|
|
Post by juliamoreland on Aug 11, 2013 16:40:57 GMT
One motif I noticed starting in Chapter Two is eyes. In most all depictions of characters Gardner uses eyes to depict distinct emotions and personas. The traditional quote, “eyes are the windows to the soul” I find holds truth in this novel. I think eyes give Grendel a doorway between his monstrous survival world to the sensitive world of human feeling.
The first place I noticed eyes specifically is in this quote, “On shelves or in hallways of my mother’s cave, large old shapes with smoldering eyes sat watching me…Little by little it dawned on me that the eyes that seemed to bore into my body were in fact gazing through it” (16). All on page 17, Grendel thinks of the “Crafty-eyed, wicked” and “burning eyes of the strangers, and even his mother’s “strange eyes burned into me.” Grendel has acute perception of other’s observations about him, which seems odd to me because he is supposed to be this ferocious beast. Perhaps this is some early paranoia seeping in?
Another example where Grendel becomes aware of the attention and eyes watching him is, “Then all at once there they’d be again, the indifferent, burning eyes of the strangers. Or my mother’s eyes. Again my world would be suddenly transformed, fixed like a rose with a nail through it, space hurtling coldly out from me in all directions. But I didn’t understand” (17-18). Grendel seems innocently scared of these eyes and emotion they hold, and I think it others are controlling his world and life. If eyes do show others emotions and judgments, then is Grendel’s world controlled by others expectations and perceptions? I feel that Grendel is torn between self-perception of world and others perception.
Does the individual, Grendel, actually have control over his own experience or does he let other’s perceptions control his world? Why did Gardner choose eyes as a motif, could they be a metaphor for something else? Does the doorway between human emotion and beast instincts play a role in shaping what Grendel becomes?
|
|
|
|
Post by mattagritelley on Aug 18, 2013 22:40:23 GMT
There are two different ideas you proposed that I agree with: Grendel is afraid of the mysterious and penetrating eyes of strangers, and his world is controlled by others expectations and perceptions. However, I do not view one as a direct cause of the other-- in other words, the two are mutually exclusive. More than anything, I think that Gardner's purpose for including this passage is to demonstrate Grendel's loneliness. I will not re-quote what you have already stated, but I would like to point out that Grendel fears the eyes of the strangers. His rationale is fairly easy to understand, for he is an outcast, a beast torn by his unprecedented human characteristics. It is safe to say that Grendel does not really fit in anywhere, and that he wanders the earth aimlessly with conflicting human and beast instincts. With no true niche, Grendel is left to fend for himself.
On the other hand, his mother, who is a entirely a beast, uses her eyes as a liaison to communicate with Grendel. This is where our opinions begin to diverge: "Of all the creatures I knew, in the those days, only my mother really looked at me.-- Stared at me as if to consume me, like a troll. She loved me, in some mysterious sense I understood without her speaking it" (17). The difference here is that Grendel is able to experience love, affection, and a sense of belonging. Therefore, the eyes cannot represent his manipulation, but can only show the way he views the world and the way he believes the world views him. Grendel is not only able to demonstrate his loneliness in his isolation, but is also able to show the warmth and comfort he feels by his mother's presence, regardless of her level of cognizance.
Now, to put two and two together: Grendel's loneliness is shown by his response to the strangers' burning eyes, and his desire to feel needed is exemplified by his instinctive response to his mother's loving yet helpless eyes. Instead of being a direct cause of Grendel's manipulation, the eyes foreshadow Grendel's intrinsic vulnerability and potential for being overcome and manipulated by certain philosophies (the lying melodies of the Shapers harp and the Dragon's nihilism).
I think it is important to note this difference and understand that the eyes are merely a clever underlying way to demonstrate Grendel's feelings and hint at his future.
|
|
joelk
New Member
Posts: 36 
|
Post by joelk on Aug 23, 2013 0:06:08 GMT
I’d agree with both of you that the apparent eye motif ties largely into Grendel’s acute self-perception and care for how others may view him. I disagree, however, that eyes are “merely a clever underlying way to demonstrate Grendel’s feelings and hint at his future.” Rather, I think that the eye motif does illustrate, as Julia suggested, that the eyes Grendel feels the gaze of do strongly influence his actions.
