One of my favorite examples of this style is The True Story of the Three Little Pigs, which tells one of our classic childhood stories from the other side. Here is a video version of it.
My mother used to use this book to teach us about seeing the other side of the story, particularly when we were judging a classmate or family member. This book would be pulled out of the huge stack on the table and we would sit down and read it together (or in later years be handed it to read by ourselves), as a calm reminder that things aren't always as you see.
I also remember this being a classic writing prompt in younger grades, where a teacher would give us a story to read, and then we would have to write the story from a different perspective. It was always more interesting to take the "villain" in the story and re-write it so that he is not quite as evil, a perspective that bothered my teacher for some reason.Perhaps the sign of a good imagination is to see the other side of the story, and of a good writer, to write it.Sometimes that monster, whether a monster, or just a scary person, that you fear is really just another person who has their own experiences to think about.
Shulie, I love how you added this video about a famous fairy tale but from the point of view of the Big Bad Wolf!!
ReplyDeleteJust an observation that I had: in Grendel and in this video of the Three Little Pigs, the villain is portrayed in a more sympathetic light. However, it is not always the case that when a story is told from the villain's perspective, that we suddenly feel bad for the 'bad guy.' In fact, while reading Grendel, I actually wasn't so persuaded to feel too bad for the Grendel. This may be perhaps because I am used to associating with the feelings of the people, and so despite the attempts of the book, I still found myself trying to feel for the people and not for Grendel.
Additionally, more examples of when books written from the perspective of the 'bad guy' actually did not make you feel for the 'villain' are contained in Edgar Allen Poe's writings, such as in "The Black Cat". In fact, I think that because it is written from the point of view of the villain, it is in fact an even more terrifying story, that makes you detest the narrator more--as you truly see the inner workings of his mind.
Yet, going back to what Shulie said, it is true that giving others the benefit of the doubt is an important stance to take, as in all honesty, things are rarely what they seem to be.
I found that while reading Grendel, although I did feel bad for the people, you can also see how they made the monster what he is to some extent. We see that Grendel tried to try join the people in the hall that first time that they thought he attacked. So while Grendel did attack these poor defenseless people, it is easy to see how he sees it as "but they started it!"
DeleteI like your point bringing Poe back in, and that is an interesting point that the villain in his books does not elicit sympathy, but that may be because they are not meant to. Gardner in Grendel and Scieszka in the Three Little Pigs book I quoted before are both trying to elicit sympathy, and show the goodness in the "monster", while Poe is trying to show the negative side of humans.
Point well taken Shulie. You are correct in saying that Poe was purposefully attempting to portray the monster side of humans, whereas in Grendel and the Three Little Pigs, the authors were trying to portray the positive sides of the 'monster'.
ReplyDeleteIn my Sociology class we are learning about social deviance and deviant behaviors. It is interesting that when you approach a situation from different perspectives certain things can appear horrific from one perspective/in one circumstance, yet completely acceptable (or at least a bit more acceptable) from a different point of view/perspective.
For example, (although instead of being from a different perspective it is revolving around different circumstances) this idea of perspective taking reminded me of the following true story scenarios:
1) The movie "Alive" is based off of a true story of a plane crash in the Andes mountains on October 13, 1972. In order to survive, the survivors from the crash ate the bodies of the people who had already died (they did not kill anyone to eat!)
2) Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer intentionally kidnapped people and would then engage in cannibalism.
In the first situation, people viewed the cannibalism as not some inhumane action, whereas in the second situation, Dahmer was condemned. So we see, from an extreme example, how situation/perspective does make a difference. If one were to say cannibalism is cannibalism regardless of circumstance, then the two above situations would both be viewed with the same degree of negativity. However, once circumstance and perspective is achieved, one can judge each scenario accordingly.
These are very good points, but just to point out, in the cannibalism example, there was another difference besides the situation; whether the "cannibal" killed his meal or just ate from that which was dead.
DeleteSo while both examples have the headline of "cannibalism in our time", only one of these are murderers. To bring this back to Grendel, our issue with Grendel is not that he eats dead bodies he finds (although we may find that gross), it is that he kills all these people to eat.
Perhaps what this book is doing is trying to move Grendel from that 2nd category of Dahmer into that first in the Andes where it is unavoidable, but there is still murder in the story.
