|
|
Post by robertxu on Jul 25, 2013 7:12:08 GMT
What I like about Grendel is that he seamlessly shifts between his primal state and self-awareness. His primal state involves a natural lust for blood, and attachment to his mother. Grendel is an evolutionary stop between beast and human, and while he may be more mature in some ways, most humans do not randomly get a fixation for blood. An example of Grendel's primal instincts is when Gardner describes Grendel's reaction to the human expansion, "I was filled with a wordless obscurely murderous unrest" (Gardner 40). On the other hand, Grendel's awareness of his environment is revealed in his response to the blind heroism of Unferth. Gardner writes, "I laid him at the door of Hrothgar's meadhall... so I wouldn't be misunderstood...he alone is always spared and furiously jealous of the dead" (Gardner 90).
These two quotes show two scenarios: one where Grendel cannot control his emotions, and one where he chooses to physically/pyschologically torture Unferth. Personally, it is easier for me to sympathize with a "noble savage" that cannot suppress its desires, as opposed to a sadistic/nihilistic version of Grendel that tortures individuals to prove that idealism is not worth it. At times, I can't decide whether Grendel is a sadistic monster, or a misunderstood outsider. One aspect that particularly makes me sympathize with him is his reliance on his mother. In both the beginning and the ending, when Grendel is in a life-threatening position, he calls out for his mother like a baby. The bottom line is that despite moments where I almost feel sympathy for him, most of the time I abhor Grendel for killing/hurting innocent people like Unferth and Wealhtheow just to push his nihilistic beliefs.
Questions: Do you think Grendel is evil by nature or by nurture? Does having mental/psychological issues justify horrible actions? In what other ways does Grendel try to suppress idealism?
|
|
rishi
New Member
Posts: 38 
|
Post by rishi on Jul 29, 2013 0:26:14 GMT
I want to focus on your first question: "Do you think Grendel is evil by nature or nurture?"
In my opinion, what is defined as "evil" depends on perspective. To the humans, Grendel is evil because of his raids in which he kills "innocent" humans. Grendel represents "the dark side...The terrible race God cursed" (Gardner 51). In the perspective of humans, Grendel is evil by nature. To Grendel, however, killing other species is justified and not evil. After all, the humans kill other animals themselves. However, to Grendel, one species should not kill its own kind. As Grendel listens to the humans talking about "what they were going to do to the bands on the other hills" (Gardner 32), he explains, "It was slightly ominous because of its strangeness - no wolf was so vicious to other wolves - but I half believed they weren't serious" (Gardner 32). Although this talk does not bother Grendel much at first, Grendel is ultimately infuriated as he realizes that humans, through the Shaper's songs, celebrate the result of these murders: the prosperity of Hrothgar's kingdom.
I believe that Grendel's violence is predominantly driven by his primal instinct of rage. To reassure my belief, I ask myself this: if Grendel did not have rage as a primal instinct, would he still resort to killing humans after talking to the dragon? This supports my opinion that Grendel is angry by nature. However, although I believe that Grendel's primal instincts play a major role in his actions, I do not think that Grendel's rage is the sole factor behind Grendel's violence. Other factors such as the dragon and the actions of human society function as catalysts that allow Grendel to channel his natural rage into violence. The dragon nurtures Grendel to kill by justifying Grendel's primal instincts. I elaborated on this in my response to Abby's thread, "Grendel's Isolation and its Consequences." Human society's actions give Grendel the ability to rationalize his fury, as I explained above. However, it is also important to note that Grendel's rage is not why humans see him as a monster; it is his violence that initiates these beliefs. Violence is why we see Grendel as "evil."
I think that Grendel is evil by nature. Although the encounters he has with the dragon and the humans catalyze and nurture Grendel's rage into violence, Grendel would not have resorted to violence if rage was not part of his primal instinct.
|
|
|
|
Post by juliamoreland on Aug 11, 2013 17:00:42 GMT
I agree with Rishi, because I do believe that part of the food chain involves killing and eating those beneath you. Part of nature and of this cycle involves Grendel committing this "evil" act, and I think that makes logical sense. My opinion changes, however, when Grendel becomes more manipulative. He takes enjoyment in the horrendous treatment of his victims, and even draws out their painful end just for fun. An example of this is when Grendel kills the goat, "He finds his feet the same instant that my second stone hits. It splits his skull, and blood sprays out past his dangling brains, yet he doesn’t fall...I smile, threatened by an animal already dead, still climbing. I snatch a stone and hurl it" (139). Although I want to believe Grendel is killing because he needs food and it is part of nature's food chain, I can now see that he is killing for joy.
Grendel does have his moments of sanity, and those of rage, but ultimately I believe that his sadistic monster traits rule his actions. It is still interesting to think how he became this way, did the dragon change his emotions toward killing enough to make him this beast? Or would he have reached that point on his own? Perhaps his mother's suppression changed his views?
As far as the nature vs nurture, I definitely feel that Grendel kills and eats humans by nature. The manipulative evil half of him, however, could have easily come from the events in the novel or even some other emotional change. I do not think that Grendel is evil by nature, because evil killings occur when Grendel takes enjoyment in the slow destruction and manipulation of his victims. Grendel has to kill and eat in order to stay alive, but his cruel and monstrous characteristics are adapted from his experiences.
|
|
