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. 

Similarities among Mordern Monsters

                                               

What better way to expose the monster in human than to display human feelings in monsters? Modern books and movies are inclined to present similarities among monsters and the human emotions in the monsters. The Count Orlok from the German expressionist movie Nosferatu dwells in a castle that is in the corner of the Carpathian Mountains. I found it interesting that this character shows resemblance with Grendel from the books Beowulf and Grendel, as Grendel attacks the mead-hall of Heorot built by Hrothgar. Although, both monsters are from entirely different descend they share the same kind of setting which is a luxurious building.

There are several other parallels between these monsters. Count Orlok is displayed in the movie as an ugly vampire with a frail human-like body and is shown to move at a slow pace carrying coffins. Grendel resembles Orlok as he has many animal and human features in addition to the monstrous appearances. Grendel is depicted as a huge creature with claws, two legs, and one head. Similarly, both Grendel and Count Orlok are guided by human emotions and instincts in certain instances. In the movie Nosferatu, when the guest accidentally wounded himself with a knife at the castle, Count Orlok rapidly moved towards the guest to lick the blood muttering “your blood is precious”; however, he controlled himself when he saw the picture of the guest’s attractive wife. Comparably, in the climax of the movie Hutter, the guest’s wife realizes that the only way to stop the vampire is to distract him therefore, she sacrificed her life to save the city and her husband. I think this scene of the movie portrays the strong human feeling of romance in Counter Orlok thereby, confuses the audience about the identity of Counter Orlok. In Beowulf, I assume one of the reasons behind the aggression of Grendel against the Danes when they sang songs and enjoyed, was his hidden feelings of isolation. Furthermore, in Grendel, Grendel is humanized by contrasting him from his mother by emphasizing his urge to communicate and his feelings of separation from his mother. Moreover, the dragon's advice to Grendel that his reactions to him are like human’s reactions to Grendel encouraged Grendel to stop scaring the humans for sport. This plot in Grendel serves to reflect the human quality of sympathy in Grendel.

Both monsters are also portrayed as terrifying characters. For example, Orlok is exhibited as an ugly rat-like creature who carried the plague along with him. As Orlok traveled to Wisbourg, plague descended with him which lead to the death of crew members and the townsfolk of Wisbourg. Orlok’s sleeping chamber was a coffin which was filled with rats. Throughout the movie, Orlok had a dark shadow hanging over him. In parallel, Grendel is envious towards humans and once when the men in the mead-hall fell asleep Grendel slaughtered thirty men. Grendel is described as a strong creature that tore the door from its hinges with bare hands before the fight with Beowulf. Thus, both these characters are shown to have evolved over time from the typical evil monsters who just cause destruction to monsters who also shows sympathy, romance and other human feelings at certain circumstances. I think the goal of showing monsters exhibiting human feelings in modern books and movies, is to show that humans may also eventually start exhibiting monstrous behaviors. 

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.

Monsters or Misogynists?

Monsters or Misogynists?  

by Syeda S. Raza 

Men in the Anglo Saxon society were misogynists thus, it won't be wrong to call them monsters. These men considered women as possessions and peace-weavers “ A queen should weave peace, not punish the innocent’ (1941).  Women without their will were married to these demonic men in an attempt to bring peace between the two kingdoms. In particular, Hrothgar’s act of marrying his daughter Freawaru to Ingeld for peace pledge was no less of a monstrous act. Women were treated by these monsters as slaves and were required to act upon their wishes “Haereth’s daughter moved about with the mead-jug in her hand, taking care of the company, filling the cups that the warriors held out” (1980), this illustrated that power remained in the hands of the men and that women were inferior in all respect. Moreover, women as peace weavers were expected to bear children to carry bloodlines forward. Where their sons would carry the legacy of their fathers by engaging in similar acts. These monsters were disgusted by women and their bodies were sexualized. In the reading Grendel by John Gardener, Wealtheow to Grendel was like the Shaper but her having human characteristics made him want to kill her. He was disgusted by Wealtheow’s body but felt superior to her. Grendel was undoubtedly a monster who was obscene to even to his own mother“ And my mother’s fat foul bulk rolling over, restless again” (9) and again “She smells of wild pig and fish” (29). This strongly suggested that no matter how old a man was, women in the Anglo Saxon society were maltreated.    

