Eating disorders
short speech (fragments }:->)
Today, I'm going to talk about something that isn't usually percieved as mental illness, despite being classified as such. Also, it is one of the rare cases where you're not born with it but may develop the illness. Once you do, it gets so deeply ingrained in your brain and sense of self that you will probably fight (?) all the attempts of help.
When you think of eating disorders, you probably picture a person, usually a girl, that looks just like skin and bones and hides or throws away their food. You're right but not entirety - whereas anorexia is the most known eating disorder, there is also its complete opposite, obesity, as well as bulimia.
Let's start with overeating. It is a known fact that food can be addicting, for many reasons, not just physically addictive ingredients. Candies are tasty, but the sugar they contain boosts our mood. Have you ever wondered why exactly we like ice cream and jelly beans? It's not just the taste we enjoy, but also the sugar itself. There's no wonder why the phrase 'eat your sadness away' exists.
You can see the lethality and addictiveness of drugs compared to sugar.
In 2013 heroin and cocaine together cause twelve thousand deaths, while 19 thousand deaths were related to sugar.
Of course, it's not just sweet things that lead to gaining weight. Meals with fat and carbons can be delicious too, and when something is delicious, you want more of that, and that's fine. Unless you're not hungry anymore, in fact, you're already full, but still keep opening your fridge. You might not notice you’re addicted in time. When an obese person realizes they have a problem they might think there's nothing they can do about it, because the urge to eat is too strong.
It is also very important, but difficult, to simply accept the fact that it might be necessary to start fighting unhealthy habits. The denial is one of the biggest obstacles in overcoming eating disorders. There’s no point in wasting your energy on blaming someone or something, yet it is easier than admitting to having a problem.
Another reason the obese don't consider treatment are various fat acceptance movements. You should never accept something that's a threat to health because even if you feel good in your body, there's nothing beautiful about your internal organs especially heart and liver being damaged. But still, as long as a person wants help, there's hope for them.
But what if they don't? That seems to be the case with anorexia and bulimia. They are somewhat similiar, and both will probably lead you to an early grave, but 'work' a little different. It is hard to say which one is more damaging to health, but I would say bulimia, as binge eating and then forcing the food out of your body is still less natural than simply not eating at all.t in the mind, yet damage the body.
But how is it possible to surpress such natural instinct as hunger? Because it's no different than a schizophrenic hearing voices - the thinking process has been distorted, as losing weight becomes more important than health. that's why both anorexia and bulimia have been classified as mental illnesses.
Sadly, just like with fat acceptance there are groups, luckily not praised by society, called pro-ana and pro-mia that promote so called 'safe' anorexia and bulimia. There's nothing healthy in starving yourself or forcing your stomach acid up your throat, but an affected person doesn't care anymore. I would compare such groups to a someone giving you an advice on how to take drugs without anyone noticing, it's that irrational. You can even but merchandise related to pro-ana, like bracelets with 'keep calm and don't eat' written on them and then wear it on your malnourished wirst.
And what about men? While it is easy to imagine an obese man, those struggling with anorexia and bulimia tend to seem invisible to society, even though they make one third of the cases.
One of male celebrities that wasn’t afraid of speaking about his battle with bulimia was Elton John. He revealed that "rushing to the bathroom after every meal helped him not feel guilty about overeating", which is characteristic for bulimic people. He also stated that his friend, princess Diana, who also suffered from eating disorder, helped him recover.
We should also take the risk of addiction into consideration - when an unhlealthly skinny person seems aloof, and their respones are inconherent or even awkward it might be caused by their abuse of opiate painkillers as they stop food cravings.
There are many factors that lead to eating disorders, but I believe we shouldn't judge the affected, especially those that don't want to eat. Yes, they might have been gullible thinking everyone can look like a model on a magazine cover, or maybe they were influenced by famous people like Eugenia Cooney or Beth Ditto and yes, there are obese people that aren't helpless, but simply lazy, like the man who sued McDonalds.
