In the history of human civilization, stories always had educative role. In the literary works of fiction, authors use diverse images and symbols in order to trigger a particular reflection from the audience. On the other hand, some authors use traditional images in new contexts in order to stimulate a different reaction and challenge the audiences’ perception of traditional images. In other words, authors often argue that the same images can have different meaning and perception in different cultures and different times. The best example of this is a perception of monsters in different times. The aim of this paper is to explore the symbolical meaning of the character of Grendel and how it shows that the society is afraid of something unknown. In this regard, literary analysis of Beowulf and Grendel: The Truth Behind England’s Oldest Legend by John Grigsby and Grendel by John Gardner is made. The character of Grendel from both books is analyzed from the point of psychoanalytical approach.
The recent tendency in literary analysis of monster characters is that each monster corresponds to the epoch in which it was created or re-created. That is why the original Beowulf tale Grendel is very different from the one described Gardner and Grigsby. While the common sense would argue that eating flesh monster of the dark ages has very little to offer the contemporary audience, the reality is that the character of Grendel became quite popular in the modern culture (Farrell 934). Jennifer Farrell argues:
“Part of Grendel’s allure is the fact that he remains a mystery. His past is only
alluded to, his species of origin is circumvented, and the original poet goes great
length to make him as alien as possible As Grendel lives in the water and drinks
human blood, the taboo formation of his name makes his ties to evil and Cain that
much stronger” (935).
Therefore, the original author aimed to distance his audience from understanding what is behind the mask of monstrosity and ugly looks. He had alienated Grendel from the audience as an entirely different species without intellect or understanding of the surrounding environment, right or wrong or the value of human life. However, in the modern time interest to the character and his inner mystery could not be destroyed by a simple condemnation of its monstrosity. Contemporary people want to understand what is behind that mask of evil. This is exactly what Gardner and Grigsby did in their books. They explored the human nature of the monster image.
Description of monstrosity?
Both authors argue that Grendel is not a creation of another world; he is a part of the human world and actually its product. On the other hand, two authors take entirely different approaches in demonstrating Grendel’s belonging to the world of people. In both cases, authors retell the story differently from the original legend. Grigsby explores the legend in terms of religious struggle between two pagan cults practiced by rivaling tribes of the Vanir and the Aesir. In this regard, Grendel and his mother are described as the representatives of the old pagan cult, which practiced human sacrifices and was admired by the Vanir tribe. On the other hand, the new warrior cult was embodied in Odin and Beowulf, worshiped by the Aesir (Grigsby 79). Grigsby argues that the conflict in the legend reflects the change of one pagan belief with a new one. In this regard, the character of Grendel becomes even more symbolical than in the original story. According to Grigsby, Grendel was an embodiment of Vanir’s main god Freyr: “and the chief of the Vanir deities of this region was the barley-wreathed god Freyr the brother/lover of the fertility goddess Freyja” (84). In this regard, what used to be viewed as a monster in the original tale is perceived as a cornerstone of a pagan cult. From Grigsby’s point of view, Grendel is not a monster coming from a shadow, he is an embodiment of the pagan tradition, he is a child of the goddess of fertility, he is a child of earth and thus he is part of the nature. From one perspective, it can be argued that he is like an animal and is part of the ecosystem. On the other hand, he is closer to people because he is the embodiment of power and strength of the ancient world, the world based on blood and struggle. He embodies the human practice of sacrificing blood to the nature in order to receive desired outcomes – crops and victory in the battle.
Just as in many polytheistic pagan cults, deities were personified and given feature of human beings. In this regard, considering Grendel an embodiment of the pagan god, inevitably brings personification and humanization into his character. It does not mean that he was viewed as a model of all virtues and kindness; he was the embodiment of the god required by the tribe in order to survive. From a psychoanalytical perspective, it can be argued that animalistic and blood-thirsty nature of Grendel as Vanir’s god was conditioned by the dominance of archetypical instincts of tribes of that time. Thus, Grigsby’s Grendel reflected what the tribe worshiped the most – it was an animalistic strength and the blood-driven cycle of life. Although from the contemporary perspective scarifies and blood-driven cults seem barbaric and animalistic in their very nature, placed in the context of time, the character of Grendel as a deity of the Vanir, I the god they needed and he is beyond goodness or evil. He is what was crucial for survival at that time – the dominance of animalistic instincts.
Gardner describes the character of Grendel in an entirely different way than Grigsby. The author does not only tell the story from Grendel’s perspective but also demonstrates his intellectual growth as he studies the world around him. The fact that Gardner gave his character a voice and a strong rational conscious made him closer not only to the audience, but also to the human world he interacts with. Joseph Milosh argues:
“Gardner’s Grendel, on the other hand, is anything but a static character. He grows,
passing through several initiations, evolving more than many a modern hero. Grendel
begins as an unseen observer of men, reporting their actions and difficulties and
threats. He comes into contact with them because he is forced to, and he then seeks to
proceed from observation to communication and understanding” (49).
