I decided to create this hub specifically for my academic writing.  I only selected the ones I think are entertaining, or at least interesting.  The selection is pretty random, which doesn't bother me, and I hope it doesn't bother you.

Every person has a place he or she would like to visit on a dream vacation; some people would love to spend a few weeks on a tropical island in the Mediterranean, while others would rather spend a month in a cabin on a lake. From a young age, my dream vacation was always to visit Ireland; I had always wanted to see where my family originally came from. In May of 2006 I got to live my dream. I spent three amazing weeks traveling around Ireland for a Celtic Mythology course with Simon’s Rock College. One of the places we got to visit was an island off the coast of CountyKerry named Skellig Michael. I was not expecting our excursion to Skellig Michael to be especially remarkable, but what I encountered on that island opened my eyes to a completely different lifestyle. My tour of Skellig Michael was an enlightening experience.

Early Christian monks lived on the island of Skellig Michael. For a deeper understanding of their faith, some background knowledge of Christianity is necessary. Christianity as a religion began with the teachings of Jesus Christ between 1 and 33 AD. According to Christian theology, Jesus was the son of God who was sent to earth through the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary. The Lord sent Jesus to earth to sacrifice his life for the sins of the entire human race. He essentially served as the ultimate scapegoat to save people from their sins. As Jesus grew, he preached the word of God to everyone in the area and acquired quite a following, including his 12 disciples. Naturally, Jesus also acquired enemies. Around the age of 33 years old, Jesus was put to death by his enemies by being nailed to a cross. From his life, the religion of Christianity was formed and is now practiced by about a third of the entire world’s population. The Holy Bible tells of Jesus’ life in the New Testament, while the Old Testament tells of world history before Jesus’ birth. Christianity has become a blanket term for many subreligions, the largest of which is Catholicism.

In seventh century Ireland there were many monks of Christian faith who created and lived in monasteries. Many of them lived in the famous beehive huts that were characteristic of the monastic life at the time. Most of these monks believed that to attain enlightenment they needed to be isolated from other people, which is why they lived alone in monasteries and primitive beehive huts. One of the most extreme examples of early Christian monasticism is the island of Skellig Michael seven miles off the coast of Ireland. Skellig Michael literally means “Michael’s Rock” and is a pyramidal mountain of stone rising out of the Atlantic Ocean (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/757, screen 2). It is believed that St. Fionan founded the hermitage in the 6^th century, though the first documented inhabitation is from the 8^th century. It was dedicated to St. Michael (giving it the name Skellig Michael) sometime around 1,000 AD (Horn, Michael, Rourke, p 10).

Irish monks lived on the island despite its extreme environmental conditions – in fact, the conditions were the reason they chose to live there. At the highest peak, Skellig Michael rises 715 feet out of the water below (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/757, screen 2). Fog swirls around the top while waves smash violently into the island’s base. The entire scene is undeniably majestic and the monks were seeking a place where they could physically, as well as mentally, feel closer to God. Where better to feel nearest one’s creator than atop a remote island amid the clouds? The peak where the monks lived was uniquely shaped with a small valley – this provided them with a surprising level of shelter from the elements. Though it might be windy and cold elsewhere on the island, in the monastery’s little niche it stays relatively warm and pleasant.

The monks survived by collecting rain water and growing vegetables in imported soil. They also raised animals on the island including poultry, goats, and possibly sheep. (Vecchio, Mark. Personal interview.) The location and environment of Skellig Michael was essential for the monks to reach what they felt was enlightenment. They needed to be isolated, away from material wealth and temptation, in a high place where they felt close to God. The extreme location of Skellig Michael was perfect for the medieval Christian monks.

My little group of college students and I took a tour of the island, though it had to be delayed because of dangerous boating conditions. When we finally arrived at the island, I had no idea what I was walking into. At the base of the island were seals sunning themselves on rocks and curiously poking their heads out of the water near the boat landing. Not far from the landing I also saw puffins for the first time in my life; I was ecstatic at all the exciting wildlife I was seeing. But as we started to climb up the steeper parts of the island my fun-and-games mindset disappeared. The steps (which the monks had somehow carved into the cliff side) were frighteningly steep; there was no railing to hold on to, and the cold Atlantic wind was blowing with a vengeance. I was surprised that I didn’t fall to my death. Simply said, the climb up to the hermitage was terrifying.

When we finally made it to the top and stepped through the needle eye that was the monastery entrance, the wind vanished. Not only was the wind gone, the air was still and warm as clouds swirled just above the peak. I started to understand how the monks could live there, at least physically. The hermitage itself was like a tiny village – there was a rock wall to keep people from going over the edge of the cliff and several large beehive huts that served as houses; there was also one very large beehive hut that was the church. There was a small area that had been the monks’ garden, and there was even a little graveyard. Intricate ditches had been dug running down from the peak of the island to the monastery for collecting rain water.

I was amazed and confused by the effort the monks had put into living on an unlivable mountain of rock out in the ocean. First they had to get to the island alive without the help of modern motorboats and then they had to climb up the sheer rock (without carved steps) to the top. At that point they had to decide where they wanted to live. Once they had chosen the right place, they had to build their cliff-safety wall and beehive huts stone by stone, as well as dig the ditches to collect water. That is a lot of dangerous work and I had a hard time understanding why on earth any sane person would consider doing it. I knew that they did it to feel closer to God, but I still thought it was a bit much.

I left the island feeling overwhelmed and bewildered by everything I had seen and learned that day. I was numb with awe – it was hard to process what the monks must have gone through in name of the Lord. I was also thoroughly convinced that the monks who lived on Skellig Michael were certifiably crazy. Once I was back on dry land I went back to my hotel room, wrote a journal entry, and thought no more about Skellig Michael.

Every now and then something happens to trigger a memory of my visit to Skellig Michael. I’ve been thinking about it more and more, which shows me that the history of the monks on Skellig Michael had a big impact on me. Now I think I have a better understanding of why the monks did what they did. They were so entirely devoted to their faith that they dedicated their lives to living for God, not themselves. They went to Skellig Michael because it made them feel closer to God and His creations – the animals, ocean, earth, clouds, everything. They gave up all their worldly desires like comfort and pleasure and instead took comfort in the only thing they really needed – their relationship with God.

It took a lot of courage and devotion to do what the monks did. It must have been very difficult and mentally tormenting for them to move out to a rock in the ocean, away from anyone they had ever known. But the torment was part of their devotion; they were willing to suffer and give up everything just to show God how deep their dedication was. It would not have meant nearly as much to them if they had sought a life for God by lounging at home in front of the fireplace with friends, sipping on wine.

The monks’ display of commitment is rather inspiring for me now that I understand it better. I don’t believe that one has to discard all worldly possessions and live on a remote island to be enlightened, but I do believe that the basic idea is correct. One should not need worldly possessions and one should not need to be accepted by society; all one really needs is God to be enlightened. I believe that I don’t have to give up my worldly things and my friends as long as I could give them up. God must be the most important thing in my life if I want to be enlightened. For me, enlightenment is a sense of inner peace and content. I have that peace, and the story of the monks of Skellig Michael helped me achieve it. I am certain that plenty of people who have visited Skellig Michael just think that the monks were crazy and that is all. I thought that at first as well, but now I realize that my little tour of the island was not only mind-blowing, it was also enlightening.

