1) Heroism. Is Grendel the hero of this novel or is he the monster that makes the hero possible? Some of you seemed to see him as a hero (identified with him, rooted for him), and yet, given the undermining of the "hero story" at work in Gardner's tale, this is also a problem. Is he a hero? a monster? both? neither?
2) Ethics/violence. Grendel is both a victim of violence (he is assaulted while trapped in the tree, he is punished for alleged familial crimes in the distant past) and a connoisseur of it (he experiences joy, he makes observations about and evaluations of violent acts). How do we understand his violence? And if he is killing killers, does that somehow make his killing different?
3) Causes. Much of our discussion in the Vera seminar revolves around theories about why people are they way they are/do the things they do (because of poverty? because of the "culture of poverty"? because of family?). In the following passage about his continued war with/on Hrothgar, Grendel seems to offer of a whole bunch of different explanations. Read the quotation and then talk about what makes sense to you: "How, if I know all this, you may ask, could I hound him -- shatter him again and again, drive him deeper and deeper into woe? I have no answer, except perhaps this: why should I not? Has he made any move to deserve my kindness? If I give him a truce, will the king invite me in for a kiss on the forehead, a cup of mead? Ha! This nobility of his, this dignity: are they not my work? What was he before? Nothing! ... I made him what he is. Have I not a right to test my own creation? Enough! Who says I have to defend myself? I'm a machine, like you. Like all of you. Blood-lust and rage are my character. Why does the lion not wisely settle down and be a horse? In any case, I too am learning, ordeal by ordeal, my indignity. It's all I have, my only weapon for smashing through these stiff coffin-walls of the world" (122-23).
4) Your agency. We asked you to write in your journal about how you might "Grendel" one of the assumptions made in your agency (or about the population your agency serves). So even more generally, where in the novel did you "recognize" your agency/population/yourself as intern? Was there any particular line, or event, where you had an "aha!" moment about issues relevant to the work done by your agency?
16 comments:
It's so nice to be with the Vernon's again and professor's Reitz and Stein. I am truly going to miss Thursday mornings when this fellowship is over.
I must say that i loved the reading as I found that I couldn't help but sympathize and excuse Grendel for his atrocities. Yes I think Grendel was a hero. But I also believed that he was a victim as well as the perpetrator. As you can see I felt quite conflicted. I guess I can interpret it as Grendel expressing his conflicts within his ideologies . It's like he doesn't want to be cruel but his anger towards Hrothgards weekness is what fuels his behavior . "How is it that I,Grendel , can live like this, look like this and have so many disadvantages and Hrogarth with the world at his feet be so oblivious to to his fortunes. I have more right than you to be angry! To feel rage! ( my thoughts of what I would say if I was Grendel ).
I don't know if I would call Grendel a hero, but at the same time he's definitely not the villian. He was born with violence, with a mother that he couldn't communicate with and a society that refused to understand him. On the other hand, this is the classic serial killer defense plea....
Grendel's killings makes the reader accept it because you feel his pain and ugliness of mankind. Family has such a strong effect on an individual. When I was young, my mom spray painted on my wall in my room "Take no Prisoners, show no mercy" and refused to let me paint over it for years. There is that strong passive aggressive mother-type personality that I almost recognize in Grendel's mother which makes me understand his rage even more. So it's different for everyone but personally I get the whole thing.
In my agency, last semester was all Grendel moments. Starting with Lisa then meeting other clients and finally hearing their life struggles and realizing why people act the way they do. This semester, Lora (my mentor) and I are creating a Client Advocacy Committee and I know we'll be having many Grendel moments trying to put everything together!