Even today human-like monsters are seen in books and movies. One example of this is seen in Khaled Hosseini's novel: A Thousand Splendid Suns. The novel explains the story of two generations of characters that are brought together by tragic sweeps of war, where their personal life was intertwined in a series of drastic events. In contrast to the idea of peace weaving marriage, in Hosseini's novel men engage in second marriage with high hopes of having a son.  The ideologies remain similar in Thousand Splendid Sons, Beowulf, and Grendel where men represent monsters that objectify women as mere slaves. These women are constantly a subject to violence by their husbands and father. In Hosseini's novel, men having the privilege to engage in a second marriage is brutal in its extremity and this portrays an act of infidelity towards the wives. Women in both societies are married to men that are quite older than their age without their will. Women thus, feel inferior to these monsters and live their lives in an abusive and oppressive relationship. This is due to their desire and attempts to maintain peace between them and the husband; analogous to what is illustrated in Beowulf and Grendel.

Therefore, monsters today and monsters in the past share homologous traits, the difference lies in their approach. Even today, women are abused and their bodies are objectified; however, the world still remains a place where monsters like such hold dominance. 

Blog 1: Sympathy for Grendel: Monster vs. Man

What impact does the dragon leave on Grendel?

Arguably one of the biggest turning point in John Gardner’s book, Grendel, appeared to be the most intuitive, thought-provoking one: the meeting with the dragon. I feel that chapter 5 in particular is what convinced Grendel to bring the monster – or his natural instinctive self – out of him. What was supposed to be a brief encounter ended up becoming a deep philosophical discussion. Grendel realized that after his encounter with the dragon, it changes him not only mentally, but physically (a charm that he would be impervious to cuts). This brings to light the question asked, what impact did the dragon leave on Grendel? It was obvious that Grendel’s mindset, and who he defines himself as a “person” completely changes through a few words. Days later, Grendel unleashes his anger on humans and starts his raids against the Danes, so it was an interesting to know how dynamic of a character he is.

As a side thought, as I was reading the texts between Grendel and the dragon, it reminded me of the dragon from the movie, The Hobbit. Both not surprisingly breath fire, both dragons were sitting upon a pile of gold, both were known for taking cruel pleasure in fright and discomfort, and both were known for being clairvoyant, as it was mentioned by the dragon in Grendel, “My knowledge of the future does not cause the future. It merely sees it, exactly as creatures at your low level recall things past” (pg. 63). They both had numerous experiences and cynical views of man. They both were involved in fights between man and ended in death and destruction. Most famously, the dragon in Grendel slaying Beowulf in Beowulf, but also getting killed itself. Most importantly, I felt the dragon was a symbol of death and evil, perhaps even the devil himself. Through his words, he can convince those to perform the cruelest of things. I compare Grendel’s encounter with someone who tries a drug for the first time. It will make one addicted over time and make them feel empowered to it. In this case, the dragon is the drug to Grendel, and his addiction is his raids on the Danes.

The dragon’s view was contradictory to the Shaper’s concept of God, saying that the universe is nothing more than entities put together. Each thing has its place in the universe, including Grendel. He is known as the monster, or the adversity that would bring the human race to think, create, develop – basically “all that makes them what they are for as long as they last” (pg. 73). The dragon went on to calling him the “brute existent” to mankind, which I understood it as the bane of man’s existence. But like some people who may get confused after an enlightening talk, Grendel felt almost the same way. He had difficulty understanding what the dragon was saying, and as a result he couldn’t except his place in the universe. He does not appear to be completely sold on what the dragon preaches and decides to fully give up on humanity.