Works Cited

Horn, Walter, J Marshall, and G Rourke. The Forgotten Hermitage of Skellig Michael.

Berkeley: U of California P, 1990.

Holy Bible. The Teen Study Bible: New International Version.

Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1993.

“Skellig Michael.” 1996. UNESCO World Heritage.

March 27, 2007 http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/757

Vecchio, Mark. March 23, 2007. Personal Interview.

The epic poem Beowulf is a heroic tale of the endeavors of the warrior Beowulf, who possesses herculean strength and courage. Some of the most important scenes of the poem are Beowulf’s fights against three different monsters. These creatures are vicious and bloodthirsty, deserving of death at the hand of Beowulf because they are condemned by God… at least that is what readers are led to believe. As the hero, the entire story is appropriately tailored to exalt the incredible Beowulf. However, it can be argued his heroic “pedestal” has skewed the story in favor of Beowulf when in reality such praise may not have been justly due. A closer inspection through comparisons with cinematic adaptations reveals that in reality these monsters are perhaps not so monstrous after all.

Beowulf was originally told orally in Anglo-Saxon culture until it was written down in Old English by the anonymous Poet, and there have been several major translations done by scholars in recent decades. While the poem was previously known to the academic world, it has become incredibly popular in mainstream American culture thanks to a surge of recent cinema adaptations; most people now know the name of Beowulf, if not the original poem. The two most recent films present very unique and interesting accounts of Beowulf’s story. While the poem’s version of the tale is of the utmost importance, these film adaptations can give us some intriguing perspectives into what is perhaps a “truer” story of the champion Beowulf.

Out of respect for the original story, Beowulf the poem will be presented first. Beowulf’s first fight is against Grendel, a troll-like creature who has been pillaging the newly built mead-hall of King Hrothgar and carrying off the best thanes for his supper. Perhaps the best word to describe Grendel would be “wretched;” according to the poem, Grendel and his monstrous clan are the progeny of Cain, who killed his brother Abel in the Old Testament and was cursed by God. Malcolm Andrew explains that, “The nature of Grendel is defined by reference to Cain’s seminally significant crime. […] Cain turns away from harmonious acceptance of and obedience to God’s universal order, and thus becomes isolated, depraved, and deformed. One might therefore expect to discern similar characteristics in Grendel – and, indeed, these are abundantly clear (“Grendel in Hell,” p. 405). Grendel is introduced in this way:

"Ða se ellengæst earfoðlice / þrage geþolode, se þe in þystrum bad, / þæt he dogora gehwam dream gehyrde / hludne in healle; þær wæs hearpan sweg, / swutol sang scopes. Sægde se þe cuþe / frumsceaft fira feorran reccan, / cwæð þæt se Ælmihtiga eorðan worhte, / wlitebeorhtne wang, swa wæter bebugeð, / gesette sigehreþig sunnan ond monan / leoman to leohte landbuendum, / ond gefrætwade foldan sceatas / leomum ond leafum, lif eac gesceop / rynna gehwylcum þara ðe cwice hwyrfaþ" (Beowulf, ll. 86-98).

"Then the powerful creature suffered painfully in a time of distress in the darkness, each day he heard revelry loud in the hall; there was harp music and the clear songs of scops. They spoke of the well-known creation of men long ago, recounted that the Almighty wrought the earth, a beautiful place surrounded by water, established in victory the sun and moon as bright luminaries for the dwellers on earth, adorned the regions of earth with branches and leaves, and also created life in each of those who moved about" (translation my own).

It is immediately clear that Grendel is in a bad emotional state; he is “suffering painfully” because he cannot hear the gladness and music coming from the mead-hall without feeling a stab of misery; it is a daily torture. The scop, or bard, sings a tale of men’s triumphs and how God created the earth for them. Andrew explains that as a monster, Grendel has been cast out by God and the earth was not made for him to enjoy. Grendel cannot be a part of men’s celebrations; he is damned and utterly wretched, and takes out his rage and sorrow on the thanes in the mead-hall. Under the circumstances this action is almost understandable. After all, Hrothgar’s men are unintentionally “rubbing it in” and making a mockery of Grendel and his kind.

In line 101, Grendel is described as a “feond on helle;” literally a “fiend in hell.” This has caused trouble in the academic world because Grendel cannot actually be in hell. Almost every translation interprets this similarly to “fiend from hell” or “hellish fiend.” Andrew proposes that the poet intended Grendel in hell, meaning Grendel’s state of mind rather than a physical location. Andrew describes this, saying, “The sinner’s mind is darkened and he becomes a prisoner of the flesh. In the vain attempt to escape the pain of this existence, he is drawn to repeated indulgence in evil concupiscence, and thus enters a vicious circle in which sin leads to more sin” (“Grendel in Hell,” p. 404). An even more simplified explanation is given by Robert E. Bjork and John D. Niles – “sinners are in hell and hell in them” (A Beowulf Handbook, p. 142). This image supports the idea of a poor, wretched Grendel, closer to a mental patient than a monster, who is living in the hell of his own mind.

After closer consideration it is hard to believe that Grendel is really the ruthless killer the poem describes. It is important to remember that Grendel never attacked any of Hrothgar’s people or buildings until the mead-hall, Heorot, was built. The problem arises because Heorot is built close enough to Grendel’s den for the tumult of each night’s feast to reach him. It is easily conceivable that the din has been costing Grendel sleep, driving him to madness until the point when he finally loses control and lashes out against the hall and its inhabitants. It seems clear that Grendel does not attack immediately because King Hrothgar has time to enjoy his new hall; he “beagas dælde, / sinc æt symle” (ll. 80b-81a) “dispense[s] rings and treasure at banquets” before Grendel takes action. Since Grendel never previously bothered Hrothgar’s kingdom despite his supposed resentment toward mankind, there is even the possibility that he was awoken from a hibernation of sorts by the building and celebration of the mead-hall.

The poem also raises the question of what exactly Grendel is; readers get very little physical description of the creature, though it is clearly implied that he is not considered human. He is, however, human-like. Readers are made to understand that he has two arms (one of which Beowulf tears off), two legs, his own name, and an incredible strength that he uses to kill and carry thanes back to his den. He uses no weapons during his attacks on Heorot, only brute strength, which Beowulf chooses to copy as a part of his boast to fight the creature. In this sense Grendel can be viewed as Beowulf’s “other.” Beowulf is a man, blessed by God, with friends, fortune, joy, and control over his life. Grendel can be seen as the anti-Beowulf, the “evil twin” that Beowulf must defeat in order to advance in his own life story. This brings another aspect of Grendel’s human nature to light; Grendel did not choose to be Beowulf’s “other” – he is cursed and perhaps even deserves the sympathy of readers just as much as the hero.

The word aglæca, like most words in Old English, has multiple, yet cooperative meanings. One of them is “monster,” and the term is unsurprisingly applied to Grendel, his mother, and the dragon. However, aglæca can also mean “fierce combatant” as well as “strong adversary,” and is also applied to Beowulf himself (“Grendel’s Mother as Epic Anti-Type of the Virgin and Queen,” p. 95) The hero of the story is an aglæca just like the monsters he fights. This provides even more similarity between Grendel and Beowulf, and a stronger argument for Grendel being Beowulf’s other.