What's the conclusion? The first step, that is usually the hardest, is to make the victim of an eating disorder consider advice or help. The obese think they can't be helped, but the underweight simply don't want to - help means gaining weight and, while they usually realise they're hurting themselves, the desire to stay skinny is stronger, even if it means death. What I would love to see is one of the biggest lies being finally debunked - that you can be healthly at every size.
8 December 2016
14 June 2016
Doomed artist - Chatterton and romantic poets
Every artistic movement has its respectable name. Thinking of Salvador Dali and his work (who has not seen the infamous 'clocks' painting?) brings to mind one word: surrealistic. It is, in fact, a fairly correct description, as Dali is one of the best known representatives of surrealism. Lev Tolstoy, however, based his novels on everyday life, avoiding exaggeration or idealisation. His way of writing is characteristic for literary realism. Those two examples of thoroughly different artistic movements show that their names actually reflect characteristics of the content their representatives created.
But how should we name something between surrealism and realism? The fascination with the paranormal and imagination, glorious ideas, but also with the variety of human emotions and the need to express them? These are features that connect the work of Juliusz Słowacki, William Wordsworth, John Keats and numerous other writers and poets. The word 'romanticism', first popularized by German poet August Schlegel, seems to describe the movement very well. Although love, usually unrequited, was also present in romantic literature, the name does not origin from unreturned passion, but rather from (not necessarily nihilistic) idea of sadness, hopelessness and heroic fight.
All those features explain why their embodiment - a romantic poet - is also called a doomed artist. This term, however, is not limited to describing poets living and writing between 18th and 19th century, even though they are associated with it most often. In fact, even in modern times, there are many 'doomed' artists - struggling with lack of understanding and acceptance from others, having ideals they firmly stand for, sometimes even, through their art, introducing us not only to their views on the world around them, but to the one they have created themselves.
Yet, as stated above, romantic poets are the most prominent examples of this idea. And, among them, there are those who are 'textbook' doomed artists – one of them being English poet Thomas Chatterton.
He was born and raised in Bristol. His childhood was marked by absence of his father, who died when Thomas' mother was still pregnant. Surprisingly, in the 18th century, the young poet's untimely death – which is considered a suicide, fulfilling the narrative of a misunderstood and depressed artist - was not widely noticed, even though he is now recognized as one of the most famous romantic poets. However, him turning to political journalism by the end of his life, was not the cause of that; instead, it can be explained by the fact that Chatterton was a forger - he published his work under a changed name, pretending to have discovered poems written by a medieval priest, Thomas Rowley.
Despite Chatterton’s legend and talent, there are, undeniably, other English poets that are import_ant figures in romantic literature: John Keats and Percy Bysshe Shelly, whose literary work, just like in the young forger’s case, was recognized and acclaimed short before or after their early demises. Moreover, both of them were influenced and in awe of Lord Byron – considered to be one of the most import_ant and widely recognized authors in the history of Great Britain. But it was not only a shared passion for poetry that intertwined their fates – it was the fate of a romantic artist itself.
Keats’ parents struggled with financial problems. When their children were still minors, Mr. Keats died in an unfortunate accident; his death was soon followed by passing of Mrs. Keats. John and his siblings were then placed under the care of their grandmother, yet shortly after he decided to start a career in medicine in order to ensure financial independence. Despite being successful as a young surgeon, Keats’ heart’s biggest desire was to become a poet, which lead to the beginning of his own medical problem, depression – because of his job he did not have enough time to pursue his writing career. The decision to leave the medical field for good caused him some financial problems, and therefore he was forced to move in with his brothers.
Even though his first publication, Poems, received unfavourable reviews by critics, John Keats did not hesitate to keep writing; one of his best known poems remains Ode On An Grecian Urn, a poetical praise of truth and beauty. He put his pen down just few months before his death of tuberculosis at 25. At his deathbed, he asked his friend to engrave, instead of his real name, ‘The Young Poet’ on his tombstone.
