|
|
Post by mattagritelley on Jul 4, 2013 22:10:40 GMT
Following Grendel's odd encounter with the Dragon, Gardner decides to move in an entirely different direction and examine heroism in society. After raiding the meadhall in a declaration of war, Grendel comes across a figure, Unferth, who very heroically challenges him. Grendel takes the opportunity to humorously sneer at Unferth's heroic nature, making him cry in front of all of the other thanes during battle. Grendel awakes one night to find that Unferth has followed him into his cave, and the two argue about what it means to be a hero.
"I sighed. The word 'hero' was beginning to grate. He was an idiot. I could crush him like a fly, but I held back. 'Go ahead, scoff,' he said, petulant. 'Except in the life of a hero, the whole world's meaningless. The hero sees values beyond what's possible. That's the nature of a hero. It kills him, of course, ultimately. But it makes the whole struggle of humanity worthwhile.' I nodded in the darkness. 'And breaks up the boredom,' I said"(Gardner 89). I think everyone agrees that Grendel is the villain in the novel, yet one cannot help but notice the similarities between Grendel's ideology at this point in the story and Unferth's description of a hero. Grendel, after just visiting the dragon, finds no meaning in life, but is able to transcend this boredom (if you will) by raiding the meadhall, becoming "Grendel, Ruiner of Meadhalls, Wrecker of Kings!"(Gardner 80). Unferth views heroism as an intrinsic act of courage for the benefit of the people and a driving force for why humans continue to struggle through life. Grendel actually believes the same thing, just in a different way-- he is trying to eliminate the tedium and monotony in life, while maintaining his "responsibility" of changing (potentially progressing) the human way of life, albeit with different methods. Although Grendel satirically mocks Unferth's view of heroism, he actually possesses and follows many of the aforementioned attributes.
In the context of this novel, does the hero stand for the same ideals as the villain? How is it possible to differentiate between the two and what makes a hero better than a villain?
Although one is always considered "good" and the other "bad", does it seem peculiar that both Unferth and Grendel are trying to change society in similar yet different ways? Maybe there is something to be said about our own societal perceptions of good vs. bad and how we examine motive.
There are many ways to think about this, so feel free to expand on any interesting ideas you may have pertaining to the topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by jennyxu on Jul 22, 2013 3:48:28 GMT
The use of Unferth in the novel seems to mock certain views of the creation of a hero. Unferth's version of a hero simply takes a bold, even foolish, action to show false courage, rather than to save and defend his people. Unferth is almost as much of a villain as Grendel, in this sense, showing no real heroism. Unferth says, "This one red hour makes your reputation or mine!" (83). Grendel relishes in people's fear of his name and image. Both Unferth and Grendel seek recognition rather than to accomplish any significant purpose.
The "bad" qualities of Unferth far outweighs any "good" qualities, so I do not think hero is a justified title for him. It is shown in the contradictions within his own speech as he challenges Grendel. First, he admits that all he desires is to be remembered as courageous and loyal. He holds no interest in creating an impact in the present, to rid the kingdom of a cruel and dangerous monster. A hero should be someone that sacrifices himself for the common good. Instead, he focuses on selfish wants. Then, he tries to change his tone and says, "Only you and I and God will know the truth. That's inner heroism" (88). That is true, but Unferth only deludes himself, and fails to fool Grendel, into thinking that is his true purpose. He does not seem sincere in his words, shown in his fear of indignity if the thanes learn the truth, preventing him from his original desire of suicide.
In this novel, it is hard to distinguish a hero from a villain, because neither of the two opposing forces are heroic. They merely show different sides of the same intention.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidqin on Aug 3, 2013 4:37:11 GMT
I find the contrast between Unferth and Grendel fascinating. Grendel goes so far to admit that "he was a new kind of Scylding" (86) after the human tracked Grendel to his cave, but is it fair to label Unferth as a hero? Just because Unferth says he is "known far and wide in these Scanian lands as a hero among the Scyldings" (82) does not mean he is a hero. Unferth does not get the title (and its associated benefits) just by giving bold speeches or demonstrations of perseverance in the face of Grendel's strength. Actions speak louder than words, but Unferth never fulfills his quest to kill Grendel, so in my opinion, he never was a hero. He was merely a hero-wannabe all along. Furthermore, heroes commit acts of heroism because of some strong inner belief in their righteousness. Unferth does what he does because he just wants to look good in front of everybody else: "He screamed and thrashed, trying to get at me and at the same time trying to see if the others were watching" (85). His vanity cannot be compensated for by his failed attempt to take on Grendel, and defining him as a hero is deceiving.