In this regard, Gardner shows Grendel’s humanity not through his mythological divine nature like Grigsby; he makes him human by giving him consciousness and ability to grow and develop. In this regard, the audience is forced to observe the world with the eyes of a person trapped in the body of a monster. This individual wants to understand the world around him and all those illogical creatures – human beings. From the very first pages of the novel, Gardner describes Grendel as an inevitable part of the world. Although he is no deity like in Grigsby’s book, he is still part of this world, a living creature one of its kind. He can feel and wonder and try to rationalize things:
“Not, of course, that I fool myself with thoughts that I’m more noble. Pointless,
Ridiculous monster crouched in the shadows, stinking of dead men, murdered
children, martyred cows. (I am neither proud nor ashamed, understand. One more
dull victim, leering at seasons that never were meant to be observed)” (Gardner 6 ).
Gardner’s Grendel is not delusional about his animalistic nature and desire to kill, but he kills for food or survival, which makes him closer to the world of animals. On the other hand, his ability to think and learn makes him closer to the world of people. In other words, he is a creature stuck between two worlds, not an animal yet not a human. This duality places him in-between the good and evil argument as well. Although from the contemporary moral perspective, his actions can be viewed as monstrous and evil; he is not too far from the same people he lived next to. Just as Danes in the novel he was killing, but the only difference was that he was killing for survival, while people were killing each other for the sake of division of power and wealth. Milosh argues that “the humanizing of Grendel is necessary to Gardner’s portrayal of the absurdity of war Conversely, in Grendel war loses its nobility and contaminates whatever is associated with it. Clashes between small groups of hunters in the winter are only distracting and foolish brawls in the face of hunger” (51). So, the argument Gardner poses is who is actually a monster – Grendel who is driven by his animalistic instincts or people who kill for absurd reasons or even without reasons at all.
In terms of psychoanalytical perspective, in both books the character of Grendel demonstrates the archetypical part of the human psyche. While Christian approach would argue for a simple division between goodness and evil, psychoanalysis argues for the existence of subconscious animalistic instincts within any human being and only rationalization and strong link with society can control and suppress animalistic cravings. In terms of Grigsby’s book, Grendel is an embodiment of this animalistic nature of personality. He is driven by his instincts of survival, which means desire for blood of animals for food and his enemies in order to live. Such cravings were vital for people of that time to survive in ferocious environment. That is why Grendel as an embodiment of Feyr could be worshiped by Vanir tribe. On the other hand, Gardner’s Grendel is a more complex creature that is closer to human personality. Unlike Grigsby’s Feyr, his Grendel has consciousness which effects his decisions and controls his animalistic cravings. From the developmental point of view, it can be argued that Grigsby’s Grendel is on the first stage of humanization while Gardner’s Grendel is on the second. In both cases, the argument of good /evil and monstrous is put aside, demonstrating an existential context of human development on the example of a creature that is not an animal yet not a human.
Otherness/ Alienation or Evil?
Taking into account two mentioned above stories of Grendel the question what exactly makes Grendel a monster and evil in the eyes of the people dealing with him? Where does that evil monstrosity some from? The answer is very simple and it refers to everything unknown and different – the lack of understanding causes fear, and fear triggers anger. Further, anger causes desire to destroy the object of fear. From a psychoanalytical perspective, this chain of thinking corresponds to the instinctive and animalistic part of the psyche, while rationale part would want to understand the unknown and find the best solution of the situation. In this regard, fear of the unknown monster demonstrates the dominance of animalistic instincts, while the desire to understand demonstrates a strong rational consciousness. This explanation is essential for Gardner’s Grendel because it demonstrates the nature of the conflict between Grendel and Danes – the lack of understanding. It also shows the dominance of animalistic fear in people and rationale mind in Grendel.
Therefore, Gardner creates an allegory on how an individual that is different in any particular way is not accepted by a society with its perception of normal and righteous. In this regard, on the example of Grendel being misunderstood and thus feared, he demonstrates the dominance of communal thinking in the society and it dangerous for an individual that is not like anyone else. The best example from the real world would be the bad treatment of genial children by other students in high school. Such attitude creates an environment of alienation and positioning of an individual against the rest of society just as Grendel did. In this regard, he became what the human society wanted him to be:
“It was as if I’d made some incredible discovery I was transformed. I was a new
focus for the clutter of space I stood in: if the world had once imploded on the tree
where I waited, trapped and full of pain, it now blasted outward, away from me,
screeching terror. I had become, myself, the mama I’d searched the cliffs for once in
vainI had become something, as if born again I was Grendel, Ruiner of
Meadhalls, Wrecker of Kings” (Gardner 80).