I am not a monster. Those people are the real monsters. "I'd meant them no harm, but they'd attacked me again, as always. They were crazy."(p.79) The inner city is my location, I mean my cave. Except I don't live with my mama. I am the one who doesn't speak much because no one actually really listens. I am the subaltern. I am an outcast from society. They fear me and label me a monster because they do not understand me. I watch them from a distance in their costumes chasing the mighty dollar. Today, money is power. They will step on, over and through anyone to obtain it. They will consume more than they can waste in a lifetime. Yet they will not share. I am ashamed of the fact that while young and naive I wanted to join them. As I matured and gained a better understanding of things outside of my cave, I found that with the most abundance of wealth a man is still unable to purchase a heart, compassion, consideration or empathy. These monsters use the Criminal Justice System, education, employment and financial institutions as their weapons. Although there is no use of swords and axes, does that make them less monstrous? Aha! The art of deception. Sermons, chants of social oneness, political speeches-all Shapers. Their purpose? Sheer imagery; a positive opTIMistic perception of the world. However, without the impovershed, there is no wealthy. Without the deprived, there is no privileged. I make them who they are. I am told this by my surroundings, my living conditions, my social position, my pain, my frustration. Are these illusions or my dark reality? Nevertheless, they are all dragons. During the course of my struggle, I will continue to be revisited by that taste of disappointment, that feeling of hopelessness further perpetuating the dragons' message: Seek bling and sit on it! I have evolved. During this time of war, I do not bite off heads. Instead, I vote heads in and out of office. I may slip on my own blood, sweat and tears as I advocate for justice. I don't run but they have chased me, placed me and confined me to my social location, I mean my cave. Can't you see that this was no accident? It was strategically planned and carried out by those people, I mean monsters.
Yes. I am a Grendel.
Timothy Grendels himself. Ruby names Grendel for what he is: not an either/or but a thing made of constituent, revolving identities. Dani advocates for the voiceless. Each of you grasps the ‘truth’ about Grendel : first by dismantling the binary construction where he must be either a villain or a hero but not both and then acknowledging the power of the narrative to shape, and that includes Grendel’s (or by extension, Tim’s) own narrative. After all, Ruby loves the monster and Dani can imagine how the defense attorney would plead him out in court because of mitigating circumstances. Are we equally, if not more so, persuaded by a new construction of villainy that exposes a common core of humanity? Or, conversely, a new construction of heroism that acknowledges a common core of cold aggression?
In the quote that Prof. Reitz offers for interrogation, I hear Grendel speaking about a son both identifying with, and needing to kill, his father. Not to go all Oedipal on you, but isn’t that one of the central stories of existence, to supplant the king who birthed you? Without a Hrothgar, there is no Grendel. But with Hrothgar, Grendel cannot reign.
The paradox is that you cannot survive without the one who is trying to kill you. Unless, as Tim suggests, you develop an uber-consciousness that stops participating in the game.
And this would be the question posed by the scene between Red Horse and Hrothulf: since all forms of participation/revolution become the game (violence), how do you stop participating in the game without becoming the dragon (and just sitting on bling)?
I don’t see Grendel as a hero and I was surprised that it could even be interpreted that way. Of course I rooted and identified with him, because he is the protagonist of this story. Grendel is definitely a monster. Half of this reasoning is due to the way humans view him and the other half is due to him accepting the position. Just because he is the protagonist of the novel or plays a role in life doesn’t mean he is a hero.
As a character, one of the biggest reasons why I identify and root for him is because he sees foolishness in heroism that the humans talk about. He understands that he has no place with the humans, so he sticks with being a monster. Despite not being able to fit in with any group too well, he still tries to find meaning in his life. In the second half of the story, he continues to attack the humans and it seems like it is only during his raids and fighting that he is not thinking about the meaning of his actions (except for his attack on the queen).
Grendel’s way of thinking is not to the extreme of the Dragon’s, who believes that there is no meaning in life. Nor is it the same as the humans who blindly put meaning to life without logic. Somewhere deep in his mind, he probably subscribes to the Dragon’s belief, but Grendel’s motivation to find meaning in his actions and in life is what makes me root for him, because it is exactly think about I go through every morning, every night, and every day. I was very annoyed that he died due to his own carelessness and without ever finding more meaning in his life.
First and formeost hope that everyone enjoyed their weekend and sorry to go off on the tangent a little bit but GO GIANTS.
Great story Timothy, sadly I share a story similar to Timothy and I think in a way we all share a similar story. Everyone shares a story of confusion where they are trying to make their own beliefs through what they were told while growing up. Throughout each of our stories we all have our shaper's who try to give us a view of a world which has meaning and reason. At the same time on the other end of that spectrum we all have our dragon who tells us that there is no point in life and attempts at happiness is meaningless. To find our "truth" I think like Grendel we must pick and choose to see which views best benefits us to continue and eventually overcome the hardships in our life. Our ability to successfully come out the other end alive and share our story later on is what makes us a hero, but the mere attempt and possible failure is what makes us tragic heroes.
