With a rebellion in Ukraine and a civil war in Syria, one may wonder what are the prerequisites for a successful revolution. Is having a goal and some support enough? How much action is necessary to promote change?
In chapter eight of Grendel, John Gardner makes a short, yet bold statement about revolution, that is slightly overlooked due to the novel’s primary focus on philosophy, or more particularly nihilism and solipsism. Hrothulf, the king’s nephew is frustrated by the socioeconomic standings within Hrothgar’s kingdom. The peasants labor, while the aristocrats collect the resulting riches, yet the peasants live drastically poorer lives than the thanes. Red Horse, the old peasant who mentors Hrothulf in his quest to revolt teaches him that “by a single stroke, the most criminal acts must be converted to heroic and meritorious deeds… The total ruin of institutions and morals is an act of creation. A religious act. Murder and mayhem are the life and soul of revolution” (Gardner 117-118).
Although Gardner was born after Mark Twain had already passed away, this idea of violence being crucial to a revolution reminded me too much of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. Hank himself reflects that “no people in the world ever did achieve their freedom by goody-goody talk and moral suasion: it being immutable law that all revolutions that will succeed must begin in blood, whatever may answer afterward” (Twain 103). Both Hank and Hrothulf’s mentor seem to believe that nonviolent protests are not productive enough to bring about change. However, as expected, this opinion found in Grendel is tainted by nihilistic beliefs. The Red Horse continues to explain that revolution “is not the substitution of immoral for moral, or of illegitimate for legitimate violence; it is simply the pitting of power against power, where the issue is freedom for the winners and enslavement of the rest,” and he concludes with the depressing thought that “all systems are evil. All governments are evil. Not just a trifle evil. Monstrously evil” (Gardner 119-120).
It is possible that this is the core difference between Hank’s and the Red Horse’s seemingly similar opinions on how to carry out a successful revolution. In Grendel, violence is necessary for a revolution, because revolution is meaningless in the sense that it will never lead to universal justice. Rather, revolution just perpetuates a cycle of the strong usurping the weak or the rich exploiting the poor, so for levels of society to change positions, power needs to meet power. On the other hand, in A Connecticut Yankee of King Arthur’s Court violence is necessary in the beginning in order to create change, however that isn’t the essence of the revolution. The essence of the revolution is in fact to achieve universal freedom, which benefits all of society. According to Hank, violence is a means to an end that is better and more promising, as opposed to the opinion of the Red Horse who believes violence is a means to an end that is different but not objectively better than what existed beforehand. If violence achieves the latter, conceivably violence is necessary to promote change, but could one still consider it a prerequisite for a successful revolution? According to Hank it would seem as if a revolution needs to generate positive change in order to be considered successful, while the Red Horse seems to think that a revolution’s success is based on any effective change, whether that change is good or bad. Being as positive change is a rather subjective measure, perhaps the Red Horse’s pessimistic views aren’t so far off.
Interesting comparison and commentary. It seems like the Red Horse, like many in Grendel's world, does not believe in constructive revolution, though Hrothulf seems to disagree. Red Horse's quote that "all systems are evil. All governments are evil. Not just a trifle evil. Monstrously evil" because revolution "is simply the pitting of power against power, where the issue is freedom for the winners and enslavement of the rest" is a curious way to look at society, because it is impossible not to have a system of governance. Even a perfect anarchy cannot sustain itself, as the strongest will survive and the weakest will supplicate to avoid death. By saying systems are evil, Red Horse is condemning all of mankind.
ReplyDeleteWe saw the Danes putting their kingdom together, developing from groups of randomly warring tribes to a more or less organized monarchy with music, culture and the ability to defend itself from other countries, and while they're a long way from perfect, it is clear (especially from our 21st century democracy mindset) that some governments are less evil than others. Rachel- I think your comment at the end, that positive change is a subjective measure, is a bit hasty. There are quantitative markers of positive change- it should mean more people living more safely/comfortably than before the revolution (though obviously there's a cost-benefit analysis needed here- you won't kill five hundred for the increased comfort of five hundred and one). Developed countries' infant mortality rates and average lifespans are higher than third-world countries', for instance.
