Meluso 1
Maria Meluso
Villmer
Honors British Literature ACP Purple
8 October 2013
Determination in Adversity
Throughout the Anglo-Saxon and Medieval periods in British Literature, certain qualities
of characters remain stagnant, while many are vastly different. Many of the heroes in this early
British Literature are brave and superhuman, while others are painfully ordinary. One of the
biggest similarities to be found in this early writing period, however, is not within character
personalities, but rather in the way a character handles conflict and his or her method of solving a
problem. The characters in Anglo-Saxon and Medieval British Literature of Beowulf, the
goodwife, and King Arthur all take approaches to problem solving that all include determination,
concern for image, and playing toward one’s strengths, but that are also different and unique and
that can have a practical application in today’s society.
British literature essentially begins with Beowulf, the great Geat warrior. Beowulf has a
problem of monstrous proportions and goes about solving it the way the hero in any typical epic
would. To defeat the supernatural monsters, Beowulf first relies on his own brute, superhuman
strength and fighting ability, refusing to face his foe with weapons or armor. He does this both
in order to give his boasts validity, and also because he takes his personal image and honor into
consideration when planning to face a challenge. Next, he is content to leave the outcome of his
struggles up to Fate and God. His biggest fault is that, no matter who or what the adversary is,
Beowulf goes about facing it the same way each time. He fights with determination and heart,
but he leaves the outcome up to the power of his own talents and abilities and to Fate and God,
Meluso 2
as shown when he says, “…my hands alone shall fight for me, struggle for life against the
monster. God must decide who will be given to death’s cold grip.” Beowulf’s method is, at the
core, to face down the monsters or adversaries and force them to back down, or die, using his
own strength in order to save people, his own or others. He likes to stand up to danger and evil
in a very violent and confrontational way and puts much faith in God’s will as he does so. His
method, however, is impractical in today’s world.
The goodwife in the ballad “Get Up and Bar the Door” is more similar to Beowulf than it
seems at first. Both characters use determination as a method of coping with adversity. Both
characters rely on a skill they have to get them through a problem. They are different, however,
in that Beowulf believes the best way to face adversity is through fighting, feats of strength, and
death, while the goodwife uses patience, passiveness, and perseverance to succeed. The
goodwife has several interesting qualities when it comes to facing challenges. Though she is a
woman, she proves that women need not constantly be passively obedient. When the goodwife
asks her husband to bar the door and he tells her to do it instead, she responds with, “An it shoud
nae be barrd this hundred year, it’s no be barrd for me,” and a challenge. Her strategy involves
the use of silence, something many women are proficient in, to achieve her goal. She perseveres
and acts with determination, proving herself to be stronger-willed than her husband.
Unfortunately, her strategy is also relatively stereotypical for a woman, being quiet and passive,
but it is proof that sometimes even stereotypical behavior has its perks. Her strategy is simply to
hold out longer than her husband, and she uses patience and her own abilities to do this.
The goodwife is very different from the majestic King Arthur of the famed and fabled
Camelot. In Le Morte d’Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory, King Arthur approaches his challenges
with several, different strategies. He is very systematic with his method of problem solving,
Meluso 3
never jumping too quickly into something until he has analyzed all sides and consulted his most
trusted advisors. He weighs all the options and decides which is best. His decision, however, is
based on logic as well as his own image and honor. For example, he does not want his people to
be seen as weak or his rule and kingdom to be taken as a joke, so he goes into battle against Sir
Launcelot, albeit reluctantly. He also keeps all his options open by leaving ample opportunity
for his opponents to call for truce. He favors peace and reconciliation, and many of his actions
are motivated by that, though sometimes he tends to act impulsively and with revenge in mind.
The biggest difference in Arthur’s method as compared to the others, however, is that he has to
change his strategy to fit the situation as Fate changes the game, such as when Arthur attempts to
reconcile with Sir Modred and, “Then, by chance, one of the soldiers was bitten on the foot by an
adder… as the sword flashed in the light… both armies galloped into attack.” Still, King Arthur
uses the most logical method when facing challenges and overcoming them, though even he is
subjected to the influence of Fate, and he knows it. He is the only character to change his
strategy because of it, however.