Keats fellow writer, however, Percy Shelley, did not experience a troubled childhood, but rather a troubled youth. His poor performance at school, along with some of his physical features, were the cause of him being constantly tormented by other students. This might have triggered his inappropriate, and sometimes even dangerous, behavior, such as causing an explosion at school. Later in his life, he became involved in various love affairs, finally settling down with his sister’s friend, Harriet. They marriage did not last long, mostly because Harriet’s sister negative influence on her, and Shelley ended up leaving his wife while she was pregnant with their second child.
Years later, together with his second wife, Mary (the author of Frankenstein), he met Lord Byron. This encounter had a great impact on Shelley’s style of writing. It is worth noticing that inspiration played a huge role not only in his work, but in romanticism in general – whether it meant admiring other poets, wanting to praise the nature, or being driven by internal struggle, but also overwhelming social issues, as in Shelley’s Masque of Anarchy, later praised by Karl Marx.
His life was cut short when the boat he was navigating sank in the sea. The cause of the accident was never fully understood; some believed he was killed by political opponents, whereas others claim Shelley never recovered from the troubled relationships with others he had in the past, and, just like Chatterton, committed suicide.
Those three indisputably talented poets, along with Lord Byron, can help us understand the true nature of the romantic era, which manifested itself not just as a specific literary style, but mostly as a story of an artists’ life. Chain of events in a romantic poet’s life, who might have been born in a poverty, or a wealthy family, physically healthy or not, always sparked similar outcome – the struggle of being rejected by their environment and society, feeling constantly misunderstood even by loved ones, in many cases because of held ideals, but also when trying to express the blend of emotions, as personality was a factor that shaped the poet as well. Being caring, introverted, engaged in own fantasy were the traits such person seemed to possess, yet I did not mean he or she was weak, but rather vulnerable to the whirl of emotional challenges and demands the world offered them.
It does not, obviously, mean, that romantic poetry is not worth appreciation, as, just like any other literary period, it was the time when a great amount of admirable work was created, and which is enjoyed to this day. It is simply the vital and outward representation of romantic ideals through a person’s life that makes the image of a doomed artist extraordinary and causing a lively discussion today, as well as at the turn of 18th and 19th century.
But how should we name something between surrealism and realism? The fascination with the paranormal and imagination, glorious ideas, but also with the variety of human emotions and the need to express them? These are features that connect the work of Juliusz Słowacki, William Wordsworth, John Keats and numerous other writers and poets. The word 'romanticism', first popularized by German poet August Schlegel, seems to describe the movement very well. Although love, usually unrequited, was also present in romantic literature, the name does not origin from unreturned passion, but rather from (not necessarily nihilistic) idea of sadness, hopelessness and heroic fight.
All those features explain why their embodiment - a romantic poet - is also called a doomed artist. This term, however, is not limited to describing poets living and writing between 18th and 19th century, even though they are associated with it most often. In fact, even in modern times, there are many 'doomed' artists - struggling with lack of understanding and acceptance from others, having ideals they firmly stand for, sometimes even, through their art, introducing us not only to their views on the world around them, but to the one they have created themselves.
Yet, as stated above, romantic poets are the most prominent examples of this idea. And, among them, there are those who are 'textbook' doomed artists – one of them being English poet Thomas Chatterton.
He was born and raised in Bristol. His childhood was marked by absence of his father, who died when Thomas' mother was still pregnant. Surprisingly, in the 18th century, the young poet's untimely death – which is considered a suicide, fulfilling the narrative of a misunderstood and depressed artist - was not widely noticed, even though he is now recognized as one of the most famous romantic poets. However, him turning to political journalism by the end of his life, was not the cause of that; instead, it can be explained by the fact that Chatterton was a forger - he published his work under a changed name, pretending to have discovered poems written by a medieval priest, Thomas Rowley.
