Nature Vs. Nurture In Grendel's Creature

Whether in the form of a human or an unearthly creature, monsters are implemented in cultures world-wide. From political ads to deeper social issues, monsters and their seemingly inherent traits portray the not-so-pretty realities of humanity. Traits that are often associated with monsters are not always the result of the monster’s nature. External influences, or nurture in the case of nature vs. nurture, have a greater influence in the formation of a monster due to the reality of societal neglect. Frankenstein’s monster, otherwise known as the Creature, is a well-known example of how external influences create a true monster. Most humans base their opinions of an individual on their outward appearance and due to the creature’s appalling appearance,

It is helpful to see the world from Grendel’s perspective, especially when he explains that “it was confusing and frightening, not in a way [he] could untangle”(Gardener 36). The supposed monster of the story is terrified by the actions of humanity. This concept supports the idea that Grendel was not born a monster and that his experience in the world is what influenced his desire to kill. With the ability to witness the world through Grendel’s perspective, readers see that there is a clear transition in his behavior. Monsters like Grendel “emphasize similarity between the monstrous and the human, and thus they comment on the behaviors of humankind”(Lake and Cooper). Humankind can often be defined in the same way that a monster can. In an effort to define Grendel as a monster, the Danes lump themselves into a category of monstrous behavior. Unknown to the Danes, their actions disgusted Grendel, making him able to reason that their destruction was not wasteful or meaningless. Although Penguins of Madagascar is a seemingly juvenile example, Dave the octopus represents a modern monster who is shaped by