I think Grendel does not necessarily serve as the archetypal villain in the novel, though he certainly embodies some of its traits. Grendel is definitely vain. During his epic fight with Beowulf, Grendel tells him, "'If you win, it's by mindless chance. Make no mistake. First you tricked me, and then I slipped. Accident'" (171). Grendel's more worried about his image and how he was outsmarted by the giant warrior. Such concerns lie within the responsibility of villains, but should not lie within those of heroes. Furthermore, Grendel obviously seems more villainous to us because he snatches up human beings and eats them for enjoyment, and as humans we should all sympathize with our fellow-beings in the novel. But maybe Grendel is not a true villain. Maybe he's just very misled: a lonely, misguided beast searching unsuccessfully for acceptance and friendship. Grendel, after all, is able to commit several acts of gracious kindness, such as sparing the lives of Unferth and Wealtheow for no other reason than kindness. These acts of "forgiveness," if I may say so, give Grendel a bit of a heroic quality of times, even if those situations were of his own making. For that reason, I think Unferth and Grendel are both imperfect examples of their own types, one an imperfect hero, and the other an imperfect villain. Both strive to become the best at what they do, though for various reasons (Unferth's immaturity at times, or Grendel's fascination with humans), they never become polar opposites of each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by avinash on Aug 31, 2013 17:24:46 GMT
At heart, Grendel and Unferth are both misanthropes. Grendel may seem invincible, but when one examines his mental build up, it can be seen that Grendel isn’t an omniscient figure. For instance, Grendel is unable to understand Wealtheow’s existence.”I have not committed the ultimate act of nihilism: I have not killed the queen” (93). His struggle, leads him to plot to kill her. Grendel’s relationship with Wealtheow shows one of his many weakness.
Unferth prides himself on being heroic. Yet, in the same way as Grendel, he shows that he cannot achieve his goal. ”So you’re a hero, I’m impressed. I’ve never seen a live hero before. I thought they were only in poetry. Ah, ah, it must be a terrible burden, though, being a hero-glory reaper, harvester of monsters!” (84). Unferth yearns to die at the hands of Grendel, like a true hero would. Grendel tortures him by mocking Unferth’s “heroism” and not attacking him.
Looking at this, both Unferth and Grendel show immense weaknesses as characters. I think the hero does stand for the same values as a villain if you go by Gardner’s writing. Unferth may view himself as a hero, but he can never truly achieve this status. Grendel shows that he will never be as omniscient as the dragon with his interactions with the Shapers and Wealtheow. In addition, like you said above, Grendel (with his villainous tendencies) seems to fit in with Unferth’s description of a hero. This may be Gardener’s way of mocking the idea of a “hero.” Heroes aren’t self-proclaimed and don’t flaunt their abilities. This is even more applicable to the medieval time period Grendel is situated in. Many “heroes” seem to be hailed despite their many flaws. Even within Grendel, Hrothgar is viewed by many of his subjects as a hero. Yet, Grendel’s description laments the way in which he runs his kingdom. “Hrothgar’s messengers answered with friendly words and praise of the man they’d just plundered, as if the whole thing had been his idea…” (37). Hrothgar collects tribute from his subjects, often stripping them of a much of their wealth. In return he promises not to war against them.
Beowulf, in my mind, is described to be the “real” hero. Gardner builds him up as a man who simply handles his business. “The hall was numb. The stranger was no player of games” (163). Beowulf’s reputation is well respected and he seems to be devoid of flaws.
|
|