Despite Chatterton’s legend and talent, there are, undeniably, other English poets that are import_ant figures in romantic literature: John Keats and Percy Bysshe Shelly, whose literary work, just like in the young forger’s case, was recognized and acclaimed short before or after their early demises. Moreover, both of them were influenced and in awe of Lord Byron – considered to be one of the most import_ant and widely recognized authors in the history of Great Britain. But it was not only a shared passion for poetry that intertwined their fates – it was the fate of a romantic artist itself.
Keats’ parents struggled with financial problems. When their children were still minors, Mr. Keats died in an unfortunate accident; his death was soon followed by passing of Mrs. Keats. John and his siblings were then placed under the care of their grandmother, yet shortly after he decided to start a career in medicine in order to ensure financial independence. Despite being successful as a young surgeon, Keats’ heart’s biggest desire was to become a poet, which lead to the beginning of his own medical problem, depression – because of his job he did not have enough time to pursue his writing career. The decision to leave the medical field for good caused him some financial problems, and therefore he was forced to move in with his brothers.
Even though his first publication, Poems, received unfavourable reviews by critics, John Keats did not hesitate to keep writing; one of his best known poems remains Ode On An Grecian Urn, a poetical praise of truth and beauty. He put his pen down just few months before his death of tuberculosis at 25. At his deathbed, he asked his friend to engrave, instead of his real name, ‘The Young Poet’ on his tombstone.
Keats fellow writer, however, Percy Shelley, did not experience a troubled childhood, but rather a troubled youth. His poor performance at school, along with some of his physical features, were the cause of him being constantly tormented by other students. This might have triggered his inappropriate, and sometimes even dangerous, behavior, such as causing an explosion at school. Later in his life, he became involved in various love affairs, finally settling down with his sister’s friend, Harriet. They marriage did not last long, mostly because Harriet’s sister negative influence on her, and Shelley ended up leaving his wife while she was pregnant with their second child.
Years later, together with his second wife, Mary (the author of Frankenstein), he met Lord Byron. This encounter had a great impact on Shelley’s style of writing. It is worth noticing that inspiration played a huge role not only in his work, but in romanticism in general – whether it meant admiring other poets, wanting to praise the nature, or being driven by internal struggle, but also overwhelming social issues, as in Shelley’s Masque of Anarchy, later praised by Karl Marx.
His life was cut short when the boat he was navigating sank in the sea. The cause of the accident was never fully understood; some believed he was killed by political opponents, whereas others claim Shelley never recovered from the troubled relationships with others he had in the past, and, just like Chatterton, committed suicide.
Those three indisputably talented poets, along with Lord Byron, can help us understand the true nature of the romantic era, which manifested itself not just as a specific literary style, but mostly as a story of an artists’ life. Chain of events in a romantic poet’s life, who might have been born in a poverty, or a wealthy family, physically healthy or not, always sparked similar outcome – the struggle of being rejected by their environment and society, feeling constantly misunderstood even by loved ones, in many cases because of held ideals, but also when trying to express the blend of emotions, as personality was a factor that shaped the poet as well. Being caring, introverted, engaged in own fantasy were the traits such person seemed to possess, yet I did not mean he or she was weak, but rather vulnerable to the whirl of emotional challenges and demands the world offered them.
It does not, obviously, mean, that romantic poetry is not worth appreciation, as, just like any other literary period, it was the time when a great amount of admirable work was created, and which is enjoyed to this day. It is simply the vital and outward representation of romantic ideals through a person’s life that makes the image of a doomed artist extraordinary and causing a lively discussion today, as well as at the turn of 18th and 19th century.
17 May 2016
Cars liberate us rather than enslave us
It is hard to imagine any modern society without cars, Whether it is an old truck driven by a lumberjack, or a celebrity's newest Ferrari, cars are now a permanent feature in our lives. Nonetheless, in my opinion, despite constant use, people have not become enslaved by their vehicles, but rather liberated.
To begin with, cars are more convenient than public transport. Commuting by train or bus means having to come to the bus stop on a specified time, waiting there, sometimes in a piercing cold, being aware of delays, and, finally, spending the journey in a company of noisy and usually unpleasant smelling people. Passing such overcrowded bus in a comfortable car, with air conditioning and music you like - not the noise teenagers play from their phones - surely is more tempting than using public transport.
