Monday, November 12, 2012
On a scale of 1 to 10 . . .
Given our examination of villainy and monsters that lurk in the dark shadows, how do you rate the Green Knight? We've seen the earliest type of monster, in Beowulf, who is the easy -- if mysterious -- personification of pure evil; we've jumped ahead to take a look at a very modern, and very human monster, who agonizes over many of the same things we do in his misguided approach to meaning and purpose. Where does the Green Knight fall in this spectrum? How has this monster evolved since the days of early Grendel, and how is he still not "modern?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personally, I do not believe the Green Knight to be very much of a monster at all. When the Green Knight is viewed from the eyes of the reader, all that he really does is to test the morality of Sir Gawain and judge him accordingly. Thus, what his Christmas challenge really boils down to is that whoever accepts it can win his precious axe simply by remaining steadfastly moral in the face of temptation and apparent looming death (although this threat of death is not entirely real). However, when the Green Knight is viewed from Sir Gawain’s eyes (which, according to J.R.R. Tolkien and many other philologists, is the lens through which the poet intends the reader to view Sir Gawain and the Green Knight), he becomes a magical murderous monstrosity hell-bent upon disgracing the court of King Arthur. Thus, the Green Knight can indeed be measured as a villain in this context. Therefore, I believe that, from this vantage point, the Green Knight is indeed an even blend of the earliest types of villains (personifications of pure evil) and modern day villains (human characters that are relatable to the reader yet villainous in nature), with his one form, the Green Knight, serving as his personification of pure evil, and his other form, Bertilak de Hautdeser, serving as his relatable human side.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Green Knight first presents himself, dressed in all green with green skin and green hair, and willingly offers his axe for someone to hit him in the neck, I viewed his as a monster. Especially by making this odd claim and proving invincible he shows these monster like qualities. At that point he seemed unnatural, and I perceived his actions as ones that were villainous; going against King Arthur and his men. During the middle part the Green Knight isn’t spoken about and isn’t even seen. Because of that, my monstrous view on the Green Knight began to fade. Then in the final fit, when he spares Gawain’s life and reveals himself as Bertilak de Haustdeser my outlook on him completely changed. Not only was it the personification of his name and physical elements, but also it was how his dialogue changed. The scary, threatening side of the Green Knight went away and was replaced by a kinder noble man who wised to have Sir Gawain stay in his castle. The Green Knight did not need to be super scary to be considered a monster because his odd request and evil manner is what made me consider him a monster in the beginning.
ReplyDeleteIn Beowulf we see an antagonist that from the reader's point of view is completely evil, and then in Grendel we are exposed to an antagonist that we can relate to and show more compassion towards because we see him from a different angle. This shows that the author has full control over how the reader interprets the antagonist. In Sir Gawain, the Green Knight may be portrayed as very evil to begin with, but by the end of the story when Sir Gawain encounters the Green Knight the reader is completely swayed to the Green Knight's side. We realize that the Green Knight is simply testing King Arthur's court to see if it upholds the chivalrous values for which it is known, and after seeing the vices and cowardly actions of the court it is clear that the Green Knight's test is justified. So, the Green Knight cannot by categorized as "modern" or even grouped with Grendel. The Green Knight is a character that is transformed in our eyes from a villain to savior, he is a special type of antagonist.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Victor, I never saw the Green Knight as an evil character. In the beginning, the author portrayed the Green Knight as a majestic knight dressed in all green, golden hair fluttering. Sure he makes an odd request, but not evil. A modern monster is devious with their true intentions hidden. I saw the Green Knight as a challenging character rather than an evil one. Sir Gawain came with a purpose, a clear agenda, rather on a quest than an attack. Furthermore, Victor says Grendel is “an antagonist that we can relate to” because we can understand his thoughts. Most readers would never say they can relate to the Green Knight because he does the strangest things, but his actions are made clear to the knights. Sir Gawain is to return to the Green Knight in exactly one year for a return blow. Grendel sees himself as the ‘havoc maker’ and claims his purpose to challenge society’s thoughts. I believe that Sir Gawain is a more sophisticated contrasting character than Grendel, the old monster.
