Grendel and Frankenstein Paper Grendel, the savage beast from John Gardner’s Grendel, and the Monster, the murderous creation from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, seek companionship but ultimately turn to violence when they are rejected, suggesting that all beings need love. Although the two actively seek it, companionship eludes Grendel and the Monster, leaving them terribly alone and desiring someone to love and be loved by. The most notable example is his reaction to laying eyes upon Wealtheow, where he practically falls apart inside with lust. He “could see [himself] leaping from [his] high tree and running on all fours through the crowd to her, howling, whimpering, throwing myself down, drooling and groveling at her small, fur-booted feet” …show more content…
Grendel decides to further harass and slaughter the Danes, justifying it to himself with the question “why should I not? Has [Hrothgar] 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?” (Gardner 122). Herein Grendel believes that he should offer no peace or respite to those who have supplied him only pain when he seeked friendship, using sarcasm to emphasize that there will be no peace even if Grendel offers it. This reinforces the idea that Grendel would be open to friendship if only the Danes were. Unlike Grendel, the Monster struggles to justify his actions; he is beyond remorseful, asking if Walton thought “that the groans of Clerval were music to [his] ears? [His] heart was fashioned to be susceptible of love and sympathy; and when wrenched by misery to vice and hatred, it did not endure the violence of the change” (Shelley 164). By stating that his heart was brought to vice and hatred by misery, the Monster implies that no life would have been lost had he been given a companion with whom he could be happy; with a mate he could have remained a being of love and sympathy. This is reinforced by the rhetorical question that serves to convince Walton that the Monster hated having to turn to violence. In both situations, a friendly and accepting hand could have led both monsters to happiness and kindness, but the lack thereof sparked the violence. Grendel and the Monster from their respective works, Gardner’s Grendel and Shelley’s Frankenstein, find themselves with no companionship, nobody to share in their joys or sorrows, which leads to violence being taken out on those who rejected them; if those victims had initially accepted and loved Grendel and the Monster, this would not have
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
He is ignorant about how killing the humans gives him meaning to his life. Grendel becomes this savagery violent creature based upon this lack of awareness. Later, Grendel philosophy of nihilism was invalidated by Beowulf. Grendel lives life believing that things are meaningless and causing destruction to others. Beowulf accordingly told Grendel that whatever his view on life he has, life will still go on, as beowulf explained “As you see it it is , while the seeing last, dark nightmare-history, time-as-coffin; but where the water was rigid there will be fish and men will survive on their flesh till spring...
Nihilism in Grendel Although John Gardner’s novel Grendel simply is a recount of Beowulf’s antagonistic monster going about his life and interacting with different people and creatures, it explores many profound themes such as nihilism. As the story progresses, Grendel has a series of realizations about and encounters with nihilism that greatly shape his way of thinking and view of the world. He progresses from a simple, easily satisfied creature, to a cynical and pessimistic monster.
In the novel Grendel by John Gardner, Grendel’s largest internal conflict is whether or not he can overcome his predestined status of monster. Throughout the course of the story Grendel is influenced by both sides, human and beast, through the dragon and the Shaper. Although Grendel initially wants to align himself with the humans, no matter how he tries to communicate with them as an equal they will not accept his company, causing him to become lonely and angry. Grendel’s anger turns to violence, which makes the humans turn further against him and, as he is alienated from any sense of humanity he ever had, he eventually discovers that he has no choice and must fulfill his role as the enemy to humans. Initially, Grendel’s free will
Throughout the novel Grendel by John Gardner, Grendel comes across as a ruthless monster who takes pride in murdering others. His actions give the impression that he is an evil figure, but in hindsight he is not as evil as he appears to be. Gardner makes the readers feel sympathy for Grendel because Grendel lives a lonely life, is consistently treated poorly, and attempts to make peace. If Grendel was truly evil, readers would have difficulty having sympathy for him. Therefore, Grendel is not evil and is no different than the rest of humanity.
It was all lies” (Gardner 54). It is obvious Grendel suffers the physical pain of being alone, and he gets addictive to hurting others due to his sadness. The more Grendel hears about people getting along he hates them and wants to fight them, because he can not have that. Grendel actions speak louder than his words when conveys his anger against the world. In the quote Grendel portrays this is what he does when he says, “It's all I have, my only weapon for smashing through these stiff coffin-walls of the world”
Frankenstein’s Monster is not categorized as evil by his malicious behavior and is sympathized with due to his creator abandoning him and the role of nature versus nurture taken place II. Monster’s Nature and alienation A. Monster originally had an inquisitive nature yet gentle nature a. Information on the German family was “each interesting and wonderful to one so utterly inexperienced as [he] was” (105) B. With the rejection and alienation from society, the only interactions the monster experiences, he becomes full of hatred a. Rejected by De Lacey family by his looks and labeled a monster b. Tries to save a child but is shot by child’s father C. Reader may feel sympathy towards the Monster’s actions because the readers know that his true nature was not evil and he was misjudged III.
