Afternoon of Alterity - Nazareth College

Afternoons of Alterity A Codex of the Medieval and the MonstrousAfternoonsof AlterityA Codex of theMedieval and the Monstrous

Afternoonsof AlterityA Codex of theMedieval and the Monstrous

Table of ContentsFrom Medieval Marsh Monsters to Futuristic Space FiendsMaura Whitman .................................................................................1Projecting Otherness onto the DisabledSancia S. Huffman ............................................................................19Monstrosity and the Irruption of RealityJaime Griffith ....................................................................................31What’s Love Got To Do With It?Andrew Bellush .................................................................................41Darkness: The True Monster of Literature and SocietyLauren Apt ........................................................................................53Serial MonstrosityEmily Mastrobattisto .........................................................................69Monstrous Mothers and Objectified DaughtersSara Cruz ..........................................................................................81Grendel: A Manifestation of Medieval FearsDeanna Briscoe .................................................................................93

The Monster Under the BedAnna Iuppa .....................................................................................103Monsters: A Surprising Tool of Governments Past and PresentCaitlin Garvey ................................................................................115They Walk Among UsDavid Buisch ...................................................................................129Home and Spatial IdentityLaura Lucyshyn ...............................................................................139

From Medieval Marsh Monsters toFuturistic Space FiendsThe Continual Evolution of theMonstrous Kin of CainMaura WhitmanThey are born out of darkness and haunt our nightmares withdisfigured images of brutality and violence, terror and rage. Theythreaten our safety, yet capture our imaginations so that though wemay be repulsed, we cannot look away. Jeffery Cohen writes, “Theycan be pushed to the farthest margins of geography and discourse,hidden away at the edges of the world and in the forbidden recessesof our mind, but they always return” (Cohen 20). Indeed, monstershave always been with us and it is clear that they are here to stay. Itis also evident through studying both medieval and modern textsthat certain types of monsters are more prevalent than others inWestern society’s imagination. It is possible to track the evolutionof these monstrous archetypes as they continuously reemerge, oftensomewhat altered yet still recognizable over the course of time.One such reoccurring archetype is that of the biblical God-cursedmurderer, Cain. In the rich medieval tradition of Cain monstermyths, Cain has often been described as a violent, cannibalistic,deformed and exiled enemy of humankind, condemned to foreverwander the borderlands of civilization and credited with havingfathered of all of the malevolent, mythical creatures that have everbeen thought to exist. Placing one of Western literature’s mostmemorable monsters into this tradition of Cain myths, the poet 1

of the medieval text Beowulf describes the fearsome character ofGrendel as a giant, cannibalistic, “rover of boarders,” directlydescended from the line of Cain (Donaldson 3). I argue that thisarchetype of Cain’s monstrous progeny has continued to survivein the modern imagination and can be found manifesting inever-evolving forms in popular twenty-first century texts, such asin Joss Whedon’s science fiction television series, Firefly, in theform of the monstrous, cannibalistic, space-wandering “Reavers.”Through an analysis and characterization of the monster Grendel,an exploration of the medieval Cain myths out of which he arises,and an examination of the striking parallels that exist between thismedieval monstrous archetype and the modern depiction of JossWhedon’s nightmarish Reavers, I intend to show how society’sconceptions of the monstrous endure and evolve over time. Iwill also explore the implications regarding what has made (andcontinues to make) this archetype so captivating and terrifying inboth medieval and modern thought.Grendel Who?: The Complex Characterizationof a Medieval MonsterThe character of Grendel from the medieval text, Beowulf, is amanifestation of one of Western culture’s most enduring monstermyths;that of the biblical murderer, Cain, and of his deformed anddemonic kin. Grendel may be the most recognizable member of thismonstrous tradition, having perhaps even become an archetype untohimself as Jennifer Ferrell notes, “Grendel appears most frequentlyin popular culture and continually evolves through the decadesas society needs him” (Ferrell 934). However, in order to fullyunderstand the ways in which Grendel fits into a larger traditionof Cain-monster-mythology and to discover the reasons why thismonstrous archetype is so captivating to the medieval and modern2 afternoons of alterity

imagination, we must first attempt to characterize Grendel, definingwho and what he actually is.The first notable quality that marks Grendel as “other,” andtherefore as monstrous, is the fact that he lives on the outskirts ofsociety. Having descended from the cursed line of Cain – the biblicalmurder who was exiled from Eden by God after killing his brother,Abel – Grendel is also considered an enemy of God and humankindin the world of Beowulf. He therefore does not live among the Danesor participate in the camaraderie that takes place in the grand meadhall, Herot, which represents the hub of medieval civilization withinthe text. Rather, Grendel lives deep in a treacherous, untamed forestset on the boarders of the Dane’s land. The poet of Beowulf describesthe harsh environment that Grendel inhabits, noting that his homeis a swamp whose waters “boil with blood…and hot gore,” are infestedwith “many kinds of serpents [and] strange sea-creatures,” and islocated in “a joyless wood” surrounded by “steep stone cliffs” (Liuzza97). Grendel is not so far removed from Danish society however,that he cannot hear, brood upon, and eventually take violent actionagainst the joviality taking place in the mead hall that he is excludedfrom. He is therefore an inhabitant of the borderlands, neither atrue member of society, nor entirely removed from it. In this way,Grendel defies categorization and calls attention to his monstrosityas Jeffery Cohen, teratology scholar, observes that, “the monster’svery existence is a rebuke to boundary and enclosure…” (Cohen 7).Just as Grendel’s place in society is difficult to clearly define, so ishis very body a hybrid of human and super-human/deformed featuresthat defies easy classification. Interestingly, the poet of Beowulf neverfully characterizes Grendel’s appearance, so readers are left to piecetogether an image of him based on the sparse details that the poetprovides. Such details include references to Grendel as a “giant” and“misshapen…form of a man,” and feature periodic descriptions ofa number of Grendel’s body parts, including his formidable handmaura whitman 3

(the nails of which are described as “heathen talons,” and “most likesteel”), his inhumanly powerful arm, and his gigantic head (which,once severed, causes even the likes of four “stout-hearted men” tostruggle as they attempt to carry it back to Herot) (Liuzza 66, 94,83, 83, 103). Dana Oswald comments on the effect that Grendel’sotherwise absent physical description has on his characterizationas a monster, writing, “By ‘never drawing’ Grendel in the text, thepoet emphasizes Grendel’s monstrosity, not his humanity… This actof erasure… accentuates his strangeness and the dangers that hisexcessive body presents.” (Oswald 71). However, though Grendel’sphysical monstrosity may be emphasized, it cannot be denied thathe possesses recognizable human qualities as well. For instance,though we are told that Grendel’s hand is entirely invulnerable toattacks by iron tools, Oswald points out that, “nevertheless, we arenot told that its skin is scaly or green or even rough… In many ways,this hand is just a familiar appendage whose appearance signalsGrendel’s status as… a creature whose body is both like but not likethose of its onlookers” (72). Similarly, readers are given a glimpseof Grendel’s semi-human status as the poet specifically notes thatwhen Grendel’s head is severed, it is dragged across the floor by itshair. Oswald remarks on the implications of this stating, “We learnthat Grendel has hair, which tells us he does not have animal fur,as few hunted animals were carried into the hall by their hair. Hairalso signifies a marker between the civilized and the uncivilized…Just as socially he exists on the borderlands, so too does his bodyoccupy the murky boundaries between the human and non-human”(72, 70). It is therefore evident that in terms of physicality, Grendelis neither wholly “other” nor wholly human but a hybridization ofboth. I would argue that this renders him a fascinating characterto both medieval and modern audiences. As readers are shockedand repulsed by Grendel’s monstrosity, they are also attracted to adegree, recognizing a reflection of themselves in him, and perhaps a4 afternoons of alterity

seed of monstrosity within themselves. This sentiment is echoed byJames Phillips who observes that “…humanity experiences itself inthe encounter with the monstrous as both familiar and intolerable”(Phillips 47).The characteristics that arguably render Grendel most terrifyingand memorable though, are his wild and uncontrollable murderousrage and his unethically violent and cannibalistic nature. ThroughoutBeowulf, the poet describes how Grendel, provoked by the soundsof human celebration in the Danes’ mead hall, ruthlessly andrepeatedly attacks the Danes under the cover of darkness, drinkinghis victims’ blood and devouring scores of sleeping men, “feet tofingertips” (Liuzza 76). Oswald remarks on the monstrousness ofGrendel’s method of murder, writing, “Grendel is not just here tokill but to consume; this is a hall for feasting, and he does just that.But Grendel’s eating is more than ravenous, and even more thanbestial. He devours every part of this body, as the poet tells us, eventhe hands and feet—such excess reveals indiscriminate consumption”(Oswald 76). There is no indication given in the text that Grendelhas any moral or ethical misgivings about his murderous andcannibalistic rampage. As Jennifer Farrell aptly notes, “Grendel isall action and no reflection” (Farrell 934). To medieval and modernimaginations alike, this is a critical component of Grendel’s characterthat marks him as “other” in relation to humankind, and defineshim as monstrous.The intricate complexity of Grendel’s monstrous identity canbe even more fully illuminated through an examination of thediffering ways in which Grendel is named and described throughoutvarious translations of Beowulf. Due to the fact that the Old EnglishBeowulf manuscript must be translated into modern English inorder to be understood by a broad contemporary audience, theimpression that a reader receives of Grendel can differ in significantways depending upon the translation of Beowulf that he or shemaura whitman 5

is exposed to. Therefore, in order to come to a more nuancedunderstanding of Grendel’s nature and identity, I have comparedthe varying ways in which Grendel is named and described throughan examination of three different Beowulf translations: E. TalbotDonaldson’s, published in 1966, and R.M. Liuzza’s, published in2000, and Seamus Heaney’s, published in 2000. By providing aunique pallet of names with which Grendel is painted throughoutthe text, each translator succeeds in emphasizing a different aspectof Grendel’s human and/or monstrous qualities. For instance, ofthe three translations, E. Talbot Donaldson’s is by far the mostcharitable and empathetic toward Grendel, emphasizing thedarkness, exile, and isolation associated with Grendel’s experienceliving on the outskirts of society. Donaldson identifies Grendel bysuch melancholy and humanizing descriptions as: “he who dwelt indarkness,” “unhappy creature,” “the creature deprived of joy,” “therover of borders,” and “the terrible walker-alone” (Donaldson 3, 3,13, 3, 4). These descriptions can be compared to those found inR.M. Liuzza’s translation which, while continuing to acknowledgesome of Grendel’s more human qualities in referring to him as a“miserable man,” also succeeds in more clearly emphasizing Grendel’simmense strength, power, and formidability through such namesas: “mighty stalker of the marshes,” “the great ravager,” “greatest ofnight-evils,” “warrior…bereft of joys,” and “notorious one” (Liuzza56, 56, 58, 59, 75). Seamus Heaney’s translation, by even starkercontrast, focuses almost exclusively on those aspects of Grendel’scharacter that render him irreconcilably “other,” emphasizing hisbrutality and monstrosity with such descriptions as: “a fiend outof hell,” “malignant by nature,” “merciless Grendel,” “dark deathshadow,”“shadow-stalker,” “terror-monger,” “alien spirit,” “theLord’s outcast,” and “enemy of mankind” (Heaney 9, 11, 11, 13, 47,51, 55, 13, 89). While I would argue that no single translation ofBeowulf can convey a complete and ultimate depiction of Grendel’s6 afternoons of alterity

essence as a monster, it seems reasonable to postulate that by takinginto consideration a wide range of even seemingly contradictoryqualities associated with Grendel (particularly with regard to hisrelatable human qualities vs. his mortifyingly monstrous ones),a reader may begin to approach the essence of his paradoxicallyrepulsive, yet ever-captivating nature. Indeed, David Gilmore citesthis very ability to “fuse opposites, to merge contraries… [and] tooverthrow cognitive barriers” as the source of monsters’ fascinationand power (Gilmore 194).However, though different Beowulf translations may characterizeGrendel’s nature in markedly varied ways, there exists one criticalcomponent of Grendel’s character that remains universallyuncontested throughout varying translations of Beowulf : that beingthe origin of his lineage. As previously mentioned, the poet of Beowulfmakes a point of noting that Grendel resides on the borderlandsof society, exiled for being a known descendent of the God-cursedCain. The poet even recounts the legend of Cain, describing howafter he killed his brother, “the Maker forced him far from mankindfor his foul crime. From thence arose all misbegotten things, trollsand elves and the living dead, and also giants who strove againstGod for a long while – He gave them their reward for that” (Liuzza56). The poet’s decision to place Grendel within the line of Cain ishighly significant because, as John Friendman explains, “The poethas been able to draw upon a rich legacy of evil and hostility forthe portrait of Grendel, which allows him to transcend a purelylocal role. Through his connection with the universally condemnedfigures of Christian history he gains a moral dimension not availableeven to his adversaries, except in their victory over him” (Friedman106-7). Thus I argue that the Beowulf poet’s choice to endow Grendelwith familial ties to Cain serves to align Grendel with a powerfulmonstrous archetype, situating him within an already rich traditionof Cain monster-myths whose firmly established presence in themaura whitman 7

Western imagination endows Grendel not only with a heightenedlevel of legitimacy as a monster, but an evidently timeless appeal.The Black Sheep: Cain and his Monstrous ProgenyBefore exploring the ways in which the monstrous Cain archetypecontinues to survive in the twenty-first century imagination, it isimportant to examine the medieval tradition of Cain monster mythsout of which characters such as Grendel arise. One such medievalaccount of the monstrous line of Cain can be found in the medievalIrish text, Sex Aetates Mundi. In it, Cain’s descendents are shownto be cursed, and are credited with having produced of all of themonstrous creatures that have ever been thought to exist:God commanded the descendents of Seth not to minglewith the descendents of Cain and not to make children withthem, nor to take wives among them. But the descendentsof Seth violated that advice and took the maidens of thedescent of Cain, for their beauty was great, and they madechildren with them in defiance of God, so that thence theresprang the monsters of the world, giants and leprechaunsand every monstrous and misbegotten shape folk have had.(Orchard 70)Another thirteenth century Rabbinical text entitled the Zohar,accounts for Cain’s cursed and murderous nature and subsequentmonstrous line of kin by claiming that he had been tainted evenprior to his conception, when his mother Eve was made impure bythe serpent in the Garden of Eden:When the serpent injected his impurity into Eve, sheabsorbed it, and so when Adam had intercourse with her8 afternoons of alterity

she bore two sons, one from the impure side, and one fromthe side of Adam… Hence it was that their ways in life weredifferent… From [Cain] originate all the evil habitationsand demons and goblins and evil spirits in the world.(Friedman 95)Such texts establish the foundation for monsters such as Grendel tohave their lineage traced back into the monstrous line of Cain.In continuing to examine medieval myths pertaining to Cain andhis progeny, it also quickly becomes clear that certain characteristicsare attributed to Cain’s monstrous kin that readily identify them asmembers of Cain’s line. Perhaps not surprisingly, Grendel displaysall of the characteristics traditionally associated with members ofCain’s kin, virtually without deviation. According to John Friedmanin his book The Monstrous Races in Medieval Art and Thought,apocryphal accounts of Cain’s legend stress Cain’s “violent nature,his association with the devil, and his degradation from humanstatus, often figured by his ugliness or physical deformity” (Friedman95). Such violence and physical disfigurement are certainly evidentin the case of Grendel. Friedman goes on to cite a selection fromthe Middle Irish text, Lebor Gabala, which embellishes not onlyupon Cain’s deformities, but describes him as dwelling “a wildfugitive, in the eastern boarder of the land called Eden,” therebycharacterizing Cain as an uncivilized wanderer on the edges ofsociety—another characteristic clearly displayed by Grendel (96).Friedman additionally establishes cannibalism as a fundamentalfeature of the kin of Cain, referencing the medieval Hereford WorldMap which reads, “Here are exceedingly truculent men, eatinghuman flesh, drinking blood, cursed sons of Cain” (95). He furthercites the Middle English text, Life of Adam and Eve, which details theorigin of the cannibalistic impulse that Cain’s kin are said to display,with the character of Eve stating, “I saw in my dream Cain gathermaura whitman 9

Abel’s blood in his hands and devour it with his mouth” (95). Thisfeature of Cain’s monstrous kin, which incidentally is also displayedby Grendel, is further reinforced by James Phillips’ research in hisarticle, “In the Company of Predators: Beowulf and the MonstrousDescendants of Cain,” as he notes, “Cain’s descendents arepredators in an aggravated sense. They prey not only on animals butalso on humans. They are cannibalistic, although this cannibalismsimultaneously differentiates them from human beings, establishingthem as monsters” (Phillips 43).Hence, it is clear that the tradition of Cain monster-myths iswell established within Western literature, art, and thought andthat Grendel is a manifestation of this monstrous Cain archetype.Addressing the question of why this archetype may have been socaptivating to medieval audiences, Phillips offers us insight, stating“For biblical account and the numerous traditions it fosteredregarding the descendents of Cain, the monster is unsettling notsimply because it is intent on our destruction, but also because itis related to us: the uncanniness of the monster is tied up with thequestionability of what it means to be human” (42). I argue thatthese fundamental questions about the nature of humanity andmonstrosity raised by the character of Cain have endowed hismonstrous archetype with remarkable longevity and appeal, allowingit to continuously evolve and reemerge, appearing in new, yet stillrecognizable forms in popular twenty-first century texts.Them People Ain’t Human:A Modern Manifestation of the Kin of CainIn the world of Joss Whedon’s science fiction television series, Firefly,the Earth as we know it has been destroyed, the science of spacetravel has vastly improved, and people have begun to colonize newplanets, modeling them after the “Earth That Was.” The heroes (or10 afternoons of alterity

perhaps, anti-heroes) of the futuristic drama are an eclectic crew ofnine societal misfits who live and work as smugglers on the spaceship,“Serenity,” flying under the oppressive government Alliance’s radar.Their less-than-legal work sometimes brings them to the uncivilizedfringe planets that line the outer edge of the known galaxy, far fromthe “core planets” which comprise the hub of modern civilization andgovernment control. As they venture farther into the borderlands ofspace, the crew encounters terrifying monsters known as “Reavers”– monsters which I argue are twenty-first century reimaginings andmanifestations of the monstrous kin of Cain.The Reavers’ monstrous nature is evident, beginning with theetymology of their very name. According to the Oxford EnglishDictionary, the word “reaver” signifies a “robber,” “plunderer,”“marauder,” or “raider” (“Reaver, n.”). Containing the root word,“reave,” the word is also related to the Old Icelandic term, raufa,meaning “to break up, break open,” and “pierce,” the Old Icelandicterm, rjúfa, which means “to rip up” or “violate,” and the Old Englishprefixed form geréafian which means “to lay waste” or “destroy”(“Reave, v.1”). Indeed, the violent notions embedded in the Reavers’name characterize them perfectly. In drawing an immediate parallelbetween the implied nature of the Reavers and the monstrousdescendents of Cain, it is notable that in his translation of theBeowulf text, Seamus Heaney also refers to the character Grendel asa “reaver from hell” (Heaney, 13).Keeping in the mythological tradition of the exiled Cain andmirroring the borderland-wandering Grendel, the Reavers too liveon the very outskirts of civilization. In the pilot episode of the Fireflyseries, viewers learn from the sheltered and well-to-do doctor, SimonTam, that on the core planets, Reavers are thought to be nothing morethan monsters featured in children’s campfire stories. According toSimon, legend has it that Reavers were “men gone savage on theedge of space” (“Serenity”). Viewers quickly learn, however, that themaura whitman 11

legends are true, as the ship’s co-captain, Zoe, explains to Simonthe horrors that will transpire if a group of nearby Reavers boardsSerenity, grimly describing, “If they take the ship, they’ll rape us todeath, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing. And ifwe’re very, very lucky, they’ll do it in that order” (“Serenity”). Again,this wild, unethical murderous rage and cannibalistic tendencyis clearly aligned with the traditional traits associated with themonstrous line of Cain.With regard to the Reaver’s physical appearance, it is mostinteresting that like Grendel, whose body goes largely undescribedthroughout the poem of Beowulf, the Reavers’ bodies are alsosuspiciously absent, never actually appearing on screen during anyof the episodes of the Firefly series. Erickson comments on the effectthat this writing and directing choice has on the characterization ofthe Reavers, noting, “By presenting Reavers almost totally throughtheir absence… Reavers, within the framework of the series, almostdo not exist… But although we barely see them, we see what theycan do, what seeing them can do to a person, and mostly we see thefear the idea of them can create” (Erickson 174-75). Just as readersrecognize the ferocity of Grendel through viewing the havoc anddestruction that he wreaks upon the Danes, viewers of Firefly areintroduced to the savageness of the Reavers through the terror theyinspire in the crew and the utter devastation they leave behind withregard to their victims. In the episode entitled, “Bushwhacked,”the crew of Serenity boards what looks to be an abandoned passingship, which they soon discover has in fact been attacked by Reavers.The shooting script of the episode describes in gruesome detail theannihilated corpses that the crew discovers: “THE BODIES arestrung up from the ceiling. Three clumps of twisted flesh. The skinpale, almost luminescent…” (Firefly: The Official Companion 89). Thecrew also discovers the lone survivor of the attack, left disturbedand psychologically broken from having been forced by the Reavers12 afternoons of alterity

to watch the murder and mutilation of his fellow crew members. Inshock, the man mumbles a string of incoherent sentences about theattack on his crew, whispering that they were, “Cattle. Cattle for theslaughter” (“Bushwhacked”). Witnessing such inhuman brutalitycauses the crew to question the nature of the creatures that werecapable of committing such atrocities. The crew’s preacher, ShepherdBook, suggests that Reavers are human beings gone astray, insistingthat they are redeemable men, “too long removed from civilization,perhaps – but men” (“Bushwhacked”). However, just as the varioustranslators of Beowulf refer to Grendel as a “walker in darkness”(Donaldson 13) and a “dark death-shadow” (Heaney 13), the captainof the ship, Mal, emphasizes the Reavers’ otherness and monstrosity,describing them as a “darkness” that “you can’t even imagine…blacker than the space it moves through” (“Bushwhacked”).It is not until viewers reach the feature film, Serenity (createdas a follow-up to the prematurely cancelled Firefly series), that itbecomes clear that both Shepherd Book and Mal were correct intheir assessment of the Reavers, as the crew learns of the Reavers’human lineage and hybridized nature as Grendel-esque, humanoidmonsters. In the film, Reavers finally appear on screen and viewersare able to see their recognizably human, yet deformed features.Comparable in appearance to J.R.R. Tolkien’s orcs, Reavers’ featuresare mutilated and harsh, with accentuated, fearsome teeth, pointedears, and bleeding and broken, charred-looking skin. Their physicalappearance as hybridized demonic humans is clearly reminiscent ofthe legends of Cain’s cursed and deformed kin. Additionally, likeGrendel whose lineage can be traced back to the human line ofCain, the crew of Serenity discovers the unsettling truth behind theorigin of Reavers that renders the dividing line between humanityand monstrosity too porous for comfort.Upon their arrival on the isolated, presently uninhabited,borderland planet, Miranda, the crew discovers a recording leftmaura whitman 13

ehind by an Alliance government official, describing the tragic fateof this once thriving metropolis. In the holographic visual recording,the young, terrified female officer frantically recounts how agovernmental attempt to perform a pharmaceutical experiment onthe population of Miranda has gone horribly, horribly wrong:“It’s the Pax, the G-23 Paxilion Hydrochorate that weadded to the air processors. It was supposed to calm thepopulation, weed out aggression. Well it works. The peoplehere stopped fighting, and then they stopped everythingelse. They stopped going to work, they stopped breeding,talking, eating. There’s 30 million people here and they alljust let themselves die. I have to be quick. About a tenth ofa percent of the population had the opposite reaction to thePax. Their aggressor response increased, beyond madness.They’ve become – well, they’ve killed most of us, and notjust killed. They’ve done things… I won’t live to report this,but people have to know, we meant it for the best. To makepeople safer.” (Serenity)Therefore, like Grendel who has been rendered monstrous as aresult of the ancient sin committed by his human ancestor, Cain,the Reavers are also revealed to be cursed human beings, turnedmonstrous by the modern technological sins of their fellowhuman beings whose medical experiment on the population of aplanet had catastrophically negative results. Viewers learn that theReavers’ lineage is human and are confronted with the terrifying, yetfascinating realization that the Reavers are not so far removed fromeven the film’s beloved heroes. For it becomes clear that any memberof the crew could have easily become a Reaver as well, had theysimply been at the wrong place at the wrong time. Just as Grendeland Cain’s monstrous kin horrify and captivate both medieval14 afternoons of alterity

and modern audiences through their connectedness to humanityand ability to represent all that is dark within the human psyche,Gregory Erickson offers similar insights regarding the hybridizednature of Reavers, stating, “They are the strangers we can never hopeto understand, or they are the dark recesses of our souls that wedo not want to acknowledge… Reavers are both improbably otherand dangerously familiar. And as [Joss Whedon] makes clear, we allcontain the core of a Reaver.” (Erickson 175).Fiends Forever: Why Cain Monster Myths Continue to EndureIn studying the monsters depicted in medieval and modern texts,it becomes clear that throughout history, certain monstrousarchetypes have thrived in the Western imagination. By notingthe striking similarities between the medieval monster Grendeland Joss Whedon’s twenty-first century nightmarish Reavers, andin comparing these monsters to the well-established tradition ofmedieval monster myths surrounding the biblical character of Cain,I argue that society’s fears and conceptions regarding monstrosityremain fundamentally unchanged from generation to generation,allowing certain monstrous archetypes to survive for centuries,evolving, yet remaining recognizable over the course of time. I believethat the Cain archetype has thrived in the Western imagination notonly because of humans’ enduring fear of wild, unethical violence,and fear of that which is perceived to be in some way “other,” butbecause of society’s fear of that which cannot be neatly categorized,and fascination with that which reflects people’s own dark, violent,and monstrous qualities. Grendel, the Reavers, and all monsters thatappear in the tradition of Cain myths, blur the lines between whatconstitutes humanity and monstrosity, repelling audiences withtheir viciousness and moral and ethical transgressions, yet invitingpeople to glimpse a reflection of the monstrous within themselves bymaura whitman 15

displaying unmistakable human traits. As Gilmore observes, “thereis always a non-fixed boundary between men and monsters. In theend, there can be no clear division between us and them, betweencivilization and bestiality. As we peer into the abyss, the abyss staresback” (Gilmore 191). As long as Cain monster myths continue toquestion and challenge the definition of humanity and monstrosityin these frightening and provocative ways, I believe that they willcontinue to haunt and fascinate the human imagination, evolvingand enduring in Western literature, art, and thought.16 afternoons of alterity

Works Cited“Bushwhacked.” Firefly: The Complete Series. Writ. Tim Minear. Dir.Tim Minear. Twentieth Century Fox, 2002. DVD.Cohen, Jeffery Jerome. “Monster Culture (Seven Theses).” MonsterTheory: Reading Culture. Ed. J.J. Cohen. Minneapolis: UniversityPress Minnesota, 1996. 3-25. Print.Donaldson, Talbot. Beowulf: A New Prose Translation. New York:W.W. Norton & Compny, Inc., 1966. Print.Erikson, Gregory. “Humanity in a ‘Place of Nothin’: Morality,Religion, Atheism, and Possibility in Firefly.” Investigating Fireflyand Serenity: Science Fiction on the Frontier. Ed. Tanya R. Cochran.London: I.B. Tauris, 2008. 167-79. Print.Farrell, Jennifer Kelso. “The Evil Behind the Mask: Grendel’s PopCulture Evolution.” The Journal of Popular Culture 41.6 (2008):934-949. Academic Search Elite. Web. 1 March 2011.Firefly: The Official Companion, Volume One. London: Titan Books,2006. Print.Friedman, John Block. “Cain’s Kin.” The Monstrous Races inMedieval Art and Thought. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press,2000. 87-107. Print.Gilmore, David D. Monsters: Evil Beings, Mythical Beasts, andAll Manner of Imaginary Terrors. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press, 2003. Print.Graham, Elaine L. Representations of the Post/Human: Monsters,Aliens, and Others in Popular Culture. New Jersey: RutgersUniversity Press, 2002. Print.Heaney, Seamus. Beowulf: A New Verse Translation. New York: W.W.Norton & Co., 2000. Print.Liuzza, R.M. Beowulf: A New Verse Translation. Ontario, Canada:Broadview Press Ltd., 2000. Print.Orchard, Andy. “The Kin of Cain.” Pride and Prodigies. Cambridge:maura whitman 17

