false hope

The Second Coming- William Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre   

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst   

Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand.   

The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out   

When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert   

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,   

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,   

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it   

Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.   

The darkness drops again; but now I know   

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,   

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,   

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Through the poem “The Second Coming,” Yeats explores the idea that we often search for hope in desperate times, but that very hope can lead to our down fall. As the poem opens, it creates an image of being trapped. The subject is “turning and turning in the widening gyre,” as if repeatedly turning around in an attempt to search for a method of escape. The repeated use of turning creates a sense of panic and desperation, adding to the sense of being trapped. This sense is augmented by the disaster that is portrayed in the following lines. The tide floods “everywhere,” displaying the widespread destruction that it brings, while it’s “blood” brings to mind death, emphasizing the extent to which everything has been destroyed. In this situation, the “best” are described as “[lacking] all conviction,” suggesting that this absence of hope in the face of disaster is favorable. Directly contrasted with the “best” are the “worst” that are characterized by “passionate intensity.” Through the similar structure used, “best” is automatically contrasted to “worst” which causes “passionate intensity” to take on the role of being the opposite of “[lacking] all conviction,” suggesting that the “worst,” the least favorable quality, is that of having the hope that the “best” lack.

The fact that hope is so unfavorable and a symptom of ignorance is foreshadowed at the beginning of the poem as those that have hope can be compared with the “falcon” that is unaware of the “falconer.” Assuming that the danger is the disaster that is occurring, they dare to hope. However, the “falconer” that they are unaware of suggests that their hope results from ignorance and that the real danger, the “falconer” is something else. This idea is strengthened as the speaker notes that “mere anarchy” has come upon the world. Anarchy is generally a concept that immediately brings to mind fear and is associated with the disaster that is occurring. However, right before it comes the word “mere,” belittling the power of anarchy and once again suggesting that the true danger lies elsewhere.

As the poem continues, that real danger is seen to be the hope itself. The words used to describe the hope of the “worst” are “the Second Coming,” bringing in the idea of a savior, the Second Coming being the time at which Jesus, the savior in the Christian faith, returns. Through this phrase it becomes clear that the “worst” are hoping that a savior will come to pull them out of the disaster. The “Second Coming” is their hope. However, that very “Second Coming” that is supposed to be their hope is immediately associated with a very different image: “A shape with lion body and the head of a man.” A sphinx. According to Greek mythology, the sphinx was a terrifyingly ruthless monster, an idea supported by the characterization of the sphinx’s gaze a “pitiless.” This new danger is also associated with “darkness,” connecting it to evil and disaster, as well as a “nightmare,” giving it an ethereal quality, as if its terror and “darkness” are so great that it cannot even be considered real.

The fact that the hope, the “Second Coming,” of the people was actually an even greater danger that made the original disaster seem like “mere” anarchy shows the hazard that can be created through hope. The people were waiting for their hope which came to them in the form of a monster, conveying the message that if our hope proves to be false, that hope can cause even greater destruction.

blake

Grendel-John Gardner

The Tyger- William Blake

Little Lamb- William Blake

Throughout Grendel, a constant struggle is seen in our beloved main character.  First introduced to the life-changing ideas of the Shaper, Grendel is then ‘enlightened’ by the words of the dragon. These seemingly opposite ideas both tug at his mind, tempting him toward them and pulling his mind apart at the same time…which is completely the world of Blake.

For Blake, nothing was certain; everything was made into a dichotomy of two seemingly reconcilable ideas. “Little Lamb” and the “The Tyger” represent this world of halves quite well, the former representing the lack of knowledge of the Songs of Innocence while the latter provides a more aware and knowledgeable view of the word. But lack knowledge and knowledgeable once again bring up the world of opposites the Grendel lives in. How can there be a lack of knowledge while being knowledgeable? But that is exactly the concept that Blake begin to illustrate in these two poems.

They both discuss a greater “creator,” uniting them into a common world of one subject, but in that uniting they bring those two very different experience levels into one world. Even within the poem “Little Lamb” this dichotomy is seen as the speaker tells the Little Lamb, curious about who his creator is, “I’ll tell thee.” In that phrase alone, the conveying of knowledge is implied, even though the innocence that the lamb represents shouldn’t be involved with the gaining of knowledge. Nonetheless, Blake brings the two worlds together in this impossible coexistence.

