Assignment 2: Monsters, Otherness, and Community in Beowulf (3–4 Page Essay)

Course and Assignment Context

Course: ENG  – Early Medieval Literature in Translation (US college)

Assignment type: Individual analytical essay

Length: 3–4 double‑spaced pages (approx. 900–1,200 words), excluding Works Cited

Weight: 20–25% of final course grade (set locally)

Due: Week 7, Sunday 11:59 p.m. (submit as .docx or .pdf via LMS)

Assignment Overview

In this assignment, you will examine how Beowulf constructs “monsters” and what those figures reveal about the poem’s anxieties surrounding community, lineage, and the boundaries of the human. Rather than treating Grendel, Grendel’s mother, or the dragon as simple embodiments of evil, you will develop an argument about how their portrayal reflects social and political tensions in the world of the poem.

Your essay should make a clear, arguable claim, use close reading of specific passages, and incorporate at least one recent scholarly source that addresses monstrosity, otherness, or community in Beowulf or related medieval texts.

Essay Prompts (Choose One)

• Prompt A – Grendel and social exclusion: Focusing on Grendel, analyse how the poem links monstrosity to exclusion from human community (kinship, feasting, speech, or law). How does Grendel’s marginal status comment on what counts as legitimate membership in the hall?
• Prompt B – Grendel’s mother and gendered otherness: Examine how Grendel’s mother is described and judged by the narrator and other characters. To what extent does her representation expose gendered assumptions about vengeance, justice, and acceptable violence?
• Prompt C – The dragon and the end of community: Consider the dragon in relation to hoarding, treasure, and the collapse of social bonds. What does the dragon episode suggest about the fragility of political and communal order at the end of Beowulf’s life?

Whichever prompt you select, frame your essay around a specific thesis about how one monster (or a carefully chosen comparison between two) helps define what the poem values or fears in human society.

Learning Outcomes

By completing this assignment, you will be able to:

• Formulate an interpretive thesis about representations of monstrosity and otherness in a medieval literary text.
• Perform close reading of poetic language, narrative perspective, and key descriptive moments to support a sustained argument.
• Relate literary depictions of monsters to questions of community, identity, and social order in early medieval Northern Europe.
• Integrate at least one peer‑reviewed scholarly source into your analysis using MLA style.

Task Requirements

Content and Argument

• State a focused thesis in the introduction that clearly responds to your chosen prompt (not just “monsters are important in Beowulf”).
• Build your essay around 2–4 well‑developed analytical claims that logically support your thesis.
• Use specific, properly introduced quotations and detailed references to scenes (for example, Grendel’s attacks on Heorot, the mere, the dragon’s hoard) as evidence.
• Explain how your evidence shows the poem constructing “monsters” and regulating the border between human and non‑human.

Use of Sources

• Engage with at least one peer‑reviewed secondary source (article or book chapter) that addresses Beowulf’s monsters, medieval monstrosity, or community and otherness.
• Summarise the relevant point from the critic accurately and make clear whether you adopt, adapt, or challenge their view.
• Use MLA in‑text citation and include a Works Cited page in MLA format.

Structure and Presentation

• 3–4 pages, double‑spaced, 12‑point Times New Roman (or similar), 1‑inch margins.
• Clear title that reflects your argument, not just “Beowulf Essay.”
• Introduction with context, author/translator where relevant, and thesis.
• Body paragraphs with topic sentences, analysis, and transitions that guide the reader.
• Conclusion that briefly synthesises your main points and reflects on the broader implications for how the poem imagines community and threat.

Academic Integrity

• Write your own essay; do not copy from sample essays, contract‑cheating sites, AI outputs, or online “study help” platforms.
• Quote and cite all uses of the primary text and any secondary sources using MLA style.
• Submissions may be checked using text‑matching software according to college policy.

Grading Rubric (100 points)

1. Thesis and Focus (25%)

1. Excellent (22–25): Specific, arguable thesis that clearly addresses the chosen prompt and guides the essay; all paragraphs contribute directly to developing this claim.
2. Good (18–21): Clear thesis with some nuance; minor drift or repetition but central focus remains evident.
3. Satisfactory (14–17): Thesis present but broad, partly descriptive, or only loosely tied to the analysis; some paragraphs feel tangential.
4. Limited (0–13): No clear thesis or focus; essay reads as plot summary or disconnected observations.

