my maid of honor speech for my sisters wedding!
14 years ago
Friday, October 10, 2008
Grendel's Villiany
Beowulf's Grendel is a monster who repeatedly attacks Herot in a murderous rage. Since you have read Gardner's Grendel, however, you should be approaching Grendel's "monstrosity" with an altered perspective. Is Grendel a monster who mindlessly destroys Herot and its courageous warriors, or is he simply a misunderstood and unloved creature searching for approbation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Because Grendel was written in first person, as a reader you get to experience his complex emotions and feelings firsthand and you begin to develop a new understanding of him. When reading Grendel over the summer, I really started to sympathize with him and his struggle against the humans. He wasn’t killing mindlessly because he was a stupid animal, but because of several very “human” reasons. Grendel craved acceptance from the humans, yet was disgusted by them and could not comprehend their motives for the violence they caused. He was tormented internally by these conflicting emotions. I found that I didn’t consider Grendel to be the horrible “monster” he was made out to be in Beowulf, but instead, was a creature yearning for approval in the world.
Okay and I don’t know if I’m allowed to do this but…QUESTION:
Humans condemn Grendel for being a “monster”, but they themselves commit these atrocities. Are humans any better than Grendel himself”?
In response to Kim's question, I think that the humans are in fact right in condemning Grendel for the things he does. In Gardner's Grendel we are introduced to another view of Grendel,and however an intriguing piece of literature it is, it does not display the true Grendel. The true Grendel is spawned from demons, and is evil to the core. He is displayed as a senseless creature that finds pleasure in killing. When humans commit crimes like murder, most of the time they do it in some sort of justified situation(ex.war/crimes of passion) and not just because we feel like it. Humans are able to distinguish between what is right and wrong, but Grendel is not. This is what makes humans better than Grendel, and what qualifies Grendel as a "monster".
In response to Meghan’s comment:
How do you know that this is the “true” Grendel though? Can’t you say that the Grendel depicted in Beowulf was also not displaying the real Grendel? The Grendel portrayed in Beowulf was not gone into in depth. It was just assumed that he could not think or have anything other than base emotions. Therefore, you don’t know that that is what Grendel was really like either. Grendel’s actions are implied to be evil because that’s what the humans interpret them as. The humans display him as a creature that delights in killing because they attempt to alienate him as much as they can from themselves. The less human-like he appears to be to them, the more they can rationalize away their own violent and terrible nature. Grendel kills with “justified reason” about as much as humans do. Wives kill husbands for money or jealousy, are those “justified”?
Whoa....Meghan...I'm confused. You say that Grendel doesn't know right from wrong and that's what makes humans BETTER than Grendel...that's why Grendel should be blamed??? He should be blamed because he doesn't know any better? Hmm...children don't know right from wrong. My dog doesn't know right from wrong. That's the reason why discipline is so essential in any creature's upbringing. Just to play devil's advocate, isn't Grendel's deprivation of a home life or a true motherly role model an excuse for his behavior? No one taught him a right from wrong, so how can we place blame on him for his crimes?
Ok...
I believe that there is some innate sense of right and wrong in people. I understand that a person's upbringing obviously has an important effect in shaping that person. However, I do not believe that everything is solely NURTURE. It is a balance between both nature and nurture. There are things that are innate in each of us that define who we are as people. Through nurturing, we help to develop our sense of right and wrong and other important qualities about us.
I do not believe that a baby naturally would want to truly hurt or kill someone for its rattle. It may behave immaturely and make mistakes, BUT I think that there is natural goodness.
Like with your dog Miss Winkler.
I agree with Eric in that there is a balance between right and wrong in everyone. Thus, apart from Grendel's need to kill and murder humans, he has a good side. This side isn't seen in Beowulf because it's from a biased human perspective. If everyone is just as equally good as bad, then Beowulf is at as much fault as Grendel is. Beowulf and his people may be strong and powerful, but that does not give them the right to base their actions off of right vs. wrong; no one has that right. Beowulf is a hypocrite because his methods of killing (stabbing the sea monster in the eye as opposed to Grendel biting a human's head off), are the same as Grendel. Why isn't he considered a villain then? Oh, wait because he can simply say, "I am Beowulf!"?
