Grendel's Food (For Thought)

While I suppose you could argue that Grendel chooses whom to kill/spare based on preserving his “purpose” or preserving “balance” in his life, I would take this a step further and state that when it comes to his rampages, Grendel’s guiding ideology springs from a desire for belonging. In turn, I think Grendel masks this desire as his “purpose.” (The distinction is that purposes can vary—two people can have different purposes—but there are no two types of belonging—you’ve either got a feeling of belonging or you don’t).

Grendel is technically not a human, but Gardner portrays him in a way that the reader can understand and empathize with, necessitating that many human elements are a part of Grendel’s character. Thus, I think it helpful to examine Grendel’s situation and compare it to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Up until the point of his death, Grendel certainly meets all of his physiological and “safety” needs (with very brief exceptions, such as when Grendel is stuck in a tree). Where does that leave him on the hierarchy? The need/want of belonging.

Grendel leads a lonely existence. He can’t communicate with his mother. He can communicate with very few humans. No group of literate or verbal similar monsters exist. Thus, I believe Grendel’s futile attempt to find belonging guides his monstrous actions.

I feel that one of the quotes Shannon brought up illustrates this idea quite well (I’ve also added the sentence that appears before it). After returning Unferth, asleep, to the Meadhall, Grendel reflects upon his situation: “Balance is everything, riding out time like a helmless sheepboat, keel to hellward, mast upreared to prick out heaven’s eye…My enemies define themselves (as the dragon said) on me. As for myself, I could finish them off in a single night, pull down the great carved beams and crush them in the mead hall…yet I hold back… What will we call the Hrothgar-Wrecker when Hrothgar has been wrecked?” (Gardner 91). At first glance, the quote implies that Grendel refrains from mindless killing simply to preserve “balance.” But why would Grendel need any balance? Why is that “everything?”

I would argue that Grendel values balance because it gives him a place in the world, and, in a skewed way, a sort of belonging. After all, why should it matter to Grendel what the “Hrothgar-Wrecker” is called if Grendel is the only one alive? The only reason Grendel cares about preserving this title is because the title defines his situation with the humans, thus giving him belonging. I think that in Grendel’s mind, he finds his belonging as the monster.

Grendel, however, tries to mask this under the more “noble” purpose of giving some sort of meaning to the humans’ lives (a purpose Shannon mentioned). But do they really need this meaning? From Grendel’s narration, it seems that the humans all have wars and women to fight over, ransoms to collect, and meadhalls to build. One would think that is enough to give their lives meaning or definition without a brutal monster constantly attacking them; the humans aren’t exactly sitting around idle and staring at walls whenever Grendel isn’t around. So, why does Grendel define this as his purpose?

I believe that Grendel calls it his purpose because if he is honest with himself, and thought of his battles as what gave him a sense of belonging, he would be, in a sense, giving up hope of reaching a better situation. After all, regardless of Grendel’s temporary moments of contentment, he seems to be fundamentally lonely. For example, after the Shaper finishes a particularly moving song, Grendel moans, “Why can’t I have someone to talk to?” (Gardner 53). Since his mother cannot talk, and neither can the animals, Grendel’s only hope for companionship is the humans. If Grendel admitted to himself that he would forever be a monster to the humans, he would never find true belonging. By masking this situation as an act to better the lives of the humans (in the sense of giving them self-definition or purpose), though, Grendel can think of himself, in a twisted way, as the humans’ “friend:” he gives the humans a way to define themselves (in his mind).

The idea that Grendel might be lying to himself about his “purpose” to hide the fact that he really gains belonging appears even near the end of the novel. As Grendel tells during his reflection after the arrival of the Geats, “If I murdered the last of the Scyldings, what would I live for? I’d have to move” (Gardner 158). Once again, this initially implies that Grendel wants to preserve his purpose. Upon closer examination, though, these feelings tie back into Grendel’s deeper desire for belonging. Clearly, Grendel wouldn’t have to move for any physiological purpose (he doesn’t survive solely on human meat); he got along just fine before he learned of the existence of the humans (and he could always find another purpose, that is, another group of animals to ravage now and then). Rather, Grendel would want to move to reestablish some sort of feeling of belonging. In fact, just before suggesting that he would need to move, Grendel explains, “For my mama loves me not for myself…but for my displacement of air as visible proof of her power” (Gardner 158). His mother’s love has nothing to do with his “purpose” of attacking the humans. Rather, the absence of this love emphasizes Grendel’s feelings of loneliness. Thus, the fact that Grendel discusses how lonely he is right before suggesting the hypothetical in which he must move strongly implies that although he may refer to his relationship with the humans as a “purpose” to find “balance,” Grendel actually uses this relationship to attain whatever weak sense of belonging he can.

So, to answer the question about whom Grendel spares/kills, I think we can see that it all connects to Grendel’s sense of belonging. He won’t kill Unferth because Unferth understands him, and even though Unferth loathes him, that bond of understanding is something Grendel rarely finds (I suppose this also answers Alex’s thread, Unferth and Grendel). He won’t kill Wealtheow or the king for the same reason; he observes them for such a long time that he feels a sort of connection to them (Gardner 107-110). In fact, although I’m not going to reread the entire novel and note every person Grendel kills, I’d argue that everyone who dies at the hand of Grendel is not much more than a generic human character. Those that define Grendel’s position, or connect to him by speaking to him, are forever “safe,” because Grendel won’t kill those that offer him a sense of belonging—or, as Grendel prefers to think of it, “purpose” and “balance.”