Beowulf’s second fight closely follows the first when Grendel’s mother attempts to avenge her son’s death by attacking Heorot herself. Even from her first description, her despair is clear.

“Þæt gesyne wearþ, / widcuð werum, þætte wrecend þa gyt / lifde æfter laþum, lange þrage, / æfter guðceare; Grendles modor, / ides aglæcwif yrmþe gemunde” (Beowulf, ll. 1255b-1259).

"It became manifest and known to men that an avenger yet had life after the long-hated foe and after the battle-sorrow; Grendel’s mother, a wretch of a woman, was mindful of her misery" (translation my own).

It is interesting to note that aglæcwif has an alternate meaning of “warrior-woman;” indeed the Mitchell / Robinson edition of the Beowulf poem excludes the definitions “wretch of a woman” and “vile crone” all together. “Warrior-woman” seems to have little negative connotation, and doesn’t at all imply evil or menace. By today’s standards, this would even be an honorable title. Once in Heorot, she reclaims Grendel’s severed arm that had been hung up as a trophy, but the most unforgiveable part of her assault is that she makes off with Æeschere, King Hrothgar’s best friend and thane. Beowulf and his comrades follow the blood trail and find Æeschere’s head next to a pool of churning water. Beowulf swims to the bottom where he fights with the “hell-dam” before they both go to her underwater cave. There he slays her and finds Grendel’s lifeless body.

There is much in these passages that reveals the humanity of Grendel’s mother. She does not have her own name, which at first glance would seem to detract from her individuality. However, this point is countered with the consideration that Beowulf’s mother is not named either. Female figures tend to be of far less consequence than males in the Beowulf poem. It is difficult to decide whether or not Grendel lives with his mother, though my first impression was that they had separate dens. Grendel’s mother has her son’s dead body in her cave, which, assuming they live apart, suggests that Grendel sought her out while he was dying, presumably for the same reason anyone else would – comfort. This is hardly a monstrous action. Once he is dead, Grendel’s mother is, one could say, gebolgen, “enraged,” and goes to exact revenge upon the people who killed her son. This is a human reaction as well; no mother could take the murder of her only child lightly. In fact, the most monstrous thing she could do would be nothing – caring nothing for her son’s death would be far more disturbing than wanting revenge. The relationship between these two “monsters” is unmistakably a loving one, otherwise Grendel would not have gone to his mother at all, nor would she have risked her life (and lost it) to avenge him.

The two film adaptations we will examine have different versions of each monster, but both of them agree upon Grendel’s state of wretchedness. The film Beowulf from 2007 portrays Grendel in a properly miserable light. The film opens with a scene of Heorot full of drunken thanes, noise and fornication. The scene switches to a grotesque humanoid creature in a dank cave; his skin is rotting and open in most places, exposing the muscle and bone underneath. The bass of drums from Heorot resounds throughout the cave while the creature screams and tears open his own flesh in agony. This is of course Grendel; he is horribly misshapen and we see a large fluid-filled growth where his ear would normally be. As the bass throbs the fluid-sac reverberates, causing Grendel to howl and clutch his head. This is a very interesting depiction of poor Grendel, and “poor Grendel” he certainly is here. His image in this film reinforces Andrew’s statement of Cain becoming deformed, which is quite literally reflected in Grendel. We see that loud noises cause his cancerous eardrum intense pain, a situation that easily concurs with the poem’s version of Grendel. In fact, this scene of Grendel could replace that of the poem, the only consequence being the redirection readers’ sympathy. It would create a Grendel that readers do not despise, but actually feel badly for, jeopardizing the necessary greatness of King Hrothgar, and more importantly, Beowulf.

There are a few other very interesting scenes in this film, which I will strive to keep brief for the sake of this essay. The first has little relevance to the poem, though its use in the film is clear. During Grendel’s first attack on Heorot, King Hrothgar grabs a sword and yells to him, “Fight me, damn you!” Grendel approaches slowly and looks at him briefly (with very human eyes, I might add) before screaming and balling his hands in frustration. He then leaves without laying a finger on Hrothgar. We are later informed that Hrothgar is Grendel’s father, which is generally dismissed in academia as a gross liberty on part of the directors. Despite the ridiculous family ties, this scene is important in that it shows viewers how human Grendel can be – he spares his father who is causing him pain, when many true humans might not even do the same.

The second and third scenes are times when Grendel interacts with his mother in their cave, both of which are after his attacks on the hall. The first shows Grendel entering the cave with three bodies in his hand. His mother (whom we cannot see) then says, “Grendel, what have you done? Fish and wolf and bear, and sheep or two, but none men. Men, Grendel… they have slain so many of our kind.” Grendel looks sheepish and replies quietly in Old English, assuring his mother that he did not harm the king. This shows us that Grendel and his mother had an agreement to not harm men, which can also agree with the poem because neither of these monsters had ever attacked Hrothgar’s kingdom before. Grendel’s body language and speech tell us that he certainly regrets displeasing his mother, and may even regret his actions in general. The question, “Did he mean to do it?” inevitably arises. People make mistakes all the time and do things they know they shouldn’t have done. Grendel seems just as susceptible to his own impulses and emotions as any human. The last scene is after Grendel’s second attack when, armless and dying, he makes it back to his mother. For some fantastical reason, Grendel shrinks as he is wounded (Beowulf first bursts his mutant eardrum before breaking off his arm) and by the time he makes it home he is little bigger than a nine-year old from his original height of ten feet. He and his mother exchange tender words as she holds him. Grendel shrinks to the size of a baby before finally dying, at which point his mother wails and leaves to exact her retribution. The Amazing Shrinking Grendel may be far-fetched, but it represents that despite his physical size and strength, he is really little more than a child in his mother’s arms who wanted to stop his own pain.

Here Grendel’s mother plays a completely new roll from any we have previously seen – seductress. Played by Angelina Jolie, this monster is more of an alluring incubus than a disgusting sea-hag. At first it is simple to dismiss this entire film as grotesquely untrue to the poem and therefore irrelevant to study in every way. However, much of it may be viewed as a critical analysis of the real character of Beowulf – “the man behind the hero,” if you will. It is quickly made clear that Beowulf has two weaknesses, one of which is his pride, the other being women. The two often go hand-in-hand, as we see when he lies while telling of his swim race with Breca. The version he tells is of him defeating many monsters, the last of which pulled him to the bottom of the sea where he slew it. The version viewers see is him being pulled to the bottom by a sensuous mermaid; Beowulf drops his sword and we are left to assume that he was easily seduced. When Beowulf goes after Grendel’s mother into her cave, we finally see her for the first time. She is a golden dragon-woman, and exceedingly beautiful. Beowulf is once again seduced but tells Hrothgar that he killed the monster.

This version of Grendel’s mother is intriguing in that at first glance she appears to be a sex-addict (she seduced Hrothgar, Beowulf, and later would try with Wiglaf), but later it seems that she simply wants children. Her first child was Grendel, and she only seduced Beowulf after Grendel’s death. In a way, it seems she was trying to replace her firstborn. Similarly, she seeks another child after the dragon dies. This “replacement” seems twisted, but at the same time is reasonable. A mother who has had her child taken away may understandably want to fill the void and recreate the happiness she once had. She is clearly not a bad mother, as evidenced by her interactions with Grendel. She may just enjoy being a mother; perhaps caring for and loving her children are the best things in her life. In this version she also takes revenge for the death of her son – once again, she is not a monster. She is simply a loving, protective mother.

Another film made in 2005 called Beowulf and Grendel, although a laughable version of the poem, shows Grendel in a new way. The first scene opens with a classic Hollywood-type caveman in a field playing with his son of three or four years old. The little boy would be cute if his body wasn’t entirely covered in blonde hair (complete with beard). The caveman hears hoof beats, quickly scoops up his hairy son, and runs to the closest cliff edge where he places him just below the edge. The boy clings and watches as mail-clad men ride up and kill his father. We later find out that the one who slew the caveman was King Hrothgar, who sees the little cavechild and decides to spare him. Hrothgar later tells Beowulf that he killed the father because he “took a fish.” The boy finds his father’s body and hacks off the head, which he takes with him. Later the cavechild grows up to be Grendel, who we find out is not a caveman, but a troll, who still has his decaying father’s head in a corner of his cave.

In this version, Grendel has a clear (and possibly even just) motive for his crimes – he wants to avenge his father’s death. In Anglo-Saxon culture, avenging deaths was common, even expected. Even though this is not the plot of the poem, it makes one wonder, “Who is the true victim? What is the Beowulf poet not telling us?” This film, despite its embarrassing rating (a three-star movie according to The Seattle Times, as proudly advertised on the back of the case), forces viewers into the internal struggle that Beowulf experiences – his loyalties are divided between Hrothgar and Grendel. This Grendel is very human; he speaks, though it seems to be in his own comic language of grunts and growls, and he refuses to fight Beowulf because Beowulf has done him no harm. This “villain” has honor. He even has a sense of humor which is shown when he taunts Beowulf by throwing harmless pebbles at his head, as well as when he knocks on an unsuspecting thane’s helmet before killing him. So which Grendel is the true Grendel? That of the poem, the films, or something in between?

Grendel’s mother has a very small part in the movie Beowulf and Grendel, and she stays impressively true to her role in the poem. As Grendel is dying, he goes out to the sea and wades in before losing consciousness. We then see a slimy green hand rise up and guide his body further from the shore. True to the original story, Grendel’s mother attacks Heorot, steals back Grendel’s arm, and takes Æeschere away with her. The actions of Grendel’s mother in this version are consistent with the “loving mother” depiction of both the film Beowulf and the poem itself. She is protective of her dying son, and seeks retribution after his death.

The dragon seems to be agreed upon as the least-important of Beowulf’s three monster battles, and is actually completely left out of Beowulf and Grendel. The poem presents the dragon as a barrow-guardian, protecting his hoard of gold and treasures.

"draca ricsian, /se ðe on heaum hæþe hord beweotode, / stanbeorh steapne; stig under læg / eldum uncuð. Þær on innan giong / niðða nathwylc, se ðe neh gefealg / hæðnum horde, hond wæge nam, / sid, since fah; ne he þæt syððan bemað, / þeah ðe he slæpende besyred wurde / þeofes cræfte; þæt sie ðiod onfand, / bigfolc beorna, þæt he gebolgen wæs" (ll. 2211a-2220).

"A dragon in a lofty abode watched over a hoard in the high barrow-mound; under it lay a narrow path unknown to men. There within a young man (I know not which) went […] and from the heathen hoard took in hand a chalice of refined, cursed gold; he did not prosper thereafter, although he [the dragon] was deceived in his sleep by the thief’s craft; the people saw that he became enraged against the high-folk" (translation my own).

The story is clear: a man made his way into the dragon’s barrow and stole a golden chalice from his hoard. Dragons are greedy by nature and constantly hoard treasure; any smart person would know better than to steal from a dragon. Naturally, the dragon gets angry and wreaks havoc on the town during the night, burning everything in his path. Is this really so inexcusable? The entire event is clearly the fault the human. The dragon being angry because he was stolen from is a perfectly understandable reaction. Perhaps his blazing retribution was a little over-the-top, but from a dragon it is only to be expected. Though the dragon is physically more of a monster than the others (he is the only non-humanoid), he still exhibits very human emotions. He is obviously protective of his property, he feels jealous when his cup is stolen, followed by rage and then vengeance. As far as we know, the dragon was sleeping peacefully and bothering no one before he was robbed.

As mentioned before, Beowulf and Grendel ignores the dragon event completely, so we will briefly analyze the other film. Beowulf presents the dragon as the spawn of Grendel’s mother and Beowulf (a product of the seduction). He is an enormous golden creature, majestic even, and he ends up attacking Beowulf’s kingdom. Like in the poem, he is Beowulf’s undoing and Beowulf his. Beowulf is able to kill the dragon by ripping out his heart, which is the heart of a human. As they lie dying in the sand, the dragon melts away into the form of a man. All of these facts simply represent the idea that even the most formidable monster is a little human.

Grendel, his mother, and the dragon are all presented in the Beowulf poem as loathsome, horrible fiends who want nothing more than to make the lives of men miserable. Through close analysis of the poem as well as recent film adaptations we are able to understand the Beowulf monsters, and consequently Beowulf himself, in a new light. Through better understanding the monsters, we also learn that Beowulf may not be the perfect hero portrayed in the poem. We learn that while the monsters did commit atrocious deeds, each of them was provoked in one way or another. We also see that Grendel, and his mother to a lesser extent, are little more than disturbed humans being antagonized by King Hrothgar’s people. Overall, we now know that all three monsters are much more human than previously assumed.

Works Cited

Beowulf. Dir. Robert Zemeckis. Anthony Hopkins, Angelina Jolie, Ray Winstone. Paramount Pictures, 2007.

Beowulf and Grendel. Dir. Sturla Gunnarsson. Gerard Butler, Stellan Skarsgard, Ingvar Sigurdsson. Movision Entertainment, 2005.

Andrew, Malcolm. “Grendel in Hell.” English Studies. October 1981: 401-410.

Bjork, Robert E., Niles, John D. A Beowulf Handbook. University of Nebraska Press, 1997.

Chance, Jane. “Grendel’s Mother as Epic Anti-Type of the Virgin and Queen.” Woman as Hero in Old English Literature. Syracuse, 1986.

When autumn is just around the bend, families across the nation start doing their back-to-school shopping.  But for many families it is not though of as back to school, it is off to school for the first time.  Most parents have concerns about sending their babies to kindergarten.  They wonder if he or she will make friends, get good grades, or be picked on.  These are all valid questions, but others may think of them as petty compared to one concern of a man named Matt Groening (the creator of The Simpsons and Futurama).  Many influential artists and writers have different concepts of how schools influence children; Matt Groening tells us that public schools inadvertently teach children to be deceitful. 

