Grendel and his BFF Burke

While watching the film Aliens, it is easy to link these hideous beings with Grendel purely because of the monster element. While they may be similar in the sense of being violent, murderous and having a protective mommy that tries to save the day, the person who matches Grendel in an emotional sense is Burke. It is clear that Burke doesn’t physically look like a monster and is actually a well-dressed, clean cut business man, but his emotional state is so terrifying it basically makes him worse than a monster. He’s calculating, deceitful, and a complete traitor. Grendel never betrayed his own kind for his benefit, so which one is actually worse here?

http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/File:Aliens_Burke.jpg

At the beginning, Burke makes it seem like he wants to befriend Ripley and even offers her a way to get her license back, so the audience sees him as a positive influence in the movie. At the beginning of Grendel’s story, he is a child who doesn’t see to do much harm until he meets humans. He’s not so much a positive figure, but not as negative yet. In a sense, both characters are seen as harmless in the beginning of their tales. As the works progress, their true colors are shown.

For one, both characters are extremely self-centered and evil. Burke’s plans are solely surrounded around making maximum profit for himself no matter who has to die or get hurt. Grendel’s plans are purely centered on his entertainment and he also accomplishes this by destroying other people’s happiness.  It’s also quite peculiar that both of them prey on a child at some point in the story. Burke tries to impregnate Newt by locking her and Ripley in a room with the face-huggers. Grendel similarly torments kids as mentioned: “A shadow looms over them (mine) and they’re gone forever”(Gardner 142). The point is, they both have no sense of pity for the innocence of children, which basically makes them the worst people ever.

Once again, these two are eerily similar in a way much worse than killing or physically hurting people. It is far worse to be a monster in an emotional sense because usually your victim doesn’t even see you coming. It is easier to lie, betray, and abandon the people who trust you while you are planning the ways to use them for your benefit. Grendel had a little more of an upfront approach like the aliens, but emotionally, he is very connected to Burke.

Of Monsters and Men

In the original epic tale of Beowulf, Grendel, one of the primary antagonists, was regarded as nothing more as a monster to be slain by the mighty hero Beowulf. Depicted in the epic as beast-like and inhuman as possible, very few redeeming qualities are afforded to Grendel. However in John Gardner's Grendel, we see a much more human side of the so-called beast. Compared to how Grendel is depicted in the classic tale, John Gardner's novel shows a much more intelligent creature who is capable of thinking and feeling as much as any human. The novel follows Grendel throughout several stages of his life leading up to his fateful encounter with Beowulf. Initially, Grendel is curious and fascinated with the human world, but that interest soon turns into disgust has he discovers mankind's inclination towards violence. As an outsider, Grendel observes the humans as they begin to settle and cultivate land, as well as pillage and murder. Because no one else is able to communicate with Grendel other than the Dragon, Grendel is isolated and must determine the meaning of his own existence. Even Grendel's mother is unable to orally communicate with him, leaving Grendel in a constant state of loneliness, with nothing but his own thoughts to occupy him. Grendel is constantly left to his own devices, forced to discover what it means to share such a violent world with other beings. To that end, he seeks the council of his only friend the Dragon whom shapes the former's personality. Because of the Dragon's long life span and through countless millennia of observation, it has come to conclusion that humans are nothing more than another sheep or bird that will soon die out. Nothing humans create will ever last, and that all things will come to an end. After the visit, Grendel is left with a much more cynical view of life and humanity in general, believing that humans are just horribly violent animals who communicate with each other. Despite initially trying to communicate with the humans, Grendel quickly abandons this line tactic when they attack him out of fear. Grendel instead retreats back into the shadows and continues to observe the humans, including the way treat one another. While humans as a whole disgust him, Grendel is still interested in the habits of humans and the way they think, not unlike watching an animal in a zoo. However, this all comes to ahead when Beowulf arrives to hunt down Grendel, who had been preying on other humans like they prey on themselves. Beowulf could be described as almost inhuman as Grendel, depicted as cold, mechanical and sadistic. Beowulf also begins to whisper to Grendel, echoing the Dragon's own words about how everything dies, but instead insists that all things will be reborn after death. Grendel's final, violent moments were not those of a beast, but as a man. Desperately trying to cling to life, while at the same time knowing that death was inevitable, Grendel's life was filled with more humanity than Beowulf's ever was. Grendel may have born a monster, but he died as a man as a result giving in to the same violent urges.

Two Monsters

Literary works are a product of their time period and the works are influenced heavily by the ideals and beliefs present during the era. The monsters an era produces reflect underlying cultural aspects and the characteristics attributed to a monster embody the social anxieties and stresses of the time. Grendel is one of a few monsters to transcend the barrier of time and become portrayed in different time periods and reflect the aspects of two different cultural influences. Grendel’s development in each portrayal shows distinct aspects influenced by the time period and changes in the human ideology. These cultural differences can be investigated through Grendel’s portrayal in both Beowulf and the story Grendel by John Gardner.

