|
|
Post by travistoal on Jun 21, 2013 6:18:49 GMT
I finished Grendel, and I have to say it's rad as hell. I didn't even know it was related to Beowulf until I got to him in the village giving a speech, and had to stop and read Beowulf, and it was all time consuming and whatnot. Gardner's adaptation alongside the original text allows an astounding comparison of the two protagonists; both Beowulf and Grendel feel that the other is a maniacal beast, but both possess the inner beauty that deserves life. Whether Grendel's actions make him deserve life or not is purely subjective. In Beowulf, Grendel, his mother, and the trustworthy dragon are just seen as monsters to be slain. Gardner gives an insight into Grendel's mind, one that is much more complex than that seen in the bloodthirsty (and beerthirsty) Danes. His uncensored concept of beauty is lost on the humans, so he is treated as a beast by men, but is too dignified and self-aware to befriend animals, leaving him only with his mother, who coincidentally cannot speak. The fact that he hates all that is stupider than him also helps contribute to his isolation. The book definitely changes my view on Grendel. The whole tone is just so pessimistic and saddening. Grendel has a love for art, be it the music of a singer or a corpse, but assuredly, his attempts to simply appreciate and spread art are thwarted by the twisted and confusing logic of the humans.
|
|
|
Post by travistoal on Jun 21, 2013 6:19:11 GMT
LOVE TRAVIS
|
|
|
Post by betsyrahe on Jun 22, 2013 18:56:41 GMT
I am very close to finishing Grendel, so I wish I could have answered this question before I read so far into it. I did not go into the book with a lot of expectations, but I did expect it to be rather sinister because of it's origin(Beowulf). I found the modern language relaxing and easy to read. The language provides the reader to focus more on the character of Grendel and his judgments of humanity. The style is very humerus at times but not necessarily in a way the reader wants to laugh at. This modern language makes Grendel more of a human even though he is clearly not one. Gardner wants us to be able to understand Grendel to some level even if we cannot condone his actions.
|
|
alice
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by alice on Jun 24, 2013 4:08:46 GMT
I did actually laugh at some parts of the book (I'm like 10 pages in) but again it seemed much lighter than what I anticipated. My cover of the book makes it look like Grendel is a creature from "Where the WIld Things Are" so I was a little conflicted going into it: is he a dark, old-english monster or is he a monster that is misunderstood? I suppose I expected harsh writing from a perspective of a supposedly vicious character but I found the writing to be quite sympathetic and sometimes quite beautiful such as when he is frightened by his own voice, " I stand there shaking from head to foot, moved to the deep-sea depths of my being, like a creature thrown into an audience with thunder" (10).
|
|
|
Post by jessicapollard on Jun 25, 2013 18:02:55 GMT
My copy of Grendel provides no plot summary on the back, and so when I bought it on a whim and sat in Ikea (my relatives wanted to try Swedish meatballs or something) reading the first few pages, I was terribly confused. I believe Betsy and I have the same cover, as Grendel looks like a some sort of fuzzy cat-man from Where the Wild Things Are . For the first seven pages or so, I was trying to figure out what Grendel was. Mind you, I had no idea about Beowulf and it seriously irked me that the author would not readily disclose Grendel's identity. At first, I thought he was a feral man who had rejected humanity and isolated himself as much as possible from others. I then assumed, after reading about his mother, that he was a really crazy rabid wolf. As I read on, I find that although Grendel is a monster, he's quite human. Like Alice said, he's frightened by the power of his own voice in the same way some humans are able to look at the sheer power humanity has in the way of knowledge and technology and be equally frightened. I love the way Grendel is written. I really appreciate the first person point of view and the contrast between what Grendel says out loud and what he speculates in his mind.
LOVE, jessie
|
|
Kasey
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by Kasey on Jun 25, 2013 18:17:01 GMT
I haven't read Grendel at all cause I thought I had time to read The Book Thief again before I started summer homework (dumb idea). But what I do know is that Grendel is based off of an old Anglo-Saxon folk tale, and from what I've read on those, most old German/Scandinavian folk tales are along the lines of "Be thankful for what you have" and "Good/Evil" and "Look at this super tough guy do super tough stuff". I think I'm expecting a lot of the last two.
Less than three 5eva, Kasey
|
|
|
Post by austinellerbruch on Jun 26, 2013 0:24:06 GMT
I didn't go into reading the book with any expectations. I must say that I do enjoy the light, fairly modern writing style that the book is written with. I think that Gardner made the write choice with the style because I think that a smart writer writes in a way that he can be understood by readers living in his or her time period. I also think that the writing style emphasizes Grendel's childish, yet largely dynamic characterization, as it provides room for simple thinking and understanding but also an amount of variation that that allows for an easy passage into Grendel's changes throughout the story.
|
|
|
Post by kevinle on Jul 2, 2013 4:31:47 GMT
My copy of Grendel has an image of Grendel on the front, looking up with his mouth open as if in some sort of agony or confusion. From this, I expected a story about a monster with internal conflicts. While this was somewhat true, I did not expect at all the violence and seemingly exaggerated savageness of Grendel.