Because of what I said earlier in my view Grendel is a tragic hero. A tragic hero has the potential for greatness but is doomed to fail. He is trapped in a situation where he cannot win. He makes some sort of tragic flaw, and this causes his fall from greatness. Even though he is a fallen hero, he still wins a moral victory, and his spirit lives on (as seen in the final battle).
Aristotle describes a tragic hero as an individual “who is not eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty.” It is Grendel's error or fratility to properly weigh between the good and evil (dragon and shaper) and efficiently form a truth which was suited for him which has led him to his ultimate anger and frustration and eventual downfall. One example of this is Grendel's error to see the killings committed by man as a sign of honor and bravery rather then seeing it as taking the life of another causes people want to kill him.
Roberto you have put me at a loss for words with how eloquently you describe Grendel as not only the victim but the 'fallen hero'. So many interpretations. So many directions. One is left only to if nothing else, entertain others depiction of this sad and lonely story that is grendels and so many others...
Thank you. The way I see it is that Gardner wrote this story as Grendel's testimony. In any person's own testimony I doubt they would criminalize themselves by giving themselves the monster label.
Grendel thinks of his relationship with Hrothgar as one that is inevitable. If he does not treat Hrothgar the way he does, he will be destroyed by him. Hrothgar would not show him anything less than violence, so in turn Grendel only reciprocates the violent behavior. Grendel does not think Hrothgar is a hero on his own and he is only a hero from the suffering of others. This interpretation of a hero-story is the perspective that is not told in stories.
Believing that a hero cannot exist without a monster is a very dangerous thought because it almost justifies violence for “good’s sake”. One can understand good and evil with the concept of yin yang☯. Good and evil are both simultaneously within us, and it is up to us to balance the two. The separation of the two is inherently evil because it suggests that one could be born with only one, yin or yang. The qualification and the definition of a hero are in question. A hero could be one that balances both the good and the evil and not so much one that is overflowing with what qualifies as “good”.
The parts in the beginning of the story tell of Grendel’s background and his relationship to his mother. I think these relationships are fundamental to his development later on in the story. This is the part I think relates most with Esperanza’s participants. Many times, children are misguided by the society, their parents, or the lack of parents. Grendel’s resentment towards his mother is a learned experience over time. Most of the time people want the glory of producing life, but neglects the responsibility of nurture. This contrasts with the story of the monster in Frankenstein. In both stories the creator has neglected their “inventions” in horror and in fear. I would say that the society has formed their own monster through their treatment of Grendel, yet cannot endure the consequences of their actions.
When I look at Grendel I think of the population at my agency. As Ruby said previously, I was conflicted about Grendel's identity. He was a hero because he was the outsider who introduced us to us. In other words we wouldn't be conscious about our human actions if we didn't hear It from a fictional monster through stories like Grendel's. I would also give Grendel a pass on his actions because as a victim of ''crime'', if that is what the human cruelty toward him can be called, he decides to identify himself with the label that humanity gives him. Likewise, some victims of crime also label themselves due to what others have labeled them. In my case, it woul be the abuser that labels the victim a monster or outsider. Someone who doesn't fit in the abuser's world.
Really interesting conversation going here. If you think I bring up "In a Grove" all the time, just think how often we can refer to Grendel! Since reading the novel kicked off our semester's focus on perspectives, I just want to push back on a few assumptions here and see if you can respond. Roberto characterizes the dragon and the Shaper as good and evil respectively. Is this how you read it? What other perspectives are there?
Many of you (all?) have commented in one way or another about the impact of Grendel's family on who he is (and Professor Stein added an interesting dimension to Grendel's family romance by suggesting an Oedipal relationship with Hrothgar). This is very compelling in the novel and in the comparisons you've made with your agency populations or your own personal stories. However, I don't want to overlook Tim's fascinating contribution about poverty (and structural violence). In some ways, Tim is saying that poverty is the "brute existent" by which mainstream society defines itself and needs poverty as much as Hrothgar and Beowulf need Grendel. Does Garnder's novel offer a structural critique and if so, how does this relate to the compelling psychological narrative?
I would to start off by apologizing everybody for not being there on our first day of class. I had a family emergency to attend.
Grendel is the way he is because while growing up with his mother he never recieved the love, attentiveness, care, or understanding. I feel like this lack of communication with his mother has a lot to do with the way Grendel behaves, thinks, and feels. He basically grew up alone with no friends or family.