Grendel is seen as a villain solely because he is unlike humans. Yet as we read in Gardner's Grendel, he has obvious emotions, and all he wanted was acceptance, which Hrothgar and his men bluntly refused to give to him. Grendel may seem like a villain to the naked human eye, but considering his lack of nurturing and upbringing, he can't be blamed. Miss Winkler's dog doesn't know right from wrong, and neither does Grendel. That doesn't mean you blame them, it means you teach them.
I have to agree with Kim; Grendel is made to seem like a barbarous monster by humans, because the more inhumane they make Grendel appear, the more sensible the humans seem. Regarding Meghan's comment, I have to say that I disagree. Just because Grendel doesn’t know right from wrong, doesn’t mean you blame him for his actions. I mean, some humans know right from wrong but they still go off and commit crimes. Shouldn’t that make humans worse than Grendel? Additionally, humans are not right in criticizing Grendel for his actions. Humans are no better than Grendel. They are just as violent and cruel as Grendel. Also, when humans commit crimes such as adultery, stealing, and especially murder they are not considered to be justified in any way. First of all, I think that there isn’t such a thing as a “justified reason” when considering the motive behind a crime. It’s not right for someone to kill someone because of his or her actions. What if you were the one who made a mistake, would you like to be killed for it? This also goes along with revenge, which also isn’t right. No one has the right to put someone in pain because of what they did.
Erm...just playing devil's advocate here, but didn't Beowulf kill Grendel so that he could save the Danes? Isn't killing to stop the monster from killing others reason enough for violence? Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning violence at all, but there's a difference between fighting for the sake of protection and fighting for the sake of fighting. It still comes down to good vs. evil (don't kill me people; I'm only defining evil here as "hurting others for reasons other than defence"). No matter whether or not you see Grendel as a "monster," you still can't say that it's okay for Grendel to kill just because he's "misunderstood and unloved."
Yes, Beowulf is an arragont idiot, but you have to take into consideration his motives. We all know why he fights: for his reputation and his people. Why does Grendel fight? For rage? For approval? Can you honestly say that those motives are equal to the ones Beowulf has?
And no one believed me when I said this movie existed BUT I FOUND PROOF HA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGlSAtb-SDw
But Syeda, how do you know that Beowulf's motives are "better" than Grendel's? And Beowulf did kill Grendel to save the Danes, but that wasn't his only reason. He also wanted to improve his self image [which pretty much means he has a very big head]. This is also achieved through killing the "horrible beast" that was Grendel. But then it comes to the question on whether Grendel is really a beast. From Beowulf's eyes [and the eyes of most people], Grendel is a blood-thirsty monster who has no regard to feeling whatsoever. But if you look at it from Grendel's point of view, one of the reasons he exists is to ensure human existence. When he had talked to the dragon, the dragon had told Grendel that humans needed something to fight for, something to question in order to continue living [in a sense]. So for Grendel, he is making sure that humans not only survive, but he's also trying to get them to stop fighting pointlessly w/ each other.
I do not believe he is really a "misunderstood and unloved creature", nor do I believe that he is a monster. I just think that he is living the only way he knows how, a way that is natural to him. Humans will call things whatever they want to, and this is no exception. But if you look at life and creatures in general, there's always going to be one creature killing another. This is exactly what is happening with Grendel, which is why I don't think he's a monster. He's just, for want of a better word, as normal as any other creature.
I have to say that I kinda agree with steph here...we don't know exactly what Grendel is, monster or not because everyone has a different point of view. If you take the point of view of the Danes and Beowulf he's a horrible creature that is making them afraid to even go to sleep at night, however, from Grendel's point of view he was doing what he knew how to do since birth. Just as some of us humans eat meat and others think is discusting, Grendel eats humans because it's what he was raised to do and his survival technique. However, that doesn't mean he had to be so blood thirsty and discusting about it the way he is.
Plus, you also have to consider what a "monster" actually is. Sometimes people consider others monsters because of what evil they did, not because of their appearance or of what they ate. I believe to fully understand Grendel and Beowulf's story you must try on both pairs of shoes before judging which is a better choice.
I think before we determine whether Grendel is a monster or not, we should decide if he is more human or animal like. After, both can be described as monsters at certain events. The most important difference between humans and animals is the human ability to rationalize and determine a system of right and wrong. Animal is all instinct driven by nature. Thus, if Grendel was to be a human in our eyes, then yes, he would be a monster as he is willing killing others. However, by classifying him as an animal, can we really blame him for following his insticts that nature gave him?
