Anachronisms!

The inconsistencies, at least in my opinion, appear to fall under a few categories. First, you’ve got the references that one wouldn’t think Grendel would know, although it is still possible for him to have learned the subject. Contrastingly, there are references so unusual, or explanations so glaringly absent, that the “Grendel figured it out by watching the humans” path can’t explain them away.

Let’s start with the first category; take the example of Grendel referencing a drunk in court. When describing the behavior of the humans he watches, Grendel tells, “Now and then some trivial argument would break out, and one of them would kill another one…and they’d consider the case and they’d either excuse him, for some reason, or else send him out to the forest to live by stealing…” (Gardner 32). I think it’s safe to say that some form of court exists, which is where they review such cases. Then, a page later, Grendel mentions, “I observed a change come over their drunken boasts” (Gardner 33). In other words, Grendel observes the humans often enough to recognize drunks, and since he also witnesses courts, I don’t think it’s unrealistic for him to compare the dragon to a drunk preparing for court. While I’d be surprised if the humans frequently try drunks—it seems they spend half their lives drunk and boasting, from Grendel’s narration—it’s not a completely unnerving reference. I think the same can be said for Grendel’s observation of an old dog’s disease; enough observation and eavesdropping would probably reveal what mange is. Thus, I’d say that inconsistencies like these add to the description more than they distract.

I do think, however, that certain references, such as the one to an Aesop’s Fable, are too unusual to excuse immediately. In fact, to add to the example of the golden goose, I offer a passage that initially caught my eye for being, well, inconsistent. When Grendel is describing his mother, he explains, “She’d forgotten all language long ago, or maybe had never known any. I’d never heard her speak to the other shapes. (How I myself learned to speak I can’t remember; it was a long, long time ago.)” (Gardner 28). This statement is more distracting than even a reference to a golden goose. With the goose, the reader must catch the inconsistency; here, Gardner blatantly draws the reader’s attention to an unexplained inconsistency.

Why are these present? I’d say that even these anachronisms or inconsistencies add to the text. Sure, they’re distracting, but just judging based on the fact that it seems either Grendel or Gardner wants to ensure the reader is aware of certain inconsistencies (why else include the above parenthetical?), they must serve some function.

Primarily, of course, many of the inconsistencies appear to benefit the reader's comprehension. The reader quickly understands the concept of the golden-egg-laying goose, whereas had the idea been described with no reference to the fable it may have been wordy and confusing.

But I think that the overall purpose of the inconsistencies is to be inconsistent. Not knowing everything about Grendel, and then wondering about the experiences he never discussed with the reader, shapes him into a more vivid character. The offhand reference to learning to speak made me ponder Grendel’s past, thus emphasizing the fact that Grendel is a dynamic character. After all, could you possibly include every aspect of your own life in a sub-200-page book? Probably not; you’d have a few unexplained traits or references. Therefore, the inconsistencies effectively portray details and draw attention to the complex nature of characters.

Then again, perhaps John Gardner would simply answer our questions with the famous Walt Whitman quote, “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.”