"I'm going to die," I wailed. "Poor Grendel! Poor old Mama!" I wept and sobbed. "Poor Grendel will hang here and starve to death," I told myself, "and no one will ever miss him!" The thought enraged me.- Chapter 2, page 18
The thought that no one will miss him enrages Grendel, it makes his blood boil. There is pain in knowing that no one's life will be worse without him, even though he has never made an attempt to improve life for anyone. Which is fair, what is sadder than knowing the world really would not be worse without you? Nothing in my mind...When reading Grendel it is hard to find him sympathetic. Mainly because he is a murderer who shows no remorse for his murders. He does as he pleases and hates everyone and thing. He does not ask for your approval or affection. He does not even ask for his mother's approval or affection. When he cries out (later during the bull charging the tree he is stuck in scene) Gardner writes
"Please, Mama!" I sobbed as if heartbroken
Even when crying out to her, Grendel is not a heartbroken son hoping for his mother's protection, he just plays one on TV. The closest he gets to sincerely calling to his mother here is in acting. Maybe he hopes to stir her into some protective maternal instinct. Either way, he by no means actually thinks she will come.
A few discussions ago Professor Miller asked if anyone pities Grendel. I answered yes. It happens to be that at the time I wasn't really sure why, I just knew that somewhere in my gut there was room to pity Grendel. Despite his starting a twelve year war his raids, and how many other crimes, there still seemed to be room for more than disdain. Now maybe I would be less forgiving if any of this were real, but that is just more conjecture... Upon reading a few selection over again I found a more precise reason for my pity: Grendel never asks me to pity him.
Grendel is not kind, and he is not altruistic, he has a sad and sorry life with a depressing outlook. Yet despite that he never asks to be pitied. And that is what invites me to pity him. The idea that no one will miss him enrages him and the "thought of cool indifferent eyes" frightens him. And "Still no one came."If Grendel is bitter it is because he matters to no one and no one matters to him. If he dropped dead no one would miss him. No one's life would be any worse for his absence. How can someone read a character who is so void of any meaningful rope tying him down to his own life and not pity him? Grendel is disappointed when Shaper's views turn out to be empty because Grendel wanted to believe that life can be more than assumes it is, that he had been wrong the whole time. Grendel comes to his new philosophy – admittedly with a little help from the friendly neighborhood dragon – that life is meaningless because he has no reason to believe otherwise. And to be fair to Grendel's integrity as a philosopher, he already seems to think the world is empty way back in chapter 2,
I understood then that the world was nothing:
a mechanical chaos of casual, brute enmity
on which we stupidly impose our hopes and fears.
Here, he is probably speaking more out of bitterness than the actual intellectual honesty he uses later, however it looks like Grendel has never felt much love for the world he lives in.
I have a vague sense that this was not Gardner's point in writing Grendel. I doubt that Gardner was trying to prove how mattering to people validates a person while not mattering to anyone turns them into monsters. Or in this case, turns monsters into wretched monsters. But what I take from this story is that while Grendel is horrible and wretched and not the kind of monster I should approach in a park he is worth my pity if nothing else. He has lived a sorry life, not mattering to anyone is stressful and depressing. He never asks me to sympathize with him, forgive him for his evils, or commiserate with his suffering, and he certainly does not asked to be pitied. And I think that is why I pity him at all.
Great post ST! I just had an idea that I thought I would add: in answer to the question of if I pity Grendel or not, I think, unlike ST, I would answer to the contrary. I do not particularly pity Grendel. Yes, it is true that as ST says, it is rather pitiful how Grendel feels unneeded and how “he matters to no one and no one matters to him” (quoting ST). And yes, it is true that this is a truly depressing life to lead. And as I was reading this book, since it has been written from the point of view of Grendel, I found myself desiring to sympathize with the main character. However, I found that actually doing so was impossible for me. The monstrosity that Grendel becomes and the behavior he exhibits lead me to completely lack sympathy for him whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteThe way I approach this character of Grendel is the way I would approach a murderer sitting in jail. I cannot feel any sympathy towards him regardless of his claims that he was never brought up in a healthy loving home and was never loved or taught how to love. Yes, I do understand that point of view, but on the other hand, if every person’s actions are an act of circumstance then how can we justify punishment? (Although, perhaps one could argue that jail/killing Grendel was not done as punishment but rather in an attempt to protect the people living around the perpetrators.)
