Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Discussion #1: Grendel and Point of View
After reading chapters 2 and 12 of Gardner's Grendel, how has point of view affected your perception of Grendel, Beowulf, or Hrothgar? Your response should be at least five-seven well-written sentences AND include detailed references to the text/s for support.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
92 comments:
agag
J. Milner
After reading the chapters we did in Grendel, i can honestly say that my view of him has not become any better than before. In Beowulf, Grendel is portrayed as an evil, spawn of Satan character. Throughout Grendel, we are given introspection to how he thinks, which made me realize how pathetic he really is. Each time Grendel whined for his mother or called for help, it revealed to the reader how dependant he was on his mother. This persuaded me to not only think of him as evil, but a pathetic character turning to evil for support.
Beowulf, in my opinion, seemed to remain static because he was not really portrayed as something other than a hero in either book. Obviously in Beowulf, he is the hero of heroes and the God of men. From Grendel's point of view, he is still an overpowering character who cannot be taken down. Hrothgar however stood out to me in Beowulf as a wise King full of intellegence. In Grendel in the scen where Grendel is trapped, Hrothgar's stupidity is revealed which changed my perception of him quite a bit.
A. Kinnan
After, reading Grendal my perception of him has not changed. While reading chapter 2 I realized that he is very depened on his mother. In Beowulf he never cried to his mother like he did when he was trapped in the tree and the bull was running towards him and before the men came. Also it made me think how pathetic he was because in Beowulf he never relied on his mother we never even heard about his mother till the battle with Beowulf vs. Grendels mothers. Even in Beowulf when Beowulf was trying to kill him he never cried for his mother once he just wanted to get away and kill Beowulf. In Grendel I would say he did not want to kill the men he just wanted down. I think in both stories he is portrayed as a monster which is true but he is reflected differently in each story and that makes our point of view either change or stay the same. That is my point of view of Grendel in both stories.
My point of view for Hrothgar had changed because in Beowulf he has the almighty king and smart, but in Grendel he is dumb. For example when Grendel in the tree he thinks it is a spirit and he wants to feed it. That made me think that he was dumb just by saying that and that is why my point of view changed. My point of view for Beowulf has changed just a little but not so much. For example in Beowulf he was the hero that everyone loved and in Grendel he was someone that Grendel could not beat to save himself. That is why i think he was a hero in both stories.
A. Ashworth
In the two books, the point of view affected my perception of Grendel and Beowulf. In Beowulf, Grendel is portrayed as an bloodthristy, evil monster. He kills men consistantly in the town's meadhall, ripping them apart. Therefore, Hrogthar calls on Beowulf to help him and his people aganist this evil monster. Beowulf kills Grendel and is made the well-known hero of his time.
In Grendel, Grendel is still portrayed as evil because he still kills passionately. But, the difference is Beowulf is depicted to be evil too. When they fight in Chapter 12 of Grendel, Beowulf forces Grendel to sing and causes him more pain when he doesn't. Grendel tries to escape but Beowulf takes advantage of him, causing him pain and rips his arm off, killing him. In both books Grendel is evil and bloodthristy, but Beowulf is shown to be domineering and manipulative.
A Hayes
After reading chapters 2 and 12 of Grendel, (I can't use italics) point of view vaguely altered my perception of Grendel. The new point of view changes the perception of Grendel from the ultimate evil to a pathetic evil. But at the same time it gives Grendel a higher state of being. When Grendel is stuck in the tree, he makes a statement along the lines of, "look at me a God dying like this." I never really saw Grendel as a God, just an evil demon. His constant reliance on his mother to save him from everything adds to his patheticness. Anytime he is in trouble he just calls for his mother and hopes she will somehow hear and come save him. Again, when he is stuck in the tree, he calls for his mom time and time again, but she doesn't come until a good while later.
Gardner also gives a new image to Hrothgar and Beowulf. Since this is earlier than Beowulf (italics), Hrothergar is younger, and less wise. Had he been as wise as he was in the epic, I'm sure he wouldn't have thrown an axe at Grendel so soon. Beowulf is portrayed as not so perfect. The whole fire-breathing demon with wings incident showed a perception by Grendel. Also the "insane" things Beowulf whispered in his ear were disturbing because of our previous connections with Beowulf. I think that since we have already identified with Beowulf, we interpret what Grendel tells us Beowulf said to him as lies. That may or may not be the case, but we are still biased against Grendel because of our previous allocations with Beowulf.
B. Towers
John Gardner's Grendel portrays the character of Grendel in a completely different way than the epic Beowulf. In Gardner's novel, Grendel is portrayed as being more human, in many aspects, than the character of Beowulf who repeatedly and mercilessly smashed Grendel's head into the wall while thanking god for the hardness of walls in a mocking manner. Gardner gives Grendel a motive for his attacks on Hrothgar's men, that motive being the attack on Grendel by Hrothgar's men early in the novel.
In the epic Beowulf, Grendel is portrayed as an evil monster that kills for sport. Beowulf is not portrayed as being a mocking person, but rather is portrayed as being a hero that rids Herot of the vicious, inhumane Grendel. Grendel is shown as a coward because of his numerous attempts to run away from the deathly grip of Beowulf. My point of view in regards to the character of Grendel has greatly been shifted after reading John Gardner's novel.
Grendel is portrayed as a much different character in the novel Grendel than in the epic Beowulf. In the novel Grendel, Grendel is a naive animal in the beginning, but the ending chapter of the novel shows Grendel as a passionate killer, but delusional, whether this was because he was fighting Beowulf or his personality, it would, nonetheless, affect Grendel's fighting style. Because of this you see him as a different character. As well, the character Beowulf is much differently portrayed in Grendel.
In the epic Beowulf, Grendel is nothing more than a killer and wants nothing else but to kill all of the Danes. Because the novel and epic so differently characterize Grendel, my perception has changed and now I do not see Grendel as monster-like as I did after only reading Beowulf.
B.Hradisky
Gardner's Grendel changed my view of Beowulf, the character, because winning the battle with Grendel seemed more like a deed of hate than an epic victory. In Grendel, Beowulf is portrayed as an evil, merciless man who turns on Grendel for no reason. He doesn't kill Grendel quickly, as Beowulf certainly could have, but makes Grendel experience the pain. Beowulf also mocks him every time he slams the monster's head into the wall. These actions allow the novel to portray Beowulf as demonic, whereas the epic poem creates the illusion that Beowulf used his powers only for good, and to save the Danes and Geats from supernatural monsters. Beowulf's victory against Grendel is portrayed as great and heroic, as though Beowulf easily killed the monster without and unnecessary torture. However, the novel strongly contradicts this.
J. Scott
After reading both the full epic of Beowulf and just a few chapters of Grendel my point of view has not changed about either of them at all. He is still an evil character to me. Grendel is portrayed as evil in both by killing many and wanting to so do. However in the Epic Grendel he is young and all he wants to do is play but soon gets him into trouble. Now as in Beowulf all he wants to do is please himself and be happy by making others miserable. He is not a nice character which make my point of view towards him not change. Plus in the novel Grendel, Gardner portrays beowulf as being the more powerful monster rather than Grendel. This may change peoples perceptions of beowulf but in my case we are talking about Grendel. By him wanting beowulf to look bad is just another reason to not like him. Considering Beowulf is a hero. All in all Both of the epics did not change my point of view.
After reading the epic Beowulf and a few chapters in Grendel, i view Grendel differently. In the epic, Grendel is viewed as an evil, strong, powerful monster, but in just a couple chapters of Grendel, he is weak, naive and child-like.
In the epic, during the scenes with Grendel, everyone is fearful of him. He is known as a beast who can destroy people with one bite. Hrothgar's kingdom becomes scared of him, which is why Beowulf helps defeat Grendel.
In a couple chapters of Grendel though, he is naive when he gets caught in the tree because he does not know about being above ground. And when he is caught he does not try anything powerful. Instead he sits there crying for him mom. He does not try to fight off the people. He does not know any better than to just sit there and cry for his mama. Grendel is so child-like that he cannot even learn to fend for himself when no one is there to help.
E. curtis (sorry i forgot to put my name in the last one)
After reading the epic Beowulf and a few chapters in Grendel, i view Grendel differently. In the epic, Grendel is viewed as an evil, strong, powerful monster, but in just a couple chapters of Grendel, he is weak, naive and child-like.
In the epic, during the scenes with Grendel, everyone is fearful of him. He is known as a beast who can destroy people with one bite. Hrothgar's kingdom becomes scared of him, which is why Beowulf helps defeat Grendel.
In a couple chapters of Grendel though, he is naive when he gets caught in the tree because he does not know about being above ground. And when he is caught he does not try anything powerful. Instead he sits there crying for him mom. He does not try to fight off the people. He does not know any better than to just sit there and cry for his mama. Grendel is so child-like that he cannot even learn to fend for himself when no one is there to help.