            Many situations arise throughout school that teach children the benefits of lying.  Here is a classic example of such a lesson:  A fourth grader forgets a slip of paper on his dining room table as he rushes out to catch the bus in the morning.  The little slip of paper reads,“Johnny has my permission to ride bus 4 home to Timmy’s house after school today.  Thank you.  –Carol Marsh.”  But when 2:30 rolls around, Johnny can’t find the permission slip.  He goes to the office to plead his case – he calls his mother, but she’s out at the grocery store and can’t hear the home phone from the cereal isle at Hannaford.  He starts to cry and offers to bring in a slip tomorrow to prove he is not lying, but it is no good.  Johnny finally gives up because he knows the receptionist will not believehim even though he is telling the truth.  One of his classmates sees his distress and suggests, “I can write a permission slip for you – I’m really good at signatures.”  Johnny tried it the honest way and it didn’t work, so he nervously accepts.  With the scrawly signature on the receptionist’s desk, Johnny dashes onto bus 4 before she can protest.  So, lying works better… Johnny thinks.  Children are treated like they are undeserving of trust which, in turn, makes them resort to untrustworthy behavior.  This is one illustration of a common elementary school event that teaches children that to get something they honestly deserve, lying often works better than telling the truth.  But there are more subtle ways to be deceiving than outright lying.

            In one of his earlier cartoons from 1987 called, “Life in Hell,” Matt Groening portrays a school principle ranting at the student body.  It is very clear that the principle thinks little of his students and is telling nothing but the ugly truth as Matt Groening sees it.  The principle candidly says, “Learning has nothing to do with life.  Learning is passive.  It must always be tedious….  Your concerns count for nothing.  What is important is what we say is important” (Groening, 172).  It is this concept that teachers often convey to students without meaning to at all.  Just the fact that teachers decide what to teach children, that it is there in black and white on the syllabus, is a little insulting.  In effect teachers really do decide “what is important.”  The principle in the cartoon says, “Your concerns count for nothing,” but is it true?  In high schools there are student leadership teams with class presidents, secretaries, and treasurers.  Sometimes these groups are effective at making changes in schools, but more often than not they are just to show on resumés.  And when a leadership group is effective, it’s very rarely (if ever) effective at changing curriculum.  Kids learn that their omnipotent teachers control the world, so why bother to question authority when it will only get them in trouble?  Of course there are different ways of rebelling, but kids usually learn that it is not worth it.  Doing the easy thing and keeping quiet proves safest in the end, even when children want change and feel differently than they express.  Feeling one way and acting another is an example of how school teaches kids to hide the truth.  Children can also learn to change the truth just enough to serve a certain purpose.

Children are often confronted with a classroom setting in which they are required to contribute to a discussion.  Many kids are apathetic, only in school because the law says they have to be, and generally uninterested in classes.  These kids will never raise their hands during class – they must be called on by the big bad teacher.  Matt Groening has an excellent depiction of such an experience in one of his comics from 1983 called, “Life in School.”  The teacher raises the question, “Who can tell me the purpose of what we have learned today?”  One student sits at his desk, looking vacant, while many thoughts cross his mind – thoughts like, “To be dull little obedient sheep… to regard those who are different with suspicion and contempt… to make us get used to meaningless busywork in preparation for our boring adult jobs…”  He resignedly raises his hand and says, “Today we learned the importance of good citizenship, civic pride, and keeping our desks tidy.”  The teacher expresses her approval before a final thought crosses the student’s mind – “And to be devious little weasels” (Groening, 181).  Through a short period of trial and error, students quickly learn what different teachers are looking for from their students.  This is especially evident in high school when students get to be better judges of the character of teachers.  Different teachers expect certain kinds of essays and once a student has mastered the different techniques required for each teacher, he or she is guaranteed at least a B.  The same is true for class participation – one teacher wants kids to ask questions and add comments to discussions while another doesn’t at all mind envisioning his class as a lecture hall.  A student could write a paper for her science teacher about the Big Bang theory… within it she states that the Creation theory is bunk simply because she knows that is the teacher’s view.  In reality this student believes that God created the cosmos and the earth along with it, but she wrote the essay to promote the Big Bang because she felt that to comply with the teacher’s view would earn her a better grade.  In this way, kids learn to change the truth to make other people happy because it will get them the best grade, but not everybody believes that lying is always a bad thing.

Plenty of people would make the argument that being able to fake one’s way through situations is a good skill to have in life.  A person working for a newspaper might not agree with a certain topic he or she is assigned to write about, but it is necessary that the journalist write it anyway to keep the job.  It is true that journalists often put a swing on controversial issues (perhaps without even meaning to) so that a certain attitude is conveyed, but technically they are supposed to remain objective.  It might feel morally uncomfortable to a journalist to write an article about an abortion bill passed by congress, but the article must still be written.  In order to appear unbiased and stay in good standing with the liberal boss, the journalist writes the article and convinces the boss that he or she supports abortion.  The journalist would probably refer to this type of deceit as “white lying,” because it didn’t hurt anyone and helped get him or her out of a potentially awkward situation.  People lie all the time to avoid sticky situations and is that necessarily a bad thing if no one “gets hurt” by it?  It is often a question of morals.  In most cultures lying is frowned upon which is directly visible in Christianity; the Bible says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness” (Exodus 20:16).  Honesty is promoted not only in personal families, but also in society as a whole.  Just about every American has heard the phrase, “honesty is the best policy,” and “the truth will set you free.”  For lots of people fibbing just does not feel good even if it gets them what they want; guilt can take the joy out of anything.  But there are still lots of people who would argue that deception is a valuable thing for children to learn – they would probably thank schools for giving kids a jumpstart.  These little liars can have a big impact on everything around them.

There is also the question of the state of the country – the way the fiscal budget is being spent, federal mandates, the economy as a whole….  Most people would not feel comfortable thinking that the grand old United States of America is being run by a bunch of frauds using different versions of the truth to suit their needs and wants.  Even if they happen to be doing a good job, it would make a lot of people nervous to know that our country’s leaders don’t know how to do the job in an ethically correct manor.  For example, many people are convinced that the War on Terror was not a war on terror at all – it was just a tug of war for oil.  Many would say the government has not been telling the people “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”  The media is also a classic example – showing viewers only what they want them to see, and not necessarily both sides to the story.  This can and does lead to undeserved animosity on lots of subjects.  Kids learn a lot in school, though not all of it is necessarily what a parent would deem “good.”  Children learn that they can get their way by flat-out lying (like forging a bus pass), they learn to deny their real feelings to avoid confrontation, and they learn to alter the truth because it is sure to benefit them in some way (like getting a better grade).  Perhaps these are skills necessary to survival in “real life,” as teachers call all things post high school, but it is understandable to worry that our public school systems may be bringing up generations of con artists… con artists who will be the leaders of tomorrow.

So, you want to be a professional scriptwriter, huh? There are lots of different kinds of scriptwriting and lots of things involved with the job. But anyone who is interested in pursuing it as a career will want to know about salary and advancement, and whatever’s necessary to get started.

Naturally, any kind of writing professionally looks good on a resume when searching for a job in scriptwriting. Apparently having experience in radio is also a good thing to show on one’s resume for this type of career.

