According to Todd Calder, an assistant professor of philosophy who specializes in ethics and moral psychology, evils can be broadly classified as either natural or moral (“The Concept of Evil”). Moral evils are those perpetrated by a moral agent, or a being that is capable of differentiating right from wrong. Natural evils simply exist; they are not the result of a moral agent going against its conscience. For example, a tornado is a natural evil. It causes suffering, but it isn't anybody's fault. Using this framework, it is tempting to argue that Grendel’s actions are natural evils, that he is driven by instinct and therefore cannot help but to cause suffering. However, Grendel shows throughout the book that he is quite capable of thinking …show more content…
If Grendel is acting on an innate instinct that he is incapable of resisting, then he isn't a moral agent who can make the conscious decision to do right. However, Grendel's actions do not seem to be dependent on instinct. An untrained dog who smells a rabbit will most likely chase it. The dog can't stop and consider what he's doing, and he certainly doesn't consider a long term plan to trap the rabbit. When an animal acts on instinct, it happens uncontrollably and in the moment. Grendel's interactions with Unferth do not meet these characteristics. If the monster's reaction were entirely predicated on instinct, it would be immediate, uncontrollable, and useful to his survival. Grendel’s reaction is none of these things. Rather than simply eating the “hero,” he deliberately plots a course of action that he knows will wreck his opponent's entire self image. He knows that Unferth is waiting to be killed, so he does nothing (87), which counteracts the notion that he is doing it out of a survival instinct. That is not the behavior of a wild animal but of a moral agent who is intentionally choosing to harm another sentient …show more content…
Laurence Thomas, Professor of Philosophy at Syracuse University and noted expert on moral philosophy, asserts that an important characteristic of evil acts is that “normally a person's moral sensibilities would get in the way of his performing an act of such moral gravity [i.e., one that results in serious harm]” (qtd. in Calder). However, there are multiple instances in Grendel where the monster deliberately chooses to do things that he acknowledges are wrong. The clearest example occurs after his first interaction with Hrothgar. Grendel holds no grudge about Hrothgar's throwing an ax at his head. In fact, he considers that incidence to have been hasty foolishness and nothing more. Instead, he says that he "settled his soul on destroying him--slowly and cruelly" (Gardner 30) long after the fact, when Hrothgar was old and had likely forgotten he existed. Not only does this admission offer additional evidence that he is not acting on instinct, it contributes to the idea that he knows right from wrong. He specifically mentions that what he is doing is “cruel” but that he has firmly decided to do it
the men as the "beasts" and Grendel as the victim. & nbsp; Another aspect of the humans in the story that Grendel defines is their concept of a hero. Not only does he allow for heroes to exist he gives them their purpose in life. Grendel is the monster in the darkness. that every loyal thane would defend his king against. Without Grendel this unique situation would not exist. On the other hand, Grendel has the ability to humiliate and cause a man to be named a coward. He does. this to none other than Unferth. Unferth is treated like a hero because he would defeat the "monster" Grendel, or die trying. When Grendel does not. allow him to complete this task he is shamed by his fellow thanes. Grendel realizes that by killing the man he will be defining him as a hero in the eyes of the humans. Considering the way Grendel was treated by Unferth. and others like him, it becomes easy to sympathize with him extracting this.
What's the difference between good and evil? In John Gardner’s classic tale Grendel the line between good and evil is exceedingly blurred. Gardner does a phenomenal job of forcing the reader to question who the real hero of the story is. So is Grendel evil or simply misunderstood? To answer this question one must look at his basic character traits. Grendel is an unloving creature, he enjoys killing and torturing humans, and when he shows any sort of mercy, he later regrets it. Due to these facts it is impossible to label him as “good”.
He doesn’t believe that he has done anything wrong, therefore he doesn’t believe that he is a bad person. In the novel Grendel, Grendel states that, “I saw, is merely what pushes me, or what I push against, blindly—as blindly as all that is not myself pushes back. I create the whole universe blink by blink… (Gardner, 22)”. This internal thought from Grendel at the beginning of his story shows his belief that he holds the power to choose his future and that he creates his own reality. He truly does believe that despite his killing nature and that he is not technically human, he can still live among them and rise above his original reputation. In his encounter with the dragon in chapter 5, Grendel is told that, "My knowledge of the future does not cause the future. It merely sees it” (Gardner 63). What the dragon says in this instance sticks with Grendel in the sense that even though he is drawing away from his existentialist views, he still knows that he controls himself. Him accepting this strikes as somewhat half existentialism and half nihilism due to the character arc taking place. In addition to the evidence of existentialism in the novel itself, there is also many instances within literary criticism that suggest Grendel’s
Grendel, as a character, has a much more complex identity than just a monster and a human. Some, such as Ruud, classify him as a mixture of three different characteristics, but alone, they tend to conflict with each other. By making the connection that Grendel represents immorality, the previous idea makes more sense, while simultaneously incorporating more aspects of the character into the analysis. In either case, Grendel represents much more than meets the eye, and provides a fascinating insight into
In short, the dragon is saying, "You are evil and they are good, but the only thing that makes them good is you." In this statement, it is apparent that good and evil have inseparable, yet undefinable boundaries, and are actually two in the same. Grendel's evilness motivates the fearful people to work, to strive, to think, and to overcome their problems. In this, however indirect or abstract it may seem, Grendel is actually producing good. Amazingly, he manages to be both evil and good at the same time.