M. Meyer
Its amazing how one persons viewpoint can differ from anothers and change the outlook that you have on that character. For example, In Beowulf, Grendel was portrayed as an evil, blood-loving, monster with nothing on his mind but killing people for, what seems, no reason. Then, in Gardners Grendel, it shows that he has motives behind his viscious personality. He was exposed to evil and the barrier that is created by language, and what problems that misunderstanding imposes at a very young age. Because of these experiances, he was raised with an idea that he needs to defend himself. After Hrothgars attack on Grendel, He realizes that its either fight back, or get killed. Eliminate the opposing forces, or live in fear for the rest of your life. Grendels portrayal in Gardners book altered my views from Grendel being a bloodthirsty monster who killed for fun, to being a bloodthirsty monster who killed to stay alive.
In my opinion, Gardner has forever tainted my views on Beowulf. In the epic, Beowulf is portrayed as the hero who saves a race of people who asked for his assistance, but in Gardners Grendel, we are told the unknown story of how evil Beowulf really is. Perhaps I am thinking this because I now know the reasons behind Grendels viscious attacks, but personally, i think that Beowulf could have made his battle with Grendel alot less painful then it turned out to be. I mean really, what was the point of bashing his head up against the wall and making him "sing?" Upon reading that, I began to agree with Grendel, Beowulf is "insaine." I began reading Beowulf thinking that this man is an amazing hero who does what he does for the good of an entire race of people, but after reading Gardners novel, and seeing the story from another persons view, I realize that Beowulf is really as much a monster as Grendel is.
My perception of Grendel changed after reading Gardner's Grendel. .In Gardner’s novel Grendel is perceived as beast who has feelings, making him human like. In the epic Beowulf, Grendel is known to be a bloodthirsty beast, the Spawn of Hell. Grendel relies much more on his mother in Grendel than he does in Beowulf. This was a surprise to me, because after reading Beowulf I did not expect Grendel to have any sort of relationship with his mother.
After reading Gardner’s novel I saw Grendel as more a child who was pushed by others to become evil. As opposed to in Beowulf where we are told Grendel is evil right off. I felt sorry for Grendel when he was fighting with Beowulf at the end of the novel. Because Grendel was portrayed as having human emotions in the novel, when Beowulf was smashing his head into the wall repeatedly I felt more hate toward Beowulf than for Grendel. To me Grendel became more of a human after reading Gardner’s Grendel. However, Beowulf seemed to become more of a monster. He acted like a beast instead of a hero as characterized in Beowulf. I saw Beowulf as a hero when I read the epic, but now he can be seen as just as much a beast as Grendel.
A. Ogonek
B. Boswell
After reading those chapters, i viewed Grendel in a way completely different from Beowulf. In Beowulf, Grendel is known as being feared by all because of his horriedness and need for distruction. I blieved Grendel to be an innocent, unaware of harm from the indirect characterization of Grendel's thoughts. As I read the epic poem from Grendel's telling, it makes me feel sympathy for Grendel becuase he is so lonely. The part where Grendel is screaming for his mom and she doesn't come, made me feel this way. When you hear the point of view of Grendel you are less likely to believe Grendel to be a malicious, mean, or blood thirsted monster.
M Carbone
I believe that John Gardener's portrayal of Grandel is not all that different than Beowulfls. The reason I say this is that in Beowulf the reader is not able to see what goes on behind the scene. Grendel is considered to be a vicious monster to the people of Herot and that is why Grendel is portrayed that way in Beowulf. Gardener lets us get inside of Grendels head and reveals a softer and more childish character.
The way Beowulf is portrayed in Boeowulf is much different than in Grendel. First, in Beowulf he is a highly respected leader who is all good and destroys evil. But in Grendel we find the complete opposite. To find an image of Beowulf with evil looking wings and tormenting poor innocent Grendel would be very disturbing had it been in the first novel.
N. Staargaard
After reading Grendel my perception of Grendel has not changed a lot. In both works we see that Grendel is an inhumane and evil creature. In Grendel all we get is the systematic scheme in the killings. We still do not find out why he killed the people in herot.
However, my perception of Beowulf has changed. In the epic we see Beowulf as the hero who came to save the Danes, but in Grendel we see Beowulf as this ruthless man who kills Grendel for fun. In Grendel before Beowulf kills Grendel he humiliates him by making him sing to him. In the epic Beowulf is the hero and in Grendel Beowulf is the enemy as a result of point of view.
G.Lozanoff
after reading the two books my point of view about Grendel was changed. In Beowulf, Grendel is seen as a big monster that kills for fun.
After reading Grendel, he still kills humans, But i see Grendel as very sensitive and scared. He is not a big monster that just kills, but has fellings.
However in Beowulf, Beowulf was seen as a hero and after reading Grendel, Beowulf seems evil as well.
N.Dunlavy
My view of Grendel has changed after reading Gardner's Grendel. In Beowulf, Grendel is portrayed as a monster who goes out at night and preys on the humans. He was looked apon as an evil creature who had no feelings or thoughs about his actions with the humans. In Gardner's Grendel, Grendel is portayed with human characteristics, having feelings and being lost in his younger ages, making us feel almost sorry for him. He would be confused often and his mother would have to be on the watch for him.
C. Riley
After reading both the epic Beowulf and the two chapters from the novel Grendel, I would say that my view of Grendel has basically stayed the same. Although in Beowulf he is portrayed as this essentially evil being, he is also shown as a naive, child-like character that does not differentiate from right and wrong. Either way, he is a static character in both works. In Beowulf, starting from the first attack on Herot, he is a constant antaganist against Beowulf.
Whereas in Grendel, he never really learns the different between right and wrong. In both the second and the last chapter, he always believes that his mother can solve any problem that he faces.
Now, as for beowulf and Hrothgar, in the epic, both of them were portrayed as great men who protected others and lead them to victory. Again, in Grendel, an alternative point of view is given, and they are shown as horrible beings. Especially Beowulf, who is portrayed almost demonic-like in the final battle between himself and Grendel.
J. Friedler
In Beowulf Grendel is a very flat character -he's a bloodthirsty monster driven by animal instinct and thought, (fear, food, bloodlust, etc.) and he exists to get killed and added to a long list of vanquished enemies. I mean, he comes in, eats some peopel, gets ambushed and then dies - not what I would call a deep character. In Grendel he seems more human, highly inteligent, and at the same time very childish. He depends on his mother and his actions are fueled by very human motives like revenge and curiosity. He reminds me of a destructive child or a mad scientist - you fear him, but you pity him more because he's so weak minded that he can't express himself through anything but violence. I like Grendel better in Beowulf, but only because I think it's pathetic how you want to pity him in Grendel.
As for the humans, in Beowulf they are the good guys. They can't do anything wrong and they are the smartest creatures. In Grendel they are portrayed as thinking beings, but nearly as smart - often prone to reacting violently because they don't feel like taking the time to figure things out. For example they come across Grendel in the tree and rather than try to comunicate with him they freak out and chuck and ax at him. In Grendel the humans seem more anamalistic than Grendel is.
B. Lambert
After reading chapters 2 and 12 from Gardner's Grendel my perception of Grendel has changed dramatically. In Beowulf Grendel is portrayed as a decendent of Cain, and a blood thirsty beast who kills for pleasure. After reading Beowulf I felt no sympathy toward the monster. Yet, in Grendel the reader sees the action through Grendel's eyes and begins to understand why Grendel holds such animosity toward humans. When Grendel first enconters humans they severely hurt him, (moreso than he already was,) when he was essentially defenceless. Additionally, he was like a child in that he was crying for his mother throughout the scene. This makes the reader sympatize with Grendel because it makes him more human. People tend to side with others that they can identify with, and I believe Gardner's Grendel makes Grendel much more easily identifiable with than the Grendel spoke of in Beowulf.
S. Corsi
After reading the few chapters of Grendel, and Beowulf, my views on Beowulf have changed. Beowul was, in his book, a malevolent hero, fighting for all that is good. He fought for god and served justice for all. Yet in Grendel, he seemed like an entirly diffrent person. He didn't fight Grendel, but tortured him. Forcing him to sing to the walls. I now question Beowulf being such a good hearted hero.
J. Moore
Point of view affects my perception of both Gendel and Beowulf. Beowulf is written from human’s point of view. Therefore grendel’s reasoning for hating men is not considered important or examined and he is constantly referred to as a blood thirsty monster, and an evil devil. Meanwhile Beowulf is this strong brave hero who kills grendel with his bare hands and can do no wrong. Grendel is written from Grendel’s point of view. This time the reader’s perception of Grendel is a lot more in depth. He talks about his childhood and is portrayed as curious and innocent, and in general a lot more human like. When he gets stuck in a tree the reader sees his fear, meanwhile humans just assume he must be evil and hate him because he is different without giving him a chance, they are the first to be violent and Grendel instead of being an evil monster seems more victimized, forced to strike back. The final battle with Beowulf changes the perception of him because he pretended to be asleep, he did not give Grendel fare warning, and it was an ambush. He is portrayed as much more cowardly similarly to the way Gendel was portrayed during Beowulf.
MB Pavlick
My perception of Grendel has changed greatly from seeing the different points of view. I feel like I lost some respect for him as an evil and firece character. I did not like how he was calling for his mother during his battle with Beowulf. It made him look childish and weak. Another thing that I did not like was when Grendel got stuck in the tree. I prefer the Grendel that can not be harmed by anyone or anything, except for someone as strong and supernatural as Beowulf. Grendel getting stuck in a tree made him seem very vunerable and not nearly as strong. Which also makes it seem like Beowulf wouldn't have to be that strong to beat Grendel when a tree could hurt him as much as it did. Overall my perception of Grendel has changed greatly, but I do not like how he is portrayed in John Gardner's novel.
A. Lowe
After reading the chapters in Grendel my perception of Grendel changed greatly. Reading Grendel it gave us insight into Grendel's life, it gave a persoonality and almost made him see human in a sence. So after he was attacked by a bull and then he started looking at the world as bleek and meaningless it made me think of him as crazy. Also when he ate the man in chapter 12 since I got a perception of him as somewhat human at the beginning i started to think of him as a even horrible monster. In the epic we just thought he was a monster wtih no feelings of any kind but after reading the novel we realize he knew better but decided to dvour men anyways. After reading the chapters from the novel I thought even worse of Grendel comparing to a horribly sinister character like Hanibal Lector
S.Chen
After reading chapters 2 and 12 in Gardner's Grendel it did change my perception of him, but not as much as I thought it would. In Gardner's Grendel it showed aspects of him that were not portrayed in Beowulf and that is what shifted my perception of him. Grendel was given feelings and emotions and was described as a child that was dependent on his mom. This helped portrayed him as less of a monster to me. In the epic I thought of Grendel as a monster with no emotions and during the battle he was a powerful, monstrous creature with no soul. Gardner's book proved me wrong because it showed that Grendel did have feelings and emotions to him. Having it told from Grendel's point of view brought in points of what made him fear Beowulf. The descriptions that Grendel used on Beowulf demonstrated that Beowulf was a monster a lot more than he was. "...his crushing fingers are charged like fangs with poison" (Gardner 168). I think that Gardner taking Grendel and describing everything through how he sees it and not just having one point of view from the epic gave that characterization to Grendel. It symbolizes that he has thoughts and emotions as well. This gave me a feeling that Grendel wasn't all bad, but evil enough to kill. He had feelings and was not as cold blooded as I thought first in Beowulf.
P. Sharma
The novel Grendel, as clearly made obvious in the title, is written from Grendel's point of view. Surprisingly so, this change from Beowulf has not truly affected my perception of anyone that drastically. Based on my reading of Beowulf, I believed Grendel to be highly cynical and aggressive. He was aggressive, obviously, due to his violent rampages and his inclinations to slaughter people. Grendel's cynicism became evident to me when Grendel attacked Herot for the last time. It cites how he found humor in killing the Danes and crushing their bones. In Chapter 2 of Grendel, these traits are still evident. His aggressiveness is displayed when he lashes out at the humans once he is trapped in the tree. His cynicism is prevalent when the bull attacks him in the tree. Once the bull charges and fails to kill Grendel in the tree, he laughs at the fact that the bull is unable to kill him and at the fact that the bull is injuring itself attacking him.
My perception of Hrothgar was not drastically affected by my reading of Grendel as well. In Beowulf, Hrothgar is seen as rather incompetent due to the fact that he is unable to protect his people from Grendel or Grendel's mother. He needs Beowulf to essentially help his own people. In Grendel, Hrothgar is seen as incompetent in a more intellectual way. In layman's terms, he is seen as stupid. This is evident when Hrothgar and his men are unable to identify what Grendel is. They believe him to be some kind of fungus-like tree spirit that must not be disturbed. He also believes Grendel's blood to be a kind of sap. These ignorant suggestions prove that Hrothgar is incompetent intellectually while his inability to protect his people in Beowulf shows hat he is incompetent physically.
Finally, my perception of Beowulf was changed slightly, but it was not changed enough to be called drastic. I knew Beowulf, from my reading of Beowulf, to be violent. This can be derived from his many violent encounters and from his trophies made from the extremities of his enemies. This also holds true in Grendel due to his violent fight with Grendel in Chapter 12 which leads to Grendel's death. However, my perception of Beowulf did change in the fact that I never believed Beowulf to find pleasure in someone's pain, but in Grendel he finds pleasure in Grendel's pain. Beowulf found extreme delight when he was slamming Grendel into Herot's walls and telling him to sing about it. That is extremely monstrous and inhumane, and those are traits that I did not fully realize from reading Beowulf.
E. Manzetti
After reading Gardner's Grendel (sorry it won't let me use italics), my view of Grendel changed significantly. In the epic poem Beowulf, he was portrayed as the classic evildoer. He possesed a strength similar to other villains. In Grendel, Grendel was shown as a weak, baby-like creature. He is shown this way throughtout the book. Constantly, Grendel can be seen yelling for his mother in a baby-like way. He did not seem at all like his evil self that is portrayed in the epic poem Beowulf. Grendel destroyed my image of Grendel.
M. Singh
After reading Grendel my perception of Hrothgar has been changed. In Beowulf Hrothgar was portrayed as a strong and powerful leader. Everyone looked up to Hrothgar, and even gave their lives for him like the Geats. Hrothgar was depicted as emotional as well because he was weeping when Beowulf and the Geats were leaving to go back home. In chapter 2 of Grendel Hrothgar is portrayed a lot differently than he was in Beowulf. Hrothgar is shown to be oblivious to the outside world when he thinks that Grendel was fungus on the tree. He also was shown as violent because when Grendel was trying to scream for help he attacked him. After reading Grendel I found Hrothgar to be a weak and ignorant leader. The story of Grendel has completely changed my view of Hrothgar as a leader.
After reading exerpts from Gardner's Grendel, my perception of Grendel was altered only slightly. In the epic poem Beowulf, Grendel is portrayed as a mindless killing machine; seeking to kill for only pure pleasure. Yet although this can be argued as true, in Gardner's work, Grendel was depicted a more childlike character. His innocence was shown through his ignorance and naive nature. These qualities made him appear to be almost human-like which in turn caused the reader to become more sensitive toward Grendel. However, although certain aspects of Gardner's work portrayed Grendel as innocent, his malicious behavior and vindictive actions proved otherwise. Grendel's thoughts were a jumble of mixed emotions and feelings, causing him to come off as psychotic. Overall, I still view Grendel to be a wicked creature, only out to kill for his own pleasure. However, after reading Gardner's Grendel I was able to conclude that Grendel's sick mind, derived from his lonliness and childish behavior, drove him to commit the violent acts he did.
A.Polk
After reading Gardner's Grendel, in contrast to Beowulf, my point of view upon Grendel has changed. As Grendel, in Beowulf, was portrayed as a demonic, demanding creature with unlimitd boundaries, Gardner portrayed Grendel to be a more confused, longing child, who was highly dependent upon his mother; such as the time Grendel was tormented by Hrothgar and the kingdom in the beggining in the book. As Grendel consistantly shouts for his mother throughout the scene, it implies how child-like Grendel is. In contrast to Grardner's portrayl of Grendel, Beowulf portrays Grendel to be a demonic, blood-thirsty beast from hell, who consistanly terrorizes Herot and the people in it, such as the times Grendel journeyd to Herot, ripping apart the bodies of all soldiers guarding the kingdom. Gardner, brought out Grendel's soft, weak, and dependent, side; a completly diffrent personality that influenced my perception of Grendel, in contrast to my perception from Beowulf.
It is interesting to consider the sheer and somewhat inconceivable slant that Gardener has used in his portrayal of Grendel. By giving him human characteristics – such as loneliness, aspirations, even pain – Grendel becomes a believable, round, main character. In the original epic, there is no room for any character to be portrayed in a modern novel. It is certainly indicative of the preferential change we have experienced, where motive is no longer “glory” deep. This is the main difference I notice in Grendel; Gardener gives him a reason to be – a reason to act that is far greater than just being… evil. The scene in which Grendel finds himself caught by a tree (silly foliage always gets in the way) develops a reason behind the hatred, something Beowulf seriously lacked. Compare being attacked by stupidity – in the form of Hrothgar and his men – to the original description: he’s a spawn of hell and that’s what spawns of hell do.
As for the epic hero: what in tar' nation is wrong with Beowulf? The great hero is broken down by Gardener into some sort of blatant, sadistic, mental case. “Sing of the hardness of walls”? This scene is torture. This writing takes the ultimate man and changes him into the ultimate evil – especially when we consider the fact that this consequently causes the murderer to become the victim. This alters a reader’s perception and therefore, such a flat character as Grendel suddenly becomes a subject of great debate.
L. Kaplan
After reading the epic poem, Beowulf, and chapters 2 and 12 of Gardner's Grendel, my perception of Grendel has very much changed. Due to the point of view in Gardner's Grendel, i percieve Grendel as a differnt character than in Beowulf. In Beowulf, Grendel is very evil and powerful monster. His grotesque and monstrous appearance has many fearful of him. Grendel's strong urge to kill is previlent, and known to people throughout in Beowulf. While in Gardner's Grendel, Grendel is portrayed as very weak, and child-like. He is very dependent upon his mother. Revealed in chapter 2, Grendel is very adventerous, and often gets himself in trouble. (when he was stuck in the tree) Instead of fighting, he sits in the tree crying for his mother to save him. Due to the opposing abstract concepts, and different point of views in each novel, my perception of Grendel has completely changed.
S Lawrie
After reading the chapters in Gardner's Grendel my point of view was drastically altered about Grendel. My perception of the classic evil villan was shattered. In the epic Grendel has no motives, no feelings, no reasons, and no guilt becasue he is simply pure evil. However, in the novel the story is told from Grendel's point of view as a child. This lets him explain his reasoning for the things that he did. It also uses flash backs and anecdotes to make the reader feel sorrow for the things that happened to Grendel and how the world treated him. As a child he lived alone with his mother away from the human race in isolation as a horrible monster. Humans did not even think of him as a living thing. When they spotted him in a tree they refered to him as a strange fungus, showing how they were potrayed as stupid and narrow minded.
Evil villans in my mind don't have excuses for their behavior and actions. That is what makes them evil. The fact that someone can commit such terrible offences, like Grendel did in the Epic Beowulf, and have no remorse or even explanaiton for why they did what they did shows the true genious of the evil hero. In my eyes by changing the view point of this story it took away all of that to reveal a hurting and wounded soul out for revenge on a life time of pain and suffering. It showed him as pathetic and sad where as in my mind he was highly inteligent, adept, and reasourceful. Changing the point of view changed my percepiton of Grendel.
L.Hunter
John Gardner's Grendel has blown away my original prejudices toward the character of Grendel which were formed by his portrayal in Beowulf. The character of Grendel is not noted to feel any emotions aside from hate. The reader is informed in gory detail of the horror Grendel brings upon Herot. Without any justifying qualities, it is vitually impossible for the reader to have any sympathy for Grendel. In Grendel however, John Gardner portrays Grendel in a different light while staying true to the basic details of Grendels encounters in the epic. As a young creature, Grendel was innocent and curious.He describes himself as having been "under a spell". Most readers, myself included, immediately identify with that description of childhood.Furthmore the reader is now set up to sympathize with Grendel as he undergoes the traumatic event involving his first encounter with humans. It is important to note that his initial inclination was not to hurt the people but to communicate with them. This radically contradicts the mindset of the Grendel portrayed in Beowulf. Therefore when Grendel did not automatically wish to harm the humans in Grendel, my opinion of Grendel had already been altered. The fight agianst Beowulf only served as a confirmation of my suspicion that the character of Grendel if not less evil is at least more complex than the pure evil monster whom he is portrayed as in Beowulf.
A. Saykes
After reading chapters two and twelve in Gardner's Grendel, My lack of respect for Grendel has been maintained. In Beowulf, I disrespected him for going into Herot and killing the Danes for not noticeable reason. I had more of an evil perception of him at the time, and saw him as only a blood thirsty demond. After reading the few chapters from Grendel, I now see him as a weak coward. I almost felt sympathetic for him at one point, because it seemed as though he was the one being attacked; whereas in Beowulf he appears to be the agressor. I however, lost my sympathy towards him after he whined for his mother, and portrayed that he has no independence.
My perception of Hrothgar was strongly altered after reading Beowulf and Grendel. In Beowulf he seems like an intelligent king, one who will do anything to save his people. I respected him for realizing he couldn't get the job done himself and calling on Beowulf to save his people. In Grendel, he seems much less respectable. He seems as though he got him and his people into the mess by throwing the ax at Grendel. In my opinion, much of the intelligence I believed him to have had no longer exists. I feel less sorrow for the Danes, and I feel that whatever came upon them was somewhat their own fault.
K. Lackey
After reading chapters two and twelve in Grendel, my perception was changed slightly. In the text Beowulf, Grendel is characterized as an evil, destructive beast that kills simply for pleasure. Gardner portrays Grendel much differently in his version of the epic. Grendel came off as weak, and helpless everytime he was caught in a conflict. Although, he was not completely innocent, Gardner chose to make him seem much more vulnerable to readers. Therefore, Gardner's epic changed my opinion of Grendel somewhat.
L.weinkauf
THe different points of views in the books have changed how i see Grendel .In Beowulf he is potrayed as this evil monster who eat humans. While in the book Grendal he is potrayed as a teenager kid. You see that he stills needs his mother to protect him at certain parts, like when he got stuck up in the tree.
The battles were also seen different. In Beowulf Grendel seemed to fight more, and Beowulf seemed like this hero. While in Grendel, Grendel says he only lost because it was an accident. He doesn't seem like he wants to take responsablities for his action. That is how my point of view has changed.
V. Mandava
Reading Grendel right after I had fully absorbed Beowulf didn’t alter as much as expand my opinion of Grendel. While reading Beowulf, I knew and understood that Grendel was meant to be portrayed as inhuman- cold, cruel, violent without a reason; it was a difficult yet attainable idea to accept. However, after getting to know the other side of the story, I realized that it really wasn’t that simple. Grendel had obviously suffered through some childhood trauma (getting stuck in a tree and being on a particularly fierce bull’s death list for example) and that broke the hazy gaze with which he viewed the world. Having his innocence taken away from him- realizing the concept of evil before he was mature enough to do so- never gave him a chance to understand that great divide between good and bad; for Grendel, [bad] evil was the only way to go. Becoming aware of that, the reason for his cruelty, I believe will help appease any anger, frustration, or malice a reader holds, as well as make her or him more open-minded, towards Grendel.
A. Kachur
After reading Grendel my perception of Beowulf has changed somewhat. Grendel's point of view of Beowulf is the complete opposite as portrayed in the epic Beowulf. He is portrayed as a great and mighty warrior in Beowulf, but through Grendel's point of view he is portrayed as psychotic and a Megalomaniac killer who mocks the monsters he kills. From Grendels perception of the battle Beowulf is slowly killing him and doing it for no reason. He does not understand why a person is wanting to kill him if they have no past conflict. Beowulf is bashing his head into walls and forcing him to sing for no reason. Grendel knows he is being beat but Beowuld has to rub it in even further. Beowulf is portrayed as demonic and the enemy in Grendel, whereas Grendel is portrayed as demonic and the enemy in Beowulf. Both views clash one another which makes the decision on whose point of view is more accurate somewhat hard.
K. Baxter
My point of view on Grendal has changed dramatically. I used to think that it was a demon, monster thing that killed for joy. After reading "Grendel" I found that it is just like any other character would be. He's just trying to live and to be able to live one would have to eat. Also my view of Beowulf as changed, in "Beowulf" he was a hero of many sorts, and a King of good deed, but in the novel "Grendel" he seemed just as much of a beast that Grendel seemed in "Beowulf." So really it the point of view that tells one story line from another.
M. Kuntz
In Beowulf, Beowulf is an epic hero and would fight to the death to protect his men and his country. He would even help other countries who needed him. In Beowulf Hrothgar asks him to help his country by killing the dreaded Grendel; and like the hero he is he ventured to Hrothgar's kingdom and slayed the mighty beast. All though he is still fearless in Grendel he is also a crazy lunatic. Grendel attacks Beowulf and Beowulf still overpowers him like in Beowulf, but he comes about it in a different way. Beowulf shoves Grendel's head into the wall and makes him sing about the walls and their hardness. This situation portrays Beowulf as a heartless beast instead of Grendel because instead of just executing Grendel he tortured him to no extent.
R.Cooke
After reading both book my point of view has changed of grendel. in beowulf, grendel is portraid as a ruthless killer who get a lot of enjoyment out of ends one's life.they also make it seem like it is hrothgar who is the victim, a inoccent person who just so happened to have this evil come to his hall's. but in the book grendel it is portrayed completly different. in this book they show grendel, not as a ruthless killing machine but as a creature who has thoughts and feelings. he has many human characteristics such as feeling fear, and the need for protection from his mother. also in grendel hrothgar is shown as the instigator. also in the book grendel beowulf is shown as a tormentor when he makes grendel sing about walls, and when he does not he causes him pain and eventually rips off his arm. so all in all my opinion of all three characters has changed somewhat.
B.Basch
Since both stories were written from different points of view, it would make sense that they would change your perspective of characters because you get to see them in a different light. My perception of Grendel changed only slightly in comparrison to my change in perception of Beowulf. I think the biggest thing that changed my perspecive on Beowulf was the final chapter of "Grendel." In this Beowulf is seen as being unfair and unheroic because he hides that he is sleeping and gives Grendel an unfair fight. In "Beowulf" he is portrayed as heroic because he is able to trick Grendel and defeat him. This caused me to look at it more logically and say he is more decpetive and sneaky. In "Beowulf" Hrothgar is portrayed a loving wise old king, and I think this perception is portrayed much the same in grendel, he is the wise old king caring for his people in "Grendel." More or less my perception of Grendel changed a little with the difference in the two books. I still see him as a blood thirsty monster, but yet in "Grendel" you are shown a little more of a humanistic side, which makes you feel some compassion for him, while in "Beowulf" he was just the quintessence of evil. The chapter about Grendel's childhood, shows a little more of an innocent side to Grendel, whereas "Beowulf's" characterization of Grendel shows none of this.
