Friday, February 21, 2020

Beowolf Freewrite (Tolkien and His Take on Dragons)

“Beowolf’s dragon, if one wishes to criticize, is not to be blamed for being a dragon,, but rather for not being dragon enough, plain pure fairy-story dragon. There are in this poem some vivid touches of the right kind- as pa se wyrm onwoc, wroht wæs geniwad: stonc æfter stane, 2285 – in which this dragon is real worm, with a bestial life and thought of his own but the conception, none the less, approaches draconitas rather than draco: a personification of malice, greed, destruction (the evil side of heroic life), and of the undiscriminating cruelty of fortune that distinguishes not good or bad (the evil aspect of all life)." 
- Beowolf: The Monsters and the Critics, pg. 17

This description of Beowolf’s dragon seemed to me to reflect what Tolkien believes is the right kind of dragon in a story by pointing out the less effective use of a dragon in Beowolf. He says that Beowolf’s dragon is more draconitas than actual draco, being a personification of the evil side of heroic life and the evil aspect of all life (the “undiscriminating cruelty of fortune…”). This made me think of how his thoughts on Beowolf’s dragon must have influenced the way he wrote Smaug in The Hobbit. In his story, Smaug is a wicked and cruel, but intelligent creature with the characteristics that Tolkien stated the Beowolf dragon could have had more of: “bestiality of life and thought of his own.” It seems to me that though Smaug is most definitely a good example of a dragon as a malicious creature, but Tolkien does create a character in his story that represents the evil side of heroic life-Smaug’s hoarding of the treasure in the Lonely Mountain is not unlike Thorin’s later attitude towards the treasure and the Arkenstone after the desolation of the dragon. Smaug is indeed representative of the power of fortune and riches that attract both evil forces (like the goblins) and “good” or not inherently evil ones (like the wood-elves and the men of Lake-town). I think Tolkien finds a good balance of symbolism and fairy-tale monster in his creation of Smaug.

Addition to free-write: I was initially confused by Tolkien referring to dragons as “worms” but after the art report on “Glorund Sets Forth”, it makes more sense as Tolkien had more non-traditional beliefs/depictions of dragons' physical appearance, such as Glorund. 




1 comment:

  1. This description of dragons by Tolkien as worms has always thrown me as I would, personally, compare them more to a reptile than a worm. How I’ve come to terms with this way of describing dragons is the worm is a characterization of the essence of the dragons, as even with Glorund, the physical aspect of worm doesn’t come across to me. Dragons, in the context of being something evil and the fact they like to live in deep dark places, are very “wormy.”

    I agree with both your and Tolkien’s assessment that Beowulf’s dragon is very flat, whereas when Tolkien created Smaug, he made a very complex creature that is extremely individual, as when dragons are generally thought of, it’s in a very categorical way. Smaug, while falling into the category is also unique in it, as we get a full picture and feel for him.

    ReplyDelete