Beowulf

We are beginning our hero unit in English, and had to respond to some questions before we started our first story. Now that we have completed the first piece of literature, I am still thinking about the initial questions: what qualities do I think a 'hero' must possess, does a hero have to overcome a major feat in order to be considered great, and what is a 'hero'? At first I thought these questions were fairly easy to answer, but after reading the story Beowulf, I will admit I am a little confused. The character of Beowulf contradicts many aspects and simply does not live up to in some ways, what I believe a hero is.
I said that a hero must possess a great inner strength that propels him/her to fight for what is right. A hero must also be fair, caring, determined, and loyal. I do not think that a hero necessarily has to overcome so huge physical or mental challenge, such as slaying a dragon or solving a Rubik's cube (I have no idea where what came from, but to me it's a feat). Because, what if the guy trying to save the girl from the beast doesn't succeed? And the child prodigy simply can not solve the puzzle? What if your grandfather can not fight off the cancer after a 2 year battle? To me, all of these people are heroes, even though they did not conquer what they set out to do. The fact that they took the time to fight for something, and give it everything they had makes them a hero to me. Here, winning doesn't matter as much. A hero must be able to recognize the essential parts of himself and of the world, the strengths and weakness of both, in order to perform at the elevated level that we see them as.
As a girl who used to watch Disney movies every day (mainly the ones with the princesses, my how things have changed) the description above is how I picture a hero. However, after reading Beowulf, I have become skeptical. I really enjoyed the poem as a whole, but I can not see how Beowulf is an epic hero, or any kind of hero for that matter. In m opinion, he does not fit my criteria for a hero at all. I found Beowulf, although helpful towards the Danes, arrogant and annoying. He knows how wonderful he is and he knows that everyone loves him and it got on my nerves how he always had a remark to everything anyone said about him. When Unferth tried to put him in his place, Beowulf retorted with a "Well actually, THIS is how the fight went down (insert exaggerations here)...it wasn't a big deal." And when the king of the Geats died and his son passed away as well, it just MADE SENSE to give the kingdom to Beowulf. I mean, come on, does everything have to go right for this guy? He didn't stumble once. Nothing was difficult for Beowulf, even dieing was pretty easy for him. And Beowulf was not made into a personal character, he was created more as an ideal, I believe, which I think makes it hard for the reader to relate to. We don't know if he cared about anyone, or even himself. He reminded me of Achilles in a way, who never really fought for anyone in the Trojan War other than himself. Both men did what they were expected to do and then got out of the way. How can one be determined about something if they have no connection to it? It's impossible. Beowulf never sacrificed anything; he never knew what it felt like, what it meant, to lose until the end. And people today talk about him as a hero. He is classified as an epic hero in my English notebook. But I simply can not agree...I don't see it.

Fountainhead

After reading a considerable number of blogs from previous years, I am still stuck on how to go about this.  I suppose if I look at it as a way to say what is on my mind, it won't be as difficult.  However, I read one of the articles given out in class and it stuck a nerve. The article, "The Hypocrisy of Ayn Rand," seemed to be by some guy who was bored with his life and had way too much time on his hands, and I immediately was enraged by the blatant attacks on Ayn Rand, author of The Fountainhead, a required reading for my AP English class this year.  The author of this web article claims that Rand is a hypocrite for preaching her views of objectivism and the power of the individual, and "in secrecy" being a "welfare mooch." 

First, allow me to give some background on what is now one of my favorite books, The Fountainhead.  It is the story of an architect who refuses to compromise himself or his work for the sake of someone, or even something else.  He lives in a corrupt society where everyone gives in to the authority above them and the rights of the individual are lost.  Howard Roark, the main charater, has the strength and the passion to persevere throughout the novel and in the end he, signfiing the individual, comes out on top.  I loved Roark from the beginning and was continually impressed with his personal strength (a cliche way to put it) and his ability to laugh in the face of, what weaker men would consider, danger.  Without knowing Ayn Rand's philosphy I agreed with Howard Roark, and I desperately wanted him to succeed.  If this individual could rise against the warped nature of society, it seems logical to believe that anyone can, too. And this is the impression that the story left me with.  

Then, during the discussions in class, I began to fully grasp the belief behind the novel.  In my opinion, most of Rand's agruments make sense: "Reality...facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Reason...is man’s only means of percieving reality...[and is] his basic means of survival. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." (Capitalism is a different story). But her view of capitalism is important, and is the reason why I am now questioning her philosoohy, thanks to the article.

The point is that Rand was diagnosed with lung cancer, and under her husband's name (O'Connor) sought help from the government to help pay for treatment.  The author of the article claims this as hypocrisy, while I believe that it can only be subjected to being human.  Yes, Ayn Rand has "despised government intereference" but when one is put in a position, such as learning of an illness that can not be taken care of alone, one is forced to reconsider earlier opinions. Maybe she realised that she was mistaken, or even wrong, but who are we to judge?  Rand is human, like you, like me. How can we criticise her when we make mistakes too? If this author has so much room to bash another person, I would like to meet him and see how truly perfect he is.  

It does not sit well with me anymore to say that I am agreeing with Objectivism, or disagreeing with it, however, one is forced to consider their priorities before jumping into a lifestyle that may come back to bite them. And that is what I am now taking away from these pieces of literature. I am aware that my opinion may seem faltering, but I can't say whether or not I see a truth in these works anymore. Maybe our lives aren't supposed to be perfect and we really do have to make mistakes in order to see what is real, what is important, and what is true. Although Rand tried to get her philosophy across in The Fountainhead, the only truth that I can see is that you have to look out for yourself, and clearly, Rand did not in this case.  It is still a wonderful book, Rand is still an awesome writer, and this "mario piperni" guy still needs a life, in my eyes.

Citations:

http://mariopiperni.com/hypocrisy/the-hypocrisy-of-ayn-rand.php

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro