Grendel, John Gardner's revision of Beowulf, seems like it is about everything, from war and revolution to ecology and psychology (not to mention literature, philosophy, politics). But I'd like to start off the blog with a very tiny (seemingly) question: did you like Grendel (the character, not the book)? If so, why (or why not)? Did you feelings change as you read -- and, if so, at what point and why? How relevant is it to the objectives of Gardner's story that we feel one way or another? In other words, does it matter? Do we need to like hin? Can you identify with a character and not like him?
I would also like to open up the blog to a larger question, about which we began to talk at the end of seminar. The passage on pp. 118-19 which begins "What does a kingdom pretend to do?" is, in some senses, at the heart of the John Jay- Vera Fellowship project: "Save the values of the community ... improve the quality of the commonwealth!" But then what do you do with the folks "who don't fit at all." Neither man nor animal, not quite monster nor hero, Grendel defies some of the most basic categories of life and literature. While it is hard to figure out what his individual story is, we know that he serves to challenge some of our most sacred stories. What is the sacred story of your agency? What are the assumptions that shape your agency's mission (if it is easier to think about your chosen topic for the seminar paper, that's fine, too)? Who or what would "Grendel" (a.k.a. provide a challenge to) that sacred story? What is important to learn from that other perspective?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
In a strange, non-sociopathic, non-murderous way, I did feel some sort of connection to Grendel. And I did identify with him, at first at least, probably because I empathized with him at several points in the novel. His killing streaks aside, Grendel’s non- violent human qualities were quite evident: Facing the reality of independence and a dissociation from his mother and his innocence; his contemplating of his role in society and what it really means; and how he felt like an outcast from others, for example.
So, yes, in some ways I did identify with Grendel. I’m not sure if that means I “liked” him. What does it mean to like someone? That we respect them—that we share similarities—that we would want to hang out with them and become good friends? If purely based on empathy and initial similarity, then I would say I liked him. If based on anything else, I don’t think I could say I particularly liked Grendel.
I don’t think it was very relevant to Gardner’s point whether or not we could connect to Grendel, or if we saw him as human or monster, but rather that we felt some way and could reflect on why we felt that way. As a reader, I struggled with this reflective question; it forced me to evaluate the book in a different way and consider both the human and Grendel perspective. I felt sorry for Grendel, especially in the beginning, but his continued killing and nihilistic philosophy shift slowly changed that opinion. How we feel toward Grendel can mimic how we feel toward certain people/issues/things in society, and I believe an author’s goal would be to flesh out those inner thoughts.
I think we can all relate to Grendel in some way or another. I believe it was Prof. Waterston who mentioned toward the end of the class something along the lines of, “…don’t we all feel like that sometime. I know I do.” I feel the same way. Don’t we all want to belong? Don’t we all want a passion to live? Don’t we all question why we do what we do… or what the meaning of life is… or what our impact really represents in the grand scheme of things (/cue Mr. Dragon’s nihilism)?
Taking my internship at Vera, the story is that “the systems people rely on for justice” need to be improved through research and policy changes. The underlying assumption is that the lives of individuals who come in contact with the justice system can (and should) be improved if the system is altered. At Vera, there is a special interest on “vulnerable” populations (i.e. mentally ill, immigrants, youth). A possible Grendling of this story may be that these issues are so rooted in structural and cultural forms of our society that we cannot overcome them, at least not solely through research and policy advocacy. Does such work lead to tangible change? Does it attack the root causes? I think it is always important to keep in mind the other perspective(s)—the possible Grendel(s)—for, in this case, knowledge and anticipation of opposing views serves to strengthen and better our own ideas and arguments.
In response to the first question, yes, I like Grendel the character. I like Grendel because I see him as we all see the outsider who is trying to belong but who is made out to be a villain or criminalized in order to keep out and at a distance. Grendel is the unknown, the “other”, the person we all fear because that person is different from us and who we do not want to associate with.
I believe that it is important to the objective for the story whether we like or not. The reason I believe it is important is because it is in all creatures, humans and non-humans, to be good and to be evil. However, what happens to us and how we are viewed or treated by others can have a great impact on our personalities and on how we act or react towards others. I believe that Grendel’s character shows the potential to be good, even if he is a monster but because he is treated as a villain and kept out from normal society he learns to be a villain and behave like one. I believe that for the point of Gardner’s story, how we feel about Grendel might be influenced by our experiences or how we view others, their situations or how we respond to other’s feelings. We might also be influenced by what we believe everyone’s place in society is or should be.
In regards to my agency’s work with Domestic Violence victims, the Grendel story can very much relate to how many people view domestic violence victims and their situation. It is very easy for people to judge and assume that people find themselves in a certain situation due to their own actions or their unwillingness to change. In many circumstances when a person tries to seek protection from their own community, the challenges are great and the obstacles to many to fight against. In many instances domestic violence victims can find themselves fighting against a lot of obstacles and in many occasions find it simpler to just stay within their own hell. The Grendel of my agency’s story would be the assumption that a person who lives in a violent situation does so because she or he likes it or does not really want to leave. I also think that it is a Grendel situation to believe that an abuser will always be an abuser cannot be changed. I think the challenge in a domestic violence situation is not only to shelter and protect the abused victim but to seek better methods to ensuring the abuser will not abuse anyone else again. The challenge would be not only to provide protection and counseling to victims but provide the same type of services to the abuser in order to prevent that Grendel from eating anyone else alive again.
Hello Professor,
In response to the first question, similar to Joe’s response, I do like the character of Grendel because I felt a connection to him and I understood where he was coming from in regards to his self-discovery within society. However, the way that I felt the connection to him, it dealt more with his humanistic qualities. As discussed during the seminar, I saw Grendel more as a human (at first), as opposed to a monster. I believed that Grendel held many humanistic traits that “regular” human beings had. I saw Grendel as an overprotected teenager (?) who is just coming out into the world. He is dealing with the issues of creating an identity for himself, finding out who he is in the world, and achieving independence, away from his mother who tries to shield him from the pains of the world (as a typical mother would try to do at first for their child). I felt a connection and understood this situation that Grendel was going through and the confusion he must’ve felt in trying to find his place. Though his methods of coping of trying to find that identity and make a name for himself was extreme (killing others), to some extent, I understand that confusion of not knowing what to believe or do.
In regards to the second question, I don’t believe that you need to actually like a character in order to identify with him. For me, it was two different factors. The first was an examination of what the character was actually going through mentally. In Grendel’s case, trying to find his self-identity. The second factor dealt with the actions he committed in trying to deal with his mental dilemma. In this situation, I did not see it as whether or not I could connect with Grendel. Rather, I evaluated his situation and the difficulties he must’ve been going through. Though I am in no way condoning his horrendous murders on the men in the meadhalls, I do (partly) understand where he is coming from, mainly because of the confusion he was going through throughout the whole book. Even though I think his actions are disgusting, which makes me not like him as a character, part of me does understand where he is coming from and I do see how someone may identify with that.
This leads to the other perspective that can be taken. Looking outside of Grendel’s case, there are situations in which an individual may not like someone else because their actions remind the individual of something he/she does not like about him/herself. Grendel’s case is extreme (in regards to his murders), but an individual may not like him because his actions, perhaps personality reminds him/her of the self.
In regards to my agency work, oftentimes, when individuals become incarcerated or are placed on probation, society immediately places this stigma on them. The individual is automatically labeled as a “criminal” and he/she chose this lifestyle, doesn’t deserve another chance, etc. In the new project at FedCap involving the sex offenders, stigmas are heavily placed on them and he/she is constantly seen as the sex offender. Society often doesn’t realize that the individual does want to change, obtain employment and start over.
Particularly with the sex offenders clients, when I “Grendel” the situation, it will show that the individual him/herself actually wants to obtain employment and be a positive part of society again. In one of my research assignments for my supervisor at FedCap, I actually learned that sex offenders actually have one of the lowest recidivism rates, from any other crimes. However, the people of society does not see that. I highly believe that reintegration programs and programs such as FedCap, helping the individual find employment will continue to lower the recidivism rates because not only does it help give the individual a second chance, it is also allowing them a second chance to be a part of our society. The “Grendeling” of the story would show how much these individuals, not just sex offenders but people on probation and parole, want to obtain substantial employment and reintegrate back into society again.