               Beowulf ‘s portrayal of Grendel shows interesting perceptions of evil for the time period. The writing is infused with sacred references and Grendel is portrayed as demonic. He attacks without reason or mercy. These aspects indicate the time period viewed evil as a presence outside of human control. Horrible events were attributed to God’s greater plan and humans are portrayed as helpless in the face of these obstacles. Only Beowulf is able to defeat Grendel and it’s only through God’s will that he has the ability to vanquish the evil. Beowulf doesn’t defeat Grendel using any weapons or protection and this furthers the idea of God’s will being the predominant reason for Grendel’s demise. Grendel acts as a venue to portray human weakness and reinforce the power of God.

               Grendel develops in Gardner’s Grendel and is illustrated as an antihero. He is instead humanized and shown to be capable of rational contemplation and deeper analyses. He is no longer portrayed as demonic but rather Grendel is perceived as an oddity, an individual with a unique perception. He is ostracized and alone because of his differences. These differences reflect the nihilistic views of the time period. Nihilism was still developing and not a widely accepted philosophy and Grendel helps to portray these underlying struggles behind the philosophy. Grendel’s relationship with his mother furthers the nihilistic undertones in his portrayal. He is detached and indifferent to her and yet she completely describes his existence because she is his only relationship. The portrayal of Grendel as a unique individual with human qualities brings to light the complexities facing the nihilistic movement during the time period.

               Each of these depictions of Grendel helps to bring to light underlying social conflicts of their respective time periods.

Grendel natured vs Grendel nutured?

            In John Gardner’s Grendel, readers receive a perspective on a monster that was a notorious destroyer in the epic poem Beowulf. Throughout the novel, Grendel is driven by hate and loneliness and ultimately makes his purpose in life hell-bent on hurting the Danes. One reading Grendel or even in Beowulf could see the ugly hate thriving from Grendel and how he contemplates what has a purpose in his life and was doesn’t; overall what is considered good and what is considered bad. Some of the recurring themes throughout Grendel are theory, isolation, heroism, and even at times the essence of nature. An overarching question on Grendel being a monster, was he born evil or was he made evil, or did nature versus nurture take control.
            With the idea of nature, Grendel’s environment and the people surrounding him affect Grendel’s behavior. When the bull tries to attack Grendel he see’s this initial act of violence in the world making him angry. Then when Hrothgar and his warriors act violent on Grendel, he now has motivation to hurt the Danes. Since, Grendel’s first encounter outside his cave was violent, through nature, he is considered violent because of personal experiences or trauma.
            Now you look at Grendel through a nurturing aspect. Grendel did not grow up loved and surrounded by the beautiful things in life. Grendel’s mother was neglectful and unable to communicate with her son, which led to his own isolation, suffering, and unable to comprehend the physical world around him. Through nurture, Grendel is violent because his mother did not give him enough love or teach him about the goodness in the world.
           What really makes Grendel a monster? In Beowulf Grendel is born of Cain, making him naturally evil. In Grendel, Grendel is neglected and left alone, which he in turn eventually becomes evil. On one hand Grendel is evil because the outside world treated him wrong so he wants to bring havoc on the world or specifically the Danes, but in another light, Grendel did not understand the world around him and his mother did not help him discover what was right or wrong. Grendel is a book about perspective.
           In Beowulf, we read about a malicious creature that is evil by every human standard and inherently is evil in a biblical sense. When you read Grendel, we read a story about a creature being misunderstood and guided to be evil and wreak havoc on the Danes. So, is Grendel a monster by the means of his upbringing or the events of his past? Grendel is able to make his own choices, but he is easily influenced by his surroundings, so in way Grendel’s nurture is what makes him evil. If Grendel had learned the morals and more about others, he would then know how to handle attacks or being misunderstood, but inherently if he is able to make his own choices, then he is able to make his own opinions on aspects in the world.

Loneliness: an Ingredient in the Recipe for Villainy

I assume I am not overstepping my bounds when I assume that all members of my audience have at least heard of a villain before. They are a necessary archetype (however traumatizing to small children), because where would be the fun without a villain? Even the villains themselves know that. Case in point: Jim Moriarty, from the BBC’s Sherlock, is quoted as saying “Every fairytale needs a good old-fashioned villain”.

Jim Moriarty (played by Andrew Scott) As he appears in the episode "The Great Game"

Now, as monsters are the subject of our course, and monsters are typically viewed as the villains of stories, I believe a reasonable leap can be made from monsters to villains and understanding that they are quite closely correlated. Good? Good. Now moving on to the more exciting bits: where do monsters even come from? This is not going to turn into a talk about the birds and the bees so feel free to dispel all those notions. This post is taking more of a “monsters are formed by nurture instead of nature” vantage so let’s begin! Monsters are essentially the villains of all our stories, doomed to fail from the very first act of villainy committed. Inevitably, some spry young wizard with floppy black hair (or some other suitably scrappy protagonist) will be there to orchestrate their downfall. So let’s rewind back to before Voldemort was Voldemort, back when he was simply Tom Marvolo Riddle.