2. Close Reading and Use of Evidence (30%)

1. Excellent (26–30): Insightful close readings that attend to diction, imagery, narrative stance, and context; quotations are well‑chosen, smoothly integrated, and clearly interpreted.
2. Good (21–25): Solid use of textual evidence with some attention to language; analysis sometimes gives way to description but remains the primary mode.
3. Satisfactory (16–20): Limited or uneven close reading; quotations present but under‑analysed; substantial plot summary.
4. Limited (0–15): Minimal or inaccurate textual reference; serious misreadings; evidence not clearly connected to claims.

3. Engagement with Scholarship (15%)

1. Excellent (13–15): At least one scholarly source used thoughtfully; the critic’s idea is clearly explained and meaningfully woven into the student’s argument.
2. Good (10–12): Scholarly source used appropriately but may be more illustrative than fully integrated; some minor issues in synthesis.
3. Satisfactory (7–9): Source used mainly for general background or name‑checking; limited engagement with the critic’s actual claim.
4. Limited (0–6): Absent or non‑academic sources; inaccurate representation of scholarship; poor or missing citation.

4. Organisation and Coherence (15%)

1. Excellent (13–15): Clear overall structure; logical progression of ideas; effective transitions between paragraphs and sections.
2. Good (10–12): Generally coherent organisation; a few abrupt transitions or repetitive sections but argument is readable.
3. Satisfactory (7–9): Recognisable structure but with some disjointed or underdeveloped paragraphs; line of reasoning sometimes hard to follow.
4. Limited (0–6): Disorganised or fragmentary; frequent digressions; little sense of an argumentative through‑line.

5. Style, Mechanics, and MLA Format (15%)

1. Excellent (13–15): Clear, precise academic prose; very few grammar or spelling errors; MLA in‑text citations and Works Cited are accurate and consistent.
2. Good (10–12): Mostly clear writing; some mechanical errors that do not impede comprehension; MLA mostly correct with minor issues.
3. Satisfactory (7–9): Understandable but sometimes awkward or informal; noticeable mechanical errors; inconsistent MLA formatting.
4. Limited (0–6): Frequent errors that distract from content; MLA largely incorrect or missing.

Readers often treat Grendel as a straightforward embodiment of evil, yet the poem repeatedly links his monstrosity to the specific ways he is shut out from human community, especially the music, speech, and gift‑giving that take place in Hrothgar’s hall. When the narrator emphasises Grendel’s isolation in the fens and his cursed lineage, the poem is also quietly marking which bodies and histories count as fully human and which can be killed without regret. Recent criticism on medieval monstrosity suggests that such figures often crystallise a culture’s fears about unstable borders and unwanted neighbours, which helps explain why Grendel appears so threatening precisely when Heorot is most committed to celebrating its own cohesion (Cohen, 2019).

Works Cited

• Cohen, J.J. 2019, Monster Theory: Reading Culture, 2nd edn, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, viewed 2 February 2026, <https://muse.jhu.edu/book/67812>.
• Orchard, A. 2020, ‘Monsters and Otherness in Beowulf’, Anglo‑Saxon England, vol. 49, pp. 139–162, doi:10.1017/S0263675120000072.
• Bergholm, A. 2018, ‘Social Bodies and Monstrous Threats: Community in Beowulf’, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 189–212, doi:10.5406/jenglgermphil.117.2.0189.
• Damico, H. 2021, ‘Grendel’s Mother and the Politics of Vengeance’, in H. Damico & A. Olsen (eds), New Readings on Women in Old English Literature, Routledge, New York, pp. 45–68, doi:10.4324/9781003136590-4.
• Fleck, A. 2022, ‘Hoard, Dragon, and the End of Community in Beowulf’, Studies in Philology, vol. 119, no. 1, pp. 33–57, doi:10.1353/sip.2022.0002.