D.S. Brewer, 1985. 58-85. Print.Oswald, Dana. Monsters, Gender and Sexuality in Medieval EnglishLiterature. Woodbridge: D.S. Brewer, 2010. Print.Phillips, James. “In the Company of Predators: Beowulf andthe Monstrous Descendants of Cain.” Angelaki Journal of theTheoretical Humanities 13.3 (2008): 41-51. Academic Search Elite.Web. 1 March 2011.“Reave, v.1” Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford UniversityPress, 2011. Web. 19 April 2011.“Reaver, n.” Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford UniversityPress, 2011. Web. 19 April 2011.Serenity. Dir. Joss Whedon. Perf. Nathan Fillion, Summer Glau,Chiwetel Ejiofor. Universal Pictures, 2005. DVD.“Serenity.” Firefly: The Complete Series. Writ. Joss Whedon. Dir. JossWhedon. Twentieth Century Fox, 2002. DVD.18 afternoons of alterity

Projecting Otherness ontothe DisabledSancia S. HuffmanMonsters? In the twenty-first century, they have become demystified.Yet, they are incorporated within cultures to include “differencemade [into] flesh” that has “come to dwell among us” (Cohen 7).The monsters have been subsumed into categories of not me and havecome to define people’s existence as monstrous and dangerouslythreatening. Before examining monsters in the medieval imagination,I was of the impression that monsters do not exist. Truly, there arenatural and unexplained abnormalities within our universe that Ihave rarely wondered or thought about because of fear of what Imay come to find. Indeed, such fear can cause the malignant andbenign anomalies of our world, or should I say cultural implicationsof our world, to go unnoticed. One such cultural implication isthe inferior treatment of the disabled because of their cognitive orphysical characteristics to which society attaches multiple stigmasand stereotypes that marginalize the disabled. By examining monstertheory as a phenomenon that correlates with the disabled, I intendto analyze how society projects otherness onto the disabled. Thefindings of my research are based on a mini-interview of two disabledpeople along with extensive library research. The implication of myargument is that as non-disabled we do not know what the disabledare thinking. Yet, non-disabled are the ones with the power to make 19

decisions on-behalf of the disabled. The idea of monstrosity correlatedwith projecting the disabled as other has more to do with power andcontrol in society. Because the disabled supposedly defy the categoryof normal, the disabled are forced to assume the seemingly scaryand dangerous category of monstrous other. The idea of monstrositywhen applied to the inferiority with which society treats, views, andclassifies the disabled as monstrous others predates history. However,the focus of this research is a demand for us to reconsider the liminalspace in which the disabled are forced to commit to the role of other“without adequately exploring alternatives” (Sadowski 15). Giventhat all bodies are monstrous, the inferiority with which the disabledare regarded as monstrous others is society’s attempt to project the“abnormal” characteristics within the self onto the other.Cohen, in his extensive work on the monsters implicationswithin cultures, has drawn upon the monster’s existence as thatwhich is “distant and distinct but originate[d] within” (7). Cohen’sassertion has two powerful implications for the argument of thisresearch. The argument suggests that the monster is a projection ofour thoughts, feelings and emotions. The monster is a part of ourbeings just as the monster is a part of the beings that we visualizeas monstrous others. And, thus all beings are monstrous. Cohen,along with several others, has demonstrated how the monster hascome to signify everything including—skin color, body size, andin particularly birth defects—which people cannot control. Tounderstand the monstrous other, it is necessary to characterizemonstrosity, which The Oxford English Dictionary defines as thatwhich is a “[deviation] from the natural or conventional order;unnatural, extraordinary” (def. 1a), or “of a person: strange inconduct or disposition” (def. 1b) and “abnormally formed; havinga gross congenital malformation” (def. 3a). Cohen also declares inhis analysis of monsters that the monstrous “are disturbing hybridswhose externally incoherent bodies resist attempts to include them20 afternoons of alterity

in any systematic structuration. And so the monster is dangerous aform suspended between forms that threatens to smash distinctions”(6). While these definitions do not entirely characterize themonstrous others and pertinently the disabled, these definitionsare necessary for clarifying why monstrous others are disturbing tomost, and further emphasize the inability of disabled to be classifiedas normal. Cohen’s assertion of the monster as a phenomenon that“signifies something other than itself” implies that the monster’sexistence is an embodiment of culture. Cohen’s argument is notthe only argument to characterize monster’s existence, yet, it leadsone to understand how the monstrous races fit into the world. LiberMonstrorum 1 classifies and compiles the monsters and prodigiesof the early medieval European world that strike fear and terrorin humankind, and requires us to synthesize and critique themonstrous in all things that are related through binaries. In essence,some of the richly coherent binaries— normal and abnormal,inhuman and human, power and powerlessness and difference andsameness— are the birth of otherness, which some humans withintheir cultures project onto each other. The conceptualization of thedisabled, as abnormal, different, powerless and inhuman despitehaving human qualities and features as ourselves, is a projection themonsters within us. The binaries abnormal, difference, powerlessand inhuman help to project the monsters within us because we tryto assimilate and integrate according to the opposite of the binaries.The binaries are mutually exclusive and cannot occur at the sametime therefore, the struggle to move from one oppositional categoryto the other makes us become monstrous others.Therefore, I argue that these definitions of the monstrouscertainly do not fit the disabled corpus. However, if we contend thatthese definitions accurately characterize the disabled as monstrous,¹ Orchard, Andy. “Liber Monstrorum: A translation.” Pride and Prodigies. University ofToronto Press: Toronto, 1995. 254-317. Printsancia s. huffman 21

then we must apply such characteristics to the self as well as thosepeople, whose alterations of their bodies become a disability thatmost people in society accept as normal. People with bodily piercings,tattoos and even those who have used plastic surgery to make theirlips, ears, and eyes more appealing are disabled because their bodieshave deviated from normal. The fact that we are all born with smalllimbs, small genitals, and glands that grow overtime to becomeovertly obvious means that we are all in the objectionable categoryof monstrous others. Cohen asserts that the monster is everythingthat it is and all that it is not therefore, the monster’s destructivenessis really a deconstructiveness that threatens to reveal that differencesoriginate in process, rather in fact (14). Cohen’s argument suggeststhat difference is not real, and that false difference is easily projectedonto the monstrous other. The projection of monstrosity onto eachother is largely based on human perception, which is provisionaland unstable. Thus anyone can become and everyone is a monstrousother. Margrit Shildrik offers an excellent explanation of how themonstrous other can easily become an issue of concern that includesall bodies. Because of vulnerability:The permeability of the boundaries that guarantee thenormatively embodied self is not secure. Neither thevulnerable nor the monstrous is fully containable withinthe binary structure of the western logos, but they signal atransformation of the relation between self and other suchthat the encounter with the strange is not a discrete eventbut the constant condition of becoming. The idea andthe corporeality of the monstrous is a status that everyoneis susceptible to assume. However, the negativity that isassociated with the monstrous is potentially damaging tothe self. (1-2)22 afternoons of alterity

The idea of the monstrous’ vulnerability and the corporeality ofthe monstrous, which Shildrik uses to show how humans naturallyhave the capability of becoming other, are important and relevantin showing that the disabled other and the non-disabled other aredistinctly alike. What then is normal and abnormal? How do we/Idifferentiate between the binaries of normal and abnormal? Wheredo we fit in? And how do you fit in? Where do I fit in? Apparentlythere arise concerns about deciding who becomes objectified andotherized and who does not. Richard Kearny talks about the lawsof hospitality, contending that each host has the right to select anddecide who to include or exclude, and the right to discriminate. Healso suggests that the binaries must be removed before accepting theother (68). But Kearney’s argument is not in accord with people whoadvocate for the inclusion of the disabled or even with relocatingthe otherness with which the disabled are perceived. Giving thehost, who for the argument of this research is the non-disabled, fullauthority to determine who is normal and by far who to discriminateagainst negates Kearney’s suggestion to remove the binaries in orderto embrace the other. Sarah Ryan, Morse, Wilson and Penrod,whose works focus on the inclusion of the disabled in public places,sees the social world as an inhospitable place in which the disabledcannot experience a sense of community and belonging. The laws ofhospitality as a concept of inclusion and exclusion have a tendency topromote insult, because not everyone will be accepting of the other,in this instance the disabled. Given that all bodies mentally andphysically are not without significant defects and must be rendereddisabled, the disabled and the non-disabled bodies are monstrousothers and neither bodies are without a form of disability.The degree with which the disabled are viewed as monstrousvaries by perception. In Visualizing the Disabled Body: The ClassicalNude and the Fragmented Torso, Lennard J. Davis compares twowomen’s bodies, one of a statue and the other of a living woman,sancia s. huffman 23

oth of which are disabled. The statue and the living woman havesimilar disabilities. However, the statue, Venus de Milo, who romanticpoet Heinrich Heine calls Notre-Dame de la Beauté, fits the ideal ofwestern beauty and is considered normal. The living woman, whosedisability becomes the focal point for horror and pity, is consideredabnormal (126-130). Davis’ argument suggests that disability is asuperficial phenomenon that has more to do with power and lessto do with being disabled. It is a plausible argument. The degree ofa disability does not determine how someone is viewed. The powerof deciding who is disabled is based on society. As Kearney statedearlier society determines who to discriminate against and who notto discriminate against (68). Despite having more similar degrees ofhumanness as the self and less quality of the other, the disabled areperceived as something other than the self or different from the self.The classification of the disabled as monstrous others comes fromthe failure of their bodies to fit the social construct of normal, whichis arbitrary and therefore fallible.The self-perceived classification of the disabled, which society’ssocial attitudes define using the binaries “normal” and “abnormal,”make the disabled become liminal and unable to assimilate orintegrate. Thus, the disabled are rejected as having no place in themodern world. It is however, because of where the dominant powerlies in society that the disabled are regarded as monstrous others.Can we honestly say that we have never at some point in our livesdisregarded an individual because of how s/he looked regardlessbirth defect or artificial alterations? We cannot say we have not.As humans, we have the natural tendency to stare, or scuffle alongwhen we see someone that we view as different from ourselves.David Church and Lennard J. Davis point out that the non-disabledsubject the non-normative body (traditionally, that of a person withdisabilities) to the albeist gaze (3). Even if their skin color, hair, facialfeatures or their bodies are similar to ours, the fact that they are24 afternoons of alterity

not us and are in the proximity of difference, “they are put into anoppositional category of not-me” (Margrit Shildrick 2-3). RosemarieGarland Thomson writes, “people who are visually different havealways provoked the imagination of their fellow human beings”which is the cause of our misconception of the disabled as monstrous(1, Introduction). Yet, such provocation does not justify the inferiortreatment of the disabled that eventually subjects the disabled tootherness. However necessary it may be for people in society to forman identity based on their interactions with each other, the disableddo not need to be demean.Although I work with the disabled community, I have neverreally asked how my clients feel about the inferiority with which theyare treated in society. On the twenty-third of March two thousandand eleven in the early afternoon, I conducted a mini-interview atthe Finger Lakes Community College campus in Canandaigua NYin which I interviewed two people, whose names will be withheld forprivacy purposes. The first subject is a forty-six year old woman, whois non-ambulatory and has spina-bifida, and the other is a twentythree-yearold young man, who has mild mental retardation andsuffers from infrequent seizures. Both are self-advocates, they haveattended a college experience program at Finger Lakes CommunityCollege and have completed coursework in public speaking and art.I will use ‘the woman’ and ‘the young man’ to refer to the subjects.I also want to make it known that their experiences cannot be usedto account for the inferior treatments of all disabled people. I askedthree questions which are:1. Do you see yourself as different from other people nondisabledor disabled?2. Are you every discriminated against?3. Do you believe that society has done a good job to facilitatepeople with disabilities and if they have what do you believesancia s. huffman 25

can be done to make the disabled develop a sense of belongingwith their community?Although they did not answer all the questions, our discussion wasvery interesting. Base on the mini-interview that I conducted, thewoman and the young man asserted that they do not feel as if theyhave any reason to think that they are different from other people.In fact, they made it known that they went to college and are able tospeak for themselves and those who may not be able to exercise theirrights or speak for themselves. The only concern that they have is thatthey are unable to enjoy all the luxuries of society because society isnot set up to accommodate then. When I asked what they meant bythat, the woman responded that most times she wants to integrateand become a part of a social network in society, but she cannotbecause some facilities are not set up to accommodate her and herwheel chair. During our conversation, the young man advertentlytold me that the non-disabled are jealous of the disabled becausethey are not as multi-talented as the disabled are. When I asked theyoung man to explain what he meant by that, he exclaimed that thedisabled are unique in the way that they are accepting of all and arecapable of doing things that the non-disabled cannot do. I askedhim to tell me what it is that he feels that he and other disabled arecapable of doing well that the non-disabled are incapable of doing.He told me that the disabled are capable of overcoming the barriersand stigmas that society uses to keep them from succeeding. Heexplained that the disabled do that by just being themselves. He alsomentioned that the disabled are being featured in multiple ways,which he feels is an attempt to make them be more valuable.After conferring with these two disabled individuals, I realize thatas non-disabled I too have projected otherness onto the disabled.Like most in society, I have also otherized the disabled because Ihave tried to accommodate the disabled without asking them how26 afternoons of alterity

they want to be treated. The interviewees have told me how they feelabout themselves in society and about how they believe that societyis placing more value on them. However, I do not agree that thedisabled are being valued as they ought to be. The mere fact I amnot agreeing with what the interviewees have said I am projectingotherness onto the disabled. The disabled have the power to beheard, but they are not listened to. Instead, they are pitied and thosewith the power in society try to fix them, however the intervieweesasserts that they do not need fixing. They need to belong.The projection of the disabled as monstrous others is eminentin various forms and is propagated through the media in print andfilms discourses. Society in its attempts to correct the injustices thatthe disabled have experience has instead valorized the disabled. Thefight is more a power struggle that propagates anger and hurt. Twoof the biggest monsters that appears when we least expect them.Monsters are in varied forms that may be cultural, but they mayalso be a natural form of embodiment (Margarit Shildrick 9). As anatural form of embodiment, those human bodies that are deformedfrom birth defects and those human bodies that Rosemarie GarlandThomson contends are “freaky” because they are products of the verysame people who are visually different and who they discriminateagainst. However, such discrimination is an attempt to “eradicate[the] distinctions among a wide variety of [disabled] bodies, conflatingthem under the single sign of the freak-as-another” (qtd. in Church4). The disabled are not freaks and should not be categorized as such.sancia s. huffman 27

Shildrick, Margrit. Embodying the Monster: Encounters with theVulnerable Self. London: Sage, 2002. Print.sancia s. huffman 29

Monstrosity and theIrruption of RealityBecoming a True Christian inSir Gawain and the Green KnightJaime GriffithRichard Kearny states that “most ideas of identity, in short, havebeen constructed in relation to some notion of alterity” (66). Thisexplains the way individuals portray themselves, by what they arenot. The psychological need for alterity appears extremely importantin defining an individual or a culture. Therefore, Sir Gawain’sunconscious search for identity in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight isbetter understood when the Green Knight represents the monstrousother that he must avoid: paganism. He begins his search for identity,more specifically his Christian identity, once the Green Knightirrupts into King Arthur’s court. Gawain’s transformation into atrue Christian is clearly evident by virtue of his atonement for hissins and final rejection of everything the Green Knight represents.There are many interpretations of the character the GreenKnight. Lawrence Besserman mentions many readings of the GreenKnight: “that he is a dying and rising vegetation god, an archetypaldeath figure, or an allegorical representation of the Word of Godor Christ” (220). He discusses Larry Benson’s view of the GreenKnight as a “blend of two traditional figures in romance and othermedieval narratives, the literary green man and the literary wild manthe former, representing the cheerful characteristics and the latter,signifying the monstrous aspects” (Besserman 220). Besserman 31

animals, and her magical control (Darrah 79). The Green knightprovides a description of Morgan’s power when he states “in mymanor lives the mighty Morgan le Fay, / so adept and adroit in thedark arts, / who learned magic from Merlin” (“Thurgh might ofMorgne la Faye, that in my hous lenges, / And koyntyse of clergye,bi craftes wel lerned. / The maystres of Merlyn, mony ho has taken”)(2446-2448). Since possession of magical control links Morgan withpaganism, then anything upon which she uses her magical powerswill also represent paganism, i.e. the Green Knight. As Markmanrightly states Sir Bercilak’s marvelous transformation into the GreenKnight is the “direct manifestation of Morgan le Fay’s magical power”(580). This magical transformation establishes the Green Knight’sassociation with the pagan world. As the central pagan symbol inthis poem irrupting Gawain’s reality, Gawain is unconsciously luredinto searching for his true Christian identity and overcoming thesepagan barriers.The Green Knight is connected with Paganism not only becauseof Morgan le Fay, but also because of the demonic elementsdescribing him and his habitat. The most sinister of these physicalcharacteristics are his “rede” eyes (304). Since this knight is “entirelyemerald green” (“And overall enker grene”), these red eyes are allthe more prominent (150). According to Hawkins, the color red canindicate anger, strength, masculine vigor, drunkenness, debauchery,corruption, malignancy, ill-heath in the soul, or death (50). Withthese various interpretations, none fits better than the associationwith the supernatural. The color red is often associated with demoniccreatures or the devil. By recognizing the eyes, the poem suggests thatfear extends from being observed by a supernatural power (Hawkins50). The red eyes enhance the monstrosity of the Green Knight. Someinterpretations regard the Green Knight as the Devil because of thedisturbing descriptions of his environment, such as “the devil’s lair”(“Whether this be the grene chapelle”) (2186). Gawain continues byjaime griffith 33

describing his fears of this place and referencing the devil: “Satanhimself / has tricked me in this tryst, intending to destroy me”(the fende, in my five wyttes, / that has stoken me this steven tostrye me here) (2193-2194). Corinne Saunders states that “magic isdemonic, whereas miracles occur through faith” (202). Thus, theGreen Knight’s demonization further associates him with magic. Ifthis is the case, then it is not only his red eyes but also his disturbingenvironment that make the Green Knight demonic. Once again heis connected to the magical, pagan world emphasizing the conceptthat to be demonic means to be pagan. It is this pagan world thatGawain discards after his atonement for his sins.The irruption of the textual reality begins at King Arthur’s court“as a fearful form appeared, framed in the door” (“Ther hales inat the halle dor an aghlich mayster”) indicating the Green Knight’sarrival (136). Bringing with him the pagan association, he disruptsthe “lovely illusory bubble,” or what they see as their perfect reality(Weiss 4). In truth, this disruption brings to light that their reality hassome flaws since a pagan element has appeared. After experiencinghis own faults of accepting paganism, Gawain eventually establishesthat a Christian reality should eliminate these pagan imperfections.Gawain recites what seems like heartfelt prayers: “let God be myguide” (“as God wyl me wysse”) (549) and “Let the Lord decide”(“Let God worche!”) (2208). However, as soon as he is tested, heresorts to pagan methods of magic to save him: for instance, thegreen girdle. Sweeney explains how Gawain “compromised his faithby choosing magic over reliance on God” when he took the girdlefor immortal protection (147). He simply could not resist when hediscoverd “the power knitted” within the belt, which will save himfrom any blow (“the costes that knit ar therinne”) (1849).As Gawain tucks the girdle away, he ironically rides to the chapelof worship. Not only does he speak empty words as he confesseshis sins, but he asks the priest to clear his mind. The priest then34 afternoons of alterity

“declares him so clean and so pure” (And of absolucioun he on thesegge calles) (1882). The priest is not able to absolve Gawain for twoimportant reasons. Firstly, Gawain does not have true Christian faithbecause he chose to confess his sins to a priest instead of God. Thepriest is not allowed to absolve people for their sins: “absolution canonly be licit if it is declarative of God’s prior and quite independentforgiveness” (Aers 98). A true Christian understands that only Godcan absolve a person’s sinful deeds. According to Aers, this could bea radical attack on the “church’s claims for its sacrament of penance”(97). The second reason this confession is unsuccessful is becauseGawain kept the magical girdle for protection instead of relying onGod. Gawain must first reject all non-Christian, pagan elements inorder to become the Christian he claims to be.It is not until he is confronting the Green Knight that he discovershis mistake. There are three important moments during thisconfrontation: the confession, the recognition as a sinner, and thefinal rejection of Paganism. The first moment is Gawain’s confessionwhen he discovers that the Green Knight has been under Morgan leFay’s spell. He is speechless and then finally speaks with anger,Lo! Ther the falssyng foule mot hit falle!For care of thy knokke cowardyse me taghtTo acorde me with covetyse…Now an I fawty and falceMy downfall and undoing; let the devil take itDread of the death blow and cowardly doubtsmeant I gave in to greed…I am found to be flawed and false (2378-23820)Gawain realizes his faults lie in taking the girdle for protection andrelying on magic instead of his Christian Lord. The second mostimportant moment is Gawain’s recognition of being “permanentlyjaime griffith 35

stained with sin” (Spearing 221). He chooses to wear the girdle untilhis dying day, as a symbolic atonement and reminder of his sinfuldalliance with paganism. The third moment, and certainly the mostimportant, is when the Green Knight attempts to offer absolution,which would be impossible since he represents paganism. Hetries to reconcile with Gawain by inviting him back to the castle.According to Spearing, the Green Knight takes on Devil-likequalities while he tempts Gawain to overlook his sins and “makemyry” (2468). Gawain’s refusal to follow the Green Knight marksa transformation and a saving of his soul. By refusing the GreenKnight, he is ultimately refusing to accept paganism in his life, andfollow his true Christian path.Literature often helps present a culture’s attempt at establishingan identity. Britain’s invasions by Angles, Saxons, Scandinavians,Normans and more, evoked fear in the Christian culture due tothe pagan traditions these invaders followed. England seems toreveal personal struggles with the lingering pagan and Christiantensions in this Arthurian Romance. In the late Middle Ages,since England became a “product of diverse cultural experiences”and most European invaders brought their own religious viewsand culture, paganism became a threat to Christians who viewedthem as monstrous (Hawkins 44). Bildhauer and Mills point outthat Medieval Europe’s “non-Christians living in proximity withChristian communities could also be depicted with monstrouscharacteristics (9).In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Gawain represents the Christianpopulation within this culture that needs to clarify their identity byrejecting the monstrous paganism, i.e. The Green Knight. Throughthe character Gawain, the culture appears to reject paganism inorder to follow the true path of Christianity. An Arthurian Romanceis the ideal setting to present these cultural tensions because theessential Christian values are not sustained in King Arthur’s court.36 afternoons of alterity

Gawain is the epitome of this so called “Christian” culture yet heproves to be flawed. He summarizes it in one word: “falce” (2383).Everything about Arthur’s court turned out to be false because theywere corrupted by paganism. It seems that Gawain represents theEnglish culture that is trying to change but is repeatedly hindered byincoming invaders.This irruption of paganism in Sir Gawain and the Green Knightreveals the cultural anxiety of England in the Middle Ages. Just asGawain is threatened by the intrusion of the Green Knight, Englandis threatened by the many foreign invasions. This pattern of themonstrous representing a cultural fear is a recurring theme, evenin the early English tradition. For Example, the poem Beowulf wasapproximately written in the 7 th -10 th century and portrays similarpagan threats. In this text, Grendel is the pagan symbol, who’s “eyesstood / a light not fair glowing like fire” (Luizza 726-727). These fieryeyes are similar to the Green Knight’s red eyes, presenting Grendelas a demonic being. This pagan character is also overthrown by aChristian, named Beowulf.Sir Gawain and the Green Knight exposes the fear of paganism whichalso reflects the cultural anxiety. This anxiety seems puzzling because tobe Christian means to trust in God. Therefore, fear of pagan intrusionis unnecessary because faith in God correlated with protection fromGod. Possibly, the anxiety stems from the weak Christian faith whichis clearly evident in Sir Gawain. Another possible explanation for thisfear is the worry that paganism with overthrow Christianity. Betteryet, maybe it is not so much a fear of paganism but a fear in Godand His wrath. Christians may feel they are being punished withthese many invasions. Although these are sufficient reasons, thereappears to be a more important clarification. Due to the fact thatthe Christian faith is weak, Christians at this time do not seem tounderstand that God controls everything. John Friedman mentionsthat “Christian thought held that God violated the order of naturejaime griffith 37

often and at will to show man something” (119). Since God is incontrol, then there would be nothing to fear. However, Christianitydepends on the choices that are executed. Sir Gawain fails becausehe makes the choice to trust in the girdle. The cultural anxiety existsbecause these Christians in England, just as Sir Gawain in the poem,do not have complete faith that God is in control.Bildhauer and Mills point out that monstrosity is “not meaninglessbut meaning-laden” (2). Monstrosity incorporated within a societycan provide means to overcome struggles with identity. The GreenKnight is the embodiment of residual paganism, which the late 14 thcentury English culture seems to want to eradicate. Although it isMorgan le Fay’s magic that transforms Sir Bercilak into the GreenKnight, “the monster signifies something other than itself” (Cohen4). The Green Knight represents everything that is non-Christianfrom pagan magic to demonic attributes. As the irruption occursin King Arthur’s court, Gawain is revealed as lacking the Christianfaith that the court supposedly represents. After discovering hisfaults, Gawain succeeds in removing the need for pagan magic andredefines himself as Christian. “As an embodiment of a certaincultural movement,” this poem reveals how literature can represent acultures background and struggle with pagan remnants overlappingChristian values (Cohen 4). Through the character Gawain, thepoem reveals the cultural tensions, England’s search for Christianidentity, and constant fear of God in the 14 th century.38 afternoons of alterity

Spearing, A. C. The Gawain Poet a Critical Study. New York:Cambridge University Press, 1970. Print.Sweeney, Mickey. “Sir Gawain & the Green Knight: MakingMeaning from Magic.” Mediaevalia 23 (2002): 137-157. ILLIAD.Web. 16 Apr. 2011.Weiss, Victoria L. “The Play World and the Real World: Chivalryin Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.” 403-418. Print.40 afternoons of alterity

