The monster steals the show
Grendel is the true starting point of Beowulf, the moment where the audience, lulled into a state of semi-attendance by the first 82 lines of Danish (and, if we are to believe the genealogy the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives for king Æthelwulf of Wessex in the year 855, pre-English) genealogy, sits up and takes full notice. The poem takes a remarkable leap forward to tell the audience that Heorot, which has just been finished, will be destroyed by a fire which is the consequence of deadly hatred between in-laws, as ll. 82b-85 announce succinctly. But never mind that now, the poet appears to say: before that happens, there comes a bloodthirsty monster. Grendel is introduced in line 86 as ‘se ellengæst’. He will upset the relative peace (four generations of it) the Danes have enjoyed since the coming of Scyld.
When it comes to sheer charisma, no character in Beowulf can beat Grendel. Grendel speaks to the imagination in a way that no-one else does. He has no match in the human department: neither the lily-white hero Beowulf, nor the wise old Hrothgar make quite as big an impression. The other monsters in Beowulf are interesting, but—partly, no doubt, because they lack the element of surprise—never as arresting as Grendel. Without Grendel there is no Beowulf the poem and no Beowulf the hero. It is my opinion that the man Beowulf would never have reached full adulthood and become the good, wise king of the Geats, had his confrontation with Grendel not taken place. The Danes, who the poet often refers to as brave, but who seem to me to be passive awaiters of what fate will bring them, provide the setting for Grendel’s entrance, just like in a modern superhero movie the screaming masses provide the backdrop for Superman, Spiderman, or Batman to perform their glorious deeds.
I completely agree with you in that Grendel does make the story of Beowulf and that without him Beowulf would not be a hero, or the King. However, not much is said about the Danes except that they fall asleep in the hall and run away when Grendel attacks, and that they march with him towards the water in the poem so you could say they were the background to the hero Beowulf.
I agree that that it is because of Grendel that Beowulf becomes a hero and the king. Without the attack by Grendel, Beowufl wouldnt have become good. So in a sense, the wrongdoings of Grendel turned out to be good.
I agree. If there wasn’t any bad guys to beat then there would be no heroes. Thanks to Grendel Beowulf became everybody’s hero. If there was no monster to defeat then Beowulf would have never gone to Denmark and become popular.
i totaly agree grendal is the the hart that keeps the story alive he is more then meets the eye
I agree with the fact that Grendel makes the story of Beowulf. If he were not in the story, then Beowulf would not have had a reason to come and try and become king. I think that the chaos that he created was not necessary but it made the story better that Beowulf would actually have to save the town.
I agree when he says that without Grendel there is no Beowulf and he would not be a hero. Grendel doesnt take the story away from Beowulf they both make it together.
I agree with everything that you said. I think that Grendel definitely is the one that makes the story of Beowulf interesting. He is the one that causes all of the problems and makes it possible for Beowulf to be a hero.
I agree that Beowulf would not be as famous if there was no Grendel. Beowulf is still a great warrior. He would probably still become king and do a good job at it. He also helps kill the dragon. Yes, Grendel is a very important character, but I dont think he is the main character.
I agree with this statement. I think that if there had been no Grendel there would not have been Beowulf. The whole poem started with Grendel, he was the only reason that Beowulf came to the land of the Danes. If Beowulf never came to the land of the Danes to defeat this awful beast there would be no story of Beowulf’s battle with grendels mother and the dragon that would eventually lead to his end.
I agree with this person that the main story is the monster’s because without the monsters Beowulf would just be a boring story without a good plot, but with the monsters it has a really good plot.
The story of Beowulf would not be the story it is without Grendel. Beowulf is a hero who takes down Grendel, but Grendel does have reasoning behind his actions. In John’s Grendel, Grendel is the main character and focus of the story. I love how John elaborates very well on the feelings of Grendel and his purpose through life.
The main purpose of this story is about Grendel, and its true that without Grendel pretty much their wouldn’t be a story as each main character revolves around Grendel, whos the main focus in the story.
I think that the main character is Grendel. The story wouldnt be the same without Grendel, even if you perceive him as a bad guy or a good one. I think that the story revolves around Grendel’s actions and Beowulf would have never been in the story if he didn’t hear about Grendel’s actions.
It is true in a way. Even though the battle with the dragon was a climatic ending, Beowulf would have never fought the dragon if he did not first defeat Grendel. Grendel is a pivotal part of the story and is really the first monster that matters in the story.
I totally agree your stand point. Grendel was definitely the superior monster in the epic poem of “Beowulf”. You’re correct on that he was the only monster of the story who had any real surprise or emotion involved with his attack, making Grendel the most interesting to the reader’s mind.
I believe that Grendel starts the story of Beowulf. He is the first domino to begin the series of events that make Beowulf a great story. Without Grendel, Beowulf would never have became king and he would have not died at the fault of the dragon.
I agree that Grendel made the story complete. The main character, Beowulf would not be such a special man if it was not for Grendel. By hurting and killing Grendel, it allowed Beowulf to become king and make a name for himself. Beowulf probably wouldnt have even came to the town in the first place if Grendel had never harmed anyone. By Grendel doing what he did it made a good story of someone saving a town.
It is very true without Grendel, Beowulf would not have become a king of the Geats because then he would have probably killed Grendel’s mom or the dragon. This did make the story even more suspenseful because you didn’t know when he was going to strike.
I believe far to many of you are spitting back the same garbage you get fed. Grendel just killed a few people, this is nothing, his motive was to try and make people regret their evil acts. Thats not evil or very monster like. Thats rebel justice, individuals taking arms against things they think are wrong. This is no more monstrous then some Klan members taking a rapist or severe felon out and hanging him. Monsters are things that lack emotion or empathy that live for suffering. However Grendel in Gardeners version shows a deeper side to his character then many would be willing to dive into, because he is the main character.
If Grendel was never in the story, then it would have been very different. Beowulf needed someone to fight, and Grendel was the guy. Grendel made Beowulf famous. I think Beowulf would have found another monster to fight if Grendel wasn’t there, but Grendel made the story interesting.
Hi “The Great Red Death”,
that’s an interesting comment you make; some inconsistencies and vague points to it though.
1. how do you know Grendel’s motive is to ‘make people regret their evil acts’? There is no implication in the poem, nor do I find confirmation in Gardner’s Grendel (which states explicitly that there is no motive, because it doesn’t matter one way or the other).
2. what do you consider ‘evil acts’ if killing people because they do things you ‘think are wrong’ does not apply?
3. where do you get your definition of a monster? Did you come up with it yourself?
4. if you think a person taking up arms against things he or she thinks are wrong is justified in doing so, is he or she justified no matter what he or she ‘thinks’ is wrong? In other words, do you agree with terrorist acts such as the ones committed by the IRA, ETA and of course Al Qu’aida?
5. Do you mean to say you don’t believe the Klan string up people because they have a different skin colour? Do they also hang white rapists and felons to your certain knowledge? If so, I’d like to see the evidence.
6. Did you read the poem? If so, did you read it in Old English or in translation, and if so, whose? Or do you base your comments on the film, in which case I’d have to take umbrage with your criticizing others for ’spitting back the same garbage you get fed’…
I think it’s good that you try to take a different stand from others, but if you can’t substantiate your comments, you’re a long way from being creditable.
I agree, Grendel does rather seize the attention of the audience with his superior thinking. I personally am drawn to view things from the antagonists point of view because I usually feel there is a cause for their ruthlessness that his hidden to improve the appearance of the heroine. As this point of view shows, Grendel is not a monster, but a sophisticated thinker, and the first ones to be savage were the humans who attacked him.