rishi
New Member
Posts: 38 
|
Post by rishi on Aug 2, 2013 5:08:13 GMT
In most, if not all, of the novels we have ever read, there have been protagonists and antagonists, but in Grendel, it is difficult to make this distinction. Because Grendel is the narrator, we tend to think through the novel's events the way he does, and therefore, we feel sympathy for him. However, we naturally sympathize with the humans because we can relate to them. Due to Grendel's negative perspectives on human actions that we are all too familiar with such as religion and war, we achieve a sense of what we really are and what we really do as humans. However, we take this with a grain of salt because we sometimes have a tough time accepting our faults. If we did not sympathize with the novel's characters, would we consider Grendel a protagonist? Would humans be antagonists? Here's another way to think about it: if the novel was written in third person and we were not humans, would there even be a protagonist and an antagonist in the story?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Aug 2, 2013 6:14:34 GMT
Good stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessicapollard on Aug 2, 2013 23:07:31 GMT
As I continue with Grendel, I am continually reminded of Bronte’s tedious Wuthering Heights. Nearly every character in WH is flawed in a really unlikeable way and the reader spends most of the time trying to decide who’s less worse: Heathcliff the emotional asshole, or Edgar the emotional asshole?
Grendel is like this but to a lesser extent as the characters in the novel have more clearly defined good sides. Hrothgar, seemingly Grendel’s primary opponent, is well respected among his own kingdom. The people of his kingdom worship him and in their eyes, he is most definitely a hero. They neglect the fact that many other kingdoms had to die in order for their’s to thrive so fully-- that Hrothgar is a cold-hearted villain to many word-wide.
Grendel on the other hand may be seen as a protagonist not only because the reader becomes most intimate with his thoughts and rationalizations but because his struggle for clarity in a world of humans is pitiful and sympathy-invoking. To the people subjected to Grendel’s actions, he is most definitely a monster.
This lack of definite heroism or antagony rings true in the real world. Bias in international issue is most often determined by placement and perception. For instance, both the Palestinian and Israeli peoples can easily be painted as total angels or entirely cold-blooded.
Not everything is as clearly defined as in the Odyssey. Were there no readers’ bias in Grendel , I feel there would be no concrete protagonist or antagonist unless one determines goodness in numbers as it appears to be a thousands against one sort of situation.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anna M. on Aug 8, 2013 18:46:57 GMT
Hi. I think Grendel's criticisms of humans are hypocritical. Like many people do, Grendel is quick to criticize others without considering the similarities he has with the those being criticized. Grendel also takes part in his own war and violence against the meadhall. Grendel criticizes religion, but he seems to believe that this fantastic dragon is watching him, similar to how the religious feel that their god(s) or spirituality are with them all the time. Technically, Grendel is the protagonist of the novel because he is the narrator and primary character, but there is no one in this novel that I find myself rooting for. Throughout the novel I had a feeling that Grendel would be killed, but this didn't bother me and I wasn't dreading his death.
Grendel's narration is necessary because if he wasn't the narrator then he would definitely be the antagonist. If there was a third-person narrator then the reader would naturally sympathize with the humans in the novel since we are more likely to relate with humans than with a beast. I personally don't think that I can consider what the result would be if we "weren't humans" since I've always been a human. Humans have moral compasses which is what makes us hesitant to consider Grendel a protagonist. But by hesitating to consider Grendel a good protagonist it makes Grendel's criticisms of humans much more effective because for a brutal monster to criticize humanity must mean there are certain components of humanity that are even horrible to an destructive beast.
hope that makes sense!
|
|
|
|
Post by stever on Aug 9, 2013 22:37:47 GMT
I disagree with the idea that there is no clear protagonist in the novel. I see Grendel as the protagonist not only because he is the narrator of the novel, and narrators are typically protagonists, but also because Gardner seems to endow Grendel with sympathetic traits. This novel seems to debunk the classical opposition between protagonist and antagonist. Grendel, who seemed like a brutal and simple enemy to the humans in the poem Beowolf, seems like he is a misunderstood soul trapped in the unfortunate body of the monster. He appears to be a deep and conflicted character, whereas the humans appear to be misguided, simple, hypocritical, and antagonistic.
In switching the classical protagonist/antagonist roles, the novel questions the validity of those roles. The dragon often negates the existence of all order in the universe and says that the Shaper creates order to give humans a feeling of purpose and unity. Perhaps traditional hero/enemy roles are created by the Shaper; humans feel like they can come together in their struggle against an enemy. Grendel also expresses the feeling that his ongoing conflict with the humans gives him a sense of purpose. Grendel says "If I murdered the last of the Scyldings, what would I live for?" (158).
While the dragon may say some disagreeable things, his idea that order is shaped by the Shaper brings up considerable points. Are traditional protaganist/antagonist roles just arbitrary constructs that gives groups some sense of unity and purpose?
The confusion that some of us are feeling about the divide between protagonists and antagonists cause us to think more about the validity of that divide that is so intrenched in our society.
|
|