Believe it or not, there is a New York Screenwriter Magazine and they often hold contests – you can enter your script to see if it meets the high expectations of the magazine. You can win considerable prizes, too. Going to film festivals is always a good idea to try to spread your name, and even joining an online screenwriter’s community can be helpful. The website www.screenwriter.com is an online group screenwriters can join to get useful tips, read others’ scripts, or ask questions.

Another big jumpstart to a screenwriter’s career is “knowing people.” If you have any links to people in the business, or links to people who have links to people in the business, use them! Make phone calls, have lunch, get advice, do anything you can to connect with these individuals because they can prove to be an invaluable asset to getting your scriptwriting career off the ground.

The average starting salary of a scriptwriter, as far as I could find, is between $15,000 and $28,000 annually. The salary of an experienced (and successful) scriptwriter can be anywhere up to over $100,000 annually.

In conclusion, these are things to keep in mind while pursuing a scriptwriting career; having any background in writing will look good on a resume; connections in the business will let you get an insider’s look at being a scriptwriter and can even boost you into a position; networking is infinitely important to kick off your career; and the starting pay isn’t great, but if you make it in the business your salary will skyrocket. Good luck!

Sources

“Screenwriters Online”

Retrieved September 29, 2006, from: www.screenwriter.com

“College of Communications: FAQs”

Retrieved September 29, 2006, from: http://communications.fullerton.edu/comm/faqs.html

“Scriptwriter Market Research Ad”

Retrieved September 29, 2006, from: http://www.york.cuny.edu/~sosci/scriptwriter.htm

“Creative Screenwriting”

Retrieved September 29, 2006, from: http://www.creativescreenwriting.com/events.html

“The Dabbling Mum: Help! I Want to Be A Scriptwriter!”

Retrieved September 29, 2006, from: http://thedabblingmum.com/writing/writerniche/scriptwriter.htm

Animal rights have been an issue for Americans for decades. Many people oppose the use of animals in research testing, entertainment, and as food and clothing for humans. The “animal liberation movement,” as it is sometimes referred to, has been gaining recognition and followers over recent years. In the forefront of this animal rights campaign is an organization called the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA. PETA is known for its radical approaches to achieving its cause as well as increasing public awareness on recent issues. But is this organization working for all it claims to value? Recently PETA has been portrayed in a less-than-animal-friendly light. I will present the facts for and against PETA; readers can decide for themselves whether or not the organization is honorable.

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are against leather, fur, and meat. PETA members also believe that animals should not be domesticated; domestication has even been called “new slavery” by some people. The PETA website provides an abundance of information on vegetarianism. Anyone visiting the site can sign up for a free “vegetarian starter kit” to be delivered to his or her house within six weeks or so. PETA appears to support, and be supported by, www.goveg.com, a website dedicated to converting people to vegetarianism (PETA, 2007).

PETA’s website, www.peta.com, is full of uplifting information about the organization and what it stands for. However, the website is not all fun and games; also on the site are many videos of animal cruelty taken by PETA spies in various locations. The graphic videos show animals in testing facilities, slaughterhouses, farms, circuses, and other places being horrifically mistreated and often killed. Scenes of baby chicks being de-beaked, cows’ necks being slit, and chickens being violently thrown against walls easily made me cry. After watching a few heart-wrenching videos I had an immediate desire to become vegetarian, along with being completely convinced that PETA was a wonderful organization working for a just cause.

PETA is known for its radical and often frightening demonstrations. In several cases, PETA members have protested by crashing fashion modeling shoots. They will sometimes splash red paint across women modeling fur clothing to symbolize the blood spilled by animals. PETA hosts demonstrations all over the world where members lie on trays, wrapped in plastic to look like packaged meat bought at the store. Red paint was often splashed across the plastic to look like blood. In a surprising number of their demonstrations and protests, PETA members wear little to no clothing, proclaiming “We’d rather bare skin than wear skin.” PETA also hosts a “makeout tour,” where couples passionately kiss in public to prove that vegetarians make better lovers. Along with their demonstrations, PETA’s ad campaign is slightly disturbing. Most of the organization’s ads featuring people tend to be just as scantily clad as the public demonstrators usually are. Other ads feature grotesque images of slaughtered animals, aiming to scare viewers to vegetarianism.

PETA’s ad campaign and demonstration techniques are radical to say the least; in fact, they are often completely offensive and make people very uncomfortable. PETA’s methods seem to be terror tactics used to force the public into joining their cause. That alone puts a bad taste in the mouths of many individuals. Most Americans would rather be genuinely convinced that PETA is a respectable organization than being terrified into believing in the cause.

Unfortunately PETA may not be as wonderful as it appears. Information has become available that contradicts PETA’s aim to achieve “the ethical treatment of animals” proclaimed by their slogan. One anti-PETA organization is called PETA Kills Animals and their website is www.petakillsanimals.com. This organization has some shocking evidence uncovering an ugly side of PETA.

In June of 2005, two PETA members were arrested in North Carolina for allegedly euthanizing 31 adoptable pets and abandoning the bagged corpses in a dumpster. The trial was in January, 2007, and they were acquitted of the animal cruelty charges. Instead they were charged with littering and some other minor offenses; they face about $4000 in fines, 10 days in jail, and 50 hours of community service, among other things. According to PETA Kills Animals, between 1998 and 2005, PETA euthanized 14,400 dogs, cats, and other “companion animals;” an average of 5 animal deaths per day. In 2005 alone, PETA euthanized over 90% of the animals they took in. Apparently PETA also has a cremation deal with a Virginia Beach company (PETA Kills Animals, 2007).

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals appears to be a wonderful organization dedicated to saving animals from mistreatment, torture, and death. However, PETA has proven itself to be a radical and sometimes terrifying and violent group who gains support through terror tactics. PETA also takes in many animals each year, but has not publicized the fact that it euthanizes most of those animals. From a distance the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals seem to be dedicated to a fabulous and admirable cause. Unfortunately a closer view reveals the darker side of PETA; this organization may not be the animal-friendly group they claim to be.

Works Cited

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (2007). Retrieved April 22, 2007, from

www.peta.com.

PETA Kills Animals. (2007). Retrieved April 22, 2007, from

www.petakillsanimals.com.

As every American elementary school student knows, in 1492 Christopher Columbus sailed to what was to later become the United States of America. With him came many Europeans and slaves to the “New World” throughout the next few decades. They were met there by natives, whom they mistakenly called Indians.

The natives of this new continent were curious and amazed by the “white man” and his technology. Europeans brought many marvels with them to America, including guns, swords and knives, jewelry, and mirrors. Early colonists benefited from Indian knowledge in many ways – Natives shared food as well as their superior agricultural skills freely. The pilgrims of Plymouth only survived the winter of 1620 because of the help of a Massachusetts Wampanoag tribe (Lui et al., The Color of Wealth, 2006 p. 38). The colonists also respected the natives in part because of their numbers and military strength. As more Europeans arrived from the Old World, however, the friendly spirit between the two groups turned sour. As more people arrived with more technology, the once-respected natives became primitive and inferior to the colonists. Many newcomers even thought of them as “savages;” more similar to animals than human beings. It is not surprising that before long conflict arose between the two groups of people.

