We never get tired of hearing about Beowulf.
No, I’m not talking about the actual Geatish hero or the eponymous poem in Anglo-Saxon, or even the attempts at movie versions in recent years (I haven’t seen the one with Angelina Jolie, though if that’s the only one you know, check out Sturla Gunnarsson‘s original take on the story in Beowulf & Grendel with Gerard Butler and Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson). I’m mainly interested in the basic trope of Specialist Warriors From Away Swoop in to Deal With Monster.
It’s the basis for most of the hunting-the-psycho cop shows out there, in particular Criminal Minds. CSI and NCIS incarnations have it too, particularly when they’re about a killer; and Silence of the Lambs may as well have just been called Grendel, since the inhuman monster, Hannibal Lecter, is the overpowering star.
The basic plot is this: horrible, usually fatal things are happening somewhere pleasant to innocent people, and local law enforcement is helpless to stop it. In swoops Hotch and his specialist team, usually with a deep line from literature or philosophy in the voiceover. It’s not quite an epic in verse, but you can’t be too pretentious on TV.
It’s usually the same — some gruesome string of crimes, right up there with Grendel’s habitual visits to King Hrothgar’s sleeping court, cannibalizing his people. And the only relief in sight is when the special agents arrive. Unlike the regular police (read: Hrothgar’s men-at-arms) they pick up the monster’s trail (like Beowulf finding the monster in the darkened hall) and eventually catch and overpower him (though not, it must be said, in an epic wrestling match in which the “unsub” has his arm ripped off).
The term “unsub” — for “unknown subject” is actually a telling dehumanization of the person the team is trying to catch. They might as well call him the creep, the psycho, the pervert, the killer — or what is really meant in terms of the narrative: the monster.
Of course, in the space of an hour-long show, there is only time for the adventure of catching the monster, not the aftermath. There’s no Grendel’s mother to deal with — perhaps in modern terms that would be the legal fallout, which, given the number of people the Criminal Minds team puts away, would involve many, many hours in court, I would think. It would at least put the whole struggle against the monsters in context.
Similarly, I doubt we will ever see the end-of-career final battle against a beast that undoes the team, or at least shows Hotch can’t hack it anymore — our modern sensibilities for narrative, at least on network TV, don’t really allow for hopeless-battle endings. It’s too bad.
But then, I suspect the underlying assumption of shows like Criminal Minds are that the system works, the monsters are always dealt with, and well, that’s just the way it’s going to keep working. Not that, say, glory is fleeting and even the greatest among us will eventually die. But maybe the Anglo-Saxon audiences thrilling to recitals of Beowulf didn’t have the short attention span required to avoid thinking about basic truths like that.
P.S. If you want to see a surprisingly entertaining and non-stupid iteration of the Beowulf story, watch Outlander.
Related articles
- Beorn again: Tolkien’s favoured lycanthrope (davidjonfuller.com)
- Smearing a Hero (leeduigon.com)
March 11, 2012 at 1:14 pm
I like this post! It is true: we tend to demonise television killers in order to justify playing ‘hard ball’. Perhaps because we view the real life legal system is becoming too weak?
March 11, 2012 at 1:47 pm
I think narratively it just ties up the “everyone gets their just desserts” storyline, which rarely seems to happen in real life. I suspect a series like Criminal Minds in which the bad guy got away more often than not would not last long. Not saying I want the monsters to win, literally or figuratively; just that since the idea of trolls doesn’t really scare us anymore, we need entertainment/stories that target those whom we fear most.
September 21, 2012 at 8:22 am
This is a great post. May I use it in my classes when I teach BEOWULF?
September 21, 2012 at 9:00 am
Absolutely! I have another interview with the actor who played Grendel — I will post that when I can, if that’s of interest to you.
September 21, 2012 at 9:47 am
Whoops, I mixed up which post this was on. But yes, please go ahead and use it. I have another post in mind, examining the movie Predator in the context of Beowulf (as well as other contexts), but it’s not ready quite yet.
September 21, 2012 at 11:44 am
I’ll use this one. 🙂 Thanks!
October 23, 2013 at 9:02 am
A show from the perspective of the “monsters” would be an interesting counter to Criminal Minds (a Grendel in addition to a Beowulf). I think nowadays with so many shows following the basic Beowulf plot line, one that made us watch from the side of and perhaps sympathize with the monster would be worthwhile. I always did like Grendel more than Beowulf.
October 23, 2013 at 9:17 am
Hi Taylor!
That’s an interesting idea! I haven’t seen the new show based on Hannibal Lecter, but I wonder whether this is an attempt to do that — to get inside the mind of the monster.
Such a show or story would humanize the monster — and, I think, remove the “monstrosity” of the character.
Part of what makes Grendel so terrifying (and, I would argue, the constant revolving door of monsters in a show like Criminal Minds) is that they are thoroughly “othered” — made out to be inscrutable, beyond human comprehension, so we don’t know what they are going to do next.
A standard villain has some human motivation, even if he/she uses it as a basis for evil acts. But a monster, I think, is disquieting because it is like us but on some level unknowable.
October 25, 2013 at 11:48 am
I have in fact seen the new show Hannibal and I must confess I am a diehard fan. Aside from the incredible cinematography and talented cast, the show is incredibly compelling in its evaluation of the concepts of monsters. It bears a great deal of resemblance to the Beowulf story in its character parallels: Will Graham is a modern Hrothgar and Hannibal offers a chilling Grendel component. Will works for the FBI as a consultant. He is absolutely brilliant, but the unique perspective he offers is not glory-based. He works by psychologically infiltrating the minds of the killers (much like the BAU team in Criminal Minds) except that his method of choice is to imagine killing the victims. Clearly this is a very dark process and it eats away at his psych. It allows him to be successful in his job, but it also is his failing characteristic, his major flaw that leads to his downfall. Like Hrothgar he is a leader (he is the most crucial component to the success of his FBI team) but he falters in the face of his personal Grendel: Hannibal. Hannibal challenges Will by creating every possible obstruction to his mental recovery. In fact, Hannibal inserts himself into Will’s team and then commits the majority of the murders that they investigate, then proceeds to work under the guise of Will’s psychiatrist helping him to recover from the scars that Hannibal himself is creating. Hannibal, like Grendel, takes a keen interest in Will who functions as the Danes as a whole. He takes pleasure and pride in controlling Will’s mind and every decision he makes by wreaking havoc on his life (**spoiler alert!!! — and eventually framing him for a murder and landing him in jail). And these are really only the surface parallels. All in all, it’s a program with immense depth that fully evaluates the concept of a monster, both in its most common sense (a manipulative, sociopathic murderer like Hannibal) and the tragic hero (Will Graham — part of him must be a monster in order for him to catch a killer by becoming him). I fully recommend the show, for both entertainment and its relevant topic!
October 25, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Wow, that’s quite a thoughtful analysis, Cameron, thanks for providing it. It makes the Hannibal series sound much more interesting. I did like the original Silence of the Lambs movie with Anthony Hopkins, but had heard such terrible things about the movie sequels I never saw them. Sounds like the TV series is hitting a lot of marks.
October 23, 2013 at 9:21 am
Ack, I just realized “Dexter” is probably a better example of the “monster as main character” show — and maybe that’s part of why it was such a big hit.
October 23, 2013 at 5:32 pm
I’ve never seen Dexter, but maybe now I’ll check it out!
I see what you mean by the terrifying part – the main appeal in Criminal Minds – being the inhuman part of the “bad guys.” I suppose that’s the reason we’re so scared of them: they’re humans, yet capable of operating on a level most people can’t understand. I guess we’re scared because it could be anyone, because they have all the disturbing parts of a monster but the packaging of a human. So it’s not just the inhuman or “regular” human parts, but both in one.
October 23, 2013 at 8:46 pm
Yes, exactly! That’s why Grendel is so terrifying — he’s manlike in form, but more powerful and cannibalistic. In ANglo-Saxon, he’s referred to as a(n) “eotan” — which means essentially “troll” but is related to the Old Norse “jötunn” or giant. But the etymological root of the word means “one who eats” — in other words, one who eats humans. He’s meant to combine that monstrous behaviour in a manlike form.
October 23, 2013 at 8:47 pm
And to be honest, I haven’t seen “Dexter” either 🙂 I can’t handle watching too much gore. But I’ve heard a lot about it and I think the central concept hinges on making the monster the main “hero.”
October 23, 2013 at 9:12 pm
“The series centers on Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall), a blood spatter pattern analyst for ‘Miami Metro Police Department’ who also leads a secret life as a serial killer, hunting down criminals who have slipped through the cracks of justice.” -Wikipedia
I suppose he’s a vigilante then; for me that sets him apart from Grendel in that we’re supposed to like him. The Blacklist is a new show about this criminal who suddenly turns himself in to help the FBI: I’ve only seen one episode but it seems like he’s more like the character we’re thinking of. Although he’s helping the FBI, he still does some pretty awful things in order to help them. However, it’s not really from his perspective, so it retains some of that unknown factor.
October 24, 2013 at 6:31 am
I think what is telling is the role the “monster” must play in the stories a culture tells about it. It’s as if it must stand for whatever the people in that culture feel is beyond their standards of what is right or familiar, so the monsters that truly frighten us must change with the times.
For example, prior to a modern understanding of psychology, for a person to be called “mad” or “possessed” was usually a way of demarcating him/her as a monster beyond human comprehension. Nowadays, in some parts of the U.S., homosexuals are still demonized this way (at least in some extremists’ rhetoric).
October 23, 2013 at 2:14 pm
I’m not really much of a television watcher besides sports and news, so I don’t know much about these TV shows, and especially not enough to comment on their similarities to Beowulf. But I do see a striking similarity between Beowulf and my favorite movie character, Batman. I’ve always thought that. Christopher Nolan especially, the directors of the Batman movies have made an effort to make Batman almost a political figure, as he rescues the innocent people from that which their government cannot contain. He’s like their savior when the government can’t uphold their end of the social contract. But after reading Beowulf, I think Batman can just as easily be compared to Beowulf, since both do not possess odd super powers, they’re the only ones who can defeat the “monsters” that they fight, they fight for unselfish reasons, and they fight with their intellect. I wish of course that I were more up to date on today’s TV shows like Criminal Minds, but this is a comparison that I just realized and that I’ve never really heard anybody else make. Batman is one of those very rare “superheroes” who doesn’t actually have odd powers like say, Superman or Spiderman. And according to Google internet polls (obviously one of the less credible sources, but still), Batman is the most popular searched superhero on the internet. I find that very interesting. Batman is perhaps the most relatable hero, since he has no superhuman powers, and perhaps that is why we glorify his character.
October 23, 2013 at 8:58 pm
Yes, I think Batman does epitomize that “super-warrior” figure, as does Beowulf. Beowulf is a mighty warrior but not superhuman; much like Batman. And you make a pointed comparison that the political/traditional authorities (eg. Commisioner Gordon) must turn to the outside warrior, Batman, to deal with the human monsters plaguing the city. All of Batman’s foes are grotesque versions of people — the Joker, the Penguin, KIller Croc — like Grendel, human in form but abominations in spirit.
BTW, I don’t think you’re missing much by not seeing too much TV — to me, all cop shows with a team of experts/warriors endlessly repeat the Beowulf tropes, and not nearly as well.
For a more interesting version of Beowulf, I like to watch Predator. The alien in it is very much like Grendel — unseen, it hunts people to dismember them, and it destroys the elite team that attempts to battle it until only Dutch (Arnold), standing for Beowulf, matches it.
October 24, 2013 at 8:05 am
I really like what you have to say about the term “unsub.” On occasion I watch Criminal Minds and I never really thought about what that term meant. I feel like especially in Grendel, Grendel is portrayed as the unidentified subject because Beowulf, Hrothgar and his men don’t see any human qualities in him at all and have no intentions of treating him humanely (as we see when Grendel tries to initially befriend the Danes). They only ever see Grendel as the monster, as you say. But I feel like there is a striking difference between how the special agents of Criminal Minds see the “monsters” on the show and how Beowulf, Hrothgar and his men see Grendel. The special agents are able to analyze the killer and figure out (most of the time) why the killers are the way they are and to some extent they can understand that. Beowulf, Hrothgar and the Danes are not interested in the psyche of Grendel and don’t ever think from his point of view. To them the only way to solve their problem is to kill Grendel, not to understand him.
