Grendel and Grendel's mom are model monsters: non-human, vengeful, powerful, dangerous, minutely sympathetic (an important trait), and most importantly of all, losers in the end.
Briefly talk about your all-time favorite monster from the world of either books or movies, explaining why that particular monster is so monstrously perfect. Then talk briefly about either Grendel or his mom. Are they, in fact model monsters? Or is there more to them than that? How do you view them, both as an individual monster and as an element in the larger poem? As always, line references please.
As my gift to you, your comments will not be due until Friday, April 15 at midnight.
My favorite monster isn’t exactly a monster…but yet he is. He who cannot be named…Lord Voldemort is my favorite monster. Voldemort is a genius monster; he is ugly, evil, dark, harmful and hated. This dark lord from Harry Potter is very well known by everyone. The best thing about Voldemort is that he is somehow “related” to Harry. This makes the enemies somehow connected even though Voldemort is a dark lord and Harry is a hero. The two battle in every movie, physically or emotionally. The connection between them is what makes the monster so marvelous. I can’t think of any other monsters that are related to their victim.
ReplyDeleteGrendel, Grendel’s mother, and Voldemort have similarities. They are all ugly creatures and very well known. A model monster is some foreign creature that is so terrible that they are hunted down and attempted to be killed.
Grendel is a dark creature and takes pride in what he does. “Suddenly then the God-cursed brute was creating havoc: greedy and grim, he grabbed thirty men ….” (120). This shows Grendel’s selfishness and how icky he is for taking pride and enjoying what he does. Every time Grendel attacks it is at night, “So, after nightfall, Grendel set out for the lofty house…” (115). Grendel attacking at night resembles his darkness as a monster.
I feel that Grendel’s mother is a better monster than Grendel. Grendel gets defeated in his first battle with Beowulf, and a real monster would at least fight a few battles before being defeated. Grendel’s mother seems more threatening and is definitely more monster looking than Grendel. Grendel’s mother has talons and lives underwater where she rules. “Her savage talons …” (1504). The fact that Grendel’s mother lives underwater in a haunted lake and this makes Beowulf’s battle more of a challenge. “Quickly the one who haunted those waters…” (1497). Overall, Grendel and Grendel’s mother are both monsters, but Grendel’s mother wins the award for the best monster in the book.
I have to admit that I was really disappointed when I saw that Laura used my favorite monster, Lord Voldemort, so in wanting to keep these blogs entertaining, I’ve decided to write about my second favorite monster, Albus Dumbledore.
ReplyDeleteWhat? How can anyone view the prestigious Head Master of Hogwarts as a monster? With a few short sentences I’m sure you will understand my point of view. Professor Albus Dumbledore is not a monster in a traditional sense. He is not hairy, scary, or terrifying. He is, however, manipulative, deceitful, and selfish which are all qualities of a great monster. Albus manipulated Harry into performing tasks that he knew would put Harry at risk for death. He was deceitful towards Harry in that he knew Harry’s destiny from the very beginning but he never gave Harry the information necessary to succeed and he was selfish in his death because he wanted to keep fame and glory by letting Harry witness his pre-planned killing.
On to Beowulf…I think that Grendel is the “picture perfect” monster in the sense that he is what most people probably envision when they are asked to picture a monster. On page 49, starting on line 721, the poem reads, “The iron-braced door turned on its hinge when his hands touched it. Then his rage boiled over, he ripped open the mouth of the building, maddening for blood…and his glee was demonic, picturing the mayhem: before morning he would rip life from limb and devour them, feed on their flesh”. In this passage, Grendel is described in a very monstrous way. Monstrous characteristics such as rage, maddening for blood, demonic, and rip life from are highly thought provoking and gruesome; very characteristic of the best monsters.
I feel that Grendel’s mother is a monster but not as monstrous as her son. I believe that he anger and aggression stems from the murder of her son. I feel that any mother who loses their child would have the initial gut reaction to avenge the death of the child much like the way Grendel’s mother was described on page 89, line 1286, “But now his mother had sallied forth on a savage journey, grief-racked and ravenous, desperate for revenge.”
I love that Laura and Vicki chose monsters from the Harry Potter series! Also, like the point that Vicki made about Dumbledore! A new perspective I had never thought of before reading her post.
ReplyDeleteThe monster that I chose as an all-time favorite is Scar from the Lion King. Scar stands out to me because he is jealous of Mufasa and Simba. Scar is out to get his way and to rule the animal kingdom. He is selfish and manipulative straight down to the details of pinning the death of Mufasa on Simba. Scar takes the risk of killing his own brother and hoping to flourish for his own sake, for he cares nothing about anyone else but him. Scar also stood out to me because he kills his own brother, much like Cain killed Abel, leading into the story of Grendel’s existence.
The words that describe Grendel in fact show him to be a model monster. On the top of page 9 he is described as a “powerful demon”, “a prowler through the dark”, and in line 100 “a fiend out of hell”. It is also said in lines 119 and 120 that Grendel is “insensible to pain and human sorrow”, so he feels no remorse for killing the men and “creating havoc” (121). It is obvious that Grendel is upset and angry, for what it does not say, but I don’t see anything below the surface of this monster but rage and anger. However, without Grendel Beowulf would also be non-existent.
As for Grendel’s mother, she is also described with powerful words, “an avenger lurked” and “monstrous hell-bride”, this shows that she is looking to repay whoever killed her son and that she is not a woman that you want to push around (1257-1259). However, I feel that Grendel’s mother has more to her than just being a nasty monster. She is a mother. “It was a fresh blow to the afflicted bawn”, this is after she finds Grendel’s arm and in that sentence alone it shows that she is angry and looking for revenge (1304). Grendel’s mother deals with the pain by eye-for-an-eye combat. Hrothgar sent Beowulf to kill someone close to her, so she killed someone close to Hrothgar. I see Grendel’s mother as a monster of course, but I don’t think that she would have tried to bother anyone if her child had not been killed first.