I do see how one could sympathize with an individual born into such circumstances, and I definitely understand this point of view. However, for me, I just feel fear and frustration at their actions.
I was born in South Africa and most of my family still lives there. It is a regular incident for someone they know (or they themselves) to be held up, hijacked, shot, or robbed. The irony of the whole situation is that people pity the thieves and murderers by saying, “oh they live in squata-camps without any running water and electricity…” Now, of course, I am not, G-d forbid saying that it is not a terrible situation that needs to be remedied. These people should be able to live in better conditions, and the situation should definitely be addressed as soon as possible! However, I am stating the fact that I find it a little difficult to feel bad for these people who commit such terrible acts of violence (of course not all of them resort to murder).
Perhaps it is easier for an outsider to feel for such violent individuals, but for those people who suffered from Grendel’s actions, and for those who suffer from the terrible violence in Africa, it is much more difficult to pity the evil-doers.
Do we feel any pity for the Nazi German soldiers who brutally murdered our fellow Jews?
Perhaps we only feel pity for Grendel because he is the main character in a book and so we naturally want to sympathize with the main character. However, in reality, if this were real life, I beg to say that it would be truly difficult for me to feel any sympathy for Grendel whatsoever.
Tamar, I think ST's point is that there is a difference between pity and excusing.
ReplyDeleteI can pity someone and how they live, but that doesn't justify what they do. I pity Grendel's sad existance, but I don't excuse him.
I would pity that guy thats stuck in jail, but that doesn't mean I think he should be set free.
I think sympathizing is closer to the justification, that we sympathise with him and think about if we would have done the same thing. In that case, his actions are inexcusable. But to see if we pity what his life was, that is fully available, and as ST points out, it is pitiful.
Thanks for clarifying Shulie! I see what you mean. I think I misunderstood what was meant by pity. It is not that you feel bad for him, rather you look at him as how pathetic and depressing his life is. In this case, I think we would agree. Grendel does live a life that lacks meaning, despite the fact that he in a way brings it upon himself through his nihilistic point of view. Although, his 'lack of meaning' may also be brought on by the fact that the people around him reject him, and so he feels as if it doesn't matter anymore what he does, as people will reject him anyways. (Side lesson for us--it proves how unproductive it is to measure your value and worth based on what others think of you. You have to understand you are worthwhile within yourself and not go looking for others approval or else it will just backfire and turn you into the person you do not wish to be.)
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying! So yes, we agree- maybe there is a bit of pity, but that pity does not in any way make me sympathize or feel bad for Grendel, and it most definitely does not make me justify his actions!
As Mr. T said, I pity the fool...
ReplyDeleteGrendel is ulimately a pitiable fool, which, as you all have clarified, by no means makes him a lovable or forgivable character.
I am enjoying the conversation in this thread and hope that other join in.
Hi, ST. I thought your post was really interesting, and had a lot to unpack. Grendel's fictional status allows people to step back and consider their own feelings and philosophies on real-life monsters (without being devoured), but I think one of the effects of having the monster be Grendel as opposed to a human or any sort of realistic evil type is that you get to look at Grendel as a figure. Wholly apart from the effects of his destruction, Grendel's life is spilled across the pages, near beginning to end, and I think you can feel that it is tragic, and it is pitiable. However, in trying to incorporate your conclusions back into reality, you (I) feel a contradiction- pitiable or not, Grendel is functionally a black-hole on the universe and should be killed five times over before he even touches reality. Moreover, it is almost impossible (and possibly morally questionable) to encounter victims of violence and retain emotional ties to the villain.
ReplyDeleteSo what have you accomplished from pitying Grendel?
