By Thursday before class, you must post once on the blog. In your response, you will be assessed by the same qualities of discussion that we generated in class (evidence, uptake, etc.). You must also post another time by Friday before class in response to the same question. No response should exceed 100 words.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Post #1 -- Group 4
Using Gardner’s Grendel, answer the following questions:
How do monsters function and deal with the dominant society? How do his values interact with those of the dominant society?
Among other things,monsters tend to disrupt a community and challenge the people and their value. In Grendel, Grendel challenges strongly the idea of being a warrior or hero, and the value and worth of that title. Warriors seem useless and pointless in fights against Grendel. Grendel openly challenges the ideas of being a hero in his conversations with Unferth (pg. 83-85 and 87-89). He says they 'are only found in poems'(84) and their purpose is only to 'break up the boredom'(89) of mankind. Grendel's challenges are what cause Unferth to feel the need to go to Grendel's cave(86-) and basicly prove him wrong, because of how much Unferth believes in heroism.
Although you are right about Grendel challenging the Anglo-Saxon value of hero or warrior, I do believe that Grendel also challenges the Anglo-Saxon value of religion. Grendel shows arrogance when it comes to religion, and challenges the dominate Anglo-Saxon people of gods existence. On page 109 when Grendel has taken the queen (“She screams, “Gods, gods!’’ I ‘’Grendel’’ waited to see if the gods would come but not a sign of them. I Laughed.) After much more screaming the Anglo-Saxon people ‘started howling and yawling to their dead stick gods’. When Grendel says “where is god” he’s trying to test Anglo-Saxon society believe on gods existence in general. When reading the text I find Grendel angered by religious believe, maybe Grendel hates god for shunning him from dominate society.
(sorry the response is 130 words, just pretend the qoutes dont count)
I agree with the idea that challenge and fear must be used to avoid being taken over and Grendel does this against the humans challenging the idea of a hero. Adding to that, I also think that this interaction could be because of the way Grendel is viewed and how he views himself. Describing humans he says, “Whenever he stopped, thinking up formulas for what to say net, the people would all shout and thump each other” (34). He could be justifying his own actions to say that he is a "hero" by killing off these idiots who seem to be killing for no purpose while he originally killed to survive.
I still wish Hasan was in our group. But I digress. So, Mary Carol, are you saying that Grendel is being hypocritical about the whole "hero" thing? That Grendel challenges the anglo-saxan ideas of a hero, but then justifies his own actions of killing by saying that he himself is a "hero" for killing the idiots? I don't know, but it seems to me that he simply wants to oppose the society, saying, "The world resists me, and I resist the world" (28). I think that Grendel simply wants to create unrest in the human's society because of what he believes to be stupid values that the society has, and it is that want for unrest that makes him a monster. (Mary Carol thanks so much for reminding me about this blog thingy)
Dan, you're saying that Grendel only attacks the humans because they have stupid values and he wants to cause them trouble, and I'm going to disagree with that. I think Grendel needs to fight the humans to protect himself. This is shown when Grendel goes to look at the humans in the meadhall but plans to not be seen. "I'd meant them no harm, but they'd attacked me again, as always" (79). Even though Grendel was simply observing, they attacked him "as always, so there are times when Grendel must fight for his life, not just to cause unrest.
Well, Maggie, if Grendel had just left the humans alone in the first place, he would have had nothing to worry about. I know his life must be very lonely and boring, but once they attack him, he should stop seeking them out. He had figured out by then that they don't like him, yet he seemed to always want to come back to them, continue to see them. It is his fault that he ignores the warnings and threats of the humans, responding by killing them. Should the humans have attacked Grendel unprovoked? No, but that doesn't mean he needs to go and kill and just wreak havoc on their lives.
I agree that Grendel isn't fighting for his life with the humans because he is much stronger than them and with the 'dragon's charm' (pg. 78), their weapons don't work against him. But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't cause unrest. More than just improving them as the dragon suggested to Grendel (pg. 72-73), he unifies them. The best way to get people to come together is by giving them a common enemy. That is what Grendel does.
Building off of Rashma's point, and disagreeing with Dan, the humans need Grendel. He gives them purpose, shown when the dragon says to him, "You are mankind, or man's condition: inseparable as the mountain-climber and the mountain" (73). Grendel's not just causing trouble. He's giving the humans purpose in life just as they give him.