For example, on one of my favorite T.V. shows a while back, (Bones, if anyone knows it) the two protagonists, detectives actually, had to solve a murder mystery. It turned out that the victim was killed by a dog. A dog that was order to kill by his master. When everything was said and done, the dog was put down on the grounds that it stil killed someone. Do you think this is right? And thus can you still blame Grendel?
You Know, I happen to like Grendel. In the text Beowulf, he is portrayed as a ferocious beast, without any feeling, or emotions or anything. But in Gardners text of Grendel, he is portrayed as a missunderstood creature, that wants to become one with the humans. In Grendel, Grendel defends the humans to the dragon, and in a way conveys that he wants to join them. But when he goes down to the meadhall, I can't remember which one, he approachs the humans with open arms, listening to the music of the harp and wishing he could be there. But when he goes down, the humans try to kill him. He doesn't fight back but they keep stabbing at him and he runs. Is this fair. After this he hates the humans.But isn't he actually defending himself? He is killing the people who are trying to kill him, more or less self-defense, even if he's overdoing it. I side with Grendel, anyone else?
An important detail to note is that Grendel is NOT HUMAN!! we keep comparing him to a human being but it is like comparing apples to oranges. Humans are different than other animals, maybe becuase they are more advanced intellectually or whatever, but we know that we are different, no matter what. So Grendel is a different species so he behaves differently then we do...
Let's take any example of an animal that has killed a human. A snake, a shark, a lion, a little poisonous frog...whatever. Do we ever look at these animals and say, "O he killed thiswoman. He is misundertood"? not really. Grendel is an animal and was acting like one. In the book Grendel, we see that he is more of a "human" creature with the ability to think and ponder, etc. However, he is not human so his animalistic actions are just that, actions performed by an animal. Does that make them justified? Well, is a python killing a man justified?
Ok just found an argument against my post, was a human (Beowulf) killing Grendel justified? But was Grendel killing humans justified? Are humans truly different than other animals?
It seems like it is kind of going around in circles... Im going to stop now.
Well Faith, even though Grendel is not human, he isn't exactly an animal either. He has the ability to know what is going on with humans and tries to fit in with them. Although he is not completely human, it is obvious that he has some logical thinking skills. But he only resorts to more "animalistic" qualities when the humans deny him the possibility of ever becoming one of them. I really don't know what to classify this as. Grendel destroys Herot as a sort of revenge. He does it knowingly, but there are times when it seems that the animal part of him takes over. Again, I do not believe he is a monster nor a misunderstood creature. But it is difficult to classify what he really is. For now, I'll just say that he's a revengeful creature who goes too far.
WARNING..if you are looking for proper spelling, look away.
While Grendel's actions certainly cannot be condoned, i do think he is quite misunderstood. While its true that he is not human, he is not mindless. he's a living, breathing, thinking animal that undeniably has his own hopes, desires, and fears. etc etc. =] again, while he is not human, maybe the point is to show that there is a little "grendel" in every member of the human race. afterall, what makes a monster? is it appearance? actions? mentality? demeanor? well anywho, acknowledging that he does have the capacity to carry out thoughts and ideas, he cannot be deemed "mindless" and "worthy of elimination". As far as the unloved aspect..in beowulf, grendel's mother seems to be a typical mother avenging her sons murder, so you wouldn't know the issues with their relationship. additionally, the "issues" with their relationship are based off HUMAN standards. if grendel is not human, how can u use these standards to measure his vulnerability? either way, he's a pretty pittiful character.
I don't Grendel should be considered a villian at all. Grendel was imply searching for acceptance. Grendel wasn't human but he wasn't like the other's of his species, or his mother atleast. Grendel just felt so out of place. He was far above the intellecutal level of his mother, and even above that of humans, and yet humans would not accept him. Grendel is no more a monster than the humans were, who continually destroyed one another. Grendel was disgusted at their actions and didn't understand why he was considered worse. What's villanous about wanting to find your place in the world and feeling lost? If the humans had accepted him for the insightful creature that he was, his destruction would have been avoided, or atleast significantly lessened.
Furthermore, Beowulf was just as murderous as Grendel. He killed anything and anyone that got in the way of his glory. Grendel's killings were atleast at some level instinctual and then he used what he killed to sustain himself. Beowulf simply cut the beast's head off and walked away with it as a trophy of his cruelty. How is he any better?