Always we portray Grendel as the monster and destructive character. However, in the novel by John Gardner that is a different case. We see Grendel as a emotional and sympathetic character. For example, Grendel states, “It wasn 't because he threw that battle-ax that I turned on Hrothgar. That was mere midnight foolishness...
John Gardner gave Grendel emotions that the reader was able to see and hear through his own words. Grendel told tales of his childhood causing the reader to become invested in Grendel’s past giving the feeling of a connection. As in the way he describes instances of his imaginative play, “I use to play games when I was young…explored our far-flung underground world in an endless wargame of leaps onto nothing…quick whispered plottings with invisible friends” (Gardner 15). Consequently, this information gives the feeling of sympathy for Grendel, for his lonely childhood and circumstance. Gardner continues to play on the sympathies of the reader after Grendel’s first interaction with the Danes.
Grendel in both stories is described as a vicious "Monster", but is viewed differently. The character of Grendel, in the novel by John Gardner, portrays a different visualization than that of Grendel in the epic poem Beowulf. In the novel the story is told in first person point of view which gives Grendel human qualities while Grendel in Beowulf is told in third person point of view not giving Grendel his standpoint. In both works, the authors give two different perspectives of Grendel. Grendel in the novel is not seen as a "Monster", but as a human that has emotions and is very sympathetic about everything that comes his way.
Frankenstein, Dialectical Journal- Chapter 4- The End A theme that was very prevalent in these final chapters was, Creator and Creation, furthermore how the monster and Frankenstein are more alike than they like to think. Both characters had been wronged by the other and made it their missions to destroy each other, losing parts of themselves along the way. “You, who call Frankenstein your friend, seem to have a knowledge of my crimes and his misfortunes.
Grendel was a being sung about in the songs of the shaper, who twisted tales to fit his own means. In the song Grendel was made out to be a wretched monster, without intellect, who only sought to kill. This wasn’t the case entirely. Grendel was determined to enter society, to be a part of their gatherings, instead at every turn he was chased away, cursed, and attacked. He was only a monster to those in the mead hall, a beast who could never be a part of them.
Contrasting Grendel and Frankenstein Grendel and the monster Frankenstein are contradictory in their individual philosophies and actions, although they are both isolated and lonesome, they come from different origins, think differently, and take significantly different actions, and their very fates were catastrophically no unique. Grendel is mortified with his purpose in life and driven by emotions which makes him plead for his purpose. “I had determined at the time that the memory of these evils should die with me; but you have won me to alter my determination” (14). He has to face the purpose he was told to behold since he was born and lived in Dane Kingdom. Ever since that he roamed around killing, “But deer, like rabbits and bears and even men, can make, concerning my race, no delicate distinctions.
Frankenstein: From Benevolent to Feind “I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend.” (Shelley 69) Said by Frankenstein’s monster, this quote truly defines him: initially an affectionate, love-seeking creature, he transformed into an enraged killer, angry at humanity for the undeservedly poor way he was treated. Victor Frankenstein is an unique, complex individual who encounters a similar change of nature for similar reasons. The quote—though spoken by the monster—encapsulates the evolution of Victor Frankenstein’s personality; misery—a product of isolation and loneliness—aroused a deterioration of temperament from an initially benevolent Frankenstein.
Mary Shelley shows the endless amount of revenge and that it is driven by pure hatred and rage. The monster was not created to be vengeful, he was kind hearted but when he was poorly treated by Victor and then by the Delacey family, he turned cold. In her novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley displays the immorality and destructive effects that revenge can have through Frankenstein and his pursuit of the creature. Immediately after the monster had awoken, hatred thickened and would drive the plot to be all about revenge. The creature illustrates this hatred as he says to Victor, “Everything is related in them which bears reference to my accursed origin; the whole detail of that series of disgusting circumstances which produced it is set in view;
Both authors paint a grotesque picture of their creations and how they both desire to destroy beauty; Aesthetic Iconoclasm, that is shared between the two figures. However, both authors present their monsters separate to one another in philosophy; with Grendel being a mindless savage and the Monster being more contemplative and questioning the nature of its own creation. ‘Monster’ characters have always been a target of both folk tales and pagan myths since the dawn of humanity, the very concept of a monstrous creature harkens back to the primal fear instinct of facing a dangerous predator that presents a danger to humanity. Grendel from Beowulf is the perfect example of this hysteria and