I think his a fickle asshole his father would be ashamed of yet I cry every time he’s running out of blood and, like Oedipus or Lear only seeing those closest to him when its too late, goes “Brünnhilde, heilige Braut“
Like I never hand it to Wotan but when Brünnhilde has done all that’s left to do and loge has claimed what’s his and the Walhalla theme returns with dignity for the first time ever I can’t hold back tears
How does the awful little man who broke nietzsche do this I don’t know
He also implies he would have raped the rhine maidens if he had been able to catch them. Possibly, the words used are 'fangen' and 'zahmen', 'catch' and 'tame' which doesn't 100% mean without consent, but what happens to Brunnhilde is described similarly euphemistically.
He really is horrible by his death. Maybe he was always like that and didn't have the opportunity to show it - the same lawlessness, 'freedom' that let him mock and defy the literal king of the gods to his face leaves him free to prey on anyone weaker than him
I like how he's a 'hero' (Held) as a simple statement of fact, a vocation not a value judgement - even his enemies describe him as such. In spite of being brave (or rather fearless as you say) but never really doing anything heroic by modern standards, as in altruistic, and plenty not
Something like this has long been my thought about ancient/classical/mythological heroes. "Hero" in everything from the Iliad to Beowulf, etc. appears to signify a certain class, or ontological category, of person: someone with some sort of superpower, typically nobly (or divinely) born, with a personality to match, and likely with some sort of preordained fate awaiting them. There's no sense of altruism or noblesse oblige in this interpretation, just a class of men whose powers make them a fundamentally unstable--and thus destabilizing--force within a society, such that it's their society's task to harness these heroes' powers for its benefit (but that task may be a hopeless one, or merely short-term, because destruction often follows in these men's wake). These heroes might do good and helpful things, and sometimes can do extremely thoughtless, stupid things--their deeds are characterized by extremity more than anything else. Some examples of superpowers include Achilles' inability to be killed (except for the heel), Beowulf has the strength of 30 men in one arm, etc.
Heroes likely understand the concept of honor within their own society: for instance, Achilles does show up for Menelaus, who is the wronged party going into the Trojan War. (The Iliad makes it quite clear that Helen didn't want to go with Paris, and is unhappy with him, but she's made to stay by Aphrodite.) But the epics these heroes appear in also show the competing values and bonds within these societies. While the Trojan War is over which man gets Helen, Achilles and Menelaus have their own miniature war over stealing a woman in the first few books. Beowulf shows up to help Hrothgar rid Heorot of Grendel--but only after Grendel had been terrorizing the place for 12 years. Moreover, regardless of whether the heroes understand honor within their own societies, they seem to exist outside of it by virtue of being, well, heroes. Ordinary rules don't have to apply to them, but they're happy to accept the various trophies of their societies as tokens of appreciation.
Heroes have real weaknesses, which can lead them to doing really dumb things, or trigger their preordained fate. We all know Achilles's heel, and it's really insult to injury that Paris is the one who does the deed. Beowulf's real weakness is his complete inability to maintain relations with other peoples when he's king of the Geats. After the battle with the dragon, he lies dying thinking that the dragon's hoard will be a boon to his people. Meanwhile, moments later, his men are lamenting the fact that there's now no one to defend the Geats against attacks and destruction from other tribes--they, in fact, resign themselves to extinction.
To my thinking, it takes until the development of the Arthurian mythos for anything resembling altruism to become an aspect of heroism. And even then, the various heroes of the Round Table can still be pretty badly behaved, and still make choices that doom their society.
Anyway, this turned into an essay. Thank you, Kate, for a great essay that reminds me why I can barely take the Ring Cycle seriously, even as I enjoy some of it. And thank you, Sneed, for putting into words something I've been thinking about for years.
I think his a fickle asshole his father would be ashamed of yet I cry every time he’s running out of blood and, like Oedipus or Lear only seeing those closest to him when its too late, goes “Brünnhilde, heilige Braut“
Like I never hand it to Wotan but when Brünnhilde has done all that’s left to do and loge has claimed what’s his and the Walhalla theme returns with dignity for the first time ever I can’t hold back tears
How does the awful little man who broke nietzsche do this I don’t know
“How does the awful little man who broke nietzsche do this I don’t know” I ask this question basically every day
He also implies he would have raped the rhine maidens if he had been able to catch them. Possibly, the words used are 'fangen' and 'zahmen', 'catch' and 'tame' which doesn't 100% mean without consent, but what happens to Brunnhilde is described similarly euphemistically.
He really is horrible by his death. Maybe he was always like that and didn't have the opportunity to show it - the same lawlessness, 'freedom' that let him mock and defy the literal king of the gods to his face leaves him free to prey on anyone weaker than him
I like how he's a 'hero' (Held) as a simple statement of fact, a vocation not a value judgement - even his enemies describe him as such. In spite of being brave (or rather fearless as you say) but never really doing anything heroic by modern standards, as in altruistic, and plenty not
Something like this has long been my thought about ancient/classical/mythological heroes. "Hero" in everything from the Iliad to Beowulf, etc. appears to signify a certain class, or ontological category, of person: someone with some sort of superpower, typically nobly (or divinely) born, with a personality to match, and likely with some sort of preordained fate awaiting them. There's no sense of altruism or noblesse oblige in this interpretation, just a class of men whose powers make them a fundamentally unstable--and thus destabilizing--force within a society, such that it's their society's task to harness these heroes' powers for its benefit (but that task may be a hopeless one, or merely short-term, because destruction often follows in these men's wake). These heroes might do good and helpful things, and sometimes can do extremely thoughtless, stupid things--their deeds are characterized by extremity more than anything else. Some examples of superpowers include Achilles' inability to be killed (except for the heel), Beowulf has the strength of 30 men in one arm, etc.
Heroes likely understand the concept of honor within their own society: for instance, Achilles does show up for Menelaus, who is the wronged party going into the Trojan War. (The Iliad makes it quite clear that Helen didn't want to go with Paris, and is unhappy with him, but she's made to stay by Aphrodite.) But the epics these heroes appear in also show the competing values and bonds within these societies. While the Trojan War is over which man gets Helen, Achilles and Menelaus have their own miniature war over stealing a woman in the first few books. Beowulf shows up to help Hrothgar rid Heorot of Grendel--but only after Grendel had been terrorizing the place for 12 years. Moreover, regardless of whether the heroes understand honor within their own societies, they seem to exist outside of it by virtue of being, well, heroes. Ordinary rules don't have to apply to them, but they're happy to accept the various trophies of their societies as tokens of appreciation.
Heroes have real weaknesses, which can lead them to doing really dumb things, or trigger their preordained fate. We all know Achilles's heel, and it's really insult to injury that Paris is the one who does the deed. Beowulf's real weakness is his complete inability to maintain relations with other peoples when he's king of the Geats. After the battle with the dragon, he lies dying thinking that the dragon's hoard will be a boon to his people. Meanwhile, moments later, his men are lamenting the fact that there's now no one to defend the Geats against attacks and destruction from other tribes--they, in fact, resign themselves to extinction.
To my thinking, it takes until the development of the Arthurian mythos for anything resembling altruism to become an aspect of heroism. And even then, the various heroes of the Round Table can still be pretty badly behaved, and still make choices that doom their society.
Anyway, this turned into an essay. Thank you, Kate, for a great essay that reminds me why I can barely take the Ring Cycle seriously, even as I enjoy some of it. And thank you, Sneed, for putting into words something I've been thinking about for years.