Rhetorical Analysis Of Horror And The Maternal In Beowulf

Right from the beginning of “Horror and the Maternal in Beowulf,” Paul Acker’s ambition in writing is clear. In the span of only a few sentences, he boldly refutes J.R.R. Tolkien’s interpretation of the monsters in Beowulf, stating “Tolkien also deflected certain avenues of interpreting the monsters” (702). This immediate claim, straight from the first paragraph of Acker’s essay, sets a tone for the rest of the paper, one that is plagued by unethical rhetorical strategies in order to satisfy its ambitions. Though Acker does present a fair argument in regards to his ideas and thesis, that same validity does not carry over to his rhetoric. I will argue that Acker constructs his essay in an unethical fashion, something which evidences itself within his frequent avoidance of claiming his own argument in addition to forms of deception which coerce agreement from a reader.

From the very beginning of the essay (part of which was referenced earlier), Acker attempts to discredit Tolkien’s interpretation in order to lend more credence to his own argument when he presents it later. The initial sentences state:
“J.R.R. Tolkien’s essay ‘Beowulf: The Monsters And The Critics’ has for many readers achieved one of its stated intentions, that of placing the monsters at the center of the poem rather than at the periphery. And yet subsequent developments in literary hermeneutics and critical theory make it clear that Tolkien also deflected certain avenues of interpreting the monsters”