DeleteGrendel, as he appears in the novel Beowulf, represents pure evil with no alternative to this personality. He is seen as a creature who is solely evil and who will always be evil. This evil appears isolated from the potential evil of a human being. In the novel Grendel, we are able to relate to the monster and are thus able to display a compassion that leads to an understanding of the antagonist. Grendel, as we are able to grasp his perspective, embodies an evil that may possibly be displayed by a person in society, rather than the unattainable evil he displays in Beowulf. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, I believe that the Green Knight carries out the role of an antagonist that represents both the early, pure evil view of a villain as depicted in Beowulf and the modern, human like, somewhat realistic view of a villain as depicted in Grendel. In the beginning of the novel, the Green Knight appears to be a mysterious, menacing force that leaves even the brave knights of the Round Table to cower. The Green knight represents a supernatural sort of villain, especially when he survives decapitation. This demonstrates a villainy unattainable by the human race. In contrast, at the end of the novel, the Green Knight exposes his alternate form, Bertilak de Hautdeser, while explaining how his challenge acted as a test to Sir Gawain's chivalry. An explanation of his test depicts the Green Knight as a character one can relate to for he holds the code of chivalry in the highest regard. He appears to act as an ideal for the chivalry the knights of the Round Table aspire to hold.
ReplyDeleteThough he may not appear to be a villain, I would argue that the Green Knight represents the ultimate villain because he forces Sir Gawain to confront his limitations. The beauty of the Green Knight's villainy also lies in the fact that he does very little to bring out Sir Gawain's shortcomings; most of the work is done by Sir Gawain himself. In this sense, the Green Knight is a more modern villain and is unlike both Grendels we saw in Beowulf and Gardner's novel. Those villains were active in their pursuit to point out man's inherent evil whereas the Green Knight is passive in his pursuit to highlight man's tainted nature. Another quality that makes the Green Knight more "modern" is that readers can actually take to liking this "villain." From the beginning, the Green Knight was very peaceable when he entered King Arthur's court, holding a holly in one hand and an axe in the other. Towards the end, we also see the gentle nature of the Green Knight after he has revealed himself to be Lord Bertilak. This is contrasted with the immediate distaste the audience had for all the monsters in Beowulf and in particular Grendel.
ReplyDeleteI feel like though the Green Knight did not seem like a true monster at first, he turned out to be greater than the monsters of Beowulf. When he first rode into Arthur's halls I didn't think much of him, he just seemed to be a typical knight like the rest, and none too dangerous. However, it is not in his appearance that he is a greater monster than the others, but it is in his challenge. It is one thing to show your bravery by facing some gnarling beast with claws and fangs, but it is another challenge entirely to face something a similar form to you, who is trying to test your character even in ways you don't know. I feel like the second is the more difficult of the two challenges because you need so much more than fighting skill to pass the Knight's test. The Green Knight also had an incognito test for Sir Gawain which was even more difficult to pass because he had to be one of truly moral character. So it is for the more difficult challenges he presents and not his look that I think the Green Knight is the best of all monsters
ReplyDeleteThe author creates an evil image of the Green Knight in the beginning because the story only works if Sir Gawain fears him and there is impending death. The Green Knight puts Sir Gawain through a trial similar to what a great monster would do. He places a moral dilemma before Gawain and failure to overcome the obstacles results in death. There is a positive side to the Green Knight that is lacking in a great monster. He is merciful and is only punishing Gawain depending on his actions. This story parallels when God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and when he is obedient God sends a ram to be sacrificed instead. He has evolved since Grendel because he places more than just physical challenges in front of his victims. He also plays on the moral dilemmas of his victims instead of being a ruthless killer.