This is Voldemort for the few people who have not seen/read Harry Potter

And this is baby Voldemort (aka Tom Riddle)

 Now Tom Marvolo Riddle was an exceptionally intelligent lad already turned to petty thievery when he first encountered Albus Dumbledore. Tom was exceptionally gifted but unable to resolve conflict well, resulting in him using his wizard powers to harm those who wronged him. Now, Tom was an orphan, and one can assume that it was an extraordinarily lonely life. We were never shown any friends of Tom’s at the orphanage nor were we privy to any true friends at Hogwarts. Now this might have you thinking, “So he’s a lonely little orphan who grew up to be the most feared dark wizard of all time. Why do I care?” this is a valid statement, however, upon closer examination of childhood classics, to my current obsessions, all the villains I have found have a thread connecting them: loneliness. Think about it. Ursula from the little mermaid: ostracized from mermaid society, the snow queen Elsa: ostracized herself due to her powers, Flowey the flower from undertale (yes I know, a flower): the soul of a long dead prince twisted due to isolation and nihilism, even Moriarty himself: [speaking about Carl powers] “Carl laughed at me, so I stopped him laughing.” Moriarty was bullied. That shows loneliness and isolation if I have ever seen it.

This is Flowey the flower. More on him to come. 

 Now let’s tie this to the monster at the center of it all: Grendel. In Grendel, we notice that Grendel is fairly isolated. The only true friends he has are the scheming dragon and his nonverbal mother. He is able to speak, yet the humans (who he could have found a source of companionship with) either, choose not to or cannot understand him. Thus Grendel is isolated with only the excellent moral compass of the dragon to be a role model and eventually driven to nihilism.
 In the unethical research of Dr. Harry Harlow on rhesus monkeys, he noticed infant monkeys separated from their mothers and brought up in isolation tended to become psychotic. I believe this finding can be applied to Grendel due to the fact that although his mother is present, she is not a "sentient being" on the same level he is.Overall, this can be seen even as isolation from mother.  In short, although money may be a cause of a lot of evil, loneliness can factor into that root of all evil as well.

               

Why?

Many new adaptations of Beowulf all seem to have one distinct difference in common: Grendel has a motive.

He is either:

A. Physically disabled,

B. A consequence of his deadbeat dad Hrothgar,

Or

C. A bit of both. (*cough cough* I’m looking at you Zemeckis… *cough cough*)

photo from: http://www.shmoop.com/beowulf/grendel.html

In the original text, Grendel just likes to take a dump on Hrothgar’s parade for the hell of it. Sure he doesn’t particularly like Heorot, and sure he apparently hates joy, but these are no justifiable reasons to commit murder. 

I think the reason why we now show a (more avengeful?) Grendel is because humans like to understand people’s motivations. 

                                                     (Gif from http://giphy.com/search/boo)

I know this seems like a lame conclusion, but follow me.

When random acts of violence occur, the first question we naturally ask is why.

Why did a mother drown her own children?

Why did a teenager shoot up his school?

Why did this person take their life?

Why is even the basis of our greatest question: “Why are we here?”

It has become one of our fundamental instincts to ask why. To us, there is always a reason; there must always be a cause to every effect.  ‘Just cause’ doesn’t cut it for us.  

I personally believe there are two reasons for this:

Closure

And

Faith

Ironically, I’ll start with closure.

Knowing the root cause of problems grants us closure. As long as we can identify what went wrong, we can theoretically prevent it from happening again. If Grendel has a motive, then he becomes more human and we can understand why he does what he does.  We can comprehend ideas such as:

Anger

Loneliness

Sorrow

And Rage.

           We know these traits and try to use our knowledge of them to solve the problems they cause. Knowing his actions were not random grants us peace of mind. We gain closure knowing that perhaps this problem could have been avoided if the right actions were taken. Perhaps if we solved Grendel’s problems before he caused ours, the result would have been different. Random acts with no rhyme or reason scare us. We don't like not understanding, and we certainly don’t like believing bad things occur for no reason. That brings me to my next topic: Faith.

            Having closure that everything happens for a reason inspires us to believe in things bigger than ourselves; whether that be an ideology, a deity, or an outlook on life. Belief in this higher power is what grants us closure to the greatest question ever asked-“Why are we here.” Most people don't like the idea that there is no reason for us to be here. It makes us uncomfortable to think that we as individuals serve no higher purpose. If we have no purpose, and serve no higher purpose, then life seems meaningless. This is the basis of nihilism. Ironically, John Gardner’s Grendel is the very personification of nihilism. Gardner’s Grendel views the world as meaningless. On page 21 of Grendel, Grendel himself proclaims, “I understood that the world was nothing: a mechanical chaos of casual, brute enmity on which we stupidly impose our hopes and fears.” All of his violence reflects this outlook. 

Why does he murder?

                                                      (gif from http://tjbaer.com/tag/snape/)

Well why not?

Nothing matters anyway, so why not pillage and murder?

After we see Grendel truly buy into nihilism, we see him transform into a more and more monstrous creature.

