Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/45572
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/45572
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Make Beowulf more complex, which was your goal anyway.

Consider Jethro Gibbs (Mark Harmon) on NCIS. The ultimate cop: But he isn't. When his wife and child were murdered by a drug dealer, and the drug dealer escaped justice, Gibbs (an Army sniper) secretly hunted the man down in Mexico and put a bullet in his head. With no regrets.

Consider Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) on 24: A hero, but will resort to illegal means, including torture and murder, to stop imminent terrorist acts (The show's hook is that scenes are continuous for 24 hours). Also, no regrets.

Viewers love this stuff, but a trick of fiction is what allows that: In both cases, the **viewer** is shown that the people being harmed are definitely guilty bad guys that deserve it. Now, characters within the narrative might not be able to know that, but the viewer believes **justice** is being served even if the **law** is being broken.

And that is one way to make Beowulf a deeper character. Yes, he did those things, and the way they are told he is the moral reference. But, we learn, Beowulf serves a higher purpose than just morality; he thinks the **purpose** of moral rules is to get us to do what is **right** , but the rules are not perfect. So he makes things **_right_** even if that demands breaking a moral rule. And if that condemns his soul, then he will sacrifice himself to what is **_right_** , because that is what a hero does.

He is not constrained by rules that would prevent that. What is more important? Telling the truth, or saving an innocent life? If he must lie to save an innocent, he will lie, and take the stain it creates on his soul. If he must coerce a thief into stealing something, in order to save a village, he will. **No regrets.**

It would be better for your readers if the thief/slave is clearly a vile person, perhaps enslaved for committing a murder. If not, go the opposite way: The thief/slave is actually a _good_ guy, and Beowulf doesn't coerce him, but more convinces him to do the right thing and earn his freedom, or something like that.

Beowulf considers himself a true hero, and if others wish to write him as an absolute moral reference, so be it. In a way, he still is; we learn he is smart enough to realize the moral rules can lead to evil consequences, when breaking them would prevent those evil consequences. So he _tries_ to follow the moral rules, but in the end, like Gibbs and Bauer, he sees his role as thwarting evil and protecting as many of the innocent as possible, full stop.

If you want to extend the myth, the only thing that weighs on his soul is failing to do that. And such a failure is responsible for the 50 year gap: It isn't told, but he failed to save people he loved, and the reason they died was his fault, his miscalculation. And though he prevailed, in grief he withdrew from the Hero game, accepting no more missions. But after some years of staying out, he decided he could not stand by and just watch evil win, when he could prevent it. He felt compelled to serve, but had to be smarter about it. Hence, your story.

Original score: 2