October 24, 2013 at 8:46 am
Very good point! It may speak to our differing perspectives from that of the Beowulf poet’s original audience. In those days, understanding a monster’s motive may have been irrelevant compared to simply ending the threat. However, I think the anonymous poet undercuts this simplicity by showing that even someone like Grendel has someone who cares about him (ie., his mother) and also, that mere martial prowess is ultimately not enough (as we see when Beowulf must face the dragon). Nowadays, perhaps we are willing to explore that possibility of understanding the “monster” as a way to deal with him/her/it over the long term; in the time when Beowulf was written, I’m not sure this could be articulated.
October 24, 2013 at 7:19 pm
I agree with you when you say the aftermath of catching a monster (or criminal) would put the whole struggle of the situation in context. Truly terrible monsters don’t stop affecting their victims after they’re dead; in some way or another, they continue to haunt the victim, whether by revenge through their kin or even PTSD. Obviously, we see revenge in Beowulf, when Grendel’s mother takes her revenge on the Danes.
I think a show (or even episodes of currently running shows) about the aftermath of catching the “monster” would be very interesting because it’s a take that we haven’t explored. It’s true that this could be a risky move; maybe people won’t find the legal fallout from Criminal Minds or a victim’s PTSD that interesting, but it would also make the stories more realistic and less clean-cut than they are now.
October 24, 2013 at 9:01 pm
Hi Noopur!
Personally, I would love a show like that. I probably would not want to watch it many times, but it would have more “truth” to it than a tidy “welp, we caught the bad guy now let’s jet off home” ending.
I think your point about the revenge from relatives is an interesting one; this is something that crops up again and again in medieval literature, particularly the Icelandic sagas. You start to feel that revenge and honour are auto-catalytic as one family does one thing to grieve another, and the other retaliates, and back and forth down generations of conflict. We don’t seem to like that kind of story as much anymore — we like the bad guy to get caught, end of story. In Beowulf, Grendel is terrible — but I also don’t blame his mother for being enraged after Beowulf & company hang his severed arm up like a trophy.
October 25, 2013 at 11:54 am
I think your point about the lack of a monster’s aftermath is spot on: there really is no time to do so. And its not only the fact that you have to fit it into a 60 minute show – most viewers are focused on how something happens, whatever happens before.
Additionally, I thought that your idea about not having hopeless-battle endings was interesting. I never really put that into perspective, but thinking about it now, that is what I look for when I watch TV shows or movies. I don’t want the monster to win, and I always push for those being attacked.
October 25, 2013 at 12:31 pm
I don’t think it’s impossible to handle the aftermath in a 60-minute show, but it would definitely change the nature of the story. Much like a graphic novel like Watchmen is on one level a mystery — “who killed the Comedian?” — but as a whole it’s much more a deconstruction of superheroes and the nature of heroism, ie. what is justifiable for “the greater good.” So for a show like Criminal Minds, the first half of the story might be catching the killer/abuser/monster, whereas the second part might be the aftermath — media fascination (which the show never addresses, though it clearly serves the same fascination with atrocity); legal proceedings which might well undo the capture, psychological toll on the victims and investigators. It would be a vastly different show.
October 18, 2015 at 8:50 pm
I really like your point comparing Beowulf and his Geats to Hotch and his crew. I find most interesting that local law enforcement in the case of modern crime shows and local kingdoms in the case of Beowulf are a completely separate beast from the flown in warriors from far away lands. What makes this intriguing to audiences? Is it the fact that the monster is so monstrous that only a specialist can kill it? Or is it that audiences like the switch in the balance of power? Or is it just that audiences were bored of the usual local warriors?
And why is this plot structure, despite the fact that it has been used over and over, not yet mundane? What makes it different from the stories of the local king killing the evil other-than-human being? Why do audiences not care that every episode of Criminal minds is literally a repetition of the previous?
October 18, 2015 at 9:57 pm
Those, I think, are great questions.
I think it’s worth asking, as well, WHEN this plot structure becomes popular — what else is going on in society that makes audiences eager to hear this? I personally think that the concept of the “great hero team from away will solve our problem” speaks to a lack of faith in one’s one community, or something that’s broken, perhaps, that requires an outside solution. I wonder whether, in the early 21st century, audiences feel their local law enforcement, or basic trust in society, rings so hollow that the hero-cop motif feels necessary?
October 19, 2015 at 12:19 am
Aine, these are awesome questions. I hadn’t thought about many of these questions before. I would think there would be only so many twists you could throw into a story to continue to make the same plot line interesting, but we haven’t seemed to have reached that limit yet. Perhaps we don’t get tired of it because we never find a shortage of things/ideas to be afraid of. Also, if anyone has heard of it, I think this plot line could relate to the show Castle–he doesn’t come from very far (in fact, he lives in New York like the rest of them), but his skills are definitely helpful when it comes to finding and defeating the criminal. A similar case could be made for Sherlock Holmes.
October 19, 2015 at 9:12 am
I think Sherlock Holmes could have been the Beowulf of his day — solving problems and smashing monsters using those Victorian ideals, pure reason and logic (which, in the way they are represented in Doyle’s stories, are just as fantastic as Beowulf’s strength).
October 18, 2015 at 10:20 pm
Wow, I never thought about the generic crime fighting show to be so classic… Thank you for this post! It’s true that we have become accustomed to outside people coming in and saving the day — we almost see it as MORE heroic than if the original people in the town had done something about it. This post brings to light the fact that while versions may have shifted, humans in essence haven’t changed too much — we are still attracted to the same stories, centuries later.
October 19, 2015 at 7:46 pm
I like your point about how crime-fighting shows usually don’t address the aftermath of their search for the criminal. A couple of my favorite shows actually include SVU and Law & Order; although many episodes of both shows do actually deal with the legal fallout, the ‘unsub’ typically isn’t humanized. I agree that shows should try and include more of this, as the rare episode where the criminal is humanized is much more interesting. I hadn’t really paid attention to how the criminal is dehumanized and especially in relation to Beowulf! It’s a really interesting comparison, and I can absolutely see the similarities.
October 21, 2015 at 8:58 am
Interestingly, I think the original version of Beowulf WAS more concerned with the aftermath of violence and the effects on society, given that a) not only does killing Grendel not solve everything, because there’s still Grendel’s mom to deal with but b) in Beowulf’s old age, he’s still called upon to deal with the dragon, ie. perhaps the problem isn’t as simple as killing the bad guy and we all live happily ever after.
In terms of other, later medieval literature, the Icelandic sagas take this up in more detail — the cyclical nature of violence (eg. generations-long blood feuds, attempts to solve problems like this legally but frequently failing) and provide a longer view. Not sure what the equivalent of this would be in modern pop culture, aside from the Law & Order series you mentioned, I find even those ones truncate the aftereffects.
October 20, 2015 at 12:08 am
I really enjoyed reading this post! I never saw any correlation between Grendel and fighting crime before. Although through these crime-fighting shows we are still attracted to stories of heroes coming to save the day, disbanding evil, and restoring peace, I think that in today’s world we are more driven to root for the reserved hero. For instance, in today’s images of superheros, they often wear masks and cover their identities with glasses or a different name. It’s much different then Beowulf flaunting his lineage and destroying a monster only to increase his fame. A superhero’s humble image is similar to that of the police detectives in shows like Criminal Minds; the detectives never draw much attention to themselves or their personal lives, but the show is mostly driven by the crimes and bloody scenes they encounter that episode.
October 20, 2015 at 9:31 pm
I think this idea of “Specialist Warriors From Away Swoop in to Deal With Monster” that you used throughout your post actually tells a great deal about humanity and the nature of mankind. Whenever faced with a grave problem that threatens our safety and well-being (be it the horrific, bloodthirsty Grendel or the psychopathic, serial killer on the latest episode of Criminal Minds), human beings express a lack of self-will and self-confidence; it is never us, the people affected by the problem, who have the power to end the conflict; it is the outsider, the band of Geats, the big-shot detective and his specialist team who can solve the problem. Someone else, someone stronger, someone more experienced always bears the responsibility for ultimately ending the unrest. And the fact that this idea pervades throughout literature and art supports its essence. As you pointed out, this basic trope, this fundamental plot line has existed and has been used ever since Beowulf in the 11th century to Criminal Minds and any number of other crime shows in the 21st century. We, as humans, always tend to devalue our own potential; instead, we pass along our burdens and seek out the help of others.
October 21, 2015 at 7:16 am
Yes, and I am starting to view classic superhero stories in this vein, too — say, the early adventures of Batman. Bruce Wayne = millionaire industrialist who could meaningfully impact the poor of Gotham City and kick-start any number of food and work programs… but the story audience wanted was “elite bat warrior swoops in to clobber bad guys.” Nothing wrong with that, but it does point to the notion that a suitably removed-from-the-norm hero is called for to deal with monsters, rather than someone from the actual community (ie. Bruce Wayne) taking action within the community.
October 21, 2015 at 7:23 am
Maybe there is a recognition that if you are inside the problem, what is required to solve it is outside thinking? Not just expertise, but a totally outside perspective? I wonder. That could be empowering (“What we need here is some fresh ideas!” = innovation) or possibly a hindrance (“We can’t solve this, we’ll have to wait until someone else does.”).
October 21, 2015 at 12:14 am
Being the infamous geek that I am, I’m going to add onto this a little bit in terms of actually being the specialist – in video games. The diversity of the hero position of the player in the MMORPG World of Warcraft and the players’ reaction to it has intrigued me for a long time, and I think this post puts it in really good perspective for me. Blizzard (the game developer) has always walked a careful line between putting the player in a “Mary Sue” positions, allowing them to directly defeat legendary villains without consequences or drawbacks, and allocating them to a sideline view as they watch the legendary lore heroes do the deed. Naturally, as a player, you want to feel like the main protagonist; however, in a game played by millions of people with servers populated by thousands of individuals, it is difficult to allow each person to feel like the one true hero. Many “boss” encounters are completely driven by the group of raiding players; these are usually accepted well. Some fights, particularly the final fight of the /Cataclysm/ expansion, are very character driven, essentially having the players clean up the work of a lore hero; these are widely known as the worst raiding experiences in the game, quite significantly due to this fact: people hate not being the hero. However, they also don’t like to be the all-powerful savior: the best-received fights in the game are those that allow player to fight alongside the lore heroes as specialists, not before or after the story characters arrive. Players don’t want to be Beowulf (they aren’t easily convinced enough to believe they could be, anyway), but they don’t want to be his Geat entourage either. They want to all wrestle Grendel at the same time, with nine other Geats and Beowulf too (an accommodation which probably explains why the game’s bosses are blown so far out of physical proportion).
As for the Mother situation and career-ending battles that you referenced, these are details that, though rarely risked by developers/producers, the audience relishes in my experience. The upcoming World of Warcraft expansion, /Legion/, features the invasion of an essentially omnipotent and infinite demonic army, and players are begging for realism in the setting. They don’t want to the game to end, of course, but they want to lose, to suffer, to run away because they cannot fight. They want lore heroes to die in droves; they want player actions to have devastating consequences. Since the game has never enacted that kind of storyline before, I can only predict people’s actual reactions, but even these early requests show something really interesting about how people want to experience storytelling.
October 21, 2015 at 9:00 am
Hmm, interesting! I wonder what the player response to this kind of end-narrative will be?