When Grendel dies, the humans do not simply fall off of the earth. I think what Maggie was trying to suggest was that the humans need an evil prescence over them for them to be able to define the good in themselves. Without Grendel, they wouldn't have the purpose of being good, or being just human. Without an imposing figure over their heads, humans would not be able to define themselves as such, having nothing else to be compared to.
Although we are supposed to be focusing on Grendel, to answer Dan's question we must look at a situation where Grendel dies, such as in Beowulf. Right after Grendel is killed, the people have moved on and Beowulf is again summoned to defeat this new enemy, "Rest? What rest? Sorrow has returned" (93 Beowulf).Going along with Hira's idea, Beowulf clearly shows that once Grendel is dead the humans continue on with other monsters such as Grendel's mother and then returning home for any evil there.
Building off what Hira and Mary Carol said, I believe that without Grendel the humans would never increase their knowledge in general. Without Grendel the humans would not be stimulated however, if Grendel were to withdraw he would be instantly been replaced. When Grendel engaged in a conversation with the Dragon, the Dragon said “You improve them, my boy! Can’t you see that yourself? You stimulate them! You make them think and scheme. You drive them to poetry, science, religion all that makes them what they are for as long as they last. You are so to speak, the brute existent by which they learn to define themselves. (Going on with the quote at the end he says) If you withdraw you'll instantly be replaced." (72-73) This quote can be related to what Mary Carol said that if a monster is gone the humans would simply replace him with another monster.
Now that it has been more or less determined that their society is dependent in having in opressor in order to define themselves and give themselves purpose, I feel like we should try to connect back to the original question which was asking the values of a monster and how those values effect the manner in which he/she deals with dominant society. Throughout both texts, whenver a monster is presented, its evil doings are either out of revenge or out of the frustration of not being accepted into the domianant society. Grendel, who is constantly spying on the humans represents the latter. Monsters, generally are seen as the outcasts of society, meaning their values would entail their acceptance into society. What separates them, is how they are willing to do anything to get that acceptance, or demonstration for the lack of it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry for posting here, wrong group.
ReplyDeleteAmong other things,monsters tend to disrupt a community and challenge the people and their value. In Grendel, Grendel challenges strongly the idea of being a warrior or hero, and the value and worth of that title. Warriors seem useless and pointless in fights against Grendel. Grendel openly challenges the ideas of being a hero in his conversations with Unferth (pg. 83-85 and 87-89). He says they 'are only found in poems'(84) and their purpose is only to 'break up the boredom'(89) of mankind. Grendel's challenges are what cause Unferth to feel the need to go to Grendel's cave(86-) and basicly prove him wrong, because of how much Unferth believes in heroism.
ReplyDeleteAlthough you are right about Grendel challenging the Anglo-Saxon value of hero or warrior, I do believe that Grendel also challenges the Anglo-Saxon value of religion. Grendel shows arrogance when it comes to religion, and challenges the dominate Anglo-Saxon people of gods existence. On page 109 when Grendel has taken the queen (“She screams, “Gods, gods!’’ I ‘’Grendel’’ waited to see if the gods would come but not a sign of them. I Laughed.) After much more screaming the Anglo-Saxon people ‘started howling and yawling to their dead stick gods’. When Grendel says “where is god” he’s trying to test Anglo-Saxon society believe on gods existence in general. When reading the text I find Grendel angered by religious believe, maybe Grendel hates god for shunning him from dominate society.
ReplyDelete(sorry the response is 130 words, just pretend the qoutes dont count)
I agree with the idea that challenge and fear must be used to avoid being taken over and Grendel does this against the humans challenging the idea of a hero. Adding to that, I also think that this interaction could be because of the way Grendel is viewed and how he views himself. Describing humans he says, “Whenever he stopped, thinking up formulas for what to say net, the people would all shout and thump each other” (34). He could be justifying his own actions to say that he is a "hero" by killing off these idiots who seem to be killing for no purpose while he originally killed to survive.