I find the more interesting aspect of the eye motif to be the times when an absence of eyes is noted. Most of the characters have eyes, and while Gardner certainly seems to give a heftier importance to eyes than, say, arms or feet, you could theoretically argue that there is an arms motif, too, since Gardner probably mentions the arms of other characters here and there. In both cases, however, I believe you might find more insight in the characters who (theoretically) don’t have arms, or, in our case, don’t have eyes.
One notable example of a lack of eyes appears early in the novel, as Grendel discovers the door to the humans’ world: “I nosed out…to the pool of firesnakes. They were gray as old ashes; faceless, eyeless…I knew…that the snakes were there to guard something. Inevitably, after I’d stood there a while, rolling my eyes back along the dark hallway, my ears cocked for my mother’s step, I screwed my nerve up and dove” (Gardner 16). Grendel understands that the snakes are guarding the pool, but only the thought of his mother—a character whose eyes have already been noted in this thread—catching him provides momentary hesitation. Grendel does not care if he ignores the snakes’ guarding of the pool, because they have no eyes to see his transgression. Thus, Grendel only seems to regard those with eyes as beings to obey or maintain reputation in front of.
The idea that Grendel is forever considering how others “see” his actions is emphasized even on the first pages of the novel. Grendel narrates his observation of a ram, which has “eyes like stones” and “stares at as much of the world as he can see” (Gardner 6). Gardner’s use of simile emphasizes how little, rather than how much, the ram can see. Accordingly, Grendel does not much care how he behaves: “I hurl a skull-sized stone at [the ram]” (Gardner 5). Although Grendel does not pursue and kill the ram, his demeanor and actions suggest boredom and carelessness. Grendel does not seem to bother with making any sort of impression on the ram, since the ram has no seeing eyes and is thus unable to pass judgment on Grendel.
The absence of eyes, however, is not limited to animals; the priest that Grendel speaks to is also blind. Grendel initially plans to “paint the images with the old man’s steaming blood” (Gardner 130). Normally, Grendel attacks humans who confront him. Since the Dragon’s charm made Grendel largely invincible, I think it is fair to assume that his default choice to attack is not a defense, but a way of maintaining his reputation as a “Hrothgar-wrecker” (Gardner 91). Once Grendel realizes that the priest is blind, though, he decides to discuss religion with him instead. Grendel tells that his decision process is “suddenly impish—at times I cannot resist these things: ‘Tell us what you know of the King of the Gods’” (Gardner 131). The fact that Grendel gives in to his “sudden” whim—a whim that goes against how Grendel normally acts and thinks—in the presence of a blind human suggests that Grendel is much less self-conscious around those without eyes.
Thus, Grendel’s impulsive actions around the eyeless snakes, stone-eyed ram, and blind priest all suggest that Grendel often acts differently in the presence of those with eyes. This discrepancy arises from the idea that those without eyes are unable to pass any judgment on Grendel, or, at least, any judgment that they can tie to Grendel were they to see him again. I guess you could argue that this “hints at his future” simply because Grendel’s future is determined similarly (he desires to maintain his reputation as an invincible monster even against the Geats), but the eye motif suggests a much greater theme: the gaze of others can severely alter one’s normal course of action.
In Grendel, eyes' influence seems to have a negative effect, leading him to kill humans for the “benefit” of the other humans that witness the deed. After all, Grendel does not react to every animal presence with thoughts of murder, even though that is his usual response to human presence. Grendel even brags, "It is a matter of fact that I have never killed a deer in all my life, and probably never will" (Gardner 8). The difference between humans and animals, as the ram depicts, is that the animals have eyes that "see" much less. Thus, in essence, Grendel is the opposite of your average human: he kills to maintain reputation, so sparing people is disastrous to the same, not the other way around. In our own society, however, this is probably a more positive than negative influence. Just imagine how you might act if you did not have to tie your name or face to your actions. As Internet anonymity has illustrated in the past few years, the absence of accountability leads to an erosion of ethics.
|
|