October 21, 2015 at 9:03 pm
Interesting parallel! Despite having seen every single episode of Criminal Minds (often more than once), I never noticed the similarities between the BAU and the Geats. It’s the type of realization that sort of blows your mind for a second because it’s so clear in hindsight. I wonder if one could extend the idea even further and draw parallels between members of the BAU and characters in the epic. Spencer Reid reminds me a little bit of Unferth due to his cowardice—he can’t even shoot a gun for several years—although he does admittedly outgrow the comparison in later seasons. Hotch’s battle with the decidedly Grendel-esque “Boston Reaper” requires the type of the superhuman strength Beowulf so often displays. JJ reminds me a great deal of Wealtheow in some ways as well, mainly in how much she cares for her team and the overall amount of mothering to them that she does. Some of the comparisons are admittedly a little stretched, but I figured it was an idea worth exploring.
October 22, 2015 at 1:36 pm
I admit my comparison between the two was more macro than micro, but I’m fascinated there are also parallels in the details of what roles the different characters fulfill. I wonder if that’s part of making this type of story work?
October 22, 2015 at 11:17 pm
After reading this article I wonder what it is we’re losing for not having that “mother” conflict. TV shows now-a-days usually are vying for that “season two” and everyone (even myself) want that. If we got that same sort of “oh the mother’s dead, the deal is finished” conclusion would we still want/need that next season? Does having this more continued narrative allow for more to be said, or does it limit the amount of resolution we as watcher obtain, and the meaning behind that resolution?
October 25, 2015 at 4:47 pm
Killer first sentence: “We never get tired of hearing about Beowulf.” We always want that hero to win; nothing is better than watching that new special agent fly in and save the day.
This is exactly why I find John Gardner’s Grendel so peculiar.
The novel is told from Grendel’s point of view. We know him on almost a personal level. His early life, family troubles, and loneliness are all explained from his point of view. And as a reader, we should get attached to Grendel. So why do we want Beowulf to take Grendel down?
Granted, Grendel does commit some atrocious acts. But are the humans much better in the novel? After all, they would lay waste to other villages for the sake of laying waste.. Not to mention that Beowulf is practically only coming to the Danes’ aid in the name of glory; helping out Hrothgar’s kingdom is nothing more than an afterthought.
Personally, I just like the idea of a Beowulf: a new guy—possibly even the underdog— who comes in, surprises everyone, and saves the day. On a more analytical note, I can understand Beowulf. Grendel, as with other “unsubs”, is the “other.” Grendel is a creature, and despite the fact that Grendel narrates the novel, he still feels like a creature. Perhaps even a monster.
Humans might also be monsters at times; but from my perspective, we are not creatures.
October 8, 2016 at 11:59 am
I’ve found that in watching even a show like Mr. Robot, where we as watchers don’t know how much of the show is or isn’t in Eliot’s head, there’s still this appearance of “Specialist Warriors From Away Swoop in to Deal With Monster” in Mr. Robot and in the team of fsociety.
My question (and this is shaped by only having watched the first half of season 2) is what happens when the monster can begin to dismantle the specialists? The first few episodes of the show point out the failures and chaos that come of “vanquishing” the monster.
Where Mr. Robot differs from crime shows that just “kill Grendel” is that the second season is, I think, dealing with the aftermath of wounding the monster. The specialists didn’t get the job done. It’s an interesting question to think about, in my opinion. What happens to Beowulf if he thinks he’s defeated Grendel (and mom) but he actually just makes them angry? It’s just a thought.
October 11, 2016 at 2:33 pm
Great post! I have watched hundreds of episodes of Criminal Minds, and after you pointed out the plot similarities, I am seeing a lot of other connections between the show and Beowulf. I see Hotch as the Beowulf of this series. He begins the show very confident and passionate about his job but as he grows older and personal issues and conflicts sidetrack him, Hotch is still called upon to lead the team and protect innocent people from new monsters (unsubs). Similar to Beowulf, he is constantly called upon to show extreme mental fortitude and physical strength. They are also both the leaders of a skilled group of crime fighters that swoop in to save the day. What is even more interesting is that Hotch was recently fired after an altercation with a writer prior to the start of Season 12. I haven’t seen it yet, but I wonder if for once we’ll actually get to see the end-of-career final battle that removes Hotch from the series.
October 12, 2016 at 10:27 am
This is very interesting! When I first read Beowulf, I did not notice its similarities with modern crime shows. I think it shows a lot about society and how humans as a whole want to believe that good will always prevail over evil. However, in most of our modern crime shows, there is never a final “battle” against evil. Some seem to go on forever. For instance, the show Supernatural is still going strong after 11 seasons, and it doesn’t appear to be closing any time soon. Every evil fighting show has the same premise: a new criminal or monster shows up, the good guys hunt him down, and the heroes always win. It shows that we as a society don’t like to or even want to think about what would happen if the monsters could win or what that would mean for the world if good did not always triumph.
October 12, 2016 at 7:05 pm
Thank you for writing such an awesome post. I have not seen Criminal Minds, although from reading others’ comments and other context clues, I can definitely see the similarities. I agree and think it’s fascinating how we (as a society/culture) are so afraid to let the “unsubs” win. Even using such a dehumanizing phrase, as you point out, shows how drastic we are in our measures to not think of the monster as having any similarities to us humans, let alone the ability to be better than humans. When watching a show or reading a book (like Grendel) which takes the point of view of the monster, it’s intriguing how our perspective and opinion of that character alters very little. At first, when I started reading Grendel, I felt sorry for him, and I wanted to be on his side. But I still find myself routing for Beowulf in the end. I wonder how far a monster’s backstory would have to go for an opinion to be completely changed. I have not finished reading Grendel yet, so maybe by the end of the book, I’ll have changed my mind. However, I doubt it because in our culture, it is very very hard to be on the side of the devil, despite the character’s true intentions or thoughts.
October 12, 2016 at 11:52 pm
I really enjoyed this post! I think you bring up a good point in how modern day stories always seem to resolve nicely, never dealing with the aftermath. I think this is mostly due to, like you alluded to, how short the attention span of society has grown to be today. Although it may be more realistic in the context of defeating monster for crime shows to show the likely long hours of court after they catch the “unsubs,” it probably wouldn’t be too entertaining. To me, at least, watching a drawn out court scene describing all the legalities involved with fighting these “monsters” would get pretty boring. Imagine if Batman had to deal with the legal trouble of subduing all the bad guys he has dealt with; that guy would be in court forever. This contrast between the tidy endings of today and the longer, drawn-out fight against evil in Beowulf hints at how much society has changed over the years. Our attentions spans are definitely a lot shorter.
October 13, 2016 at 2:41 am
I never thought of this before! I can see now the pattern of these popular story lines. I think it is pretty accurate to say that while people have a curiosity (and sometimes an obsession) the darker forces in the world (including evil people, monsters, the devil, etc.) that their interest lies not only in seeing the evil itself but also in seeing the evil defeated (especially if it is difficult by standard means such as in Beowulf). I think this basic story plot is so popular because it is one that satisfies the majority of people in both subject and in outcome. While most of these TV shows don’t have “hopeless-battle endings” (because its entire purpose is to keep going and keep making money), the idea is generally the same. I really enjoyed reading these ideas. Thanks for sharing!
October 20, 2016 at 11:35 pm
I believe that this is a very important to make and an influential trend in pop culture. Somewhere out there it is always popular to believe of a bad character doing horrendous things to good people. Then, to the reassurance of the audience, in comes a heroic figure to save the day. The victims even become more relatable if the figure that haunts them is unidentifiable in some form, or just purely “other”. If this is the case, then we, as observers, or more willing to support violence acts upon the monster in order to either kill or hinder it. This idea however is not only iterated in popular tv or movie storylines— it also occurs in real life. In wars nations use propaganda to pain the enemies as “other”. In WWI, the US implemented propaganda to depict germans as gorillas carrying a women away in distress. While I have not specifically seen Criminal Minds, I do recognize the importance of this plot structure in other instances such as WWI Propaganda.
October 16, 2017 at 12:01 am
After reading your post, I guess I should go watch some Criminal Minds! I have seen, on the other hand, Silence of the Lambs, and I had not thought about the similarities it has to Beowulf until reading this. It is awesome to see how modern films can take the themes of such an old text and make a captivating story for the public of today. Seeing how you put it, most crime shows in today’s day in age are painstakingly similar. I do love how sometimes the most interesting character is, in fact, the antagonist — such as in Silence of the Lambs and in my opinion in Beowulf. For this reason, I cannot wait to start reading John Gardner’s Grendel to delve deeper into this monster’s story.
October 16, 2017 at 8:57 am
Thank you for this post! It seems obvious now that I have read Beowulf after watching all of Criminal Minds, that they follow the same recipe. I find it interesting that so many modern crime shows or thrilling movies follow the same “formula” for success, and that it always works. We have been discussing “willing suspension of disbelief” in class, and I believe this plays a huge role with the audience of major modern crime shows on TV. Like you said, they never have paper work pile up, or have to go to court to fight with a family member. Law enforcement and justice just doesn’t work that smoothly, but this is what draws in the audience. While there may be two part episodes or finales that force the conflict to linger (such as the Scratch storyline), the unsub is caught at the end of every episode. How long did that take? Maybe 3-5 weeks condensed into a 45 minute episode? We get the highlights, the major finds, and the big conflict. But that is just what makes us come back the next week to watch the next episode. People are in it for the unbelievable aspects and they want the action, not the logistics.
October 16, 2017 at 10:18 pm
Very interesting post! I will admit, while reading Beowulf, I did not think that the plot of the story had modern parallels, but now my perception of the text is forever changed. While I have never watched Criminal Minds, one similar show I have seen is Sherlock on BBC. Holmes and Watson are always there to save the day when Lestrade and the rest of Scotland Yard fails to do so. Sherlock can be seen as the modern equivalent of Beowulf, Scotland Yard serves as Hrothgar’s guards and court, and Grendel is the seemingly immortal Moriarty. I think this plot structure is so popular because its satisfies its audience through intrigue and a happy resolution. I find your comment on the aftermath of these episodes, or battles very accurate- the audience simply does not want to be exposed to the realistic conclusion. They enjoy the possibility of a happy, definite ending the minute the TV is turned off or the last page of the book is turned. Thank you for sharing, you have given me something new to think about!
October 17, 2017 at 11:51 am
I liked your point about how the aftermath is something missing from Criminal Minds, and present in Beowulf. This made me think about how Criminal Minds is like a microscope that never zooms out to reveal the larger picture. In Beowulf, we get Grendel’s perspective as to why he torments Hrothgar’s hall. He feels as though he lineage isn’t his fault but the fact that he’s descended from Cain is the ultimate reason why he’s an outcast, and thus a monster. And while we get a glimpse of the unsub’s reasoning, there’s never much of a compelling argument and an odd sympathy for the unsub. While I don’t try and root for the antagonist, I always think there’s more to the story and want to hear both sides, and I feel like Criminal Minds doesn’t do this.
October 17, 2017 at 5:34 pm
I thought this article was so interesting, especially to me because I am the biggest Criminal Minds fan! I have always noticed that Criminal Minds follows a certain patter: the bad guy kills innocent people, local cops can’t handle the crime, the BAU is called in, they pick at the unsub’s mind until they solve the case and save the day. Although, I have not connected it to Beowulf until now. I agree with almost everything you say but, I would have to disagree with the part you mentioned about TV shows not being able to capture what happens after Grendel dies (Beowulf battling his mom and the dragon) because in every series finale for criminal minds, they do just that. The season finale is usually split up into the last two episodes and it demonstrates how the BAU struggles with capturing the unsub or how there is more too it than they think there is. For example, The Reaper appears in multiple episodes and demonstrates how the BAU sometimes struggles with capturing and maintaining their victims. He also comes back and kills Hotch’s wife causing Hotch to mentally fall apart, almost getting fired. This observation just makes Beowulf and Criminal Minds even more similar, and if you think about it, Criminal Minds is just a modern Beowulf. Also speaking of modern Beowulf, if you think about it, almost all video games are also a modern day Beowulf. In video games there are monsters to defeat who harm innocent civilians/creatures. The only one who can defeat the monsters is the player. The player must battle the monster, find their weakness and destroy them. Similar to Beowulf, there are also boss levels where once you defeat the monster, there are even more monsters to defeat. I find it very interesting that even though Beowulf was written over 1000 years ago, it is still relevant to modern society.
