|
|
Post by jennyxu on Jun 29, 2013 22:59:40 GMT
Towards the beginning of the novel, Grendel notices a terrified deer scampering away from him. He moans about the unfairness of life and screams, "Blind prejudice!" (Gardner 7). Even though Grendel poses no danger towards the deer, for he has no interest in preying upon it, the deer, through its ignorance, is still afraid of Grendel, based purely upon appearance and instinct. To what extent does such prejudice have on the creation of monsters? Grendel is trapped by his given role, a hideous and heartless monster that brutally kills cows and men. But as he notices, men commit equally horrendous deeds, slaughtering their rivals. Grendel comments, "I was sickened, if only at the waste of it: all they killed – cows, horses, men – they left to rot or burn" (36). He sees men's horrible actions as even more pointless and unnecessary. Even though Grendel is a monster, his morality is not beneath that of men. What's the effect created by a monster's commentary on the horrific actions of humans?
|
|
|
|
Post by Anna M. on Jul 4, 2013 5:58:10 GMT
The thought/question that keeps occurring to me as I read is whether there is a difference between man and beast. Sure, Grendel is really ugly and he's bloodthirsty, but evidence from the novel shows that men can be just as bloodthirsty. The wars are described as bloody and merciless. One night when Grendel is spying on the Mead he steps on a man whose throat had been cut and his clothes stolen (50). It is shown that Grendel is very human by his very emotional connection with his mother as well as he speaks and understands the human language. I think that Gardner is definitely making a point by emphasizing the similarities between Grendel (monster) and humans.
|
|
|
|
Post by betsyrahe on Jul 14, 2013 0:03:16 GMT
I definitely agree with Anna. Grendel clearly has some human behaviors which is interesting since he spends the majority of the book criticizing humans. I like to think that Grendel wants to deny his human side by mocking the humans. He has the "if I make fun of them than that means I'm not one of them" mentalities that a lot of bullies posses. I think Gardner wanted to point out(like Anna said) how similar so called "Monsters" are from people. He shows how people can be monsters in there own way, and how monster's can love and want to be accepted(very human traits). Grendel's commentary makes the reader realize that if a monsters can see humans are ridiculous than people should really change.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannahlewman on Jul 18, 2013 23:58:30 GMT
While I understand the point about there being little difference between man and beast, I feel that Gardner shows a major difference between the two: free will. He portrays animals as unthinking machines and men as thinking, "pattern making" beings. Grendel is a mix of the two: animalistic instinct and human mind. As a monster, Grendel lives with an animal body and a human sense of free will, which allows the author to juxtapose the behavior of animals and humans. Though, as mentioned, the behavior is similar as both include killing and lots of gore, humans possess the vital asset of free will. This contrast makes free will look like a privilege that any creature would be lucky to have, and thus makes it seem that humans have an obligation to take advantage of the privilege of free will. Since humans are able to break from life as a machine, something animals cannot do, should they not seize the opportunity and think for themselves? Don't humans have an obligation to separate themselves from beasts by not slaughtering each other? I think what truly MAKES Grendel a monster is that he does not take advantage of his free will and stop his murderous ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by moreno on Aug 1, 2013 0:43:41 GMT
I’m only through a few chapters, but already it is evident that Grendel possess more than a few humanistic characteristics. He may look like a monster, but judging by the way the humans conduct themselves, Grendel doesn’t seem all the different or horrific in comparison.
Grendel observes:
“Men swore. They pushed at the wheels with long oak poles and slashed at the oxen will their backs were crosshatched with bleeding welts and their noses rain pink foam. Sometimes with one terrific heave, an ox would break free of the traces and plunge into the brush. A man on a horse would go after it, slashed by branches, cutting through tangles of hazel and hawthorn, his horse balking at the pain of thorns, and sometimes when the man found the ox he would fill it with arrows and leave it to the wolves,” (38).
The humans clearly conduct themselves in animalistic ways as well. They cast Grendel out as a monster, when really; they themselves are capable of similar, horrific things. In my opinion, Golding creates these similarities between the town’s folk and Grendel to highlight the idea that we are all capable of savagery, no matter what race. This idea is also seen in the novel, Lord of the Flies. It is the idea that regardless of who we make our selves out to be or where and how we live, all humans have savage-like impulses that can overtake us if given the right situation. Golding’s take on this idea, highlighting it through the perspective of an actual monster, glorifies the fact that although we think we are a superior race, this is not always the case. In short, I think Golding’s take on humans and their animalistic impulses is both powerful and effective through the use of Grendel’s observations and narrations.
|
|