In some ways, Joe’s decision to distance himself from any association with Grendel as a murder or sociopath highlights a potential critique of Gardner’s in which the less righteous group are perceived as the “others.” Grendel’s childhood experiences limit his imagination to envision humans as anything than highly complex creatures who had the ability to manipulate. For instance, the false interpretations by Grendel and the humans who confused Grendel’s screams as cries from the God taint Grendel’s ability to think beyond this experience. Numerous classmates labeled him a monster, which, in turn, makes it easier to view him as a monster without fully understanding whether he really is or not. Likewise, in Beowulf, Grendel is portrayed as a monster. However, he is more human than the audience may think because he is a decedent of Cain. In addition, looking at the lens does not allow Grendel to tell his own story inhibits the ability to fully realize his persona.
That being said, I do like Grendel because he signifies what individuals in a developing nation feel. For example, Grendel is unable to communicate with the Danes. This parallels many situations for individuals living in a country under occupation by a nation whose citizens do not speak the same language. Moreover, he symbolizes the frustration of the outside world. Unfortunately he becomes mesmerized by the shaper, but, at the same time, he also gets frustrated because he doesn’t understand why the shaper has so much power. In some ways, this may seem to mirror the mob mentality of nations and the media because they unite around common enemies. Gardner’s main point Grendel was to provide an alternative point of view to the “mainstream narrative” found in Beowulf. Often times it is easier to dislike someone we are not connected to. Stigmatizing Grendel and providing limited views as to his personalities and motives does not allow individuals to really identify with him, which, in turn, explains why many dislike Grendel and are not able to like him in a traditional sense—aside from sympathy or pity. There are certainly cases where you can identify with a character and not like him, however, given the circumstances in Grendel, it seems difficult to identify with Grendel without liking him.
In many ways, this question tends to be difficult to answer, especially when the main mission of the program I work in deals with linking human trafficked victims up to social services to rebuild their lives. Certainty, there are examples of trafficked victims who are unable to curtail their self-control or have certain underlying problems that lead to addictions. However, given their experiences, these actions hardly provide a challenge for my co-workers, especially in the context of Grendel. That being said, as I mentioned before, the main challenges for my agency deals with the heart of its sustainability: funding. First, agencies are often prevented or restricted from pursuing certain policies or advocate out of fear for losing funding. Unfortunately, this tension does not receive a lot of attention from those who worked outside of the agency, while those working within the agency are afraid to speak because of job stability. Second, similarly, many individuals are taught to view corporations and their heads as monsters without getting to see them, interact with them, or understand their goals or motives. They don’t communicate with you. The only thing you hear tends to be negative stories in the media. While I am not trying to defend corporations, it is interesting to explore certain parallels between them and Grendel. So, what’s the lesson? Well, there a few ones that quite simply. First, do not judge someone. Second, there’s more to an individual behind the label as a monster. For example, the Sandy Hook shooter was labeled at a monster; however, the discussion involving mental illness and the underlying causes fail to get pushed into a discussion that has become particularly charged around guns. With this in mind, communication needs to occur among individuals because diverse viewpoints and perspectives are needed to expand an individual’s perspective. Moreover, values cherished by one side—loyalty and integrity for the Danes—taint their ability to view individuals outside of their circle as humane. Diverse viewpoints are needed to temper extreme positions and to challenge unfounded loyalty.
I have to admit that I do like a number of Grendel’s personal characters, such as his outright honesty and sharp instinct. Grendel’s response to the Hrothgar’s kingdom is, to certain degree, like an innocent child feeling traumatized by the deceptive and ugly reality. Grendel’s emotional turbulence reflects many raw human sensations, emotional responses that are untouched by moral restrictions, social responsibilities, and institutional structures. The process of reading Grendel has been challenging because I had to decide between accepting the similarity between human emotions, including my own, and that of Grendel’s, or to judge Grendel’s fierce reaction to distorted justice from a moral high ground. But I chose to see it as an opportunity to examine the darkness of humanity, which swiftly defeats human rationale whenever anger, fear, and uncertainty outshine the reality that we prefer to believe. Many of us hate to even acknowledge this aspect of human nature, and thus mass-producing materials that sugarcoats the partly vicious humanity. The author of Grendel, however, refuses to accommodate to these repeating patterns.