Secondly, you can go anywhere you want by a car. For instance, a car can cross long distances, but it is unlikely that it will take you to the exact place you want; the passenger still has to commute from the train station to their destination. It is also impossible to walk or cycle hundreds of kilometers. If you drive a car, neither the distance, nor the location is a problem anymore.
Thirdly, by owning a car you are no longer dependent on others. There is no need to pay for a ticket or to ask someone for a ride. Moreover, time is no longer an obstacle - by driving yourself you can go to the chosen place even in the middle of the night, which is not the case when relying on someone else.
In contrast, there are people who say that cars are a waste of money; we buy the newest and the most expensive ones, even if we do not need such advanced vehicles, simply to impress others, which is a form of enslavement. But we do the same with any other valuable thing we own, not just cars. Competing, even in a form of impressing, is a part of human nature, and thus such argument should not be used against owning a car.
To sum up, I believe that cars give us a lot of liberty. They spare us from constantly relying on other people, as well as make travelling more comfortable, and, what is most important, help us save the time ans energy we would lose while using other forms of communication.
To begin with, cars are more convenient than public transport. Commuting by train or bus means having to come to the bus stop on a specified time, waiting there, sometimes in a piercing cold, being aware of delays, and, finally, spending the journey in a company of noisy and usually unpleasant smelling people. Passing such overcrowded bus in a comfortable car, with air conditioning and music you like - not the noise teenagers play from their phones - surely is more tempting than using public transport.
Secondly, you can go anywhere you want by a car. For instance, a car can cross long distances, but it is unlikely that it will take you to the exact place you want; the passenger still has to commute from the train station to their destination. It is also impossible to walk or cycle hundreds of kilometers. If you drive a car, neither the distance, nor the location is a problem anymore.
Thirdly, by owning a car you are no longer dependent on others. There is no need to pay for a ticket or to ask someone for a ride. Moreover, time is no longer an obstacle - by driving yourself you can go to the chosen place even in the middle of the night, which is not the case when relying on someone else.
In contrast, there are people who say that cars are a waste of money; we buy the newest and the most expensive ones, even if we do not need such advanced vehicles, simply to impress others, which is a form of enslavement. But we do the same with any other valuable thing we own, not just cars. Competing, even in a form of impressing, is a part of human nature, and thus such argument should not be used against owning a car.
To sum up, I believe that cars give us a lot of liberty. They spare us from constantly relying on other people, as well as make travelling more comfortable, and, what is most important, help us save the time ans energy we would lose while using other forms of communication.
18 April 2016
Advantages and disadvantages of having a summer job
These days, devoting our free time in summer to work is nothing unusual. The hottest months of the year bring to mind a deserved rest and getting up late, but, for those who need it, holidays can also be a great opportunity to find a short-time job.
One major advantage of having a summer job are additional earnings. Whether someone needs extra income to provide for their family, wants to add it to their savings, or simply buy a new mobile phone, working in summer is an easy way to earn money, as there are many businesses willing to hire more employees during holidays.
Furthermore, spending summertime working is a great opportunity to gain job experience, which, most of the time, is crucial when trying to get a full-time job. If an employer read your resume and learns that you used to work before, especially in a similar field, your chances of getting hired will be highly increased.
On the other hand, while consisting of relatively easy tasks, summer job can be time consuming. For those who already work full-time, or students, holidays are a time of rest and having fun. Being employed reduces chances of fully relaxing, most of the time needed before coming back to daily chores.
Apart from that, it is usually young people who seek this kind of employement, many of them still being in high school, or university students. Employers might take advantage of their lack of experience in business, and deliberately pay them less or extend their working hours, hoping that they will not realize that or will be afraid to speak up.
On the whole, there are both advantages and disadvantages of having a summer job. Additional earnings are helpful in a variety of situations, but, like most of the things associated with money, it can be tiring and risky.