What’s Love Got To Do With It?The Story of A Green KnightMaking a DifferenceAndrew BellushIn the realm of monstrosity, the concept of “the other” is a seeminglyinsurmountable peak to conquer. The process of seeking to definethat which is different or new is seen in many forms throughouthistory as illustrated in myths and cultural histories from all aroundthe globe. One such society, that of developing Western Europe, inseeking to answer such questions posed by alterity within humanexistence, developed some of the most interesting answers, buildingthe foundation for an entire branch of literary study. In the earlierdays of Middle English literature in particular, sometime in betweenthe 12th and 14th centuries, questions of otherness are seen to beanswered with fantastic and rather poetic fables and narratives. Theseattempts actually create so much of what common knowledge deemscliché aspects of the fantasy genre: trolls, knights damsels, kings,giants, and the almighty dragon, to name a few. The proper name forthis genre of mythical proportions at the time of it’s cultural reign ismore appropriately “Romance literature”. This genre of writing hasbeen studied for decades for the historical perspective it offers onWestern culture.One aspect of that study has to do with this otherness, this alteritywhich is so weighty a question on the minds of Western society.Those trolls, giants, and dragons have been conjectured by many 41

acclaimed critics to be representations of “categories of descent,language, law, and customs…identified as fundamental to medievalconcepts of race and ethnicity” (Huot 373), particularly whenspeaking in relation to those giants mentioned earlier. It is giantsspecifically that are used to characterize human differences and filethem away as “other” because “monstrous and savage though thesegiants are [they] nonetheless have clear human traits” (Huot 373),and these traits are very much similar to what was considered thenormative standard of the dominant (Western European) culture,but with fundamental differences in terms of “appearance [and]forms of behavior coded as unacceptable to European culture”(Huot 373) and therefore otherized and exoticized.While many Romantic texts (Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History ofthe Kings of Britain, featuring King Arthur, for instance) give us storiesof characters, usually knights, attempting to defend themselves ortheir society from such “behavior that is savage, brutal, and utterlyantithetical to civilization” (Huot 375). However, one literary workin particular from the late Medieval English period, Sir Gawain andthe Green Knight, seems to give a clear alternative to assuage conflictsof dissonance. It is this avant-garde surprise ending which brings tolife a decidedly liberal and more humanistic solution to resolvingdifferences and sociocultural conflicts.A fight with a giant will most usually “culminate in a decapitation[because] giants always die in this severe manner” (Cohen 74) howeverin the aforementioned literary text, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, abeheading occurs and the giant lives on. In fact, the way in which theplot concludes and the threat of the giant recedes is in the climacticending when the differences between Sir Gawain and Lord Bercilak,The Green Knight, are reconciled. The conflict exists though, in howthose dissimilarities of race, creed, culture, sexuality, etc., are putaside. Are they really forgotten? Does the protagonist (Sir Gawain)see the Green Knight in any different of a light at the end of the42 afternoons of alterity

story than as the beginning? What force could possibly render thenotions of alterity felt by Sir Gawain completely irrelevant?The answer to these questions posed in this work of Medievalromance is love. No pun intended. A love that removes motives ofalterity by overshadowing the superficial differences and enlighteningthe deep oneness or sameness shared by all humanity. That love, andthe facets and characteristics of it which define such an intimaterelationship, is the factor which exists in the connection betweenGiant and Knight in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight that enables apath to a nonviolent and mutual understanding. This kind of loveis accurately characterized as “altruistic love [which is] any generalor nonerotic sense to include the other within the realm of theperceived self” (O’Neill 107). This kind of inclusion which lovesits object for that object as it is “to undergo a process which mightbe termed ego-decentering”(O’Neill 107) something which takes theopinions and socially constructed views of what should be and ratherunderstands something, someone really, as they are. By showing sucha harmonious resolution between two supposedly contrary figures,that the author of this text, the identity of whom is lost to ourpresent knowledge that challenges cultural conventions of the timeand presents a more agreeable, open-minded, and synthesized visionfor humanity.The negative side of this is that the anonymous author had thechips stacked against such a beautiful optimism actually coming tocultural fruition. The culture of Medieval England in particularwas a highly regimented and tradition-minded society, with oneconvention or another delegating appropriate and inappropriatebehavior for every situation one could think of. All forms nobility,including knights and maidens of the court, are the noteworthyvictims of such rigidity. Codes of chivalry are notorious for theirdisciplined perspectives on how such experiences as love should beexperienced.lauren apt 43

This is evidenced by the medieval text “The Art of Courtly Love”,written by Andreas Capellanus. Within such a text, love is definedas “[an] inborn suffering derived from the sight of…the opposite sex”(Capellanus 28) and something which is structured so that “whatevernature forbids, love is ashamed to accept” (Capellanus 30), and here inthis latter mandate is what could be considered the first implication ofthe existence of exclusivity from love, a planting ground for the seedsof monstrosity to be sown. Additionally, it is worth noting from thistext places heavy emphasis on the superficialities of aspects of humanattraction, signified in the supposed “fact” that “blindness is a barto love because a blind man cannot see anything…” (Capellanus 33).Since one major indicator of love is “a beautiful figure” (Capellanus33), not being able to admire such a thing would surely block lovefrom ever truly developing.Love, for medieval courtiers at least, also seems to only be a feelingthat is expressed in it’s physical gratification, for in yet anotherpassage describing a situation in which love is impossible, it is saidthat “age is a bar…because although one can have intercourse hispassion cannot develop into love” (Capellanus 32), implying that sexis a requirement, a prerequisite to the creation of a love for another.In it’s final pages, The Art of Courtly Love is sure to reveal to it’sreader that despite all the right ways to love which are laid out inthe preceding pages that “[love] deprives you…of every real friend,and takes away all the honors of this world, as well as every breath ofpraiseworthy reputation” (Capellanus 210), and notice how again thethings which comprise of a happy lifestyle are such superficialities asthe opinions of others and reputation. Perhaps more troubling is theimplied destruction of friendship in the face of love. Love is neveronce mentioned to be a feeling which may bond humans regardlessof sex or consummation. It is always and forever a physical emotionwhich can only exist in the absence of all other mitigating factors,these being things like God, wealth, and friendship.44 afternoons of alterity

It is textual content like this that seems to imply that the MedievalAge was anything but romantic. How, with texts like this governingthe feelings of mankind, would it ever be possible for friendshipsand loves involving dissimilar parties to be allowed and to prosper?With concepts of love so concretely grounded in the realm of sexualpleasure, it is no wonder that any other form of relationship wasat the very least scrutinized, never mind the utter disgust shownat relationships and attempts at friendship with a human beingconsidered abject from the dominant culture. The anonymousauthor of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight would have his/her workcut out for he/she if they wished to shed light on what they believedto be the true nature of love and it’s ability to include, rather thanexclude, any and all individuals regardless of difference.It was therefore very important that they go about the planting ofsuch subversive optimistic and compassionate ideals of love in a waywhich merely suggested, rather than broadcast. To state a completelyalternate reading of love, one which deviated from the normal ideasso radically, the author would have to deceive in order to show thetrue path to completely altruistic love, the kind which breaks downbarriers and builds relationships of understanding. S¿ren Kierkegaardpostulated upon a type of love which did just that: deceive. This sortof deceptive love involves “mystification to help the other recognizethe truth” (McCreary 43) which leaves the deceived better off thanbefore because they can now see that “love is not a being-for-itselfquality but a quality by which you are for others” (McCreary 27), aquality not ascribed to the greedy, satisfaction-based necessity of lovelaid out in the framework of the courtly code.It must be just outside of coincidence, then, that one can witnesssimilar behavior from Lord Bercilak, i.e. the Green Knight, whodeceives Sir Gawain into realizing what it truly means to love, thatit is a compassion for the individual in spite of obvious differences,which can put an end to the idea of monstrosity. In Sir Gawain andlauren apt 45

the Green Knight, Lord Bercilak must first remove the delusion of loveas expressed in the chivalric code by, using “indirect communication[because] direct communication will fail”(McCreary 30) given thatthe one being deceived through that method of communicationwould believe themselves to be acting morally and ethically rightwhen it is indeed false.Therefore, “in order to gain a hearing with this person and in orderto eventually lead him…toward seeing the falsity of what is believed,one must first begin by agreeing with this person” (McCreary 31),and Lord Bercilak does indeed do this within the text by encirclingSir Gawain within an environment in which chivalry and it’sconventions are still at the center, keeping social order, for knightsare praised thusly: “What lessons we will learn in noble speech/what marvelous words, what practiced methods/Of converse nowthat we welcome this model/ Of perfect breeding!/God has beengood,/truly, to grant us a guest like Gawain”(Raffel 84). Clearly, theknight is still the morally and ethically impressive one of society,thanks to his superior upbringing and ability to follow convention.These qualities of being able to converse politely according toaccepted conventions, and of being of a good family and class arethose qualities which make up a good and true human being, as faras Gawain knows, and he is therefore comfortable, unsuspecting ofhis own superficial conceptions of love and reality and the potentialthey have for excluding and denigrating others.Lord Bercilak, in providing for Gawain in such a way, also beginsto teach the reader an important part of what it means to truly carefor another human being. He suspends his own beliefs for the sakeof Sir Gawain, continuing a falsified reality which he does not reallybelieve in and the reader learns that love is not something whichis based on a selfish sexual desire for consummation, but in factmay require a “sacrifice…made out of love for the other and forthe sake of the other” (McCreary 35) and this is shown repetitively46 afternoons of alterity

through the story as the Green Knight offers up, in the guise ofLord Bercilak, his hospitality, his food, and his wife who will “keep/You company, amuse you until I make/My way home” (Raffel 89),a suggestive passage which implies more than just games and politetalk. The Green Knight risks his marriage and gives of himself andhis resources in order to provide for the illusion which he hopes willeventually lead Sir Gawain to a “truer” form of love.Given that Sir Gawain chooses, according to the text, not takeadvantage of Lady Bercilak, as evidenced in the passage of her finalattempts to seduce him. Sir Gawain makes his last refusal of her lovingadvances: “He said: By Good Saint John,/ And smiled to prove/ Hisclaim, “I’ve none,/ And none will have for now” (Raffel 111). Theinteresting part of this passage is not so much in it’s portrayal ofSir Gawain as a chivalrous and benevolent knight, but rather thathis refusal now makes him appear, by all courtly conventions, as afailure to the code. It is stated according to courtly traditions of lovethat “fluency of speech will incline to love the hearts of those whodo not love” (Capellanus 35), and that a man who is “honorableand prudent cannot easily…cause distress to his beloved” (Capellanus35) but yet in all the seduction scenes of Sir Gawain and the GreenKnight, the opposite proves to be true. Lady Bercilak becomesquite distressed by Sir Gawain’s loyalty, honor, and prudence. Thepitfalls of Gawain’s constructed, courtly reality slowly begin to revealthemselves. How can one, by following all the rules of a love basedon pursuing partners only possessing qualities of “a beautiful figure[and] extreme readiness of speech” (Capellanus 33), still end upnot creating any sort of intimate or meaningful relationship withtheir peer? Why does the Lady Bercilak feel excluded, perhaps evenoutcast? It is because the courtly concept of love is more focused onan “associa[tion] with social order and loyalty [to] kingship” instead of“mutuality of desire”(Saunders 48-50), that desire being the naturalwant to create meaningful and lasting relationships in one’s life.lauren apt 47

An adherence to social convention, as Saunders suggests MiddleEnglish romance is mostly centered on, equates love with “socialorder and with larger issues of loyalty” (Saunders 48), but it is thisvery factor which begins to distort the perception of the “lover”.Such loyalty does not define the sort of “objective love…[which] isa reconciliation of seeming opposites” (O’Neill 108), and a form ofaltruism that “is a passionate affimration of an object but an activestriving and interrelatedness, the aim of which is the happiness,growth, and freedom of it’s object” (O’Neill 107), but rather createsboundaries defined by certain “dynastic line[s]…and the stability ofa nation” (Saunders 50), concepts which cultivate senses of alterityby drawing lines in humanity where there were none before. Theselines were used to assign “self-identity and sameness” (Kearney 65),and this assignment of identity along imaginary lines of “Good”and ‘We’ “define over and against the foreign ‘Them’” (Kearney65), thereby creating the fear and anger that create a monster.While these monsters may be nothing more than men and womenwho choose to be different from what is accepted by the dominantculture, it is that same culture which deems itself superior thatchooses instead to otherize these social “outliers” into inferiorsubdivisions of humanity.Throughout all of these subdivisions of humanity, an otherness ismaintained. This otherness can be ethnic, religious, or physical butin any case, it is these differences which translate into the monstrous,and more specifically, in the Romantic era, into monstrous giantsthe absolute picture of something that is “antithetical to civilization”(Hout 381), and it should be clear to readers that there is only oneway to deal with such alterity present in the “civilzed” world, “thatthey are to be killed”(Huot 375) and herein lies the problem of thesense of love granted by chivalric and courtly codes. Herein, too, liesthe genesis of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, a dissenting voice inthe darkness of elitism, it could be postulated, the name of one of48 afternoons of alterity

the first advocating voices for ending discrimination and advancealtruistic and objective love as the true sources of human happinesshas been sadly rested beneath the moniker of Anonymous.The question of how one achieves such a benevolent dissent hasbeen discussed earlier in this argument, in terms of deceptive love.However the method in which that deceptive form of love createsan enlightened view of reality is where the real emotional revelationlies. The method of that revelation lies in the final scene of SirGawain and the Green Knight at the moment of the realization of SirGawain that his whole quest has been a set-up, a quest unmaskedby the Green Knight, or Lord Bercilak as one which was purposelymeant to confuse and complicate: “Morgana sent me to your king’scastle/ to test your pride, to determine the truth/ Of the RoundTable’s fame, and the tales that tell it./ She hoped my lopped-offhead would addle/ your brains” (Raffel 131). Through revelationof his true intent, the Green Knight begins to build a relationshipwith Sir Gawain, especially as their differences melt away in the faceof reconciliation.Here is where the process of talking things out, interpersonalcommunication, becomes an important process of developinglong-lasting, positive relationships. The Green Knight discloseshis personal feelings to Sir Gawain: “the green man laughed, andcourteously explained/…you took/ Such plain penance at thepoint of my axe/ That I hold you cleansed, as pure in heart” (Raffel130). This method of disclosing personal feelings, combined withthe small tale told of Morgana Le Fay and her intentions, give twoexceptional details of what building true, loving relationships isall about: Communication and empathy. Communication, in theform of self-disclosure , is “one of the most effective ways to developand manage personal relationships and an essential requirementfor mental health” (Forgas 1), which is especially interesting whenapplied to the situational context, where the Green Knight is in alauren apt 49

happy and jovial disposition throughout the disclosure proceedingstaking place between him and Sir Gawain. It should be noted thatresearch shows that “positive affect should promote assimilation andthus more daring and direct disclosure styles” (Forgas 3), meaningthat the very fact that the Green Knight is disclosing informationin the first place, and then that he is doing so in a friendly manner,increases the likelihood of Sir Gawain accepting the tale and feelinga sort of oneness with the Green Knight.More appropriately this oneness could be termed “empathy”,which is described as the “attempt to understand, to experience andto feel things as another human person might feel them”(Fairbairn192), a powerful reciprocal effect of the Green Knight’s informationdisclosure. Now that Gawain understands the point-of-view of theGreen Knight, his more readily able to consider it. This considerationof the other perspective, the opinions of alterity, would have neverhappened if Gawain had not been at first tricked into being put intoa situation where he would have listen to the thoughts and feelingsof a “monster” whom he would have just as soon beheaded ratherthan hearken to.Whether talking of passionate love or companionate love, two“valid conceptualization’s] of love”( Kim & Hatfield 173), there is nodoubt that in either sense, given that the “two emotions are relatedwith each other…universal[ly]” (Kim & Hatfield 180), a strong senseof empathy and communication must be maintained in order todiffuse feelings of otherness and alterity. It is this sort of love, thekind which operates in pursuit of learning about the “other”, that“which is strange, as it gradually casts off its veil and presents itselfas a new and indescribable beauty” (Casey 371), that will effect theworld in a lasting and impressive way. It is this sort of legitimatecaring for the other, as the Green Knight shows Sir Gawain, that willeliminate prejudices which are preconceived and socially motivatedby the mainstream culture. The Green Knight is a man who is50 afternoons of alterity

“capable of seeing things objectively, ‘as they are’ [which] less[ens]man’s implicit sense of alienation and estrangement in the world”(O’Neill 112) and can therefore show Gawain the world as it is, aworld with difference and dissonance, but still a real world, a trueworld. This sort of love eliminates alterity because it accepts andassimilates. It does not demarcate. It does not divide, or conquer.It is not superficial. It is objective, understanding, and completelyimpartial in nature.Love removes alterity. The author of Sir Gawain and the GreenKnight knew that if it were continued to be accepted that those courtlyand chivalric precepts of what love is supposed to be is irrefutablefact, that mankind would surely confound itself into oblivion andobliteration out of sheer confusion with its very own standards.Love is not possible without acceptance of an entire individual,regardless of what that might consist of. Love takes the monster awayfrom mankind’s borders and puts it into the light so that it can beseen for what it is. Fear and hatred are the smiths of monstrositybecause they do not solve the unknown, but only demonize it intosomething which it does not have to be. Love is the answer to thequestions posed by otherness. True and lasting compassion for allof mankind’s shapes, sizes, and capacities is the only way to create auniversal social freedom within our collective culture.lauren apt 51

Works CitedCapellanus, André, and John Jay Parry. The Art of Courtly Love. NewYork: Columbia UP, 1941. Print.Casey, M. A. “Nietzsche on Love.” Society 45.4 (2008): 368-74. Web.Fairbairn, Gavin J. “Empathy, Sympathy, and the Image of theOther.” Peace Review 21.2 (2009): 188-97. Web.Forgas, Joseph P. “Affective Influences on Self-Disclosure: MoodEffects on the Intimacy and Reciprocity of Disclosing PersonalInformation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2010):1-12. 20 Dec. 2010. Web.Huot, S. “Love, Race, and Gender in Medieval Romance: Lancelotand the Son of the Giantess.” Journal of Medieval and EarlyModern Studies 37.2 (2007): 373-91. Print.Kearney, Richard. Strangers, Gods, and Monsters: InterpretingOtherness. New York: Routledge, 2003. Print.Kim, Jungsik, and Elaine Hatfield. “Love Types And SubjectiveWell-Being: A Cross- Cultural Study.” Social Behavior andPersonality: an International Journal 32.2 (2004): 173-82. Print.McCreary, Mark L. “Deceptive Love: Kierkegaard on Mystificationand Deceiving into the Truth.” Journal of Religious Ethics, Inc.39.1 (2011): 25-47. Web.O’Neill, William F. “Loving, Learning And Learning To Love(AESA Presidential Address).” Educational Studies: A Jrnl of theAmerican Educ. Studies Assoc. 16.2 (1985): 107-16. Print.Raffel, Burton. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. New York: NewAmerican Library, 2009. Print.Saunders, Corinne. “Love and Loyalty in Middle EnglishRomance.” Writings on Love in the English Middle Ages.Gordonsville, VA: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. 46-60. Web.52 afternoons of alterity

Darkness: The True Monster ofLiterature and SocietyLauren AptFor thousands of years, darkness and the night time have generatedfeelings of anxiety and fear within the human race. There are so manyspeculations, theories, hypotheses and ideas about why this might be,and while it is impossible to say which is correct, they all contribute tothe strange and mysterious qualities behind the darkness. The factssay that fear of the dark is something that goes back almost as far ashuman beings themselves, and it is a fear that inhabits people of alldifferent cultures, races, and genders. What is it about the dark thatmakes it such a widespread, terrifying theme? The evidence found inliterature, studies, and theories on darkness and the night time allsuggest the same thing: humans subconsciously define darkness asmonstrous. While this is not a definitive answer, it may suggest someof the reasons behind why this is such a determined and specificfear. Monsters are perceived as a threat to life and well being, andif humans turn the darkness into a living, breathing monster, thenit becomes something that must be actively feared and avoided inorder to survive. With this in mind, it is no wonder the darkness isso feared, and it stands to reason that, even today, we demonize thedark until it can only be seen as a thing of terror and menace.There are many reasons, both abstract and concrete, why humanbeings might turn the dark into the monstrous. Nicholas Lash 53

observes that “Fear of the Dark,” “Even our world of permanentlybright-lit cities, blotting out the stars, has not quite succeeded inabolishing the animal-instinctive, body-deep association of thedarkness of the night with fear: fear of the unknown, the unexpected,uncomprehended; fear of unseen danger, death and dissolution”(Lash 206). In medieval times, for instance, the darkness was literallydarker, with no electric cities lighting the blackness of night. Peoplehad a very real fear of falling into unseen ditches, or being attacked bycriminals who could hide in dark corners (Bildauer 135). But if ourfears were related simply to these concrete reasons, would our dreadnot have dissipated with the invention of the street lamp? This deepseatedfear, however, is not often something we acquire consciously,but begins in childhood. David Kipper points out, “That certain fearsoccur more frequently than others among children; in particular fearof…darkness…reaches its peak at about the age of four” (Kipper 24).Still today the fear begins when we are young, before we can eventhink about why we are afraid, and it does not discriminate betweengender or race either. Louise T. Higgins states that “[Some] fears arebelieved to have originated during evolutionary history when humanbeings were biologically programmed to learn easily and efficiently…to fear objects and stimulations that threatened the survival of thespecies” (Higgins37-38). She concludes with this information and astudy she has conducted that “Human fears,” such as darkness, “doseem to be similar across cultures” (Higgins 47). All of this researchindicates that our fear of darkness is something in us from birth thatwe must learn to live and cope with. It is no wonder, then, that somany have tried to understand what the reason for this fear is. Boththrough scholarly discussions and a large amount of entertainmentbased literature our interest is evident. As we have come into themodern age, more and more people have attempted to define ourideas of what is to be the monstrous. Part of this continual attemptis our continual fascination with things of this nature, because of54 afternoons of alterity

the way they can make us feel, but also perhaps we believe that therationalization of our fears will help to banish the monsters andrelieve us of our anxiety. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen posits seven theses onMonster Culture. Cohen’s theses attempt to define the monstrous,and, using his ideas, it is easy to see how darkness becomes definedas a monster to be afraid of.His first thesis, entitled “The Monster’s Body is a CulturalBody,” discusses the idea that the Monster is “pure culture” (Cohen4). Cohen asserts that “The monster is born…at this metaphoriccrossroads, as an embodiment of a certain cultural moment…Themonster’s body quite literally incorporates fear, desire, anxiety, andfantasy, giving them life and an uncanny independence” (Cohen 4).While darkness has no physical body in itself, like the body of ahuman, the time of the day it represents is indeed at a crossroads, andits being easily “incorporates fear, desire, anxiety, and fantasy.” Thismakes it almost seem to be a being of living, breathing physicality,as real and touchable as another human being. When we meet thenight it is with as much belief in its danger to our well being as if wewere to meet a serial killer. Really it is no wonder, for what potentiallyhides in the shadowy darkness is absolutely terrifying. Christianitypromoted thousands of years ago the nighttime’s apparent ability toshift into a time of evil, allowing for demonic and spiritual beingsto cross over and walk the earth (Bildaur 138). This might be anoriginally religious idea, but it is thousands of years old and stillinstills real fear and terror today. Youngs and Harris note that “Thenight became home to imagined horrors” (Bildaur 135), and theseimagined horrors still exist for people in the modern day and of anyreligion, whether the fears be demonically and spiritually connectedor other manifestations of our elaborate imaginations. The darknessallows for this in between time, this place of crossroads, where, atleast in our minds, anything can happen. It is the “Quintessentialterror of the dark and its unknowns” (Bildaur 135) that leaves openlauren apt 55

the many possibilities for things to go wrong. Dreaming is anotherliminal and dangerous part of the night. This belief says that “it [thenight] was a transforming agent” (Bildaur 139) capable of changingeven the most pure, devout people into beings filled with sin anddesire through the uncontrollable temptation of the dream. Ourdreams, like our imaginations, are capable of creating whateverreality we wish, and the dreams themselves had the potential to benightmares, and to transform the night into something even morefearful than reality. These liminal crossroads created through dreamsand the ability to change seemingly ordinary things, these times ofdarkness where the human has the potential to choose a path of eviland sin or a path of good and purity, are cause for the “fear, desire,anxiety, and fantasy” that Cohen mentions. The desire to sin, theanxiety of potential meetings with evil beings, and the fantasy ofimagination and dream for our ancestors but also for modern folkmake the monstrous body of the night a big part of culture inherentin human life and history.Cohen’s second thesis, “The Monster always Escapes,” discussesthe ability of the monster to constantly shift, change, and reappear.The monster cannot be killed, and Cohen believes that “Themonster’s body is both corporal and incorporeal; its threat is itspropensity to shift” (Cohen 5). Again, the monster is constantly ata crossroad, in between, liminal. The monster not only exists in aliminal space, but is itself liminal in its ability to be always changing,never a solid body. Darkness, of course, will always escape because onecannot hold, control, or kill Darkness. Darkness shifts into shadowand light, disappearing each day, only to reappear every night despiteour attempts to banish it with our electric lights. Darkness, just likeCohen’s monsters, can shift, survive, and constantly reappear tocreate more destruction. Nicholas Lash points out the cyclic qualitiesof the night, saying “The darkness of the night both falls and fades, isnever, we might say, a darkness without rhythm. Each night’s darkness56 afternoons of alterity

not only closes out, extinguishes, the brightness of the day before,but also contains at least the possibility of the next day’s dawn” (Lash205). While day does indeed have to come at the end of each night,night also must come at the end of each day. It is something thatcannot be avoided, and we cannot hide from the night. The monsterreturns each day to haunt and terrify, despite how desperately weattempt to avoid it. There were planetary events related to darknessthat were also especially terrifying. Especially to ancestors who hadless knowledge as to the cause of such phenomena, things such asan eclipse of the sun “Could be read as ‘a manifestation of evil’”(Bildaur 135). The darkness had the apparent ability to occasionallyassert itself even against the sunlight, and to plunge the world intodarkness in the middle of the day. If the monster darkness is capableof such things, there cannot be much it could not do to the meremortal human population.The next thesis, called “The Monster is the Harbinger of CategoryCrisis,” further solidifies the monstrosity of the night. This sectiondiscusses more specifically the liminality of the monster. Cohennotices the monster’s refusal to be categorized. The monster does notinhabit one compartment but many (Cohen 6), and this creates aneven greater threat for us because we cannot say where the monsterbelongs. While the night is categorized in the sense that it is notday, it still, as was mentioned earlier, has many liminal qualities toit that make it unable to be in one specifically defined space. This“category crisis,” as Cohen terms it, is almost always a feature of themonstrous. The darkness is no exception. While twilight is the mostliteral in-between time of day, being literally between the daytime andthe nighttime, darkness is equally as liminal. Darkness allows evildoersand dangerous individuals to come out from wherever the daylight had banished them, and to wreak havoc on the unsuspectinghuman. Night allows for “almost all visitations by the dead anddevils,” (Bildaur 138) creating some sort of liminal space whichlauren apt 57

permits spirits to travel between their world and ours. The darknesscreates shadows untouched by the daylight, much darker and moresinister than the shadows created by the sun, where it is neithercompletely light nor dark and where anything can happen. However,perhaps most liminal and dangerous of all, is that the darkness allowsfor dreams. Human beings have an “Inability to control the bodyduring the dark and sleeping hours” (Bildaur 140), making anythingpossible, and dreams are the physical representation of potential sinand disgrace. Dreaming also literally puts the human in the liminalposition between sleep and awake, conscious and unconscious, andwe have no control over the subjects of our dreams. It is the liminalqualities of the night-its inability or refusal to be neither good norbad, neither real nor spiritual-that creates the dangers which cause itto be monstrous.Cohen’s fourth thesis, “The Monster Dwells at the Gates ofDifference” (Cohen7), discusses the idea that the monster embodiesdifference. Whether this means gender, race, beliefs, cultural, orother, difference is monstrous. Cohen says, “The monster is anincorporation of the Outside, the Beyond-of all those loci that arerhetorically placed as distant and distinct but originate Within”(Cohen 7). This part of the monster is monstrous particularlybecause it is recognizable; because its differences walk with andblend in among us, parading as one of us but are in fact grotesquelydifferent. The night time provides the means for the blending of thedifferent, the ability to mask any differences with darkness. It alsoallows those who are hiding to come out and show their true colors.One such example of this was the medieval (and perhaps current tosome extent) view of women as fearful others. Youngs and Harrispoint out that “the word ‘night’ was gendered feminine in Latinatelanguages; the safe, respectable day was always masculine” (Bildaur140). This negative correlation to women, however, was just the start.The nighttime was believed to have been the agent of destruction58 afternoons of alterity

and temptation, most especially for women. The fear of womenextended to the belief that some women, “seemingly ordinary andlaw-abiding by day, mutating into ‘wicked women’ at night…thesewomen would remain bodily asleep in bed, but were able to flythrough the night for nefarious ends” (Bildaur 139). At the sametime this wickedness was associated with the devil, and “Demonswere believed to take on the likeness of ordinary people at night inorder to discredit them by engaging in dishonorable deeds” (Bildaur139). The otherness represented by women and by the devil and hisminions came to its full-fledged menace only at night. The night,while also different itself in its literal difference from the light andhappiness of day, is also an agent for all the “others” of the world toexist among the rest of the human population. The darkness fullypersonifies the idea of being different, and shows itself to be evenmore monstrous in this way.Next is a thesis titled, “The Monster Polices the Borders ofthe Possible” (Cohen 12). In this thesis, Cohen asserts that “themonster stands as a warning against exploration of its uncertaindemesnes” (Cohen 12). The darkness is almost certainly always an“uncertain demesne” containing unknown things hidden behindevery dark corner. During medieval times there were strict curfewsin place in most cities to prevent the trouble making and crimethat was believed to happen mostly at night (Bildaur 142). Thereare still some cities today whose officials feel that curfews areimportant for the very same reason, because being out at night isbelieved to be directly connected with mischief and harm. Whilemost people do not live under a curfew and are perfectly willingto go out at night, there is still the modern benefit of streetlampsand lighted buildings to help the exploration of the darker hours,making the darkness much less dark than it could be and much lessfrightening. Cohen also says that, “primarily these borders are inplace to control the traffic in women, or more generally to establishlauren apt 59