These characters are similar in several distinct ways. First, all three of these characters
are determined to succeed as they set their plan in motion. Second, they all three play to their
strengths, be it physical strength, patience and silence, or being a king and army commander with
a talent for warfare. Last, all three of them create a plan that will, if successful, end up making
them look good as well as giving them what they want. They go about coping with adversity in
vastly different ways however. Beowulf and King Arthur both resort to fighting, warfare, and
bloodshed to solve all their problems and face adversity. The goodwife, by contrast, uses
patience, nonviolence, and perseverance to meet her goal. The goodwife and King Arthur both
strategize beforehand and figure out the most beneficial method to get what they want, while
Meluso 4
Beowulf rushes into a situation without thought as to consequence or best course, leaving much
of his plan to chance. Lastly, Beowulf and the goodwife both never give in until they have won,
while King Arthur was ready to give up, albeit deceptively, in order to end the adversity.
The best strategy in today’s society would likely be King Arthur’s method. Beowulf is
far too impulsive and his plans are disjointed and full of holes. The goodwife is too passive, and
also too patient for today’s society. King Arthur, by contrast, applies logic to coping with
adversity. He goes through a step-by-step process and gains as much information and insight as
possible before taking action. When he does take action, every move is calculated to do just the
right amount of damage to the foe or adversary. His strategies for facing challenges change and
adapt as the challenge changes or adapts. He, unlike Beowulf, does things differently based on
the situation, rather than applying one, stagnant method to every problem that arises. He also
asks for help and advice, even when the advice is not good, unlike Beowulf who did not seek
help against any opponent. Lastly, Arthur’s strategy for dealing with challenges also involves
counting the cost and consequence of any actions undertaken. Thus, King Arthur is a rational,
logical thinker who takes a very systematic and methodical approach to problem solving, both on
and off the battlefield.
In conclusion, characters in British literature tend to follow a similar pattern regarding
facing challenges. Beowulf, the goodwife, and King Arthur all share several characteristics
when it comes to problem solving. They are all determined and strong, create plans that play to
their strengths, and are concerned with how their strategy makes them look. But they also
approach their adversity in many different ways based on who and how they are. For the most
part, King Arthur’s strategy seems to make the most sense overall for today’s society regarding
Meluso 5
handling issues and problem solving. These are just some of the ways characters in early British
literature can be compared and then applied to everyday life. (1369)
Meluso 6
Ind. LAP 1 Essay Evaluation Form
for HN British Literature ACP
Statement of Mastery:
Line indicates class expectations
 Does not meet expectations 
Essay Writing
Criteria
Accuracy of your
Interpretation
essay is too much about
the conflicts or plot
Use of evidence
too much plot or conflict
discussed; not enough
comparing and
contrasting
Clarity of your essay
writing skills
weaknesses with
structure, thesis,
topic sentences,
prose in general
Accuracy of your use
of MLA
errors include header,
spacing, page numbers,
no word count,
works cited page missing
Below
Average
Average
Above
Average
 Exceeds expectations 
Excellent
Superlative
Meluso 7
Common comments, highlighted: essay was well written; analysis was high quality; analysis was insightful;
good command of literary analysis format; weak use of academic writing skills
essay was pretty good but lacked analysis; essay lacked adequate support for thesis statement;
essay format was poorly executed; analysis was superficial and lacked depth;
Subtotal: _______________
Essay failed to follow assignment: comparisons missing or poorly elaborated, best method missing (-5) or poorly
elaborated,
too few characters, more than one character from the same section of unit 1 (-10), no female character (-10)
quotes were missing (-5)
Overall: essay needed to better EXPLAIN
MLA errors (-1, -2, -3)
too short (-1, -2)
the strategies of the characters to their challenges
too much time spent on their conflicts
or needed to provide more comparing and contrasting
_________ ___________ /100 :Final Grade