When the term monster comes to my mind, my first thought immediately goes to the Joker from the movie The Dark Knight. His persona is the epitome of pure evil, villainy, and dastardly appearance; aside from the fact that I have dressed up as the Joker at many “costume events,” his character gives me the proverbial “willies.” The Joker has all the common traits of typical “monsters” such as having no conscience or moral compass when it comes to killing innocent people. However, what sets him apart, in my mind, is his distinct appearance and mannerisms. His creepy face paint, the greasy hair, his piercing eyes, and the sound of his voice all combine to form one scary and horrendous combination. On top of all that, for me personally, knowing that the actor who portrayed the Joker, Heath Ledger, died before the release of the movie just adds a sort of horrific nostalgia that is virtually impossible to compete with in my mind. But what elevates the Joker from a great monster to a “monstrously perfect” monster is the fact that he is pitted against such a laudable character like Batman. The fact that Batman almost never does anything considered mean or evil heightens the viewer’s sense, in a way, making the Joker seem all the more evil, loathsome, and monstrous.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion of Grendel’s mother is a difficult one to accurately capture with words. On one hand, I almost empathize with her because she is just doing what any mother would do if her son was attacked and killed. On the other hand, I see her as a continuation of the problem as her vengeful actions serve only to justify the killing of Grendel in the first place. The episode with Grendel’s mother can be seen through two distinct lenses. Readers can see her as a “monstrous hell-bride” (1259) on a “savage journey” (1277) bent on destruction and mayhem, or one can see her as a “grief-racked” mother (1278) who wanted nothing more than to avenge the death of her son. Personally, I tend to lean more towards her being a passionate mother who, when overcome with grief and anger, follows her instincts and exacts revenge on the Danes by taking one of Hrothgar’s most trusted friends (1298). Furthermore, as an element in the larger poem, I think Grendel’s mother serves two purposes. One, she changes the perception of the monsters by exemplifying human traits such as love, sadness, grief, and revenge. Two, her fight with Beowulf is a major chunk of the story; without it, the story loses a large portion of what makes it a majestic elegy. Grendel’s mother causes the reader to look at this poem from a totally different perspective, making one reconsider the true merit and honor of the actions of Beowulf and Hrothgar.
My favorite monster of all time is Ursula from The Little Mermaid. She is a perfect portrayal of a great monster. Ursula is powerful, deceiving, manipulative, selfish, feared, and most of all extremely evil. Her way of keeping others who are less powerful down to build herself up is, in my opinion, a perfect way to portray a monster. Not to mention, Ursula used to completely scare the crap out of me when I was little. Her evil roots from greed, and that is truly monstrous. Another thing that makes her so great is that she is so deceiving. She gives herself an appearance to Ariel that seems as if she is using her power to help Ariel’s “poor unfortunate soul” when really she is doing the complete opposite. Then, like any perfect hero, Ursula losses in the end and finally gets what she deserves.
ReplyDeleteUrsula is very similar to Grendel’s mother. They both are feared, powerful, scary, and loser in the end. Also, them and their evil ways both come as a surprise to their protagonists. What makes them, and every hero perfect in any narrative is their ability to let the strengths of their evilness (is that even a word?) end up being what takes them down and then becomes their weakness. For example, on page 107 it reads “Grendel’s mother, gripped her shoulder and laid about him in a battle frenzy” (1538-39). When I see “frenzy” it makes me think that she was almost acting like a spaz and not using her head because she was letting her will for revenge get into the way of the battle. It seems as if her being in “a frenzy” causes her loss, because soon after this she is defeated by Beowulf. It is the same with Ursula, her focus on greed is actually what causes her to lose her battle. She is so focused on herself that she isn’t really paying attention to what is going on around her.
One of the monstrous characters that scare me when I was small is Agatha Truchbull or Miss Truchbull from the movie Matilda. She is the headmistress of Crunchem Hall Primary School, the school where Matilda goes to. She is always described as a tyrannical monster. She has a passionate hatred on children. She insists on strict discipline for the school. She is an enormous and fierce woman that always scares the students of the school. She shouted every time she spoke to her students. She is selfish and greedy. She stole her niece’s house and took all her property. She always came up with ridiculous punishment for her students. She put her students in a room called “chocky” which is a small room that forces the students to stand when they are sent to the room; they cannot lean because there are bits of broken glasses on the wall of the room. Miss Trunchbull is also a loser at the end of the story when she was shocked and fainted when Matilda scares her using her power. Nobody ever saw Miss Truchbull again after that.
ReplyDeleteGrendel’s mother is a very interesting character. She is a strong and dangerous monster that lives and rules underwater, “savage talons” (1504). She is motivated by revenge. The interesting part of her character is that she is not just a monster, but she is also a mother. She loves her son so much and willing to do anything for him. She wanted to take revenge on Beowulf for killing her sons. This is what all mothers would do if their son or daughter is being harmed or killed. I think Grendel is more monstrous than his mother because for me Grendel’s mother’s action is normal and I do not think that she would harms anyone if nobody touches her son. Grendel’s mother actually shows the readers that monsters can love and care; they have feelings just like humans.
I would say that my favorite monster is Poseidon. Poseidon may not be thought of as a monster because he is a god but I think that Poseidon is a monster because he created the Cyclops. The Cyclops is a monster himself meaning that Poseidon would have to be a little evil or have monster-like characteristics in him to produce the Cyclops. I think that Poseidon is so monstrously perfect because it is almost like he has two sides to him. He has the side of him that is the god and then he has the side of him that produced the Cyclops through monstrous characteristics. However even on his god side he still has some evil tendencies. He has so much animosity towards Odysseus that he does anything in his power to harm him, I would not say that that is necessarily god-like. As a reader, we even see this animosity and wanting to harm rub off onto the Cyclops as he wails boulders at Odysseus’ ship.