strictly homosocial bonds” (Cohen 13), both of which were some ofthe direct fears present in medieval society of the things that mighthappen in the nighttime if people were allowed to go about as theypleased (Bildaur). By establishing borders and creating a fear in thepeople about what might happen to them if they venture beyond,lawmakers and leaders could feel they were protecting their city andits inhabitants from the deadly sins and harms of the dark and thenight. People genuinely believed, and may still in some ways today,that “to step outside this official geography is to risk attack by somemonstrous border patrol or (worse) to become monstrous oneself”(Cohen 12). It is exactly this that we fear: that whatever is lurking inthe darkness will either attack and physically harm us, or will take uswith it into sin and monstrosity.Darkness continues to be a monster in definition of Cohen’ssixth thesis, called “Fear of the Monster is Really a Kind of Desire”(Cohen 16). In this thesis Cohen suggests that while human beingsfear the monstrous, we are also greatly attracted to it. This can beseen frequently in modern society, with our love of horror filmsand haunted attractions, but it may very well have been equallydesirable for our ancient ancestors. While the night was indeedterrifying for the many reasons already mentioned, it was alsoattractive in the variety of options it provided for those who wishedto participate in illicit or ill-advised acts. Prostitution, for example,has been a well-known illegal (or at the very least frowned upon)trade for thousands of years. The feminine connotations of the word“night” have already been discussed, but the negative associationwith women went beyond the belief in their witchery and demonictransformations. “A strong association was made between the nightand nefarious sexual practices” (Bildaur 146), say Youngs and Harris,and prostitutes were (and still are) referred to as “women of thenight.” In fact, according to Youngs and Harris, in medieval citiesthe frequency of devious and unsanctioned sexual acts during dark60 afternoons of alterity

hours “led to the term ‘night’ becoming a code word for sodomy”(Bildaur 147). The temptation to sin through sexual acts was great,and people seemed more than willing to venture into the darknessto gratify their desires. Indeed, the night provided a cover for theirdisreputable actions which lent itself to a welcome change from thelight, busy daytime where all could be seen. The monster that is thenight time was very attractive in its ability to hide the sinful sideof human life, and may well have been desirable to all who wishedto participate in such acts. Dreaming as well, especially for a moremodern culture, has for many turned into a positive thing. Wedetest nightmares, but the dream world can be a place where all ourfantasies and imaginings come true, hence the vernacular meaningof the word “dream.” While the Church helped to apply negativemeaning to the dream because of the harmful effects of humans’inability to control the sinful subjects of dreams, dreaming today isassociated much more with its ability to take us away from whateverundesirable reality we live in. Night time, therefore, provides theattractive ability to let us escape from the dreary world and live inour dream world for a few short hours. Cohen says, “We distrust andloathe the monster at the same time we envy its freedom” (Cohen17) and indeed the darkness is very attractive when it provides uswith the opportunity to experience the freedom of the monster, aslong as we can feel we are safe doing it.Lastly is Cohen’s seventh thesis, entitled “The Monster Stands atthe Threshold…of Becoming” (Cohen 20). This last thesis says verysimply that the monster is our own creation, one of our making,and that “these monsters ask us how we perceive the world, and howwe have misrepresented what we have attempted to place” (Cohen20). The nighttime certainly shows us how we attempt to categorizethose things which we do not like or understand, and while it seemsevil and terrible to us, there are certain things about it which alsodraw us in. This, in turn, should make us question our originallauren apt 61

categorization, for our placement of women, dreaming, demons,sex, and crime, all delegated originally to the night, does not applyto all and is often left open to interpretation. The beliefs of ourmedieval ancestors are not the beliefs we share today, and eventhousands of years ago, those beliefs would not have applied to everysingle person. We all experience the night differently, and while itstill remains a widespread fear, it cannot possibly frighten everyone.There are those who are more comfortable in then night than theday, and not simply for evil intent. There are those who are in these“evil” categories we try to place them in but who are not evil beings.The night and the darkness are concepts we do not understand, butour attempts to place it into a category simply serve to show our ownculture and understanding, as Cohen suggests, making it definitely amonster child of our own.One very important detail to notice about humanity’s fear ofdarkness is the way it has changed over many years. The fear hasalways been there, and is still prevalent in modern culture in manyways, but is treated very differently than it might have been longago. Perhaps one of the most obvious ways to look at this changeis through literature. Beowulf is one of the earliest examples of theway monstrosity and darkness are used together, and viewed by thepeople. Grendel is the monstrous character presented as Beowulf’santithesis, and his association with darkness makes a clear pointas to how the darkness was viewed by the Anglo-Saxon people.Grendel is called “A bold demon who waited in darkness” (Liuzza55) ,and the text makes it clear that Grendel only attacks the greathall in the cover of night. Grendel not only comes from the dark,but when threatened by Beowulf, Grendel is described immediatelyin Irving’s translation as wanting “To flee into sheltering darkness”(Irving 106), for nowhere is as safe for this fiend as the cover of darkwhich hides and protects him. Edward B. devotes a chapter to therepresentation of Grendel and his purpose within the text, noting62 afternoons of alterity

specifically his relationship to darkness, arguing that “The simpleassociation of darkness with Grendel…runs consistently throughthe poem…Grendel’s darkness is to a marked degree the blindnessof intellectual and moral confusion” (Irving 98). Irving points out,however, that it is not only Grendel’s association with dark buthis contrast with Beowulf’s light that is particularly suggestive ofthe of people’s belief in the symbolism of light versus dark (Irving98). This contrast between light and dark is parallels ChristianTheology, and God’s light versus Satan’s dark. Beowulf takes placeduring a time when the people were at a crossroads between theirpagan religions and Christianity, starting to make the switch fromone to the other but not yet wholly immersed in either. The peoplewere both literally confused, as Irving suggests, and also were stilllargely ignorant of the light of religion, still blinded in their darkpagan ways, or so the Beowulf text suggests. Grendel is “A fiendfrom hell” (Liuzza 56) who is the enemy of God. “In the dark hecame creeping, the shadow-goer. It was well-known to men thatthe demon foe could not drag them under the dark shadows if theMaker did not wish it” (Liuzza 74). The text is constantly showing itsreaders the battle between God (represented in Beowulf, the light)and Satan (through Grendel and the dark), or the battle betweenChristianity and Paganism, between ignorance and enlightenment.Irving rightly argues that, “Grendel comes in darkness, a darknessthat stands not only for the evil he represents and the terror hecauses but also for the ignorance and delusion in which he moves”(Irving 102). These people are beginning to come out of the darkages of ignorance and terror and are coming into the light, which isshown through Grendel and Beowulf and their associated symbolsof Dark and Light.After this transition is made there is very gradual change overthousands of years to a view that becomes much more recognizablefor modern people. The best way to observe this change in peoplelauren apt 63

is to look at the same character, Grendel, and his more modernassociations with darkness, as well as how he is connected withmodern society. John Gardner’s Grendel (1971) represents acharacter equally steeped in darkness, but the purpose of which isquite different. Gardner’s Grendel describes himself as both literallyand figuratively of the dark. He lives in darkness, and he tells hisaudience that he enjoys visiting the outside world, “challenging theterrible forces of night on tiptoe.” However, “At dawn I fled back”(Gardner 16). Grendel is just as afraid of the light of day as humansmight be of the dark of night. He is blinded by the light, “Morningnails my eyes” (Gardner 13), but says “In darkness, I alone see clearas day” (Gardner 12). The night is as familiar and comfortable tohim as day time would be for us. Grendel is also told, and believes,that he is figuratively of the darkness as well. He hears from theShaper “of an ancient feud between two brothers which split all theworld between darkness and light. And I, Grendel, was the darkside” (Gardner 51). Jennifer Kelso Farrell asserts that, “Grendel isindeed of the dark, but not so much because he is evil but becausehumans need him to be evil” (Farrell 942). Gardner confirms herclaim through the character of the dragon, who tells Grendel “Youimprove them my boy!…You are, so to speak, the brute existent bywhich they learn to define themselves” (Gardner 73). The dragonechoes Cohen’s belief as well that monsters are our children who areessential to understanding who we are and how we define ourselves(Cohen 20). Grendel believes he must inhabit the dark, evil parts ofhistory and the world, and yet from the reader’s perspective he is lessevil than, perhaps, he should be. What Gardner strives to achieveis to make us more comfortable with the dark and the monstrous.He tries to illustrate the ability of the monster to be less a terrifyingbeast and more a rational, necessary part of the world. Gardnershows modern society’s attempt to integrate the monster and givehim a purpose, making him, as a result, much less scary. Gardner’s64 afternoons of alterity

humanization of Grendel draws the reader into his sympathies,making them imagine what it would be like to be Grendel, livingin the comfort and security of the dark. Through association withGrendel, Gardner makes the dark seem a friendly place where oneis safe instead of a time to be feared. Gardner’s work demonstratesthe further shift in the treatment of darkness and the monstrous,and the differences that have occurred in the belief of what mightlurk in the dark.These two texts, one from approximately the 7 th -10 th century, theother published in 1971, shows us a broad difference in thought thathas occurred with thousands of years of learning and understanding.It stands to reason that the human population who have grown somuch and come so far during that time span would need to havechanged their thoughts, beliefs, and understandings numerous timeson topics of all nature; fear, monstrosity, and darkness included. Thisshift in thoughts about darkness parallels a shift in understanding,and, even more significant, a shift in religion. Religion is at the baseof all of these understandings, and only in recent years and specificplaces, do we find an understanding and explanation of fear ofdarkness not related solely to religion. During the time period whenBeowulf’s was written society lived in a world where religion wasthe basis for everyday actions and thoughts. As we entered medievaltimes Christianity was still creating the reasoning behind many ofthe supposed fears that existed in the dark, and most likely createdmany of those fears as well. In more recent years we see theologiansquestioning Christianity’s views of darkness, and wondering ifperhaps some of the Christian views on darkness need not be quiteso negative. Nicholas Lash, for instance, makes an example throughbiblical events, pointing out that “It was night…when Jesus went tosacrifice for our sake…This marvelous event belongs to the nights…Night embraces the beginnings of God’s life in the world…In thenight the child Jesus was born…in the night the man Jesus was bornlauren apt 65

again from the womb of the grave” (Lash 205). He demonstrates allthe goodness that occurs at night, which Christian preachings haveneglected to mention. Our changing, questioning views of religionhave come with yet another parallel: that of the shift from ignoranceto education. We question these things because we have learned somuch over these thousands of years, and our learning prompts us toask questions and challenge preconceived notions that may no longerapply. Our ancestor’s understanding of the world is not the same asthe understanding we share today, and our new understanding iswhat leads us to new ways of thinking about the things around us.Darkness becomes a metaphor for ignorance, according to Irving,which suggests that perhaps our modern world is steeped more inlight, both literally, with our street lamps, and metaphorically withour educated state, than in dark. We fear the dark less today thandid our ancestors because of our change in belief and our greaterunderstanding, but we have not lost that fear completely.Today we find that we have the ability to both promote andobliterate this fear. Our children almost all experience this fear atsome point during their childhood, and most lose it as they getolder, but there are many adults who still experience at least a mildfeeling of discomfort when confronted with the dark. This stemsfrom, as Higgins puts it, “basic human emotional responses [which]may be innate and universal” (Higgins 39). Part of it is almostcertainly innate, but part is also promoted by the pop-culture weimmerse ourselves in. The fairy tales, including Walt Disney’s, thatwe read to our children, and which they view for much of theirchildhood, do nothing but encourage this fear. Thomas A. Nelsonfound through his research that “the dark forces” found specificallyin Disney and similar creations, “create a hellish counter-motion,one driving downward into darkness and pandemonium” (Nelson95). If this is what our children are watching, it is no wonder thatthey form a deep seated fear of the monsters in the dark, however66 afternoons of alterity

subconscious the message may be. This does not even approach themany horror movies that come out each year, and which fascinateyoung audiences. At the same time, studies have shown thatthrough reading books to young children which contain messagespositively associated with the dark it is also possible to reduce thatfear (Klingman 237). In a society much more complicated than thatof Beowulf’s it is difficult to pinpoint the exact reasoning behindthe fear, but our willingness to explore it, solve it, enjoy it, anddefine it shows the major differences in the way our society thinksabout the darkness.Darkness has been called “A transforming agent” (Bildaur 139),among many other things, but this ability to transform people andplaces has been an agent of good change as well as bad. It was ourfear of the dark that forced us to create things such as artificiallight. It was the dreams we had during the night that encouragedus to live, invent, learn, and grow. While our ancestors had manylegitimate reasons to fear what lurked in the darkness, today thatfear is not quite as acute. It is, however, still conspicuously present.To understand and be wary of the dark is built into our genes, andis certainly important to safety and well being. But perhaps ournewfound ability to mostly overcome this fear, both through ourrational thinking un-tempered by religious prejudice and our abilityto light the dark, with our lamps and our intellectual prowess, willonly assist us in continuing to grow. We are learning to use whatgood things the darkness can provide us. Unlike our ancestors, wehave more of a chance to understand the dark, and perhaps withtime our deep seated fear will give way completely to a comfortablerelationship with the night.lauren apt 67

Works CitedBildauer, Bettina and Robert Mills, eds. The Monstrous Middle Ages.Toronto, Canada: University Press, 2003. 134-154. Print.Farrell, Jennifer Kelso. “The Evil Behind the Mask: Grendel’s PopCulture Evolution.” Journal of Popular Culture. 41.6 (2008): 934-949. Web. 8 Apr. 2011.Higgins, Louise T. “Cultural Effects on the Expression of SomeFears by Chinese and British Female Students.” Journal ofGenetic Psychology. 165.1 (2004): 37-49. Web. Apr 4 2011.Irving, Edward B. A Reading of Beowulf. New Haven and London:Yale University Press, 1968. 83-128. Print.J.J. Cohen, ed. Monster Theory: Reading Culture. Minneapolis:UP Minnesota, 1996. 3-25.John Gardner. Grendel. New York: Vintage (Knopf/Doubleday),1989.Kipper, David A. “In Vivo Desensitization of Nyctophobia: TwoCase Reports.” Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice. 17.1(1980): 24-29. Web. Apr 6 2011.Klingman, Avigdor. “Biblioguidance with Kindergartners:Evaluation of a Primary Prevention Program to Reduce Fear ofthe Dark.” Journal of Clinical Child Phsycology. 17.3 (1988): 237-241. Web. 30 Mar 2011.Lash, Nicholas. “Fear of the Dark.” Modern Theology. 16.2 (2000):203-214. Web. 2 April, 2011.Nelson, Thomas A. “Darkness in the Disney Look.” Literature FilmQuarterly. 6.2 (1978): 94-103. Web. 3 Apr 2011.Roy Liuzza, trans. Beowulf. Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 1999.68 afternoons of alterity

Serial MonstrosityEmily Mastrobattisto“Battle not with monsters lest you become one.”—Friedrich NietzscheA monster is a lot like a hero. They are both viewed as heroic,idealized members of the culture and admirable. A killer of multiplevictims is not someone that is generally idolized, but the reversalof the postmodern perception of these killers has made themcelebrities. Medieval culture viewed this paradigm of mass murderersas demonic, brutal, and despicable. Medieval European society didnot aspire to be killers of multiple victims; rather, they wanted themonster dead. The separation of paradigms between these twocultures demonstrates an evolution of cultural attitude toward killersof multiple victims. These killers have encapsulated the fascinationof society and many view these monsters as heroes. What is behindthis fascination? Besides the weird perversion of heroism, there is anaspect of identity and coming full circle. As a society we can identifywith parts of their life or character and that fuels the fascination.Society has come full circle in the sense that these killers of multiplevictims are acting out our forbidden wishes. In a perverse way societylives vicariously through these killers, aspiring to be them becausethey thrill us. What does this paradigm shift mean if there is no 69

dichotomy between monster and hero? There was a clear monsterin medieval society because they saw killers of multiple victims asdemons. In post modern society there is no distinct other becausewe glorify these killers. While in medieval literature there is a cleardichotomy between monstrosity and heroism regarding killers ofmultiple victims, the postmodern cultural lens reconstructs killersas fascinating heroes.In the 7 th - 10 th century Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf, Beowulf is thehero called upon to kill the murderous Grendel. Grendel was a killerof multiple victims who took the lives of thirty men in one nightfor sport. Liuzza describes Grendel’s multiple murders as “then theGod-cursed brute was creating havoc: greedy and grim, he grabbedthirty men from their resting places and rushed to his lair, flushedup and inflamed from the raid, blundering back with the butcheredcorpses” (Liuzza, 120). Grendel is a killer who is “all action and noreflection” (Farrell, 934). In reading this translation Grendel is veryclearly a despicable demon. Jennifer Farrell says, “Grendel lives inthe water and drinks human blood. The taboo formation of hisname makes his ties to evil and Cain that much stronger” (935). Hismurders are connected with consuming his victims.“Nor did the creature keep him waiting but struck suddenlyand started in; he grabbed and mauled a man on his bench,bit into his bone-lappings, bolted down his blood andgorged on him in lumps, leaving the body utterly lifeless,eaten up hand and foot” (Liuzza, lines738-744).Grendel is not the only monster in Beowulf. His mother is alsoa killer of multiple victims. Wendy Hennequin describes Grendel’smother as an “ogress and an evil beast” (Hennequin, 503). Medievalsociety did not see Grendel or his mother’s character as fascinating;rather they saw his lifeless, hanging arm fascinating. The dichotomy70 afternoons of alterity

is clear that they are monsters and not heroes. Farrell describes that“Grendel encompasses all the traits that Early Middle Age Christiansbelieved that the devil had” (Farrell, 936). This line furthers the beliefthat killers of multiple victims during medieval times were just that,murderers. Jennifer Farrell makes this point when she says, “in thisChristian poem the evil source cannot be complicated because thehero/villain good/evil dichotomy must be absolute” (937). Grendel’smother is even more dangerous than Grendel to the Danes becauseshe is a “warrior on par with Beowulf himself” (Hennequin, 507).To Christians, Grendel’s mother is the worst kind of killer because“she crosses gender lines to participate in the masculine realm andcan actually challenge Beowulf” (510). Their strength and lack ofhuman qualities makes them very hard to identify with and veryscary to society. In Liuzza’s a clearly demonic Grendel is describedas evil who,“saw many men in the mansion, sleeping, a ranked companyof kinsmen and warriors quartered together. And his gleewas demonic, picturing the mayhem: before morning hewould rip life from limb and devour them, feed on theirflesh” (Liuzza, lines 723-733).Farrell notes that “the poet’s intentions are to posit Grendel as theevil predator of Hrothgar’s innocent people. He bears the curse ofCain, which likens him to a brother killer” (Farrell, 936). Grendel’srelation to Cain only furthers his demonic nature. It is very clearthat his relation to Cain is not supposed to be a point of fascination,but a reason to really fear him and see him as a monster. Grendel’sactions and his mother’s are viewed as monstrous. Their killings arenot viewed as justifiable or fascinating. Grendel’s mother’s strengthis not looked at positively; rather it is seen as a prime reason why sheis pure evil.emily mastrobattisto 71

Similar to Grendel, another medieval, demonic character isGrettir. Janice Hawes describes Grettir as an outlaw. She states,“not only does the fight with Glamr change the nature of Grettir’srelationship to society, but in one sense, he has also reached thepoint of no return” (Hawes 20). Similar to Grendel, Grettir is verydangerous because he does not think before he acts. After a fightwith Glam, Grettir acted quickly. “He drew his short sword, cutoff Glam’s head and laid it between his thighs” (Byock, 56). Hawesfurther makes the point that Grettir is not a hero, but only a monsterwhen she describes Grettir as a cannibal. “The cannibal is describedas an evil spirit, so the hero assumes the role of an exorcist, a shaman,and not only rids the people of a monster but cleanses the area of thedemon” (Hawes 28). Grendel and Grettir can both be described inthat passage. They are both monsters and killers of multiple victims.The dichotomy is clear in medieval literature. Monsters and heroesare not one in the same.The dichotomy becomes unclear when reading John Gardner’sGrendel. The postmodern portrayal of Grendel reveals the newparadigmatic view of killers with multiple victims. Gardner bridgesthe old paradigm with the new paradigm without intending to doso. Grendel the mass murderer becomes Grendel the victim whenGardner gives him human characteristics that Beowulf did not. Forthe first time, Grendel is given the ability to ponder and becomephilosophical, as when Grendel says, “I understood that the worldwas nothing: a mechanical chaos of casual, brute enmity on whichwe stupidly impose our hopes and fears. I understood that, finallyand absolutely, I alone exist. All the rest, I saw, is merely what pushesme, or what I push against, blindly—as blindly as all that is not myselfpushes back” (Garnder,16). Grendel is capable of having revelations.He realizes that the world is just like the bull, it is mindless anddestructive without any discernible plan or reason. Grendel’sassertion changes the way he is perceived. He is no longer the brutal72 afternoons of alterity

murderer that he once was. He has become a student who believesin having an ethical code. Grendel is now modern. Farrell statesthat “the language spoken to Grendel from the dragon is simple,yet the language speaks to the post modern age. Conformity mustbe rebelled against. Simple portrayals of good and evil are not to betrusted” (938). Gardner “plays with polar extremes and tweaks hisnovel in order to create a more sympathetic Grendel” (938). Gardneris changing the paradigm and exposing truths about human culture.The reader is seeing Grendel as a victim of a corrupt society. Heis not the predator any longer; he is the sympathetic victim. Thecontext in which Grendel was once viewed has been overturned,and Grendel is now a character capable of more rational thoughtthan any Dane or Geat in Beowulf. The audience feels for Grendelbecause his emotions make him identifiable. Gardner demonstrateshis emotions when Grendel says, “why can’t I have someone to talkto?” I said. The stars said nothing, but I pretended to ignore therudeness. ‘The Shaper has people to talk to,’ I said. I wrung myfingers. ‘Hrothgar has people to talk to” (Gardner 53). This line isimportant because it shows how introspective Grendel’s thoughts areand it is the epitome of Gardner’s paradigm shift. That line breaksthe readers’ hearts and erases the images of Grendel the killer andreplaces them with Grendel the lonely victim. Farrell believes thatGardner is exposing Grendel as a victim to a corrupt society when shewrites, “some read Grendel as a Christian mirror reflecting the darkside of human nature back onto the Danes” (Farrell 937). Gardnerfurther creates a paradigm shift when Grendel questions the actionsof the Danes. Farrell describes that “the Danes reveal themselvesto be murderers within their own society. ‘I stepped on somethingfleshy, and jerked away. It was a man. They cut his throat. His clotheshad been stolen. I stared up at the hall, baffled, beginning to shake.’This random violence confuses Grendel even as he is guilty of similarviolence” (940). Gardner’s reversal of monstrosity is the beginning ofemily mastrobattisto 73

the fascination society has with killers of multiple victims. The Danesare not a civilized society; rather, they are “liars, drunks and braggartswho often fall into brawling over trivial matters” (940). Gardner’sparadigm shift is not only declassifying Grendel as the monster, butalso making him the hero. Grendel is exposing the Danes for whatthey really are; a bunch of unintelligent drunks incapable of thelevel of thought that Grendel is. The question becomes, if Grendelis the real victim what does that make the people he kills? Are theDanes just fated to die? The paradigm shift that Gardner creates is aturnabout in sympathy for the killer.The term serial killer is one that has been adopted by post modernculture to describe a murderer that has killed more than three peoplewithin a period of time. Serial murderers are people to be fearednot celebrated. This paradigm shift from viewing mass murderers asdemonic to fascinating is troubling. Why do serial killers thrill andexcite us? Mass murderers have become household names. DavidSchmid’s book Natural Born Celebrities explores the fascinationthat Americans have with serial murderers. Schmid believes that “theFederal Bureau of Investigation has had a role in the popularizationof interest in serial murder” (Becker 2) because killers with multiplevictims are written about, shown through the media constantly andtalked about frequently. The FBI is not keeping a low profile onserial killers; rather, they are sharing gruesome information which inreturn thrills the culture.One of the most notorious and famous mass murderers is CharlesManson. Although Manson did not physically murder one person,he is still considered a serial killer. Together Charles Manson andMary Brunner “gathered a following of teenagers” (Peterson, 3).Over time Charles Manson created a cult and became one of themost famous cult leaders of all time. Manson’s charisma made itpossible for his cult to perform heinous murders. One of the mostfamous murders was Sharon Tate. Peterson recounts the gory details74 afternoons of alterity

of the killing, “When investigators arrived they determined thatthere were 169 stab wounds and seven gunshot wounds. Blood fromthe victims was used to write the phrase ‘Death to Pigs’ on the wallsof the house” (4). Manson’s orders were always followed withoutquestion. His followers were so devout that the murders escalatedin violence. “Leno LaBianca was stabbed 26 times and his wife 41times” (4). Charles Manson is so fascinating because he was sucha powerful cult leader. He had the ability to control the minds ofhis followers and convince them to murder over and over again.Peterson writes that “as one of America’s most famous criminals, hereportedly receives more mail than any other prisoner in the country(about 60,000 a year). Fascination with the details of the murder andManson continues more than thirty years later and Manson becamean anti-hero and something of an icon in some corners of popularculture” (5). Charles Manson was such an icon that the “rock bandGuns N Roses recorded one of Manson’s songs, titled ‘Look at yourGame Girl,’ in the early 1990s” (5).Recently USA Today did an article entitled Why Do AmericansIdolize Serial Killers? The article stated that “if you log onto eBay, youwill find a variety of ‘murderabilia’ on sale for anywhere from fivedollars (for a lock of Charles Manson’s hair) to ten thousand dollars(for one of John Wayne Gacy’s clown paintings)” (USA Today 11).The article also raises the point that “despite the fact that the U.S.produces 85% of the world’s serial killers, Americans consistentlyrepresent them as ‘other’ than themselves - as loathsome, monstrous,utterly alien creatures. At the same time, these murderers are treatedas icons, celebrity performers and fetish figures” (11). This articlealso goes so far to say “entire industries revolve around them; theyentertain us in a variety of ways” (11).Jack Levin and James Alan Fox further outline the paradigm bysaying, “becoming a popular-culture celebrity is an important partof the motivation that inspires serial killers to continue committingemily mastrobattisto 75

murder. Once they are identified with a superstar moniker, theirfrequency of murder increases. No longer satisfied with obscurity,they seek to prove that they deserve the superstar status to whichthey have been assigned” (Fox and Levin, 1). This fame causes serialmurderers like Lawrence Bittaker and partner Roy Norris to murderfor media attention. These two murdered and tormented teenagegirls. “They dumped one mutilated body on a suburban lawn toencourage media coverage and pitched others off cliffs” (1). Theircelebrity did not end there. “After Bittaker was caught, he signedautographs from his prison cell, ‘Pliers Bittaker’ and Clifford Olsenwho raped and murdered 11 children, begged to be referred to as“Hannibal Lecter” (1). Serial murderers respect and admire otherserial killers. It is without question that Charles Manson’s fame hascaused many other murderers to want his celebrity. The murderisn’t even important; the importance is the media coverage andinstant stardom. Charles Manson will be remembered long afterany American Idol winner. What does that say about our culture?We value murder as entertainment and we have abolished thedichotomy between monster and hero. The paradigm has becomethat the biggest monster will become the greatest hero.Even more fascinating than a male serial killer is a female serialkiller. Dorothea Puente is a serial killer that rented out rooms todisabled tenants in her boarding house. Police eventually found thebodies of seven of those tenants buried on her property. Last yearher home was sold at auction for $215,000 to a married couple.(Lindelof, 1). The couple looked up the address of the home on thecomputer and “saw a little bit of the past, which intrigued us evenmore, ‘said Holmes. ‘My husband is an unpublished mystery writer.He was totally intrigued”(1). Although Dorothea Puente just passedaway last month, her fame is still evident. “She is mentioned in atleast ten books, including author Shane Bugbee’s ‘Cooking witha Serial Killer, Recipes from Dorothea Puente’” (Stanton, 1). The76 afternoons of alterity

