rishi
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by rishi on Jul 22, 2013 1:00:18 GMT
While I was reading the novel, I found it difficult to ignore Grendel’s incessant rage. Not only does he become mad at the humans, but he also becomes enraged at the animals he encounters such as the ram and the goat, animals that would most likely do him no harm. What intrigues me even more is that Grendel does not have a legitimate justification for his fury. In an attempt to rationalize his rage towards the humans, Grendel rants,
At first glance, it seems as though Grendel’s violence towards the humans is driven by the realization that humans are ignorant and hypocritical. Grendel realizes that humans kill their own kind, yet they see him as the epitome of evil for murdering humans. According to Grendel, ignorant human actions and beliefs are what drive his rage. For example, Grendel sees Hrothgar’s men killing other men and plundering other meadhalls to expand Hrothgar’s kingdom. Grendel observes,
How ignorant of the thanes to glorify Hrothgar’s kingdom when their power, wealth, and status is derived from the murders of the inhabitants of neighboring meadhalls, fellow humans. Grendel could deal with his fury in three ways. Firstly, he could walk away from the conflict and mind his own business; secondly, he could intervene in the human conflicts in an attempt to stop humans from murdering each other; and lastly, he too could kill humans and rationalize this by saying that humans do the same thing themselves. Grendel chooses to terrorize the humans and start a war with them, justifying his decision by saying that humans are ignorant hypocrites who kill their own kind. This choice reveals what I believe actually drives Grendel’s violence: his primal instinct, an instinct that is part of Grendel’s nature and is not refined by society. Grendel could have dealt with his fury by simply leaving the humans alone or by trying to peacefully intervene in the human conflict. However, Grendel’s decision to kill confirms that his rage is part of his nature, a primal instinct. Grendel will find any excuse to rationalize this rage, and in this case, he uses human action as his justification.
While we humans try to mask our primal instincts with illusions and rationalization (some of us hunt for thrill and enjoyment, some of us sacrifice lives for a religious belief, and some of us go to war and kill to defend a political or moral belief), Grendel does little to hide his primal instincts. He solely claims that human ignorance is responsible for his violence, but as I explained above, Grendel is actually driven by his instincts, and he consistently acts upon them.
My questions are: Why do we as humans try so hard to mask and rationalize our natural instincts? Do you think that we should continue to cover up and justify these instincts? How large of a role do you think our instincts play when it comes to our decisions? And to what extent do moral values affect actions?
|
|
|
Post by natalieskowlund on Jul 24, 2013 22:01:21 GMT
While I see your reasoning for saying that Grendel does not try to mask his primal instincts, it should be noted that he only truly allows his primal instincts to overcome him after his meeting with the nihilistic dragon. Before that, Grendel actively fought his desire to kill humans and even allowed himself to become moved by the Shaper's poetry. So I feel, perhaps, that it is not so much Grendel in and of himself that makes him shameless in acting upon his primal instincts, but the fact that after his meeting with the dragon, he has basically given up on trying to find meaning in life; the dragon's naturalistic view of the world and life makes Grendel view everything as, "Nothing...A brief pulsation in the black hole of eternity" (63).
Just a pondering: Could Grendel not necessarily be a separate "species" from humans, but more a symbol of that bit of lost innocence within all of us? I mean, he is one of the few animals who can actually understand and speak the same language as humans, making it seem likely that he shares some sort of connection with humans. Is Gardner trying to say that maybe each human contains a monster hidden somewhere inside, and that that is what humans are constantly trying to overcome?
I believe that, based off of the ideas conveyed in "Grendel," humans continue to try and mask/rationalize natural instincts because they continue to strive for meaning in life. As long as humans strive to find meaning, they will need to try and overcome that idea of primitive instincts directing their every move. Basically, in my opinion primitive instincts suggest that humans have no control over their destiny, and that they are stuck in a never-ending cycle of sameness. It merely "dumbs them down" to the same level as all other animals, and most humans have major issues accepting that.
Even Grendel found it extremely difficult to let go of his youthful belief in inherent meaning behind life. Grendel questions the dragon, "Why is it fiddlesticks if I stop giving people heart attacks over nothing? Why shouldn't one change one's ways, improve one's character?" (61). He cannot cope with the dragon's cynical viewpoint, and continuously asks "why?" to every theory the dragon proposes. For the young Grendel, there must be meaning. Yet, finally, Grendel submits himself to the dragon's nihilistic beliefs, and this is when he also stops holding back from killing humans. He becomes unremorseful and vengeful towards all humans, and finds exhilaration in killing humans.