ReplyDeleteGrendel’s mother is more of what I would picture as a “model” monster. She is a monster but she still has the ability to capture a little sympathy from the reader because as a mother she just lost her son. So it is almost as if Grendel’s mother is demonstrating human-like characteristics. Its almost synonymous with how readers viewed Odysseus. He was seen as this all powerful, almost god-like man yet he showed human-like characteristics as he wept with thoughts of returning to Ithica. I think that a monster can still be a beast and capture an emotional aspect from the reader. However, as a monster she has great powers; “Then once she touched the bottom, that wolfish swimmer carried the ring-mailed prince to her court so that for all his courage he could never use the weapons he carried…” (lines 1506-1509). With her monstrous powers, she was able to pull Beowolf to her underwater layer to attempt to defeat him. Yet, in the end, it was Beowolf that came out victorious. It makes me wonder that if he could overpower this incredible beast then is Beowolf really just a human?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI liked how people used Disney villains as a reference! I’m not copying the trend since I was already thinking Disney before writing this! The thing I liked about the villains in some of blogs posted, like Voldemort and Dumbledore, are that they don’t always have to eerily shaped and disgusting creatures with no civilized thoughts other than to destroy and eat everything they see. So the villain I like the most would have to be Jafar from Aladdin! The reason I picked him is because of his overwhelming desire for power. I love it when a villain has such a ridiculous desire for something because it’s interesting to see what they would do to obtain it. His main goal for power was to rule as sultan of Agrabah but as the movie went on Aladdin revealed another form of power much stronger than being sultan which was to become a genie. With the ability to obtain an infinite amount of cosmic power on the whim of asking your personal genie to turn you into a genie, I personally don’t see why anyone would refuse that offer unless there are downsides to it which Jafar did not think about. On the side note it makes me wonder if that is how genies were created, but if that’s the case isn’t that the same as the big question “which came first the chicken or the egg?” Eh it’s food for thought~
ReplyDeleteWhen the first sub professor (forgot his name) came in he talked about how Grendal is descendant of Cain. Cain was a human so wouldn’t Grendal be a human too? Personally I agree that Grendal is a human but I also think Grendal is also a monster. When Jafar was a human he was still a human. To be a monster it’s not what they look like but what their actions are. For Pete’s sake! Grendal felt happiness so full of evil just by thinking about ripping the limbs off of sleeping innocent men and eating them!! “And his glee was demonic, picturing the mayhem: before morning he would rip the life from limb and devour them, feed on their flesh,” (730-733). If that doesn’t ring monster to you I really don’t know what will. I don’t know much about Beowulf other than the fact that there are three enemies Beowulf must take down who must have done something to be branded as monsters and have to be slain. Though Jafar and Grendal take different actions towards their different ambitions they are both branded as monsters since none of what they do is considered good.
When I think of monsters, I believe that there is no creature more vicious than the rabbit from Monty Python and The Holy Grail. It may not be the most ideal picture for a monster, but what it stands for makes it all the more menacing. To me, a monster’s effect is greatly heightened by the element of surprise. What monster could possibly be more surprising than a flesh-eating, massacre-causing bunny? Plus, it has ‘huge, nasty teeth’.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Grendel and his mother, I tend to think they are pretty much the stereotypical monsters. Grendel is said to have inflicted “constant cruelties on the people, atrocious hurt” (Line 165). He also is described as “a fiend out of hell” (Line 100) and a “grim demon”. To me, that has classic monster all over it. Sure, he has an unknown grudge towards Hrothgar, but that is not enough for me to feel sorry for him or assume he is acting rationally. In the case of his mother, those who would say she is not a typical monster would probably point to her apparent love for her son and the fact that her actions are simply out of revenge, just as the men’s are in revenge for her killing one of them. Once again, I don’t feel as though it sways my opinion of her. She still has too many descriptions as a standard monster. She is called “that swamp-thing from hell” (Line 1518) as well as said to have “gone on her gluttonous rounds for a hundred seasons” (Line 1498). This makes her seem much more monstrous and proving that she doesn’t just kill for revenge, but for enjoyment as well.
In the grand scheme of the poem, I think it is fine for Grendel and his mother to be typical monsters. After all, if we had a reason to feel sorry for them, the poem would not be as effective of a praising of Beowulf in his triumphs. Those readers who want to find a soft spot in the monsters, will miss the point in my opinion.
I know that this is completely stereotypical but I think my favorite monsters are probably vampires. Vampires have gotten much more popular in movies and books in the past couple years and I admit I am a part of the craze. Vampires are such unique monsters. They are the living dead who feed on human blood, yet some strive to be human again and defend the greater good. The Twilight series has really attracted me because of Edward’s character. While he is a monster and could be seen as that and that only, he falls in love with Bella and is a “vegetarian” who only feeds on animal blood. He could use his strength for evil, but instead, uses it to be good and defend Bella and other humans. He is a contradiction to the typical monster but that is why he, along with other vampires, is my favorite monster.
ReplyDeleteGrendel is an evil monster who takes satisfaction in what he does, “…greedy and grim, he grabbed thirty men ...” (120). This is just one example of his disgusting pride in being a murderous monster. He is definitely a model monster because of his attitude and lack of respect for life. Grendel’s mother is another monster but way different than Grendel. Her rage mainly came out after her son had been slain. She was described as a “monstrous hell-bride” (1259). She was trying to get revenge for her son’s death. These two monsters are quite different on my opinion, one being pure evil while the other was out for revenge.