Could this transformation symbolize humanity’s fear of being meaningless?

Could it be that we don’t want to acknowledge that life could be meaningless, so we cast that trait upon a monster instead?

                                             (Gif from http://rammfan518.com/2015/08/04/)

Who could tell.

I mean what are the reasons for me writing this?

Is it just for a grade?

Or is it possible that this blog post and analysis could serve a higher purpose?

Who knows.

All in all, my point is, every modern day portrayal of Grendel gives him motive.

All we can ask ourselves, is why?

Grendel: Villain Or Tragic Hero?
In Beowulf, Grendel is Portrayed as nothing but a monster. He swoops into the hall, murders and pillages the place, then returns to his evil underground underwater lair. He is described as nothing more than a villain that Terrorizes the community. None can stop him but the famed Hero Beowulf, who selflessly fights and defeats the beast. Grendel is said to be strong and immune to blades and that he eats his victims.
Other versions of the story however, depict a different picture. The book Grendel, by John Gardner depicts the monster as more of a sad misunderstood character. He is shown to be incredibly lonely with no one to converse to, and upon his first interaction with humans, they are the initial aggressors, not he. Grendel constantly frets over the meaninglessness of his life and becomes quite discontent and irritated with his life and loneliness. He doesn't believe in true hero chivalry, and fails to see the point of being a hero at all. Grendel suffers horribly from his near constant isolation and for much of his life, the only thing he interacted with was his mother, who cannot speak.
Grendel''s first interaction with humanity sets the tone for the rest of his life. Grendel is attacked by Hrothgar, and is never shown anything but violence by them. Can we really fault him for turning against humanity and terrorizing them the way he does?
All of Grendel's life, he is isolated, with nothing to do except wallow in his own misery with absolutely no one to talk to. the first time he meets humans they almost kill him, and his visit with the dragon doesn't help facilitate good feelings towards others. It could be said that almost anyone in Grendel's situation might decide to become a "Monster" of sorts and terrorize others. Grendel simply does not know better and when he is essentially goaded by the dragon it becomes hard to really fault him.
In the original Poem, we simply do not know enough about Grendel to determine if he is a true villain, we never see his point of view. Grendel certainly appears to be the villain, he merrily murders people regularly, and theres a lot to be said that upbringing or not, Killing is still killing, and Grendel's actions are still not justifiable no matter the consequences. I can agree with that statement, but its hard not to empathize with Grendel when the story is told from his point of view. I'm not saying i think Grendel is justified in his actions, he isn't but i definitely cannot say that in his shoes i would act any differently than he does. Isolation and violence are a recipe for disaster, and Grendel was the perfect combination, I do not condone his actions, but i do think that we shouldn't judge too harshly after viewing things from his side of the street.

The 13th Warrior: Like Beowulf, But With Muslim Poets, A Thousand Grendels, and Ridiculous Viking Action

Some might not know that two adaptations of Beowulf were released in 1999. The first, starring Christopher Lambert, might be so bad it's good at best. The second is actually pretty great, in spite of its dubious distinction as Hollywood's biggest box-office bomb. The 13th Warrior, first released in 1999, had some high-quality talent behind it: it was directed by Die Hard and Predator director John McTiernan, was based on a Michael Crichton novel entitled Eaters of the Dead, and stars Antonio Banderas in the lead role. Yet, what makes The 13th Warrior so entertaining is its bridging of two distinct periods of history into a neat adaptation of the Beowulf mythos - albeit with just one major threat. Well, I'm sure the "bloody battles and carnage" promised by the MPAA in their R rating for this film play a part, too.

Antonio Banderas plays Ahmed Ibn Fadhlan, or Ibn for short, an exiled Muslim court poet who travels to the Old Norse kingdoms as an ambassador. A nearby Viking village is facing an ancient evil power, and their residents consult an oracle, who states that of the team of 13 warriors who are made to vanquish the evil, one must not be Norse. With Ibn completing the band of 13, they set out to eradicate the village of the fearsome Wendol.

There is still a set of fearsome antagonists in this depiction of Beowulf - on a side note, that hero is called Buliwyf here - but the main threat in The 13th Warrior comes from a set of monsters called Wendol, ancient evil beings that only appear in the mist and feast on human flesh. In spite of Eaters of the Dead being an oddity in Crichton's bibliography, since it's not a techno-thriller on the level of, say, Jurassic Park, he still does not hold back when describing a mysterious threat like the Wendol, and McTiernan directs accordingly. 

As such, unlike their namesake Grendel, the Wendol are not even remotely humanized. Think of a thousand or so Grendels on horseback, depicted neither as the boisterous and massive sort in the epic poem, nor as simultaneously lovable and hateable as Gardner's Grendel, but as the typical ancient evil that feasts on humans and must be vanquished at all costs. It's definitely a contrast. The appearance of the Wendol adds to the mystery - they look like Dementors with fangs, but also tribelike.

