Summing Up The Monsters

Throughout this course, we have covered different types of monsters. We have looked at Grendel and his mother, Dracula and his vampiresses, and the Dead Until Dark vampires from various pieces of literature. All of these monsters can fall under the categories of either being "overt" or being "subtle" monsters. Overt monsters are clearly monstrous in their actions, personality, appearance, or any combination of the three. Zombies, ogres, wyverns, cockatrices, and griffins are typical examples of overt monsters as the treat they pose is direct and confrontational. Subtle monsters have their true nature hidden by some mechanism such as a charismatic nature or supernatural ability. Creatures like vampires, hone-onna, werewolves, sirens, and changelings are all subtle monsters because their modus operandi or their powers have them remain hidden from humans. The monsters we have looked at in our class all fall under one or both of these categories.

From Beowulf, we have Grendel and Grendel's mother. Grendel is very clearly an overt monster. He invades Heirot multiple times without much regard to stealth and kills many of the inhabitants of Hrothgar's lands. He additionally lacks any ability to change what the humans perception of him is, therefore making him unqualified for being a subtle monster. His mother differs from him in this regard, as she displays the qualities of both overt and subtle monsters. She is capable of nearly overpowering Beowulf and does not use any sort of supernatural ability to combat him, qualifying her for being an overt monster. However, she utilizes stealth in order to infiltrate Heirot, so she also can be considered a subtle monster. This dual-nature she has can also be seen in the vampires we read about.

Vampires, while primarily subtle, can be simultaneously considered as overt monsters depending on the individual. Dracula, for instance, is both overt and subtle as he is capable of feats of superhuman strength and physically attack the Van Helsing group while also suddenly disappearing and reappearing through various means and influencing the minds of humans. These abilities also are shown by the other vampires in the novel. Dracula himself displays an interesting shift throughout the titular novel as he starts out being an overt monster and then shifts into a mix of an over and a subtle monster when he arrives in England, which is followed by him becoming a subtle monster as he is fleeing back to his castle only to revert into being a mix during his final hours. In contrast, the vampires of the Dead Until Dark universe are primarily subtle, as their "glamour" ability allows them to manipulate the minds of people and that they are virtually physically indistinguishable from humans. There are instances were these vampires are overt, as seen with various instances of superhuman feats from characters like Bill, but these instances are only situational.

While there are monsters that are explicitly in either the overt or subtle categories, there are also certain monsters and individuals that fall into both categories. This ambivalence reflects the duality of the monstrous characters we have viewed, as it follows the "There are two sides to every coin" idiom.

The New and Old Vampire: Evolution of the Monster

The Changing of the Monster

By: Gabby Nguyen

Throughout the class in which we have focused on vampires, we see the differences between the kind of old school vampire such as Bram Stoker’s interpretation of Dracula and Charlaine Harris’ version of her vampire. It seems as if there is an evolution of how the vampire develops, it is no longer a scary monster that comes to suck on human’s blood, but it is now portrayed as a sexy chiseled man or scantily dressed woman that is over sexual. The comparison between the modern age vampires is quite different from the one of Dracula’s day and age and I believe that this was to appeal to the audience as the writers Harris or Stephanie Meyer portrays their version of the perfect vampire to their readers. The evolving of monsters is still in continuation and is due to the fact that it will conform to what the readers or viewers believe is attractive, and this is what the author will base their writings off of.

            First we see that Stoker uses Dracula as a monster of horror, who holds his prisoners in a dark castle with the threat of him catching them snooping through his things. Dracula is seen as a figure that lurks in the darkness and is associated with darkness, which is a common theme between all characters that are evil. Stoker describes Dracula as “cold as ice, more like the hand of a dead man. His face is aquiline, with a high bridge, thin nose, and arched nostrils” (Stoker 24). And then the film adaptation holds this description true, with a high forehead and red lips, trying to give the audience the visual of what evil looks like. What was kept similar with the evolution of the vampire from Dracula to Bill Compton in Dead until Dark was the reoccurring theme of sexual tones and the interactions between the characters.