A. Oulton
The point of view contrast between the character of Grendel in the two books portray two very different ways. In Beowulf he appears to be much more independent, intelligent, and evil, for no particular reason. However in his own book, He appears to have more of a reason for his wickedness. And while he seems to be just as intelligent, he is much more dependent on his mother. This may be because his mother isn't even introduced in Beowulf until after Grendel is dead. Beowulf's character also changes somewhat in Grendel. Instead of being the noble hero he is in his own book, like refuseing to fight Grendel with weapons, since Grendel used none himself, he appears to be trying to humiliate grendel or so grendel precives it to be so.
r. rullo
Since reading 2 chapters in Grendel by John Gardner my view of Grendel has changed slightly. In Beowulf, Grendel is portrayed as the anagonist and as if he is all bad and has no soul. His emotions are never shown and he is strictly a character used to fight Beowulf and loose. in Grendel however, the reader can see his feelings and reasons for being so evil. Basically, it turns out that he is a moma's boy and is only evil becuase he secretly is a sensitive and pathetic in some ways. he uses the evilness as a protective sheild from real life matters and his character remains mean and shallow. my view has not changed much, but now i do understand his reasons for being what he is.
After reading Grendel, my perception of Beowulf and Grendel was only slightly changed. In both books Grendel is portrayed as a clever, yet evil monster, who enjoys eating and slaughtering men. However, in Grendel his memories portray him has childish, which attempts gains the reader's sympathy. Yet it only portrays that he is more pathetic because, even in the end of the book, he is still highly dependant on his mother. For example, while feeding off of Hrothgar's men, Grendel is taken by surprise and when he is no longer in control he cries and plees for his mother to save him. Beowulf, on the other hand, is portrayed as sinister in Grendel. However, the book is in Grendel's point of view, so it only exemplifies how courageous Beowulf is by revealing how he was able to mentally deafeat a horrible monster. In the end, both books portray Beowulf as a man who defeats a greedy and bloodthirsty monster.
A.Baker
After reading both Grendel and Beowolf, my perception of Grendel has changed. In John Gardner's Grendel, Grendel is portrayed as a naive character and very dependent on his mother. When caught by Hrathgars men, the language barrier between Grendel and the humans was great. When Grendel was only screaming for food, Hrathgars men took it as if he was being violent and hit him with the sword. I think when Hrathgar hit Grendel, Grendel changed and realized these people are not here to help him, so he needed to protect himself.
In Beowulf, Grendel is protrayed as a bloodthirsty monster. While reading the story I believed he was truly evil, for example when he took ohe of Hrathgars men from Herot. When i see the other side of the story of how they treated Grendel when being captured, I can somewhat understand why he is the way he is, therefore my perception has changed.
W. Domeck
After reading two chapters in John Gardner's Grendel, my perception of Grendel changed. He is portrayed differently, almost a complete opposite of his portrayal in Beowulf. In Beowulf ,Grendel is bescibed to be a demonic character who had a lust for blood. He was a monster who was creul and hateful. His actions were not justified except for the fact that he was a descentdent of the decietful Cain. Grendel, as portrayed in Beowulf, was a simple, cold-blooded killer.
With this perception of Grendel in mind, we read another portayal of him in John Gardner's book. Here, Grendel appears to be half-monster, half-human. While he had magic and some other abnormal qualities, he thought and acted as a human. He wept for his mom in times of trouble and was just as curious about the world as any other normal person. He appeared more vulnerable and immature. Even when older, his fight with Beowulf shows him to have a childish demeanor. This weak, humanlike view of Grendel totally altered my view of his character and is different from his character in Beowulf.
K.Riedy
After reading Beowulf and Gardner's Grendel, I was able to form a different view of Grendel. Through Gardener's use of point of view and indirect characterization he created new layers to Grendel that made him seem more human. Gardener also used his literary techniques to evoke reader sympathy. Grendel's actions and thoughts greatly differed in both works. In Beowulf, Grendel is portrayed as an evil bloodthirsty monster set on killing humans just for the fulfillment. He murders the Danes in their sleep and discovers pleasure while draining the warm blood from their bodies. He is portrayed as a very menacing and confident creature. Contrastingly, in Grendel, Grendel is very cautious and he always cries for the help of his mother, whether he is hanging from a tree or hear death. Although he still preys upon the Danes, he fights with much less glory in Grendel. In Beowulf, Grendel fights Beowulf and then flees because he knows he will die. However, in Grendel, Grendel cries and whines as Beowulf tears at him and rips off him arm and claw. He is no longer portrayed as menacing but pathetic and childish, he knows he will die and longs for his mother to save him. In conclusion, my perception of Grendel has changed in multiple ways. After reading Grendel, Grendel seems more human because he evokes emotions and thoughts. However, his reputation diminished in my eyes because he is no longer an intimidating evil monster, but a scared, childish, and lonely creature.
C. Domino
After reading chapters 2 and 12 of Grendel, my perception of Grendel has greatly changed. In Beowulf, Grendel is characterized as a beast who kills people for no apparent reason. After reading how Grendel killed Hrothgar's men in Herot, I thought of him as evil. In John Gardner's Grendel, Grendel is portrayed as alot more innocent. This book shows that Grendel actually has feelings. In Grendel, the soldiers do not understand what Grendel is screaming, so they think he is a vicious beast. Therefore, I think Grendel is misunderstood in the epic, Beowulf.
M. Knapp
After reading the chapters in Grendel my view of Grendel has altered greatly. In the epic Beowulf, Grendal is portrayed as just a ruthless, heartless monster, while in Grendel it gives us a different way of viewing Grendal. In Grendel, he is exemplified as more of a person rather than a monster. In the scene in chapter 2, Grendel is caught in a tree, struggling for help calling for his mother, showing he has some kind of human charecteristics of reliance. He is also portrayed as a lonely person in chapter 2 who just has his mother in his life. In chapter 12 Grendel is viewed similiar to his charecter in Beowulf, a coward in many different ways. With that said, Grendel is charecterized differenetly in the novel Grendel, but also contains some of the same charecteristics in the epic Beowulf.
K. Davis
After reading the 2 chapters of John Gardner's Grendel, the point of view in which the story is told has affected my opinion of Beowulf greatly. In the epic poem that is told from a narrator's point of view, Beowulf is portrayed as a great hero who is revered for his bravery and strength. All of the other characters look up to him with respect and awe. Further, when he fights Grendel in the poem, Beowulf appears as a victorious hero. He can defeat the monster with a slight movement of his hand and tear off his arm with minimal effort. Overall, Beowulf is a victorious hero.
However, in Gardner's novel, told from Grendel's point of view, Beowulf is portrayed in a very different light. From this perspective, Beowulf is only able to defeat Grendel because Grendel slips during the course of the fight, giving Beowulf an advantage. Further, rather than portraying Beowulf as heroic and glorified, Gardner's novel portrays Beowulf as malicious and evil. While Beowulf is fighting Grendel, Beowulf is whispering threatening things into Grendel's ear as he tries to kill him. Even as Grendel cries for mercy, Beowulf antagonizes him and purposefully makes him suffer. From Grendel's point of view, Beowulf is a vile monster whose only goal is to cause Grendel as much pain as possible.
In conclusion, after reading both the poem Beowulf and the novel Grendel, it is obvious that point of view greatly effects the perception of characters and events. After seeing the same event from Grendel's point of view, my perception of Beowulf was greatly changed from when I read the scene in the poem.
La. Skonieczny
After reading the full epic of Beowulf and Chapters 2 and 12 of Gardner's Grendel my point of view of Grendel was affected. While reading the epic, I thought of Grendel as an evil monster that was only out to kill. This is represented in the text when Grendel goes into Herot to kill the people. It was Beowulf's job to take out the beast like monster which made the reader believe that Grendel was just a blood thirsty demon. However, in John Gardener's Grendel, the reader has the opportunity to look at Grendel from a different set of eyes. The novel, written from Grendel's point of view, describes how Grendel is actually somewhat innocent. He acts like a child and cries for his mother. A reference from the text is when Grendel is stuck in the tree and cries for his mother to come save him. This reveals Grendel's child-like characteristics and how different he is portrayed. In conclusion, my point of view of Grendel has changed greatly after reading both texts.
J.Kovalik
After reading Grendel, p;oint of view has affected my perception of Grendel. Before reading Grendel, I pictured him as a vicious demon who was pure evil. However, in Grendel, he is portrayed as helpless and almost pathetic. Also, after reading Grendel my perception of Beowulf has changed. In Beowulf, he is meant to be a bold, courageous hero that exemplifies good in Anglo-Saxon culture. In Grendel, he is portrayed as almost demonic and evil from Grendel's perspective. Lastly, after reading Grendel, my perception of Hrothgar has been affected. In Beowulf, he is a wise, old king who has memories of glory. In Grendel, he is depicted to be stupid and oaf-like.