The same is seen in “The Tyger” as the speaker describes the acts of the creator of the Tyger. The Tyger is constantly associated with the world of ‘experience’ through phrases such as “fire of thine eyes.” Fire in itself can be seen to represent knowledge as it was the ‘knowledge’ that Prometheus brought down to the humans. At the same time, it has the destructive, corrupted quality that often is seen in the world of experience. Later on in the poem, a connection is also made between the two poems, once again a seemingly impossible bridge. “Did he smile his work to see,” the speaker muses, “Did he who made the lamb make thee!” Through this phrase, the topic of creator that dominated both poems envelopes both the world of innocence and experience. The creator that molded the innocence of the lamb was also able to use the same hands, now a “dread hand,” in order to shape the terrorizing form of experience in the Tyger. Not only was this unlikely relationship made real within the creator of the two animals, but even in the creation of these opposites, on his face lays a “smile,” suggesting he knew very well what it was that he was doing. It was not an accidental uniting, but rather an intentional one, possessing all of the previous planning that is embodied in the “symmetry” and thought put into the creation of the Tyger.

Then, since the ideas fit so well, it seems a given that Grendel is littered with references to Blake’s work. Just as the world of “The Tyger” and the “Little Lamb” are torn apart and reconciled under the very concept that separates them, Grendel’s mind undergoes united division. During his battle with Beowulf, this mental state is reflected physically as Grendel is literally “torn” apart by Beowulf. Yet in that instance, Grendel seems to find clarity and understanding of the world as he says his “sight clears.” Just as Blake described, Grendel found unity in the division.

the stranger

Grendel- John Gardner

After ten long chapters of waiting in Grendel, BEOWULF ARRIVES! Or at least “the stranger” arrives…who is Beowulf. But this Beowulf is definitely completely different from the Beowulf found in Beowulf -- so different, in fact, that it begs the question, “Who is he really?” He clearly had some purpose in coming, but was it to hurt or help Grendel?

At times, it seemed very much as if Beowulf meant to harm Grendel, particularly as he seemed to fulfill the ‘prophecy’ of Grendel’s mother. “Beware the fish,” she said (or communicated in some way…maybe mother-son ESP). Following the zodiac signs that match up to the chapters of Grendel, Beowulf’s arrival coincides with Aquarius and Pisces, both aquatic zodiac signs. Not only that, but Beowulf also travels to the land of the Danes over water, and one of Grendel’s first observations about him is the fact that “he has no more beard than a fish” – a direct comparison with a fish. Following Grendel’s mother’s warning, it seems that Beowulf does present a harmful presence.

There are also, of course, the multiple connections between Beowulf and the dragon. Even before Grendel compares Beowulf to a fish, he notices that Beowulf’s eyes “slanted downward, never blinking, unfeeling as a snake’s.” This only the first of several comparisons Grendel makes between Beowulf and snakes, creatures that automatically bring to mind the similarly scaly, reptilian dragon. The dragon appears once again through Beowulf during his battle with Grendel. Grendel describes visions of “terrible fiery wings” sprouting out of Beowulf’s back while “flames slip out of the corners of his mouth” imagery that is impossible not to compare to the flying, fire-breathing dragon. Not only is the dragon as a whole connected to Beowulf, but during the battle it is the ‘fiery’ side of him that is brought out. Considering the destructive power of fire and the way in which the dragon used it to threaten Grendel when they first met, Beowulf’s association with this element hardly makes him look harmless. There are also the connotations of the dragon in general that Beowulf is associated with. The dragon was the one the reminded Grendel that his existence was pointless, the perfect candidate for someone that would squash Grendel into nothingness without a second thought. Once again, not exactly making Beowulf look like an angel.

Or is it?

In our discussions as a class, the idea came up that the wings that Beowulf sees sprouting from Beowulf are actually the wings of an angel, making a Beowulf a savior. After all, although fire can be seen as the dangerous weapon that the dragon wielded, it can also be seen as a saving force considering its power is so integral to the functioning of our society -- even more so in Grendel’s times. Moreover, Beowulf’s purpose did not seem to be to help the Danes as Grendel notices that Beowulf knows that Hrothgar’s kingdom is a “doomed house.” If Beowulf knows and accepts the fact that the people he’s working to save cannot be saved, it seems illogical that he is still trying to save them…unless he’s not actually trying to save them. This leads us to the conclusion that Beowulf may have arrived with a goal much more centered on Grendel’s needs, perhaps, even, to save him.