Europeans not only brought with them the latest technology of the time, they also brought disease. The Native Americans had not built up immunities to many of the European illnesses, and therefore even common sicknesses to Europeans were devastating to natives. Many Native Americans died because of the new diseases introduced by the “white man,” including measles, chicken pox, and small pox.

Unlike the new, fair-skinned Europeans, the natives had no concept of owning land; they believed that land belonged to no one. Needless to say, they were surprised and confused when the newcomers started claiming land for themselves. They started pushing the Native Americans west to make room for themselves and their new land. It didn’t take long for the natives to believe that the Europeans were greedy and would stop at nothing to get what they wanted.

When Columbus landed on the shores of the future United States, there were an estimated five million natives living in what is now North America. Many different tribes controlled different regions of land across the continent; some were agrarian societies while others lived nomadic lifestyles. According to Lui et al (2006), by 1800 many of these tribes had been forced inland by European settlements. By 1900 the Indian population had plummeted to about one million and “was residing on less than four percent of the original continental United States” (The Color of Wealth p. 36).

Hostility grew between the two opposing groups, though they had once shared the land harmoniously. Tension arose as the settlers shoved the Indians west and took land for themselves. Many wars and battles were fought by many different Indian tribes and the New World settlers. The superior technological firepower and growing numbers of the colonists ultimately resulted in the suppression of Native Americans which is still occurring today.

Despite the economic and racial concerns that effect many Native tribes, most American Indians celebrate their rich history and try to uphold old customs and traditions. Monique Poirier is a senior at PineManorCollege and is also a Native American. She is a member of the Seaconke Wampanoag tribe and grew up on the land where her tribe historically lived. In an interview with Monique, she discussed the traditions of her Wampanoag tribe, “My tribe still hosts single-tribe powwows for certain occasions like the Strawberry Festival and the Harvest Moon Festival. This entails dancing, story telling, native foods and crafts, and lessons on how to make traditional items.” Though the tribe has get-togethers, Monique also mentioned how the tribe members had very separate lives; they are only closely connected through their mutual ethnic background. This is a very different view from that of a close-knit community which was typical of Indian tribes prior to 1492. Monique also commented on the modern view of Native American history, “‘Native Americans’ get tossed into a single group as if the hundreds of different nations and cultures that existed here pre-European colonization are a monoculture and share a history.”

Many natives died in battles during the struggle for power created by European colonists; it is possible that entire tribes were wiped out. Today, according to Lui et al (2006), there are 562 federally recognized tribes, 229 of which are Alaskan Native tribes (The Color of Wealth p. 31). Every tribe has a unique history because every tribe had a unique experience, making it difficult to generalize the history of Native Americans as an entire people. One would need to write 562 separate histories to accurately convey “Native American History.” The history of the Native American, or American Indian, is a very complicated subject to cover broadly.

Case Study Connections:

Thomas is from a Navajo lineage, and therefore my brief history of eastern tribes will not really help him. I suppose knowing the information wouldn’t hurt him, but specifically he would probably benefit from knowledge of the western tribes’ history. It sounds like Thomas is in an intense time of confusion in his life – he is alone and doesn’t really know where to go next. I think it would help him to seek out his heritage, if not his relatives specifically.

If I was a counselor trying to help Thomas, I would try to contact his Navajo reservation to find relatives who might want to help him readjust to life on a reservation. If that would be too emotionally difficult or awkward because of him being “sent away” at three, I would try to at least help him learn about his history and help him find a different reservation if he wanted to live there. I would also suggest that he try to get into one or several support groups, one for ethnic support, and another for his alcohol abuse.

I think what Thomas needs is to feel part of something, and being a member of a tribe would be good not only for that, but also to help him learn about his own history and who he is. Especially considering the possibility that direct family may not be an option for him, he needs other people to feel connected to. That, along with sobering up, would help clear up his confusion and depression.

Works Cited

Lui, M., Robles, B., Leondar-Wright, B., Brewer, R., and Adamson, R. (2006) The color

of wealth: The story behind the U.S. racial wealth divide. New York: The New

Press.

Poirier, Monique. Personal Interview conducted April 3, 2007.

Native Americans. (2005). The first people of America: History of Native American

tribes. Retrieved April 3, 2007, from http://www.nativeamericans.com/

Karkavelas, Will. (2002). Native Americans: 1492: An ongoing voyage. Retrieved

April 3, 2007, from http://www2005.lang.osaka-u.ac.jp/~krkvls/history.html

University of Washington Libraries. (2007). Native American history. Retrieved

April 3, 2007, from http://www.lib.washington.edu/subject/History/tm/native.html

Environment and culture play large roles in how different people perceive, especially visually. Other senses, such as taste and auditory perception, vary across culture as well, but there has been little study on those topics. However, there has been much research about the visual abilities of people across cultures – some people see things differently or sooner than others. Visual perception is not the same for everyone and it is especially evident when studied cross-culturally. Popular theories suggest that visual perception is influenced by culture – environment, experiences, etc. J.B. Deregowski (1980), a professor at the University of Aberdeen, summarizes this view, “if perception is affected by experience, [cultural differences] may lead to differences in perception among various populations” (p. 13).

There are many different illusions that researchers have created to test peoples’ visual abilities. One of the most well-known of these is the Mueller-Lyer illusion. The Mueller-Lyer illusion is of two lines of the same length; the ends of one line are arrows pointing outward. The ends of the other line are arrows pointing inward, toward the line. The illusion it creates is that the lines are different lengths – the one with outward-facing arrows looks shorter than the one with inward-facing arrows. Two similar illusions are the horizontal / vertical and Ponzo illusions. The horizontal / vertical illusion is fairly self-explanatory; a horizontal line is intersected in the middle with a vertical line, similar to an upside-down T. The illusion created is that the horizontal line is shorter than the vertical line, when in fact they are the same length. The Ponzo illusion involves a set of four lines. Two diagonal long lines make an upside down V, while the other two shorter lines intersect at different points of the V. The illusion suggests that the top intersecting line is longer, when in fact the two intersecting lines are the same length.

All of these images create the illusion of a difference in length between two lines that are the same. If the two lines are the same length, what causes people to see a difference? There are a couple of different theories about what causes these illusions. The Carpentered World Theory is a popular explanation of the Mueller-Lyer illusion; it states that most people who live in developed cultures are used to seeing things in rectangular shape. Deregowski (1980) compared modern developed societies and non-western societies by saying, “It is an undisputed feature of man-made goods that they tend to display a greater regularity of form than do the natural objects encountered daily” (p. 13). In more developed cultures, products are often shaped rectangularly; we pack things in boxes, and our architecture is predominantly rectangular – everything has squared corners. The Carpentered World Theory suggests that even without evidence of rectangular right angles (i.e., viewing a house from an inconclusive angle), people assume that an object was created with square corners. Seeing square corners proposes that an object also has depth. For example, in the Mueller-Lyer image assume that the arrows are corners of a three-dimensional object. The bottom line seems to project outward, while the top line projects in toward the viewer. If two lines appear to be the same length, but are at different distances, a viewer can safely assume that they are different lengths. The line farther from sight would be longer than the line closer to the viewer. The Carpentered World Theory tells us that viewers assume the bottom line to be longer because viewers subconsciously think it is farther away (Matsumoto, 1994).