Alicia Smith
ReplyDeleteThis blog is incredibly hard for me because I have so many favorite monsters! On top of that, many of my favorites are not your traditional, “I’m a strong nasty monster who will stop at nothing to kill the protagonist,”. That being said, I don’t think that Grendel and Grendel’s mother are the ‘ideal’ monsters; they just fit the stereotype of the conventional monster. The ‘monster’ I am going to discuss in this blog is Calcifer, a fire demon from the movie/book, Howl’s Moving Castle.
A brief back story for those who don’t know, Calcifer started out as a falling star. In this story, when falling stars fall to Earth, they sparkle for a few seconds and then go out. However, Howl (a wizard apprentice at the time) picked up Calcifer before he burned out and made a deal with him. He gave Calcifer his heart to save Calcifer and in turn, the fire demon was bound to him. Howl became a very powerful wizard with the help of Calcifer’s powers. This mutual agreement was a taboo scenario within the context of the story (and perhaps to some readers); Howl was shunned because wizards were supposed to have hearts. Because he gave his to a demon, he was condemned by most of society. But even though this is the case, Calcifer and Howl are two of the protagonists in the story – contrary to the antagonists that Grendel and Grendel’s mother are.
Specifically, Grendel is the entire opposite of Calcifer in this sense. “Sad lays were sung about the beset king, the vicious raids and ravages of Grendel, his long unrelenting feud, nothing but war; how he would never parley or make peace with any Dane nor stop his death-dealing,” (lines 151-156). This sums up exactly what role Grendel played in Beowulf. He was meant to be a malicious creature that the world was better off without. Grendel killed people and was not going to compromise with the Danes. In the same vein of thought, Beowulf was not going to compromise with Grendel; “Now I mean to be a match for Grendel, settle the outcome in single combat,” (lines 425-426). This whole situation, that there is a ‘bad monster who needs to be killed and that’s the only way things can be done,’ is completely predictable and boring. Don’t get me wrong, I love Beowulf, but it irks me that this problem was never fleshed out in full. There could have been some unique interactions with Beowulf and Grendel without the one track plot line to gore.
On the other hand, Howl’s Moving Castle displayed a symbiotic relationship between a human and demon – they both sacrifice something and receive something from one another. In Howl’s case, he gave up his heart but obtained Calcifer’s loyalty. In Calcifer’s case, he gave up his freedom but obtained the chance to live on. The reason I think this is the ideal monster is because it resists the stereotype of monsters. It makes entails that monsters can be dynamic and interesting. It isn’t fun to constantly read about the same evil antagonists over and over again. The depth of their personality, monsters thinking for themselves and choosing if they feel like being good or evil, enriches their character. Calcifer can be a scary powerful fire demon, but the reader also sees a character with a mindset more complex than ‘let’s solve our problems by killing each other,’. Calcifer certainly could have killed Howl, but it wasn't his first instinct - a characteristic a typical monster has.
This analysis is highly dependent on what a monster is defined as, and I realize that. However, if definitions were always set in stone, then nothing new and exciting would be born. Breaking conformity, whether by creating a monster protagonist or wearing mismatched socks, helps ideas branch out and encompass more than just archaic ideals.
After reading the topic for this blog I legitimately ran to my movie collection in the living room and scanned all the movies. One of the first that came to mind after scanning titles was Shere Khan from the Disney classic: The Jungle Book. He is not necessarily a ghoulish monster that creeps in the dark, but at age 4 he caused a good amount of fear in my house. I think he makes a perfect monster because he is a mix of just enough human characteristics in with his animal qualities. Being a tiger is already enough to strike fear in a child’s heart but I think it his is cunning, sophisticated, and seductive that makes him transcend from just a childhood monster to a multigenerational fear factor. Which, I guess is Disney’s best talent.
ReplyDeleteNow, in the case of Grendel and his Mother I find them to be the definition of traditional gory monsters. The poem describes Grendel as “the bane of the race of men” (712) and “maddening for blood” (724). We also know that he must be rather large because Beowulf uses his super human strength to rip off “the whole of Grendel’s shoulder and arm, his awesome grasp” (834-835). There isn’t much cunning to him, just some brute strength and bloodlust. I think this is perfectly fine and fitting for both the poem and the culture of the time. A monster is what the culture is afraid of and at that time some beast from the misty moors is what caused people to quake in their boots. I find Grendel’s mom slightly more relatable to current times because there is at least a little more cunning involve with that battle, even though she inadvertently causes it. When Hrunting fails to penetrate the she-beast, Beowulf must find “an ancient heirloom from the days of the giants” (1558). In this battle there is a mild showing of intellect, which seems to be the need of present day monsters.
My favorite monster, or rather villain, is Shredder, from the Ninja Turtles movies. He has scared me since the first time I saw watched the movie, and to be completely honest, he still creeps me out. Yeah, I admitted it. His outfit is so intimidating, with the spikes on his shoulders and arms, and the claws coming out of his hands. His helmet is creepy as well because you can never see his face. His voice is beyond terrifying because it is always loud and solid and in control. The fact that you cannot see him talking behind his mask makes it even more chilling. Most importantly, his character is what makes him an absolute villain. As the archenemy of Splinter and the Turtles, he creates the Foot Clan to fight against them and others. I think I don’t like him more than any other villain because how can you not like the Ninja Turtles? I mean come on, they’re life-size, talking turtles that love pizza, and are hilarious!