ReplyDeleteWith his first appearance, the Green Knight is depicted as a menacing foe wearing armor and wielding a giant axe. We first receive the impression that the Christmas challenge’s purpose was to ridicule King Arthur’s court and to show the Green Knight’s physical dominance. In the end, however, it is revealed that the Green Knight only wanted to test King Arthur’s Court’s bravery and chivalry. Here, we can contrast a naturally evil character like Grendel in Beowulf to the Green Knight. Because the Green Knight’s intentions were good, he reflects the more modern villain portrayed in Grendel, as he is somewhat relatable to the reader because he holds chivalry in high regard. His form as Bertilak is also often received well by readers, which provides the Green Knight with human characteristics. While the Green Knight is clearly the villain/antagonist in the story, he is not portrayed as pure evil. For me, he would fall somewhere between the modern and early types of monsters.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the story the Green Knight appears as a villain similar to the type we saw in Beowulf, the personification of evil. This view of the Green Knight changes by the end of the story. In the conclusion the Green Knight shifts from a force of evil to simply a force of nature, or a test. He is the most modern "villain" we have read about. That being said, he lacks the complexity of even more modern characters, like Iago from Othello.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the Green Knight is not an extremely evil or destructive monster; however, he gains his identity as a monster through his extremely manipulative ways. Sure, the Green Knight is scary and intimidating when he sets foot inside King Arthur’s hall, but that is not consistent with what we have seen with the monsters we have studied. The monsters that we have seen can be defined as an inherently cruel being. In this case, the Green Knight is quite representative of a monster because he causes Gawain a year of terror and discomfort, knowing he will have to face certain death after he strikes the Green Knight’s head. He manipulates the character of Gawain over a long period of time but this manipulation is not in a destructive way. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the manipulation helps to develop Gawain’s character and makes him into a chivalrous knight. The Green Knight is far more developed than Grendel because he exemplifies humanlike qualities and is not mindlessly violent. In contrast, the Green Knight is not as modern as Iago because he is still a monster in form, as he can survive despite being beheaded. For these reasons, the Green Knight fits right in between the crude monster of Grendel who is cruel, destructive, and violent and the modern monster that is Iago, who manipulates people in a perfectly evil way.
ReplyDeleteThe Green Knight is an evil character in the sense that he is the only character that poses a real threat to Gawain, however he is far from devious like most villains. His purpose of frightening Gawain and the other members of the court was to teach his lesson and pose a challenge to Gawain, not to ruthlessly torment any character of the poem. While the Green Knight's predicament is frightening, Gawain agreed to the challenge. In many ways, the Green Knight is just the opposite of a villain. His challenge strengthens Gawain's chivalric behaviors and his willpower in the tests between Gawain's moral values and his feelings for Lady Bertolac. Because of his very human-like characteristics, he is much more civilized than the older monsters such as Grendel, yet he lacks the modern villain demeanor because of the simplicity of his character and his seemingly not-completely evil intentions.
ReplyDeleteThe Green Knight is, in terms of Grendel to Iago, is a two and a half out of ten in ferocity and a six out of ten in terms of the modernness of the two villains mentioned prior. The Green knight receives the two and a half an account of his likeness to Iago, with his less direct means of evil, as he also manages to kill no one during this story, unlike Grendel. In fact, the only thing that Grendel and the Green Knight really have in common is their way of entering a king's abode uninvited! The reason that The Green Knight receives a six is on account of his very human form. The Green Knight is a godly-looking man, and is easily distinguished from other men, but nevertheless he is entirely human-looking, unlike Grendel who was a humanoid, but was a monsterous creature nonetheless. However, the Green Knight is also a supernatural being, with the ability to survive without his head, and thus is not a modern enemy. A modern enemy is a mortal man who uses mortal means to cause havoc, not use supernatural powers such as immense strength or invincibility. The Green Knight is closer to Iago in humanity but is still too supernatural to be modern.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the Green Knight doesn't seem like much of a villain. He propoes a challenge to Gawain and tests his honesty, chivalry, and credibility as a knight and he doesn't really do much to cause any major conflicts between other characters. The most "evil" aspect about the Green Knight is that he is deceptive in the fact that he pretends to be a kind host when in reality, he's testing Gawain without letting him know that he's actually the Green Knight. Gawain doesn't get harmed or have to have any battles with the Green Knight like Beowulf has to, nor does he experiance any internal conflicts that causes him to do harm to others like Grendel. To me, Grendel is more evil than the Green Knight just because the people of Heorot fear him due to a lot of misunderstandings. Truly, though, the most evil character has to be Iago because he's manipulative and sinister with malicious intentions and the Green Knight is nothing like that at all.