            In continuation in talking on the theme of sexual interactions as well as the communication between characters, we see that Sookie and Bill seem to have some type of sexual tension between them, or at least how Harris wrote her books, that is what she intended for her readers to catch on. However, the differences between Dracula and Bill is that Bill is more possessive of Sookie. Dracula was possessive in the way that he just wanted Mina for blood but Bill has an attraction towards Sookie and claiming her as his own. It also is different that in some way, Harris writes more about sex and is more explicit about it than Stoker was. She uses Bill as a sexual symbol as well as the other vampires in the novel and in the show True Blood. And even though Dracula is desired by Mina and Lucy, Bill and the other vampires have their own fan club, the fang-bangers. These people WANT to be bit by the vampires because it gives them pleasure to the point that they will end up dying because of it. I believe that the modern day vampire is more desirable than the era of Dracula because authors make them seem more attractive with the uses of imagery and the ideal man.

            Overall, the changing and growing of monsters is still in continuation. Authors intend to appeal to their readers and directors of shows want consistent viewers. And the way to do this is to keep with the culture of what is popular. And I believe that in the era of Dracula, the appeal was for that intended audience, but Dracula was actually a monster who was preying on women, where in Dead Until Dark, Bill is a vampire who wants to protect a woman he loves and just because he is a so called monster, this comes to his advantage due to his good looks and charm. I am excited to see the further evolving of monsters through books and film adaptations based on how the culture is during that time.

Dracula: Is He Bisexual? By: Imran Blackall

          In Bram Stoker’s Dracula, the antagonist, Dracula, portrayed a demon that stole the blood of the innocent by biting necks to maintain his immortality. Though he sought out females such as Lucy and Wilhelmina, evidence showed his acceptance of males such as Jonathan, Arthur, Quincey, and Dr. Seward. For example, when Jonathan Harker encountered the three female vampires in Count Dracula’s castle, Dracula emerged, ridiculed the women for their actions, and said, “How dare you touch him…This man belongs to me!” (40). That comment in which Dracula claimed ownership of Jonathan could be interpreted in multiple ways. Personally, I believe it was a hint towards Dracula’s open sexuality towards men. By stating that Jonathan was “his”, it showed Dracula’s affection and acceptance towards the male gender. Later, the female vampires accused Dracula of never loving in which Dracula responded: “I too can love…when I am done with him you shall kiss him at your will” (40) This implies further affection towards men specifically towards Jonathan. When Dracula stated that the female vampires can have Jonathan after he has fulfilled his needs with Jonathan, it implied that Dracula planned on sucking his blood. This blood-sucking was a sexual innuendo of the male-to-male sexual interaction. Further evidence showed Dracula’s bisexuality with the incident with Lucy. After showing a severe white complexion with symptoms of weakness and lethargy, Lucy underwent numerous blood transfusions from the blood of several men to regain her strength. One specific example was when Dr. Van Helsing spoke with Dr. Seward: “We must begin again. There is no young Arthur here now. I have to call on you yourself this time, friend John” (140). This indicated that Lucy had a previous blood transfusion from Arthur, her fiancé. Because another transfusion was performed on Lucy using Dr. Seward’s blood, it can be deduced that Dracula sucked the blood from Lucy previously; additional transfusions later occurred even with Dr. Van Helsing’s blood. These numerous transfusions implied that Dracula was fond with both Lucy’s blood and the blood of men. Continuously seeping the men’s blood from Lucy was a form of acceptance of his sexuality towards men. If Dracula was homophobic, he would have immediately stopped sucking the blood from Lucy after her first transfusion with Arthur’s blood. On the contrary, he continued his escapade until Lucy passed. Another clue towards Dracula’s bisexuality was during the men’s encounter with Dracula at his home in Carfax. The men waited for Dracula to return to his home and attacked him. The plan failed, and before escaping Dracula stated, “Your girls that you all love are mine already. And through them you and others shall yet be mine” (325). Dracula claimed ownership of both females and males; it was a form of dominance towards them. At this point Lucy died, and Mina has drunk his blood to show his ownership of her. He further comments that the men will be his property through the females. Because Dracula has sucked the men’s blood through Lucy, he already dominated over the men showing his tolerance to the male gender. Overall, I think Dracula was a bisexual monster who fed on both genders to show his openness in his sexuality.

Reference

Stoker, B. (2012). Dracula. New York, NY: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc.

The different aspects of Dracula's monstrosity

Count Dracula is a monster in Stoker’s novel Dracula that incorporates many different aspects of his monstrosity. He is described as a monster that is nothing more than an evil entity. Evil is often represented as an “individual” with inhuman capabilities and sinister objective; these qualities are strongly associated to being a monster that brings out central conflict in the story. He is a vampire in England who sucks the blood out of his female victims who eventually become vampires themselves, ‘passing on’ his monstrosity to other people. The vampire does possess a lot of human-like characteristics in terms of looks, and feelings, when Count Dracula admits his loneliness by saying “loneliness will sit over out roofs with brooding wings” (pg. 200). Despite that, he is a well-defined instance of a monster due to his inhuman abilities, and malicious acts toward people.