One major advantage of having a summer job are additional earnings. Whether someone needs extra income to provide for their family, wants to add it to their savings, or simply buy a new mobile phone, working in summer is an easy way to earn money, as there are many businesses willing to hire more employees during holidays.
Furthermore, spending summertime working is a great opportunity to gain job experience, which, most of the time, is crucial when trying to get a full-time job. If an employer read your resume and learns that you used to work before, especially in a similar field, your chances of getting hired will be highly increased.
On the other hand, while consisting of relatively easy tasks, summer job can be time consuming. For those who already work full-time, or students, holidays are a time of rest and having fun. Being employed reduces chances of fully relaxing, most of the time needed before coming back to daily chores.
Apart from that, it is usually young people who seek this kind of employement, many of them still being in high school, or university students. Employers might take advantage of their lack of experience in business, and deliberately pay them less or extend their working hours, hoping that they will not realize that or will be afraid to speak up.
On the whole, there are both advantages and disadvantages of having a summer job. Additional earnings are helpful in a variety of situations, but, like most of the things associated with money, it can be tiring and risky.
22 March 2016
connections/freedom/hope
You are of course not responsible for every bad thing that happens to you, but in case you are, what do you do? You start complaining and try to blame your failure on others. Do you think that you can't do anything wrong, or maybe you are too ashamed to admit that you're actually not perfect? What's my point? You need to face reality. Start seeing the world how it is instead of how you want it to be. Not everyone is good or trustworthy, in fact, there are many people who will take advantage of you if you believe otherwise. When someone disagrees with you, they have the right to do that, and the only proper reaction to their disagreement is to accept it. What matters are facts, not feelings, so don't be afraid to speak up because you might offend someone. Remember, it's up to you how you react. Will you get angry or upset, or will you just move on with your life? Obviously, it doesn't mean that you should go and call people names just because you have the right to do it; it's a matter of being a decent human being. But if you try to forbid it, you're actually against free speech. We live in a civilized society, we have all the things people in some regions of the world could only dream of. It doesn't mean that you should take a blame for a tragedy that happens thousands of miles away, in a country you probably have never heard of, and that you have nothing to do with. But you should definitely ask yourself - do I have any real reason to complain? Or do I simply expect people to treat me better because in my own mind and only in my mind I deserve to be pat on the head with a smile? No, you deserve to be slapped in the face. I don't expect any of you to believe or like what I'm saying because I know that people hate being told what to do. Yet you, by the way, follow trends, your support or criticism of the famous and politicians is based on how media portraits them, and it's your point of view that others should share because of course, it has no loopholes. All I'm asking for is that you could sometimes, just sometimes, think that you might be wrong and that absolutely everyone makes mistakes. As soon as you realize that your life will become way easier and less bitter.
22 January 2016
"Beowulf" and "The Hobbit" - comparison
Inspiration in literature, and in other forms of art, is sometimes seen as a bad thing. Admiring and wanting to pay a tribute to something we enjoy might be interpreted as laziness or plagiarism.
Sadly, usually it is the case. Authors think that they are not skilled or talented enough to create a piece of work they want, which is nothing but a common feeling, but it should not be understood as a reason to steal somebody else's work. There is, also, a group of creators who do not care about their abilities, and more often than not, do not care about art and, most importantly, the work others put in creating their own - all they want is to be praised.
These are examples of plagiarism - an act completely different than inspiration. I think that Vincent van Gogh described it well: "It is good to love many things, for therein lies the true strength, and whosoever loves much performs much, and can accomplish much, and what is done in love is well done."
This is what I believe was going through John Tolkien's head when he wrote 'Hobbit'.
After the World War I has ended, the author, who used to serve in the army, decied to leave it, and started to look for a job related to writing.
Tolkien became a succesful translator. His interest in Middle English literature was very visible: a translation of 'Sir Gawain and The Green Kinght' was one of his most known pieces of work. He also translated 'Beowulf'; however, he never decided to show his translation to the world. It was published by a family member after his death.