ReplyDeleteI would consider Shredder more of a “villain” than a “monster,” when compared to Grendel and his mother. Shredder never actually kills innocent people, nor does he take glory it. Maybe because Shredder was in a children’s movie and they would not actually have him kill people. Anyway, Grendel, in my opinion, is the epitome of a monster. The readers are left unsure whether or not he is a creature or a human, and this makes him even more monstrous. He is described as a “powerful demon” (86), and “malignant by nature, he never showed remorse” (137). Grendel “waged his lonely war, inflicting constant cruelties on the people” (164-5) until he was struck down by Beowulf. Powerful, a demon, and a lack of remorse for killing innocent people illustrate why he is a model monster. As compared to his mother, Grendel is more of a monster. Grendel’s mother only killed out of revenge, not just because she could. I think this comparison is important to make because even though both are “monsters” that Beowulf must defeat, each one adds a different element to the story. At first we feel empathy for the Danes because of Grendel’s murders. Then later we can feel empathy for Grendel’s mother because she lost her son.
A great monster is a monster that has more to them than just being evil,. A good monster has a reason to be that way. My favorite monster is King Kong. He is vicious but gentle at the same time. He was mean only when the humans were trying to capture him and then once he was in New York. He was gentle to the woman who treats him well and mean to everyone else all while protecting her. This made him an interesting character and a good monster.
ReplyDeleteThere is more to Grendel and his mother then just being monstrous. While the monsters did carry on “vicious raids’ (152), the monsters were there with a purpose and did not just come to wage “lonely war” (164). Grendel began to terrorize Heorot because, according to the book, he could not stand to hear them sing about Cain and Abel and did not like to hear them celebrating. So at night he would come and eat the people that were in the hall. Grendel’s mother was there to revenge her son’s death. Along with taking Aeschere, she also “snatched their trophy, Grendel”s bloodied hand” (1302-1303). This shows there are more to the monsters then just being killers. This makes for good monsters.
Like everyone else, I also love Disney movies, and therefore believe that Cruella deVille portrays several monster-like qualities through her character. She is extremely selfish and deceitful when trying to kidnap all of the puppies to make herself a fur coat. Several times she tricks people into believing that she wants them as pets. She also proves to be very powerful because she constantly forces Horace and Jasper to do everything evil for her. The crazy-like manner she possesses is a quality that scared me as a child while watching 101 Dalmatians, which is another reason she can be called a monster. Like most villians, Cruella falls to her doom while trying to complete her evil plan of killing the puppies and everyone lived happily ever after.
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking about “typical monsters,” I feel like Grendel fits the model perfectly. The poem describes him as a “grim demon” (102) and “dark death-shadow,” (160). These descriptions allow readers to paint an extremely grim and scary picture of how Grendel must look. Among his outward appearance, he also acted like a monster should. He is in Heorot Hall feasting on Danes when he is described as feeling “insensible to pain and human sorrow,” (120). This shows us that he truly has no remorse for his “gruesome murders,” which is a common characteristic of a monster (136). He also proves to be an angry monster and paying revenge for a reason that the poem never fully says, although we can speculate what we believe it to be. Overall, Grendel proves through his actions and his appearance to be a model monster and essential to the story of Beowulf.
It took a while to figure out what villain to choose as I was thinking of many and a lot of people took other monsters and I saw that Kaitlyn had also posted this same monster. The monster I chose is not necessarily my favorite, but it is definitely the one I was most scared of as a child. Everyone knows Cruella DeVil. I loved the movie 101 Dalmatians as a child because it dealt with puppies and dogs. But the then Cruella was so “cruel” for wanted to make coats out of all the puppies. This is different than a lot of villains you see in the movies; a lot of monsters in movies tend to be male, where Cruella was a mad woman and you had to watch out for her. She also had her sidekicks along with her; Horace and Jasper that helped her, but she was the devil. As I got older I realized that her last name was Devil but there was an accent to make it DeVil.
ReplyDeleteWhen Cruella is an evil woman, and being compared to Grendel’s mother, she is not as monstrous as her son. Although wanted to defeat the opponent in the battles, they both come losing in the end where they are defeated. They have a hateful vibe for them and “warming to this fight with Grendel’s mother, gripping her should and laid about him in a battle of frenzy” (1537-1540). This is during the battle scene of Grendel’s mother and her opponent.
Well, since He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was already taken…
ReplyDeleteMy all-time favorite monster is actually a pack of monsters: the velociraptors from the Jurassic Park books (and movies). A businessman and a scientist hoping to make millions created the dinosaurs, but they inadvertently created two islands of sheer terror. The velociraptors are more terrifying than the overhyped tyrannosaurus rex because the velociraptors have a much greater intelligence that the other dinosaurs. Their ability to hunt effectively in packs, to open doors, and to move silently among the tall grass brings terror to a new level. They are unflinching killers and, without insight into their minds or motives, we have no compassion for them, making them the ultimate monster we can love to hate.
Just as we know that the velociraptors were merciless creatures, we can also agree that Grendel was the same way because his character is described as “malignant by nature, he never showed remorse” (137). Whether Grendel’s form is either human or non-human, we know that he has feelings, most importantly anger, greed, and bloodlust; though we may be more sympathetic to a human form, we can easily disregard that thin connection in order to characterize him as a monster. However, he is not the ultimate monster because as soon as he gets into a fight that he knows he can’t win, he tries to run away; cowardice is not a characteristic of a model monster. To the poem, I think his purpose is to strengthen the bond between Beowulf and Hrothgar as well as simply show Beowulf’s abundance of testosterone as he uses his manly strength to rip Grendel’s arm off.