Regarding the quote “What does a kingdom pretend to do?” that took place between the ambitious and hopeful young man and the experience and realistic old master of his during their discussion about revolution and governance, I find it to be similar to a suggestion given to Grendel by the dragon: do nothing but sit on your gold. As if both the dragon and the old man both understand the unchangeable pattern in the world: evils come and go, but never truly perish. So this brings the question about whether we can really create long-lasting impact on the landscape of social injustice. Maybe there is certain level of truthfulness to this pessimistic outlook; however, it is hard to deny that political revolutions did create concrete impacts on the lives of many. Civil Right Movement itself is an outstanding example of the consequences of fundamental social changes. In short, despite my admiration for the philosophical view that is shared by both the old man and the dragon, I cannot agree with their complete dismissal of the benefits of changes.
1. I do like the Grendel character, I'm not necessarily sure on whether or not I'm similar to him however he give off the persona as an underdog who first appears as as he wont succeed. As Minerva said earlier Grendel from the beginning of the story,the king and his men patronized Grendel for being different; he comes off as being different, an outsider. Very shortly afterword he learns not to trust humans. Although i believe it is important to stay objective for reading the story. I felt at certain points of the story that I empathized with him and his struggle. His struggle manifested to Grendel becoming the villain based off his life. I believe Michelle made a good point that the issue of trying to create an identity for himself
To answer the second question when I look at the story of Grendel I can relate him to how people view juvenile delinquents. Once an juvenile has committed wrong it is very easy to just cast him aside and make a complete opinion of him/her without even meeting her. When adolescents realized they are being judged from police to teachers they head toward their own communities as Minerva explained and that can lead to turning to gangs and further disrupting the community as well as the individual. I think as Michelle stated “that the individual him/herself actually wants to obtain employment and be a positive part of society again.” I believe that the statement is true and we need to intervene to help make that happen
I apologize for the delay.
It is easy to read this book and almost be on Grendel's side for most of the story. He has human characteristics and the fact that he can feel makes us feel sorry for him when he is shunned from society. Personally, I did feel sorry for him but this feeling of pity was the very reason for the story. To answer professor Reitz question directly, we do not necessarily have to like him, but we do need to feel sorry for him to force us to rethink the way our society runs. We need a common enemy to unite society and truth is at the soul of Grendel's story.
Uniting against a common enemy has a major role in our lives and our agencies. For example, at HSI our common enemy is homelessness. We do not unite against the homeless but rather the causes for homelessness.Without a common enemy, the world of non-profit disappears because we are driven by our emotions. If we take away a common enemy, we take jeopardize our emotional drive, which will negatively impact the way we do work because our agencies, for the most part, are already under resourced. The importance of Grendel is to force us to question the way we build society and aim for change within that society.
I am married but Grendel is exactly the type of tortured soul to whom I once would have been very attracted. At the same time that Gardner makes me question my allegiance to heroes and the seduction of the heroic narrative, he gives me the perfect Anti-Hero to romanticize: big, strong, brainy, emotionally orphaned, violently predisposed, philosophically adrift. He’s like Jules Winfield, the character played by Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction. Repulsive but erotic. The anti-hero narrative also has its dangerous temptations…
In our fight for justice, do we imagine ourselves as anti-heroes? We align ourselves with people or causes that others see as monstrous in one way or another. Our rallying cry around challenging the state’s monopoly on violence of necessity involves our buying into the mythologies of a different set of shapers. When Professor Reitz raises the question about the “sacred stories” of our agencies, or even the story embedded in the mission of this college, it makes me think of how addicted we are to organizing our perceptions in ways that don’t allow for much nuance.
There is always a villain, a victim, a rescuer. On a metaphysical level, they are interchangeable. Someone’s monster (sex offender, drug addict, perpetrator of domestic violence) becomes my “victim” or even my “hero” in a new narrative that may be no less accurate. (Oh my, now I am sounding like Dragon.) I wonder if there is any way around this.
The more I think about this book, I think it is about terrorism and such constructs as the "War on Terror." Thinking about things from the terrorist's perspective doesn't necessarily glorify that perspective (it would, of course, just be another story shaped -- thank you, Dragon!), but it certainly makes it more difficult to assign anyone roles. As Professor Stein said, someone's monster is another person's hero. And so we just continue to slush around in the bloody snow.
Post a Comment