|
|
Post by clairem on Aug 14, 2013 21:24:44 GMT
Throughout the novel there were often conflicting portrayals of the humans in the story; these opposite opinions were often between Grendel and the Dragon. The Dragon would call the humans “low creatures [with] no high faculties than memory and perception” (Gardner 53). Often the Dragon would become frustrated with humans as he continually watched them scheming based on arbitrary and unconnected memories and facts saying that “they rush across chasms on spiderwebs, and sometimes they make it, and that, they think, settles that!... They build the whole world out of teeth deprived of bodies to chew or be chewed on” (Gardner 55). Unlike the Dragon, Grendel often commented on the power and well-roundedness of humans saying they were logical, hopeful, and that “there was nothing to stop the advance of man” (Gardner 34). Why is there such a discrepancy between the views of the Dragon and Grendel? Is it because the Dragon can see the future and how the actions of humans in a given moment will affect them in the long run? Are either one of them ‘correct’ in their observation of humans? Or is the human race a combination of “crackpot theories” and logic?
|
|
|
|
Post by coreybrown on Sept 2, 2013 23:03:56 GMT
I definitely think that the discrepancy comes from each character’s relationship to humanity. As the dragon points out to Grendel, “You improve them, my boy! Can’t you see that yourself? You stimulate them! You make them think and scheme. You drive them to poetry, science, religion, all that makes them what they are for as long as they last” (72-73). Grendel helps Hrothgar’s kingdom achieve greatness. Not only that, but despite his constant attacks, Grendel has a fascination with humans. They intrigue him. He is fascinated with their poetry and music. He watches them day in and day out and, unlike the rest of the animals, he recognizes their intelligence but also their foolishness. When they build better doors and walls to keep him out, he mocks their feeble attempts as they still can’t stop him. And yet, these reinforcements help to strengthen Hrothgar’s hall. The Dragon, like you said, sees the future and the vastness of time and, therefore, scoffs at humanity as it tries to figure out the world in which we live. “Counters, measurers, theory-makers…Games games games! …They only think they think. No total vision, total system, merely schemes…” (64). We, as people of the 21st century, laugh at some of the ridiculous theories that were used to explain scientific phenomenon that we now understand (or think we understand). Imagine that on an even grander scale. The dragon sees all of time so that same ability to mock the beliefs of the past based on the current knowledge is compounded. So to directly answer the question, I suppose I don’t think either of them is correct and yet they both are. In other words, yes, humanity is a combination of “crackpot theories” and logic, but that does not mean we are powerless or hopeless. In fact, that is what makes the human race so complex, full of hope, power, and vision as well as creativity, beauty, and art.
|
|
|
|
Post by patricktbutenhoff on Sept 3, 2013 16:19:06 GMT
I believe the difference in opinion stems, as Corey said, from the fact that Grendel and the dragon look upon the humans from different angles at first. The dragon, observing all of humanity as well as being far more powerful than the humans, can feel neither sympathy nor empathy for humans. Much as you can only feel contempt for a moth that lands on you, the dragon is annoyed by the pesky humans (and Grendel, for that matter). Neither the dragon nor Grendel can stand for long the company of one so different from himself. The dragon scoffs, "It's damned hard, you understand, confining myself to concepts familiar to a creature of the Dark Ages." (67) He then goes on to call attention to the fact that he borrows words from a future age. The dragon is on a different level than everything else and can therefore not look anything in the eye. Consequently, he has no respect whatsoever for lesser beings such as humans and Grendel.
Grendel, however, can relate to the humans initially. They share a relationship of mutual fear and curiosity due to their quasi-equality. For Grendel, the humans are strong enough to threaten Grendel, but not so dangerous that he needs to avoid them. He actually feels empathy toward them. This all changes, however, when the dragon gives Grendel invincibility. Without the human aspect of mortality to hinder him, Grendel is now looking down on the humans, losing respect for them. This causes him to wage war on the now-contemptible humans, but it's not even war from Grendel's perspective. Wars can be lost. Grendel's exploits are merely a game; the humans are just pieces. His lack of empathy for humans is underscored when Gardner writes: "So I might set aside Hrothgar's whole kingdom and all his thanes if I did not, for sweet desire's sake, set limits to desire" (158). For Grendel, the humans have lost their humanity, their equality. Thus he gradually accepts the dragon's point of view regarding humanity.
|
|