Li, Skonieczny
After reading both Beowulf, and Gardner's version of grendel, my opinion has changed somewhat drastically. At first, after reading the epic poem i came to the conclusion that Grendel was a vicious monster who was out to get anyone in sight, as shown in the first battle. But after readling pieces of Grendel i came to the conclusion that grendel is not as powerful as he may seem, but is instead a nieve character who is very dependable on his mother. For example, when he gets stuck in the tree, he calls for his mother which reveals he uncabable of completing the task my himself, and instead relies on the assistance of his mother. So in conlcusion, after reading chapters 2 and 12 of Gardners vesion, my opinion of grendel has changed from vicious, powerful, and evil to neive, child-ike, and dependent.
Upon completion of both Beowulf and Grendel, I can say my perception of the characters has not changed at all. The reason for this is that Grendel in Grendel is an unreliable storyteller because the story is told from his limited perspective, only allowing glances into his head. Just because the battle in Grendel shows Beowulf to be a psychotic menace doesn’t mean he was one. Of course the person he was fighting to the death was going to dislike him and Grendel had undergone massive head trauma at that point and from the experiences of a friend, I’m pretty sure he wasn’t fit to stand, let a lone judge the mental instability of another character. He also wasn’t portrayed as saintly, barely being good at his best moments. In fact when it was his turn to tell the story, Grendel still seemed a bit of a loon. Even when he was telling the story, Grendel didn’t portray himself in a positive light,. No, instead he told the reader how he had been tricked and that if he knew Beowulf was awake, he would have won the fight. He used his final moments to tell the reader how he was tricked. Actually, I think my opinion of him got worse, if anything.
Now in defense of Hrothgar, he was young and brash at the time. He had yet to accumulate the wisdom he would have when he appeared in Beowulf. In fact, his reaction was in line with that of a normal human when confronted with the unknown, fear and panic. Fear is normal in humans and just because as a young man, Hrothgar reacted on his impulses and gave into his fear doesn’t mean his is less of a king or less wise or less courageous. Remember, Mark Twain once said, “Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear — not absence of fear.”
After reading about Grendel in two different point of views, I viewed him differently. In Beowulf, all the people hated him and thought he was evil. Grendel killed many people from the town. But by hearing only one side of the story, the side from the victims, we only hear about the bad things. He's made out to be only evil, and having no good or normal qualities at all, like when he would come into the town at nights and for no reason kill people and leave the halls messy and ruined. In Grendel, he is made out to be a little more normal. He has human qualities, like emotion and curiosity. He is scared when he falls in the tree, and he may even be smart when he didn't move or answer when the men came. He seemed very dependent on his mother, and there was nothing that made him seem evil. If you get both sides of the story, you can make your own opinions. The story changes greatly when you read it in a different point of view.
A. Bruder
Reading certain passages in Grendel drastically changed my opinion of Grendel. Before we read from the novel of Grendel, I thought that Grendel was simply a monster. It had never occured to me that there was a different side to the story. In my opinion, the victimization of Grendel did not excuse his actions, but they made the actions a bit more understandable. The chapters that we read actually allowed me to sympathize with Grendel. I began to see him as someone that did not really know any better and I feel like his environment raised him to behave the way that he did. I do not think that Grendel killed for pleasure, which was the message that I got when I read Beowulf, but rather that he really did not know any better. I feel bad for him because no one tried to understand him. They just instantly believed that he was a monster because he could not explain himself.
After reading parts of Grendel, my opinion of Beowulf changed as well. After reading the epic I thought of Beowulf as a hero, willing to defend the defenseless. Yet after I read from Grendel's point of view, I felt that Beowulf was cruel. It was absolutely unnecessary for Beowulf to humiliate and torture Grendel. It would have been easy for him to take mercy on Grendel and kill him quickly and quietly. However, Beowulf seemed to believe that Grendel deserved to bleed to death. Reading about how Beowulf mocked and degraded made him significantly less noble. I suppose that the reality of the situation was somewhere between the two stories. It simply demonstrates that people see various situations differently and that their perception affects the perceptions of others.
A. Frantzen
As we read both books, Grendel and Beowulf, many perceptions of the characters of both books may vary. This change is due to the different points of view that are expressed in the books. Beowulf, as obviously it mostly focuses on the point of view of Beowulf, tends to describe everything positive about the "good" side, compared to the evil side. As it describes Grendel as a fierce beast that ravages blood and lusts for evil, Grendel in the novel Grendel is a little demon with a sad history in childhood that savages nothing more than the love of his mother and kills out of hunger.
I want to focus my point on Hrothgar, and how points of view changed my perception of this character. Especially in chapter 2 of Grendel, he is depicted as an evil king, throwing an ax at Grendel who is helplessly stuck in a tree without a way to defend himself. To depict my point even further, he is almost displayed as stupid too, because he believes Grendel to be a bewitched fungi growing out of a dead tree.The point of view Beowulf changes, because the people on the good side tell the story, and in their eyes Grendel is pure evil, nothing more. Hrothgar is revealed as a rather glorious and mighty king, that the land could ask for no better. He is shown as a wise, brave man, not a coward as he is in Grendel. This difference in opinion about the character can be directly linked back to point of view, which changed my perception of Hrothgar as he is demonstrated in the pieces of literature.
F. Gretzinger
After reading Grendel, my perception of Beowulf has changed. I have less respect for Beowulf now. In the epic, they showed Beowulf as a hero and that he struggled a little bit struggling Grendel. In Grendel, John Gardner showed Beowulf as a bully. Beowulf was pushing Grendel up against the wall. Beowulf could have killed him right there instead of torturing him.
M. Sekela
In the epic poem Beowulf, Beowulf is portrayed as a hero. He travels a far distance and defeats a horrible monster. However, in the novel Grendel, Beowulf is portrayed completely different. Because the novel is in Grendel’s perspective, he sees Beowulf as a monster who seemed to breathe fire and had wings. Beowulf also seems really evil, because he makes Grendel sing, and when he doesn’t, he hurts Grendel.
My view of Beowulf has changed significantly because after seeing Beowulf from Grendel’s point of view, Beowulf doesn’t seem as heroic. He seems like more of a monster.
S. Deptola
After reading chapter from grendel my perception on Beowulf has been greatly altered. In the novel Beowulf, Beowulf is seen as a mighty warrior whos strength can not be matched. In Grendel, it is revealed that Beowulf defeated Grendel by pure luck. In the text it says that if Grendel had known blood was on the floor and that Beowulf had been awake, Beowulf would have been no match for Grendel. In the novel Grendel, it also describes Beowulf as a demonic character, having wings and being an evil character. Although, in Beowulf, Beowulf is seen as only good and never commiting evil.
B. Filarski
Gardner's work, told from Grendel's point of view, altered my opinion of Grendel greatly. In the chapters we read as a class, the bloodthirsty antagonist of Beowulf is portrayed first as a youngster who is aware of his strength and natural evil instincts, but who is also very playful and curious about the world and his relationship with it. He plays and explores like any human child would. As a reader, you experience the relationship between Grendel and his mother. This portrayal helped me to relate to John Gardner's Grendel as a more humane and almost childlike Grendel than is featured in Beowulf. Grendel is still a villanous monster, but he is a monster that loves his mother through an unspoken relationship. In the epic, Beowulf, Grendel's past is not featured. He is introduced simply as a heathen desiring to kill and destroy everything in his path. In the battle scene between Beowulf and Grendel, Beowulf is portrayed as a pure hero helping to cleanse the Danes of this awful monster. In Gardner's Grendel, he is portrayed as a kniving, taunting warrior who tricks Grendel into his own death. He recites poems to Grendel hauntingly and forces him to sing. Gardner's Grendel changed my perspective of Beowulf as well because of the his dialouge and Grendel's internal fear and thoughts about Beowulf being a lunatic who only wants to put Grendel through as much pain as possible.
K. Becker
The purpose of Gardner’s Grendel, is to depict an opposing view point on a very famous story. However, from the limited exposure I had to the novel Grendel, I found that my view of the monster himself was not vastly changed. Yes, I understand, he grew up in a very strange and isolated environment, and that perhaps that is why he is so evil, but in the novel, Gardner distinctly points out that Grendel knows that many of the things he does are wrong. Though it may be true that in the Epic poem, we aren’t provided realistic information of the character Beowulf, Grendel certainly fills in those blanks. On the contrary, Grendel is described as evil and demonic in the poem as well as Gardner’s novel. The fact that I know his history doesn’t change what he did, or the fact that he not only perpetually had malicious thoughts going through his head, he acted on them. My view of Grendel as a character was mildly but certainly not drastically altered by John Gardner’s Grendel.
Stephen Doughten
Beowulf and Grendel are portrayed very differetly in the novel Grendel than in the epic Beowulf. In Beowulf Grendel is characterized as nothing but evil and bloodthirsty, whereas Beowulf was nothing but heroic and noble. He was celebrated as a hero when he defeated Grendel and Grendel was described as being a sneaky dishonorable fighter.
Chapters 2 and 12 of Grendal changed my view of these characters. Grendal was characterized as a playful curious character that was victimized by Hrothgars men in chapter two when he was hanging from the tree. In Chapter 12 Grendel was simply seeking revenge for how he had been wronged. Beowulf was the one that was sneaky and kniving as a fighter as he pretended to be asleep and surprised Grendel. He also humiliated Grendel by mking him sing and plead but he still killed him anyway. Grendel was just trying to get away. These two books show how different points of view can describe the same events and characters completely different, leaving a completely different impression on the reader.