Also, at the beginning of each chapter, there is a squiggly mess of lines that form Grendel's face in different positions. He appears to be confused or angry in each of these images, which reinforces the picture I had of internal conflicts and confusion. ...not sure how many people paid attention to the scribble-ish pictures, but I found them interesting and somewhat symbolic.
|
|
|
Post by Lacey Doby on Jul 3, 2013 4:58:25 GMT
I'm glad the book is written in a rather easy to understand format because Gardner tackles some pretty big themes that are hard enough to understand in modern language. I had the read the dragon chapter very carefully, and a bunch of that still went over my head. Still, I try to wonder why Gardener chose to do that. It makes Grendel, this beast of a creature, (according to a quote at the back of my book, Grendel is "the first and most terrifying monster in English literature") almost relatable. We understand a lot of Grendel's humor and occasionally are brought to sympathize with him, which is kind of freaky considering what a terrible monster he really is. It's like taking a personality test and finding out that your personality is compatible with Saddam Hussein. It's a little creepy and a bit unnerving, but maybe that's the point. Gardner may be trying to prove that even the most terrible of creatures have human qualities, or that humans are, perhaps, frighteningly similar to terrible creatures.
|
|
amychen
New Member
“But the wild things cried, “Oh please don’t go—we’ll eat you up—we love you so!”
Posts: 47
|
Post by amychen on Jul 17, 2013 8:20:28 GMT
This will be my last “required” post on the forum before I start the somehow acceptable practice of talking to my past self in journals rather than actual people on this forum, so I figured it would only be fitting for me to make it on my original Grendel post.
First, a little commentary on why it took me nearly a month to finish the book: Unlike Travis, I did not enjoy Grendel very much. It was the kind of book that I could only continue reading if required to do so, and if I hadn’t been required to read it, it would still be sitting on my shelf, abandoned, with a bookmark sticking out of it like my copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Outsiders. My lack of interest in the book is due to a few reasons. This is largely due Grendel’s existence as a confused character. I am not referring, of course, to Grendel’s struggle to cope with his loneliness but rather Grendel’s inability to narrate reliably. In my earlier post, I had hoped that Grendel would maintain his casual teenager-esque vibe from the first four pages of the novel. Later, however, he talks in ridiculous descriptive language (http://lincolnsheaven.freeforums.net/thread/9/metaphors-shout-out-calc-students) This includes jumping from my favored language to words like “squirreldust” (13) to math and science words that aren't quite accurate enough to work. Although this use of language is likely to some literary purpose—for example, the math and science language is probably used to go along with the dragon’s “everything is fated” mindset—but I find that Gardner’s use of language bogs up the meaning as far as trying to figure out the actual situation or what Grendel even says.
Additionally, I just don’t really care for Grendel. I know that some people have found him a very moving character, but I was unable to find myself moved for or against him. I guess this is why people are against video games and war and violent stories and anything in which people don’t die of natural causes—dehumanization is bad—but honestly, every time he ate another person I just kind of shrugged my shoulders and moved on. It wasn’t until he almost-raped Wealtheow at the end of chapter seven that I realized he was actually acting poorly because he seemed completely conscious of what he was doing. My feelings toward Grendel might also be due to my pre-reading research into “Beowulf”—I accepted whatever actions Grendel would be making.
As for the squiggly lines, if we take the science route it could have to do with string theory. I don’t know too much about it but from what I found here (http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic4.html) it has to do with tension in tiny strings that create what are sort-of like musical notes. This could be an abstract reference to Grendel’s fate as well as the strings of the Shaper’s harp.
|
|
amychen
New Member
“But the wild things cried, “Oh please don’t go—we’ll eat you up—we love you so!”
Posts: 47
|
Post by amychen on Jul 17, 2013 8:22:01 GMT
I just realized how long that post was. Yikes. Sorry <3
LOVE, Amy
|
|
|
Post by kevinle on Jul 18, 2013 16:09:54 GMT
I did not enjoy Grendel either. Half of it is too fairy-tale-ish for me, almost like an excessively graphic children's book with monsters prowling around... dragons and animals and humans fighting and eating each other... gold and land... A quarter of it contained meaningful messages, and the remaining quarter was too jumpy and unorganized.
Now, the cover of the book resembles my agony reading parts of it.
|
|
|
Post by austinellerbruch on Jul 24, 2013 16:43:37 GMT
I too did not find much enjoyment in reading Grendel. The narrative was far too dynamic and out of control (which I know is necessary to display Grendel's childlike personality but it is still a bother nonetheless). I found my self having to look back at whole paragraphs because I didn't understand their meaning the first time. I did get some philosophical musings for sure, and I enjoyed that, but most of the time I felt like I was chasing a toddler around the playground without much luck at keeping it still.
|
|
|
Post by adamgrace on Jul 26, 2013 23:27:32 GMT
Currently I'm about 40 pages in and so far I think I'm enjoying Grendel. At first glance I expected it to be a terribly boring narrative exploring a different viewpoint than the norm. Fortunately, I found it hard to put down. While some of Gardner's sentences seem to drag on for days, I quite enjoy the way he goes into detail. I was not expecting it to be written in such a modern way either. My favorite quote so far is, "Now and then some trivial argument would break out, and one of them would kill another one, and all the others would detach themselves from the killer as neatly as blood clotting" (27)
|
|