Grendel as a character is very intelligent, he is capable of rational thought at all times. Because of this, at sometimes during the story I would forget Grendel is a monster, the way he acts in his thoughts and actions I would mistake him for a human; at times I was even feeling bad for Grendel because he is a very lonely person who tries to understand all of the meaningless of the world around him. Grendel can never get to close to
As children, we were taught that good and evil were black and white terms. The fairy tales that our parents would read to us have conditioned us to believe that characters such as the princess in distress or the prince in shining armour were nothing but friendly and good, while the troll guarding his own bridge or the fire-breathing dragon were the most frighteningly evil creatures of all. However, as we grew up, we learned that these distinctions are never so easily black and white, but more-so different shades of grey. We learned that the characters that we initially deemed evil had reasons for acting that way, and most of them out of their control. Such is the case with the main character in John Gardner’s Grendel. The character Grendel
Grendel is a classic hero versus villain story, but it’s written through the perspective of the “villain.” In Grendel, a novel by John Gardner, The main character and narrator Grendel watches and gives his input as society advances in many different ways such as divisions of class and war. The book Grendel can also be seen as a first-hand account of the ruinous effects of labels on a malleable-minded individual such as Grendel. In the novel Grendel, John Gardner uses characterization by using the villain archetype to convey the central idea that heavily enforced labels in society can be detrimental on an individual's natural and unique persona.
No. Compared to the humans, Grendel is also an intelligent being, capable of thinking, speaking, and rationalizing. An animal is therefore, not what he is. He murmurs stuff to himself constantly and even when he talked to humans they were able to somewhat comprehend that he was speaking, and could understand what he was saying. “’Come, come,’ I said. ‘Let me tell them I was sent by Sideways-Walker’” (Gardner 83). Grendel is also capable of thought; “Strange thoughts come over me. I think of the pastness of the past” (Gardner 146). When Grendel’s leg was caught between two trees and was sustaining continuous attacks from a bull, who was charging at him, he was able to think, and rationalized that the bull would always strike low. “He struck too low, and even in my terror I understood that he would always strike too low…” (Gardner 21). Control over one’s action is one of the few perks intelligent being have in their nature. As we have deciphered in the previous paragraphs, Grendel is considered an intelligent being, but still he chooses to do harm to others at his own will. As mentioned, animals lack the ability to rationalize or even think, so they kill, because they need to. But Grendel on the other hand is intelligent, so he killed with purpose, whether they are foul or honest “I settled my soul on destroying him—slowly and cruelly” (Gardner 30). This proves that even with the presence of free
Grendel is born a neutral being, perhaps even good, but nevertheless, without hate. The transition which he undergoes to become evil is due to misunderstandings between himself and humans and also meeting with a dragon who is questionably evil. As a young “monster”, Grendel knew nothing other than the cave he lived in and his mother who could not speak any distinguishable language. He was a playful creature who seemed to be like a “bla...
A being cursed for evil goes through life looking for meaning. How can a monster of biblically banished descent be challenged with ideas of morality. In John Gardner’s postmodern novel Grendel, Grendel, explores and speculates on the meaning of life, humanity, and existence while being cursed to life as a monster. Due to his own bleak existence and the observations he has made of mean, Grendel views life as meaningless. Even though he is a descendent of Cain, the distinction between good and evil is blurred in Grendel’s perspective. How can a monster view morality when he is the wicked one yet he watches humans kill each other for bloodshed? Grendel is trying to make sense of an absurd world while the different theories shape his own identity.
Humans look for some key equation through which they might tie all of the experiences of life and feel the satisfaction of action toward a goal, rather than the emptiness of which sometimes consumes the activities of our existence. However, humans may never find some great pure meaning beyond their mundane existences, because there is none. What there is to be found, however, is the life itself. Humans seek to find meaning so that emptiness will not pervade every thought, every deed, with the coldness of reality as seen by an unemotional eye. Without color, without joy, without future, reality untouched by hope is nothing more than an empty void. Man’s search for meaning is depicted in John Gardner’s Grendel, as Grendel’s perspective and philosophy
Evil. It’s a concept that has baffled philosophers, religious figures, and the common man alike for thousands of years. In this millennium, people may exemplify evil as terrorism, genocide, or, perhaps, placing an empty milk carton back in the refrigerator. However, many remain conflicted about the exact definition of evil, as the dispute over the character Grendel, from the John Gardner novel, makes evident. To conclude that Grendel is not evil, readers must first operate under the assumption that the beast is unequivocally and thoroughly evil. Having done so, readers will notice the fallacies within this thought process. By asserting that Grendel is evil, readers blatantly disregard the ambiguity with which humanity defines its actions, as
Through Grendel's own hatred and anger, he brings his own downfall. The "sin-stained demon" has his roots in the vile creature Cain. Since Grendel is spawned from Cain, he can never feel the love of God or of people: ". . . God, / Whose love Grendel could not know." (84-85). It is because of this, that Grendel hates every mortal being he lays his eyes upon. Hatred leads to anger, constant anger, ". . . bearing God's hatred, / Grendel came, hoping to kill" (393-394). Fear is Grendel's other major flaw, "His mind was flooded with fear . . ." (435). Through his hatred and fear, Grendel seals his own fate.
Grendel is the embodiment of all that is evil and dark. He is a descendant of Cain and like Cain is an outcast of society. He is doomed to roam in the shadows. He is always outside looking inside. He is an outside threat to the order of society and all that is good. His whole existence is grounded solely in the moral perversion to hate good simply because it is good.