After reading the 2 chapters of Grendel, my point of view of both Grendel and Hrothgar has changed greatly. In the book Beorwulf Grendel is portrayed as a evil monster that is out to kill everyone in Herot, but when analyzed in the book, Grendel is seen more as a whiner and baby, which is the exact opposite. Grendel depends on his mother for full support but you wouldn't realize this when you are reading the book Beowulf. When Grendel cries out for his mothers help when he is stuck in a tree is a great example for him not being a huge tough guy like represented in the book Beowulf. My point of view for Hrothgar also changed. In Beowulf he is seen as a loving king who cares greatly for his people, but he is mostly seen as a pretty nice guy. But when Hrothgar teases Grendel in the book Grendel, i see him more as the evil guy. Instead of him being the loving, caring king in the book Beowulf.
What i have realized is that Grendel and Hrothgar seemed to have switched positions in both books, and the way they acted is the exact opposite in each of the books represented.
After reading Grendal, my perception of Grendal has changed drastically. In John Gardener's Grendal, the beast is portrayed as more of a human rather than a beast. During the battle between Grendal and Beowulf in John Gardner's book, Grendal was pretty much fighting for his life rather than trying to kill Beowulf. Pretty much the only reason why Grendal was after Beowulf in GRENDAL was becuase of the motive that Hrothgar's men gave him.
In Beowulf, Grendal is portrayed as a monster who was seeking revenge on Hrothgar's men. He was not portrayed as a human like in John Gardner's book; he was portrayed as a monster. Grendal can also be conceived as a coward in both books. In Grendal, he was a coward because he acted confused and helpless. While in Beowulf, he was pretty much making a fool out of himself. In the end, John Gardner's Grendal has changed my perspective of him based on Chapters 2 and 12 in John Gardner's Grendal.
M. McVeigh
After reading Grendal, my perception of Grendal has changed drastically. In John Gardener's Grendal, the beast is portrayed as more of a human rather than a beast. During the battle between Grendal and Beowulf in John Gardner's book, Grendal was pretty much fighting for his life rather than trying to kill Beowulf. Pretty much the only reason why Grendal was after Beowulf in GRENDAL was becuase of the motive that Hrothgar's men gave him.
In Beowulf, Grendal is portrayed as a monster who was seeking revenge on Hrothgar's men. He was not portrayed as a human like in John Gardner's book; he was portrayed as a monster. Grendal can also be conceived as a coward in both books. In Grendal, he was a coward because he acted confused and helpless. While in Beowulf, he was pretty much making a fool out of himself. In the end, John Gardner's Grendal has changed my perspective of him based on Chapters 2 and 12 in John Gardner's Grendal.
M. Deptola
After reading the chapters in the novel Grendel my view of Beowulf has changed. In the epic poem Beowulf, Beowulf the character is portrayed as an epic hero. His strength and supernatural abilities are told to us. In Grendel, Beowulf's supernatural capabilities and strength are shown to us through visual imagery. In the battle between Grendel and Beowulf, Grendel describes Beowulf as having wings and his grip being stronger than any grip felt before. In Grendel, Grendel's personal feelings are revealed. By gettting this new information we can further differentiate between the two Beowulf's depicted in the two different texts. After reading the Grendel I see Beowulf as much more of an epic hero, as his strength and supernatural abilities are shown through visual imagery.
After reading the couple chapters we read in Grendel my view of him has changed. In Beowulf they make him seem as his whole plan is to kill everyone when really that was never his intentions. You can't blame him for being so angry and doing what he did. As a child he was lonely and didnt know any better. In Beowulf he was set out to be this horrible creature but only because no on understood him. I think that if someone could have listen Grendel wouldnt have done the things he did.
Also my view of Beowulf changed. When Grendal was down and losing Beowulf rubbed it in his face and did as much as he could do to hurt him. He didnt stop when he could of and he kept going. This revealed to me that he wasnt as heroic as they put him out to be in his epic.
E. Kaiser
After reading the two chapters assigned to us in Grendel, my opinions of Grendel were changed, though not for the better. I came to see Grendel as a pathetic character as well as an evil one. He is completely dependent on his mother, and though in a way that is slightly endeering,it overall just leads to my opinion that Grendel does not have the intelligence we thought he did throughout Beowulf. In Beowulf, he is portrayed as sneaky, intelligent and cunning as well as evil. In Grendel, it is added that he is also pathetic and dependent, most clearly stated in chapter two. Throughout that chapter he is calling out for his mother instead of fixing his own problems. When he becomes caught in the trap, he cannot use his cunning, but once again whines for his mother. As we know, when Grendel dies, his mother seeks vengence on him. My perception changed by having Grendel be seen as a cunning demon to a pathetic one.
Beowulf, on the other hand, did not have much different characterization in Grendel than he did in Beowulf. In both texts, he is viewed as an all powerful mighty warrior, defeating anything that comes in his path. In Grendel, he is seen as slightly more evil, but still the same amount of cunning and heroism. The characterization of Hrothgar was obviously quite different in Grendel than it was in Beowulf, and for this reason, did change my perspective of him. In Beowulf, he is presented as a wise and noble old king, while in Grendel, he is seen as unintelligent and hasty. My view on Hrothgar was changed because in Grendel it showed him in a situation where he actually had to make a swift decision as king, where in Beowulf he did not. My perception of him has been changed from a noble king to a rather unintelligent one.
S.Deptola
Also in reading Grendel, my perception of Grendel has changed. In Beowulf, Grendel, is portrayed as a lower intellegence monster who only knows killing. The novel tells that Grendel has full knowledge of what is going on during his killing. In Grendel, Grendel is portrayed as a higher intellegence being who is at often times a victim of circumstance. At first glance Grendel is stuck in a tree and Hrothgar and his men discover Grendel. The dialouge used in the passage not only shows how Hrothgar and his men are quick to judge but also of lower intellegence than Grendel.
E. Foster
After reading the chapters in Grendel my perception of him has not changed at all. In Beowulf he is portrayed as a young, bloodthirsty, killing machine; which is still seen in the text through Grendel's eyes. All that i see that has changed is how truly young Grendel seems to be in his text. For example, he is always crying/whining for his mom when things got to be too hard, and you almost see that in Beowulf when Beowulf starts to beat Grendel and tear him apart. Grendel screams and does all he can to get away because he is scared. You also see in Grendel's book how he laughs at death and danger, showing he is still a cynical monster.
After reading Grendel my perception of Grendel has slightly changed. He still has hints of the aspect of evil without being an evil character. I now portray him as more of a pathetic evil. Throughout Beowulf I had seen Grendel as a more intelligent monster, whereas in Grendel you see him as being naive and ignorant. When Grendel gets caught in the tree I saw the first hints of his almost child-like personality. In chapter 2 he is constantly seeking his mother's support, rather than thinking for himself. Overall instead of seeing him as the "spawn of evil" from the epic, i saw him as a more pathetic character who relied on the attention from his mother.
K. Buonpane
After reading the chapters of Grendel assigned in class, my opinion of Grendel has changed to a certain degree. In Beowulf Grendel only has one side to him, he is portrayed as a savage beast. Grendel is only concerned about one thing and that is killing for fun. However, in the novel by John Gardner Grendel's true feelings and intellect are reviled. Grendel is more than just a monster he now has many human qualities. For instance when grendel whined for his mother it reviles that he has emotions other than wrath, and just like a human he is very complex. Another example of this would when Grendel first see men. Grendel is perceived as an intelligent character because he assess how the men are acting and realizes that men are thinking beings that which will make them very dangerous. While in Beowulf Grendel is perceived as a dull primitive beast in Grendel he expresses many more complex emotions and thoughts.
King Hrothgar is portrayed very differently between the two works. In Beowulf, he is seen as a heroic, brave, and intelligent strategist. He is cherished by his country and he seems to be quite the smart guy. In Grendel, he is portrayed as naive and stupid. For example, his first impressions of Grendel were very stupid and ignorant, which is oftentimes what human first impressions are. He is portrayed this way because it is told in first person perspective, in which Grendel is superior in regards to intelligence. In Beowulf, he is seen in third person, from a human perspective, and from that point of view he seems very heroic due to our own human tendencies.
F. Hirschman
After I read the chapters in Grendel and the epic Beowulf, my point of view of Grendel himself has not changed at all. In Beowulf, Grendel seems to be a very blood thirsty and malicious character and it is very obvious. As in Grendel he is portrayed as a watered down version of what he is. Grendel has him crying for his mother and he seems almost like a small child, or as they said in the book, a puppy. Deep down, he is still the same in both books, regardless of the way you look at him.
After reading the two literary works, My perception of Grendal changed. In Rafael's Beowulf, Grendal is portrayed as satanic, and pure evil. Grendal is seen perniciously approaching Hrothgar's mead hall and brutally murdering Hrothgar's men. However, in Gardner's Grendal, Grendal obtains a compassionate and sensitive personality. Grendal is out exploring and manages to get his foot stuck amoungst the trees. Grendal whails and cries for his mothers aid. This displays that Grendal is sensitive and needs the comfort of his mother. These events prove how Grendal is portrayed differently in the texts, leading to my perception of him altered.