              However, a monster does not have to resemble a beastly-related figure. A monster can also be a man, corrupted by greed or ill intentions, which take over their lives. The acts of causing death and destruction to many people can be achievable by people in this world today, and that makes them no less of a monster. The disregard for human survival is a factor that adds horrific elements to their monstrosity.

Another instance of Count Dracula’s monstrous behavior is when he presents alluring, seducing vampires to John Harker. He appears to lose all control, and willpower as he submits to the sexual intentions of the vampires. At that point, Harker is vulnerable to any ill-intentions Count Dracula wishes, but not through his violent acts, but by using the body of other female vampires. This unique aspect of monstrosity is similar to Zemeckis 2007 film Beowulf and how Grendel's mother was sexualized herself to seduce the male character and get what she wanted. Not only does Count Dracula use sexualized female vampires as his weapon, but also turns female victims into the anti-mother in that society – by eating children. This possibly shows Count Dracula’s most repulsive acts as not even children are spared. Claiming that Dracula is not a monster at this point after committing such despicable acts would be absurd.

              A more terrifying aspect is his ability to possess other humans as they submit to his powers. He uses is mind-controlling capabilities are used for showing his supremacy over others. A good example is Renfield, the madman from the asylum, showing his allegiance by saying "I am here to do Your bidding, Master. I am Your slave, and You will reward me." (pg. 95) However, later in the novel it is shown that Dracula in fact possessed him this whole time, and admits to him being controlled by the vampire. He also has Harker’s wife, Mina, under a trance and ultimately makes her drink his blood. Both instances show his manipulative intentions for power and malice.

              It becomes very evident of Dracula’s cruel intentions deeper into the novel. What I feel is the most scariest form of monstrosity is turning people who were sane to the "dark side" as he did with Lucy. This comparison reminded me of the movie Narnia where the evil witch-queen tempted Edmund to eat turkish delight only if he did what she wanted, not to mention her mind-controlling powers. Moreover, along with Count Dracula's inhuman abilities of animal shape-shifting, his contempt for the human race, and his gruesome behavior toward humanity support his many different aspects of his monstrosity.

Is Society a Monster or Grendel or Both?

Alina Shrestha

In the book, Grendel relates to Wealhtheow as he himself can’t find a place in the society. He is seen as a monster just because of his look. In the beginning of the book, it shows us how Grendel tried to communicate with the people of Danes but since the communication was not reciprocated well, he was seen as a monster. Grendel is also oppressed by the society as he doesn’t fit the normal criteria, so he doesn’t have a seat in the community. While the books show Grendel the monster that he is, it can be seen that the Danes and the society turned him into the monster. The hatred he received for his looks when he was a little boy turned him into a monster he was. 

Grendel showed emotion of anger, rage, pity. He had human characteristics like long slender body, arms, legs, all the feature that a human has. Apart from his scary look, and inability to communicate, all his actions and behavior are like humans. He is similar to Beowulf and other people in Danes in a sense that they all kill their enemies. They destroy and kill whatever comes their way and disrupts them. So, it can be seen that the society that the Danes live in is a monster as well because they kill innocents for their benefit and oppress women and use them as peace-weavers. In chapter 2 Grendel says “I understood that the world was nothing: a mechanical chaos of casual, brute enmity on which we stupidly impose our hopes and fears” he realizes that the world is like a bull, destructive. This marks the human’s influence on Grendel and his turning point from innocent to a murderer. The societies influence and hatred turned Grendel into a monster. 

The societies treatment and value toward the women is not equal to men. It can be viewed that the society was the monster towards women taking their basis rights and freedom. Women in early Anglo-Saxon culture were viewed as possessions, they had no say towards their lifestyle or culture. The women were used as peace-weavers between family, they were traded for peace without their consent. The women’s sole purpose was to provide for their family for others. The role of the women was to get married off to other tribes, kingdom to promote peace and happiness to the community. Women’s job was to serve the ruler and its people. In Beowulf and Grendel Hildeburh, Freawaru and Wealhtheow display limited role, they seem to be irrelevant and their only role served as peace-weavers. Wealhtheow is a peace-weaver between the Scyldingsand Helming. She’s Hrothgar’s wife and queen of the Danes. She represents love, altruism and is an ideal woman who brings peace and harmony to the community. The only female character that had some type of power was Grendel’s mom, but she was isolated from the rest of the world and could neither speak or communicate. 