It took me a while to think of a perfect monster from something I have read; I'm sure at a later point in time I'll come up with one I like better, but for now I'm going to go with Jadis (The White Witch) from Chronicles of Narnia. She fits the bill precisely. She is an other-wordly being, tall and powerful, who straddles the line of human and non-human. Outwardly, she is dangerously beautiful, appearing to be something of an amazon to human men. Yet she is a head taller than all of the people in England, and has strength enough to rip metal bars from lightposts and ride with a horse under her feet and the reins in her hands. She is the last in a long line of kings and queens, from a strange world--hence she is powerful in personality as well. She has a small sympathetic twinge in that her home was destroyed by a couple of naive children, yet it is not enough for the reader to put themselves in her place, for it is a place of inhumanity.
ReplyDeleteAs for Grendel and his mother, I think that taken as individual monsters, with no context and purely description, they are indeed model monsters. Grendel is described as a "powerful demon, a prowler through the dark" (96); he lopes as an animal (711) and his eyes burn like flames (727). In every sense he is frightful and nonhuman. Grendel's mother is the same, describe as a "hag" from the swamp (1518-19), every action ascribed to her being that of a fighter or an animal: "grappling" (1542) and "pounced" (1545). She too is truely frightful--they are model monsters. Yet, when taken in context, I think they lose this. Their stories are sympathetic, which is important as a tinge on a monster's personality, to be sure; but they are too sympathetic to fit the description of model monster. Grendel's territory has been breached without his permission, and his recompense is to have his arm ripped from his body! Sure, he ate a bunch of people; but suppose the land that Hrothgar built the hall on had been Grendel's hunting grounds--Grendel would have the right still to enter the hall and find food as he had always done in that area. As the poem does not say precisely which part of Grendel's territory it was, I cannot rule this possibility out. I can completely sympathize with him, and partly understand why he killed and ate all of those men. As for Grendel's mom-- her son was killed violently, and she only takes one man in compensation. Yet Beowulf intrudes upon her territory to kill her in her den. If I were a mother, I am sure that my son would mean enough for me to want "compensation." Although they are inhuman, they have stories with which the reader can sympathize with more than a passing regard.
So for me, model monsters = Grendel and his mother? No way.
This blog is a bit hard for me because I am terrified of monsters and I normally stay away from books or movies with them in the plot. However the kind of monster that really scares me and is the ideal image that comes to mind is anything that is actually possible. So to me monsters are cannibals, rapists, or even zombies. Because they all creep me out. But since cannibals and rapists are still human I guess I will choose zombies and in particular the ones from “I am Legend”. The “Darkseekers” as they are called used to be humans but turned after a virus infected the earth. These zombies are hairless, slimy looking creatures who eat humans because their metabolism is vamped up after their turn. So I guess the scary part about them is that they hunt humans specifically to eat them and that leaves the remaining human population to live in fear. Also these zombie creatures still hold onto some human-like qualities from their previous existence. They have the physical features and intellectual reasoning of humans. So in comparison the Darkseekers are like the monsters in Beowulf: non-human but still human, vengeful, powerful, and dangerous.
ReplyDeleteIn particular the monster from Beowulf that is similar in comparison is Grendel. Grendel maliciously kills humans and eats them. However he is a descendant of Cain, which means he is part human and has the ability to have human emotions. Grendel and his descendants are described as “all evil broods, monsters and elves and sea-beasts, and giants too, who long time strove with God” (Lines 110- 113). While I think that Grendel is a monster because he kills people and has evil qualities he is not really what I picture as a monster. He isn’t scary to me; maybe it is because there is no real life connection. I don’t think Grendel is human enough to scare me.
My favorite all time most awesome monster would be Wolverine from X-Men. The only thing I believe that he does not have in common with Grendel and his mother is that we do not see him being a loser in the end. At least not in the sense that he dies. We do see his love interest die two times, which I would argue would make him a loser. He is the other characteristics that the other two are; non-human, vengeful, powerful, dangerous,and minutely sympathetic.
ReplyDeleteWolverine is definitely not human, he is a mutant which would set him apart from all other humans. He is vengeful, we see this when he kills his "father" at the beginning of the "Wolverine: Beginnings" movie. He is very powerful. He is able to withstand all of Phoenix's powers and still live. He is very dangerous as well as we see when he kills multiple people. He also beings danger where ever he goes. Again we see this in "Wolverine: Beginnings" when he runs away and goes to the old couples farmers house and they end up being killed. The last is that we have to be able to sympathize with him. Which I atleast can definitely do. I can do this for numerous reasons, but most of all, because we can see him as being human, if it were not for the claws, and healing. We also see his bad luck, again his love interests being killed, and his parents dying and everything. We see that he almost always does his best to do everything for the right reasons. He almost always tries to kill the bad guys, his temper always raises, but he holds it back from hurting his friends.
Now off to Grendel and his mother. I want to argue that however they may look like monsters, and are in fact non-humans, I would not call them monsters. I would see them as very intelligent animals. They have the ability to make choices, obviously, as we see Grendel making the choice to go into the Mead-hall and killing people. We see it again with his mother doing the same thing. I believe that the meet all the qualities described above. However, I see them as being too animal like. Their actions seem to me as choices, but mostly as reactions, basic instinct actions. Grendel does what he does because they move into his space. Grendel's mother does what she does because her son was killed by these men. This is why I see these "monsters" as being slightly less then that.
The movie monster of my choice would be the Green Goblin from Spiderman. He starts as a man who is hell bent on achieving a superior weapon for military use. Already a monstruous man in his own right, when injected with the new substance to create this monster he becomes uncontrollable. He sets out to prove he is all powering and wreaks havoc on the people and city around him. His personal demons drive this monster he has become further down a path of destruction. And as it is in most instances with an evil being, Spider-man had to fight evil with evil killing the Green Goblin.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe Grendel and his mom fit the term 'model' monsters. They reside in the wilderness away from civilization, and do not tread on others unless tread upon. The mead hall was built much to close to the wilderness. The bard's song which spoke of Grendel's father poorly was the last straw. Also Grendel was an "unnatural birth"(1353). He is a monster who causes no harm unless his toes are stepped upon. And after his death his mother only seeks just compensation for her son's death, as practiced in those times. The monsters in my eyes are the people from civilization. They keep stretching the borders farther and farther without any compensation for those who have lived there for years. Grendel and his mother are portrayed in a very poor light. They do not ask for anything from civilization, even as their counterparts want more and more. The monsters lay in the mead hall, and are rightfully served.