I would say that I agree with both Kim and Justyna on this matter. After hearing both the humans’ and Grendel’s side of the story, I’ve concluded that Grendel is completely senseless in what he is doing. He does not realize that killing humans is wrong. He honestly believes that he is justified in what he is doing; he thinks that humans should be punished for their abstract beliefs and culture (god, poetry, etc.). He was also just trying to fit in with them and they rejected him. Of course he is going to want revenge! Don’t humans do the same thing themselves? For example, in the Virginia Tech shooting, Seung-Hui Cho was bullied as a kid and all his feeling built up inside of him to the point where he wanted to let it all out. Without really thinking about it, he did what he thought would be right and he killed other people. Seung-Hui did not realize that what he was doing was wrong. In Jodi Picoult’s Nineteen Minutes, Peter, had committed the same kind of assault on other humans because they too had rejected him. Grendel cannot be blamed for his behavior because it derived from how the humans had treated him and the fact that his mother was never really a mother figure for him.
In opposition to what Syeda said, Beowulf did not only kill to protect the Danes. In fact, he kills Grendel because his father owed Hrothgar and he believes the Danes were too pitiful to kill Grendel themselves. He even said so in his speech when Unferth challenged him. Beowulf is the epitome of Anglo-Saxon heroes. This means that he strives for fame, building his reputation, being incredibly strong, treasure, and HIS people, not the Danes. He could care less about the Danes because they do not really mean anything to him. He has other concerns and they do not include the safety of the Danes.
Also, Grendel does not only kill because he is “misunderstood and unloved,” he kills because he does not understand any better. He does not realize that murdering people is wrong and he also believes that he is justified in his actions (Read post above). Like what Miss Winkler said, Grendel could be compared to a child. Would you really blame children when they do not know the difference from wrong and right? Grendel’s behavior is not his fault, but rather the humans’ and his mother’s fault.
I know this is my third time (in a row) posting on the same blog, but…
In response to Kim’s proposed question: Humans condemn Grendel for being a “monster”, but they themselves commit these atrocities. Are humans any better than Grendel himself”?
Humans are not any better, if not worse, than Grendel. Grendel himself saw that humans are capable of committing the same acts that he does so why should he be the only one called a monster? And if humans do the same things as Grendel, is anyone really a “monster”? Human’s mindset is that they are superior and better than other creatures but this is not always true. Humans just do not want to admit this even if they realize it themselves. They just go on believing that they are always right and everyone/everything else is wrong. They close their minds to any opposition and this is what keeps them from realizing that they are stupid buffoons who do not know right from wrong, themselves. They are the ones who hinder themselves while Grendel’s only fault is that he does not know any better.
Wow…this is way back ago…ok
I definitely agree with Himali and Eric. I believe that there is a sense of good and bad in every individual. Our sense of wrongdoings helps develop our mentality to improve ourselves around others. This relates back to the time when Grendel tried to reconcile with the Danes because he realizes that his monstrous behavior is secluding himself from humanity. He feels this sense of loneliness, almost like he has this feeling that he is the only one who exist in his own eyes. He doesn’t have a place in the world because he doesn’t know how to interact with society and humanity. I believe that human development solely depends on nurture. The way you interact, speak, dress, and etc. all goes back to the way you were raised. When reading Gardner’s Grendel, you could totally see why Grendel does not know how to approach himself to human-beings due to his gloomy, inhumane surroundings at home. First of all, he lacks communication because his mother doesn’t speak to him, and he lives in a lair, a place where a wild animal sleeps or rests. Human civilization is a confusing system to him because he was raised without discipline. He wasn’t taught how to love, nurture, and care for others. Therefore, how would he expect to present them to the actual world? This is almost tangential to the stepping-stone qualities to leadership. If you have limited experience or exposure in presenting yourself and your ideas to the public thoughtfully and confidently, then how would you expect to become president of some company someday? Therefore, having a balance of right and wrong in ourselves is a good aspect in us to consider because we are just humans discovering something new in us everyday. That new aspect in us could be bad, good, embarrassing, or etc., but what’s helpful about it is that we learn who we are, what we are capable of doing, and single-most importantly, what human flaws we can exclude for self-improvement
I think we all should remember that Beowulf was written in a time period where there was a pre-determined set of values for good versus bad. As readers, we take Grendel's personality in depth, considering his motives, his emotions, and his thoughts through Gardner's Grendel. All villains and murderers have some sort of misunderstood aspect to them, and I think that as humans, we all possess some innate ability to distinguish what's right versus what's wrong. I just think that somewhere in Grendel's existence, experiences have taught him how to approach humans.