Tolkien also told the story of Grendel in one of his poems, "The Lay of Beowulf".
"In October 1920 I went to Leeds as Reader in English Language" Tolkien says, "with a free commission to develop the linguistic side of a large and growing School of English Studies, in which no regular provision had as yet been made for the linguistic specialist." As a university professor, John Tolkien wrote a lecture where he discussed the matter of his previous translation, named "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics". In the lecture, he does not criticise the poem itself, but rather the way it is interpreted.
But it was not the end of Tolkien's fascination with the old english poem. In late 1930's, he published his two most famous books to date, "The Hobbit" (the second one being "The Lord of The Rings"), which was most likely based on the plot of "Beowulf". Similarities between characters can be found too.
At first it might seem, that Bilbo Baggins, the main character in "The Hobbit", does not have much in common with Beouwlf, except for the fact that their names begin with the same letter. While the son of Ecgtheow has always been courageous, Bilbo is described as loving paceful and simple life, and being cowardly. The author said: "Hobbits are an unobtrusive, but very ancient people, more numerous formerly than they are today; for they love peace and quiet and good tilled earth: a well-ordered and well-farmed countryside was their favourite haunt." Yet, the more difficulties and dangers the character has to face, the more he resembles Beowulf. He does not daydream of coming back his home anymore; instead, he displays strength and intelligence, the traits that can be found while studying the warrior from Geatland.
Additionaly, the biggest difference between the two characters is not the early dissimilatiry in personalities, but rather their fate: Tolkien allowed Bilbo to survive and even come back to his old life, whereas the author of Beowulf decided that the warrior would die.
Chain of events shows even more obvious examples of similarities. Both the poem, and the book, describe, obviously, mythological and supernatural creatures, one of them being the dragon. Tolkien himself said: "[...] real dragons, essential both to the machinery and the ideas of a poem or tale, are actually rare. In northern literature there are only two that are significant: we have but the dragon of the Völsungs, Fáfnir, and Beowulf's bane."
Both monsters, as the most popular image of dragon indicates, are huge and breath fire. Smaug, the dragon described in "The Hobbit" gaurds a magnificent treasure - and so does the dragon from "Beowulf". What I find most interesting is the fact, that neither Smaug, nor the second dragon, were killed by main characters themselves. "Beowulf"'s dragon dies defeated with the help of Wiglaf, who wounded the monster's throat, so that it could no longer attack with fire. The one who ended Smaug's life was Bard, a skilled archer. He shot Smaugh right in the heart.
What is also worth a note is that at the moment of defeating the dragon, Beowulf has been the king of the Geates for a few decades. The battle left him severely injured; just before his death, he adresses his last words to Wiglaf. In "The Hobbit", we can find Thorin - an old king, who died because of battle wounds, and who was also given a chance to speak before his death. Even though the meaning of what Beowulf and Thorin said on their deathbeds was slightly different, the causes of their death, and how they perished, do not differ much.
Comparing the book and the poem might led to a thought that "The Hobbit" is, in fact, Tolkien's version of Beowulf; that he simply changed what he didn't like in the story and presented the world his take on it. I would not agree with that. While the sories share many similarities, what I tried to present above, they also differ too much to call Tolkien's work a 'renewed' version of Beowulf.
To sum up, Tolkien's appreciation of Beowulf has clearly reflected itself in his own work, not in an obvious way, but rather making the reader think of their own cloues and possibilities about how much the world of Beowulf influenced the plot and characters of The Hobbit.
Sadly, usually it is the case. Authors think that they are not skilled or talented enough to create a piece of work they want, which is nothing but a common feeling, but it should not be understood as a reason to steal somebody else's work. There is, also, a group of creators who do not care about their abilities, and more often than not, do not care about art and, most importantly, the work others put in creating their own - all they want is to be praised.
These are examples of plagiarism - an act completely different than inspiration. I think that Vincent van Gogh described it well: "It is good to love many things, for therein lies the true strength, and whosoever loves much performs much, and can accomplish much, and what is done in love is well done."