I suppose ultimately I'm trying to say that masking and rationalizing natural instincts is an inevitable response to our search for meaning in life. In fact, that may explain why so often those who have given up on life and spiraled down into a dark, negative state of mind end up committing crimes against themselves or others; they no longer feel any reason to be good to themselves or others, and allow themselves to go wild. I think the second question drives at an individual's core values and morals; it really depends on whether or not you believe meaning exists in life. Personally, I believe that as long as humans are focused on meaning, they will try to cover up instincts and focus on improving society so it is not so founded on primitive actions.
|
|
rishi
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by rishi on Jul 28, 2013 3:57:44 GMT
Natalie, I agree with you in that Grendel does not desire to kill humans before his talk with the dragon, but in my post, I specify that Grendel's rage is part of his primal instinct, not his desire to kill. Grendel is angry not only evident in the beginning of the novel when he encounters the ram, but also it is evident in the way he hurls himself at his mother when he is scared. Although it is obvious that Grendel does this because he feels lonely, I think that the somewhat violent manner in which Grendel does this reveals his intrinsic rage. Another example of Grendel's natural rage is illustrated as Grendel reacts to Hrothgar's kingdom's expansion. Grendel explains, "I was filled with a wordless obscurely murderous unrest" (Gardner 40). I believe, however, that the dragon significantly enhances Grendel's rage and helps Grendel to rationalize this primal instinct. After all, Grendel's decisions are ultimately a "meaningless smudge in a universe dead as old wind over bones" (Gardner 81). Basically, I think that Grendel's rage is natural, and he never masks it. Rather, after his encounter with the dragon, Grendel rationalizes his rage, and this influences Grendel to kill.
I also agree with you when you suggest, "Is Gardner trying to say that maybe each human contains a monster hidden somewhere inside..." except I took a different approach to reach this realization. I noticed, like you, that Grendel and the humans share a common language, but it surprised me that some humans cannot understand what Grendel is saying. For example, on pages 51-52, Grendel's cries for peace are mistaken as the humans scream and attack Grendel. I believe that many humans choose to not understand Grendel’s speech because they are not willing to accept the fact that there are similarities between Grendel and themselves. Because they see Grendel as a manifestation of evil, humans are not able to accept the fact that they too can be so similar to a monster. This is why many humans refuse to hear what Grendel says.
You say that accepting our primal instincts will result in a loss of our perceived superiority as a species and make us feel like animals. I believe that we don’t see ourselves as animals because we can so easily justify the actions inspired by our primal instincts. For example, our primal instinct to kill is easily justified by the sport of hunting or the concept of war. However, the idea of primal instincts does not necessarily suggest that we have no control over our destinies. When we justify these instincts, however wrong they may be, it makes these instincts somewhat acceptable, at least in our perspectives. For instance, war is "somewhat acceptable" because groups of people are fighting for what they think is right. We are not stuck in a cycle of sameness because of our primal instincts; if we rationalize these instincts, then we do have control of our destinies. Primal instincts, in my opinion, are not solely responsible for our actions or our destinies.
It would obviously be difficult for humans, or anything for that matter, to sacrifice the belief that there is a meaning behind life, and that is why we rationalize our primal instincts instead of accept them.
|
|
|
Post by yongkim on Aug 27, 2013 5:15:39 GMT
I agree with Rishi in that Grendel's rage is part of his primal instinct; however, I believe Grendel does attempt to mask his primal instinct of rage even before his talk with the dragon. In the first couple chapters, Grendel's rage is evident, especially during his encounter with the ram. Grendel begins to mask his rage with the introduction of the Shaper and his songs. Grendel explains, “the man had changed the world. Had torn up the past by its thick, gnarled roots and had transmuted it, and they, who knew the truth, remembered it his way-and so did I” (Gardner 43). Whenever Grendel listens to the Shaper's songs, he becomes hopeful and is captivated by the beauty of the music. The rage within him disappears for a moment. However, after his encounter with the dragon, Grendel does not bother to mask his rage as he begins to accept nihilism. Grendel states, “I no longer remember exactly what [the Shaper] sang. I know only that it had a strange effect on me: it no longer filled me with doubt and distress, loneliness, shame. It enraged me” (Gardner 77).
I believe the reason why we as humans try so hard to mask our natural instincts is due the presence of others and how they will judge us. For example, I have a natural instinct to yell whenever I am infuriated; however, I refuse to do so in respect for the others around me. What would this person think if I were to yell at my sister in public? He or she would probably think I'm a freak. Grendel, on the other hand, has nobody to impress or worry about. Hrothgar's people already perceive Grendel to be a frightening monster. In fact, Grendel realizes he is lonely in the beginning of the novel when he point out, “I understood that the world was nothing: a mechanical chaos of casual, brute enmity on which we stupidly impose our hopes and fears. I understood that, finally and absolutely, I alone exist" (Gardner 21). Though he tries to mask his rage a couple of times and to befriend the humans, the only response he receives is disapproval through violence.
Rishi, you bring up an interesting point when you state, "I believe that many humans choose to not understand Grendel's speech because they are not willing to accept the fact that there are similarities between Grendel and themselves". Although the humans are quick to assume, I would not go as far as to say the humans simply refuse to believe Grendel shares a common language with them. In Chapter 2, Grendel establishes himself as a threat to the humans as Grendel's attempt to communicate that he was hungry instead came out as moans. Similarly, Hrothgar's people felt threatened in Chapter 4 when Grendel staggered toward the hall and bawls, "Waaa!" It is a natural instinct to retreat or attack something when one thinks it can harm him or her.
|
|