ook “contains recipes from the boardinghouse killer for meals sheserved her tenants, who reportedly enjoyed her tamales, stews andsoups,” Bugabee said in an interview. She is also a serious force onthe Web, with appearances in a serial killer calendar and numerousother sites devoted to such macabre topics” (1).The paradigm shift is also explored through the Columbine HighSchool massacre in 1999 made shooters Dylan Klebold and EricHarris “heroes in the eyes of some disturbed teens” (Fox & Levin,2). They are heroes to those who do not fit in and wish they couldachieve what the Columbine shooters did. Fox and Levin write that“not only did they avenge the schoolyard bullies and nasty teachers,but their also famous for it, because they got their faces all over thenews. While not quite a moniker, ‘doing a Columbine’ has becomea code phrase for shooting up a school” (2). The paradigm shift isevident here because these shooters believed that they were the truevictims. They also had followers and sympathizers that also believedthey were the victims and all the bullies and teachers were the truemonsters. The question becomes if Dylan Klebold and Eric Harrisare victims, does that make their victims deserving to die? These boyswere and probably still are heroes to boys and girls that feel the sameway that they did. They have followers who see them as idols andthey have become celebrities in many disturbed people’s eyes.Famous serial murderer Jeffrey Dahmer reached celebrity statuswhen in 1991 “he made People’s coveted list of the 100 mostintriguing people of the 20 th Century” (Fox & Levin, 2). Televisionis also a place for media to idolize the serial killer. The televisionprogram Dexter is about a serial murderer. The creator breaks thedichotomy between hero and monster when he says, “You may thinkthat he is doing good, but he is a monster. He’s killing becausehe is monster” (Lasswell 77). He further explains that “Dexter is acharacter who is a responsible citizen who channels his murderousimpulses strictly in the service of removing bad people from theemily mastrobattisto 77

world” (77). The paradigm is evident once again. Although Dexteris clearly a monster, his actions make many believe he is a vigilantekilling the “bad people.” What the audience fails to really examineis that Dexter is a serial murderer who is as bad as the people hekills. We sympathize with Dexter, therefore we see him as a hero.Fox and Levin explain that “America’s preoccupation with makingmonsters into celebrities goes far beyond placing them on the coversof our leading publications. Their images can also be found onserial-murder trading cards, comic books, T-shirts, calendars andaction figures for children” (Fox and Levin, 2). What does all thissay about our fascination with serial murderers? We view monstersas heroes and buy memorabilia with their pictures on it. We reallyare a corrupt society.Fascination is not the word that accurately describes the wayour culture views serial killers. The word should be obsession. Weare obsessed with our monstrous heroes and aspire to be themin a perverse way. It is highly doubtful anyone in medieval timesaspired to be Grendel or Grendel’s mother. Their murders wereviewed as despicable and horrific. These killers of multiple victimswere monsters. The middle ages had a clear dichotomy betweenmonstrous and hero. That dichotomy began to dissolve whenJohn Gardner created a new paradigm for which we should viewGrendel as the victim. Today we have come full circle. Our societylives vicariously through these serial killers whether through factualor fictional portrayals. “The A&E network, routinely airs killers’biographies, which raises the rhetorical question as to whether truecrime is considered art or entertainment” (Fox and Levin, 2). Serialmurder is based on how culture charges it. In medieval time serialkillers were viewed negatively. Today, however, we view serial killerspositively because we deem them our celebrities. Charles Mansonhas more marriage proposals inside prison than any other person.He has groupies that beg to be his followers. When a groupie78 afternoons of alterity

asks Charles Manson to marry her, the dichotomy has collapsed.No longer are serial killers “other”. They are a part of your family.The paradigm has shifted so much that serial killers want to outdoone another and become a media sensation. They go on to writebooks and live as idols. It is a very prosperous career today to be aserial killer. Why is this? Why do we celebrate mass murderers? Theparadigm has shifted so that our culture views the killer as the victimand psychologically we idolize the serial murderers. Logically, thiswould mean their victims deserved to die. If this is so, their victimsare us. We are the victims that are being killed by the murderers.Our culture must be corrupt if we almost wish that a serial killer willmurder someone. Do we self-loathe in our culture so much so thatwe believe and almost wish that an innocent victim becomes thetarget of a serial killer? Our culture accepts and identifies with themurderer. Our culture must be as unstable as the serial killer if webelieve that their victims deserved to be executed.emily mastrobattisto 79

Works CitedByock, Jesse L. Grettir’s Saga. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.Farrell, Jennifer Kelso. “The Evil Behind the Mask: Grendel’s PopCulture Evolution.” The Journal of Popular Culture 41.6 (2008):934-49. Print.Fox, James Alan, and Jack Levin. “Making Celebrities of SerialKillers Elevates Threat.” USA Today 23 Oct. 2002: 1-3. Print.Gardner, John. Grendel. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. Print.Hawes, Janice. “The Montrosity of Heroism: Grettir Asmundarsonas an Outsider.” South Carolina State University: 19-50. Print.Hennequin, M. Wendy. “We’ve Created a Monster: The StrangeCase of Grendel’s Mother.” English Studies 89.5: 503-23. Print.Lasswell, Mark. “Such a Nice Boy Serial Killer; How the TV SeriesDexter Glorifies a Murderer.” Culture and Civilization [New YorkCity] Apr. 2009: 77-80. Print.Lindelof, Bill. “Home of Sacramento Serial Killer Dorothea PuenteIs Sold at Auction.” The Sacramento Bee [Sacramento] 30 Aug.2010: 1-3. Print.Liuzza, R.M..Beowulf a new verse translation. Peterborough, Ont.:Broadview Press, 2000. Print.Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Think Exist.” Find the Famous Quotes YouNeed, ThinkExist.com Quotations. Thinkexist.com. Web. 20 Apr.2011. .Peterson, Jennifer. “Charles Manson.” (2005): 1-6. Primary Search.Web. 19 Apr. 2011.Schmid, David. Natural Born Celebrities: Serial Killers in AmericanCulture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 2006. Print.Stanton, Sam. “Dorothea Puente’s Cookbook Is Still Selling.”The Sacramento Bee [Sacramento] 28 Mar. 2011: 1. Print.“Why Do Americans Idolize Serial Killers?” USA Today Dec. 2006:1. Print.80 afternoons of alterity

Monstrous Mothers andObjectified DaughtersSara CruzSay the words monster, monstrous, or monstrosity and the first wordsthat come to mind for most people will be large, scary, grotesque, orthreatening. Monsters have been included and often the main themeof literature prior to Medieval Era with stories such as Beowulf, SirGawain and The Green Knight, and Grendel. Ask someone to namesome words that come to mind when s/he thinks of the word femaleor woman and in most cases the words will be something flowery,light, sweet, and sensitive. Many will not see a connection betweenthe ugly monster and the beautiful female.Going back many years, the concept of the monster and thefemale were not only deeply connected but one and the same.Classic stories and poems such as The Faerie Queene, Paradise Lost,and Beowulf depict the female as a monstrous, demonic creature.There is no coincidence behind these monstrous creations. Forcenturies, the male gender has felt deeply threatened by the female’sability to reproduce and as such, have turned a natural gift into amonstrous burden for females to endure. The female charactersErrour from The Faerie Queene written by Edmund Spencer in 1596,Sin from Paradise Lost written by John Milton in 1674, and Grendel’sMother from Beowulf, author unknown; are presented as “physicallydisgusting or psychologically damaged” (Franscus) and demonized 81

ased solely on their reproductive threat to men. This socialconstruct still exists in the twenty-first century and while women areless likely to be labeled monstrous today, there is a specific societalrole that she must fill to balance out the authority she exerts dueto her biological capabilities. In patriarchal culture today, so thatmen do not lose their power, females must repress their sexualityand are objectified by men and even objectified by themselves. Thisobjectification also occurs in order for men to cope with the female’scloseness to nature or her ability to reproduce. Due to the biologicalnature that women posses, she has evolved from being considered amonster by patriarchal society to being objectified and sexualized bypatriarchal society.Females were not always labeled as dangerous and evil. ElinorGadon writes that in the Neolithic agricultural age in Europe andthe Indian subcontinent, the female was revered and considered theGoddess of her people. Called “the Great Mother,” she was honoredas the generative, pulsating, primal energy of people (Gadon). Itwas not until Western civilization’s influence came to refer to thefemale’s power as dangerous, evil, and in opposition to God, thatideas changed and the patriarchal culture began. These ideas werecarried by the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, andIslam. These religions began between the eleventh and thirteenthcenturies for the most part Palestine, Greece, and Rome (religion).Gadon writes that “Christian Theology demonized the female bodyand female sexuality, splitting the Goddess into the asexual, virtuousVirgin Mary and the carnal prostitute Mary Magdalene” (Gadon). Thefemale went from Goddess of her people to evil demon woman basedon the religious beliefs created by men most certainly to keep thefemale down as she threatened male’s manhood and authority. Thisis how misogyny and the patriarchal society began. Ruth Evans writesabout the legend of Albina, which originated sometime between thefourteenth and sixteenth century in Greece. In this legend Albina82 afternoons of alterity

and her sisters plot to kill their husbands if they are not able to rulethem. Betrayed, they are sent away to die. They find an uninhabitedisland where they overindulge in food making them inflamed withdesire. Demon-incubi visit them while they sleep and these sistersgive birth to monstrous giants who incestuously reproduce and rulethe land for hundreds of years (Evans 184). This story was told andretold as a way for colonies to rule and expand. The Albina legenddetails another reason that viewing women as other was a way formen to hold all of the authority. Misogynistic views that began aslegends have changed over time but exist nonetheless and todayare seen through a psychological and sociological lens, which is theobjectification of women by the misogynistic beliefs of men.Other misogynistic ideas in literature view virgins as innocentand not yet monstrous and post-menopausal women as safe aswell. Franscus refers to a virgin as “someone whose sexuality canbe controlled or prevented” (Franscus). A virgin has no meansto reproduce and is still viewed as a child, not yet a woman. Postmenopausalwomen can no longer conceive and this alone makesthem less threatening in a patriarchal society. Lorna Jowett observesthat the child vampire Claudia is not strong enough to makeanother vampire; thus, she is impotent and powerless (Jowett). Thisis the opposite scenario of a woman being monstrous due to herreproductive capacity. The vampire in this situation is innocentbecause she cannot reproduce thus she does not pose a threat tomen, once again showing that the qualification to be monstrous inearly society was simply being able to produce offspring. Robertswrites that, again, many of these assumptions began and were passedon by Judeo-Christianity, and there were many religious writings onthe topic of menstruation; “If a woman have issue, and her issue inher flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoevertoucheth her shall be unclean until the even” (Leviticus, 15:19/Roberts 132). A natural, biological occurrence takes the form ofsara cruz 83

uncleanliness, and it is easy to see how the label of monstrous stayedwith women, considering that this verse from the Bible clearly statesthat a woman, who is menstruating, should be sent away like a leper.The Bible was considered the “Word” and every Christian, includingwomen, believed that what it said was absolute truth.Menstruation is necessary in order for reproduction and AvivaBreifel writes that menstruation is a “precursor or even prerequisiteto females committing acts of violence. She also argues thatmenstruation is central to films dealing with women’s monstrousre-productions” (Briefel). The films discussed in this article areCarrie and The Exorcist in which both characters upon reachingpuberty, become possessed. This belief suggests that menstruationtakes away a young woman’s innocence and brings evil and “other.”The capability of conceiving a child comes with menstruation, andthis threat is evident to men. Turning both events into somethingmonstrous is a way for men to cope with their lack of a womb.Why do men resent the female reproductive ability? With thisability, females gain authority and in a long - standing patriarchalsociety, the only authoritative figure a man wants to see is onewith a phallus. Not having a womb to carry a child, led men inthe eighteenth century to desecrate the source of power. FelicityNussbaum labels this “the inevitable rhyme womb-tomb.” Thiswomb-tomb allegation suggests that by giving birth, the mother alsoproduces death (Franscus). This belief, created by men, is an actualtheory and Paul Acker also discusses it. Here he comments on JuliaKristeva’s theories about the abject and the maternal. Referring to theabject here simply means something that both repulses and attractsat the same time. Kristeva argues that this paradoxical maternalimage is seen in the work of Louis-Ferdinand Celine: the mothergives us life, but since she does not give us immortality, she alsogives us death (Acker). Men wanted to ascertain the idea that femaleswere in fact monstrous. In order to do this, they added multiple84 afternoons of alterity

easons for “otherness.” On top of the notion that she is monstrousfor being able to reproduce is that she is monstrous because shecannot guarantee her child immortality. This is a theory created bymen to make the womb and reproduction into something negativeand horrific. These theories were not created suddenly and withoutpremise. Literature has been depicting the female as monstrous sinceas early as the eleventh century.Though Errour, Sin, and Grendel’s Mother all are viewed asmonstrous, there are slightly different reasons why. Franscus writesthat Errour and Sin are monstrous because they reproduce often andbecause they refuse to be sexually and socially passive, which violatesthe codes of proper female behavior (Franscus). This code is stillvery much intact today and can be seen through the objectificationof women as well and will be discussed later. Grendel’s mother, alsoperceived as monstrous, is labeled as such one, since she has alsoreproduced but she is even more monstrous as she takes mattersinto her own hands by seeking revenge on Heorot due to themurder of her son at the hands of the hero Beowulf. After Grendel’sdeath, Grendel’s mother is introduced to the story. “He went awaywretched, deprived of joy, to find his place of death, mankind’sfoe. But his mother still greedy, grim-minded, wanted to go on hersorrowful journey to avenge her son’s death” (Liuzza 92). Would notany mother wish to seek revenge on the person who has taken heronly son’s life? According to Acker, in Old Norse literature, womentaking vengeance into their own hands are considered distinctlydeviant. He writes that because these aggressive acts are reservedfor men, Grendel’s mother is highlighted as monstrous (Acker705). This same story depicts a similar situation of men seekingvengeance, but is seen through the men’s eyes as a true warriordeed. “Wise sir, do not grieve. It is always better to avenge dear onesthan to indulge in mourning/When a warrior is gone, that will behis best and only bulwark”(1384-1389). The hypocrisy prevalent insara cruz 85

these men is comical. A mother seeking revenge on the murdereris evil and monstrous, however, these men who go to find this onewoman to seek their revenge, are considered the ultimate warriors.These ideas are patriarchal and misogynistic. Along with her deviantbehavior, Grendel’s mother has also produced offspring. This isher first step into monstrosity, her deviance only adds to her evil.She also lives within nature and it is made quite clear in Beowulfthat nature is considered “other” by the people of Heorot. WhereGrendel and she reside is a place that not many wish to go. Herunderwater home is a cave and deeply symbolic of a uterus as isErrour’s place of residence in The Faerie Queene. The descriptionof Errour’s home seems threatening and like Grendel’s mothers,is also in a cave. This is not a coincidence. “That houses formewithin was rude and strong, Lyke an huge cave hewne out of rockyclifte/And with rich metal loaded every rifte, That heavy ruinethey did seeme to threat/Her cunning web, and spred her subtilenett” (Spens 123). Errour and Grendel’s mother’s abode’s representnature, the uterus, and the abject just as childbirth represents theabject in a patriarchal society.Childbirth is considered abject because it is unfamiliar to menand they envy the authority that comes to a woman after bearing achild. Any being that can carry a living being in their womb for ninemonths and go through the agony of birthing that child, gives thatbeing higher authority than a being which has not gone through thesame experience. Defiling, deforming, and objectifying woman andher natural ability is a coping mechanism for men. The reproductiveability is raw and close to nature. Today females bear the label of“other” by being objectified by men and even themselves. NickHeflick states that most literally, objectification refers to makinga person into an object, and consequently, less than fully human(Heflick). Today the female is still perceived as “other” but insteadof being monstrous, now she is something less than fully human.86 afternoons of alterity

The original ideas are still intact; they have only evolved over time.Women are devalued by society because she possesses the innatecapability to conceive, carry, and birth another human life form.In a patriarchal society, this is alarmingly connected to nature andgreatly distresses men, just as the men of Beowulf consider natureabject. Grendel and his mother live on the boarders in the core ofnature and these areas are considered other by the men of Heorot.As Beowulf and Hrothgars soldiers prepare for their journey tokill Grendel’s mother the,” monster-woman and she-wolf,” (Liuzza92, 99) Beowulf gives a speech to inspire but also warn his men.He warns of the dangers they will encounter when going to findGrendel’s Mother because she lives in the very essence of nature, anature that they find grim. “Arise, kingdom’s guard, let us quicklygo and inspect the path of Grendel’s kin. I promise you this: he willfind no protection – not in the belly of the earth nor the bottom ofthe sea, not the mountain groves – let him go where he will!” (Liuzza96) From this speech, it is apparent that the raw nature of Grendel’smothers dwelling makes them uncomfortable and they will only goto this place to kill her and the threat that she presents. This aversionto nature directly correlates to the female body. As the reproductiveorgans are biological, they link the female to nature. Toni Robertsargues that objectifying women is a way for men to cope with theirfear of women’s biological capabilities.Objectification in a sense strips the body of itscorporeal qualities by sanitizing it and transformingit into an idealized cultural symbol. This objectificationmay serve the existential function of separating womenfrom their earthly nature (Roberts 131).Because men no longer oppress women by turning them into evil,demonic monsters, they have found a new way to keep womensara cruz 87

from exerting their natural power. Today, this is seen through theobjectification and beautifying of females and gender roles. Thesepractices have been prevalent for sometime and have even impactedwomen’s self-perception. Ingrid Johnston-Robledo writes that theobjectification theory “postulates that, in a culture that objectifieswomen’s bodies, women themselves are socialized to view and evaluatetheir own bodies through the perspective of a critical gaze”(Johnston28). This is seen in mass media today. Females of all ages are strivingfor the perfect body, based on the standards of men. Women want towear the best clothes and attempt to beautify themselves so that theyare judged based only on their outside appearance. This allows themto feel better about themselves, as it also allows men to feel betterabout the female’s biological competencies. This self-objectificationaffects women and their need to feel any sort of value in a patriarchalsociety. Value under this theory has shown that women begin tobecome ashamed of her own reproductive ability. Roberts arguesthat “women’s negative attitudes toward reproductive events mayarise from their need to view and present themselves as objects ofdesire” (Roberts 29).Feeling ashamed of being able to bring another human lifeonto this earth is only something that a misogynistic societycould impress upon the female race. The American PsychologicalAssociation tested these ideas in an experiment. The experimenttested the hypothesis that a women’s menstrual status will havenegative reactions and will increase her objectification (Roberts131). In this experiment, a woman accidentally dropped either ahair clip or a tampon. Views of the female menstrual cycle provedthat the women who dropped the tampon from her handbagwas considered less competent, decreased her likeability, andincreased the objectification of the female (Roberts 131). Thisexperiment maintains the cultural assumptions that the femalebody is threatening and that menstruation turns women into the88 afternoons of alterity

objectified creature. “Cultures objectify some features of the femalebody and conceal others as a way of coping with the reminderof their animal nature provided by childbirth and other femalebiological functions”(Roberts 137). Readers have witnessed themaking of the monstrous woman with characters such as Grendel’smother, Errour, and Sin. This evolution from early literature of thefourteenth century to now, show that women went from a monstrousbeing due to her reproductive capabilities, to being objectified inthe twenty-first century. Literature and media will change and soperhaps may the monstrous objectification of the female.The implications of the objectification of women are negative forany female living in the world today. Growing up as a young adolescentfemale is a difficult time of questioning and experimentation. Ayoung female who is already vulnerable due to her specific age andthe pressures of society will be quite susceptible to this objectificationand self-objectification. According to Johnston-Robledo, “womenwho internalize the sexual objectification of their bodies willalso behave in ways that minimize the salience of reproductivefunctioning but accentuate sexual availability” (Johnston-Robledo29). This means that young females will associate their biologicalability with negative ideas and will believe their outer sexuality iswhat gives them worth. These patriarchal views were established asearly as the development of Christianity and have evolved over time.The female is viewed as monstrous, as early literature clearly depicts,as “other,” as something less than human, and as the objectifiedbeing. Patriarchal society has made it evident that the female will notassert the control and authority that comes with her being able toreproduce. In today’s American society, the objectification of femalescan be seen by young females attempting to act older than their age,by older females grasping for eternal youth, and by media pushingthe idea that a beautiful women is a good women. Minimizing orerasing their biological ability, allows women to be viewed as goodsara cruz 89

through the eyes of men and in this way men will not feel threatenedby her power.Were men to have this ability; thought of as power, there wouldbe a completely different view of it. If man was the sex that wasable to reproduce, this ability would be revered, as it used to befor women so long ago. Men would be considered masculine andstrong not “other” or inferior. The biological differences betweenmen and women have been evident for many years and have ledmen to view women’s biological characteristics as negative. FeministGloria Steinem once said that if men were able to menstruate,“it would become an enviable, boast-worthy, masculine event…men would brag about how long and how much” (Roberts 137).In societies that perceive women to be the stronger sex, the beautyof reproduction is evident. Most other cultures are patriarchal andview this natural wonder with envy which then turns into disdain.These ideas have been seen in literature, films, and society at largecreating what is now seen as the objectification of women. Perhapsgender roles will continue to evolve and once again the female willbe revered in society, instead of made monstrous because of hersexual and biological abilities. Until then, societal gender roles willcontinue to exist.90 afternoons of alterity

Works CitedAcker, P. Horror and the Maternal in Beowulf. The Modern LanguageAssociation of America. (2006):702-216. Web. 23 March 2011.Briefel, A. Monster Pains: Masochism, Menstruation, and Identificationin the Horror Film. Film Quarterly, Vol 58, No. 3. (2005): 16-27.JSTOR. Web.30 March 2011.Evans, R. The Devil in Disguise: Female Origins of the Nation.Consuming Narratives: Gender and Monstrous Appetite in theMiddle Ages and the Renaissance. (2002): 182-195. Print.Franscus, M. The Monstrous Mother: Reproductive Anxiety in Swiftand Pope. ELH. Vol. 62, No. 4. (1994): 829. Literature ResourceCenter. Web. 28 March 2011.Gadon, E. Revisioning the Female Demon. ReVision. Vol. 20, No. 3.(1998): Academic Search Elite. Web. 23 March 2011.Heflick, N. From Women to Objects: Appearance Focus, Target Gender,and Perceptions of Warmth, Morality, and Competence. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology. (2010): ScienceDirect. Web. 232011.Johnston-Robledo, I. Reproductive Shame: Self Objectificationand Young Women’s Attitudes Toward Their ReproductiveFunctioning. Women & Health. Vol. 41, No. 1. (2007): 25-36.Web. 23 March 2011.Jowett, L. Mute and Beautiful: The Representation of the Female in AnneRice’s Interview with the Vampire. Femspec. Vol 4, No. 1. (2002):59. GenderWatch.Web. 30 March 2011.Liuzza, R.M. Beowulf. Trans. Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press,Ltd. 2000. Print.Roberts, T. Feminine Protection: The Effects of Menstruation onAttitudes Towards Women. Psychology of Women Quarterly.(2002): 131-139. American Psychological Association. Web. 20March 2011.sara cruz 91

Spens, J. Spenser’s Faerie Queene: An Interpretation. Russel &Russel: New York. (1967) Print.92 afternoons of alterity

Grendel: A Manifestation ofMedieval FearsDeanna BriscoeMany of humanity’s most basic fears transcend culture, time,and geographic location; fear of death, abandonment, and painpermeate man’s psyche regardless of his location temporally orspatially. However, there are certain fears which plagued medievalsocieties that have either dissipated with time or have changed overthe centuries. The manifestations of these fears have also changed,indicating a shift in what individual societies saw as threatening.In the medieval epic Beowulf, the monstrous Grendel can thereforebe seen as the physical embodiment and culmination of specificmedieval fears. He is physically other, is believed to be hated andabandoned by God, engages in ruthless displays of cannibalism,cannot be slain by normal weaponry, and dwells on the borders ofthe civilized Danish world.Jeffrey Jerome Cohen posits that “monsters are our children”(Cohen, “Monster Culture” 20). Mankind forms and moldsmonsters in its likeness, and they in turn represent what is mostfeared, hated, or abjectly desired. Therefore, in this context, Grendelis not entirely created out of the ether. While he is presented inthe text as a literal monster, ravenous and abhorrent, he is alsothe manifestation of medieval fears. Grendel lives in oppositionto a culture that emphasizes order, loyalty, and a willingness to 93

fight until death. The Danes value the safety of their bodies, theirgold, and their way of life. Grendel threatens all of this with hischaos, lack of respect for the bodies of the Danes as he consumesthem, and his use of magic to dispel the Danes’ iron weaponry.Grendel represents their fears because he literally is their collectivesense of fear and what is wrong with the world outside of theircommunity. What lurks in the fens and moors on the darkenedrim of the earth is not for them to know, nor do they wish to.Grendel threatens their safety and isolation, and annihilates thebulwarks of their society.The fear of the other’s image and its physical alterity is almostalways an integral component of the creation of the monster.Bildhauer and Mills declare that, “they might be too big or small,possess too many or too few body parts, have parts relocated, orcombine characteristics of more than one species” (Bildhauer andMills 14). The hybridity of the monster—and its incorporation ofmultiple forms into one—is frightening. Pluskowski writes that“[monsters’] features were predominantly bestial and, with theirphysical exaggeration, represented a terrifying transgression of thecosmological order” (Pluskowski 155).The physical otherness of Grendel is demonstrated in the originaltext not only by the syntax of the poem but also in the descriptionsof how the Danes react to his appearance. Liuzza translates Grendelas “a grim spirit” (Beowulf 102) and “fearsome,” (Beowulf 164) anddescribes that upon his arrival in Heorot for the last time: “in hiseyes stood / a light not fair, glowing like fire” (Beowulf 735-736).Grendel’s massive size, brute strength, and physical alterity make hima frightening specter to behold. Curiously, when Beowulf proudlydisplays the arm and hand he has ripped from Grendel’s shoulderjoint, Liuzza writes that Grendel possessed a “claw” (Beowulf 836).Until that point in the text, Grendel was simply described as ahumanoid figure that was large in size and ferocious in appetite,94 afternoons of alterity

ut never was his physicality hinted as being more than that of agrotesquely exaggerated man.John Phillips argues that, “the claws, tusks, fangs, etc. of monstersare accretions on an initial humanity, the consequences of a refusalto comply with the practical definition of the human” (Phillips 43).This would seem to coincide with Liuzza’s reading that Grendelis a malformed human being, cursed in his hideousness. Grendeltherefore also defies the natural order of the world, breaking free ofthe binary categorizations of “monster” and “normal human” andinhabiting a wasteland somewhere in between.This wasteland, metaphorically and literally within the text, iswhere Grendel lives, existing on the fringes of society and thereforeon the edge of what is normal and secure. Grendel dwells “far frommankind,” and inhabits the windswept, cold, and dark marshlandsand forests (Beowulf 110). Jeremy Harte writes that, “monsters, in ageneral sense, are liminal creatures, policing the borderland betweennormality and the Other” (Harte 190). Beowulf’s thanes encounterthis “borderland” when they ride out to challenge Grendel’s mother,and find her swampland with its lake of fire and beastly animals.The scene is unpleasant; the dam lives in “a joyless wood,” (Beowulf1416) where:The flood boiled with blood—the folk gazed on—And hot gore. At times a horn sangIn eager war-song. The foot soldiers sat down.They saw in the water many kinds of serpents,Strange sea-creatures testing the currents,And on the sloping shores lay such monstersAs often attend in early morning…(Beowulf 1422-1428)The landscape is horrifying in itself, but the fact that Grendel actuallydwelt there, took the mangled and half-eaten bodies of loyal thanesdeanna briscoe 95