This is what I believe was going through John Tolkien's head when he wrote 'Hobbit'.
After the World War I has ended, the author, who used to serve in the army, decied to leave it, and started to look for a job related to writing.
Tolkien became a succesful translator. His interest in Middle English literature was very visible: a translation of 'Sir Gawain and The Green Kinght' was one of his most known pieces of work. He also translated 'Beowulf'; however, he never decided to show his translation to the world. It was published by a family member after his death.
Tolkien also told the story of Grendel in one of his poems, "The Lay of Beowulf".
"In October 1920 I went to Leeds as Reader in English Language" Tolkien says, "with a free commission to develop the linguistic side of a large and growing School of English Studies, in which no regular provision had as yet been made for the linguistic specialist." As a university professor, John Tolkien wrote a lecture where he discussed the matter of his previous translation, named "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics". In the lecture, he does not criticise the poem itself, but rather the way it is interpreted.
But it was not the end of Tolkien's fascination with the old english poem. In late 1930's, he published his two most famous books to date, "The Hobbit" (the second one being "The Lord of The Rings"), which was most likely based on the plot of "Beowulf". Similarities between characters can be found too.
At first it might seem, that Bilbo Baggins, the main character in "The Hobbit", does not have much in common with Beouwlf, except for the fact that their names begin with the same letter. While the son of Ecgtheow has always been courageous, Bilbo is described as loving paceful and simple life, and being cowardly. The author said: "Hobbits are an unobtrusive, but very ancient people, more numerous formerly than they are today; for they love peace and quiet and good tilled earth: a well-ordered and well-farmed countryside was their favourite haunt." Yet, the more difficulties and dangers the character has to face, the more he resembles Beowulf. He does not daydream of coming back his home anymore; instead, he displays strength and intelligence, the traits that can be found while studying the warrior from Geatland.
Additionaly, the biggest difference between the two characters is not the early dissimilatiry in personalities, but rather their fate: Tolkien allowed Bilbo to survive and even come back to his old life, whereas the author of Beowulf decided that the warrior would die.
Chain of events shows even more obvious examples of similarities. Both the poem, and the book, describe, obviously, mythological and supernatural creatures, one of them being the dragon. Tolkien himself said: "[...] real dragons, essential both to the machinery and the ideas of a poem or tale, are actually rare. In northern literature there are only two that are significant: we have but the dragon of the Völsungs, Fáfnir, and Beowulf's bane."
Both monsters, as the most popular image of dragon indicates, are huge and breath fire. Smaug, the dragon described in "The Hobbit" gaurds a magnificent treasure - and so does the dragon from "Beowulf". What I find most interesting is the fact, that neither Smaug, nor the second dragon, were killed by main characters themselves. "Beowulf"'s dragon dies defeated with the help of Wiglaf, who wounded the monster's throat, so that it could no longer attack with fire. The one who ended Smaug's life was Bard, a skilled archer. He shot Smaugh right in the heart.
What is also worth a note is that at the moment of defeating the dragon, Beowulf has been the king of the Geates for a few decades. The battle left him severely injured; just before his death, he adresses his last words to Wiglaf. In "The Hobbit", we can find Thorin - an old king, who died because of battle wounds, and who was also given a chance to speak before his death. Even though the meaning of what Beowulf and Thorin said on their deathbeds was slightly different, the causes of their death, and how they perished, do not differ much.
Comparing the book and the poem might led to a thought that "The Hobbit" is, in fact, Tolkien's version of Beowulf; that he simply changed what he didn't like in the story and presented the world his take on it. I would not agree with that. While the sories share many similarities, what I tried to present above, they also differ too much to call Tolkien's work a 'renewed' version of Beowulf.
To sum up, Tolkien's appreciation of Beowulf has clearly reflected itself in his own work, not in an obvious way, but rather making the reader think of their own cloues and possibilities about how much the world of Beowulf influenced the plot and characters of The Hobbit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)