It seems to me like both Crichton and McTiernan were trying to embody the lack of spirit discussed at length in Beowulf with the Wendol, especially since they are viewed as such a great fear, and the fact that the Vikings in this alternate history are willing to consult with an oracle in this instance. The oracle is probably the most important woman in this film, actually. Yet, she is shrouded in a cloak, and speaks in an Old Norse dialect - the audience only understands through Ibn's interpreter Melchisidek (played by Hollywood legend Omar Sharif).

Alas, in a somewhat underwhelming change, there's no dragon in The 13th Warrior, nor in Eaters of the Dead - just a horde of Wendol that they call the "firewyrm" or "fire-serpent," which consists of a formation of Wendol carrying torches. Still, it makes for a particularly awesome fight scene in a film full of them, and this adaptation blurs the lines between human and monster even more. 

Finally, there's The Mother of the Wendol, who has a claw that, naturally, poisons and eventually kills Buliwyf at the end. She is depicted just as savagely as the rest of the Wendol, as seen here.

So that, in essence, is The 13th Warrior, a unique and uniquely gory Beowulf adaptation in the sword and sorcery mold, but with plenty of tricks up its sleeve.

Grendel is Darth Vader!

            When you think the best villain in cinema the first one that comes to mind for most people is Darth Vader. He is a tall, dark, monstrous figure that wields a dark force, just like Grendel and both of them just love to destroy everything until they are satisfied. But the greatest weakness for great villains is not magic swords, naked men, or The Millennium Falcon, it is backstory. Both Vader and Grendel were completely neutered by telling the stories of their teenage angst, going from awesome villains to whiny teens that we wish would die.

            The next few paragraphs contain spoilers for the entire Star Wars Franchise (minus the new one), so for the five people in the entire world who have never seen Star Wars you have been warned.

            In Beowulf the only thing we know about Grendel is that he is a large ugly monster who kills Danes and destroys a mead hall on a nightly basis just because they were having fun. Same with Vader, all we know is that he the second in command of the Empire in charge of using the Death Star to destroy planets and kill rebels (sound familiar). Then after several years people decided that the villains cannot be evil just because, no every villain needs a reason for being bad so they can be more sympathetic. So the book “Grendel” was written in 1971 and the Star Wars prequels began releasing.

            In “Grendel” they traded excessive religious symbolism for excessive philosophy. The story is told from Grendel’s point of view, which could have been exciting until you realize that Grendel does nothing but complain and be nihilistic. So this great beast that did nothing but destroy and torment is now saying things like “Pity” I moaned, “O pity! Pity!” I wept”, who has ever heard of a monster who cries for pity (Gardner). Grendel continues his angst as he complains about his mother’s love, the dragon and the Shaper’s philosophies, and even his own death.

             Anakin’s (Vader) backstory is extremely similar to Grendel’s almost to the point I feel like there was some plagiarizing going on. Anakin starts out life in a small cave-like hut with only his mother, living as slaves. Then he becomes an angsty teenager complaining that nothing matters, sand is irritating, and that no one believes in him, except an old guy that speaks philosophy and is clearly evil. Anakin then begins to go a little murdering venture starting with wild desert people, then children, and finally everyone he has ever loved. He is stopped when his mentor cuts Anakin’s arm off and lets him fall in lava. So in the end let villains be evil for the sake of evil, and never ruin a good story with prequels or CGI.   

           

If You Say So, then So Be It

 "If you say I am the monster, I will become the monster."

 It amazes me to see a character transform into something they've always been perceived as. The capacity to change is left behind in breaking nihilism, and all shred of rational thought is replaced with destructive glee. Whatever they were before is gone. All that is left is a shell. The monster.

 It's almost as if they embrace the opposite of Nietzsche's advice, and do become the monsters they fight. I can name off a few characters that follow this, and embrace this odd train of thought. Despite their media and their train, they all carry the horrible burdens of being painted into corners.

 Lucy.

Lucy the Diclonius from "Elfen Lied". A real "killer queen".

 She was born a Diclonius, a highly evolved "human", in a time of severe unrest from several of her "kind" being discovered. Small horns on her head resembling cat ears. An ability to control energy and manipulate it in the form of arms. It was no wonder she was treated so horribly as a child. Bullied, ignored, orphaned. Yet, she tried to stay positive in a world that viewed her as the monster. Tried to stay upbeat, and wanting to be friends with everyone. As any child would.

 The real monsters were the young boys who constantly picked on her. Pulled her hair. Called her a "demon". Brutally killed the puppy she had hid in the orphanage in front of her. She instantly became distraught. Shaken. How could somebody who looked like her contain so much capacity to kill? To be brutal?

 She made a decision then. Humans? Not worth the effort after all. Never would be. If they wanted her to kill and ravage their bodies, then she'd willingly stab a pen through bullet proof armor. Tear off the head of an intern in her government capture facility. Even torture a young boy by killing his family in front of him in a moving train.

 Gamzee Makara.

Gamzee Makara from "Homestuck". His HONK is far worse than his clubbing . . . then again, it may be even.