In the epic, Hrothgar was the helpless victim,, Grendel was the cunning murderer, and Berowulf was the traditional hero. After reading Jonh Gardner's Grendel, however, my opinions of the charaters changed dramatically. After learning that it was Hrothgar who initially provoked Gredndel, i now view Hrothgar as an antagonist, Grendel as a static character and Beowulf as an old fashioned bully. Hrothgar, in the epic, waas the helpless king doing everything in his power to protect his people but after reading Grendel readers learn that it was Hrothgar himself that created this mean, hateful Grendel by attacking and abusing him as a child. My opnion of Gredndel also changed when i learn that he was harrassed by the king and his army when he was still a young, innocent beast. It is also revealed in John Gardner's Grendel that Gredndel's attacks on herot we attacks of opportunity and not long thought-out evil plans to seek revenge. Furthermore, my views of Beowulf shift as well. Beowulf went from a triumphant hero to an ill-mannered bully. Originally, readers would see Beowulf as the character that comes along and saves the day but in reality, Beowulf was an evil antagonist that used others' problems to make himself seem greater. His defeat of Gredndel is honorable but his mockery of the defeated beast is disgusting.
E. Sullivan
Seeing how Gardner had wrote in Grendel's perspective gave him more human characteristics that made Grendel seem more sensible with his innocence from chapter two. But also in the last chapter it seemed that he turned into an excuse maker with saying that it was an accident that he lost. He said he slipped and he was tricked and he really wouldn't have lost. He kind of seemed to be a little kid whining that he should have won. At the end Grendel lost my respect with all of this from what he gained in my reading of chapter two. Though Beowulf was a bit more portrayed as the bad guy in Gardner's writing, both Grendel and Beowulf had their weak point in being the 'hero.'
Point of view affected my perception of Grendle and Bewolf. In John Gardners Grendle my perception was that he was more human like with more feelings, while in Beowulf i felt like he was just an evil monster. Then, i thought that Bewolf was a hero in Bewolf but in John Gardners Grendle i thought of him as just plain mean. My perception of both characters has changed after reading both novels.
D. Ritz
After reading grendel found my opinion changed significantly of the beast. From his perspective beowulf is quite evil himself, torturureing grendel befor killing him. In the book wy also learn that grendel does not kill people for fun, but rather for food, which makes semce. He is also quite intelegent and has a sence of humor. In the last scen he tice a tablecloth around his neck, like a bib, before devouring a poor geat.
I do think grendel is a bit of a "mooma's boy" because he really, really relies on his mother to save him.
Beowulf is a very static charicter thoughout both books. He is a boastful beast slayer in both books and changes little.
-----------------------------------
NCmedic125@gmail.com
L.sega
After reading chapters 2 and 12 in beowulf, my view on Beowulf changed significantly. For one thing, Beowulf and Grendel sort of changed sides on the whole good vs. evil spectrum. Beowulf whispering in Grendel's ear and laughing? His evil voice followed Grendel through the woods and to his death. Although Grendel murdered so many men, it was almost as if he was the innocence in chapter 12. And the evil Beowulf killed this poor, innocent creature out of pure hatred. I viewed Beowulf as this big bad character who killed a small, naive, and weak creature for pride and recognition.
G. Kimson
Hearing the story told from a different perspective, Grendel's perspective, has significantly affected how I percieve and consider Beowulf. The one chapter that was read in which Beowulf was present was the chapter portraying the epic battle between Beowulf and Grendel. During the battle the two seemed to hold discourse over differing philisophical ideas and perceptions of the world. As Beowulf is beating Grendel's head into the wall they discuss the existence of the wall itself and essentially how the walls existence would affect Beowulf's head. The violent way that Beowulf deems appropiate to hold philosophical debate reveals much, I think, about Beowulf's character. From reading this chapter I began to regard Beowulf as almost a Latin Crusader or Inquisitor who held to the belief that the best form of philisophical debate occured at the tip of a sword. Beowulf morphs from an epic hero into an arrogant sadist who is anything but admirable. It becomes evident that Beowulf is not, in fact, driven by bravery and honor, but rather by an unmerciful fear of the unknown.
W. Queisser
After reading the epic Beowulf and several chapters of the novel Grendel my perception has not changed. Grendel is still a ruthless heartless killing beast. In the epic Beowulf Grendel was portrayed as a beast that slaughtered Hrothgar’s men for fun. In the novel Grendel Grendel was perceived as being childish in the perspective of wanting to have fun. Yet this does not change my perception of Grendel that does not change the fact that he killed soldiers for fun. His intentions do not make a difference only his actions do. I believe that the novel Grendel even did give me insight on how Grendel felt yet that was not strong enough to change my perception on Grendel. In the Epic he killed for fun therefore he is a beast that slaughters for fun. Grendel rips Hrothgar’s men limb from limb and drinks there blood. These actions are precisely why my opinion will never change no matter how childish Grendel may act.
mprochaska
After reading the chapters in John Gardner's Grendel, we were asked whether our perception of Grendel had changed. Previosly, in Beowulf, Grendel was perceived as a wild, murderous fiend and after reading Gardner's Grendel my perception of Grendel has not changed. Through indirect characterization we learn more about Grendel, the way he thinks, and the way he acts and why. We learn that Hrothgar initiates the hostile relationship between he and Grendel; however, this does not change the perception of Grendel. When Grendel breaks into Herot he is described as having a lust for blood, a characteristic of a bloodthirsty murderer. Due to the fact that Grendel is consistently portrayed as a bloodthirsty beast, my perception of grendel jas not changed. he remains, to me, the evil, fiendish moster that murders men in the dead of night. He is consistently portrayed as a cowardly freak in both Grendel and Beowulf.
N. Kovacs
After reading both Beowulf and Grendel, im not exactly sure what to believe. In one story Beowulf is viewed as this big hero, and Grendel as a monster who just kills because he can. When reading Grendel, he is a monster yes, but he did not do harm really until provoked. He had his motives and it seems as if Beowulf did more than just saving his people, but tortured Grendel for no reason. The thing about point of view is you never get the full story unless your there. In real life if you go to one person who started a fight, they favor themselves most likely, while the other one pleads their case more in their favor, unless they are truly honest. so my views did change, but it depends on what book i am reading.
J Grubbs
After reading Gardner's Grendel, my point of view of has changed greatly. First in the epic Beowulf, Grendel is portrayed as an evil beast who haunts the Herot. In Grendel though he is given a reason in chapter two for attacking Herot. In chapter two, Grendel is made fun of by Hrothgar and his men. This scene justifies his reason to attack in chapter twelve. Also in Grendel, Grendel is portrayed as a childish character. In the epic he is given no human characteristics or feelings. The reader is forced to think of him only as a monster. My point of view of Beowulf was also changed after reading Grendel. In the epic Beowulf, he is the hero for Hrothgar and his people. In Gardner's Grendel, Beowulf seems to use unnessasary force on Grendel. It seems he could defeat Grendel easily, but takes his time to make Grendel feel pain. He also mocks Grendel by thanking the walls for being so hard as he smashes his face into them. In all, after reading chapters two and twelve from Grendel, my point of view of Grendel and Beowulf changed drasticly.
E. Stafford
My view of the monster Grendel has changed only slightly after reading the novel Grenel. he in my opnion is a creature that is highly intellegent. but he is dellusional. he sees Beowulf, the savior of Hrothgar's people the feature king of the geats, as a demon with firy wings. he talks to himself as though Grendel and Grendel are two sepereate beings.
he is static because he still attacks the men due to rage and he fights only to feed on the people inside. i think that grendel is more human after reading this sue to the fact that he has emotions, but that still does not change the fact that he attacks the people.
My perception of Grendel changed as a new light was shown apon him by Gardener. In the epic Beowuld, I percieved Grendel as a heartless, pernicious fiend. Although after reading chapters two and twelve, Gardener portrayed him as a soft complex character. Gardener's setting revealed Grendel as a befogged teenager, dependent on his mother. Beowulf's setting and external conflict represent Grendel in a ruthless deviant mannor-"Grendel snatched at the first Geat He came to, ripped him apart, cut His body to bits with powerful jaws, Drank the blood from his veins and bolted Him down, hands and feet;"(739-743). Both perspectives of the first battle between Beowulf and Grendel uncover that he is still a blood lusting monster. Although I realized Grendel seemed to have a more humanized childish side after reading John Gardeners Grendel. It wasn't until Gardener introduced a new persona of Grendel, that my perspective errticated.
H. Masch
After reading two chapters from the book Grendel, my opinion of Beowulf remains the same. In the epic Beowulf, he is portrayed as a strong, unbeatable hero with unmatchable strength. This is shown through his ability to defeat Grendel, who has a reputation of being evil and too strong to be defeated.
When reading the novel Grendel, Beowulf is basically portrayed the same from his opponent's side of view. Grendel refers to Beowulf's strength as unbeatable, and he cannot escape from him. In conclusion, Beowulf is portrayed the same in both books, as he is the hero who overcomes evil.
Post a Comment