ReplyDeleteI actually don't think of the Green Knight as evil at all. If there actually were a scale of evil (ten being most evil), I suppose I would put him at a one or two, solely because of his manipulative nature. His only wrongdoing, really, was how he tricked Gawain into losing an unwinable battle. In the end it was really all a 'game', nothing like the story of Grendel for example. Grendel was just a horrible little creature with nothing to lose and a lot to learn. He created chaos just for the hell of it, with no real rhyme or reason for his actions. The Green Knight did nothing of the sort. His motive was to test the knights' chivalry and nothing more. He didn't even really deliver a final "blow" to Gawain even though, given the structure of the game, he should have. Instead, of serving as an antagonist, the Green Knight merely served as a test for the protagonist.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, I never really thought of the Green Knight as much of a villain. In Beowulf, we saw the clear evil of Grendel and the Dragon, who destroy everything in their path. The Green Knight, however, does not have the purpose of destruction. Instead, as we find out later in the book, the Green Knight was simply testing the chivalry of Arthur’s court. This in itself is not evil, although his approach in doing so was condemning someone to die. As a result, it could be said that the Green Knight is a little evil. This evil is very different from Grendel’s evil, but also different from the modern type of evil. Modern villains are typically thoughtful characters, something that has complex thought patterns. As a result, the reader is able to grasp the villain’s purpose for what they are doing. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the Green Knight remains a very flat character, without much explanation of the Green Knight’s thoughts. Even his motive for his evil was because someone else had wanted him to do it. I believe that the Green Knight cannot be classified as either the same as Grendel or the same as modern villains. It remains in question whether or not the Green Knight is a villain at all.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe that the Green Knight should be considered a monster, and it is clear that he differs from the monsters we see in Grendel and Beowulf. While the Green Knight’s appearance may at first be seen as intimidating the reader learns in the end that he had simply been sent to test King Arthur’s court. After seeing some of the actions taken by Gawain at the castle, this seems to be a reasonable test. The Knight was very clear about the conditions and rules of the challenge that he presented and someone willingly accepted, these are not the actions of a monster. In contrast, the monsters seen in Beowulf and Grendel seem to be the essence of pure evil. They act in pure rage and spontaneously, with no regard for anyone but themselves. The Green Knight does not act this way and has an underlying goal behind the challenge that he offers. The Knight’s test can be seen as trickery, as he knows that he can live even after being decapitated. However, I do not believe that because he has this advantage over the average human that he is evil. Gawain is able to reevaluate his morals and chivalric code because of the Green Knight and his challenge, so if anything the Green Knight has offered a much needed service to King Arthur’s court.
ReplyDeleteThe Green Knight doesn't seem to be an evil force to me. He does create the challenge to King Arthur's court but he doesn't simply rampage as previous monsters have. The Green Knight is also Lady Bertilak's pawn which diminishes any evil that may have been associated with him as they weren't his own doings. The Knight was also described as very noble and therefore a lower sense of evil is aligned with him.
ReplyDeleteThough the Green Knight is definitely one of the antagonist of this novel, he is not the true antagonist that Lady Bertilak is, and even then, neither of them are seen as pure evil. None of their actions can be classified as inhumane nor immensely treacherous.
In some ways I’m reluctant to say that the Green Knight is a monster because all he ever did was bring out the true natures of the so-called virtuous and chivalric knights in King Arthur’s court. Through this confrontation it shows just how modern the Green Knight is in comparison to Grendel. I feel that we call the Green Knight a monster because in today’s world whenever we are confronted with our own faults we tend to put the blame on those that accused us. We never want to admit our own failures. However, can we really say that those that accused us are evil? That’s why I would say the Green Knight is not evil; he is only telling the society of that time that they were not perfect.
