English help

[LiberalNation]

Is this a run on sentence?

They share this trait and it leads to them being considered heroes of their day however even in this similarity they differ for though Wallace is portrayed as strong, Beowulf’s physical prowess is supper human.

Writing a paper for english and couldn't decide. I hate grammar.

[Mr. P]

Is this a run on sentence?

They share this trait and it leads to them being considered heroes of their day however even in this similarity they differ for though Wallace is portrayed as strong, Beowulf’s physical prowess is supper human.

Writing a paper for english and couldn't decide. I hate grammar.

Worse, it's an ABORTION of the language!

[dan]

Is this a run on sentence?

They share this trait and it leads to them being considered heroes of their day however even in this similarity they differ for though Wallace is portrayed as strong, Beowulf’s physical prowess is supper human.

It sort of is, yeah. Here's what I'd do:

"This shared trait leads to them being considered heroes of their day> However, even in this similarity, they differ: though Wallace is portrayed as strong, Beowulf's physical prowess is super human."

Beowulf's a pretty great book. I hated it when I studied it in high school, but I went back a few years later and reread it, and it really is a great work. What are you comparing it to (Wallace)?

Hope this helps!

[LiberalNation]

Yes that helps a lot, thanks.

We are compaing and contrasting it to Wallace. First we read Beowulf then watched brave heart for fun of it and since the teacher had to connect it to what we are supposed to be learning and give a valid reason for showing the movie we hafta write a paper comparing/contrasting the two in regards to the characterstics that make each heroic.

[LiberalNation]

Worse, it's an ABORTION of the language!
:p, tho I really would like to abort the stupid langauge. They're are so many things that could be a thousand times simpiler. From spelling, to all the worthless rules which all have another buch of exceptions to them.

[Mr. P]

:p, tho I really would like to abort the stupid langauge. They're are so many things that could be a thousand times simpiler. From spelling, to all the worthless rules which all have another buch of exceptions to them.

Dan did ya right, LN. I was pokin at ya. I speak Georgia Southern and write 5th grade redneck. What do I know? :laugh2:

[jackass]

Worse, it's an ABORTION of the language!

Hahahaha. Now that was funny!

[dan]

:p, tho I really would like to abort the stupid langauge. They're are so many things that could be a thousand times simpiler. From spelling, to all the worthless rules which all have another buch of exceptions to them.

Ha, try being an English major, not only do you have to learn all those BS rules, you also have to learn why they are necessary!

[LiberalNation]

Okay here's the first draft of my paper if anyones interested. Still have a bit of editing to do but I'm tired of working on it right now. Only had to be 5 paragraph for the minimum and 1 quote from each but I really need a good grade since I'm thinking I bombed that last comma quize.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

When you think of an epic hero what qualities come to mind. Of course they come in many forms and fashions but even with their differences most display a set of characteristics that directly lead to them being considered heroes. Take for example the epic hero Beowulf, an Anglo-Saxon warrior and king, to William Wallace, the Scottish legend portrayed in the movie Brave Heart. Both are considered epic heroes and display many similar characteristics but at the same time they are also very unique individuals and what makes one heroic may be an attribute completely lacking in the other.

One characteristic of epic heroes is great physical strength. Both Beowulf and Wallace are portrayed in their perspective stories as being physically strong, very masculine warriors. This shared trait leads to them being considered heroes of their day. However, even in this similarity, they differ: though Wallace is portrayed as strong, Beowulf's physical prowess is super human. In the poem it states, “Beowulf, Higlacs follower, the strongest of the Geats, greater and stronger than anyone anywhere in this world”. It’s not just saying that either, Beowulf with his massive strength performs feats such as killing powerful monsters alone that no other man could kill and even fighting under water in the case of Grendal’s mother; the second great beast he kills in the story. Although William Wallace is physically strong, he always fights as a man, with very human limitations that you don’t see in Beowulf.

This difference in strength directly leads to a difference in fighting styles as well. While Beowulf relies almost solely on great physical strength to win his battles, Wallace relies more on mental strength, wit, and understanding of strategy. This idea of intellect being more important in battle than strength alone begins at the very beginning of the movie while William is still a young boy. When he asserts to his father that he too can fight, his father responds, “I know you can fight, but it’s our wits that make us men”. This doesn’t come out in Beowulf and you in fact see the exact opposite in many cases. One example from the poem is seen when he begins his quest to find and defeat Grendal’s mother. It states, “he leaped into the lake, would not wait for anyone”, this shows a very gung-ho attitude and confidence in his own ability to win but little or no foresight when it comes to what he is going to do once in the lake. It is an unplanned action that involves very little actual thought on Beowulf’s part and almost in fact led to his defeat when his blade failed to do any harm to his adversary. It is only by luck that a giants sword was there and available for his use and he had the great strength to use it.