My favorite monster is not from a movie or a book. My favorite “monster” is Bowser from Mario. He is constantly trying to steal the princess and keep Mario from finding her. He also has a really awesome shell, fireballs, and skeletal minions. When I think of how he connects with Grendel or Grendel’s mother from Beowulf, it is rather hard to find other then they like to stir up issues, but that is like all monsters. Although, in the story line of Mario and Beowulf, there are some similarities such as Mario being the heroin just like Beowulf trying to protect their kingdoms and other people from devastation. In the book, there is a passage that you could easily switch stories with. It is found on page 31, “If Grendel [or Bowser] wins, it will be a gruesome day; he will glut himself on the Geats in the war-hall, swoop without fear on that flower of manhood as on others before.” This reminds me of Bowser and his castle and if Mario dies, he will have the princess and kingdom to himself. He also has those that protect him (his skeletal minions) in case he dies much like Grendel’s mother with Grendel died. I do believe though, that Grendel and his mother are much more gruesome than Bowser is. They cause more damage and can destroy much more at once. Bowser is perfect because he is very sneaky rather than destructive and he is also giving his enemy clues as to where he is so there is always constant action.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy this blog post because monster and horror films are some of my favorite things to watch. So as I'm thinking about which monster to write about, several are coursing through my mind, but one in particular keeps creeping back into my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThe truest image of a monster that I can think of would have to be Michael Myers from the Halloween movies, specifically the remakes done by Rob Zombie recently. Zombie did a great job showing where this monster came from, how his family was so destructive, making Myers appear human at first. But after fast-forwarding to him as an adult shows the true nature of this beast. He is frequently described as pure evil and as an unstoppable force of destruction.
These descriptions remind me a lot of Grendel. Grendel is "a fiend out of hell" (line 100), much like Myers. Also, Grendel "never showed remorse." (line 137) This characteristic is another larger similarity between these two monsters. In many cases, after causing the death of another, on would show remorse. I think it takes a true monster to shrug it off as if nothing happened. While Grendel's mother is also a monster of sorts, I don't believe her crimes compare to those of Grendel himself. She only killed one in response to the death of her son, while he went on rampage after rampage killing hundreds. Both Myers and Grendel are thought to be unstoppable forces that only seek to destroy, which is why they are such perfect monsters.
One of my all time favorite monsters would have to be Shelob from the Lord of the Rings. The reason for this is that I always get a little bit freaked out when I read the description about her, and I always love the battle between her and Sam where he defeats her, riding the story of a huge monster. One of the reasons that I have such a loathing for Shelob as a monster is that I hate spiders. I can picture Shelob as a Black Widow, which to me is the worst spider ever. What makes her such a good monster is the fact that she is extremely hard to wound, and the book does not state that she is killed. Not only does she have a good defense, but she has three powerful attacks going for her, a stinger that has two different poisons, a large body, and webbing.
ReplyDeleteIn looking at the character of Grendel and his mother, one can see the resemblance between them and Shelob. Grendel cannot be hurt by any human weapon, and is defeated by strength alone (line 801). His mother cannot be defeated by just any sword, but it has to be that of the giants (lines 1557-1562, 1687-1698). This speaks to one aspect of your typical monster in that they can only be defeated by some extraordinary or supernatural weapon or attack.
Another thing that is typical with any monster is that it is a hero that has to defeat it. Now, to all of you who think that Samwise Gamgee is not a hero, you have not read the Lord of the Rings close enough, and I highly recommend reading the last two chapters of The Two Towers and pretty much all of the chapters that deal with him and Frodo crossing Mordor to Mount Doom in The Return of the King. I think we can all agree that Beowulf is at least seen by many in the story as a hero, and as such it is expected that he will defeat Grendel and his mother.
My view of Grendel and his mother is that they are monsters. I do not see anything to empathize with or to relate them to anything that can be seen as heroic or at least middle ground. The very fact that Grendel eats people is to me monstrous. I see his mother as monstrous because of the fact that she has inhuman characteristics and abilities, and uses them to fight what I perceive to be the hero, as well as being almost indestructible. I think that there are elements of Grendel and his mother that typify all monsters, just as there are elements to their story that are unique to them.
Although she has already been named, my favorite monster is Cruella de Vil. Cruella is cold, evil, and cruel in every act she makes. She in clearly selfish which is best portrayed when she constantly acts to kidnap the puppies to make them into fur coats. She is also a powerful type of monster which can be seen in that she has sidekicks, Horace and Jasper, that do all the dirty work for her.
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking of Grendel and his mother I find them fit the typical stereotype of monsters perfectly. The poem describes Grendel as “the bane of the race of men” (712) and “malignant by nature, he never showed remorse” (137). At one point in the poem he is in Heorot Hall feasting on Danes when he is described as feeling “insensible to pain and human sorrow” (120). This shows us that he truly has no remorse for his gruesome murders which is a common characteristic of a monster. He also proves to be an angry monster that is constantly working to seek revenge. Overall, Grendel proves through his actions and his appearance to be a typical monster and essential to the story of Beowulf.
As for Grendel's mother, I feel that she is a monster but not as monstrous as her son. I really think that her anger and aggression correlates to the murder of her son. I could see how any mother that loses their child would have the initial gut reaction to avenge the death of the child, so her actions seem to reflect on these feelings.