October 18, 2017 at 6:22 pm
This is such an interesting comparison! Even though I’ve never seen the show, I think it’s really cool how you drew a connection from a text dating back to so long ago to a very modern show. You mention that each episode essentially follows the same structure: there’s a devastating crime followed by people coming in to save those affected by this detrimental act. I think it’s really interesting how even though each episode follows this model, audiences keep watching because of the satisfaction is provides with the resolution. Beowulf does this same thing, and readers are intrigued with the story because we like seeing happy resolutions where good defeats evil. Thank you for this post, it proves the relevance of such an ancient text in our modern world.
September 8, 2018 at 8:37 pm
I remember watching Criminal Minds many a time after dinner with the family. Every episode has the same format: a gruesome introduction, where the “monster” kills or tortures in a spectacular made-for-TV way, a focus on the special agents (a collection of the smartest people, ever) that switches back periodically to other graphic torture scenes to keep the pressure on, and then the final moment when Agent Hotchner and the squad enters the scene in their black Suburban to hopefully save the victim and all is right again.
My family and I were left with that addicting sense of justice and righteousness, and then we would get up and clear the dinner table and go about our merry way, except for the occasional shudder when passing, say, a carousel, and snippets of the episode where women were tortured and dressed like dolls appear unbidden in the mind.
However, I feel that some popular shows today do attack this trope of specialist vs. warrior– most notably, Black Mirror. When I read this post, I was instantly reminded of the episode “White Bear,” in which the viewer must redefine their predispositions about what “justice” and “monster” truly entail. I do not want to spoil the ending of the episode, which is what makes it so effective, but I recommend watching “White Bear” (most episodes are standalones) for a thought-provoking take on the prevalent “monster” narrative.
September 9, 2018 at 1:48 pm
This is a great article. Silence of the Lambs is actually my all time favorite movie, so it’s funny that you should make this comparison.
I do not really watch Criminal Minds, but what I can tell from reading other comments and such is that is has a very generic, sequential plot structure that dehumanizes the “monster” for audience pleasure in a way. And, although this is a bad sometimes, as apparent in Grendel when the Danes are refusing to understand him as having human emotions, this human connection is exactly what hinders Clarice in Silence of the Lambs when dealing with Hannibal. Had Hannibal not totally understood the Clarice’s personal life and personal flaws, he might have not possessed the same power that made him a “monster.” And had Clarice not tried treat Hannibal as a human by having personable conversations, Hannibal may not have been able to unwind her. So, I guess my question is, to what extent do we dehumanize monsters and how often is that a good thing or a bad thing when pertaining to our interactions with them? And lastly, to what extent are these so called “monsters” human?
This was a fabulous post ~ it has given me a lot to think about!
September 9, 2018 at 2:30 pm
This is a very interesting article. My interest in crime shows has grown ever since I obtained the ability to watch them without getting nightmares, so I love Criminal Minds. I did not even think to draw this connection between crime shows and Beowulf until I read this article, and now I can’t un-see the connection. Before reading this article, I was always confused why the problem Grendel created was not solved before Beowulf’s arrival because Grendel’s habitual routine somehow took the Danes by surprise each night. However, after seeing your analysis of the repetitive structure of crime shows, I realize that despite the repetition, I, along with many other viewers, continue to watch these shows and continue to be taken by surprise.
I have not seen Silence of the Lambs, but I think it is so interesting how the movie mirrors the events of Beowulf so strongly, despite their sizable time difference.
September 9, 2018 at 4:41 pm
First off, I’d like to say that this is a fascinating and thought-provoking post. I really enjoyed reading it.
Second, your final two paragraphs – about how entertainment is based on optimistic (and some might say naive) views of reality – reminded me of a passage from John Gardner’s Grendel about how the Shaper (an old man who entertains the Danes with tales of heroes past) glorifies the accomplishments of the great kings who came before in a way that is not realistic in the slightest. The dragon explains to Grendel that the Danes are dependent on the Shaper to maintain the fragile illusion of their reality, saying:
“I could tell you a thousand tiresome stories of their absurdity. They’d map out roads through Hell with their crackpot theories, their here-to-the-moon-and-back lists of paltry facts. Insanity – the simplest insanity ever devised! Simple facts in isolation, and facts to connect them – ands and buts – are the sine qua non of all their glorious achievement. But there are no such facts. Connectedness is the essence of everything. It doesn’t stop them, of course. They build the whole world out of teeth deprived of bodies to chew or be chewed on.
They sense that, of course, from time to time; have uneasy feelings that all they live by is nonsense. They have dim apprehensions that such propositions as ‘God does not exist’ are somewhat dubious at least in comparison with ‘All carnivorous cows eat meat.’ That’s where the Shaper saves them. Provides an illusion of reality – puts together all their facts with a gluey whine of connectedness. Mere tripe, believe me. Mere sleight-of-wits. He knows no more than they do about total reality – less, if anything: works with the same old clutter of atoms, the givens of his time and place and tongue. But he spins it all together with harp runs and hoots, and they think what they think is alive, think Heaven loves them. It keeps them going – for what that’s worth.” (64-65)
I think this is very much connected to your point about how the audience of network television doesn’t want to see a story where the heroes don’t come out on top because they don’t want to confront the idea that “glory is fleeting and even the greatest among us will eventually die.” However, I think it shows that our “modern sensibilities for narrative” are not really modern at all – we, as humans, have always used entertainment as a way to escape from the bleak reality of life and have never wanted to be reminded of our own mortality and insignificance.
September 9, 2018 at 7:39 pm
This is a very intriguing article! I have always wondered why the public (myself included) is so drawn to cop shows despite their predictable endings. Now that I think about it, in almost every TV show I’ve watched, the “good guys” always win. The only show I’ve seen where that isn’t the case is Black Mirror, and I remember being particularly angry after watching some of those episodes! My frustration comes from not only wanting, but also expecting a happy ending because that’s how the world is “supposed” to work. I had never seen a show were the protagonist didn’t end up on top before and I found myself feeling a strong urge to defend and sympathize with characters I knew weren’t real. Looking back, I felt these passionate emotions because I was in the process of learning the brutal truth: life is not fair and in the real world, people don’t always get what they deserve. The media tends to portray justice and morality in very black-and-white terms, where you’re either the hero or the villain and there’s nowhere in between. Reality is much different in that there are very few, if any, people that fall into just the hero or just the villain category; most of us are somewhere in between. The popularity of cop shows reflects our desire for justice and morality to be straightforward and simple, instead of the complicated enigmas they often times are. Reading stories where the monster is the protagonist (like in John Gardener’s Grendel) forces the audience to reconsider their previous thoughts on the nature of monstrosity because it is often easy to feel sympathy for the antagonist after learning of their tragic backstory. Stories where the enemy is a good person who simply reacted poorly to unfortunate events happening to them warn us that we could easily become antagonists in someone else’s story if we can’t learn from past mistakes.
September 9, 2018 at 9:35 pm
Reading your article, it’s easy to notice the similarities between Beowulf and pretty much every single story I’ve ever read. Trying to create a gruesome monster while also keeping viewership high seems to be the goal of every show you watch, cops show too. Beowulf presents us with a marvelous story of a monster ravaging a group of people for 12 years before a mystical somewhat Godlike man is able to come and defeat Grendel. This connects to well to entertainment we see everyday in this say and age. The most popular shows seem to be the ones that spend long amounts of time building up these horrific enemies all for a single person to come defeat them. More often than not this savior often times comes from a troubled past or a magnificent past, like Beowulf. Having either of these gives the character a sense of realness to them and makes them for lifelike and relatable to us. Having the good guys win in the end satisfies out hunger for righteousness and allows us to sleep happily at night knowing that the bad guys will never win and there is always a savior ready to help us.
September 10, 2018 at 7:58 am
I’m a huge criminal minds fan myself, and now after reading about Beowulf as well, I have to say your analysis could not have been more spot on. So much today in modern television and cinema culture do we see the “good guy” always win, yet no matter what, us as viewers are always on the edge of our seat, waiting for the inevitable victory of the protagonist. We become so invested in the suspense of these shows and movies, we feel as if their stories have become intertwined with our life. The successes of the characters can sometimes feel like our own, and their failures hurt us down deep. Maybe that’s why we always have to see the Beowulf or Hotch type character step in and save the day, because the opposite would cause unwanted despair in our lives. I’m sure many, like myself, watch television or movies as a release from the stresses and anxiety of our lives, and further sadness would draw many away from the stories. I remember a couple years ago when the new Spiderman movie came out (I can’t recall which one), and me and my friends went out to watch it. I remember how ecstatic I was to see it. In the movie, though (spoiler alert), Mary Jane dies, and every one in the theater had the same, star-struck, facial expression. Was she going to come back to life? No way she was actually dead. She was, though, and it made many people feel sadness when they didn’t want to feel it. Not only did me and my friends despise that movie because of that one 3 second section of the movie, but also it was the lowest rated Spiderman movie ever made. Is that a coincidence? I think not…
September 10, 2018 at 9:08 am
I liked this article because before reading it, I had difficulty putting it into a modern context. Most of me wanted to find what exactly could parallel “Beowulf” in terms of content which is why I’ve been consistently hitting a brick wall. Reading this article reminded me that I needed to remember to look at even bigger picture ideas.
The idea that “Beowulf” is like the cop dramas that are about the killers is a strong idea. While it is still from the perspective of the “cops,” it still begs the question of “why?” a monster would commit such heinous acts. Beowulf uses the help of Hrothgar — the “witness” — to learn anything and everything that would be important to taking down his “perp.”
It is not until we explore the life of the killer and try putting ourselves in their shoes that they go from being a monster to being human (how “Beowulf” is to “Grendel”). “Grendel” humanizes Grendel not by writing him as an angel or a super saint, but by simply giving us his side of the story. There’s always three sides to a story: one side, the other side, and the truth. While we may never know the truth to the story between Hrothgar and Grendel, we can at least learn both sides. Although as far as I’m concerned, neither side makes an effort to get to know the other side; just like in these cop dramas and movies, the good guys never take a moment to ask why the killer might have gotten to where s/he is now. Personally, I do not believe anyone or anything is born to be a killer; killing is learned. But it doesn’t matter what I believe because despite me wanting to learn more why people become monsters, the TV show about a soft, inquisitive cop won’t sell as well as the show about a justice serving, altruistic cop.
Grendel is an essential character like any killer in any story (where the killer is the antagonist); without Grendel, there is no purpose for the protagonist to rise to glory. Without Grendel, there is no Beowulf; without Hannibal, there is no Clarice Starling.
“Beowulf” is undoubtedly the true ancient cop show.
September 11, 2018 at 8:27 am
I never considered the character, Beowulf, to stand within his own archetype. The concept of the “unsub” is new to me, and I may use it in my writing!
September 1, 2020 at 2:55 pm
I really loved this article. I will say I had a tough time making a connection to the criminal shows because I do not watch them as I am wayyyy to scared. However, I was able to pick up on the connection eventually though the comments and the little I know about the shows. I have seen a few episodes with friends. Now that I see the connection of the bigger force team coming in to solve the problem just as Beowulf came in to destroy the monster, I want to try to watch a few more criminal shows to see the parallel again.
I also find your comment about always having the happy ending and the monster never winning very interesting. I do find myself guilty of always wanting the happy ending to a movie or book. I never want to se the proposed “good guys’ taken down by the “killer, monster, etc..)
September 5, 2020 at 3:22 pm
This was a really interesting read and I never realized how similar all these stories were. Looking back, Criminal Minds and outlander do follow the same basic storyline as Beowulf. I think it’s incredible that this same plot structure has been used over centuries yet it hasn’t necessarily gotten old yet because Hollywood is still producing new hit series’s that follow the same plot. I love that I cam now see the modern versions of Beowulf when I think about it.
I also thought it was super interesting when you pointed out that these stories and shows never show the aftermath of the climax, like the hours in court that the criminal minds team must go through.