Another epic characteristic is a male hero. Clearly both Beowulf and Wallace are males and as mentioned before, quite masculine males at that. However the rule goes on to state, usually of noble birth and in this they differ. Beowulf is of the ruling classes, a true noble, his uncle was a king, and he himself became king. Wallace however was born a commoner. He is not counted among the nobility. His deeds alone are what make him a hero, not his family connections and lineage. He never considers himself “noble” even after being knighted. You can see this in his own words during diplomatic discussion with the princess when she comments on his new title of knight. He states, “I have been given nothing, God makes men who they are”.

To be considered an epic, the hero’s deeds must also affect large groups of people. Again, both of ours do. Wallace’s action of rebellion against the oppressive English government effects the entire population of Scotland. Beowulf’s the people of both Herot and his own kingdom when he slays the beasts terrorizing them. A difference really only surfaces when you examine their motives. Beowulf in his battles seems mainly interested in obtaining fame and glory for himself which really just reflects the society in which he lives. The Anglo-Saxons placed a lot of emphasis on achievement in this life because at the time pagan elements were still a dominate force and if you don’t believe in an after life, it stands to reason you should do whatever you can to be remembered in this one. To go to battle and win meant glory and prestige among your fellow men. Wallace’s motives however seem less self-interested as he fights not just for his own freedom, but that of his people. He doesn’t seek fame, wealth, or even the title of King.

Even with these different motives they deaths are amazingly similar. Both are abandoned and betrayed by their people in their final battle. It says in Beowulf, “none of his comrades came to him, helped him, his brave and noble followers; they ran for their lives”. Wallace received similar treatment; in his last battle the nobles with their troops abandoned him on the field in return for bribes. He had no chance at victory without them. Both died from this, but in their deaths their followers rallied and continued the fight to victory.

As you can see, epic heroes are not one thing or another. They have marked similarities but also differences which give them a unique flair and show just how truly heroic they are. Both are heroes in his own way and represent the characteristic his society valued most.

[LiberalNation]

Blah, that's not very good and I've only finished re-reading half of it. Crap. I hate writing papers on these type of subjects.

[diuretic]

LN - is this an academic paper? If you don't mind me saying so it seems to me to be very casual in its language and approach and tone. Are you required to follow a particular style?

[diuretic]

I'm also wondering about the comparison itself. Beowulf was a saga, "Braveheart" was a Mel Gibson fantasy. I mean "Braveheart" didn't even pretend to be historically accurate.

[LiberalNation]

No particular style to follow, academic as in for school would be a yes. Supposed to use either point by point analysis or subject by subject analysis when developing the body of the essay but that's about the instruction as far as how you need to write it.

[Mr. P]

Blah, that's not very good and I've only finished re-reading half of it. Crap. I hate writing papers on these type of subjects.

Yer not lookin for the board members to fix it for ya, are ya? :poke:

Get off the net an get to work. :slap:

[LiberalNation]

I'm also wondering about the comparison itself. Beowulf was a saga, "Braveheart" was a Mel Gibson fantasy. I mean "Braveheart" didn't even pretend to be historically accurate.
Hey I didn't pick the topic, the teacher did. She said they were both epic heros, compare the two.

[LiberalNation]

Yer not lookin for the board members to fix it for ya, are ya? :poke:
Well If anyone would I wouldn't complain but I doubt I'll get that much help. I was actually hoping for some egotistical people to slam it/me and by doing so point at the more obvious mistakes to me without having to work myself finding them.

[diuretic]

Hey I didn't pick the topic, the teacher did. She said they were both epic heros, compare the two.

I wasn't criticising you, just wondering why you were set the topic. I was thinking of the link between the two. One is an old English saga, deep mythology the other is a commercial bastardisation of the life of a Scottish patriot. Beowfulf is a mythical invention and I was thinking of him as a sort of archetype. Wallace actually lived but the rubbish that Mel Gibson produced about him is risible. So is the comparison between the mythical Beowulf and Gibson's fictional portrayal of a real man? Or is the comparison between the mythical Beowulf and the known Wallace?

[diuretic]

Well If anyone would I wouldn't complain but I doubt I'll get that much help. I was actually hoping for some egotistical people to slam it/me and by doing so point at the more obvious mistakes to me without having to work myself finding them.

I hope no-one slams you, that'd be a pretty pointless. Nothing wrong with asking for someone to read it for you either, the best writers have the best editors.

[LiberalNation]

Mythical Beowulf and fictional wallace. We didn't go into the history of either, just read the parts of beowulf that's in our english books (which isn't all of it, not even half) and watched the movie, then had to compare/contrast them from what we read and watched.

[LiberalNation]

I hope no-one slams you, that'd be a pretty pointless. Nothing wrong with asking for someone to read it for you either, the best writers have the best editors.
Yeah but you know how political boards are. Anyway already found several run on sentences. Always have a lot of those when I write.

[diuretic]

Yeah but you know how political boards are. Anyway already found several run on sentences. Always have a lot of those when I write.