 A troll born on a planet of hemospectric classes. Royal by birth, but always acting like the doofus. Wanting peace between his friends. Of course, that does warrant some sort of hatred to him, right? Because he's supposed to be something of a "goof", right? Because he liked clowns? Those creepy guys who wear face-paint and rap horribly?

 Sure his father figure was never around, and he was always ingesting a toxic substance that made him see "miracles" and "rainbows", but that may or may not have really been "him", right? Because, he's harmless. A clown. A Juggalo. Did his friends have the right to ignore him when he was in the Land of Tents and Mirth? Or when he was in the lab with them? Or, even before, when they bad-mouthed him?

 Was he aware? Did he mind?

 He never seemed to. Until he ran out of his substance. He went dry. Sobered up real quick. And saw through the guise. He saw the looks on the faces of his troll "brothers" and "sisters". They weren't ones of mirth - they were of pain and suffering. Of fear of him. Because deep down, they knew. Oh, they knew all along.

 So, he decided to rationalize that fear. And became the Bard of his, and everyone's, Rage.

 And now, Grendel.

Grendel. The subtle example of how society morphs monsters into being. 

 A sad, hairy little creature that sprung up from Biblical myth, and slowly wormed his way into the likes of Beowulf. Hunched over, abject, marvelously gorey, a hideous mother and backstory, and an aversion to songs of holy subject: everything that needs to be combined to make a monster.

 And yet, he is never truly seen as a "monster" in Grendel by John Garner. Why evoke empathy to a creature who has a face only his similarly monstrous mother could love? Why feel anything for a being like him?

 Because he was treated and forced to fit into the mold of "monster".

 When Grendel is stuck between the two trees in the countryside, not only is he distraught over his mother not coming to his aid, but also to being judged by humans. He is called "a growth of some kind" by the humans, and later subjected to their inaccurate classifications of him being "some kind of oak tree spirit" (pages 24 and 25).

 The crooked movements, the onslaught of insinuations, the ridicule were all enough to make him shout, scaring them. His initial meetings with humans reached him deeply, and his following shouts of them being crazy started to cement his ideas of humans. Wretched and suspicious creatures, with an idiotic mentality towards resources and gold.

 Grendel soon found meaning and beauty in the songs of the Shaper in Hrothgar's hall. His words melted the heart of the young and resilient Grendel, and brought out new questions of an almost alien nature. He is found to question his role in the world, to possibly befriend or become someone else. If he had stayed this way . . .

 The Shaper's later words of Grendel being a part of "the terrible race God cursed" were enough to send him spiraling (page 51). A cursed race. The one who had slain Cain. And he believed him. "Such was the power of the Shaper's harp!" (page 51). Grendel was overcome and distraught within seconds, and placed into a corner. Never could he really see himself reside in human company.

 Never could he play the part of the Hero. He was cut and shaped into the form of a "monster" through the eyes of a society that he barely knew about, and barely understood. He does break into the Meadhall to try and beg for forgiveness, for mercy, but is met with . . . less than favorable results.

 His encounter with the dragon also proves to force him back into the mold of being the villain. The dragon, while teaching the young Grendel his piece on nihilism and humans in general, is quick to cut down the hairy creature. The dragon, on suspicion of him not listening, states that nothing excites Grendel more than "excitement, violence" (page 67). Of course the younger beast cuts back roughly. The dragon's rebuttal?

 One of sheer knowledge. As if he is aware of the outcome of their meeting, and of Grendel's life. The dragon then says this: "Ah, Grendel! You improve them, my boy! . . . You stimulate them! You make them think and scheme. . . . You are, so to speak, the brute existent by which they learn to define themselves. The exile, captivity, death they shrink from - ... that's what you make them recognize, embrace!" (page 73).

 The one thing they chose to define themselves as. Humans had made him out to be the villain so someone else could step up and be the hero. Grendel had been in existence with humans long before he was fully aware, and was already worn into place. Into something he himself had no control over. His feelings, his actions, his life all became a product of what someone called "monstrous" or "demonic".

 He did set out to stop this sort of "silly notion". To become something else than a monster. Alas, human nature does not sway so easily. He arrived in the meadhall of Hrothgar once more, but was ambushed and felt the excitement of killing all too easily. He found enjoyment in what he considered once to be something almost trivial. Barbaric.

 He became the monster he was made out to be.

The Joker had a similar metamorphosis. Except he also took a toxic waste bath. 

Sex Sells: Grendel's Hot Mother

We live in a world full of sexism against women and men with fragile masculinities, and unfortunately, with men having a great majority of the power, that means that their depictions of things will tend to be pretty biased. As a way beef their egos and channel their masculinity, men tend to resort to taking any idea of a female antagonist and do one of two things with it: either the female is made to be overly disgusting (“ugly” if you will) or some sort of “sexed-up” seductress.  In many cases, it tends to be the latter, and this stereotypical depiction devalues the female character, because it judges the character simply based on appearance, as men often tend to do with women.

