Who is the Modern Day Pardoner?

After reading "The Pardoner's Tale" in "The Canterbury Tales", many ideas come up as who is the modern day pardoner. Well the modern day pardoner is a variety of tangible as well intangible things. The innapropritate pop-up advertisements convincing you to buy you-know-whats, the infomercials trying to get you to buy things that are just too good to be true, as well as the numerous preachers accused of stealing from their congregations. These are all things that will trick you out of your money using false and immoral tactics. These are the modern day pardoners. 

Riddle...

If I were never created you wouldn't be reading this riddle.
I swiftly manifest your thoughts and ideas.
I come in many colors.

Is Grendel A Monster?

Is Grendel a monster? In Beowulf's eyes, yes of course. Grendel terrorized a town and killed people, therefore he deserves to die. Now, in Grendel's eyes, he feels like a social outcast. He isn't allowed to be apart of the festivities and drink mead with the others, therefore he feels alone. He can't stand listening to them party in the hall and not be allowed to be apart of it. Is it Grendel's fault that he looks the way he does? It's not, and clearly he is human in some way. Whether it be his actions in the film where he shows mercy towards Hrothgar's wife, or his sadness when he's dying basically in his mother arms. He doesn't want to be the way he is and Beowulf makes him up to be so much more, but that doesn't mean Beowulf is wrong.  Beowulf was sent to kill and rid "the monster" and his intentions were solely that so he had no time to recognize Grendel for being more than just a monster. Yet, Grendel still killed innocent people having a good time because of his insecurities which is wrong, but I don't think Grendel truly knows it's wrong and naturally his mother condones this behavior so she's the true monster, not Grendel.

Nabokov's Good Readers and Writers

Wow, this was an interesting article. I felt like Nabokov's point of view on reading and writing was thorough but...a tad bit overboard. I mean come on, is it really necessary to do half the stuff that he talked about? I felt like he was on point with the arguments of when literature was created. But still his ideas on fondling details and basically reading with a magnifying glass was a little far-fetched if you ask me. The idea of having to read something twice just seems like too much. If I don't catch something the first time, then obviously i'm not that interested in the book and clearly don't want to read again...plain and simple. You don't need a certain type of imagination to read a book (well), you just need a brain and reading skills. Why stay a little aloof  in a story than actually think. Have ideas about what's going to happen and make predictions, it makes reading a lot more fun to me. Not being able to predict and staying in the dark the whole time is just stupid.