|
|
Post by samwerner on Aug 14, 2013 23:42:05 GMT
Grendel surprised me with his insightfulness towards the human race. In particular, I felt his line "No wolf was so vicious to other wolves" (Gardner 32) was apropos of an intellectual. It's a metaphor that is paradigm for human interaction. Looking deeper, what species really is so cruel to one another as humans? Granted, the sophistication of our society presents us with more options for callous behavior. That can be flipped and, conversely, we also have room for more kindness. Although Grendel is as barbaric as it gets, he presents a valid point.
In many aspects human interaction is as grotesque as Grendel's relationship with Hrothgar's people. We may not physically devour one another, but in a metaphoric manner we do the same harm constantly. Be it verbal or physical abuse, human's are easily as barbaric to each other as Grendel is.
Can Grendel's barbaric actions simply be seen as a metaphor for how we interact with each other?
|
|
|
|
Post by abbylyons on Aug 17, 2013 1:12:10 GMT
The context of the above quote is crucial: “They’d all eat, the men first, then the women and children, the men still drinking, getting louder and braver, talking about what they were going to do to the bands on the other hills…. All the bands did the same thing. In time I began to be more amused than revolted by what they threatened…. no wolf was so vicious to other wolves—but I half believed they weren’t serious” (Gardner 32). Grendel is absolutely right when he dismisses their drunken threats. If these men were experienced killers, there would be no need to brag about their future exploits: their past achievements would be enough. Their empty boasts are merely a means of gaining social status within their group.
Social status is of great importance to humans. Evolutionary psychology research shows that over thousands of years humans have evolved a strong drive to attain maximum social status. Early humans faced intense Darwinian competition for survival and reproductive fitness, both of which were substantially enhanced by having a high social status. High-status individuals controlled resource distribution within their group, so they obtained the most food, the best clothing and tools, the best shelter, and the healthiest and fittest mates. As a result, male traits such as pride, confidence, and boastfulness, which enhanced social status, were strongly selected for. No one should be surprised when a bunch of guys sit around getting drunk and talking smack about other groups. It does not mean that they have any serious intention of carrying out an attack. Men who seriously intend to carry out a lethal attack on enemies don’t get drunk and talk smack – they keep a clear head and carefully formulate a plan that takes account of the danger their enemies truly pose.
|
|
|
|
Post by emwolfram on Aug 21, 2013 21:27:45 GMT
In some ways it seems like Grendel is the honest version of human cruelty. Grendel openly admits to being a monster and he apathetically discusses his brutality. As a reader it was rather shocking to hear barbaric crimes be discussed so casually by the perpetrator. For example, in the beginning of the novel Grendel discusses devouring an elderly woman in grotesque but offhand manner. From this description the reader sees one of the biggest characteristics of Grendel is his honesty. He narrates his crimes and makes no excuse nor gives any apology.
As parallel we are shown the human men, who act in barbaric ways towards one another and yet do not openly see themselves as evil. Upon witnessing the brutality of war young Grendel says, “I was sickened, if only at the waste of it: all they killed--- cows, horses, men--- they left to rot or burn.” (30). In some ways this made me think... “at least Grendel ate the old woman he killed.” As Grendel sees when he witnesses the quarrels at the meadhall men often kill with frivolous motivations. Grendel is sickened at the wastefulness of humans.
The humans we see at the beginning of the novel when Grendel is first witnessing war are not much better than Grendel. The main difference is Grendel openly shows his “evil” for the world to see, where as the humans of the novel hide behind the constructs of battle. They blame their brutality on honor and tradition. I find it hard to imagine the soldiers in the story ever seeing themselves as monsters the way Grendel does.
Therefore, I agree completely that Grendel is a metaphor for human barbarity as well as human hypocrisy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adrian Harter on Sept 4, 2013 3:41:04 GMT
Grendel's behavior is the baseline of human nature, as it reveals how men would behave if it weren't for institutions like government. We can only assume so much about humans from Grendel's thoughts, so his interactions with the men become crucial for understanding similarities between the two. When confronting Unferth, an untested warrior, the conversation that ensues between he and Grendel gives light to how similar the two entities are. Unerved by Grendel's capabilities, Unferth responds by telling him, "The king has given me splendid gifts. He will see tonight that his gifts have not gone for nothing! Prepare to fall, foul thing! This one red hour makes your reputation or mine!" (83). Unferth acts like because he has gifts, his killing of Grendel is merited. Likewise, now that Grendel understands the flow of the universe, he uses his newfound knowledge as an excuse to attack more humans than ever. In both cases, Grendel and Unferth believe that, because an exterior source made them stronger, their strength can be utilized more often. Also, Unferth claims that both he and Grendel have reputation on the line, which is partly true. In reality, Unferth fights to be liked, for he transferred into the Kingdom and is not fully appreciated by Hrothgar. This selfish motive for fighting is shared by Grendel, who kills because he no longer feels that he controls his own free will. Both sides fight for themselves, but only Unferth admits it because he is expected to under the society of the Kingdom. If social stratification did not exist, Unferth would be still be fighting under the same motive as Grendel, but he'd actually be willing to admit that he fights for himself and himself alone.
|
|