If this is the case, hopefully Beowulf’s goal was not to save Grendel’s physical body. If he was, then he failed miserably at his task considering he himself led to Grendel’s death. However, if his saving grace was meant for Grendel’s mind then it’s possible that he was more successful. After all, Beowulf does seem to be strongly tied to water as discussed earlier, and Joseph Campbell did describe water as being a symbol of one’s unconscious, suggesting that Beowulf may be forcing Grendel to face his own unconscious and understand his true beliefs and true self. This seems to be exactly what Beowulf is doing when he whispers in Grendel’s ear, “You make the world by whispers, second by second,” a phrase eerily similar to Grendel’s own, “I create the whole universe, blink by blink.” Was it perhaps that Grendel was running away from himself causing the endless war inside him between the Shaper and the dragon? If this was the case, was his battle with Beowulf an opportunity to set his mind free -- a blessing rather than a curse? Maybe. Or maybe Beowulf was just a “stranger” seeking glory.

dragon

Grendel- John Gardner

A major shift in Grendel comes with the appearance of the dragon. So what exactly does that mean for Grendel? Has he found ‘truth’ and ‘enlightenment’? And whatever he’s found, does he accept it?

What the dragon gives to Grendel is often compared to what Grendel gives to the people, fright and, in a very twisted way, ‘enlightenment.’ The dragon himself says it when he teases Grendel with the words, “Now you know how they feel when they see you, eh?” (50). Yet, whenever I look back, there seem to be too many differences. Even when Grendel terrorizes the humans, he does so in confusion and also what he feels is necessity, thinking that eating a human once in a while is “only natural: kept them from over populating, maybe starving to death, come winter” (52). He is searching for some sort of meaning.

On the other hand, the dragon is merely playing with Grendel, laughing at him constantly and, as previously mentioned, teasing him. From his actions, the dragon seems to get very little out of the exercise except for entertainment. Once again the dragon himself supports such an idea by saying, “I do not change the future” (54). If his actions hold no power, why call out to Grendel to impart on him these “truths” of the universe? He also points out to Grendel that “nothing” will come out of what is happening, acknowledging that his own actions are meaningless. All he wishes to do is “to seek out gold and sit on it” (63). The lack of interest in anything else suggests that Grendel is the same, just another treasure that would be fun to observe and play with. Given that, it wouldn’t be surprising if the dragon lied to Grendel about what he knew simply to watch Grendel’s reaction. Even Grendel thinks of this possibility stating that the dragon “was evil enough.” Such lies would hardly be considered enlightenment.

Even if the dragon was telling the truth, it’s likely that his words were not truths, but perspective. Throughout the dragon’s speech to Grendel, he never tells him everything he knows. Of course he doesn’t. If he does know everything including the future, it would be impossible for his to relate it to Grendel anyway. Therefore, whatever he tells Grendel is what he has interpreted the world to be and what he has learned from the knowledge he has access to. However, just like Plato suggested in his allegory of the cave, our interpretations of reality are not actually the truth of reality but only the limited knowledge we understand by seeing it from one perspective. Grendel knows that the dragon can see the future and takes what he says to be truth, but he’s really only been exposed to another perspective of the world he has already developed a perspective on.

Despite this, it seems that Grendel realizes that the ‘truth’ the dragon gave him was not necessarily true. He says to himself that what the dragon said is “what is” and even his aura becomes darker as a result, but Grendel is still not completely comfortable following the dragon’s words. Had he completely trusted the wisdom of the dragon, he shouldn’t be so plagued with worry about whether he should or should not be doing what he is doing, However, Grendel states after his violation of Wealtheow, an action the dragon probably looked upon with amusement, that he “resolved, absolutely and finally, to kill myself, for the love of the Baby Grendel that used to be” (95). Far from sounding enlightened, Grendel seems to look at his experience with the dragon as a corruption of his innocent younger self. He’s drawn to it, yet at the same time he’s repulsed. The dragon very possibly did not pass on anything enlightening to Grendel, but he’s started a war of confusion within him.