Another thing I found to be very true that I had never though of before was the mystery surrounding the villain. An unknown subject makes sure readers and watchers are on the side of the people hunting the unsub down. Thank you for pointing all these things out! As I think about all your enlightening point, I really am realizing just how much Beowulf has influenced today’s culture!
September 6, 2020 at 2:12 pm
I found this read very informative in pointing out the obvious dehumanization of the “monsters” or “bad guys” in many novels and movies of today’s time. I don’t watch Criminal Minds but I have seen this presented analysis in many other stories. The idea of the “unsub” or “unknown subject” is something that I never considered before, but after reading this, I have noticed that this “unsub” characteristic, common in “evil” characters, is what makes them less sympathetic to the audience; because of the lack of connection and human qualities, these characters are often presented to be no-brainer bad characters that need to be brought to “justice” either through being killed or locked-up. I find this kind of story-telling very basic and very predictable. That’s why I enjoy stories and movies that give the “bad” characters a reason to their madness instead of them just being purely evil, because realistically, life is not so decisively black and white; it is a spectrum of grey.
September 7, 2020 at 12:19 pm
I really enjoyed this analysis of Beowulf’s connection to Criminal Minds. I think that the specialized-warriors-fight-evil trope is not only in use today, but also widely appealing. It’s interesting to see how the expert investigators piece together the clues that evaded the local police force, who are generally portrayed as incompetent. I feel like this trope feeds our God-complex, as the viewer relates to the team and begins to believe that they too can solve difficult puzzles with just a few, detailed observations.
With that being said, one of the reasons I stopped watching this show was because of it’s one-dimensionality. The special agents can take a bullet and then walk off saying, “I’m fine”, just like Beowulf practically had superpowers that allowed him to defeat the monster. On the flip side, we don’t get the villain’s side of the story, just their simple motivations— the ‘unsub’ had some psychological disorder or Grendel was born from a clan of evil monsters. Nevertheless, I understand that the purpose of these shows/stories aren’t to dig deep into our belief systems or to make us think hard. I can imagine someone getting home from school/work and turning on the tv to watch this fairly exciting yet comforting (because the heroes always win) story-line over and over again.
September 7, 2020 at 1:33 pm
Great article! I never really thought about the applications of the Beowulf story structure in modern media, but now that I’ve thought about it, it seems to be everywhere! I have personally never watched Criminal Minds, but I can certainly see echoes of these tropes in other true crime shows, like Twin Peaks or True Detective. For example, both of these shows have the mysterious, foreign investigator (in the form of Rust for True Detective, and Agent Cooper in Twin Peaks) who has an incredible ability for problem solving and ends up being an essential part of the final confrontation. Furthermore, both of these shows have rather one-dimensional villains (I will keep the villains nameless, for the sake of spoilers) that sometimes tend to be evil simply for the sake of being evil, as I feel Grendel sometimes appears in Beowulf. These tropes can be seen in any number of other true crime media, and they are littered throughout the Old Western film genre. While I love a lovably evil villain and a cool mystery-person who comes in to save the day as much as the next viewer, I would not mind a change, or evolution, in these tropes.
I was fascinated with your point of the story being cut short in modern media. The detectives or gunslingers or heroes of today are almost never bested by some greater monster that they can’t handle. I feel like tragedies are becoming fewer and fewer in recent years. In fact, the only widely seen tragedy that I can think of from the last decade is Avengers: Infinity War. That movie got a lot of its praise because of how unique its ending was. People were really unsettled after that movie; the lesson of the film really resonated with people in a direct, almost frightening way, as it is supposed to in a tragedy. I feel like stories like Infinity War and Beowulf have extreme potential in executing a lesson by the end of the narrative, and it is sad to me that tragedies are becoming less and less common in pop culture.
September 7, 2020 at 5:22 pm
This is a really interesting perspective! I’m a Criminal Minds fan and this article is making me realize how similar it is to Beowulf. The stories in Criminal Minds and the story of Beowulf both capture what it’s like to be on the side of the “good guy” against the obvious “bad guy”. However one of the differences in the two that I’ve noticed is that Criminal Minds focuses a lot more on understanding what’s going on in unsub’s brain and their motives/reasoning for committing crimes (hence the title). From reading Beowulf, it seems to me that readers don’t really get to understand Grendel and his thoughts or motives– we just see him as a evil monster. In Criminal Minds, oftentimes the unsub has some sort of mental problem or trauma that causes them to act out (and in some cases makes us sympathize with them), but Beowulf draws almost no empathy for Grendel. I’m about to read Grendel by John Gardner and I’m interested to see the story from the monster/“unsub”’s perspective, and I wonder if it’ll make me think any differently about him than in Beowulf. I think that Criminal Minds is similar to the texts of Beowulf and Grendel combined, as Beowulf shows us the side of the heroes (which is Hotchner and his team), and Grendel shows us the side of the villain (like how Criminal Minds bring’s us into the mind of the unsub).
September 8, 2020 at 7:16 pm
I really enjoyed reading this article, and it caused me to look at some of my favorite shows and movies with a new perspective. I have never actually watched Criminal Minds; however, Silence of the Lambs is one of my favorite movies, so I was really able to appreciate the connection between the two stories. Despite the similarities between the two stories in the use of the trope of the “Specialist Warriors From Away Swoop in to Deal With Monster,” I found that Silence of the Lambs actually does much more work in attempting to allow the audience to understand the monster or Hannibal Lector’s point of view and motives within the story. This ultimately allows the audience to almost empathize and even root for him as a character whereas, Beowulf focuses almost entirely on the characterization of Grendel as a monster, preventing the reader from forming a true understanding of his motives. Like Maddie G, I am also about to start reading Grendel by John Gardner and am very interested to learn more about the story from Grendel’s point of view and hope too draw further comparisons between the story and modern takes on similar tropes.
September 8, 2020 at 9:21 pm
I cannot tell you how excited I was reading this post. I am a huge fan of Criminal Minds and it was thrilling to think of the connections between two seemingly different stories—stories that I see now are actually quite similar!
I absolutely love your point about how the term “unsub” is actually a dehumanizing label and almost synonymous with “monster.” I had never thought of it like that, but it’s true. Too often we get wrapped up in the nice and neat idea of “good” battling “evil” that we learned through fairy tales. We all like to think that we are the “good guys” or the heroes in the story, so when see someone who doesn’t look like us or think like us, our minds automatically think of them as the enemy or obstacle. We see this in Beowulf and several movie adaptations of Frankenstein: characters see a grotesque figure doing uncivil things, and immediately fear it as humans naturally fear unknown things. Since they don’t know what to call it, they give it the dehumanizing name of “monster” and try to defeat it, assuming its wholly evil.
What I love about Criminal Minds and Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is that both take you inside the heads of the monsters so we can see what made them this way—what trauma, upbringing, or genetic condition put them on this path. I also just started reading John Gardner’s Grendel and I’m already excited to to start learning the monster’s backstory and empathizing with the monster. A lot can come from understanding!
To me, the truly horrifying part of these stories isn’t the monster trying to kill everyone. It’s the fact that the monster could have been anyone: bad genes and a bad upbringing, a traumatic experience, or even something as simple as a large brain tumor can turn a normal human like you and me into, well, a monster. Scary, right? (If you’re interested in learning more about the tumor bit I mentioned above and more on the unconscious motives in our brains, I highly recommend reading David Eagleman’s Incognito)! Overall, this was a fascinating and eye-opening post.
September 8, 2020 at 9:34 pm
As soon as I read “Criminal Minds,” I got excited. It’s one of my all-time favorite shows; I started watching it when I was 11. I NEVER would have thought compared this show to Beowulf. The similarities between the two are so interesting, especially the heroes (Hotch+his team/Beowulf+men) and monsters (Unsubs/Grendel). I love Hotch and his team. Who doesn’t love to see the good guys catch the bad guys? It’s so cool to think about how similar they are—how Beowulf and his men arrive to save the day just as Hotch and his team do.
So far after reading Beowulf, I haven’t sympathized with Grendel. He’s a blood-lusty monster and he enjoys the kill (shown in line 724), just as the unsub would in Criminal Minds. I agree with Maddie G in that Criminal Minds does a better job in giving the motives and perspectives of the unsubs. That’s why I’m looking forward to reading Grendel, to see if his background can change my perspective.
September 9, 2020 at 12:09 am
This is such an interesting post!
I do have to say that my favorite tv shows are almost exclusively the ones that go against the classic “Beowulf saves the day’ mentality. One of my all-time favorite shows is Killing Eve; what draws me into it is the fact that I can’t help but root for the villain! She is such a complex, charming character, and we are often shown the aftermath of her decisions. It’s crazy how even though I have nothing in common with Villanelle, the psychopathic Russian Assasin, I can’t help but feel her experiences as if they are my own. I have empathized with a character that I share no similarities with! I think this is because the show gives us insight into what causes her peculiar thoughts, which in turn outputs her fascinating behaviors. I have watched a few episodes of criminal minds, and because it is so psychologically based, the villains are viewed through a similar lens. I bet if the Villain’s story went into more depth like Villanelle, people might actually see the monsters possibly good intention or maybe even sympathize with them. Now that I think about it, every show which I root for the “monster” gives both an in-depth view of before they became a monster and the aftermath of their choices. It really does humanize characters knowing the events/trauma that led them to their destructive paths. And some self-reflection after.
I wonder if so many stories revolve around good defeating evil because victory is not always attainable in real life. We see stories of serial killers or rapists or thefts on the news, and how many times are these people caught and stay in prison? They could post bail and be well on their way to harm more innocent people. Stories are often fantasies of what people wish could happen. Catch a thief, keep him in jail! Find a man-eating animal, shoot it! Meet a psychopathic physician, take his license away! All these things are easier said than done, so why not entertain people with the idea of providing an escape from reality! It’s truly genius marketing, though it gets repetitive if not done right!
I am excited to start reading Grendel, and I really hope that the character is set up in a way that the audience can read his thoughts and motives. It will be interesting to see if I end up cheering for him!
September 9, 2020 at 1:49 am
I find it fascinating how throughout human history the heroics of the “good guys” are always emphasized and celebrated, while the trauma and poor circumstances of the villains are usually overlooked or misunderstood. I have only seen one episode of criminal minds, and I’m not exactly sure which season it came from, but the premise was that the “villain” had a split personality disorder as a result of childhood trauma and a lack of a supportive father figure. In the episode, the team simply stated why the man had a split personality disorder, and left it at that as they avidly pursued the seemingly unrelated string of murders (they ultimately ended up killing the man). While murder, sin, and other vices are almost always unjustifiable, the man’s trauma is hard not to feel even remotely sympathetic for in that as a boy he was innocent, harmless, and completely naive during his childhood but ultimately was shaped and molded into a monster as a product of his environment. As I am reading Grendel, I find similar circumstances in which the monster is cut off from social interaction, is despised by men, and is of the mindset that he alone is the only conscience being in existence. Grendel’s actions are not justifiable and they are certainly more than just grotesque, but it’s hard not to feel some pang of sympathy for the cave-dweller.
September 13, 2021 at 11:24 pm
I find this post to be quite fascinating, especially because I have watched nearly every Criminal Minds episode in existence. With that being said, I never really thought about how the television series and the epic poem Beowulf could display such similarities.
After reading this post, I realized that one thing is almost always true: heroism is subjective. Yes, we can conclude that bad decisions often create “bad” people, but what does that say about a “good” person. Does a “good” person make only good decisions or are they allowed to make a mistake every now and then? How can we accurately distinguish good from pure evil?
One thing I have learned is that life is all about perspective. It is about where a source came from and who wrote it. Only then can you observe the contents of the message. When people fail to account for these two important pieces, they often experience misunderstandings. This is primarily why I find “Grendel” by John Gardner to be so intellectually intriguing. From reading Beowulf, you make a one-dimensional conclusion: Grendel is a horrific, selfish, murder. This is similar to how they describe the “unsub” in Criminal Minds. Of course, Grendel is quite legitimately a murder; however, in reading his perspective, we learn compelling elements within his story. We discover why he did what he did and how the world ultimately crumbled beneath his feet, causing him to behave in the way he did.