ReplyDeleteI still wish Hasan was in our group. But I digress. So, Mary Carol, are you saying that Grendel is being hypocritical about the whole "hero" thing? That Grendel challenges the anglo-saxan ideas of a hero, but then justifies his own actions of killing by saying that he himself is a "hero" for killing the idiots? I don't know, but it seems to me that he simply wants to oppose the society, saying, "The world resists me, and I resist the world" (28). I think that Grendel simply wants to create unrest in the human's society because of what he believes to be stupid values that the society has, and it is that want for unrest that makes him a monster. (Mary Carol thanks so much for reminding me about this blog thingy)
ReplyDeleteDan, you're saying that Grendel only attacks the humans because they have stupid values and he wants to cause them trouble, and I'm going to disagree with that. I think Grendel needs to fight the humans to protect himself. This is shown when Grendel goes to look at the humans in the meadhall but plans to not be seen. "I'd meant them no harm, but they'd attacked me again, as always" (79). Even though Grendel was simply observing, they attacked him "as always, so there are times when Grendel must fight for his life, not just to cause unrest.
ReplyDeleteWell, Maggie, if Grendel had just left the humans alone in the first place, he would have had nothing to worry about. I know his life must be very lonely and boring, but once they attack him, he should stop seeking them out. He had figured out by then that they don't like him, yet he seemed to always want to come back to them, continue to see them. It is his fault that he ignores the warnings and threats of the humans, responding by killing them. Should the humans have attacked Grendel unprovoked? No, but that doesn't mean he needs to go and kill and just wreak havoc on their lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Grendel isn't fighting for his life with the humans because he is much stronger than them and with the 'dragon's charm' (pg. 78), their weapons don't work against him. But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't cause unrest. More than just improving them as the dragon suggested to Grendel (pg. 72-73), he unifies them. The best way to get people to come together is by giving them a common enemy. That is what Grendel does.
ReplyDeleteBuilding off of Rashma's point, and disagreeing with Dan, the humans need Grendel. He gives them purpose, shown when the dragon says to him, "You are mankind, or man's condition: inseparable as the mountain-climber and the mountain" (73). Grendel's not just causing trouble. He's giving the humans purpose in life just as they give him.
ReplyDeleteDisagreeing with Maggie, one would ask, what happens to the humans when Grendel dies? Do they just die too because of their lack of purpose?
ReplyDeleteWhen Grendel dies, the humans do not simply fall off of the earth. I think what Maggie was trying to suggest was that the humans need an evil prescence over them for them to be able to define the good in themselves. Without Grendel, they wouldn't have the purpose of being good, or being just human. Without an imposing figure over their heads, humans would not be able to define themselves as such, having nothing else to be compared to.
ReplyDeleteAlthough we are supposed to be focusing on Grendel, to answer Dan's question we must look at a situation where Grendel dies, such as in Beowulf. Right after Grendel is killed, the people have moved on and Beowulf is again summoned to defeat this new enemy, "Rest? What rest? Sorrow has returned" (93 Beowulf).Going along with Hira's idea, Beowulf clearly shows that once Grendel is dead the humans continue on with other monsters such as Grendel's mother and then returning home for any evil there.
ReplyDeleteBuilding off what Hira and Mary Carol said, I believe that without Grendel the humans would never increase their knowledge in general. Without Grendel the humans would not be stimulated however, if Grendel were to withdraw he would be instantly been replaced. When Grendel engaged in a conversation with the Dragon, the Dragon said “You improve them, my boy! Can’t you see that yourself? You stimulate them! You make them think and scheme. You drive them to poetry, science, religion all that makes them what they are for as long as they last. You are so to speak, the brute existent by which they learn to define themselves. (Going on with the quote at the end he says) If you withdraw you'll instantly be replaced." (72-73) This quote can be related to what Mary Carol said that if a monster is gone the humans would simply replace him with another monster.
ReplyDeleteNow that it has been more or less determined that their society is dependent in having in opressor in order to define themselves and give themselves purpose, I feel like we should try to connect back to the original question which was asking the values of a monster and how those values effect the manner in which he/she deals with dominant society. Throughout both texts, whenver a monster is presented, its evil doings are either out of revenge or out of the frustration of not being accepted into the domianant society. Grendel, who is constantly spying on the humans represents the latter. Monsters, generally are seen as the outcasts of society, meaning their values would entail their acceptance into society. What separates them, is how they are willing to do anything to get that acceptance, or demonstration for the lack of it.
ReplyDelete