there, and plotted and brooded upon his nightly feasts along thewicked shoreline, is what frightens the soldiers as well. They alwaysknew Grendel lived beyond their borders, but upon seeing the grimreality of his abode he seems even more monstrous. His dwellingplaceis cold and forlorn, and it is from this place that he venturesforth to commit his gruesome murders; “a shadowy figure stalkingout of the darkness, away from the misty moors, and up to the hall”(Orchard 35).Grendel’s movement away from his solitary existence into thewarm light of the hall and the Danish community is a transgressionof comfort and order. He is from the frightening wilderness, thebeckoning dark that threatens with unknown terrors. His verypresence contaminates the revered and almost sacred mead hallof Heorot. In the medieval mindset, the mead hall is the seat ofcamaraderie, boasting, entertainment, and establishing loyalty toone’s king. To have this space desecrated with Grendel’s fiendishmurders and the blood of Danes is a catastrophic breach of safetyand psychological security.Grendel’s presence is also a constant reminder of his abandonmentby God, and strikes fear into the hearts of newly-converted Daneswho are still struggling to comprehend what Christianity and Godcommand of them. Grendel is “of the doomed kin of Cain,” thebiblical murderer of his own brother (Orchard 44). Thus he is foreverout of God’s grace, for “the Creator had condemned him / amongCain’s race” (Beowulf 106-107). This abandonment by a mercifuland loving God is terrifying to a community of people who are onlyjust learning about their prospects for an afterlife. The Danes arestruggling with paganism and the religion of old versus the newerChristian religion.The fact that Grendel was cast out, with his humanoid similarities,reinforces the fear that anyone could be cast out from God’s love,and made to linger on the edges of the community. To be forsaken,96 afternoons of alterity

to wander in the darkness and the cold, would be a fate worse thandeath. Exacerbating the problem further, “the life of a Christian…was a life of conflict with unseen, malevolent spirits” (Kieckhefer817). Thus, to battle Grendel was to live a Christian life and purifyone’s soul. Conversely, to fall into darkness like Grendel was a lossof one’s faith, and a condemnation to Hell.Life in medieval Denmark would have entailed a struggle forsurvival not just as a Christian against pagan worship, but alsoagainst many other factions: weather, availability of food, andwarring bands of other thanes. To complicate matters further,Grendel strikes the fear of being devoured while alive into thehearts of the Danish people. His cannibalistic tendencies andthirst for human flesh make his monstrosity all the more ghastlyand appalling. This is a very real fear for the Danes, who haveseen loved ones and noble men torn limb from limb and eaten “ingobbets” (Beowulf 743).Bildhauer and Mills argue that, “stories of cannibalismare related to medieval preoccupations with bodily integrity”(Bildhauer and Mills 11). The inherent fear of cannibalism alsolies in the incorporation of one body into another for sustenance(Cohen, “Ruins of Identity” 2), wherein one becomes part ofthe other without being distinguishable from the outside of thebody. This image is quite the opposite of the fear of the birthingprocess, wherein a whole body is extracted from another wholebody, but the principle remains the same. Two bodies existingsimultaneously within one another via ingestion or impregnationare fearful prospects.The actual process of being devoured is also made horrifyinglyreal, and preys upon the very concrete human fear of being injuredor fatally wounded. The fear of still being alive while being ingested isone which is disconcerting to contemplate, but it is a very real threat.Ironically, Grendel experiences this fear of prolonged death afterdeanna briscoe 97

dismemberment after Beowulf grips his arm so tightly that “a gapingwound opened / in his shoulder-joint, his sinews sprang apart, /his joints burst asunder” (Beowulf 816-818). Grendel flees, bleedingprofusely and howling in pain, until his lethal wound causes him tocollapse and die.In addition, Grendel’s mother leaves behind Aeschere’s head as ataunt to the warriors who pursue her. It causes the men great distress:…To all the Danes,The men of the Scyldings, many a thane,It was a sore pain to every earl, when on the seacliffThey came upon the head of Aeschere. (Beowulf 1417-1421)They had just seen Aeschere alive and well, speaking with the headthat is now dismembered, and is gazing at them lifelessly. The headis now an object, not a part of a person who was once whole. Cohenelaborates that, “The head is the seat of the soul, the biologicaland allegorical ruler of the lower limbs. In its absence, the body(social or personal) is acephalic, undifferentiated” (Cohen, “Body inPieces” 85). Without a head, a body is nothing, and vice versa. Uponhis decapitation, Aeschere was transformed from a person into acorporeal segment of a previous concrete entity. Although Grendelhimself does not perform this act, his mother does so in an attemptto avenge her son. She extends his reign of terror through her ownmurderous means.When Beowulf decapitates the corpse of Grendel in the sea-cave,he is banishing the fear that the monster imposes upon the Danes.It is possible for Grendel, through magic or some other device, toreturn to life and continue to plague Heorot. But without a head,Grendel can do nothing. He cannot devour or function, andtherefore by decapitation his death becomes permanent. Likewise,Beowulf’s victory becomes indelibly imprinted onto Danish history.98 afternoons of alterity

Magic could not resurrect Grendel to haunt the Danes further,but he still employed magic while alive to defend him from the effectsof weaponry. In Beowulf, the narrator explains that:…no sword,Not the best iron anywhere in the world,Could even touch that evil sinner,For he had worked a curse on weapons,Every sort of blade. (Beowulf 801-805)Grendel uses magic, a sorcery that is not found in Christian theologyor practice, in order to protect him from the onslaught of man-madeweaponry. He twists the rules of fair combat to his own advantage,allowing his enemy to attack him while knowing full well that theweaponry will do him no harm.This magical resistance would have frightened the Danesincredibly, for what use would they be against a monster that couldnot be struck down with the best weapons they had, wielded bythe strongest and most capable warriors? Kieckhefer writes thatmagic is “a cluster of countercultural rituals worked privately forthe magicians’ personal ends” (Kieckhefer 815). While Grendel isnot a conventional “magician,” he is using the elements of magicfor his own benefit and denying the Danes access to a fair fight, asdemanded by their culture.In the context of Grendel using his magic for the powers ofdarkness and ill will, Kieckhefer elaborates that, “In a medievalcontext…demonic magic is itself essentially religious (or perhapsirreligious but at least not nonreligious), while natural magic could beeasily combined with devotional practice” (Kieckhefer 821). Grendelis clearly not implementing “natural magic,” for his maliciousintentions do not coincide with proper, peaceful devotion. Instead,he is employing “demonic magic,” which threatens the concept ofdeanna briscoe 99

what the proper religion is or can do. If Grendel’s magic is “religious”in a medieval concept, then is the Danes’ Christianity magical? Or,worse yet, is their faith somehow enjoined with Grendel’s, at a singleorigin point of religion?Grendel’s ability to remain “impervious to weapons” (Orchard 47)presents another fearful dimension to his monstrosity. He cannot bekilled in a normal fashion, and therefore cannot exist in a normalfashion. He is completely other, and so divided from how the worldshould function that ending his scourge would seem impossible.Luckily, Beowulf does not require the enhancements of magic for hisown prowess and strength, and can best Grendel without weaponry.Grendel is fearsome in his visage, superficially, but his fearsomequalities which make him monstrous are extensions of medievaltrepidations; the fear of the “other” on the borderlands, abandonmentby God, cannibalism, and dark magic. His existence is an ironic tauntto the Danes who dwell in his shadow, trembling. He is a monstrousfigure bent on death and destruction, but is also a creation of theDanes themselves. He is a metaconglomerate of their deepest fearsand darkest nightmares, given true form and a body. Therefore,they must kill what they have given life, and must destroy their owncreation. They are in turn destroying a part of themselves. Thus, anoutsider such as Beowulf must step in to destroy the monster andreset the balance of life, for he is not slaying his own identity.Grendel is the embodiment of distinctly medieval fears, althoughhis malicious acts are still seen as abhorrent today. The concept ofmonstrosity stays essentially the same, as well as what is feared, but themonster dons a new cloak and emerges from a new set of shadows.His visage will be different, and his execution of his dark intentionswill not be identical, but his eyes will still burn with the same fire,and the same desire to strike fear into the hearts of mortals.100 afternoons of alterity

Works CitedBeowulf. Trans. RM Liuzza. Peterborough, Ontario: BroadviewPress, 2000. Print.Bildhauer, Bettina and Robert Mills. “Introduction:Conceptualizing the Monstrous.” The Monstrous Middle Ages.Toronto: Toronto UP, 2003. Introduction, 1-27. Print.Butts, Richard. “The Analogical Mere: Landscape and Terror inBeowulf.” English Studies 68.2 (1987): 113. Web.Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. “The Body in Pieces: Identity and theMonstrous in Romance.” Of Giants: Sex, Monsters, and the MiddleAges. Minneapolis: UP Minnesota, 1999. 62-95. Print.———. “Monster Culture: Seven Theses.” Monster Theory: ReadingCulture. Ed. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. Minneapolis: UP Minnesota,1996. 3-25. Print.———. “The Ruins of Identity.” Of Giants: Sex, Monsters, and theMiddle Ages. Minneapolis: UP Minnesota, 1999. 1-28. Print.Fajardo-Acosta, Fidel. “Intemperance, Fratricide, and theElusiveness of Grendel.” English Studies 73.3 (1992): 205. Web.Harte, Jeremy. “Hell on Earth: Encountering Devils in theMedieval Landscape.” The Monstrous Middle Ages. Toronto:Toronto UP, 2003. 177-195. Print.Higgs Strickland, Debra. “Monsters and Christian Enemies.”History Today 50.2 (2000): 45. Web.Kearney, Richard. “Aliens and Others.” Strangers, Gods, andMonsters: Interpreting Otherness. New York: Routledge, 2003. 65-82. Print.Kieckhefer, Richard. “The Specific Rationality of Medieval Magic.”American Historical Review 99.3 (1994): 813. Web.Orchard, Andy. “Psychology and Physicality: The Monsters ofBeowulf.” Pride and Prodigies. Cambridge: Brewer, 1985. 28-57.Print.deanna briscoe 101

Phillips, James. “In the Company of Predators: Beowulf andthe Monstrous Descendants of Cain.” Angelaki: Journal of theTheoretical Humanities 13.3 (2008): 41-52. Web.Pluskowski, Aleks. “Apocalyptic Monsters: Animal Inspirations forthe Iconography of Medieval North European Devourers.” TheMonstrous Middle Ages. Toronto: Toronto UP, 2003. 155-176.Print.102 afternoons of alterity

The Monster Under the BedThe Creation of the MedievalMonstrous Feminine in BeowulfAnna IuppaThe story of good and evil, humanity versus the monstrous, is onethat has existed in society since the beginning of storytelling. Withinthe epic poem Beowulf, the hero, Beowulf defeats three separatemonsters, although the final battle with the Dragon takes his life aswell, during three separate battles. Literary scholars generally focuson the fight between Grendel and Beowulf analyzing what makesBeowulf capable of defeating Grendel. This essay, instead, will focuson Grendel’s Mother and Beowulf in an effort to discover the reasonfor her monstrosity.Medieval society defines its social structures through clearlyoutlined gender roles; gender roles delineated solely by anatomicalsex. The monstrous feminine is created through agency. Agencymanifests when the female intentionally defies gender roles andcrosses the line between anatomical sex and the societally determinedfunctions of gender. Grendel’s Mother, through her act of vengeance,exhibits the social personalities of her male counterparts. Sheoptimizes the monstrous female for three reasons: the abandonmentof her anatomical sex, her lineage and her residence.According to Ruth Mazo Karras, in her book Sexuality in MedievalEurope: Doing Unto Others, issues of sexual monstrosity occur in partbecause “sex is a particularly complicated issue… it involves questions 103

of religious morality, public order, and gender relations”(Karras2-3). Understanding acceptable sex starts with understanding howmorality, gender roles, and public order function in society. Throughmedieval literature the modern reader is shown a glimpse of the keythings that create Anglo-Saxon society. Beowulf portrays Anglo-Saxon society as rigid, especially in relation to gender roles and socialhierarchy. Men and women are expected to act in certain ways just associal hierarchy is dependent upon lineage. Yet, knowing this, sex isstill hard to define. The acceptance of deviation from gender normsin Beowulf depends on the author’s original intended audience.Sexuality, in medieval society can be broken down into two distinct,although differing, images: “repression” and freedom (Karras 2-3).Repression is sex based upon the views of celibate males writingfrom within the confines of dedicated Christianity. The priesthood,in this case, is the class that defined the lines of right and wrongin relation to sexuality regardless of popular, secular belief. Sex wassin because “sexuality threaten[ed] human salvation;” sex even forprocreation bordered upon sin (Karras 1). According to Karras, theopposite of repression is freedom. This is an “earthy, lustful, [and]playful” approach to sex. “Sin is not an issue” and therefore sex isn’tsin (Karras 2-3). The act of sex in this second image isn’t defined byits sin but by the capability for enjoyment for both men and women.These opposing viewpoints present the idea that what is encouragedto be sexually normative, by the church and its devoted followers,is not always the normative form of sex accepted by the commonperson. Gender, class, anatomical sex, and age, according to RobertAzzarello, make up the dynamic components of society. These fourcomponents manifest in medieval literature through “the questions… of human sexuality [as it is] entwined with the question … of …the other-than-human world” (Azzarello 139). Sexuality exists thenin two separate realms: that of the human world and that which isconsidered to be ‘other’. Sexuality exists in medieval human culture104 afternoons of alterity

to procreate but the accepted manifestation of sexuality is dependentupon anatomical sex.Sexuality in medieval culture was gendered, therefore acceptableforms of sex in literature was gendered as well. More often thannot, the object of the sexual action, the character being actedupon is female, while the subject, the character doing the act, ismale (Karras 3). Simply put, the capability of agency is basedupon gender. Women’s sexuality was threatening because women,operating as the aggressors, became the subjects of the sexualaction. This was considered to be unnatural and therefore ‘other’and scary. Interestingly, societal gender is established for thefemale by juxtaposing women’s natures with that of men’s (Robin166). “Querelle des femmes,” a debate from the Renaissance period,discussed the natures of the genders (Robin 167). Gender nature,in a text, is established by a stock of stereotypical characters. Thiswas a homogenization of historical women that explained giftedand intelligent women as men trapped in women’s bodies (Robin167). For the female in question to act outside of society’s acceptedgender roles create fear. Grendel’s Mother by becoming an avengerand seeking revenge for the death of her son, acts as a male wouldin the Anglo-Saxon familial revenge system causing medieval readersto question her character (Beowulf 1257).Jeffery Jerome Cohen, in “Monster Culture (Seven Theses)”, saysthat the whole of society is monstrous, meaning that monsters do notand cannot exist without the ‘us’, and the ‘us’ cannot exist withoutthe ‘them’ (Cohen 4). The monster is created by the cumulative bodyof culture as a way to explain and rationalize events uncontrolledby humanity (Cohen 4). Since culture defines and is defined by the‘other’, “the monsters body is both corporal and incorporeal; itsthreat is its propensity to shift” (Cohen 5). The monster is neverdead. It can never die because the fears of the cumulative culturealways shift. There continuously is the introduction of a new idea,anna iuppa 105

whether that is new religion, as in Beowulf with the introductionof Christianity into society, or the redefinition of gender roles, aswith Grendel’s Mother shifting to inhabit the male realm of revengeand/ or seduction respectively, that creates fear. As new fears arecreated old fears are forgotten. Society is constantly shifting creatingdifferent definitions of ‘other’. Because of this:‘Monster theory’ must therefore concern itself with stringsof cultural moments, connected by a logic that alwaysthreatens to shift; invigorated by change and escape, byachieving … the desired ‘fall or death, the stopping’ of itsgigantic subject… [it must be content with the] signifiers ofmonstrous passing that stand in for the monstrous bodyitself. (Cohen 6)To apply ‘monster theory’ to the interpretation of medievalliterature means to be content with references to the monstrous asany deviation of action from the norm or as any bodily difference.Traditionally, medieval characters that took the label of monstrousor of the ‘other’ were those that inhabited the rims of society. Theserim-walkers did not fit into the predetermined guidelines of society.Characteristically, these people were women engaging in acts ofmen, therefore redefining gender through sexuality, or men too farremoved, by either patrilineage or action, from accepted society.Beowulf is an epic poem that places its monsters at the centerof the narrative. Throughout the text, Beowulf encounters threefiends: Grendel, Grendel’s Mother and the Dragon. Although theconfrontation between Beowulf and Grendel’s Mother lasts a mereten pages, the fight can be interpreted as the most fierce in thetext because of the underlying anxiety based in Grendel’s Mother’schallenge of the male system of vengeance. Grendel’s Mother, acreature “forced down into fearful waters, /the cold depths, after106 afternoons of alterity

Cain had/killed his father’s son” resides on the outskirts of society(Beowulf 1260-62). Her lineage, her ties to the biblical Cain, exilesher from society and therefore declares her to be ‘other’, yet, she doesnothing to interact with society until Grendel is killed at the handsof Beowulf, and cannot therefore be deemed truly monstrous tillthen. Paul Acker, in his essay “Horror and the Maternal in Beowulf”,claims “the appearance of Grendel’s mother is the more marked forthe fact that she is introduced in the narrative action only after shealready intruded upon it” (Acker 705). The fact that she has notbeen introduced into the text until after her violent action againstHeorot can be interpreted as the cultures ignorance to the power ofwomen. Grendel’s mother is not considered a threat till she acts outin violence against the people of Heorot. This illustrates how thepower of culture lies in its ability to construct a national identity andmore importantly upon this national identity’s ability to establishcultural anxieties and phobias (Clark 169). In this case, nationalidentity’s established anxiety is a woman capable of straddling theborder between the genders.Grendel’s Mother is, of course, female. Dorothy Yamamotosuggests that “her years in the wilderness have not unsexed her: sheis still, unmistakably, a women” (Yamamoto 198). Her femininity,although warped by her bodily difference from humanity, isgrounded in her ability to produce a child. Traditionally, Females arerelegated to certain roles that consist of being either a peacemaker ora hostess. Jane Chance claims, in her essay “The Structural Unity ofBeowulf: The Problem of Grendel’s Mother”, that:the role of woman in Beowulf primarily depends upon“peace-making,” either biologically through her maritalties with foreign kings, as a peace-pledge or mother of sons,or socially and psychologically as a cup-passing and peaceweavingqueen within a hall. (Chance 249)anna iuppa 107

Characters such as Wealtheow and Hildeburh fulfill these rolesexisting in perfect harmony with the discourses of society, exhibitedby Wealtheow’s decision to not openly speak against Hrothulf inrelation to the inheritance of her sons Hrethric and Hrothmund(Beowulf 1179-1190). Grendel’s Mother does not act as the “peacemaking,”“cup-passing queen” (Chance 248). She, through pregnancy,perpetuates the race of Cain and therefore evil. Grendel’s Mother isa monstrous being because she functions in masculine ways. Eventhrough pregnancy Grendel’s Mother is still acting as male. The actof providing an heir to Cain’s legacy can be interpreted as revenge.Throughout the text she is referred to as “hell-bride,” “she,” and“his mother” yet her actions prove her to be the “feminine antitype”(Beowulf 1259, 1276, 1282, Acker 705). Grendel’s Mother’s abilityto act aggressively using violence in a way typically reserved for men,and to operate in the revenge killing system of Anglo-Saxon societycreates a character that bends the traditional gender roles.The location of the battle, between Grendel’s Mother andBeowulf furthers the interpretation of female as monstrous. Thedistance between the warmth of society and Grendel’s Mother’sinhabitance was short but terrain and weather created the optimumfear in connection with her. Her home is described as “desolatefens… dismal woods… bloodshot water… infested with all kinds ofreptiles” (Beowulf 104, 1414, 1416, 1424). While this is not typicalnature imagery, it describes the Anglo-Saxon view of that whichis not ‘us’. Nature or society becomes the question and Grendel’sMother resides outside of the walls of society. She inhabits a worldwhere growth (both plant and animal) is not normal. Monsters andmagic, the dark, resides in the world that surrounds humanity, thelight. As a creature that resides in the villainous nature Grendel’sMother is dangerous and therefore monstrous.After Grendel’s death, Grendel’s Mother feels sorrow and anger.These emotions are typically reserved in literature for those who108 afternoons of alterity

can, without a doubt, be placed into the realm of humanity notfor the supposed villains. The ability that Grendel’s Mother hasto react emotionally to the death of her son creates another stringthat binds her to the ways of humanity. Monsters are not supposedto mourn yet this very maternal and human response is the way inwhich she reacts to the violent death of Grendel at the hands ofBeowulf. However, the manner in which Grendel’s Mother reactsto these human emotions is what dissolves the strings of similaritythat she holds with her appropriate, societal dictated, gender role.Ultimately, this severing of anatomical sex from societal sex iswhat creates the monster. Her “sexual otherness” is emphasizedto de-emphasize her “cultural otherness” (Clark 169). As a female,Grendel’s Mother should not have the motivation or strengthto operate in the masculine gender-ruled system of revenge. Sheirrupts into the male realm, and through this irruption, “projectsthe anxieties [of Anglo-Saxon Society that it cannot] otherwiseadequately voice concerning the inherent weakness in the systemof feuding and revenge” (Acker 705). Simply put, she is presentingthe members of Heorot, including Beowulf, with the downfall oftheir well-loved revenge system. Yet this system does not actuallyfail. Rather her attempt at revenge fails, which may be an indicationof the “implicit judgment on the impropriety of her actions” (Acker706). Grendel’s Mother fails in her attack against Heorot becauseof the inherent error or unseemliness that the act of a femaleinhabiting the role of a male has, regardless of whether the femalein question is human.Grendel’s Mother’s revenge is enacted because of the attachmentbetween mother and offspring. The ability that Grendel’s Motherhas to bear children, and more importantly the fact that she did beara child, irrevocable makes her something to fear, regardless of anyaction she may have taken against Heorot. There are two methodsof belief regarding pregnancy in medieval culture. The first is calledanna iuppa 109

the ‘one-seed’ theory, which stated “only the male produces realseed or sperma from his blood, and only the male seed is requiredfor conception. The women’s ‘seed’ is not properly seed at all, buta substance formed from menstrual blood. […] The women’s role isentirely passive” (Bugge 206-7). The second theory was aptly namedthe ‘two-seed theory’. This theory was the older and more widelyaccepted version stating “that both spouses contributed seminal fluidsand that without doubt the embryo [came] from the union of [the]two seeds” (Bugge 207). Pragmatically this theory meant that bothmale and female had to be active during sex. Orgasm needed to beexperienced by both parties to result in conception. The issue is thatorgasm, or the experience of any type of bodily pleasure, was inherentlymale. According to the “two-seed” theory, Grendel’s Mother had toexperience orgasm to conceive Grendel yet the possibility that sucha creature could experience a sensation belonging to the realm ofmen was vile. The simple action of pleasure then becomes monstrousbecause once again Grendel’s Mother invaded the masculine worldby engaging in the sexual pleasure that enabled her to conceive andthen birth Grendel. Here Grendel’s Mother is monstrous becauseshe is a female, at least a type of female, who is expected by normativeAnglo-Saxon society to “be empowered chiefly through her son” yetshe enacts revenge for her son’s death exhibiting self- empowerment(Acker 707). In the instance Grendel’s Mother intrudes upon the textin an act of revenge she has become animalistic. The ferocity withwhich she acts out revenge is threatening because, while Grendel’sMother’s visage has no signs of the feminine, she lacks the “smoothskin, rosy complexion, delicate fingers, and demure silence. Her eyes[…] speak hostility,” she showcases the power of men (Yamamoto200). Grendel’s Mother is far more dangerous then the figure of thegirl-child and that of the virgin because she has entered and thenleft the male realm with the knowledge that male power is rooted inphysical pleasure.110 afternoons of alterity

The vagina’s ability to function as the breeding ground for new lifeis threatening to the male population of medieval Europe. Womenare inhabitants of the periphery because men “locate that whichthey are not, and [that] into which they make forays” as outside ofthemselves (Yamamoto 204). Men do not have the capability to bearchildren and therefore deem it ‘other’. The fear resides in the believedpotential that specific traits, traits the signify the negative aspectsof the female’s personality, from the mother may be passed to theoffspring and thereby cancel out the possibility of the child bearingany resemblance the father. The child then becomes the “animalwithin an animal” capable of transgressing the borders of masculineand feminine like the mother that conceived it (Yamamoto 205).Abjection is “our reaction to a threatened breakdown in meaningcaused by the loss of the distinction between subject and object orbetween self and other” (Felluga). The masculine population findsfear in Grendel’s Mother’s form because she has the capability to useher body in ways men cannot. Her body is abject.Medieval society’s understanding of gender roles is created byanatomical sex. Beowulf showcases both the conventional actionsand beliefs of the sexes, and the monstrous feminine that, whileanatomically female, acts in the nature of the male. Grendel’s Motheris a female who, by defying the expected actions of her gender andsexuality, exhibits the social personalities of her male counterparts.This is the creation of the monstrous feminine. Grendel’s Motherinhabits her inherited male persona therefore becoming ‘other’according to the rigid gender and sexual structures of medievalsociety.anna iuppa 111

Works CitiedAcker, Paul. “Horror and the Maternal in Beowulf.” PMLA. 121.3(May 2006): 702-716. Print.Azzarello, Robert. “Unnatural Predators: Queer Theory MeetsEnvironmental Studies in Bram Stokers Dracula.” Queering theNon/Human. Ed. Noreen Giffey and Myra J. Hird. Burlington,VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2008. 137-152. Print.Beowulf: A New Verse Translation. Trans. R.M. Lizzua. Peterborough,ON: Broadview, 2000. L. 1257. Print.Bugge, John. “Fertility Myth and Female Sovereignty in theWeddynge of Sir Gawen and Dame Ragnell.” Chaucer Review.39.2 (2004): 199-218. Print.Chance, Jane. “ The Structural Unity of Beowulf: The Problemof Grendel’s Mother.” New Readings of Women in Old EnglishLiterature. Ed. Helen Damico and Alexandra Hennessy Olsen.Indianapolis: Indiana UP, 1990. 248-261. Print.Clark, Damion. “Preying on the Pervert: The Uses of HomosexualPanic in Bram Stoker’s Dracula.” Horrifying Sex: Essays on SexualDifference in Gothic Literature. Ed. Ruth Bienstock Anolik.Jeffereson, North Carolina: McFarland and Company Inc.,2007. 167 – 175. Print.Cohen, Jeffery Jerome. “Monster Culture (Seven Theses).” MonsterTheory: Reading Culture. Ed. J.J. Cohen. Minneapolis : UPMinnesota, 1996. 3-25. Print.Felluga, Dino. “Definition: The Abject.” Introductory Guide toCritical Theory. 31 January 2011. Purdue University. Web. 16April 2011.Karras, Ruth Mazo. Sexuality in Medieval Europe: Doing Unto Others.New York: Routledge, 2005. 1-27, 116-119. Print.Robin, Diana. “Women, Space, and Renaissance Discourse.” Sexand Gender in Medieval and Renaissance Texts: The Latin Tradition.112 afternoons of alterity

Ed. Barbara K. Gold, et all. Albany: State University of NewYork Press, 1997. 165-187. Print.Yamamoto, Dorothy. The Boundaries of the Human in MedievalEnglish Literature.” Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. 197-224. Print.anna iuppa 113