Initially Gardner’s Grendel was just a curious child, but the first acquaintance with people traumatized him, only when he became the destroyer of human settlements he could overcome that traumatic experience and instead of being a victim become a destroyer. In this regard, through destruction of Grendel’s humanization by people, Gardner demonstrates that the lack of understanding or actually the desire of the society to understand an individual creates an inner conflict in one’s personality which can be resolved only through self-destruction. In the case of Grendel the only way out of loneliness and alienation was to commit suicide. Regarding the question whether Gardner’s Grendel was good or evil, the answer would be neither. He was not evil; he was only perceived so and finally made so by the society that created a monster out of him. In this context, Milosh concludes “perhaps the allegorizing of Grendel should lead to the rejection of that quintessentially human pride in man’s remaking of the world according to his own limitations, and to the recognition that reason is finite, with spirituality alone offering a next step” (54). In any case, just because something is beyond common understanding it does not necessarily make it evil.
In Grigsby’s story of Grendel, the otherness of Grendel and his mother was because they represented the old pagan cult of fertility, which was opposed by arising warrior-cult of Odin and Beowulf. In this regard, symbolical alienation of Grendel and his mother corresponded to suppression of the Vanir by the Aesir, which were further justified in the mythological epos as fight against tyranny and enlightenment of the dark ages: “motivation for Beowulf to seek to end the tyranny of the dark goddess and her hideous son, it is the actions of Odin, the chief god of the Aesir, whose victory over the Vanir was well known throughout the North” (Grigsby 173). In this regard, the alienation of Grendel in the winning cult is achieved by the use of symbolism of opposing elements. In this regard, Grigsby suggests that the character of Grendel was not even treated as even to the cult of Odin, he was perceived through the image of his mother, as an embodiment of cult itself. From psychoanalytical point of view, it can be argued that the matriarchal cult of fertility was opposed by patriarchal cult of warriors, and Grendel being part of the matriarchal cult could not be tolerated as an equal enemy by warriors of Odin. In this regard, while the Vanir-Aesir war was a straightforward conquer religious aspect and further proclamation of the winning cult required condemnation of Feyr’s actions and discouragement of his worshipers. In this case, it can be argued that Grigsby’s findings demonstrate how winners rewrite legends and impose cults that are more suitable for them. In this regard, the process of dehumanization and demonization of a character takes place:
“For dwelling in the marshes and swamps beyond Heorot lies a monster – a
descendant of Cain, kin to such evils as ‘eotenas ond ylfe ond orcneas’ (ogres and
elves and evil-shades). His name is Grendel. Evil swells in his breast, and, as night
falls, he strides through the marshes towards the source of the merriment. The Danes
are now sleeping, their mead-horns empty, and in no state to defend themselves when
Grendel bursts into the hall and snatches thirty warriors, and is gone into the night –
a trail of blood behind him” (Grigsby 7-8).
This description appeal to one’s sub-consciousness and is aimed to trigger primeval fear of darkness and blood-thirsty monsters killing noble warriors of Odin. Another message hidden in this description is target at the audience of the time – warriors who believed in honor and Valhalla after their death. In this context, dying while one is asleep and cannot defeat himself was considered to be the most disgraceful death. Thus, the message was appealing to the socially constructed self-perception as warrior whose honor could be violated by disgraceful death from the hands of an alien monster. Thus, the entire construction of Grendel’s monstrosity in the context of Vanir-Aesir war is based on manipulation of one’s primal fears and socially-developed self-perception as a warrior of Odin. In this case, the otherness and monstrosity of Grendel in the tale serve as a factual victory over the matriarchal cult of fertility and its male embodiment in Feyr and Grendel.
Overall, from all mentioned above it can be concluded that both Gardner and Grigsby demonstrated that behind the mask of monstrosity Grendel was a human being in transition. Gardner showed that he possessed intelligence and curiosity to understand the world around him. It was the world of people that made a monster of him and an evil for mankind. Grigsby’s tale of Grendel showed the divine nature of Grendel’s character and its symbolism for fertility cult of the Venir and how close his features were to the values of survival in the ferocious environment of the Dark Ages. He also showed how the winning culture dehumanized the symbol of Feyr and turned it into Grendel of the original tale. In all of these cases, the symbolism of a monster and the ability to understand him were conditioned by one’s own self-perception, control of inner animalistic instincts and belonging to this or that society. Both authors showed how otherness can be easily alienated and considered to be evil only because it was different from everyday life and spoke a different language. The problem of understanding a monster and looking behind its mask is that one looking might find no monster behind it and realize that a monster is within himself.
Works Cited
Farrell J.K. “The Evil Behind the Mask: Grendel’s Pop Culture Evolution.” The Journal of
Popular Culture, 41.6 (2008): 934-949. Print.
Gardner J. Grendel. London: Vintage. 1989. Print.
Grigsby J. Beowulf and Grendel: The Truth Behind England’s Oldest Legend. London:
Watkins. 1999. Print.
Milosh J. “John Gardner’s “Grendel”: Sources and Analogues” Contemporary Literature 9.1
(1978): 48-57. Print.