This trend can easily be seen with Grendel’s Mother in her depictions in the “Beowulf” movies that have come out in recent years. Her original descriptions in Beowulf describe her as monstrous, hair, ugly and other similar characteristics. Already, we can see the first depiction of a women, ugly and monstrous, from the original material. In addition to this, she is also given the purpose of exacting revenge for her fallen son, something which is very uncommon for women to do in this time period. She is also given acidic blood, just to drive home the monstrous factor. However, in the movies, the “monstrous” depiction is thrown out the window in favor of the sex factor.

Take for example this picture of 1999’s Grendel’s Mother. She is portrayed by a blonde, obviously attractive woman in racy clothing. It’s pretty easy to see that they are going for sexy vibe. And if you couldn’t tell from just looking at her, the director’s actually CAST a playboy playmate to play her! Her purpose in this movie is not revenge, but a form of child support. She shows up and explains to everyone that she had an affair with Hrothgar and that the resulting offspring was Grendel. Gone is the story of revenge for her murdered son, and is instead replaced by a story about her seducing the king. Now her character has transitioned from a grief stricken mother, to a malicious seductress. How can it get worse? The answer: the 2007 version of Beowulf

They aren’t even being subtle here. Here is Angelina Jolie, who had been named the sexiest woman alive at one point, nude and covered in gold paint (not shown in the picture is her high heels). If you weren’t sure that they were going for sex appeal yet, I think this makes a pretty good argument. And they went even farther; Grendel’s mother proceeds to seduce and sleep with Beowulf. It is then revealed that Hrothgar also slept with her, and again we find out that Grendel was the offspring born out of this. To be fair, in this movie she actually does react out of revenge for her son and that the whole point of sleeping with Beowulf is so she can bear another son, but this still deviates from her actions in the original text.

These two depictions represent the exact opposite of the original: she was wild, grief-stricken, vengeful, monstrous in the original, but is now instead depicted as calm, collected, and sexy in these movies. But why?  She was perfectly fine in the original, but Hollywood is so obsessed with appealing to men’s sense of sex that they threw out the source material. And this is only one example of the use of sex in media. They are many, many more.

The Battle of the (Monster) Brains

The Battle of the (Monster) Brains:

Gardner’s Grendel vs. Shelley’s the Monster

Back when monsters were really coming onto the scene, post-Beowulf Grendel but pre-Grendel Grendel, the beginning of Gothic literature produced one of the most famous monsters in literature and society today. This monster, of course, is Mary Shelley’s Monster from Frankenstein (for crying out loud, Frankenstein was the scientist!!) who was thought up during a walk a few days after a scary-story writing contest between her husband, the also famous Percy Shelley, and Lord Byron, while vacationing in Switzerland. The fact that a woman, of all people in the world, created such a terrifying (though that word isn’t the one that would be used these days in reference to the ménage of body parts somehow coming together to create a sentient creature) monster was in itself controversial at the time of Frankenstein’s publication in 1817. Mary not only completed this feat, but she imagined a monster that was compassionate, naive, and strikingly intelligent. Now, there’s quite a bit in those qualities that John Gardner’s portrayal of Grendel can relate to.

            After the Monster first woke upon his creation, he was so confused by the world around him. Grendel experiences this same confusion when he first ventures out into the world beyond his underwater fortress, young, still proud. Both are innocent upon creation, regardless of the circumstances of their genesis. They begin to wander and roam, not realizing that their appearance may scare some people off—but hey, it’s not their fault they didn’t have a mirror to look into first. The both of them begin to realize that there’s a whole world previously unknown to them, though the Monster begins from a point much further behind than Grendel does, as Grendel already knows language and the fundamentals of his cave-life and whatnot.

            They both start learning more about general things in reference to the world—the Monster learning language and certain literature from the DeLacey family/Victor’s pocket books, Grendel from the Dragon and his own contemplations. They begin to struggle while their respective intelligences grow, and, as is typically the case, they feel more alone in the world. The Monster realizes what a family is from watching the DeLaceys, and his unhappiness is rooted deeper with each passing day. Grendel, though he may never realize it himself, wishes he could approach the humans and gain acceptance by them, then ultimately love—exactly what the Monster consciously wishes. Both have experiences with speaking to blind old men, who can’t see the grotesqueness of their appearance, making them the perfect vessels that would (hopefully) then result in the acceptance of the other humans. The Monster ends up being beaten with a walking stick by Felix, certainly not the best of reactions, while Grendel finds himself amused with Ork’s strong devotion while pretending to be the Great Destroyer and silently creeps off. The latter, though he could’ve attempted to use Ork’s blindness to his advantage while appealing to Ork’s pathos and ethos, instead chickens out.

            Both monsters end up on a pathway to revenge. The Monster gets pretty pissed once Victor begins to create a bride like he begged for, then disassembles the parts and refuses to begin again. For this, the Monster pledges to kill everyone Victor loves. Grendel, meanwhile, seems to still be bitter at the whole axe-throwing incident with Hrothgar, along with the simple happiness of the humans, and the fact that they have the company of each other. His destructive tendencies are less organized and thought-out than the Monster’s, but then again he seems to be the more childlike of the two, as his mother was never able to teach him anything like the DeLaceys unknowingly taught the Monster.

