yongkim, I want to quickly comment on something you wrote before I move on to address my views on Grendel’s behavior. In your response, you write, “Perhaps God created the language barrier between Grendel and the humans in order to continue the curse on Cain?” While I understand your reasoning in suggesting this, I believe that a “language barrier” does not exist between Grendel and the humans. Obviously Grendel is able to understand human speech (he can understand the Shaper for example), but, if I understand correctly, you are highlighting the fact that humans cannot understand Grendel.
That is the “curse” set on Cain by God.
In the novel, there are three sections in which Grendel is able to communicate to humans in their language. The most apparent example of this is when Unferth first confronts Grendel. As Grendel sarcastically responds to Unferth’s boasting, he observes,
Grendel also communicates with Ork, the priest, on page 130 and with his killer on pages 171-172.
Grendel and the humans are clearly able to communicate, but they only communicate with each other in a spiteful manner, and it seems as if some humans do not even understand Grendel. For example, on page 27, the humans cannot understand Grendel's excitement for food. They cannot understand what Grendel is saying and consequently attempt to attack him. Noting this, we should ask ourselves two questions: Why is the communication between Grendel and the humans always so hateful? And why do some humans not understand Grendel’s words when it is obvious that humans and Grendel speak the same language? I would like to primarily focus on the second question, but feel free to address either or both of the questions in your response. In regards to the second question, I believe that although Grendel and the humans speak a common language, many humans
choose to not understand Grendel’s speech. Humans are not willing to accept the fact that there are similarities between Grendel and themselves. They believe that Grendel is the epitome of evil: he kills “innocent” people and is a harbinger of destruction. Humans have sacrificed their lives trying to kill Grendel. Not able to accept the fact that they too can be monsters, humans refuse to hear what Grendel communicates.
Anyways, here are my responses to Abby's questions:
Although society (I am going to define "society" as the human race since that is what Abby implies in her original post) may have contributed to Grendel's “pathological behavior,” I believe that it is not solely responsible. In my opinion, Grendel's behavior also stems from his nature, a sense of power, and a feeling of invincibility.
Grendel's natural behaviors are actions that I termed “primal instincts" in my thread called
Primal Instincts (the link is to my thread). For instance, in my thread, I argue that rage is one of Grendel's primal instincts, and I believe that Grendel's rage contributes to his "pathological behavior." Primal instincts and one’s ability to handle them are unique in every species. Grendel and his mother are a species by themselves, so Grendel is forced to handle his instincts alone since his mother does not communicate with him. Most humans, conversely, have people to teach them how to handle and restrain their primal instincts. We have parents, for example, to help us distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable. Without this parental "filter," Grendel allows himself to act on his rage as I illustrated in my thread.
Grendel turns to the dragon for advice since he cannot communicate with his mother. However, instead of restraining Grendel from his natural rage, the dragon helps Grendel rationalize his primal instincts. Attacking the meadhall, Grendel explains,
The dragon's influence turns Grendel's natural rage into "justified" violence. Grendel realizes that his actions and decisions now are not significant in the grand scheme of things. Not only does the dragon help Grendel rationalize his primal instincts, but he also gives Grendel a sense of power and a feeling of invincibility. The dragon elucidates,
In addition to helping Grendel realize that he has control over the humans' actions, the dragon also places a charm on Grendel that allows him to be impervious to weapons.
amychen and
sheridanf brought up the Stanford Prison Experiment in their responses to the threads "Power" and "Grendel's insanity (?)," respectively, and I believe that the idea of power abuse is extremely relevant to the novel as the dragon helps Grendel realize that he has power over the humans. Consequently, Grendel abuses his position of power, like the students acting as prison guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment, to terrorize the humans. Essentially, the more power you have, the more inclined you are to be "pathological," and Grendel has
a lot of power. Like you wrote,
abbylyons, the dragon has a substantial influence on Grendel's behavior.
I agree with you in that ultimately, Grendel is responsible for his situation, but I think that it is unfair to expect Grendel to take a diplomatic approach in his quest to live a more meaningful life. Firstly, imposing human values and standards such as diplomacy to other creatures is impractical. You cannot judge one thing by something else’s standards. It is unreasonable to expect Grendel to be diplomatic if he was not taught the necessary skills to be so. How can we expect Grendel to give gifts to the humans? As a comparison, if we were raised without being taught the idea of gift-giving on birthdays and Christmas, would we still give gifts? Nobody taught Grendel that he could coexist with humans in a mutually beneficial relationship, so it is impractical to expect him to initiate such a relationship in order to improve his condition.
Finally, I want to address Bill's argument about fate's role in the hostilities between Grendel and the humans. I do not believe that we should use fate as a justification for hate. Fate should not be used to abdicate responsibility for one's emotions and actions.