In relation to the other blogs about Grendel being a monster and not a human, this question complicates the story. To calibrate the analytical abilities of a non-human specie is quite nearly impossible. I just know that even though we say animals can't analyze or reason, I still think that living species in general all possess humane qualities, and this is apparent in the love between kin.
K so first of all, I just wanna say that I realllyy don't like the fact that Grendel's name is constantly associated with the word monster. Just because he's not human doesn't mean that he's totally incapable of critical thought. And sure, he is a very violent character, but I view him as being much more misunderstood than he is a monstrous brute (especially after reading Gardner's novel). Now I know that alot of the other posts mention that Grendel isn't a human. And I think the fact that he isn't human plays a large role in the decision making that he carries out. But I really don't think that his nonhumane characteristics are reason enough for us to set ourselves apart from his thinking process. I mean, an enraged human, isolated from an intriguing society and inspirational way of life may very well act in the same manner. Now of course I'm not saying that he would smash through castle doors and tear other people in half, because for humans, we tend to portray strength through posession of weapons, rather than bare-handed tactics (if that makes sense). Grendel's isolation is similar to a human being prohibitted from ever traveling to new places, or experiencing new ideas. For us, travel and creativity is the way in which we progress as a society. We interact with other cultures and meet new people. And although prohibition from such interaction may not imediately result in some sort of fighting, we're bound to grow aggrivated at some point. Grendel expressed his aggrivation in the best way he knew how. And the fact that Beowulf immediately jumped to warfare as the solution, says alot about the egotistic human minds of the Anglo-Saxon period, who were unwilling to take the time to consider other motives (perhaps a compromise!).
I would have to say that Grendel is the misunderstood, and unloved creature. As we learn in Gardner's version of the story Grendel was neglected by his mother. This helps build on the idea of him being unloved, and only searching for attention. Grendel's being unloved can be compared to a liitle child that is just looking for attention. When you read Grendel you get see through a first person view how Grendel doesn't mean to do some of the things that he is does. It shows that he is misunderstood, that if people just took the time to understand him then they would see taht he isn't all that bad.
As I have made evident in class, I despise the image of Grendel that was created in Gardner's novel. The fact that Gardner is trying to put a modern spin and interpretation on Beowulf shows that modern people truly loose site of what the original Beowulf was trying to teach us. THERE WAS A POINT IN MAKING GRENDEL A TERRIFYING MONSTER!! The Anglo Saxons made him like this to show that yes there are evils in this world, and yes, they can be hard to overcome. But they believed with hard work, determination, loyalty, and many other traits, anybody can overcome these everyday evils, whether its the invading army coming over or even the evil inside our own hearts. When Grendel is made as a "misunderstood" being, it totally takes away from the original Beowulf. It doesn't increase one's ability to see the world, it narrows it drastically. The point of studying Beowulf is not to create our own interpretation, but to UNDERSTAND THE REAL THEMES OF THE STORY!!!!
I hated what Gardner did to Grendel.
I must agree with Ai-Tram on this blog. In those times heroes were considered only good and villians only evil/bad. Things were black and white in the society of the Anglo-Saxons. According to Beowulf, Grendel was a mindless killing machine, I don't think so. It may be my human nature to find reason for his killings but I think he couldn't find acceptance in man's world. He desperately wanted a companion to dicuss and be with which is exemplified through Grendel. Grendel is not a bloodthristy monster, he uses reason(I wouldn't go as far as logic) through his experiences with humans. He struggles with their presence because they object to his looks and man's ignorance led them to find themselves as superior to Grendel. He feels that he must teach them a lesson by showing his strength by highlighting their inferiority. In a strange way he stoops to man's low level by destroying through vengeance rather than hunger. He is no better than the stupid bull but isn't man in many ways like the bull too? Aren't men at fault in ways that cause them to do unjust things without reason? Do creatures become dumb when emotions take over their senses?
It my just be me but I think so.
Post a Comment