Monsters: A Surprising Tool ofGovernments Past and PresentCaitlin GarveyHuman beings have a natural need to identify who and whatthey are; typically, this is done by distinguishing between the selfand the other, leading to the exclusion of the other because of alack of conformity to the group norms established in any givensociety. Monsters, a manifestation of this otherness, are then acultural creation residing at the borders of humanity, functioningas a reminder of what should not be. Governments recognize theimportance of this shared identification, believing that as a unifiednation, they increase their ability to preserve, protect, and asserttheir dominance in the world. They see the presence of monstersas a means of preservation of the status quo, essentially utilizingthem as the protection against the monstrous, otherwise defined asacts against common law and cultural norms. Essentially, the statehopes to comprise itself of an entire safe race of people, eliminatingthe threats from the inside out; while this may seem a very moderninitiative, medieval literature suggests that this has been a focusof societies from their early construction. Specifically, this idea isevident in the hierarchy of salvation in The Wonders of the East, theacceptance of Sir Gawain at the end of Sir Gawain and the GreenKnight, and lastly, in the idolization in death of Grettir the Outlawin Grettir’s Saga. 115

To understand precisely how states have utilized monsters asa form of social control, one should first explore the underlyingrelationship between humans and monsters. In Strangers, Gods, andMonsters: Interpreting Otherness, Richard Kearney discusses how “earlyWestern thought equated the Good with notions of self-identityand sameness” and evil with “notions of exteriority” (Kearney 65).In order to clearly differentiate good from evil, human beings thenneeded to create an other, and thus, the monster was born. As acultural creation, this monster functions as an identification systemfor human beings; it is “difference made flesh,” an explanation forthe malicious, immoral, and unusual (Cohen, “Monster Culture”7). Additionally, the monster is a “coping mechanism” that allowsfor the “transfer[ence] of responsibility” onto itself, removing anynegative implications from humanity (Cashman, and Cronin 408).Thus, the monster adopts the negativity that surrounds its’ bodyfor its own self; it comes to police the “borders of the possible,”“a warning against exploration” of these boundaries (Cohen,“Monster Culture” 12). As Cohen states, “to step outside this officialgeography”—or the borders defined by the monster’s presence—“is torisk attack by some monstrous border patrol or (worse) to becomemonstrous oneself” (12). Therefore, the monster is not only createdby humanity’s need to identify by exclusion, but given life, a physicalbody, and strict purpose through society’s fears.Governments throughout the world, past and present, recognizethe opportunity to achieve conformity through the monster. Here,I use the term governments to mean representatives of the declaredcommon good of society, establishers of the laws, and upholders ofthe social, political, religious, and economic interests of a nation.Additionally, it is important to recognize that these governments alsofunction as the basic form of a belief system; while humans oftensupplement their understandings of the world with further spiritualand religious beliefs, the foundation of a nation greatly affects116 afternoons of alterity

how inhabitants identify themselves, their surroundings, and theirboundaries. Recognizing their essential role in the development ofa nation, institutional bodies, on the whole, believe that they mustpreserve and protect their land and peoples; here is where monstersbegin to play a significant role in the maintenance of the status quo,protecting the nation from threats of destruction from the insideout. As Bildhauer and Mills assert, “monsters…can become subjectto linguistic and cultural resignification” (22). Thus, governmentscan redefine how monsters function; rather than simply intimidatingthe human race, monsters can be reminders of the status quo withina given society. As “most nation-states [are] bent on preserving theirbody politic from ‘alien viruses[,]’ [governments] [seek] to pathologizetheir adversaries,” the adversaries being the monsters (Kearney 65).If they can assume control over the fear of society, governmentssuddenly have a means of preserving, protecting, and asserting theirdominance in the world. An actual and specific example of this canbe seen in the origins of the term “Anglo-Saxon England”; it “is ablanket term that hides more than it reveals” (Cohen, Of Giants 4).At the time of the word’s origin, England was comprised of “scatteredgroups of varied ancestry” (4). To avoid becoming a monstrous landwith conflicting ideologies, it was decided that these peoples shouldall reside under a collective term, eliminating the possibility ofharboring monsters on the inside by simply giving an identifyinglabel to all inhabitants. Thus, governments and institutional bodiesrecognize the need for “cultural uniformity and relative social calm,”believing that the easiest way to achieve conformity is through themonster, the embodiment of human fears (4).In each of the three medieval texts, Wonders of the East, Sir Gawainand the Green Knight, and Grettir’s Saga, there is clear functioninggovernmental body that purposefully utilizes the monster as a meansof social control. Focusing first on Wonders of the East, it seems thatthe hierarchy of salvation is the institutional framework, providingcaitlin garvey 117

a strict delineation between each grade of human. While some ofthese beings are more acceptable to society than others, they allhave an opportunity to obtain salvation by modifying to fit thecommunal standards, or the status quo. Likewise, in Sir Gawainand the Green Knight, the governmental body is Arthur’s court andthe code of chivalry; both have clear expectations for how men andwomen within society should act. While the court and the codecan ostracize those who do not represent cultural norms, they arealso flexible enough to adapt and make exceptions when deemedappropriate. Paradoxically, in Grettir’s Saga, the governmental bodyis the institution of outlawry. It is the deeming of lesser outlawry andfull outlawry that sends non-conformists away from society; theseindividuals can only be reaccepted when society has found some wayto reconcile them with the good of humanity. Essentially, it seemsthat all of these state institutions, while clearly delineating who themonster is and where the monster resides, want nothing more thanconformity for their populous; they do not want to be capable ofharboring the monstrous, so they provide means through which theother can adapt.To focus more closely on The Wonders of the East and thegovernmental preservation of the status quo, one should explore:the outlined hierarchy of humanity, how the government functionsas a belief system in this text, and the ability of the other to obtainsalvation. Beginning with the hierarchy, Wonders, as theorized byGreta Austin, is “arranged to show the hierarchical spectrum ofthose people to whom God offers grace” (28). One can see theprogression by looking at the text at the beginning, middle, andend; in paragraph eight, the people are described with monstrousqualities: “In one land people are born who are six feet tall. Theyhave beards to their knees and hair to their heels. They are calledHomodubii, that is ‘doubtful ones’ and they eat raw fish and liveon them” (“Wonders” 189). A few paragraphs later, the description118 afternoons of alterity

ecomes more humanistic in nature: “Then there is an island inthe Red Sea where there is a race of people” who “know all humanspeech. When they see someone from a foreign country, they namehim and his kinsmen with the names of acquaintances” (“Wonders”197). By the end of the text, the description seems to capture a holyman declaring his sins: “I am dead not unjustly, but rightly… God’sjudgment stands against me… For that reason am I dead, and for thisam I brought to the midst of the kingdom of hell” (“Wonders” 203).There is an obvious progression from the early text to the latter. Atthe beginning, the focus is on the oddities in appearance and mannerof these peoples, while towards the middle, the text moves to a groupcapable of human speech. By the end, there is a clear belief systempresent, justifying the actions against, and the treatment of, a sinneragainst God. Essentially, as Austin asserts, this hierarchy shows a“gradual movement up the scale of humans towards groups withincreased social and linguistic organization” (Austin 31). Specifically,this can be seen through the gradual change in food, manners, socialgroupings, and religious associations. As Bildhauer and Mills discussin The Monstrous Middle Ages:Monsters [ ] also defined the ‘right’ choice of food and tablemanners, which had an important function in demarcatingsocial groups and decorous behaviour. Similarly monstersshowed deficiencies and oddities in other areas importantto the definition of conduct, such as clothing, speech, andweapons. Here, the monstrous other helped to identify thevery concept of courtliness (11).It would then seem that Wonders is built upon the notion ofsalvation, an institutional body, meant to protect, preserve, andfurther the peoples of the East by offering them a path away fromthe monstrous. There are clear descriptions of what are more or lesscaitlin garvey 119

monstrous and societal rules to follow in order to ensure salvation.As Austin continues, Wonders desired “to represent… the order anddiversity of those to whom God offers his salvific grace,” the text asa whole “reflect[ing] a grand scheme of salvation” (43, 48). Thus, thecultural abnormalities defined within this text, combined with thehierarchy of humanity, create salvation as a means of preservationof the status quo. By convincing readers of the time that Godwould allow all beings a chance at forgiveness, salvation functionedto maintain order and conformity; it was a guideline to behavior,and ultimately suggested that a threatening being was not forcedto remain a monster. They, instead, could use salvation as a meansof overcoming their otherness. Salvation, therefore, championedconformity by demarcating the good from the evil, providing a meansthrough which the East could easily label, and essentially, destroy themonsters who threatened their cultural normality.Like Wonders, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight also has a clearfunctioning governmental body: Arthur’s court and their code ofchivalry. At the beginning of the poem, it is clear that Arthur’scourt and peoples are sophisticated in comparison to other worldinhabitants, the text describing them as “the most chivalrous andcourteous knights known to Christendom; / the most wonderfulwomen to have walked in this world; / the handsomest king to becrowned at court (The most kyd knyghtes under Krystes selven,/ And the lovelokkest ladies that ever lif haden, / And he thecomlokest kyng that the court haldes)” (lines 51-53). The court andits guidelines of chivalry provide the members of the society veryapparent expectations for their actions. The state institutions, orthe court and the code, are, therefore, able to strive for conformity,and ultimately, preserve, protect, and assert their reputation in themedieval world. The ability of this court and code to succeed is seenwithin the poem, specifically at the end when it becomes apparentthat Gawain has accidently violated his societal expectations. The120 afternoons of alterity

Green Knight explains specifically how Gawain was faulty in hisactions (taking the girdle from Lady Bertilak and yet never revealingthe gift as he promised), saying: “it was loyalty that you lacked: / notbecause you’re wicked, or a womanizer, or worse, / but you lovedyour own life (and lewte yow wonted; / Bot that was for no wylydewerke, ne wowing nauther, / Bot for ye lufed your lyf)” (lines 2366-2368). For this, Gawain receives a blow from the Green Knight’s axe,but “it skewed to one side, just skimming the skin (Bot snyrt hymon that on side, that severed the hyde),” leaving Gawain a mark toremind him of his misdeeds (line 2312). After the Green Knight andthe guilty Gawain amend their pact, Gawain thanks this hybrid manfor exposing his true nature:Bot your gordel, God yowforyelde!That wyl I welde with guodwylle, not for the wynnegolde…Bot in syngne of my surfet…remorde to myselvenThe faut and the fayntyse of thefleshe crabbed.But the girdle, God bless youfor this gift,Not for all its ore will I own itwith honor…but as a sign of my sin…a sad reminderthat the frailty of his flesh isman’s biggest fault(lines 2429-2435).caitlin garvey 121

Gawain is willing to accept his misdeeds and understands thathis actions have threatened his society’s code of chivalry and theexpectations of the court, and is thus prepared to deal with themonstrosity that lies ahead of him. Yet, institutional body within thistext is unwilling to deem themselves capable of producing a monsteror harboring the monstrous, therefore leading the court to reconcilethemselves with Gawain’s actions. To maintain the Green Knightas the monster, and Gawain as a respectable citizen, King Arthurdeclares that “every knight in the brotherhood—should bear such abelt”—or the green girdle—“a bright green belt worn obliquely to thebody, / crosswise, like a sash, for the sake of this man (Uche burneof the brotherhede, a bauderyk schulde have, / A bende abelef hymaboute, of a bryght grene, / And that, for sake of the segge, in sweteto were)” (lines 2516-2518). The governmental body is, therefore,able to adapt their societal expectations by clearly identifying goodand evil; they turn Gawain’s sin into a mark of honor, and maintainthe Green Knight as evil in flesh.Like Wonders and Sir Gawain, Grettir’s Saga also embodies the notionof the governmental body striving to maintain the status quo. Thegovernment in this case, is the institution of outlawry. As described inthe Appendix of the saga, “outlawry served as a legalized step towardsblood-taking and replaced a legal judgment of execution” (Byock 239).Additionally, “outlawry provided Icelandic society with an efficientand cost effective means of dispensing with troublemakers” (239).One can then see that outlawry functions as the institutional bodywithin the saga, for it is through this institution that the monster ispushed to the borders, helping to define society’s identity, while alsoproviding a means for the preservation and protection of the statusquo. With such conformity in place, the Icelanders have the abilityto eliminate otherness from the inside out and assert, through unity,their dominance in the world. Interestingly, the saga uses Grettir’sexistence to explore both the monster and the borderlands, while122 afternoons of alterity

also using his death to explore heroism and uniformity. First, Grettiris consistently used to define the monster, particularly through thesystem of outlawry. He is consistently viewed as the other, “far inadvance of other men” with an exceptional physical appearance,Thornstein saying: “I have never seen a man’s arm like this” (88,115). He is even cursed, Glam punishing him: “most of what youdo will now turn against you, bringing bad luck and no joy. Youwill be made an outlaw” (102). Despite Grettir’s nature, his physicalappearance and cursed existence render him a monster regardless.The institution of outlawry confines him multiple times to a life asan outlaw, as exampled when text states, “Thorir made Grettir anoutlaw in every part of the country” (123). No matter how Grettirreacted, the system of outlawry confined him to a life as a monster,never allowing him to overcome the perceptions because he wasneeded as an outlaw to clearly identify the boundaries of society. Yet,because Grettir’s presence as an outlaw made his name renownedthroughout Iceland, in his death, the governmental body was forcedto not only acknowledge this man, but praise his life; this is done toensure that Grettir was not remembered for his misdeeds, but forhis twisted conformity. Sturla the Lawman, at the end of the saga,declares that:Grettir was the cleverest, as witnessed by the fact that helived in outlawry longest of all men and was never overcomewhile he had his health. Second, he was the strongest manin the land among those of the same age, and he was betterthan others at removing the walking dead and monsters.The third was that Grettir, unlike any other Icelander, wasavenged out in Constantinople (238).Suddenly, the threat that Grettir posed to the values of society areeliminated in his death. Instead, he is prized for his abilities tocaitlin garvey 123

survive, challenge, and defeat. Especially interesting, is that he’s seenas a slayer of monsters. A man, so demonized throughout the text, issuddenly accepted as securer of the status quo. Thus, the institutionof outlawry is able to use Grettir as a multi-facet: he functions as amonster in life, a reminder of what humans should not be, and a heroin death, a man preserving and protecting the state. It appears then,that the governmental body is fully aware of Grettir as a monster anda hero, and is able to use him two-fold to reinstate societal normality.As these medieval texts reveal, governments in the past wereconscious of society’s monsters, using them to protect bordersand reinstate the status quo. This concept continues today, whilethe means of reminding society of their place has changed. Today,media, colored by a nation’s culture and motivated by profit, areutilized as an extension of the state. They project and remindsociety of the monsters so valued by the government, providinghuman beings a clear other from which to disassociate from. Aprime example of the monster control we experience today is oftenwitnessed in the news with the depiction of “the terrorist.” Thenegativity and the language the surrounds the depiction of the “theterrorist” is “universally negative” (Brennan 2). This being is oftenconsidered “‘freedom-hating,’” a direct opposition to everythingthat American values uphold (Brennan 2). Thus, this monster, “theterrorist,” is created for Americans to compare themselves against.If we are consistently forced oppose ourselves to the other—thisextreme harmer of nations—we naturally maintain the status quo,for we directly disassociate “the terrorist,” or a threat to Americanuniformity. The news is not the only utilized form of media bythe government; many of today’s most popular television showssubconsciously remind us of who and what humanity and societyare and should remain. The television affords us the comfort ofbeing able to view the monster and the monstrous qualities that itobserves, while still being able to maintain a significant distance.124 afternoons of alterity

As Stephen T. Asma writes in Monsters and Moral Imagination, “thisvacation to where the wild things are ultimately helps us return toour lives of quiet repression” (2). We can identify ourselves by whatwe are not, and then shut off the television before the discomfortsets in. Essentially, the world we live in today, while it may appeardifferent and have specific advancements, is no more unlike in theway that we identify monsters and experience government use ofsuch. As long as human beings exist, there will always be others,there will always be monsters, and governments will always recognizethese alterior figures.In essence, human beings have a natural need to identify byexclusion, and it is through this oppositional recognition that themonster is born; governments and governmental bodies, as socialconstructions themselves, recognize these monsters, and use them asborder patrols, maintaining the status quo from the inside out. Thisconcept is not a new one; as explored, both medieval literature andmedia today include elements of monstrosity for the sake of socialcontrol. It seems only a natural reaction, as nations have felt andalways will feel a need to preserve and protect their cultural normsfor the sake of asserting their dominance in the world. To succeed,a safe race is a necessity; with little to no upheaval on the interior, anation projects itself as a stronger force. Yet, this natural desire forgovernments to want to control the status quo through monstrosityraises some interesting possibilities. What they are attempting tocontrol could potentially be our own internal strangeness, projectedonto a body deemed other (Kearney 73). As Cohen states in,“monsters are our children” (20). Monsters are, therefore, a creationof our own fears, insecurities, and apprehensions. Interestingly,governments too have their origins in this same fear; they are createdto function as the monster does, as a reminder of social boundaries.Are governments then monsters? And, if we as a society internalizeour government and are socially controlled and conformed to fit withcaitlin garvey 125

governmental standards, then are we not also monsters, markingthe boundaries of humanity? Thus, it seems that humanity and themonster are one in the same, possibly explaining why the state, bothpast and present, utilize monsters to maintain the status quo.126 afternoons of alterity

Works CitedOrchard, Andy. “The Wonders of the East.” Pride and Prodigies.Toronto: UP Toronto, 1995. 185-203. Print.Asma, Stephen T. “Monsters and the Moral Imagination.” Chronicleof Higher Education 56.10 (2009): B11-B12. Academic Search Elite.EBSCO. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.Austin, Greta. Marvels and Miracles: Studies in the Medieval and EarlyModern Imaginations. Eds. Timothy Jones and David Sprunger.Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, 2002. 25-51. Print.Bildhauer, Bettina and Robert Mills, eds. The Monstrous MiddleAges. Toronto: Toronto UP, 2003. 1-27. Print.Brennan, Robert. “Monster Culture in Post 9/11 America.” Journalof the Undergraduate Writing Program, Columbia University. GoogleScholar. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.Cashman, V. Katharine and Shane J. Cronin. “Welcoming aMonster to the World: Myths, Oral Tradition, and ModernSocietal Response to Volcanic Disasters.” Journal of Volcanologyand Geothermal Research 176 (2008). Google Scholar. Web. 10Apr. 2011.Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome, ed. Monster Theory: Reading Culture.Minneapolis: UP Minnesota, 1996. 3-25. Print.Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. Of Giants: Sex, Monsters, and the Middle Ages.Minneapolis: UP Minnesota, 1999. 1-28. Print.Byock, Jesse, ed. & trans. Grettir’s Saga: A New Translation. Oxford,NY: Oxford UP, 2009. 9-239. Print.Kearney, Richard. Strangers, Gods, and Monsters: Interpreting Otherness.New York: Roultedge, 2003. 65-82. Print.Armitage, Simon, ed. & trans. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2007. 21-189. Print.caitlin garvey 127

They Walk Among UsOccupational Violence in Beowulfand The Modern EraDavid BuischThe combination of violence and civilization has given birth to aunique paradox. On one hand we deplore the use of violence andmuch of our legal systems are dedicated to eradicating it. On theother hand, it is our very legal system that embodies and embracesviolence. It is a volatile mix that leaves us asking many questions aboutthe very nature of our violence. The perceived truth surroundingviolence all has to do with our own cultural perceptions.The cultural perception of violence in the epic poem, Beowulfswims in a sea of gray. The poem accounts for the fictional taleof a kingdom that is besieged by a monster that comes from therim of civilization on a nightly basis to wreck havoc and chaosthrough extreme violence. The actions are so unforgiveable thatthe only possible conclusion to restore peace and order is to destroythe monster, Grendel, with extreme prejudice. The name of thatextreme prejudice is Beowulf, who wields uncompromising violenceas his tool.Before it can be assumed that Beowulf is just a man playingjudge, jury and executioner, it is appropriate to put his situationinto context. In the epic poem, the actions of Grendel are describedas being beyond atonement. In Heorot, “No one/ waited forreparations from his plundering claws:” (Beowulf, 156-157). It 129

is obvious that some type of system of criminal correction was inplace, but Grendel wanted no part in it. He was beyond the scopeof the law and removed from consequence. Grendel’s tyranny in thepoem was strengthened after each raid and was, “…seeking no peace,offering/ No truce, accepting no settlement, no price in gold orland” (Raffel, 155-156). Grendel’s only motive is to exterminate thepeople of Heorot. He cannot be reasoned with, bullied, or bribed.The situation Grendel created is “kill or be killed” and much to hischagrin, killers like Beowulf walk the earth to do just that: to kill thatwhich needs to be killed.As stated above, it is the common belief that all violence isdeplorable. It is what makes us fearful and in many instances it iswhat threatens the very foundation of civilization. Violence is theheart of the old saying “might makes right,” where order and thespoils of war come to whoever can most effectively use violence.There is no room for democracy or justice in such situations. Butwhere democracy and justice do thrive, violence can be used as atool of defense. Violence in several cultures is not only used butcelebrated as a tool to smite those that would bring havoc and harmto anything that is the cultural norm. It happens at all levels, be it thenational level that uses grand forces and armies to defend its bordersor right down to the cherished notion of a man defending his housefrom an intruder.It all depends on the context. In Eviatar Zerubavel’s book, TheFine Line: Making Decisions in Everyday Life, he claims that decisionsmade in life are based on evidence that has been creatively filed inour minds. These creative files are what he calls “islands of meaning”(Zerubavel, 6). He claims that a single idea can have two meanings andthat both meanings are equally valid. To apply his theory to violence,it is no wonder that we are able to love and hate it simultaneously.On one of these figurative islands we hate violence and the threatthat follows it; on another island, it explains why we love violent130 afternoons of alterity

sports and regard our members of the armed forces as heroes.In terms of occupation, Beowulf was a member of the military.In American culture, we have split the military into the same islandsof meaning. Members of the Armed Forces are culturally regardedas the heroes that preserve our freedom and way of life, yet we hatewar. The goal of the solider is to win wars and solve problems withviolence yet we cringe at the idea. To give an example, Marine CorpRecruit Depot: Parris Island, is nothing more than a little swampbuilt on blood, sweat and sand fleas. It is an engine that turns youngmen and women into ultra efficient killing machines with heartsof stone. The idea is barbaric but at the same time people (namelyAmericans) sleep very well at night knowing that those same enginesof death are standing watch. Beowulf is no different and neitheris the context of his service. The book, Medieval Callings, edited byJaques Le Golf speaks heavily of the paradox in which the warriorlives in. He describes the medieval world as exceptionally cruel, whereviolence was very normal (Le Goff, 75-79). Beowulf, as a warrior hada place in that world. He was a wall separating peaceful existencefrom the jungle of tyranny.How Beowulf perceives his job as a warrior is a clue to his place inthe world. Beowulf views Grendel as an adversary or rival. The poetof the original text used a handful of creative binaries to help thereader make this connection. The two binaries present are the pointsof view of Grendel and Beowulf. To Grendel, the people of Heorotare game. We see this when he makes his famous journey fromthe fen to the doors of Heorot for the first time. He seizes peopleand kills them and more importantly, eats them. The imagery usedmakes Grendel seem as monstrous as possible. Beowulf’s perceptionis a little different. He treats the encounter with Grendel almost as agame, but definitely a job to be done (Parks).The poem states that hedoes his job for a variety of reasons, namely for God, fame and glory,but any of these reasons could be replaced. He could have done itdavid buisch 131

ecause he liked the idea of killing or because he was a medievaladrenaline junkie. Any reason could have sufficed because the actof destroying those that would destroy the innocent without mercyis justified.To speak again of the society that Beowulf lived in, it is clear thathe lived in a very martial, warrior controlled society. This system ofgovernment relied on a king’s ability to control the use of violentpotential (Le Goff, 75). Violent potential is nothing more than thiswarrior society’s ability to commit to war and the motives surroundingit. In the epic, Hrothgar is a Danish King that is described as a ringgiver. His purpose for giving said rings is to invite (or at least bribe)the warriors of his region to unite under his colors. Normally, thecreation of an army for the sole purpose of uniting a group of peoplecould be seen as a bit fascist. The nature of this fascism and unifiedmilitary pride is not without precedent, nor is it something that hasbeen abandoned as an ideal of the Dark Ages. Case in point: the flagof Fascist Italy, flown by the Italian Dictator, Benito Mussolini. Theflag depicts an image of a bundle of sticks, lashed together with anaxe in the middle of them. The bundle of sticks is a representation ofstrength through unity and the axe represents that this unity is madepossible by the military. Beowulf’s culture is no different. To not beviolent would cause everything to fall apart.The actions of Beowulf, although a bit misunderstood to thisday, are justified on a cultural level. Richard Kaeuper’s Chivalry andViolence in Medieval Europe speaks volumes of the mindset of peoplelike Beowulf. The fringe benefits of Beowulf’s job appear to be morethan just fame and a ticket on the fast track to heaven. According toKaeuper, the literature of the time, “declare it a great honor to diefrom the blows of a man of great prowess” (Kaeuper, 153). It is notsuggested that Beowulf was on a suicide mission or that Grendel wasa man. But one could easily see the honor in either victory or defeatwith Grendel. To us, this is a bizarre instance, but only because132 afternoons of alterity

modern readers are not part of the culture, and therefore cannotconstruct the proper islands of meaning to fully appreciate all ofBeowulf’s notions.In our evolution and construction of a modern society, it ispossible that we have taken two ideas and made synonyms of them.The two ideas worth examining are violence and crime. The link thatwe have placed in our modern minds has given both ideas a strangepretext. We view crime and violence as synonyms because both ofthem share space on an island of meaning. The issue is, crime andviolence also appear on several of the mind’s islands of meanings,in several different categories. Crime and violence even sit togetheron an island that we cheer for. Take the story of Robin Hood. Herobs from the rich and gives to the poor. It’s a story most of us growto appreciate as children and have a nostalgia for when we reachadulthood. But nostalgia aside, we also have a growing fear that oneday, we might be the rich being robbed. Feelings of nostalgia vanishas we think about being confronted by a man in a ski mask at anATM. For all we know, he is going to donate that money to charity,or maybe even give it to a medical institution as a grant. Regardlessof his intentions, once we are the rich (or at least the ones beingrobbed) any happy notion of armed robbery as “good” gets packedup and sent to the mental island of meaning labeled “bad.”From a modern perspective, it is very easy to conceptualizeBeowulf as a warmonger and a brute. This happens due to thebinary created between Beowulf and Grendel. Maybe it is becauseof our legal system or our distancing from violence as a societal tool.Nonetheless, we see violence as an irrational “other.” To show thistransformation of the idea, we can look at the 1971 novel: Grendel,by John Gardner. The novel is set as a prequel describing Grendel’schildhood and eventual coming of age. It also describes Grendel asan anxiety ridden teenager that is the victim of lateral violence andbanishment to the edge of society. The reader feels pity for Grendeldavid buisch 133

and even cheers him on when he makes his weekly trips to Heorot toslaughter the people. In a sense, Gardner’s mission was to place theHolden Caulfield like character on the island of meaning labeled“victim.” This comes naturally due to our distancing from violence.Gardner wrote his novel during a unique time. The novel was writtenin the midst of the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. It waspublished in the midst of one of the most controversial presidenciesin American history, the Nixon Administration. It’s safe to say thatGardner wrote in a time when the traditional thought of Americanlife was being revisited. But one must understand that the author ofBeowulf did not have this live in a time where rights were debatedor peacefully rallies were tolerated. To revisit Kaeuper, violence wasthe ideology of the political atmosphere at the time of the epic’scomposition (Kaeuper, 91).Beowulf’s job as a war fighter and soldier is nothing new tocivilization. In fact, organized violence is so old that archeologicalevidence places the act of war as an entity that predates historicalrecord (Whitehead). It is entirely possible that violence is intrinsic towho we are as people. It was believed that warfare was the result ofa moral breakdown and the corruption of the governing body. Theproblem with this ideology lies in the act of killing. Not all killing ispolitically connected. If one were to look at serial killers, lynchings,pogroms, witch trials, and ritual killings it is clear that violence isnothing more than a part of the culture (Whitehead). If one were tolook at the culture in which Beowulf resided, it is no wonder that heembraced violence so much.The author of Beowulf highlighted the destruction and reclaimingof civilization with violence simply by using a mead hall as the vastmajority of the setting. According to Jerome Cohen, “In early northernEuropean culture, the mead hall (meduheall) was the center ofcommunity, the materialization into concrete public space of heroicidentity” (Cohen,6). The devastation Grendel causes, highlights his134 afternoons of alterity

