Ofermod and Cowardice

When I was taking Emily Steiner's class on Beowulf, we talked briefly about the Battle of Maldon. A quick summary: an English leader named Byrhtnoth refused to pay tribute to Vikings, so the Vikings attacked. The Vikings had the larger force, but Byrhtnoth had a good chance because the Vikings had to cross a narrow causeway, which rendered their numbers useless. Maldon could have been tactically similar to the Battle of Thermopylae, in which Gerard Butler and a handful of Greeks were able to hold off a larger Persian force by forcing the large force through a narrow patch of shoreline.

But instead of taking advantage of the causeway, Byrhtnoth decided to let the Vikings off the causeway before fighting. Why? Byrhtnoth was struck with ofermod: one of my favorite concepts of all time. (Predictably, the Vikings won the day; a lot of people on both sides died, Byrhtnoth lost his head, and the English began paying Danegeld.)

A lot of ink has been spilled about ofermod, including a famous essay by J.R.R. Tolkein, but here is a brief summary: ofermod is an Old English word, but its parts are familiar to us: "ofer" just means "over" and "mod" gives us the modern word "mood"--it means something like spirit and it connotes things like heart, pride, and courage.

History is full of Byrhtnoths--leaders with a surfeit of mod; we may even have a few still around. Are these people heroes or idiots? Or both? What is the difference between prudence and cowardice, and why is cowardice considered especially despicable, especially in men? Is any discussion on this topic colored by cultural lenses?

Pop Culture and Race Loyalty

One of my mentors recently posted a critical review of Tyler Perry's most recent film, Why Did I Get Married Too? Having not seen the film, I was most interested her description of Perry's appeal to "a demographic of women—working-class, Christian African Americans who identify as heterosexual—who do not have movies specifically marketed to them."

One interesting issue is that Black viewers would like to applaud Perry's success, even as they question the real quality of his work. This conflict is symptomatic of a broader ambivalence: what we like isn't necessarily what's good for us.

To what extent is a Perry a trailblazer, and to what extent is he a profiteer of poor taste?