The Front-Horizontal Foreshortening Theory is similar to the Carpentered World Theory in that it suggests that viewers interpret two-dimensional images as three-dimensional. The Front-Horizontal Foreshortening Theory says that viewers assume that vertical lines represent something running off into the distance and away from sight, such as a road or railroad tracks. This theory is a good explanation of the horizontal / vertical and Ponzo illusions. In the horizontal / vertical illusion the viewer assumes that the vertical line is extending toward the horizon, perhaps miles long, whereas the horizontal line is closer in space and therefore shorter. In the Ponzo illusion, we see this theory clearly at work if we envision the image as train tracks stretching out in front of us. The farther away the horizontal line appears, the longer it must be (Matsumoto, 1994).

In 1905 a researcher by the name of W.H.R. Rivers tested the Mueller-Lyer and horizontal / vertical illusions on three groups from different cultures. He tested people from England, New Guinea, and rural India. The British people noticed a greater difference in length of the Mueller-Lyer lines than did the other two groups. This finding supports the Carpentered World Theory; England is a more developed country than New Guinea and rural India and therefore the rectangular right-angled perception is more prevalent. In contrast, the groups from New Guinea and India were more easily fooled by the horizontal / vertical illusion. This can be explained by India and New Guinea having fewer buildings to block the view of the horizon; they are used to seeing things at greater distances. Thus these two groups of people would be more susceptible to the horizontal / vertical illusion (Matsumoto, 1994). Marshall Segall and his colleagues also conducted research in the 1960s to see how different cultures were affected by the Mueller-Lyer and horizontal / vertical illusions. They found similar results to those found by Rivers in 1905. Western societies were more fooled by the Mueller-Lyer than non-western cultures; non-western groups were more fooled by the horizontal / vertical illusion – these findings support the Carpentered World Theory just as Rivers’ research did (Segall, Campbell, & Herskovit, 1968).

There is a third theory that aims to explain the Mueller-Lyer and horizontal / vertical illusions and their different effects on people of various cultures. The Symbolizing-Three-Dimensions-In-Two Theory suggests that people in western countries utilize pictures on paper more than other cultures, and therefore have learned to interpret them in different ways. According to this theory the Indian and New Guinean groups would have been less fooled by the Mueller-Lyer illusion because interpreting such an image would be more “foreign” to them, while they would be more fooled by the horizontal / vertical illusion because it is an image common to their lifestyle (Matsumoto, 1994).

A shining example of the Symbolizing-Three-Dimensions-In-Two Theory is that of the Bantu tribesmen of South Africa. In 1960 a researcher named Hudson took drawn pictures to a tribe in South Africa hoping that the pictures would stir emotion in the people. He was surprised to find that the tribesmen often did not see the pictures the same way that people from western cultures would. In one image a hunter is depicted aiming a spear at a gazelle. In the background between the two figures is an elephant standing on a hill. The Bantu people were confused and asked why the man in the picture was hunting baby elephants. The tribesmen believed that the elephant was in the foreground between the hunter and the gazelle; they attributed its small size to it being a baby instead of being in the distance. They had little concept of a two-dimensional picture representing a three-dimensional scene. Someone from a western culture would immediately say that the hunter’s target was the gazelle (Matsumoto, 1994). This is a situation in which culture clearly effects how people perceive pictures and drawings.

In 1963 and 1966, researcher Segall and colleagues conducted research to test the illusion theories and made a surprising discovery; the effects of the illusions declined and nearly disappeared with age. According to all three theories, one would expect the illusions to have an even greater effect on older generations because they would have been even more used to their surroundings. The ability to detect contours is vastly important in the Mueller-Lyer illusion, if not all of them. This ability declines with age; it is possible, therefore, that older generations are less easily fooled by the Mueller-Lyer because it is more difficult for them to perceive contours (Matsumoto, 1994).

Another popular illusion is that of a woman wearing a fur coat. She can be seen either as a pretty young woman or an ugly old lady. The young woman’s chin and ear turn into the old lady’s nose and eye, respectively, and vice versa. In the United States of America where youth is greatly valued, the young woman is more likely to be the first perceived. In other cultures where the elderly are highly valued it is more likely that the old lady will be perceived first. Most people can see both women if they look long enough, but culture helps determine which one a viewer is likely to see first. Another common illusion is one which can be seen as an elegant vase, or two peoples’ faces possibly about to kiss. Though I found no cross-cultural research on this specific illusion, it is probably safe to assume that culture would play a role in which image viewers would see first. In a culture that highly values art a person would likely see the vase before the faces. On the other hand, if the viewer was from a culture that valued people, love, and relationships, he or she would probably see the faces first. Culture plays a very large role in the way all people see.

There has been a great degree of research on visual perception, though not studied cross-culturally. Some interesting topics in this category are motion and color. An intriguing visual perception / motion test is to look at a rushing waterfall for a short period of time. When the viewer shifts his or her gaze to a stationary object, the object appears to rise upward. Another motion illusion of sorts is an image of spirals. When rotated, the spirals create the illusion that they are expanding outward or inward, depending on the image. Try rotating the spiral image on this page to see the illusion of motion. The perception of color has been studied as well. Researchers have found that people often perceive color variations when there are none. An example of this is a formation of four squares of different colors, inside each of which is another square of yet a different color. Viewers usually see the four inner boxes as varying in shade, when in fact they are exactly the same color (Fineman, 1981). The perception of color is often influenced by other surrounding colors. The colors of the background boxes create the illusion by contrasting the two colors; a greater difference appears between the outer box colors and inner box colors. This leads viewers to believe that the inner box colors vary in shade (Wade & Swanston, 1991).

I was surprised to find very little information, in the library and on the internet, on the topic of cross-cultural perception. I found many books on illusions and perception, but very little of it applied cross-culturally. I was also surprised most of the information pertaining generally to perception was outdated, often from the 1980s and early 1990s. Visual abilities and tendencies vary across cultures which suggests that other perceptions such as taste, hearing, and scent, may vary across cultures as well. Very little research has been done outside of the visual category and I can only hope that researchers are presently studying other perception topics. The topic of cross-cultural perception is fascinating and needs to be researched further.

The field of cross-cultural psychology has only discovered the tip of an iceberg of information about perception. Illusions are a good tool to determine whether people across cultures are more or less likely to be visually fooled. Once that is established researchers can find out why. Culture plays a huge part in every person’s life – it determines who a person is, whether or not he or she will change, and why. Culture affects every aspect of a person’s life, including visual perception. Whether it is an illusion that is being perceived, one’s surroundings, or a simple drawing, culture effects how people see.

Works Cited

Matsumoto, David. (1994). People: Psychology from a cultural perspective.

Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Deregowski, J.B. (1980). Illusions, patterns, and pictures: A cross-cultural perspective.

London: Academic Press.

Wade, N. & Swanston, M. (1991). Visual perception: An introduction.

London: Routledge.

Fineman, Mark. (1981). The nature of visual illusion.

Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.

Segall, M., Campbell, D., & Herskovit, M. (1968). The influence of culture on visual

perception. Retrieved April 24, 2007, from

http://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/socialperception14.pdf