|
|
Post by avinash on Jul 28, 2013 6:16:59 GMT
Gardner portrays Grendel as a monster. Grendel continuously complains -- especially in the first chapter -- about things in the world. He generally has a negative outlook on life.
Here, Grendel shows his distrust of other living things and his reclusive nature.
In that single passage Grendel manages to speak negatively of his abode, his mother, and humans.
Think back to the Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. I can’t help but compare the two novels. Twain’s blatant portrayal of racism through racist characters is not meant to be taken literally, but rather satirically. Similarly, Grendel’s view of the world can be taken satirically. A lesser creature (Grendel) is taking fault with the world around him. Humans should be above that and not on the same level as a monster, right? Is Gardner satirizing the negative manner in which people view the world and life? If so what is Gardner trying to say or change about this?
Gardner worked on his father’s farm when he was young. His brother was killed during an accident with a tractor. Gardner was driving the tractor and felt he was responsible for this death. This incident has left an indelible impression of Gardner’s life and influences much of his literature. Most of Gardner’s work was very controversial during the time of publish. He often called out other authors for focusing on despair and other depressing topics. Could Grendel be a response to such authors? Also, how might have Gardner's life experiences affected his writing of Grendel?
|
|
|
|
Post by mattagritelley on Aug 20, 2013 1:40:08 GMT
I will focus on your first question regarding Gardner's satirization of humans.
The novel can be compared to a deceivingly ironic statement-- it makes you uneasy but you're not really sure why. I had a hard time thinking about why Gardner decided to write Grendel, since there is no one obvious message to take from the book. I think you're right; the novel as a whole can be considered a satire (hopefully this realization will quell my desire to ask Gardner, "why did you write this book?" Nonetheless, many of the subtleties that Gardner discusses, such as religion and time, are legitimate intellectual concepts that Gardner is not making light of.
Firstly, Gardner satirizes the nihilistic view that so many humans have of life, as well as their hypocrisy. It is the Dragon who first instills a sense of hopelessness in Grendel, noting the indefatigable nature of time and the expansiveness of the universe around us. Although these concepts are bigger than life and incomprehensible for the human mind, Grendel gives into them, feeling hopeless and lost until finding his true calling: raiding meadhalls. "I was transformed. I was a new focus for the clutter of space I stood in: if the world had once imploded on the tree where I waited, trapped and full of pain, it now blasted outward, away from me, screeching terror. I had become, myself, the mama I'd searched the cliffs for once in vain" (80). In this passage, Gardner satirizes how Grendel is consumed by his inability to make a difference in the world, and that to feel important he must follow his natural yearning of killing others (even though it makes no difference in the grand scheme of things!). He makes fun of the natural human desire to matter and acknowledges the impossibility of this scenario. It's a paradox that is entirely circular and unattainable, and Gardner seizes the moment to make light of it.
In another thread, Rishi made an interesting point regarding Grendel's interaction and views of the humans. The Dragon had told Grendel of how he's seen the humans try to advance, fail, and then try again. Perhaps they would accomplish some monumental feat in their time (that is really not monumental in all of time) or perhaps they wouldn't, but nevertheless, they would ignorantly persist. Here are Grendel's thoughts about the humans after raiding their meadhall: "It enraged me. It was their confidence, maybe-- their blissful, swinish ignorance, their bumptious self-satisfaction, and, worst of all, their hope" (77). We are fiendish creatures, fighting over little things such as religion, land, power-- pompous fools. Grendel even admits that the humans' hypocrisy is the reason he decides to fight them. He is angered by their hypocritical actions in trying to seek advancement while killing their own people out of bloodlust and power. There is nothing but satire here-- a vicious monster justifies killing human beings because he witnesses them constantly killing one another. Moreover, our ignorance bothers Grendel, whose perspective of life is significantly broader after his discussion with the Dragon, and he attributes his rage to the humans' lack of perspective.
Gardner is clearly making a point here, using a unique perspective to examine how ridiculous our actions are. Gardner implies that we blindly persist, not because we don't know better, but because we need to. He recognizes our un-worldy yearnings and urges and turns them against us in the form of mockery. It doesn't seem like Gardner wishes to change any of this-- he truly just wants to point it out and draw our ridiculousness to our own attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by fionabyrne on Aug 20, 2013 20:58:45 GMT
I also wondered whether Gardner was writing a satire and if so what he was satirizing. While I believe the author could have had many targets, one that stood out to me was the concept of the hero. During the apple fight with Unferth, Grendel says “I’ve never seen a live hero before. I thought they were only in poetry… It must be a terrible burden, though, being a hero---glory reaper” (84). Grendel mocks the brave Unferth, and his main argument is that there is nothing impressive about being a hero because the rewards are so huge. Grendel argues that because heroes receive so much praise, honor, and admiration, there is nothing moving or extraordinary about a hero. For a while I found myself thinking that Gardner himself was just as cynical as his monster, seeing no merit in a hero. However, the author portrays Unferth not as a deluded fool but as a boy with genuine desire to do good. Gardner gives Unferth a few lines of redemption after Grendel mocks him: “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 makes the whole struggle of humanity worthwhile” (89). Should a person be reading the novel and agree that heroes are only fooling themselves, they may reconsider with Unferth’s brave words. The general sentiment towards heroes, though, is that there is no honor in being one because either a hero wins and survives or loses but has glory, and there is no suffering in either option.
|
|
