I read the summary of Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics summary, and I agree with J.R.R. Tolkien's opinions. Tolkien argued that Beowulf should be studied as a work of art, as opposed to merely just a historical document. He was pointing out the way that the story was written and the characters portrayed in it rather than just what happened in the story. I agree with this as many things in the story are symbols and have a major emphases on them. In other words, I think that the author wrote the story in his own interpretation and not purely off some historical articles. The author added his own flair and unique writing style, making his creation unique. Therefore the author is no different from an artist, and the story of Beowulf is no different from a work of art. Grendel, Grendel's mother, and the dragon are all antagonists added to the story by the author, and because of that they stray from the historical context of Anglo-Saxon history. Many critics heavily criticize Beowulf for this, but Tolkien argues that they are wrong to do so in that it is a piece of art. Those inhuman characters are the flair of the author, and were used as emphasis for story telling purposes, which I appreciate. Those who want to look at the story for a source of Anglo-Saxon history should do so without minding the imagination that the author/artist had to put into the great piece of art that is Beowulf!