Sleep all day. Party all night. Never grow old. Never die. It's fun to be a vampire.

The transition from Dracula to Edward Cullen seems to be lacking in some pivotal points. How did teenagers become a central role in the vampire theme? Obviously Dracula by Bram Stoker is aimed towards an older audience with its not-so subtle bisexual tendencies, New Age women, and overall sexual tension. The films featuring vampires after Dracula such as Nosferatu (1922), The Last Man on Earth (1964), or even Fright Night (1985) weren’t exactly geared towards a particular teenage population, much less the teenage girl which soon became the typical consumer. So what caused a shift in mainstream vampirism to become attractive to a younger audience?

The Lost Boys (1987) happened. This movie totally introduced a new era of viewers to the vampire genre as a whole. The movie features classic 80s heartthrobs such as Jason Patric, Corey Haim, Jami Gertz, Alex Winter, and Corey Feldman, and it also has an amazingly 80s soundtrack. Despite having a mostly teenage cast, the movie doesn’t shy away from central vampiric themes like classic campy gore and violence

good old fashioned heteronormative romance/sexual tension

a little bit of homoeroticism

and your classic oiled up, beefy strongman blaring Tim Cappello's "I Still Believe" on the saxophone.

So, how did this movie exactly become so well-known and a cult classic? Thank the Brat Pack for that. The Brat Pack refers to specific teenage actors and actresses in the 1980s such as Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson, Ally Sheedy, Andrew McCarthy, Emilio Estevez and Demi Moore. The most famous Brat Pack movies were The Breakfast Club (1985), St. Elmo's Fire (1985), and Sixteen Candles (1984). Brat Pack movies were usually coming-of-age films about typically white teenagers growing up in the disillusioned 1980s. The Lost Boys fit this description in an unusual way with the addition of vampires, but it paid off in the end. The story of awkward, good-looking, wise-cracking kids only becomes more complicated and twisted with the taste for blood thrown in the mix. This film was released at exactly the right time for teenagers to become engrossed in the world of vampires. While The Lost Boys did make its debut at Brat Pack peak, it certainly wouldn't be regarded as one of those films, mainly because none of the true Brat Pack members are in the movie, and its distinction of fantasy and horror in the film. True Brat Pack films were more grounded in reality with few exceptions.

Many modern vampire shows, books, and movies owe their fame in the young adult world to this cult film. In my opinion, media that has had success concerning the teenage consumer such as Blade (1998), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003), Twilight the novel series (2005-2008), and True Blood (2008-2014) would not have had the same success if The Lost Boys hadn’t been created in the style it was and at the time period it had been. 

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.

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.

               

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.

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.