Talk:Grendel's mother/Archive 1

On the term "aglæc"

Should the information contained in this page be better placed on a separate page that covers the historical problems translating the word? Putting the information on the page for Grendel's mother, when it also relates to Grendel, Beowulf, and (if I'm not mistaken) the fire-dragon, simply doesn't make sense.

---

I don't agree - the entire discussion about the nature of Grendel's Mother in this article is dependent upon the ambiguity surrounding the word "aglæc". A separate page on "aglæc" which goes indepth into the scholarship of this term is fair - I don't see the need, however, to remove the discussion of "aglæc" from the "Grendel's Mother" page as the articles listed in the reference area all discuss "Grendel's Mother" in terms of this word.

---

I'm not an Anglo-Saxon philologist, but the discussion about "aglæc" on this page is interesting to me because it seems entirely to be attempting to derive the meaning of the word from its context in this one line out of Beowulf. Is there no other occurrance of this word in any known document? If not, is it even possible to do anything other than to equate it to whatever one wants to think or feel about Grendel's Mother? -- Jfruh 23:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

content

what about some content on what she does in the story. GraemeLeggett 09:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs to put her into context. I admit that I have not read Beowulf in almost 4 years (a borrowed copy of the Seamus Heaney translation). After Beowulf defeats Grendel, they celebrate the victory. But then Grendel's mother attacks. Beowulf follows her back to her lair under a lake where he is stuck, but neither can seem to defeat each other. Then Beowulf takes a special sword that he finds and chops off her head.

This could mean two things, from what I can gather. Either she is simply seeking vengence for the death of Grendel, or she is just as tainted as Grendel and her killing behavior would have proliferated because Grendel was no longer alive to take up the role of a terror in the night. If the case is true with the former, then what Grendel's mother did was honorable to her son. If their killing of Hroðgar's men was necessary for some reason of survival (eg, the coyote must hunt the deer to eat) then the motives are naturalistic, not a divine holy versus evil serario. That being the case, it does not matter if Grendel's mother sought revenge or not because she would have slaughtered the pigs anyway, so to speak. Another possibility is that Grendel and his mother were either evil or psychotic. In this case, the killing is inherent, but not necessary (in the same way that eating or harvesting is). That being so, it doesn't matter if Grendel's mother wanted revenge or not because she would have continued killing anyway.

From the perspective of writing a good story (in my opinion), it seems that the most exciting reason for Grendel's mother to act the way she did was out of vengence. Take that as the case for the moment. It is possible that Grendel and his mother had different motives, so Grendel still could have been evil, psychotic, or feeding; if vengence is the case, then Grendel's motivations for killing are independent of, though not necessarily different from, those of his mother and visa versa.

Ideas anyone? Trakon 22:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You raise some very good points. If you are really interested in these issues, you might consider exploring a version of the text in the original Old English language (there are guides listed which can help you through it). Translations vary on the points you raise above (there are numerous translations to look at as well) so exploring the Old English might help you think through some of these ideas. -Classicfilms 02:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Song Reference

There's a song by the Mountain Goats called "Grendel's Mother" which is written from the perspective of, well, Grendel's Mother, as a message to Beowulf. It's rather touching.

See also and popular culture sections

1. Popular culture section. This was based upon the following section in the Beowulf article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf#Beowulf_in_art Rather than delete, the section can be re-written or turned into a separate article that stands alone as a list much as the list that was created for the Beowulf article

2. See also. I'm not certain why this link was deleted. The article argues that this is one possible interpretation of Grendel's mother, who is listed in the article linked. It is thus related to the larger article.

-Classicfilms 05:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved the "popular culture" section to a new article based upon List of artistic depictions of Beowulf and created a small intro section on the main Grendel's mother page based upon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf#Beowulf_in_art This should solve the problem. -Classicfilms 05:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good move regarding the trivia section.

