Post by joelk on Jul 28, 2013 20:05:47 GMT
During his initial encounter with Unferth in the meadhall, Grendel starts up a banter with him. In this conversation, Grendel does his best to mock Unferth: I’ve never seen a live hero before. I thought they were only in poetry. Ah, ah, it must be a terrible burden, though, being a hero—glory reaper, harvester of monsters! Everybody always watching you, weighing you, seeing if you’re still heroic. (Gardner 84)Grendel suggests that a hero’s burden is not that he or she must act heroic once, but that a hero must repeatedly commit acts of heroism. In other words, Grendel’s opinion is that a hero must be constantly heroic—and simply acting heroic once or twice is not qualification enough for such a title.
In fact, it is likely this definition that leads Grendel to make his earlier statement that he assumed heroes could only exist in poetry. After all, setting such a high burden of “proof” to be a hero, requiring heroic act followed by heroic act, would certainly seem to limit the number of actual heroes that would fulfill this definition.
This philosophy and definition of a hero begets two lines of questioning:
Do you believe one heroic act is enough to qualify someone as a hero, or do you agree with Grendel’s idea that a hero is never “made” by any single act but rather a constant repetition of heroism?
Consider that Grendel spends much of his time as a detached observer of the humans, whereas those that consider Unferth heroic spend much of their time living with him. Does a removed perspective lend itself to a “harsher” definition of hero?
The second, similar questions to consider apply to the traditional opposite of the hero, the villain. If Grendel believes a hero is always watched and re-evaluated, does this same standard of re-evaluation apply to a villain? Does Grendel think so? Does this influence his actions throughout the novel?
For example, when Grendel returns Unferth to the meadhall, Grendel mentions, “I…killed the two guards so I wouldn’t be misunderstood, and left” (Gardner 90). Is Grendel afraid that he won’t be seen as a villain even if he misses just one chance for villainy, regardless of the fact that the entire village has already felt his antagonism many times? What does this fear suggest about Grendel’s opinion of the ability of humans (or any sentient being) to remember past actions in light of more recent actions? Is this fear well founded?
As always, feel free to answer as many or few of those questions as you have thoughts on.
In fact, it is likely this definition that leads Grendel to make his earlier statement that he assumed heroes could only exist in poetry. After all, setting such a high burden of “proof” to be a hero, requiring heroic act followed by heroic act, would certainly seem to limit the number of actual heroes that would fulfill this definition.
This philosophy and definition of a hero begets two lines of questioning:
Do you believe one heroic act is enough to qualify someone as a hero, or do you agree with Grendel’s idea that a hero is never “made” by any single act but rather a constant repetition of heroism?
Consider that Grendel spends much of his time as a detached observer of the humans, whereas those that consider Unferth heroic spend much of their time living with him. Does a removed perspective lend itself to a “harsher” definition of hero?
The second, similar questions to consider apply to the traditional opposite of the hero, the villain. If Grendel believes a hero is always watched and re-evaluated, does this same standard of re-evaluation apply to a villain? Does Grendel think so? Does this influence his actions throughout the novel?
For example, when Grendel returns Unferth to the meadhall, Grendel mentions, “I…killed the two guards so I wouldn’t be misunderstood, and left” (Gardner 90). Is Grendel afraid that he won’t be seen as a villain even if he misses just one chance for villainy, regardless of the fact that the entire village has already felt his antagonism many times? What does this fear suggest about Grendel’s opinion of the ability of humans (or any sentient being) to remember past actions in light of more recent actions? Is this fear well founded?
As always, feel free to answer as many or few of those questions as you have thoughts on.