Obviously, this is pure speculation, viewing a character who is evil without affecting you personally is impossible for a human to do in reality. In viewing the character this way, perhaps your viewpoint approaches something a little closer to the divine, and that experience is valuable.
Just a (hopefully non heretical) thought. :-)
I think Shulie put it best: “I can pity someone and how they live, but that doesn't justify what they do. I pity Grendel's sad existance, but I don't excuse him.”
ReplyDeleteI’m going to use pity and sympathy interchangeably. We can feel sympathy for Grendel. We don’t have much of a choice in the matter, since we’re put directly into his head, and allowed to see his inner-world turmoil. He’s quite a wretch. He’s alone, unloved, possibly unable to love, lost, alienated, and isolated. More than that, between his existentialism and nihilism, he’s pushed himself into a corner. While he doesn’t see any meaning to living, he equally doesn’t see any meaning in dying and therefore isn’t able to end his own life and put himself out of his misery; both because of his twisted philosophy, and because of the dragon’s “gift”. He’s in a completely hopeless situation, because unless he’s able to change his life philosophy, un-believe his nihilism, he’s stuck in a void with no way out. (For those who’ve seen it, think Gravity: lost in space, with no help coming, and the air tank is running low. Complete and utter hopelessness. Except in Grendel’s version, there is no Earth out there to strive for. It’s an impossible way to live.)
So I really do feel bad for him.
That doesn’t make him any less of a sociopathic homicidal murderer, and that doesn’t justify his cruelty, monstrosity, and brutality. No one would ever say “Aww, nebach, the poor guy, maybe all he needs is a cookie and a therapist.” He committed horrible acts, and no one is asking us to empathize with that.
However, I did notice that while I was reading the book, I was imagining Grendel as a “Where the Wild Things Are” character. It must be because of the cover art. Anyone else see that?
interesting comparison to "Where the Wild Things Are". I had not thought about that, in part because I haven't read that book in years. I did look back through it once I saw this (hint, most kids books are on youtube), and I do see what you are saying, and I think it stretches beyond the cover art if you analyze it. In WTWTA, you have these monsters, who have autonomy, until someone comes and claims the island as their own, and starts ordering them around. Of course, because WTWTA is a children's book, the monsters obey Max, but in Grendel, when he's faced with the same situation, he rebels, and fights back, which is the story of the book.
DeleteSo thank you Lizzie for making that connection for me
I too find myself pitying Grendel, but for different reasons. I pity him as the 'misunderstood monster,' akin to the 'misunderstood genius' if you will.If someone doesn't ask for something it does not mean that they want it. The opposite is usually true. His not asking for pity doesn't cause me to pity him. Doing monstrous things makes Grendel a monster, but he does it because it is necessary for him to survive. He doesn't want to be a monster. He wants to be able to change things and the inability to do that makes him frustrated and bored. I think his escalating monstrous behavior is a manifestation of his desire to escape. If he makes enough noise someone will have to do something and put him out of his misery.
ReplyDeleteIs it actually necessary for him to survive?
DeleteFrom a physiological perspective, it does seem like he needs meat to survive, as does his mother, whom he provides food for. However there doesn’t seem to be a shortage of animals for him to feed on; he doesn’t have to eat people, he chooses to eat people.
Even from a philosophical perspective, he isn’t forced to do the acts he does. He chooses to be the monster that Hrothgar’s people will shape themselves against. As a “meaning of life,” it’s completely arbitrary, just as arbitrary as the dragon’s crede, to gather gold an sit on it. He could have chosen absolutely anything else. He could have decided that his purpose in life would be to count how many times Unferth said the word “heroic,” or what’s the greatest velocity of Hrothgar’s sword swing. He could have found meaning in religion, or in art.
In neither case is it necessary for him to kill people. If he considers himself a thinking creature, and if he recognizes humans as being thinking creatures, then by killing them he commits a monstrous act.
If he were actually insane at the outset of the novel, or had an instinctual unavoidable inclination toward eating humans, then it would be unavoidable, but I don’t think that is case.