted that "murder" represents ugliness and the glory of Hrothgar's kingdom represents beauty. However, I believe that beauty and ugliness are both extremely subjective terms, and this is due to varying ways that objects, people, and events are perceived. For example, humans glorify Hrothgar and his kingdom, but Grendel questions the kingdom’s magnificence when he realizes that it both prospers on the murders of the inhabitants of neighboring meadhalls and that it would eventually fall. Differences in perception are also seen within the human race. Thanes are quick to see the beauty of Hrothgar’s kingdom, and this is evident in their reactions to the Shaper's songs. As the Shaper sings, Grendel observes, "He spoke of God's great generosity in sending them so wise a king. They all raised their cups to God and Hrothgar, and Hrothgar smiled, bits of food in his beard" (Gardner 77). Not only do the people of Hrothgar's kingdom appreciate their king, but they also see beauty in the kingdom's wealth which is symbolized by the "bits of food" in Hrothgar's beard. Although the thanes glorify Hrothgar's kingdom, the old peasant, Red Horse, sees blatant evils in Hrothgar’s (and every) government. Red Horse summarizes, "All systems are evil. All governments are evil. Not just a trifle evil. Monstrously evil" (Gardner 120). Perhaps we should consider that one person’s beauty is often another person’s evil. In this sense, it is wrong to create and love something beautiful that is evil, or puts forth ugliness, to somebody or something else.
A lot of beautiful things were created with the accompaniment of hideous behaviors, and we still admire these manifestations of beauty today. For example, every year, millions of tourists travel across the world to marvel at monuments such as the Taj Mahal and the Pyramids of Giza. Were these wonders created by the aliens? Maybe, but it is believed that these marvels are actually the products of something not so alien to the human race: forced labor, something truly "ugly." While most, if not all, humans disapprove of this shameful method of construction, we often use the beauty of the monuments to justify the wrongdoings present in their creations. We rationalize that the happiness and life of a few people is worth sacrificing for something of extraordinary beauty. But why do we not feel guilty about this? Because our sense of admiration can mask our knowledge of cruelty. In that sense, we tend to rationalize and accept beauty and its creation at the cost of ugliness to the world. We continue to admire the beauty of these wonders even though it is clearly wrong to do so. Or is it? As I mentioned before, the definitions of beauty and ugliness vary according to perception. So what is beauty and what is ugliness? What is right and what is wrong? How can we know for sure?
In a practical world, the only way to distinguish between right and wrong is by weighing the benefits and evils in creating beauty. Practically, it is acceptable to love beauty and its creation if the value of the beauty created surpasses the magnitude of the evils that accompany it. But once again, we are confronted by the concept of perception. How do we know if the value of beauty outweighs the evils of ugliness? In the present, perception cannot even give us a stance on this question. Only time can tell.
So to answer your question: ideally, creating and loving beauty should be wrong if it "puts forth ugliness into the world," but sometimes, the benefits of beauty outweigh the cruelty and destruction of "ugliness," and in this more practical case, we tend to find the love of beauty acceptable.
|
|