This article presents a number of theories regarding Grendel's Mother. While the direct translation is the best bet, we can only reference for the sake of neutrality. By placing the link in the "see also" section so you are violating WP:NPOV by lending further support to a theory. It may be subtle, but it's notable. If you want the link there, somehow work it into a section discussing her roles as a warrior figure. You've also misplaced it - it should be at the bottom of the article as with any other article. :bloodofox: 06:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - and thanks for bringing the trivia issue up. I tend to like to find a way to integrate trivia into the article, sometimes as a separate list, rather than a full delete since readers may be looking for the information. Otherwise your "see also" argument is fair. I moved it to a "further" link here. Does this read as more NPOV?

Thanks too for your work on the article - really good improvements. -Classicfilms 06:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I am glad to help. It's always a pleasure when editing with considerate users such as yourself! :bloodofox: 06:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm always open to suggestions - sometimes it takes a second set of eyes to tell whether edits are NPOV or not. You seem to have a very good background for this article so I look forward to your future edits. -Classicfilms 06:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Insignificant Trivia

Wikipedia is a tertiary source. This means that Wikipedia is a catalogue of secondary sources and is not a venue for original search. This means that - in principle - everything included in Wikipedia should be tied to a secondary source and sourced. Everything without a source is subject to deletion without cause. No factoid is innocent until proven guilty. If it doesn't have a source it should be gone. This allows us the luxury of having less stuff with more confidence it is right rather than more stuff where we have no idea what is right or what is wrong. Some things may be allowed to remain unsourced as a courtesy. On top of this, the requirement of the existence of a secondary source ensures significance. If no writer of any secondary source out there has bothered to mention a factoid, it is probably insignificant and not worthy of inclusion. The more insignificant nonsense that gets included, the harder a reader has to work to get significant information out of an article.

In fact, you will notice that truth is not a sufficient condition for inclusion. It is truth as evidence by a secondary source. Typically truth not evidenced by a secondary source is original research, and thus does not merit inclusion. It may be true that in some book the character Joe Bob was nicknamed "Grendel", and you know this is true because you read the book, but this is original research since you are not using a secondary source.

This is really the reason the trivia section ought to go in most every article. In the case here, the existence of an entire article devoted to trivia, as well as the convenient link already present in this article means the trivia section doubly needs to go as it is only reproducing information from an article devoted to exactly that information. The interested reader can simply select the link, so why bother to reproduce information that can be gotten to so easily?Ekwos (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture, but you've overlooked a circumstance in which primary sources are used, as a matter of course, on Wikipedia, and that is when cultural/media artifacts, such as films, CDs, TV programs, etc. are involved. In these cases, where the plot or story is summarized and recounted in the article, the artifact itself (i.e. the film, the novel, the TV show) are the source for the material, as observed and summarized by the posting editor.

Consider the following:

Scenario 1: I read a book on a particular subject, written by an expert. I take information from this reliable source and insert it into the Wikipedia article on that subject, rewording it so as to not violate copyright. The information, therefore, has been perceived by me by reading the book, synopsized by me, rephrased by me, and inserted by me, with a reference. Anyone who wants to verify the information goes to the source, reads what's there, and checks it against what I have written.

Scenario 2: I watch a film on DVD. I take something that happened in the film and insert it into the Wikipedia article on that film, describing it as accurately as I can. The information, therefore, has been perceived by me, described by me, and inserted by me, with a reference to the film it came from. Anyone who want to verify the information goes to the source, views what's in the film, and checks it against what I have written.

These scenarios are identical. Describing what occurs in a media artifact, such as a DVD, VHS, CD, LP or book is not original research, as it involves no more original work that the use of information from a reliable source. It is observation not "original research". There is no more reliable source for the contents of a media artifact than the media artifact itself.