However, the meeting with the dragon would only further separate him from the human race, as the meeting with the Dane guards who he slaughtered with the help of his “magic shield”, made him the “monster” he was meant to be, and it looked like he embraced it.

Why All the Darkness?

By: Shelby Bagby

More often than not, the nighttime and darkness have negative connotations. When you think of the nighttime, do you think of peaceful dreams, restfulness, tranquility? Or, do you envision murderers who come after dark, the black alley cat who crossed your path at midnight, and monsters under your bed? We see through the two novels, Beowulf and Grendel that monsters are frequently associated with darkness, and thus, associated with the crimes of the night. When did this association begin and is there any evidence for why Grendel and monsters alike, should be associated with darkness, and as a result, associated with the negative characteristics of darkness?

This concept is really showing the associative property in literature. Let me explain: In mathematics, formulas are solved because of relationships between variables.

If A=B and B=C then C=A

The two novels similarly state that:

If Darkness = Danger, and Grendel = Danger, then Darkness = Grendel.

From the very beginning of the novel, Grendel, Grendel associates himself with nighttime. As he narrates his movements through the wilderness, he states, “I stand in the high wind balanced, blackening the night with my stench” (9). From the start, the reader discovers Grendel’s negative self-image based on the words he chooses to describe himself, like stench. But take note that his foul odor is somehow more foul out of the comfort of daylight. I pose this question to the author, Could he not stink when the sun is out? Just in chapter one, we see multiple negative connotations associated with nighttime: “move down through the darkness, burning with murderous lust” (10), “lifeless night” (11), “dark shadow out of the woods below” (12). In one small chapter, the nighttime is given a threatening reputation of death and murder, which is similar to the reputation of Grendel. I find it interesting that during the narration of Grendel’s fight with Beowulf, the entire fight happens in the darkness. Once Beowulf’s grip is tight around Grendel’s arm, Grendel describes how his “long pale dream, my history, falls away” (169). This shows how even one of the few positive things about nighttime, dreaming, can be turned negative during this frightful situation. The last positive association with darkness dies with Grendel’s death. Coincidence? Once Grendel’s arm is torn off in the fight, he realizes that he’s living a “nightmare. Darkness. I really will die!” (172). Would the fight have lost meaning had it occurred in the daytime? The reviews on the back of the book claim that Grendel is “the first and most terrifying monster in English literature.” Perhaps Gardner simply wrote the fight to occur in the nighttime to make the fight more horrifying and scary for the reader, captivating his audience. Or, is there another valid reason for the association of monsters with the darkness?

Has society today changed at all? In my opinion, darkness is as negative as ever. Think about it! Don’t we all turn on the lights if we are watching a scary movie alone? Somehow, the daylight makes things less menacing. After all, children are usually scared of the dark, never the light. That means that our society is reinforcing the negative connotations associated with darkness, and thus, monsters. In Grendel, we see the stark contrast between darkness and light when the Queen enters the meadhall “as if she’d brought light and warmth with her,” calming the crowd of drunken men (163). Here we see that a comparison with light is viewed favorably, which has completely opposite implications of a comparison with the night. In Beowulf, the narration of the fight between Beowulf and Grendel’s mother also occurs in the darkness, or in “the depths” of the lake where Grendel’s mother lives (105). After Beowulf kills Grendel’s mother, a monster, “a light appeared and the place brightened” (109). Here we are able to see another blatant comparison between monsters and darkness: when a monster dies, a light appears! 

Maybe the reason that darkness is associated with danger, and thus, with monsters, is because darkness hides truth in the shadows. Humans are consistently afraid of the unknown, and maybe darkness is the tangible unknown – and monsters must live there, because what is actually scary about monsters is everything we do not know about them. We do not know if they are human or not. We do not know if they are for us, or against us, because they are different from us. The unknown is scary! Since the humans in the story do not know much about Grendel or his mother, they are fearful of them. The unknown is personified through the monsters, and then equated with darkness.