Hero-I do not really see Grendel as a hero to be honest. I see him as both a killer and a victim. As a victim, perhaps because the Danes are trying to kill him because he looks like a never-seen before monster. To take revenge, he becomes a killer and starts killing the Danes and finding joy while doing it. I assume that because he cannot fit in with the humans, even though they speak the same language, he feels alienated, leading him to trying to fit in with the rest of the population.
I would have to say that Grendel reminds me of the population that my agency works with, the defendants because they know that they have committed a crime and once they are released they tend to commit it again, just like Grendel killing after killing. The Danes remind of society in which Grendel tries to reenter, but Grendel is already labeled as a criminal.
I'm really sorry that I missed the first class and that I haven't been involved in the Grendel discussion here in the blog. I actually loved the book. It'll go on my list of favorites. George Orwell (yes our own Orwell) has said that "the best books are those that tell you what you know already." I suppose you could read that quote to say that the books we like are the ones that agree with all our preconceived notions and "way of looking at the world," but I've always read it to mean that we love books that give form (shape?) to some nebulous "knowledge" we have but were never able or inclined to articulate. I feel that way about Grendel--at least I did until I got this Grendel of a stomach bug I've had for the last three days.
Usually, I'm inclined to think that there are no clear-cut monsters or heros. Hrothgar is certainly not all good; Grendel isn't all bad. But now I have this epic battle going on in my body and I'm not so sure. So there's this virus or this bacteria that has invaded my body, and there's my body, my immune system trying to fight it off. Isn't one of them clearly "good" and one clearly "bad"? I experience the microbe's machinations in my body as an "attack," as "violence" even, but is the microbe "evil" in itself? It's only doing what microbes do. I think that's key to the way I'd answer Professor Reitz's question about Grendel's violence. He does embrace the monster identity and therefore he revels in violence because, like the microbe, that's what monsters do. But to adress that last point about whether there's a structural component to the novel, I'd say that Grendel is born into his part; the story is already written. The narrative in which he's trapped was written by the Hrothgar's of the world. Yes, he is the narrator in the story, but even as such, his power is limited. He's bound by the terms set by the narrative. Even if the microbes in my stomach could speak, they'd have to speak on my terms--in my language, accepting the identity "microbe" which I've given them (this is Spivak's point in asking whether the subaltern can speak; the terms for speech are already set by those in power). So yes, I guess in that sense, I see a structural argument. Grendell is born into his life such as it is and it determines certain things for him. How ironic, then, is Grendel's conclusion? Basically, it's the existentialist argument that there is no meaning to life except that which we make each moment., which is somewhere in between the shaper's reliogisity and the dragon's nihilism. But how interesting that Grendel, the supposed monster, turns out to be the smartest of all the characters, sort of like how Satan/the devil/Lucifer is associated with knowledge and light, very interesing...
Meanwhile, the demons in my stomach continue to attack. I'm hitting them with all the weapons at my disposal and am intent on eradicating each and every one of them and doing it with joy! I'm sure they think I"m a monster.
Am I the only person completely moved by Timothy’s post? Or do some of us feel the same way? Wow, I feel like I was at a “Spoken Word Event” when I was reading his post. Timothy should definitely get his hand on some creative writing. With his voice and attention to detail, he would do really well. I’m really sorry for digressing but I really needed to get this off my chest.
Back to Grendel. . . I had initially written in my journal that I believed Grendel fit the criteria of a hero. But after reading Simon’s and Roberto’s post, I think my stance has shifted. Although, there were not monsters in the story for Grendel to defeat to obtain the “hero” title, I felt that because of his circumstances and negative encounters with his mother, humans and Shaper, he can be seen as a hero. As Dani mentioned in her post, and I in class, at first I could not relate to Grendel. His awkward attitude toward animals and humans made me feel distant. However, I knew that because he was the narrator of the story, I needed to give him a chance to grow on me. I certainly did not love Grendel as Ruby, but at the end I accepted him for who he is. I, along with my peers, can agree that Grendel’s actions were a result of his surroundings. In many ways, he felt motivated to do the things he did. As Simon mentioned, he was curious and wanted to desperately know how he was related to the human race. His mother’s inability to provide him with those answers motivated him to search for the answers elsewhere, and that’s when all his troubles roll in and he develops resentment toward humans.
Best blog ever.
And, regarding Popy's last blog, I am helping put together a Spoken Word event at John Jay. Tim?
Post a Comment