The monster I chose to write about is The Emperor (Palpatine) from the Star Wars movies. My fascination with him comes from his beginnings as an ordinary human being. He didn't have 3 heads, an enormous body structure, or a tail, he simply deceived others into thinking he was a regular politician, until he gained control over an entire galactic empire and bent the galaxy to his will. The plot of episodes 1, 2, and 3 are essentially governed by Palpatine's master plan until he has complete control over the Senate and has assassinated nearly all of the Jedi. His monstrosities continue into episodes 4, 5, and 6 when he attempts to wipe out the remaining rebels until he is ultimately defeated when his right hand man, Darth Vader, kills him after finally feeling compassion for his son. While Darth Vader is my favorite Star Wars character, his actions in Return of the Jedi show his compassionate side, whereas the Emperor is completely and totally corrupted by power with no chance of redemption. In my opinion, that makes him the greatest, and most horrible monster.
ReplyDeleteWe never get Grendel’s side of the story so we are forced to side with those whose story we have been told thus far (Beowulf, Hrothgar and the Danes). The problem with accepting this is that we are assuming that Grendel was never wronged, and attacked for no reason. In the text, Grendel is described as “the God-cursed brute” (120). Haven’t we met another “God-cursed” being in this class? Odysseus was cursed by Poseidon, and in some perspectives, could be described as a monster (I’m sure Polyphemus and the Trojans would agree). I think that the story of Frankenstein has shown that just because something looks like a monster doesn’t necessarily make it one; others’ treatment of the individual usually turn it into a monster. Any side of a conflict believes that they are “right” side and belittles their opponents view points and way of life. In addition to that, the winner’s write history, and Grendel was simply the losing side. Yes, killing thirty men is a treacherous task, however I am not ready to place the label of “monster” upon anyone without hearing both parties’ claims.
Personally, I think its too hard to pick just one monster to be my favorite, so that's why I'd have to say that my favorite monster would be the Mon-Stars who faced Michael Jordan in Space Jam. Being a die hard Bulls fan and a former child, its clear to me that any kind of person who would want to bring harm to Michael Jordan or Bugs Bunny is truly a preposterous monster. There are some similarities to these "monsters" that can clearly relate back to Grendel and his mother. The Mon-Stars from Space Jam are really nice, caring, and friendly most of the time. They are made into large brutes that go and capture other people to bring back to their amusement park. But what you find out is that they are pushed into many of their more heinous actions by the bigger monster Mister Swackhammer(voiced by Danny Devito). This monster uses the smaller Mon-Stars for his personal gain because of their ignorance and his ability to persuade them. I see in Beowolf as this being the exact same motivation behind Grendels actions and his Mother's persuasion. Grendel as I see him is simply a dumb brute who does as he is told. His mother is the one who pulls the strings and uses him to try and conquer Hrothgar and his hall just as the Mon-Stars were used in Space Jam to conquer the Looney Tunes. Just as in every great tale though, Beowolf and Michael Jordan both manage to come to their aid and defeat the "monsters" that every true hero must endure.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite "monster" is Tony Perkins from the movie Heavyweights. At first he takes over the camp and tries to improve it, seeming like a nice guy who really wants to help the kids lose weight. Really his actions are motivated by his greed (he wants to sell the camp out as an infomercial) and we find out he is pretty much the definition of slime. Still behind his rudeness, we find that he is just a little baby that was never loved by his dad – a typical bully taking out his frustration on others. This allows the kids to eventually overcome him and take him out. I really do not see Grendel’s mother as monstrous as Grendel himself actually is. I really see her like Tony Perkins – there is more to her than meets the eye. She is a monster for killing the one person she did but she did it out of the love and revenge of her son. She was not just killing people because she could like Grendel did. He truly is the definition of monster, being “insensible to pain and human sorrow” (119-120).
ReplyDeleteMy favorite monster from pop culture would have to be Jigsaw from the SAW movies. This monster is epic because of his modus operandi. He makes the people he puts in his games either learn to love and appreciate all the things they shouldn’t take for granted or die in the game. What he does is put people who he feels are not deserving of their life into life or death games. John Kramer, his actual name, is such a great monster because out of his depravity he gives these people an opportunity to change and live out their lives both appreciative and reformed.
ReplyDeleteI see Grendel as a typical monster used to create an antithesis to a hero. Grendel is referred to in the text, “God cursed grendel came greedily loping. The bane of the race of men roamed forth, hunting for a prey in the high hall.” (p49, L710-714) He is also shown as a typical scary monster used as a plot device to interest the reader this is exemplified in the lines, “Then his rage boiled over, he ripped open the mouth of the building, maddening for blood.” (p74, L725-730) and then again toward the end of that same page when he is described brutally killing sleeping men, “he saw many men in the mansion sleeping….he would rip them life from limb and devour them, feed on their flesh. (L729-734)
After taking this class my reading has changed a little bit from what it was before. I used to just read really fast through a story and not dig deep into it at all. Sometimes I would even skim through parts just to get through it. I am not a reader at all and I usually get bored with books very easily. I still get distracted while reading and sometimes even have to walk away from a story for a while. At least now I come back to it and actually will finish a book.
ReplyDeleteNow I actually try to analyze characters and figure out why they are actually doing the things they do or saying the things they say. I pay more attention to details and take notes about what is going on. While re-reading Beowulf I started to make symbols and take notes in the margins. I am finally reading books in a timely fashion so that I can remember everything going on. I am really happy that I took this class because it has sparked my interest in reading once again. Before this class I could not tell you the last time I read a book that was not a textbook. And what’s sad is that I used to buy books and read for pleasure all the time back in middle school. I can say that the biggest thing that’s changed is that I actually like reading again.