The society can also be seen as a monster because they divide the community between race and gender, majorities and minorities creating sexism and racism. While Grendel attacks and kills people openly, the society attacks behinds people’s back mocking and ridiculing them about their placement in society. Therefore, it can be argued that the society turned Grendel into a monster along with dragon’s influence. Women however, were victims of society since they are used as peace-weavers and didn’t have much rights and freedom. It can be seen that for Wealhtheow and other women in Grendel and Beowulf, the Scyldings and Helming society are the monsters, as the women are being oppressed and used into peace-weaving marriages and the females are seen as irrelevant to the society. While for the people of Danes, Grendel is a monster because he disrupts and kills them. 

The Disparities Between Heaney's Grendel and Gardner's Grendel

In this class we’ve read Beowulf by Seamus Heaney as well as Grendel by John Gardner. Both books describe the same character with variations of emphasis on certain parts of the plot, but the monster they call Grendel remains in each one. Ideally, one would think that the monster would be similar if not mostly the same for each story, but after reading through Beowulf and Grendel it is obvious that this monsters characteristics and motives can be interpreted completely different from each other. Why do Beowulf and Grendel have such polarizing views of the same character and yet their stories follow the same characters and plot sequence? 

Seamus Heaney’s Beowulf focuses on the story of Beowulf, a young hero who seeks out monsters to slay them and assert his male dominance. The story also centers around the lineage of several groups of people like the Geats, the Danes, and the Swedes. In this story Grendel is one of the three monsters Beowulf comes into contact with and kills. In this version, Grendel is seen as this “powerful demon” with talons that had been cursed by God that wreaks havoc on individuals in Hrothgar’s mead hall (Heaney 9). Seamus Heaney really emphasized how Grendel was an outcast from God, highlighting that he was related to Cain’s damned lineage and how the monster was “the Lord’s outcast” (Heaney 9 & 13). In Beowulf, Grendel’s main characteristics are that he is a damned creature who selfishly murders Hrothgar’s people because he is tired of hearing the incessant noises. That’s his biggest motivation as well, stopping people from making so much noise, but there isn’t much character development past that. He’s been written as a true monster with little to none character development and a lot of problematic traits. Jumping to John Gardener’s Grendel, the reader can quickly see a difference. For starters it is written from Grendel’s perspective, so we are given more insight into the character and in a sense is getting a chance to speak for himself. Reading through Grendel it was obvious that in this version he possessed more human like qualities and personality traits. The biggest one I think this Grendel has is curiosity which is not something a reader gets from Heaney’s version of the monster. In the first chapter Grendel gets curious and goes and explores passed the mere where he gets himself into trouble, but that’s something that everyone has done at some point and it makes him easier to relate to and understand. In Gardener’s version of Grendel, he’s also given more positive characteristics than he is in Beowulf. He’s looked at as strong, intelligent, at least when compared to his mother, and able to think for himself. His motivations have also changed in this story, in this he is more purposeful, spurred on by the wisdom given to him by the dragon as well as wanting to not be outcast like in the songs sung by the shaper's. This Grendel is not motivated by rage and blood, but rather a thoughtful individual who wishes to be on apart of the in crowd.

Each book written from a completely different perspective with the same monster, yet the characteristics of that monster are polar opposites. One Grendel, out for blood and motivated by his own pain, another spurred on by his own curiosity, but why such different versions of the same monster? Possibly because each writer was trying to highlight a different side of humanity, each correct in their own portrayal, but still missing the other side giving the readers two extremes. 

Grendel and His Personal Conflicts

Depicted as a hideous creature with no sense of what is right or wrong in various iterations of the story of Beowulf, Grendel is your typical portrayal of a monster in our modern era. In the movie Beowulf (2007), Grendel is animated to be a grotesque, deformed figure. With gray, scaly skin, abnormal bodily features, and a generally disturbing face to look at, it is understandable why people cower in fear even before Grendel rips the the head off a helpless body. Additionally, it appears that Grendel can't speak, but can instead make ear-piercing noises. However, during the scene before Grendel's arm is cut of by Beowulf, Grendel can be heard frantically attempting to communicate with Beowulf, almost like he is begging for mercy. Apparently, Grendel spoke in Old English dialect. What I found interesting about this part is what he said: something on the lines of "I am not a Monster". Connecting this with his noticeable displeasure during his battle with Beowulf, I believe Grendel is not a complete monster without feelings. Rather, Grendel is a reasonable creature who is struggling with his identity.