Overall, I love studying this topic and I loved this post! It makes my mind churn, allowing me to question how I view others and the world around me.
September 15, 2021 at 5:23 pm
I suspect the expectations and the needs of the audience also play a huge role in how a hero or character is formed. For “Beowulf”‘s original audience, there may well have been a need to feel that there would not only be a heroic, martial solution to being attacke dby an outsider, but also an acknowledgement that you can’t solve problems like that forever. I think this is why some modern adaptations of the Beowulf story (in movies, anyway) skip the main character’s old age and death against the dragon — these days, we seem more uncomfortable with the idea of aging. But maybe that’s a whole other discussion!
September 14, 2021 at 11:06 am
I think one the reasons the whole people do the whole “Beowulf,” monster-of-the-week structure over and over again is because people can get away with changing small details and make it a completely different story. I mean take “Criminal Minds,” for example. What if you swap out the serial killer (unsub) with a demon or a vampire? Then you have a completely different story and show – “Supernatural.” Now lets take Supernatural, put it in space, and replace a demon with some galactic monster, now you have most of the episodes of “The Mandalorian.” I feel like this trope works so well because it’s so simple, it can be done over and over again because it’s not the structure that draws us in – it’s the characters.
Often when talking about movies, tv shows, and books, I feel like people throw around the phrase “A ____ is only as good as its villain” a lot. Honestly, I think I’d disagree with this. A movie or tv show is only as good as what its villain turns the hero into. Beowulf is so great because you see this hero come in from afar, and Grendel turns him into an honored, known warrior and savior. This trope works every time because even though the structure is the same, its pretty different how the hero changes after every battle with an unsub. A story where the hero doesn’t develop is hollow, there needs to be pay-off, there needs to be growth. After all, it’s the hero’s story. The epic is called “Beowulf,” so it’s about Beowulf. “The Mandalorian” is about The Mandalorian. I feel like this is why stories don’t often show the aftermath of the unsub; the hero’s already gotten all they can get out of it. They got their glory; they learned their lessons; they can use their slightly new self to fight the next monster. That’s not to say that these unsubs are unlayered and one-dimensional characters, just that in the structure of the Beowullf trope, there’s simply just not enough room for a profound nuance to explore that maybe the big monster coming into to kill and eat people isn’t a genuinely bad person.
I thought this post was incredibly thought-provoking. Honestly, it’s made me a little upset with this trope because I feel like we’d get more out of a story if we could see the characters with a little more nuance and actually see the aftermath, but I guess that would break the illusion. We need to honor our perfect hero because we want to believe we can be the same. We want to be flawless and grow better from that. We can’t all be Beowulf, but we honor him because we want to.
September 15, 2021 at 5:25 pm
I think your point about the Mandaloria series is really good. Especially in the second season, he tends to show up as the elite-warrior-from-away in the middle of other people’s problems over and over again. Makes me wonder if there were other Beowulf stories, now lost to us, in which he and his gang faced off against various threats in their travels.
September 15, 2021 at 12:14 pm
*Spoilers for the show “Hannibal” *
This is a really fascinating piece. I never realized how prevalent Grendel’s influence was in more modern series. “Silence of the Lambs” is one of my favorite psychological horror films and I didn’t connect the fact that Hannibal is like Grendel. This connection lead me think about the show, “Hannibal” in which I can more clearly see Grendel’s effect. In “Hannibal,” Hannibal shapes how the FBI perceive certain murder cases as he works alongside them in internal investigation. In a sense, he acts as the Shaper in the beginning portions of the show as he skews and misleads the FBI detectives, Will Graham, Dr. Bloom, and Jack Crawford into believing that Will Graham committed those atrocities. He even manipulates Will himself into thinking that he was the true killer of all the past crimes, and alters his own narrative. Later on in the show, Hannibal becomes more like Grendel as he’s more brazen and rash with his killings to the point that is seemed as though he wanted to be caught. Likewise, Grendel felt that same surge of confidence after talking to the Dragon as he was given a body that was resistant to any weaponry. Grendel also goes on to shape/test the Danes and again demonstrates a parallel to Hannibal who also intends to shape other’s perspectives to support his innocence.
September 15, 2021 at 5:27 pm
I haven’t seen the Hannibal series, but thinking back to Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of the charact in Silence of the Lambs, he does embody the fear we have of the monster that will devour us — unlike Grendel, he doesn’t need to operate in darkness, but like Grendel, we will never see him until it’s too late.
September 16, 2021 at 11:28 am
This is a really refreshing way to think about what appeals to us about the Beowulf story, as it evolves and modernizes over time. I think it speaks to a simpler, more convenient way to deal with the kind of evil we can’t seem to understand: if serial killers and uncommon unsubs like the ones overtaken in Criminal Minds were able to run rampant for years and kill dozens (as we’ve seen with some actual serial killers in the U.S.) in the television realm, many of us might internalize that kind of fear of the unknown, shape-shifting evils around us much more than we do now. Having watched many seasons of Criminal Minds, the uber-talented, quirk-ridden personalities of Hotch’s team are definitely some kind of comfort to me: the idea that a computer hacker like Kevin could unravel years of an unsub’s plot with the right clues does reinforce my idea in justice and that some Beowulf character is ready to swoop in and cure otherwise indominable evils.
I’d like to think the specifics of the Beowulf epic in its original form — Grendel falling to Beowulf, unarmed, man against man-like villain, after Beowulf puts himself directly in danger — teaches us about even evil’s vulnerability. It’s almost as if, no matter the modern tools a villain uses to ensnare victims and conceal himself, teams like Hotch’s *should* be able to track them down and figure them out, because we all operate from similar desires and unmet needs. The whole “profiling” narrative informs the Criminal Minds team that the way crimes are committed, where, and how often, forms a rather complete picture of motivations. This also seems to reinforce that the crimes that are scariest to us are those that seem random and inexplicable. In other words, the evils we can’t understand.
That’s why we need Criminal Minds and “Beowulf” in all his forms to swoop in and save the day. Evil must be dominable, controllable, and simply another one of the forces in this world that can be kept in balance — even if it entertaining to watch wreak havoc and be foiled, over and over again.
I also must say I disagree that shows like Criminal Minds don’t capture that the greatest among us must eventually die: Hotch’s own wife is killed by a criminal with a grudge against him, and we see many members of the team nearly fatally wounded many times. Many of these shows, tragically and against the most innocent, remind us that even as “good guys” who know how to catch criminals, none of us can truly protect ourselves from the random dangers of evil. Perhaps the grief and loss we all hold with us from these incidents is the “aftermath” not fully captured on popular television.
September 16, 2021 at 12:11 pm
I love one of the final sentences of this post: “I suspect the underlying assumption of shows like Criminal Minds are that the system works, the monsters are always dealt with.” Of course, though, “the system” doesn’t always seem to work just as it does in Old English epics.
Maybe the reason we seem to be obsessed with such plots is because they serve as a fantasy. Yes, the monsters, psychos, etc. in these plots are fictitious, but the real-world equivalents that they reflect––either a real killer or even just a seemingly monstrous challenge––are not. Beowulf, Criminal Minds, and the likes serve as worlds where the monster does meet justice. In the life, though, that “underlying assumption” isn’t always true: criminals aren’t always caught (for murderers, specifically, I believe the number of those who are never caught is around 40% in the US) and problems aren’t always able to be solved; in other words, there’s not always a Beowulf to come save you when you hit rock bottom. Maybe these fantasies even teach a dangerous precedent––that you need someone to save you, that you are hopeless against your biggest challenges; or, maybe, it has the opposite effect, inspiring everyday people to become Beowulfs for others.
There’s another part of this post that also really interests me: “I doubt we will ever see… shows [where] Hotch can’t hack it anymore — our modern sensibilities for narrative, at least on network TV, don’t really allow for hopeless-battle endings.”
Just a couple months after this post, Marvel’s first Avenger’s movie was released in theaters. Seven years later, we got to watch Avengers: Endgame, the first mainstream film where “Hotch,” or Iron Man in this case, “can’t hack it anymore.” While the intense popularity of the movie was likely partially a result of the excitement surrounding its release and how it would tie up loose ends left in Infinity War, I think that the reaction to the movie––actors and viewers vowing not to post any spoilers online––is more reflective of this rare decision by the directors. But again, I still think the premise of the movie––a select group of heroes overcoming a seemingly all-powerful villain––serves as a fantasy to our system, where it doesn’t work out so well most of the time.
September 16, 2021 at 4:02 pm
This was a great article! I was especially intrigued by your thoughts on how much of the process of catching criminals is portrayed through an idealized and simplified lens by Criminal Minds. The heroes are always able to catch the monster, or the “unsub” in this case, no matter how arduous that journey is, the criminal is convicted without fail, and thus justice is served.
Idealized plots in fiction such as these serve as a fantastical escape to a world where the evil are always caught and brought to justice, the good guys never fail, and where there is a clear distinction between good and bad. However, reality is much grayer than that and not at all idealized. Real life “heroes” can fail and most real life individuals who do bad things aren’t these heartless and inhuman “unsubs”, but are instead actual people. People who have done unspeakable acts, but still people nonetheless.
Even our current fictional media is starting to reflect this reality more and more, with an increasing number of pathos-driven villains who the audience can sympathize with, alongside much more flawed and morally gray heroes who have their shortcomings and insecurities laid bare.
September 16, 2021 at 4:41 pm
I find it interesting that while we are willing to consider a show like Hannibal or a book like Grendel, providing us the perspective of the monster, we almost always take the perspective of the community in need, placing ourselves in danger or wanting help. While this may be proof of our vulnerability and self-victimization, as that seems to be the easiest role to play in order to gain help, I found myself reading the article with the perspective that the Beowulf trope is more of a justification for viewing ourselves with overconfidence and superiority. Shows of self-inspiration and rebellion against evil from within the community are almost equally a trope, just as the outside savior is, so I feel more inclined to argue Beowulf consoles Western audiences by supporting the assumption they can fight the monsters others can’t. Why do we root for Hotch’s team so fervently, enough to watch a stupid amount of episodes? Maybe because we want the self-assurance for the times we go into other people’s life without invitation and fight their monsters, without giving them support to fight the monsters themselves. After all, they are weaker, with less resources, just like a small town police force. Why teach a drug addict how to be clean when we could simply arrest them, lock them in a cell, force them to be clean, fight their monsters for them? Then we can leave them the aftermath, the angry mother clutching the severed arm of her child, and leave with the satisfaction that at least the monster is dead. Gardner’s novel even articulates the hostility towards the outsiders from the Danes, filled with insecurity and self-hatred for their weakness, as the newcomers handle the primary problem casually and quite literally with their own bare hands. Maybe it is saying something that English’s first great epic is a manifestation of our actions for the next thousands of years, of just “helping others” because Beowulf did it and it worked, so we can do it too. No need for any more of the story; we can just end it there.
September 16, 2021 at 9:17 pm
In contemporary film, I see a lot of similarities between Grendel and the monster in Bird Box. The main terror behind the Bird Box monster is that the characters can’t even see them and the only way to avoid death is to keep their eyes constantly shut. They mystery involved with those monsters parallels the unexplainable nature of Grendel who attacks and slaughters the Mead hall for no apparent reason. His pure aggression that comes from nowhere seems similar to the sudden attack of the monsters in Bird Box.
In general, I love the mythical monster genre and studying how religious symbols mirror the feelings and mentalities of their societies. In particular, I’ve noticed that many of these other-worldly characters represents the most simplified parts of our personalities and fears. The Greek gods who embody all natural phenomenon, Catholic saints who act as patrons for everything from countries to hobbies, and Grendel who stood for the Dane’s fear of ostracization from society. By pushing away reality into these stories, life becomes less complex, more palatable. I believe this is why we enjoy shows such as Criminal Minds so much because we distance ourselves from societal issues, such as crime, death, and critical mental health struggles.