At the same time, when Red Horse says "all governments are evil," although he is condemning the concept of governance, I don’t think he is condemning all of mankind. He isn’t saying that governance should not exist completely. Rather, it is possible to resign to the fact that some system of leadership has to exist, but there is no one system that is better than the other. When you say, "even a perfect anarchy cannot sustain itself, as the strongest will survive and the weakest will supplicate to avoid death," I think that was exactly Red Horse's point. There will never be a good system, because they will all end up having this exact fault. He's not saying that there should be bedlam and no system set up, but whatever that system is, there are always going to be major faults. In terms of the quantitative markers of positive change, I agree somewhat but you corrected your own self by saying "though obviously there's a cost-benefit analysis needed here." Deciding not to kill five hundred people for the increased comfort of five hundred and one individuals is a subjective, quantitative measure. There are people who will disagree with that decision wholeheartedly, especially when external factors such as age, skill, and talents come into play.
DeleteGreat post, Rachel! Really interesting comparison between two different literary mindsets toward revolution.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit, I read Red Horse’s speech a little differently though. It seemed to me that he was valuing the power that words and labels have in shaping people’s opinions, teaching Hrothulf the power of propaganda. His speech was showing that the way actions are called become the way they are perceived. “Criminal acts” are called “meritorious deeds,” and therefor become meritorious deeds. The destruction of a previous system of morals is labeled a “religious act”, and murder and mayhem are excused as being the “soul of revolution.” In a roundabout way, that acknowledges the power that Shaper has in forming people’s sensibilities: through his songs, Hrothgar’s mercenaries become Good and Holy Warriors, and Grendel is an Incarnation of Monstrous Evil.
Great point Lizzie! I also understood Red Horse's speech as implying that "the way actions are called become the way they are perceived" (as Lizzie says). I think one of the main points being made in Grendel is through the fact that the Shaper has such an effect on Grendel mentally, as well as how the Shaper converts Hrothgar's mercenaries into good people, and also depicts Grendel as an evil monster. Perhaps if the people had perceived Grendel in a positive light, and if they had accepted him instead of branding him as being a monster, Grendel would not have become such an evil monster. Because the Shaper describes Grendel in a way, that in Grendel's opinion, is extremely false, the Shaper has such a major impact on Grendel. Grendel is fascinated that such falsehoods can be so readily believed by the people. Perhaps that is why the Shaper has such a strange effect on Grendel. It is exactly because the people perceive Grendel as bad, that he becomes bad. Red Horse is trying to impart this wisdom onto Hrothulf, in telling him that words, and as Lizzie says "the power of porpaganda," are extremely powerful!! Lesson for us : Be careful what you say; speech is an extremely powerful, and if not used correctly, dangerous tool!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLizzie, I agree with your reading of the passage. I also think that this interpretation flows well with the narrative. However, although the idea of propoganda is apparent here, Red Horse still mentions "murder and mayhem" as a part of the revolution. It is true that the way actions are called become the way they are perceived, but that doesn't dismiss the possibility that those actions may need to be violence. It is that very violence that is viewed positively because of propaganda and because of the portrayal of righteous reasoning behind those actions, but whether their acts are viewed righteously or not, they are still fighting for the upper hand. How else would the exploited overcome the exploiters? The exploiters (remember these are exploiters, not congressman and statesmen) most likely wouldn't give in to the propaganda, so when Red Horse says "power against power" he really means power against power, even though as you point out that isn't the main point of the passage.
ReplyDelete[Let me make clear right now that I agree with your reading of the passage, completely and utterly. Red Horse can be understood to be preaching about violence.] When I reread the passage though, I realized that the way we explained "power against power" can be expanded. Instead of "power" referring to violence, the physical means, it can mean "belief," the inner cause. In that case, Red Horse would be saying that people pit their cause, what they believe to be true and worth fighting for, against someone else's cause, which those likewise believe to be true and worth fighting for. Its the equivalent of a "nuh-uh"/"huh-huh" argument, or an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. One side completely believes red is the perfect color, and the other says blue-- they both believe in their "cause" and cannot be convinced otherwise, so each cause has equal gravity. Neither has precedence over the other, except for the entitlement the make for themselves, with propaganda or the like. Like you said, it's not necessarily religious in nature, or even passive-agressive political. It could be a case of enslavement vs. freedom, or just a simple case of conflicting demands. If so, then Red Horse would be saying that there's no such thing as a just cause. That is why "all systems are evil. All governments are evil," because no matter what, there will always be someone, imposing something, on someone else, usually through violence, and then justifying their action by attaching heroic labels to their cause. Which is pretty much exactly what you had written in paragraph 4.
ReplyDeleteEither way, Red Horse is channeling some pretty Draconic nihilism.