ReplyDeleteThe obvious element that has not been mentioned is the fact that the Green Knight, or Bertilak if you prefer, is a servant to Morgan Le Faye. This servitude serverely, if not entirely, diminishes his credibility as a villain. Even Le Faye does not seem capable of representing evil as she enacts her scheme with the Green Knight partially to scare Guinevere and is inconsistent in her treatment of Arthur's court, hardly worthy of the rank of a monster. Returning to Bertilak, he is likely not a villain but is certainly mysterious. The one thing that perplexes me about Bertilak is the mercy he grants Gawain, claiming he spared Gawain for his remarkable display of honor. Interpreted by some as a means by which to easier identify with a more human Green Knight who adheres to the principles of chivalry, I would like to offer the possibility that this action is the most evil in the entire poem because it forces Gawain to live with his shame. Of course, that contention requires the belief that Gawain should feel shameful and chivalry is a worthwhile value system, a belief I do not hold. The monster observed in Grendel was a brutish beast whose greatest threat was to the physical existence of the people of Hrothgar's kingdom. Some have proposed that whatever evil was at work in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is even more daunting because it causes Gawain emotional. logical, and moral strain. To this I would suggest greater reflection on the meaning and occurrence of death and then reconsideration of which monster is actually scarier. Perhaps the most modern villain is those villains who simply "want to watch the world burn," as seen in The Dark Knight. The abhorrence towards modern society and the emotional state of people today that villains like the Joker possess is truly terrifying becaue they wish to disrupt our peace and stability. While I do not like to put too much weight on box office films, Bane from The Dark Knight Rises offers an even more compelling example. At one point, Bane urges the people of Gotham to "take control of their city." In truth, a villain like Bane seeks to demand that people not remain a part of the machine that society can turn into and to genuinely express themselves, a concept so foreign to some that it can be frightening. If the Green Knight can even be considered a villain, he certainly has not evolved to that of modern villains who expose blemishes on human nature. Still, maybe the concept of monstrosity cannot be represented by a linear expression. Perhaps instead it is an unpredictable beast who sprouts two new heads each time one is cut off.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that The Green Knight is anywhere near as evil as other villains in history. He was only doing Morgan le Faye's bidding by challenging the court and specifically challenging the moral strength of Sir Gawain. He wasn't conniving or malicious with his intent, on the villain scale he was at most a three because of his deceit (which was necessary to complete his mission).
ReplyDeleteHe is a much more modern antagonist than Grendel and both are definitely a reflection of their times. When Beowulf was written people imagined villains as monsters who were physical frightening. As culture evolved people began to stray away from monsters and imagine villains as humans who weren't physically frightening, but emotionally and intellectually challenging. Although The Green Knight identifies more with the second one, he is still not a modern villain due to the fact he is carrying out le Faye's bidding.
Pretty much a 1. Is a .5 possible? Yes, yes we all know the party trick of a detachable head. Congratulations. This is really the only shock factor, the only "monster like" characteristic we notice in the Green Knight, he doesn't murder civilians, he doesn't go out of his way to hurt anyone else. Heck, by the end of the story, he doesn't even harm Gawain, unless a nick on your neck counts. Now, the ends don't justify the means, especially when it comes to villainy and monstrous-ness, but come on! Even amidst Grendel's whining and teenage existential pandering, he managed to kill a few thanes! Don't get me wrong, the idea of Morgan le Faye? Terrifying. A powerful, almost omnipotent sorceress who tempts your chivalry and honor while offering the chance at a paradise? Makes me shake in my hypothetical boots. But her messenger boy who learned a neat new trick? Not for me!
ReplyDeleteYeah I would have to completely agree with Markos' response. The Green Knight did not portray any "monstrous" qualities throughout the entire book. All that he managed to do was have his head cut off and still live through it. Other than that, he did not portray any qualities like Grendel did who was our first monster we read about. They both do completely different things and the Green Knight did not hurt anyone in the book so in my books, he is not much a monster at all.
ReplyDelete