On the other hand, I think it’s interesting to examine other shows such as Scooby Doo. In their criminal investigations, the gang, almost without fail, find that the culprits are people who they are familiar with who have genuine (and sometimes sympathetic) motives. Instead of simplifying these ‘monsters,’ Scooby Doo humanizes them from being friendly and helpful to our protagonists.
September 16, 2021 at 9:21 pm
I thought this post was very entertaining since it essentially simplifies the plot of one of literature’s greatest poems and identifies the same conflict across modern film and TV. I’ve watched over 300 episodes of Criminal Minds and would never have thought to compare the unsubs to Grendel. It was fascinating to see how prevalent the “specialized hero swooping in to fight evil” theme also holds true in modern media. I’m currently watching Supernatural and I immediately recognized this theme. The show revolves around two brothers who are trained to fight monsters and protect society from harm. Each episode, they swoop in and save the local townspeople from facing the wrath of supernatural creatures. Similar to Beowulf, the brothers receive high praise and are regarded as heroes while the monsters are portrayed as evil and unworthy such as Grendel.
September 16, 2021 at 9:41 pm
I had always seen a pattern in modern day entertainment: the predictable loop of destruction and rescue and the “happily ever after”, just like how you described in the article. As a kid, the idea of stopping after this “happily ever after” ending was always refreshing and served as a relief that the “bad guy” got what he deserved. There was part of me that wanted to know what happened next, but most of me didn’t want to know because it was nice to know that everything worked out for the hero. However, as I have grown and been more exposed to the disheartening reality of our world, I find these types of endings slightly irritating and seen that this sort of “fluffed up” version of reality was problematic since it continually punishes others for the sake of a select few.
There is a reason why the first step to over coming a problem/addiction/traumatic experience is always to acknowledge that you have an issue and/or see the situation as it is (ie. come to face with reality). No one can build a sturdy house up on the clouds, but in a much more real sense: you can’t build anything off of a fantasy simply because they don’t exist, and the longer you try to maintain these fantasies, they farther away from your desired outcome you become. Failing to acknowledge the unhealthiness of constantly eating junk food won’t help you build muscle. Ignoring the fact that you have a pride issue won’t help you build character, and neglecting the problems in society won’t help you build a strong, unified nation.
I really liked it when you said “I suspect the underlying assumption of shows like Criminal Minds are that the system works, the monsters are always dealt with, and well, that’s just the way it’s going to keep working” because this assumption in itself—that is the backbone of most of out media/entertainment —is part of a greater problem. You watch shows like NCIS, Criminal Minds, and Law and Order SVU and think that these stories merely exist in the television show world and even if they did exist in real life, they are handled accordingly an everyone lives in some version of peace. However, as a gymnast, my mind can’t help but think of the Larry Nassar case as proof that this assumption is both false and dangerous. For years, viewers/fans have watched the sport of gymnastics without a single clue as to the horrors the gymnasts experienced right before/after the competitions they just enjoyed. In no way am I blaming viewers since they didn’t know that they were supporting an institution that in turn allowed for the assault, however, the fact that many people didn’t know until years after the fact sheds light on how our very own institutions meant to protect us—in this case the FBI— failed to for the sake of maintaining a certain fantasy, which in turn lead to further abuse and assaults because they tried harder to cover up the problem than to fix it. How many things could be going on as we speak that we won’t know about or try to fight for until it’s too late? Is the problem ever really solve (yes Larry has been brought to justice, but how can we be sure there won’t be more? If there is more (which i really hope there isn’t), did we really learn from our mistake? Similar parallels can be made in respect to racism in America as well as the George Floyd case…when will change really happen?)
This idea of having a person or entity fuel the fantasy is actually shown in the book Grendel, which is based of the story of Beowulf. The shaper/harper plays and sings songs that build a fake reality of the strength and excellence of Hrothgar’s kingdom, which is actually a reason why Grendel attacks Hrothgar’s kingdom in the book–possibly in a way to “ground” the Danes or at least bring them back to some sort of reality in which they can admit their shortcomings. But then Grendel is killed by Beowulf, and without Grendel, who is to humble the Danes? In the book, we never even know what happens next. So, in a way, the Danes fantasy is preserved in the end. This stands as representation of a cycle that is seen in our world today: there is a fantasy (America doesn’t struggle with racism or the gymnastics world isn’t toxic), a hole is exposed in the fantasy (ex: George Floyd and Larry Nassar cases bring widespread attention), justice for this case, but the step that we will never actually know until later is: what really does happen next for future cases/scenarios? I for one, would like to find out.
September 16, 2021 at 10:21 pm
I’d never realized it before before “Specialist Warriors From Away Swoop in to Deal With Monster” is such a common trope in countless television series. I’ve only seen a few episodes of Criminal Minds, but those that I have seen had a cyclical pattern: a problem that the small town law enforcement can’t handle, assemblage of the specialist team, defeat of the monster. It follows the same rough flow that any narrative does. But as you mentioned, these shows don’t address the aftermath, the legal fallout, and most importantly, the time the “heroes” don’t win. But I think that is just a common aspect of modern media. We absorb these repetitive shows almost as a sort of escapism. Each time we watch, we are provided a safe, predictable environment in which we know that even if the “little guy” can’t solve it, someone will always swoop in and save the day. After all, who wants to watch a show that reminds them of the cynicism of life? Who wants to be reminded that the “monsters” sometimes win and their fragile life is always in danger? Thus, we have these same tropes, persisting for hundreds of years, to make us forget about our woes and pretend we are a bit safer just for a moment. Just as Beowulf swooped in and saved the helpless Danes from the dreaded monster, Criminal Minds (and its repeated trope) provides a sense of comfort in uniformity.
September 17, 2021 at 9:10 am
This is a fascinating article! I’ve never thought about how repetitive “hunting-the-psycho” cop shows are and how they tend to hark back to the classic story monster-versus-hero structure established by epics such as Beowulf. I have a few friends who are big fans of Criminal Minds, and I can often find my mom watching numerous variations of those CSI-type shows, but I’ve never gotten into them myself. While they’re certainly entertaining, I personally believe that the repeating plot structures are generic, and that audiences gradually lose the sense of satisfaction they have learned to expect while watching. In a world where good doesn’t always overwhelmingly defeat evil, shows like these present a welcome escape: the distinction between hero and villain is clear, and audiences are able to identify and follow the simplified plot in a way that doesn’t exactly challenge their moral perspective. We see this in almost every form of media or genre of film, but something I find interesting is the increasing number of villain-origin stories such as Cruella, the Joker, or Maleficent, all of which as classic “monsters” audiences have learned to hate. Another example of a tv-show that favors the villain perspective is Loki, one that plucks a character from another moment in the cinematic timeline (when he was considerably more evil), and attempts to place him in such a precarious situation that he is swiftly redeemed, a quick transformation that some members of the audience took issue with. In my opinion, modern audiences, or at least the last few years, have been craving a change in perspective: they don’t seem to prefer the watered-down “good triumphs over evil” plot, but would rather see a story that reflects the true morally-gray nature of society. Still, the tried and true premise of most movies proves to dominate the media, in what I believe is an attempt to create an idealized escape from a world where justice doesn’t always prevail.
September 17, 2021 at 11:39 am
This article is super interesting. It’s a really interesting to look at this trend in story telling since the beginning of stories. It really shows how there is almost some objectivity to having a well formatted and compelling story. We tend to think that since we see a lot of shows with the same formulaic story, like CSI, criminal minds, bones, etc. that this is a recent trend and that it only appeals to the modern person, but the same compelling aspects are found in these ancient stories like Beowulf and the story has just been taken and twisted into a modern day setting. I also think it gives validity to the shows like criminal minds that everyone seems to think are completely repetitive and yet can’t look away from. It’s weird to think that even though works from throughout history seem so different they really are extremely similar at their cores and really are just different stylistic interpretations on the main core structure that makes for a good story. The story keeps us interested as long as the style is just different enough to make it not feel repetitive whether that comes from an entirely new interpretation or just a different setting and different kind of villain between each episode. Ultimately I think these connections just further the idea that we as humans love familiarity and are consistent in what we like with “the hero always prevails” stories that have always been around in one form or another.
September 17, 2021 at 1:11 pm
I have never watched Criminal Minds, but I do recognize that most if not all television shows follow that same pattern of the hero always saving the day. This means the audience of any show almost knows with certainty that the protagonist will defeat the antagonist in some way or another. As a result, I think television shows constantly have to make the protagonist fight tougher and tougher odds against the antagonist to make the audience at least believe for a second that the protagonist might not come out on top. The insurmountable odds also makes the audience care more about the plight of the protagonist against the antagonist. This might be the reason I never found interest in Beowulf’s character– as he is described as undefeatable, I have no expectation other than the fact he will defeat Grendel, and, since he isn’t facing a tough challenge, I’m not as invested in his story. I kind of went off track there, but I think it would be interesting if a show like Criminal Minds did have an episode or two where the protagonist didn’t come out on top because it would ground the audience back to reality. As many people have commented, good definitely doesn’t overcome evil in real life, so if the protagonist were to fail it would cast a shadow of doubt over the audience for future episodes as to whether the fictitious outcome they expect will actually happen. In my mind, that makes for more interesting viewing. Assuming that this will not happen, as Kamsi comments above, shows have made a bigger deal about making antagonists seem more human and protagonists less like heroes. So instead of the main interest draw for audiences being in the story of the always victorious protagonist, they will rather have interest in whether both the antagonist and protagonist’s actions are justifiable based on their background, beliefs, etc… An example fo this would be the recent marvel series the Falcon and the Winter Soldier. In this series, the supposed main antagonists are called the Flag Smashers who fight for displaced people and open borders. The protagonists, the Falcon and the Winter Soldier fight against them because they are a threat, but the Flag Smashers do have a somewhat justifiable cause. In my mind, the only reason the Flag Smashers are antagonists is because of the way they spread their message: through violence. The protagonists even try to reconcile with the Flag Smashers at one point claiming they would wouldn’t be enemies if they fought for their cause in a non-violent way. I’ve written more than I probably should so to wrap it up, I think a story set up like this is far more interesting that a story such as Beowulf where we don’t know anything about the antagonist other than the fact he is a blood lusting monster. Just as an aside, this is why I personally enjoyed the book Grendel by John Gardner which takes on the Beowulf story from the antagonist’s perspective.
September 12, 2022 at 5:39 pm
Thank you for this thought-provoking post! I have never seen Criminal Minds, but your post made me think of Stranger Things as another example of a TV show that seems to fit the same trope as Beowulf. Horrible things are happening in the innocent town of Hawkins, and local law enforcement is powerless. However, unlike in Beowulf and Criminal Minds, a specialist or team of specialists does not swoop in to stop it, but rather a group of brave young children. I think this makes the audience feel an even stronger connection to the protagonists and stronger hatred for their enemies because no one wants to see a child get hurt or die. The creators of the show also try to turn people against the monsters by dehumanizing them like in Beowulf and Criminal Minds. The monsters are from an entirely different, dark, creepy world called “the Upside Down,” and even the name itself implies that it is backwards and wrong. They also don’t already have names, and the kids choose their own names for them, which makes them feel like they are not individual beings and their entire life story revolves ruining the kids’ world. However, unlike in Beowulf, in Stranger Things, we are presented with the backstory of one of the main monsters, Vecna. This doesn’t happen until season 4 though, which gives viewers plenty of time to build up hatred for the monster before learning his origin. In addition, while Vecna’s backstory reveals that he was once a human, it also reveals that he murdered his family, which makes viewers like him even less. This connects to the idea in Beowulf that it is taboo in the society of the Danes to kill family members, which is part of the reason why Grendel, a descendant of Cain, is an outcast. Lastly, while the kids frequently triumph in their battles against the monsters, they struggle to kill them or defeat them permanently, unlike in Beowulf and Criminal Minds. Characters, and sometimes fairly major characters, frequently die in battle with the monsters, but the main characters always survive and “win” in that aspect like the protagonists win in Beowulf and Criminal Minds. For example, at the end of season 4, one of the main kids, Max, seems to die, but she is then brought back to life. While I like Max and don’t necessarily want her to leave the show, that moment frustrated me because it is unrealistic for all of the main kids to have survived their frequent battles with powerful monsters for 4 seasons. As you mentioned, people enjoy watching heroes win. However, I personally think Stranger Things has been clinging to this idea for too long.