I don't think Gardner is trying to make Grendel's murders sound unavoidable; in fact, one of the most shocking/revolutionary thing he does is [attempt] to make Grendel sympathetic without trying to justify the murders he commits. Grendel is often munching on people, probably much more than is explicitly described in the poem. Grendel's murders are quotidian to him, which might make them unremarkable to the reader until he is jerked out of Grendel's head and duly horrified.
DeleteAt any rate, Grendel's murders seem anything but purposeless. As I think was mentioned, Grendel is attracted to the anti-hero role attributed to him in the Shaper's songs, and he carves out his purpose in the world with a knife.
Actually, on that premise, the priest-scene is quite ironic- Grendel thinks he's tricking the priest, but the destroyer is exactly what he is.
Oh, right, Shulie- I like your post too. The wolf-thing was really cute and I also remember writing those mixed-up fairy tales in third grade.
I just had to comment and say that in my fieldwork class (yes, they are oddly making a lot of appearances this week, maybe because I caught the end of reading and I usually don't) they were reading "The True Story of the Three Little Pigs" as part of their unit on fairy tales, folk tales and fables, to compare it to the classic story. They did an interesting exercise where they compared the original story to this version to talk about different points of view. As they spoke, I found myself trying to do the same thing with Grendel, thinking of this post, but found it much more difficult. Obviously part of the difficulty was that I have never actually read Beowulf, but I also found that while "Alexander T. Wolf" tells the story about how he is not guilty, as many people have pointed out, Grendel is not acquitted of his crimes in this book, but rather just tries to blame his circumstances. It would be interesting to see if one could re-write Beowulf more in this style of fully acquitting him, or would all agree that Grendel's crimes are too real to avoid?
ReplyDeleteI wholly agree with the sentiment that seeing a situation from the other side is necessary to understand the bigger picture. That is the reason we have judges, to look at both sides of the story and decide who is right and who is wrong in grayscale. Nothing is ever solely black or white. It is important for people in a position that requires them to discipline to not jump to conclusions. Parents, teachers, coaches, and counselors all need to remember this. The teller of a story will paint himself in the best light possible and excuse or lighten any infractions he may have committed. What is interesting in Grendel is that he does not try to hide his killing. It is from the monsters perspective but we still see a monster. One of my favorite books as a child was Fantastic Mr. Fox by Roald Dahl. From the humans perspective a pesky fox steals from them and disturbs them. From the readers perspective the humans are mean adults with beady eyes and the clever fox is bravely saving his family. Children's stories like the story above and Fantastic Mr. Fox, are important not just as entertainment and a means to develop reading skills, but also to show children that there is more than one perspective to every story.
ReplyDeleteI love this post! I think that's imperative to see the story from the other side, but I also think that it's a very Modernist thing to do as well. I think that in the classic Modernist perspective of deconstruction, there is an element to victimizing the villain in such a way that draws sympathy for him so that we can gain an added level of psychological depth in analyzing good vs. bad in our own lives, because as we grow older, we start to see that nothing in life is really pure-black and pure-white. The majority of things are grey, in varying shades, and I believe, that it is in the grey areas where life happens. That is, it's in the effort you make to understand the various factors that make something what it is that makes you a developed human being, capable of empathy and sympathy and objectivity. I think that Grendel does this beautifully. It is truly possible to both feel bad for Grendel, and to hate him, but in a sad, unfortunate way. He's a character that makes you understand exactly why he's so terrorizing, and in a way, it is that factor that makes him even more tragic, because you realize that had you been in his position, you may have made the same choices as he did. Thus, I think it's a very mature way to look at the world, and I think that this strain of Modern literature is conducive to the philosophy of striving to view the world from a more objective place.
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting to see the same story from multiple angles. We think we know the story, and suddenly there's a whole new angle to approach it from and we didn't even dream it existed. I agree with Yael, it's a very Modernist characteristic, to look at different subjectivities. It's an acknowledgement of the ambiguities in the world, that even stories we think we know, the most oft-told fairy tales, can be viewed completely differently. Modern art first began as a way to depict subjective perspectives and emotions; it's only natural that it progressed to literature and became more accessible to people as time went on.
ReplyDelete