This is why film articles can have plot sections, and it's why a straightforward recounting of a specific part of a film, novel, TV show etc. for a "In popular culture" section does not require seperate sourcing as long as it doesn't include any interpretation or analysis. Once the events recounted are said to mean something or to have been made with a specific purpose, then a proper source is required. It is for this reason that "popcult" lists are not disallowed, although they much always be watched because they tend to grow like Topsy. As Wikipedia honcho (admin, checkuser, bureaucrat, oversighter) User:Raul654 wrote a couple of years ago:

"[T]he purpose of adding a reference is to allow someone to know the source of a particular bit of information. It should be implicitely obvious that when you are describing the plot of a work, the source of the information is the work itself. Thus, no reference is necessary." User:Raul654 18 May 2006

So, please, stop removing popcult sectins wholesale because they don't have sourcing. As long as they stick to straightforward and unanalyzed description, they are not forbidden. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That is bad practice. The point of a source is to be able to direct a person wishing to confirm information (you know, because we'd like to eliminate bullshit that is outright wrong) to a reliable place where they can quickly confirm or refute the item. You cannot expect the person to go watch the film or read the book to confirm that the person that wrote the bit from memory got it right. For instance if I made the note that character X has the nickname Y in "War and Peace" that means now that the person wanting to confirm it would have to wade through the 1000 or so page novel to find it. I know you are getting on in years, but I'm sure you recall a teacher or two requiring that references have page numbers and so forth for easy reference to confirm that you haven't gotten it wrong (or are simply lying, since a bunch of simple fraud goes on here as well).

It is always preferable to have less information that happens to be reliable than more where you have no idea what is right and what is wrong.

Also, as I said, truth isn't the sole criterion on which to measure inclusion. Significance is also important. The fact is if no secondary source can be found then the factoid probably isn't significant.

Finally, if the contributor cannot be troubled to find a legitimate source, how can we expect that they would take the trouble to actually get something right? Or, to quote Jimmy Wales:

Of course, any deletion of unsourced material is likely to bring forth cries that it is "indiscriminate" by partisans who are too lazy or dishonest to go find a source.

For this reason, in practice, it is generally to be applauded. :)

Ekwos (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, looky what I just found in the Blaise Pascal article:

The writer Thomas Bernhard (of Austria) references Pascal many times in his works.

He did? Is a person supposed to go through all of the man's works to decide if the person that added this has the right author (Bernhard) or even if Bernhard was referring to Pascal rather than say Descartes? Or maybe Bernhard never said anything of the sort (or maybe he doesn't even exist) and the contributor is pulling our leg. Who is to know? Ekwos (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Biblical references and sources and weasel words

Why is there such interpretations in the article when the only sources(2 sources) are recent and are composed of three individuals whose interpretations "show" the link between the mythical Cain and Beowulf? or even Jesus and Beowulf, those interpretation seem to be subjectives or deliberated. The use of weasel word "some scholars", makes think about being a large number of literary interpreters and scholars, are or were on debate about the matter, when it's only three individuals doing their subjective studies being exposed as facts about the interpretation.

1. ^ a b c Chance, Jane (1990). Helen Damico and Alexandra Hennessey Olsen. ed. The Structural Unity of Beowulf: The Problem of Grendel's Mother. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. p. 248.
2. ^ Williams, David. Cain and Beowulf: A Study in Secular Allegory. Toronto:University of Toronto Press, 1982

These interpretations should be removed, or if they shown to be true, add more reliable sources than three "recent" studies made by "some" scholars.--201.247.28.7 (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

this article is a good example how feminism is detrimental

they even try to distort the meaning of the old poems to fit their modern world view. that's simply retarded, like nobody till 1979 cared that beowulf was called the same word, later they add reluctantly he was called only once and not even alone but together with dragon, so it actually could be 'monster' in the figurative sense. that all is a clear example how feminism, regardless of its intentions, promotes pseudo-science to fit its needs

her part in Beowulf

¶ I have always been baffled by the way the Vikings in the Beowulf story are so quick and confident to identify the second monster as Grendel's mother. Grendel himself/itself was scarcely humanoid, what identified Grendel as male? What identified this second monster as the mother of the first, or even as a female? (In some movies this acquires some significance by giving this second monster the ability to temporarily appear as a seductive young woman.) These questions are never answered. Sussmanbern (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Idea

I think perhaps the Angles were actually "āglæca," and that anglo-saxon was actually "āglæca-Sahsen," or warrior Saxons. Sea Captain Cormac 15:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS?-Classicfilms (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)