September 12, 2022 at 7:58 pm
I’ll admit it; I’ve never been a huge fan of Criminal Minds or, quite frankly, any other overdramatized law enforcement show. Each episode seems too predictable and repetitive to grasp my attention. Nonetheless, I couldn’t agree more with your comments regarding this underlying and prevalent story structure—one molded around the glorious hero who comes to save the day against a monstrous enemy. While reading this article, I immediately thought about a book I recently read: How Beautiful We Were by Imbolo Mbue. A scathing critique of capitalism and colonialism, Mbue perfectly encapsulates the anger and suffering of a small African town—Kosawa—as it battles Pexton, a large and powerful oil company responsible for horrific environmental degradation (thousands upon thousands of people have already perished). While Pexton is, similar to Grendel, characterized as a monstrous organization that disregards all moral values in pursuit of profit (and desire), Kosawa’s battle against Pexton doesn’t center around the “Specialist Warriors From Away” who enter this complex dynamic and miraculously present a solution. In fact, the Americans who travel to help Kosawa, including governmental politicians, are inadequate, unmotivated and, all around, useless characters who only exacerbate the unequal balance of power between Kosawa and Pexton. Instead, resistance to Pexton, although largely unsuccessful, originates from the village itself. Thula, a member of the village who travels to America to receive an education, utilizes the forms of resistance she studies in college in an attempt to free her village from Pexton’s grasp. This form of heroism runs counter to the actions of Beowulf. Rather than Hrothgar’s own men, such as Unferth, defeating Grendel, the Danes are saved by a mysterious and powerful outside source. In How Beautiful We Were, this foreign source, Pexton, is actually the entity that causes the pervasive suffering and death in Kosawa. Yet, How Beautiful We Were’s largest contrast to Grendel stems from the book’s ending. Instead of the picture-perfect conclusion where the enemy is successfully defeated by a glorious hero or courageous cop, Pexton shoots and kills most of Kosawa’s people—stifling their resistance and illustrating the company’s ability to manipulate society. In my opinion, this is what makes How Beautiful We Were such an emotion-filled, thought-provoking book; instead of conforming to this overdone story structure (as seen in Criminal Minds), Mbue reveals that not all battles end in a happy ending or glorious victory—some battles are even still taking place.
September 13, 2022 at 10:38 pm
I am intrigued by your modern-day comparison of Beowulf to Criminal Minds. During quarantine, I watched many episodes of criminal minds and I must admit I love your comparison of Beowulf and Criminal Minds. The idea that the regular army/police can’t stop Grendel/the killer and that an exterior specialist figure must come in and save the day really caught my eye because they have such striking parallelisms. After reading your post, I began to speculate what other shows I could compare Beowulf to but instead I found another interesting comparison. My class not only read Beowulf, we also read Grendel, a novel of Beowulf from Grendel’s perspective. My favorite show, Money Heist, follows a similar perspective of Grendel, though not exactly the same. The main cast in Money Heist is a group of robbers who are robbing the National Bank of Spain for an interesting motive: besides the money, they also want to publicly exploit the flawed Spanish government on a national stage to encourage political reform. In Grendel, we learn of Grendel’s backstory and how he came to raid Hrothgar’s village. I thought this was a super cool and similar comparison to Grendel because both these works of art take us into the mindset of the typical villains/monsters and humanizes them, which makes the audience feel more sympathetic towards the villains. In fact, in Money Heist, the main character and the brains of the heist, the professor, finds ways to cleverly reveal the brutality of the police and armed forces to sway the support of Spain’s public towards them instead of the police and special forces. In all these examples, one thing remains extremely prevalent: the villain feeds off the hero and the hero feeds off the villain. They need each other to have a purpose in life. For example, in Beowulf, Beowulf is the hero and is looking for a challenge to further fulfill his heroines, and his next big challenge is Grendel, who he ultimately kills. In Grendel, Grendel enjoys terrorizing Hrothgar’s kingdom because he wants to be known as the “Hrothgar wrecker.” However, after facing no threat from the village, he begins to get bored and once Beowulf arrives, he feels excitement because he looks forward to a challenge. Money Heist reveals that the they need the special police to become involved because their insane escape plan involves revealing a secret to the police so they can be protected by the police. On the contrary, the police need the robbers because this is the biggest scandal to ever happen in Spain, and they need a challenge and want the public attention.
September 14, 2022 at 5:11 pm
I think the funniest thing about this is that while all crime shows typically follow this format, some still don’t, and the ones that don’t are usually the ones I find boring and uninteresting. In particular, my favorite of such crime shows is Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. In this show, they don’t use the term “unsub” however. It’s likely for the dramatic affect, but the investigators flat out call the perpetrators they are searching for “monsters.” Another thing this post made me wonder is if the people writing these shows are aware of how similar the plot line is to that of Beowulf. Something about an outsider coming in, and solving the problems of a tormented society is what is so entertaining and refreshing About these shows. The episodes basically follow the same plot over and over, but people like me just can’t get enough. I think that refreshing feeling of an outsider fixing someone’s problems and the way humans are attracted to that sort of story arc is why Beowulf has continued to be a famous epic throughout history. I think that if Beowulf didn’t follow this story arc, or another one common in other famous epic poems, then we probably would have never heard of it today— no one would have seen reason or been compelled to share and pass down this story through centuries. In law and order SVU, they do actually take these cases to court, which I have not seen in any other crime shows of this sort. I think that the judicial aspect of the show is what makes it standout to me from the other shows- its what makes it my favorite one. From that, you could probably see that I agree with your wish that shows like criminal minds did have a judicial aspect that would bring the show more realistic aspects. My only complaint about beowulf and most of these shows, is that these stories don’t make an attempt to give an in-depth description of the perpetrators background, and what lead them to the point in life where they were committing such crimes. I think that is probably why I enjoyed John Gardners Grendel a bit more than Beowulf alone. I preferred to hear the thoughts of the perpetrator and understand what possibly could drive someone to be so cruel over just seeing the hero. Yes, Beowulf is an epic dude (haha get it?), but as for myself, I wish the epic poem also gave insight into Grendel himself. All-in-all, I do think that your comparison of Beowulf to mainstream fiction crime shows is extremely intriguing and truly an interesting read.
September 14, 2022 at 5:33 pm
Criminal Minds shares a striking resemblance to Beowulf, but that lack of originality, in my opinion, can be excusable. Story structure is almost always inherited. With enough inspection, similarities can be found in strange places. According to Rob Minkoff, the director of the Lion King, after the idea for the story had already been created, they realized that the plot was incredibly similar to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Evolution in general occurs in small details over time, while the structure underneath takes much longer to change. In math, we may discover calculus and explore complex numbers, but the addition and multiplication we use to get there remains consistent. In architecture, we uses the same principles of shape and foundation, but we change the details of the outside. With actual evolution, an animal with change extremities relatively “quickly,” but bone and muscle changes are often dramatic and defining of a lineage. With stories, we rotate the same several plots, but we have an infinite number of specifics to choose from.
I believe that the limited number of plot lines we have is due to necessity. A writer could make a story about normal people searching for a normal object just as engaging as a story with wizards searching for a magical artifact. On the other hand, a story about someone interesting doing nothing will always be worse than a story about someone boring doing something interesting. I take a filmmaking class and I have a passion for script writing. I’ll often create a plot I have never seen before, and I’ll show it to my teacher. He’ll then proceed to point out flaws in my writing and lead me towards a path of writing something much more solid. After finishing the script, I’ll proofread it and be reminded of a plot I have seen before many times. It’s not that I originally created something original; it’s that I created a plot that had already been corrected in the past. There just aren’t many ways to make an audience consistently engaged in a story.
Luckily, I think that people are subconsciously aware of this. Because there are such a limited amount of ways to tell a story successfully, our brains never tend to focus on plot similarities. This, I believe, is why I found this article so shocking to me. The culture around entertainment is focused on the details; structure is just the vehicle to deliver us those details. An example of this can be found in the legal system: it is against copyright laws to make a story (that is not a parody) that takes names from the intellectual property. On the other hand, plot is completely fair game and for good reason. Otherwise, the only media we would be able to consume would be books… from over 300 years ago.
September 14, 2022 at 7:57 pm
Wow, interesting post! While I had previously recognized the similarities between Beowulf and other epic poems like The Odyssey as they both follow the typical hero’s journey character arc, I never thought of their possible connections to modern day television shows. Although I’m not a Criminal Minds fan, I do watch Law & Order: SVU, which follows a very similar story-line. Every episode has pretty much the same plot: a crime occurs, SVU sweeps in to solve the mystery, and the suspect is tried in court and put behind bars. It’s actually quite surprising to me that after decades on air and hundreds of episodes, people can still be hooked on the same storyline – but it remains effective and captivating. Criminal Minds, Chicago PD, Law & Order, and most other shows simply build upon the character arcs and journeys established so long ago, revealing the true extent to which the oldest surviving poem in the English language has affected and proliferated modern literature. In fact, I’m even more surprised that I had never previously heard of Beowulf before reading it in my English class even though some of my favorite shows have plots that mirror Beowulf’s almost exactly.
In recent years, however, I believe that more works have been developed from the perspective of the perceived “monster” such as Grendel by John Gardner, Wicked, Maleficent, etc. that have hit mainstream audiences through appearances on Broadway and large blockbuster hits. What surprises me about these reimagined works is that they’re all adaptations of the stories of some of the most culturally well-known “heroes;” They provide multidimensionality and new perspectives to the traditional hero storyline presented in Beowulf, and they also more accurately represent the system in which there is a moral gray area between good and bad – a system in which criminals or monsters aren’t always caught and many innocent people are wrongly convicted for crimes. By highlighting both the good and evil in all beings, these stories push back against the clear-cut rights and wrongs typically displayed in literature and reveals that oftentimes good people do bad things that make others perceive them as “monsters,” but their stories still deserve to be told as much as the perceived “hero.”
September 15, 2022 at 7:59 am
I think this comparison you draw between these two works is extremely interesting. One thing, however, that is different between Criminal Minds and Grendel is the fact that Grendel really shows the villain or perpetrator’s side of the story whilst Criminal Minds does not. Criminal Minds instead focuses on the special team trying to stop and catch the bad guy. I believe actually that Beowulf is a more similar work to draw comparisons to Criminal Minds, due to the fact that it is only told from Beowulf and his men’s side of the story, completely excluding Grendel’s perspectives and motivations and portraying him as a one sided villain to be stopped. In this sense I think the term “unsub” very much fits the depiction of Grendel as a villain and Beowulf: simply a big bad evil for Beowulf to vanquish and win glory for himself and his people. Grendel’s side of the story is never told, not that Beowulf could ever know it anyways.
One comparison I would like to make is one between the show Breaking Bad and the two works of Beowulf and Grendel. If Breaking Bad was told from the perspective of a Criminal Minds/Beowulf perspective, Walter White would be an unequivocally bad person with no redeeming qualities, simply a drug dealer that needed to be stopped by the heroic DEA and Hank Schrader. However, the reality of the show is from more of a Grendel perspective, where the main character is that antagonist in the Beowulf story, where Walter White’s perspectives and justifications for his actions are included in the overall story. Whist these justifications may not and often aren’t very ethical, there can still be a practical reason for his actions, which there is in the show.
I think this post is a very good example about how there are two sides to a story: one including the villains perspective and one without it. Even if both portray the villain as morally compromised, which it often is, I believe that including the villain’s perspectives makes for a more dynamic and interesting overall work, as the reader or watcher can consider the factors at play that would drive the characters to the actions that they take.