Grendel's more human side is significantly explored in the novel Grendel by John Gardner. Gardner retells the story of Beowulf entirely through the mind of Grendel, portraying him more like an antihero than a full on villain. Grendel is shown be able to rationally think about things and even question the actions of others and himself. On the other hand, the original story depicts Grendel as a mindless killer who's only goal is to wreak havoc upon Hearot. Hrothgar and his people believe Grendel is a cursed evil creature. However, Grendel does not solely view himself like this. Yes, there are instances where Grendel clearly expresses his pleasure in murdering the men of Hrothgar in extremely graphic ways, yet Grendel occasionally questions why he goes out on killing sprees. Furthermore, Grendel is capable of sparing characters in specific circumstances, such as letting Wealhtheow live (barely since he was on the cusp of tearing her apart) and letting the truce between Hrothgar and the young prince commence as he hid in the trees. All these qualities suggest Grendel is struggling to have a sense of purpose in his life. He desires more than to just hate on Hrothgar and humans in general for attacking him just for his appearance. This is similar to the narrative in Frankenstein (both characters are attacked because of their horrendous appearances even when they do nothing to provoke such actions). Just like Frankenstein's case, Grendel eventually finds a purpose that unfortunately involves more senseless murders. Grendel is lead to believe by the Dragon that he should continue to terrorize the humans to give them a sense of purpose. Thus, in the midst of his personal conflict, Grendel may be killing the humans because he was led to believe that was the right thing to do in his circumstance as a loathed and feared monster.

Is Grendel a Monster?

The purpose of Grendel appears to be in order to tell the story of Beowulf from Grendel's perspective, with an emphasis on showing Grendel's life and why he should be pitied. So I have compiled two examples of when Grendel demonstrated he was more human than he was given credit for.

1. Instead of just being a monster that destroys because he does not like the music in the hall ("It harrowed him to hear the din of the loud banquet every day in the hall," (ln 87-89)) Grendel has a much more complicated relationship with the humans and the music than simply just not liking it. (Maybe he's not a big music fan.) In Grendel, Grendel tends to get emotional about the music the Shaper produces (from when he starts getting emotion from hearing about how he comes from a cursed race (more on that later) to how he slowly began to hate the Shaper and the way he presented the "history" of the people.  As demonstrated in the line, "I clamped my palms to my ears and stretched up my lips and shrieked again: a stab at truth, a snatch at apocalyptic glee" (Gardner 45). He does not hate the music or the celebrating in and of itself, but because of what the music represents - truths he does not want to hear and lies the humans tell each other. Not wanting to face the truth, but getting mad at people for spreading lies are one of the great human contradictions. If it's something we don't want to hear, then lying is okay, but if it is something we would want to hear, then lying is bad. 
2. Grendel wants to be accepted, at least to a certain degree. In the beginning, he did not take it well when he heard that he was a descendant of Cain and thus was cursed. He rushed into the crowd (up until then he mostly kept to the shadows and few humans had seen him (that lived to talk about it anyway)). As he describes, "I sank to my knees, crying, 'Friend! Friend,' (52). Although he soon got attacked by the humans his first reaction was to reveal himself to the humans and cry out for some sympathy, for "'Mercy! Peace,'" (51). He could have easily gone into a rage, but he wanted to prove that he was not the monster they all hailed him to be and tried to come across as peaceful, as desiring an end to this line of monsters and wanting to have peace at last. The scene is effective in that it provides reason to feel pity for Grendel (He is actively trying to be a good person and prove them wrong, that he is in fact a good person and not a monster from a race of killers like the tale presents, but the humans immediately start attacking him, as if they have no idea that he is trying to be peaceful, or, even worse, that they attack him anyway, merely because he appears like a monster.) Humans, especially in modern times, like to think of ourselves as noble and always trying to do the right thing and give people a chance, resorting to violence only as a last resort, but as this scene demonstrates, humans are just as capable of senseless violence and attacking without being provoked.  Furthermore, it shows a more humane side of Grendel. He wants to believe he can be good and he wants to have peaceful relationships with a race of beings that treats him as an outcast and a monster, but is not given the chance because the ironically monstrous (or perhaps shamefully humane) humans attack him. 

- Courtney Sellars