Post by gracepark on Sept 2, 2013 3:41:05 GMT
Grendel, in himself, is a huge mix of confusion. And even after finishing the book, I still can’t grasp what to think of him. Is he a monster? Is he evil? Or is he a hero? Is he more than just a “brute existent” of mankind?
The details of Grendel’s character keep swirling in my head, but looking back I can kind of see Grendel as a tragic hero in effect. Throughout the entire novel, we witness Grendel’s struggles against the question of existence. His curiosity of the outside world, his encounter with humans, his talk with the Dragon, and the events thereafter all add up to his thoughts about his place in the universe. And his inability to completely grasp his stance only leads to his unfortunate fight against the meaningless of existence – which ultimately kills him. Gardner illustrates characteristics of existentialism throughout the entire novel, but all the while, I think Grendel was also searching for his own individualism in this world that he came to despise.
So does this make him a tragic hero? Or should he be remembered as the vicious monster that deserved to be killed?
The details of Grendel’s character keep swirling in my head, but looking back I can kind of see Grendel as a tragic hero in effect. Throughout the entire novel, we witness Grendel’s struggles against the question of existence. His curiosity of the outside world, his encounter with humans, his talk with the Dragon, and the events thereafter all add up to his thoughts about his place in the universe. And his inability to completely grasp his stance only leads to his unfortunate fight against the meaningless of existence – which ultimately kills him. Gardner illustrates characteristics of existentialism throughout the entire novel, but all the while, I think Grendel was also searching for his own individualism in this world that he came to despise.
So does this make him a tragic hero? Or should he be remembered as the vicious monster that deserved to be killed?