            The monsters simultaneously misunderstand and are misunderstood by their creators, setting their entire lives up for a downward spiral when their personal searches for happiness yield the opposite: an existence given over to loneliness.

Beowulf, the Hero?

“Oh isn’t Beowulf the monster?” My younger sister asked me once while talking about the story. An automatic no came out when I thought about it more and realized that though he is not the monster, I cannot fully accept him as a hero either. Reading the whole story I felt this way and could not quite place why until reading Grendel. The fact of the matter is, is that I do not find him to be entirely likable and do not see him as a true hero in the sense of the word. The way that he is depicted and viewed as by Grendel was very similar to the way I already felt about him. What was it that made him unlikable to me?

According to the Miriam-Webster definition of the term, Beowulf is a hero. He is a mythical or legendary figure with strength, he is admired for his achievements, and he is the central character, yet he still seems to be lacking.

When we meet him, Beowulf takes it upon himself to sail to Heorot Hall along with some companions to help defeat Grendel, although no one really asked him to. So he sails to the land of the Danes, not entirely sure of the danger, but sure that if he is not allowed to help, that Hrothgar will “endure woes and live with grief for as long as his hall stands,” (Heaney 21). So, to begin with, Beowulf comes to an enemy land without being asked and assumes that he is the one only one who will really be able to help Hrothgar.

After defeating Grendel Grendel’s mother attacks. Beowulf recognizes that it is out of grief for her son’s death, and that it is unlikely to really happen again because of that; yet, when asked to defeat her as well, he decides to kill her too- essentially letting himself get put into a dangerous situation for no other reason than pride. Even later with the dragon when he knows he is old and may not make it, he still goes to his possible deathbed- not out of duty, but more out of a pride.

Throughout all of his life, it seems that his main motivation in doing great deeds is more because he is aware of the image that it will provide (that of a hero) and not just because it would be the right thing to do. In a time of superheroes who do things because they feel it is their responsibility to do so and are aware of the cost that it may take on their personal life and image (think Batman deciding that it is for the best he is viewed as a villain), Beowulf comes off more as a stereotypical jock who wants the fame associated with being good at something than the ability to know that he did something because he believed in it. This image is especially felt in Grendel as Grendel could be viewed similarly to the kid who is not accepted because he is different and who is defeated by the jock, Beowulf. 

I guess I wasn't the only one who felt this way

An Isolated thought?

     Isolation. Sometimes being isolated is good it allows one to be productive and get their work done without distraction for example me writing this post. However sometimes people or things bred in isolation lead to terrible things. When people have questions that are left unanswered it is natural human curiosity that tends to cause them to seek an answer. However in a situation where a human is isolated the answers the find or the manner in which they obtain them may not reach appropriate societal standards. Grendel as a personified monster that John Gardner wrote about is the perfect example of someone or something bred in isolation. As a beast his only knowledge of the world he lives in is separated by what he sees from a third person point of view or what his mother has shown him. Grendel finds his answers about the world in isolation and sadness. The end result of Grendel’s life of isolation results in the fate he meets in Beowulf. However the personification of the beast from Beowulf seems to have some qualities of other “monstrosities” that have appeared in popular literature Grendel’s life of isolation (as perceived by the reader) makes him misunderstood and simply in search for some kind of extraneous knowledge or companionship. Initially he seeks out the dragon who just furthers Grendel’s isolation by telling him that his life is insignificant in comparison to the span of time itself.

            

        Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein exemplifies qualities extremely similar to the personification John Gardner creates in Grendel. The monster as it is simply put, after being brought to “life” wanders from Dr. Frankenstein’s lab in search of any form of answers about himself similar to Grendel. However rather than comparing the Doctor to Grendel’s mother the doctor plays the role of the Dragon from the Epic Poem.  The Dragon and the Doctor alike both explain to the monsters that outside of the world they already know they will find nothing because in the words of the Dragon “humans make roadmaps through hell with their theories”. Naturally both Grendel and the Monster venture to encounter humans and animals alike, each of which react in fear to them. Grendel’s encounter with the Vikings on the mountain, and every time he “visits” the mead hall versus the Monster interacting with the scholars and townsfolk in an attempt to learn about himself.

           

     

   As for what purpose this comparison serves from a literary standpoint, I am not entirely sure, however I do know that as time has passed so have the monsters it has created. Grendel, Frankenstein’s Monster along with most likely many others are built with similar qualities resulting in tragic fates. This further shows the impact Beowulf as an Epic Poem has had on generations of literature around the world. Additionally the use of isolation as a literary feature coupled with the personification of what is perceived to be a monster ultimately results in a plausible argument for labeling Grendel and monsters similar to him as Tragic heroes, mind you this is only a valid argument for the Grendel in John Gardner’s story not the beast portrayed in the original Epic Beowulf.