I do it too, the run-on sentences I mean. I find I think too quickly and although I can type fairly fast (I was trained to touch-type) but I can't keep up with my ideas and I have to heavily edit when I read back.

If it's okay with you I will put a few ideas down on paper (I hate reading off a screen for editing) and put something in a pm.

[LiberalNation]

Cool with me, any help is always appreciated.

[Gunny]

I wasn't criticising you, just wondering why you were set the topic. I was thinking of the link between the two. One is an old English saga, deep mythology the other is a commercial bastardisation of the life of a Scottish patriot. Beowfulf is a mythical invention and I was thinking of him as a sort of archetype. Wallace actually lived but the rubbish that Mel Gibson produced about him is risible. So is the comparison between the mythical Beowulf and Gibson's fictional portrayal of a real man? Or is the comparison between the mythical Beowulf and the known Wallace?

Historical accuracy is usually not the priority of an English paper.

[diuretic]

Historical accuracy is usually not the priority of an English paper.

Yes, a good point. So it must be that the instructor is focused on the actual portrayal do you think? I mean Beowfulf is an epic poem, I studied it when I was at high school (just after it was first written :laugh2:) and I found it absolutely fascinating, even though, as is the wont of high school English teachers, we picked it apart almost word by word. For me the imagery was spectacular, like a very long, very dark, horror movie. I still remember bits of it.

"Braveheart" was a pretty straightforward story. Wallace was portrayed as Scottish patriot who was brutalised by the English. There's a romantic sub-plot (had to be or the film wouldn't have done as well as it did, with both box office and critics) of course, but I think the main theme was about liberation. And of course the big battle scenes made it exciting.

[Gunny]

Yes, a good point. So it must be that the instructor is focused on the actual portrayal do you think? I mean Beowfulf is an epic poem, I studied it when I was at high school (just after it was first written :laugh2:) and I found it absolutely fascinating, even though, as is the wont of high school English teachers, we picked it apart almost word by word. For me the imagery was spectacular, like a very long, very dark, horror movie. I still remember bits of it.

"Braveheart" was a pretty straightforward story. Wallace was portrayed as Scottish patriot who was brutalised by the English. There's a romantic sub-plot (had to be or the film wouldn't have done as well as it did, with both box office and critics) of course, but I think the main theme was about liberation. And of course the big battle scenes made it exciting.

Without exact knowledge of what the instructor is looking for, I couldn't say. I'm not sure why a movie would be compared to a literary work anyway. Nor do I see a comparison between a completely fictional character and one who has had Hollyweird liberal license taken with his actual history.

The common denominator is that both were considered heroes.

[Abbey Marie]

...

One characteristic of epic heroes is great physical strength. Both Beowulf and Wallace are portrayed in their perspective stories as being physically strong, very masculine warriors.
...


I think the word you meant to use there is "respective".

[diuretic]

Without exact knowledge of what the instructor is looking for, I couldn't say. I'm not sure why a movie would be compared to a literary work anyway. Nor do I see a comparison between a completely fictional character and one who has had Hollyweird liberal license taken with his actual history.

The common denominator is that both were considered heroes.


Thinking back I know my high school English teacher in my final year would never have allowed a popular movie to be used in this manner but that was forty years ago and I would think that educational practice now would be different.

Yes, they were both heroic figures.

Now I'm confused. Beowulf is basically a poem, a bloody long one admittedly, but nevertheless it was a poem in the Saxon manner. It was written, I suspect, to capture important aspects of Anglo-Saxon culture and mythology inherited from its Germanic origins. Perhaps it was an effort to record the old pagan ideas as England was becoming Christian at that time. But Gibson's film was also a mythology, albeit of an historical figure. From the little I remember reading about Wallace he was a mix of hero and thug, I suppose if you were on his side he'd be a hero but the English would have labelled him a thug and done so for their own propaganda purposes.

So, comparison of poem v film? Okay, no, it's about the characters isn't it? So Beowulf, an imaginary character is taken and compared with a bowdlerised version of an historical figure. I suppose that's valid because in essence both Beowful and Gibson's Wallace are essentially abstract representations and perhaps that's what LN's instructor is on about, to look at the abstract representations themselves. I wonder if there's an element of Jungian archetype in there as well? Not that I know much about the latter, had to look at them in a psych course once but not in any depth. The heroic archetype?


Many archetypes are story characters. The hero is one of the main ones. He is the mana personality and the defeater of evil dragons. Basically, he represents the ego -- we do tend to identify with the hero of the story -- and is often engaged in fighting the shadow, in the form of dragons and other monsters. The hero is, however, often dumb as a post. He is, after all, ignorant of the ways of the collective unconscious. Luke Skywalker, in the Star Wars films, is the perfect example of a hero.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/jung.html

Might be something there worth thinking about, dunno.

[jimnyc]

No habla ingles

[LiberalNation]

I think the word you meant to use there is "respective".
Thanks, I thought that was wrong but couldn't think of the right word. Hate sound alike words.