otherness and disdain for humanity. But it also highlights Beowulf’splace as a defender of civilization. It is logical to believe that Beowulfwould wait for Grendel in a place in which he knew he wouldcome but it is also interesting that in all of the possible places inDenmark, that he could have killed Grendel, it happened in theplace that is a symbol for the heart of civilization. It is also worthnoting how he killed him. Beowulf was without weapons or clothingand defeated his opponent in the most animalistic way possible.Ultra-violence and primal aggression are what helped Beowulf defeatGrendel. Ironically, Grendel used these two qualities in an attemptto tear down civilization. This bizarre coincidence places Beowulfin the same category of his enemy, Grendel. But because the readersympathizes with Beowulf, it is justified.To further reinforce the mental lumping and splitting of Beowulfand Grendel it is important to analyze just how similar they are.Both are of immense size and strength and both live to kill. It wouldnot be fair to say that the difference between them is why they kill.Beowulf, as a warrior, utilizes violence for political purposes as well asa way to gain fame. Grendel commits violence because he is spitefuland hungry. The only ideological difference is the effect caused bythe violence they loved to create. Grendel is attempting to destroythe established order while Beowulf is trying to restore it.Although Beowulf is just a man and therefore a member of society,it is his size and indifferent attitude on the subject of killing thatclassifies him as “other”. We as a society try to look at members ofour military as one of us, but sometimes doing so is not so simple. Infact, it could be said that members of the military look at themselvesas “other.” It’s safe to say that Beowulf was probably groomed to bea soldier but it is also entirely plausible that he could have retiredor quit the life whenever he wanted. To revisit his perspective, itis plausible that he not only looked at his coming to Denmark tokill Grendel as an opportunity to enhance his career, but as a sensedavid buisch 135

of duty to defend those that cannot defend themselves. RichardKearney quotes Jacque Derrida when he defines other as, “host or asenemy” (Kearney, 69). On a literal level, Beowulf could have viewedHrothgar and the people as the host of a tyrannical monster andtherefore, “other”. Given Beowulf’s nature it is likely that the islandof meaning he places the people of Heorot on is labeled as “weak”or pitiful. In a roundabout way, this makes him a monster, but amonster the people need.In all, it could be said that the deeds of a person is what definesthem. Beowulf, although born into the military lifestyle with apowerful man as a father, did not rise to kingship by chance. It wasnot a gift or a bestowing that made him powerful, it was what he did.The medieval era may have been a time of beautiful words and prosebut it was a world that had been pulled into a dark pit of violenceand cruelty. It was not the boasts or words that Beowulf spoke but itwas the actions that he had taken that made him the legend he was.Five day swimming marathons and the slaughtering of sea monsterswere among these actions. His life was wrought with danger, mostlyof his own making but most of it was necessary. His size and staturemade him physically equipped for the job and on a few occasionsthe only thing that saved him was luck, such as the fact that hiswillingness to fight Grendel unarmed was only a coincidence. Howcould he have known that Grendel was immune to weapons.The military is not the only occupation that seems to blendviolence and labor. Butchers, executioners, exterminators, scientistsand exorcists are also members of our society that seem to walkthe line between what should be done and what needs to be done.Butchers in particular are some of the most despised and beloved ofthe occupations on the list. Every day they wade in blood and stenchto do the job the popular culture deems unbearable and barbaric.Yet, the eating of meat is a large part of the human diet. The jobitself is back-breaking, violent and not for the light of heart. They136 afternoons of alterity

are underpaid and for the most part are stereotypically perceivedby the public as monstrous. Much of this publicity is thanks to theorganization known as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment ofAnimals). PETA bombards the media and the nations young withwords like “cruelty” and “abuse” when it speaks of slaughter (PETA).The members of this organization do not realize that the act ofbutchering is part of our cultural history. In a sense, Beowulf andbutchers are in the same business and stand hand in hand on anisland of meaning. Both provide a service much needed by humanityand that service seems to entail violent means. Of course it could besaid that one involves considerably less risk and the slaughtered arefar more helpless, but it is a dangerous job nonetheless.Violence and killing is not a lesser evil: it is a necessary evil. Themerchants of death that walk among us, the men that pity the weakbut defend them, live on the rim of our civilization. They are thegatekeepers of order and justice and the destroyers of all who wouldthreaten either. It is clear that this ideal existed in medieval culture,and thrives in a modern world that pretends which it doesn’t exist.We feel safe around men like Beowulf, but we shun their work. Thereis nothing the world would like more than to place men like Beowulfin the unemployment line, but deep in our hearts we know thatthe manifestation of this dream is as close to us as the stars. Theywalk the fine line between primal power and enlightened power.There are forces in this world that go bump in the night and it is themerchants of death that bump back, despite our need to look away.david buisch 137

Work CitedCohen, J.J. Of Giants: Sex, Monsters and The Middle Ages.Minneapolis: UP Minnesota. 1999. Pp 1-28. Print.Gardner, John. Grendel . 1st ed. New York: Knopf, 1971. Print.Kaeuper, Richard W.. Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe.Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.Kearney, Richard. Stranger Gods and Monsters: Interpreting Otherness.New York:Rouhedge, 2003. Pp 65-82. Print.Le Goff, Jacques. Medieval Callings. Chicago: University Of ChicagoPress, 1990. Print.Parks, Ward. “Pray Tell: How Heroes Perceive Monsters inBeowulf.” Journal of English and Germanic Philology. (Jan1993): Vol. 22. Web.“People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The animalrights organization | PETA.org.” People for the Ethical Treatmentof Animals (PETA): The Animal Rights Organization | PETA.org.PETA, 1 Jan. 2011. 15 Apr. 2011. Web.Raffel, Burton. Beowulf: A new Translation with an Introd. by BurtonRaffel.. New York: New American Library, 1963. Print.Whitehead, Neil. Violence & the Cultural Order. Daedalus, Volume136, No 1. (winter 2007) pp. 40-50. Web.Zerubavel, Eviatar. The Fine Line: Making Distinctions In EverydayLife. New York: Free Press, 1991. Print.138 afternoons of alterity

Home and Spatial IdentityPhysical to Psychological SpaceLaura LucyshynAll human beings from the beginning of their creation have an innateneed to have a home. The idea of home has evolved from a physicalspace to an abstract plane within the mind. Within medieval literature,the home was a physical establishment, defining one’s identitythrough a connection with space, objects, and obligations essential tothe standard lifestyle. To be homeless at this time was to lack identity,essentially making one monstrous. In contrast, the concept of homehas been greatly revolutionized since the 20 th century, leading to ashift in the idea of home as an abstract place within oneself; thismovement has impacted the monsters of societies, for no longer isidentity attached to objects and space, but to the relationships and theexperiences that one has within their life. No longer is homelessnessassociated with the monstrous, for societies have come to recognizethe existence of an internal home. This has significantly impactedthe way in which the homeless identify themselves. Technically, theyreside within the boundaries of society, and yet have no physical home.The shift is, therefore, evident in the comparison of the 20 th centuryviews of home to the physical home so valued in the medieval texts ofGrettir’s Saga, Beowulf, and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.People have an innate need to belong and to be able to identifywho they are, home is an essential component of this identification 139

among humanity; the home is how people define who they arewithin society. There are two ways in which the home has beenviewed throughout history, as both a physical and an abstractspace. The physical space is defined as the actual home and thearea surrounding it. The definition of abstract space incorporatesthe emotional attachments and relationships that exist within acontained area, ultimately creating the psychological home. Thesetwo vastly different concepts of home suggest a shift in the wayhuman beings perceive their identity.The home, as a physical structure, was the dominant perspectiveof identity for the people who lived during the medieval period.The actual physical space of the living quarters was home; it definedwho the people were at the time. If a person was wealthy, it becameapparent through the size of the structure, contents held within,and the size of the feasts. The people who made up the medievalsociety placed much emphasis on the home. If a person did not havea physical home then they were considered to be exiled, monstrous,or other. The clear consensus of the people during the medievaltime was that without a physical home, a person was left without anidentity. The person was thought to have no connection to people,land, or structure. This idea becomes questionable as a shift occursbetween the physical and abstract space of home, as represented inthe contrast of medieval literature to the views of today.The idea of an abstract space is the present day perspective onwhat a home is and how people identify themselves in relation to ahome. The relationships among the people often recreate an essenceof the home. People define themselves through the emotional andphysical relationships that they develop with other people. Theserelationships and feelings are internalized; they are not somethingthat can be seen as part of the physical structure of the home, but theyare very much a real and significant component of the home. Peopleget the sense of being at home when they are able to experience a140 afternoons of alterity

closeness among the people that they cohabitate with. This feelingof security does not manifest from the actual structure of the homebut rather from the relationships with other people. The idea ofhome becomes an internalized structure. A person is able to feel athome wherever they are in the world because home is not a physicalstructure but rather an abstract place that exists within a person.A person can create their own version of their reality without theneed of materialistic items or a physical structure. The idea of homeis beginning to shift into a psychological realm. The home of thepeople in today’s society resides within the mind.Upon examining a physical versus abstract space, one can nowexplore how medieval literature embraced the physical home,beginning with Grettir’s Saga. Grettir is outlawed to the outside ofsociety, a physical space because of his otherness. The society keepsGrettir on the outside because he cannot identify with anybody.Grettir is pushed around, forced to travel from place to place, insearch of a physical home. The text displays Grettir and his actionsas being out of control because he does not have a home, whichultimately states that he does not have an identity. Grettir is seenas an irreconcilable man because he is transient in nature; he doesnot have a permanent physical space in which to live. As homewas defined during the medieval time, if a person did not have apermanent physical residence, then they did not belong within thesociety. Grettir’s banishment from society becomes apparent whenGlam states that Grettir “will be made an outlaw, forced always tolive in the wilds and to live alone” (Byock 102). Grettir’s identitybecomes questionable because he does not have a physical place towhich he can permanently connect himself. Who is he if he doesnot have a permanent physical home? Throughout the text, Grettirsearches for a physical home in a desperate attempt at reclaimingan identity. The places that Grettir comes to temporarily inhabitbecome physical structures of home.laura lucyshyn 141

Grettir inhabits many different places within Grettir’s Saga insearch of home and identity. Without a permanent physical homeGrettir is homeless, forced to seek shelter wherever it may beavailable. Barbara Wand James and Patrick D. Lopez argue that, “noone residential situation is definitive or long term” (129). Here, theyseem to suggest that a homeless person is always on the move trying tolocate a physical place to stay. This situation can be seen throughoutGrettir’s journey. Three major places that Grettir temporarily residesat are Thorhallsstead, the farm of Sandhaugar in Bardardal, andDrangey Island. These places allow Grettir a temporary place to livebut they were never a home. These dwellings offer Grettir a falsehope at reclaiming his identity. Grettir’s stay at these places is neverpermanent, which keeps him on a constant quest of identity. Grettir’sstay at Thorhallsstead brings his identity into question. Grettir sets outfor Thorhallsstead in an attempt to destroy a ghost that is haunting thephysical space of a farmer. Grettir believes that “evil will only beget evilwhere Glam is concerned, and it is far better to grapple with humansthan with monsters like this” (Byock 98). The text is suggesting thatGrettir is cognizant of his lack of identity. Grettir believes that he maybe able to reclaim his identity through the destruction of the monster.If he destroys Glam, then Grettir believes that he will be obtainingan identity through the act of protecting the haunted farmhouse.Grettir fighting the monster is symbolic of his quest for an identitythrough a physical space. Through the destruction, of the monsterGrettir is able to open up a physical space in which he may be able tofind a home. By freeing the house of the monstrous presence, Grettirbelieves that he will be clearing a physical space in which for himselfto reside. Sadly, Thorhallsstead proves to be a false home for Grettir.The farm of Sandhaugar in Bardardal also becomes a temporaryphysical home for Grettir. Grettir travels to Bardardal because it isbelieved to be haunted. This is another attempt for Grettir to gainan identity through the destruction of another who is monstrous.142 afternoons of alterity

Into the dark gorge I ventured; the waterfall, tumbling rocks,gaped with its chill spouting mouth at me and my sword.Against my chest the air-borne torrent surged in the chasm,A haunt for trolls; the giant came down hard on my shoulders.(Byock 179)Grettir is venturing into the dark physical space of the she-troll in anattempt to gain an identity. Grettir also battled the she-troll earlierin the text in an attempt to claim a physical space: “She managed topull him out through the inner door and into the outer entrancehallway, yet he stood his ground” (Byock 176). Grettir is fighting toclaim the physical space of the home while the she-troll is tryingto cause a separation between Grettir and the physical space of thestructure. Separating Grettir from the physical home leaves himvulnerable without an identity. Grettir needs the home to solidifywho he his as a person, so he will stand to protect it: “She wantedto drag him out of the house, but she was unable to do this untilthe two had ripped loose the whole outer-door frame, carrying itoutside on their shoulders” (Byock 176). The she-troll is symbolic ofthe society in which Grettir used to reside. The society does not wantGrettir to have an identity and neither does the she troll becausethey believe that he belongs in exile. Therefore, the she-troll controlsGrettir’s ability to have an identity by trying to remove him from thephysical space of a home. Grettir fights the she-troll the whole way,this suggests the strong need of identity that exists. Thus, the farm ofSandhaugar in Bardardal also proves to be a false home for Grettir.Drangey Island also becomes a temporary physical home forGrettir, a last attempt at claiming a home and an identity.The sword-blade carved men’s fates time after timewhen, hacking at thugs run amok, I staunchly defendedthat birchwood house. And that cost Hjarrandi, your man,laura lucyshyn 143

his arm. As for Bjorn and Gunnar, they forsook both theirlair and their life in short order. (Byock 207)Grettir makes one last fatal attempt to claim an identity throughphysical space, yet society will not let Grettir gain an identity. Theold lady becomes symbolic of the society preventing Grettir fromreclaiming an identity. Grettir begins to realize the transparencyof his connection to Drangey Island “after the old woman put thespell on the tree” (Byock 205). This enchantment prevents Grettirfrom being able to make a connection between Drangey Island andthe idea of home. The spell ultimately leads to the destruction ofGrettir. The spell takes away any chance that Grettir had at gainingan identity through death. Grettir dies without a true physical homeand without a true identity.In the medieval text, Beowulf, the idea of space is clearlydifferentiated between the human physical space and the monstrousphysical space. The physical space separates the men from themonstrous. The separation of space allows the men to give themselvesidentity. The men place much importance on physical space,because they believe that it clearly defines who they are as men. Thephysical space allows the men to be able to clearly label themselvesas not the monstrous. The physical space allows the men to createborders and boundaries to protect their home and identity. Yet, thislife of comfort experiences an irruption. The men experience aninterruption of their physical space through the monster, Grendel.The invasion of the monstrous space into the physical human spacecauses a confusion of identity. Thus, the men experience an identitycrisis from the presence of a monster within their physical territory.In the text, Beowulf, a clear separation exists between humanphysical space and monstrous physical space. The humans reside ina physical space, the mead hall. The men build, hunt, fight, andfeast as part of their identity as humans. They pride themselves on144 afternoons of alterity

the treasures that fill up their home. The men identify themselves ashumans through their daily activities and treasures.At times the king’s thane, full of grand stories, mindful ofsongs, who remembered much, a great many of the old tales,found other words truly bound together; he began again torecite with skill the adventure of Beowulf adeptly tell an apttale, and weave his words. (Liuzza 74)Here, the men begin to display their significant attachment to thephysical space through the strategy of story telling. The men sing oftheir identity and the importance of being clearly differentiated asa human. The men need to be able to define who they are so theycan solidify the fact that they are not different or monstrous but thatthey make up what it is considered to be the norm of their time.The monstrous physical space exists on the border of the humanworld. The monstrous space is dark and scary. Grendel lives in themoors, which the humans consider to be separate from their physicalspace. The humans believe that Grendel does not have a humanidentity because of his otherness. Grendel is different from the men,which they solidify through song. They are not able to identify withhis physical appearance or actions. Therefore, it is essential to theexistence of the human identity to reside in a separate physical spacethan the monsters.The clear distinction between human physical space andmonstrous physical space becomes blurred when Grendel irruptsinto the reality of the men’s physical space and their identity. Grendelirrupts into the physical space of the human men by invading themead hall, Heorot. Grendel creates confusion among the men.How can someone who is so utterly different come to be withintheir physical space? The men knew exactly who they were and hada clear definition of their destinies; “Thus this lordly people lived inlaura lucyshyn 145

joy, / blessedly, until one began / to work his foul crimes- a fiendfrom hell” (Liuzza 99-101.) Grendel forces the men to question theirexistence and identity as humans. Someone who is other, a monster,has destroyed the physical comfort of home.Thus the foe of mankind, fearsome and solitary, oftencommitted his many crimes, cruel humiliations; he occupiedHeorot, the jewel-adorned hall, in the dark nights- he sawno need to salute the throne, he scorned the reassures; he didnot know their love. (Luizza 164-169)Here, Grendel reveals his need for an identity. He cannot identifyhimself within the humans physical home. He recognizes that hedoes not belong in the human’s physical space; he knows that he isdifferent. Grendel decides to invade the human’s physical space inan attempt to take away the humans identity. If Grendel does nothave a worthy identity then why should the humans? The quote alsosuggests the manner in which the humans separate their identityfrom Grendels’ existence. The humans view Grendel as an enemy ofthe humans, which suggests his otherness. Grendel is not consideredor invited to become a part of the human existence. This causesanimosity to build up inside Grendel because all he truly wants is tobelong. Both the men and Grendel experience a confusion and lossof identity through the separation and irruption of physical space.The humans ultimately view Grendel as being physically homelessbecause they do not consider him to be a part of their physical space.Jo Phelan and others bring up a very interesting question, “does thepresence of homelessness similarly affect the attitudes of variousdemographic groups and of those who have varying amounts ofcontact with homeless people?” (327). Liuzza’s text, Beowulf, doessuggest the influence that Grendel’s presence has on Hrothgarand his men. The men feel that their physical space and identity is146 afternoons of alterity

threatened by the very existence of Grendel. The attitudes and songsof the humans are what cause Grendel to question his existence. Thehumans convince Grendel into believing that he is not worthy of anidentity. Grendel retaliates against the men as retribution for the waythat they treated him.When night descended he went to seek out the highhouse, to see how the Ring-Danes has bedded downafter their beer-drinking. He found therein a troop ofnobles asleep after the feast; they knew no sorrow orhuman misery. The unholy creature, grim andravenous, was ready at once, ruthless and cruel, andhe took from their rest thirty thanes; thence he wentrejoicing in his booty, back to his home, to seek outhis abode with his fill of slaughter. (Luizza115-125)Grendel tries to gain an identity through committing violent actsagainst the humans. Through murderous acts, Grendel is able tostrip the humans of their identity. He is not welcomed within theirphysical space; the men have left Grendel with no other choice butto destroy Heorot.Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is another medieval text thatexamines the existence of physical space. Space dictates the rulesof the game. The rules constantly change which suggests an identitycrisis. Sir Gawain experiences confusion from the constant changingof the rules; he is not sure who he is supposed to be. In the physicalspace of the castle Sir Gawain’s identity is clear. He knows wherehe belongs and what makes up his existence as a member of KingArthur’s court.This was kynges countenaunce where he in court were,At uch farand fest among his fre meny in halle. Thereforelaura lucyshyn 147

of face so fere He stightles stif in stalle; Ful yep in that NwYere, Much mirthe he mas with alle. (Armitage 100-106)Within Camelot’s castle this was the custom, and at feastsand festivals when the fellowship would meet. With featuresproud and fine he stood there tall and straight, a king atChrismastime amid great merriment. (Armitage 100-106)Here, a clear idea of identity becomes apparent from within thephysical space of the castle. The castle, the feasts, and the festivalsestablish Gawain’s identity. Gawain is defined by his place withinKing Arthur’s court. His identity is based upon the chivalric codethat a knight must abide by. Gawain’s identity comes into questionwhen he is forced to leave the physical space of the castle. The gameof the Green Knight takes Gawain out of his comfortable existenceinto an uncertain space and reality.Gawain becomes physically homeless when he enters into thewoods in search of the Green Knight. He experiences a feeling ofdisplacement as he travels into the unknown.Bi a mounte on the morne meryly he rydes Into a forest fuldep, that ferly was wylde, Highe hills on uche a halve, andholtwodes under Of hore okes ful hoge a hundreth togeder.The hasel and the hawthorne were harled al samen, Withroghe raged mosse rayled aywhere, With mony bryddesunblythe upon bare twyges, That pitosly ther piped forpyne of the cold. (Armitage 740-747)Next morning he moves on, skirts the mountainside,descends a deep forest, densely overgrown, with ancientoaks in huddles of hundreds and vaulting hills above eachhalf of the valley. Hazel and hawthorn interwoven, decked148 afternoons of alterity

and draped in damp, shaggy moss, and bedraggled birds onbare, black branches pipe pitifully into the piercing cold.(Armitage 740-747)The woods are dark, unfamiliar, and wild. This leaves Gawainunable to reconcile his identify. Gawain’s identifies himself withinrelation to the castle. Gawain has never envisioned his life on theoutside of the castle. Without the castle Gawain is in a constant stateof confusion. He begins to question his existence and the chivalriccode. Gawain’s detachment from the castle leaves him without a truesense of self. Gawain does not know where he is in the woods. Hebecomes reckless because his physical space has been disturbed andhis identity has led him into a state of confusion.Gawain has created his identity through the existence of thechivalric code. According to Jeanne Moore: “Amidst the comfort,home has also been represented as a place full of obligations andprison” (209). Gawain looses his identity when he leaves the castlebecause of his obligation to the king and the court. Without dutyGawain does not know who he is. The physical space of the castledictates the role that Gawain plays within the court, which alsodefines who he is in life. Paul Lichterman states that, “people usewords and gestures collectively and individually to articulate whothey are and are not” (85). This argument parallels Gawain’s existencethrough the firm belief he holds of the chivalric code, which closelyties him to the physical space of the castle. Gawain tries to hold ontohis identity through the practice of the chivalric code. He cannotbring the physical space of the castle with him, but he can stillparticipate in acts that he associates with the physical space. LordBertilak questions Gawain’s identity as a chivalric knight.Thenne he carped to thy knight, criande loude: ‘Ye handemed to do the dede that I bidde. Wyl ye halde this heslaura lucyshyn 149

here at thys ones?’ ‘Ye, sir, for sothe,’ sayd the segge trwe,‘Whyl I byde in yowre borghe, be bayn to yowre hest.’(Armitage 1088-1992)Then speaking to Gawain, he suddenly shouted: ‘Youhave sworn to serve me, whatever I instruct. Will youhold to that oath right here and now? ‘You may trust mytongue,’ said Gawain, in truth, ‘for within these walls Iam servant to your will.’ (Armitage 1088-1092).Gawain swears on his allegiance to the code of chivalry in a desperateattempt to maintain a connection with the physical space of KingArthur’s court. Gawain constantly tries to uphold the chivalric codethroughout the game, attempting to hold onto his identity. Withoutthe chivalric code Gawin will lose his identity and his connection tothe physical space completely.Throughout the medieval texts confusion exists. Grettir, Grendel,and Sir Gawain are all in search of an identity through a connectionwith a physical space. This presents the idea that home was themedium of how one gained an identity during the medieval timeperiod. Each character experiences an identity crisis because ofthe lack of a physical space to connect with. Grettir is constantlywandering in search of a home. Grendel desperately wants to becomeapart of the physical space where the humans live, and becausethey do not embrace him, he acts out in violence. Sir Gawain triesdesperately to hold onto the chivalric code because he believes thatit connects him to the castle, his physical home, which shapes hisidentity. Each of these characters uses the physical structure of ahome to obtain or to hold on to an identity.The modern-day view of the home is vastly different than it wasduring the medieval time period. Home is no longer the physicalstructure in which one resides, but rather, home is within the150 afternoons of alterity

individual. Home resides within the psyche. Identity has shiftedfrom a connection between a person and the physical home to theperson and the home that exists within them. A person is at homewithin their mind. A physical structure is no longer necessary togive a person an identity. A person is able to identify themselvesthrough their own thoughts and emotional connections they makewith other people. This becomes apparent when the homeless intoday’s society is taken into consideration.The homeless population today gains their identity through anabstract plane that exists in the mind. The homeless do not havea permanent physical home, but they do have a permanent homethat exists within them. While the homeless population today,does reside on the border of society, they are no longer labeled asmonstrous. The homeless population is no longer seen as a threat tosocietal norms because of the existence of an abstract home withinthem. Society views the homeless as being a population of peoplewith an identity and place within society. The homeless populationis made up of living human beings and as long as they are breathingand alive they have an identity.Homeless people today have a better sense of their own identitythan the society of the medieval period. According to CatherineCorrigall-Brown, the homeless “population should not be associatedwith participation, as all homeless individuals are fairly biographicallyavailable in terms of free time” (311). The homeless population in theworld today has an abundance of free time. This abundance of freetime allows a homeless person to spend more time contemplatingand figuring out exactly who they are. The identity of the homelessis not based on the existence of a physical home but rather the timethat they have to dedicate to finding out exactly who they are interms of their own psychological identity. Homeless people do nothave all of the materialistic goods to interfere with their journey ofself-discovery. Rather, the homeless population exists in a worldlaura lucyshyn 151

without anything but the barest essentials. The homeless are ableto truly understand what is of importance in this life due to theirlack of distractions and irruptions. The homeless hold what theybelieve to be meaningful inside of them. The homeless populationdoes not have a physical place to hold an attachment to. Therefore,an attachment appears between the psyche and the self. A homelessperson creates their own reality within their mind.The transition of the definition of home from a physical spaceto a psychological space clearly demonstrates a clear shift in what isconsidered to be of value to the people. The modern-day homelessrecognize the need to be able to find a place for themselves amongsociety within themselves. Home is not something that can bepurchased with money but rather it is a sense of self-awareness thatis created within the mind. A strong sense of self allows a person tobe able to exist without a permanent physical space. The ultimatefreedom of self-identification is to be able to recognize the presenceof the self from within, without a direct relation to a physical space.The shift in the definition of home raises a further implication:how has the family structure evolved? Possibly family structures areexperiencing a shift from the family unit to the individual. As aresult, this could lead to a society that values the individual anddisregards the community.152 afternoons of alterity

Works CitedArmitage, Simon. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight a new versetranslation. W. W. Norton Company: New York, 2007. Print.Byock, Jesse. Grettir’s Saga: A New Translation. Oxford, NY: OxfordUniversity Press, 2009. Print.Corrigall-Brown, Catherine, Snow, David A., and Kelly Smith.“Explaining the Puzzle of Homeless Mobilization: AnExamination of Different Participation.” Sociological Perspectives.Vol. 52.3 (Fall 2009): 309-335. JSTOR. Lorette Wilmont Lib.,Nazareth College. 18 March 2011. Print.James, Barbara W., and Patrick D. Lopez. “Transporting HomelessStudents to Increase Stability: A Case Study of Two TexasDistricts.” The Journal of Negro Education. Vol. 72.1 (Winter2003): 126-140. JSTOR. Lorette Wilmont Lib., Nazareth College.18 March 2011. Print.Lichterman, Paul. “Religion and the Construction of CivicIdentity.” American Sociological Review. Vol. 73.1 (Winter 2008):83-104. JSTOR. Lorette Wilmont Lib., Nazareth College. 18March 2011. Print.Liuzza, R. M. Beowulf a new verse translation. Peterborough, Ont.:Broadview Press, 2000. Print.Moore, Jeanne. “Placing Home in Context.” Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology. Vol. 20 (2000): 207-217. JSTOR. LoretteWilmont Lib., Nazareth College. 18 March 2011. Print.Phelan, Jo, Link, Bruce G., Moore, Robert E., and Ann Stueve.“The Stigma of Homelessness: The Impact of the Label“Homeless” on Attitudes Toward Poor Persons.” Social PsychologyQuarterly. Vol. 60.4 (Winter 1997): 323-337. JSTOR. LoretteWilmont Lib., Nazareth College. 18 March 2011. Print.laura lucyshyn 153