The Characters Of Grendel's 'Loud In Beowulf'

Part A

{1} Grendel, it seems, actually didn’t have too much exposure to humans before the start of the poem. He “hunted the moors” (17), likely subsisting on animals he had killed. The reasons why he started killing humans aren’t entirely clear; he had “growled in pain, impatient / As day after day the music rang / Loud in that hall” (2-4). He could also come across as merely curious, as he was “wondering what the warriors would do in that hall” (31-32). This raises a noteworthy attribute of Grendel – though he is often animalistic, he frequently is described as thinking, wondering, or otherwise displaying a human-like nature. The humans think of him not as a raging beast, but as a calculating criminal. But how calculated were these crimes? Grendel doesn’t seem to have planned his war on Herot, especially not that first night. The statements “[Grendel’s] Thoughts were as quick as his greed of his claws” (35) and “delighted with his night’s slaughter” (40) give the

impression that he hadn’t expected such a wonderful repast, and had spur of the moment attacked. After likely centuries of the blood of simple animals as his only sustenance, Grendel was giddy with his meal of thirty men.
Grendel is often considered resentful and jealous of humans, and that may be true, but could that really fuel his attacks for years and years? A contrary interpretation of his continued assaults could be that he had become addicted to human blood, which may seem a bit absurd, but consider the evidence. “No crime could ever be enough” (51), and he was “seeking no peace, offering / No truce, accepting no settlement” (70-71). Furthermore, he was “Killing as often as he could, coming / Alone, bloodthirsty and horrible” (80-81). Grendel comes at night and gorges himself, but he never toys with the men as monsters often do in these kinds of tales, like a cat playing with its food before eating it. Grendel never taunts or gloats; he never shows sign of enjoying the domination of the humans. Instead, he seems perpetually caught in the moment, always engaged in that night’s slaughter. Most tellingly, perhaps, are some of the descriptions of Grendel’s very last attack: “forever joyless” (295) and “mind was hot / With the thought of food and the feasting his belly / Would soon know” (307-9). In summation, Grendel is shown many times to have a human nature, with the capability to think and to feel, but we most frequently see him expressing his animalistic nature. He doesn’t truly seem to have a specific purpose or grudge to justify his twelve year reign of terror; rather, after one night of human blood, he became addicted to it, and night after night returned to quench his physical and mental thirst for it. He is never satisfied and acts desperately, similarly to a junkie.
{2} Kennings are frequently used in the literature of the culture; they are, in short, poetic appositives. One kenning for Grendel is “hell’s captive” (363). This was particularly interesting in that it could support the above-mentioned interpretation of Grendel, implying that he isn’t doing these evil deeds entirely of his own volition. This kenning makes it seem like Grendel could be doing these atrocious things somewhat involuntarily, spurred by the powers of hell. It evokes the image of a demon perched on Grendel’s shoulder with no angel to serve as counterbalance, whispering malicious threats, urging him to attack more, to kill more, to drink more blood.
A second kenning, also for Grendel, is “shadow of death” (74). It perfectly captures the emotion that the men in Grendel’s domain must have felt at the height of his domination. If you were in range of his shadow, you were also in range of his deadly claws and insatiable bloodthirst. It evokes the image of a man sleeping in Hrothgar’s hall with his comrades, all dark save for a sliver of moonlight creeping through a high window. He wakes suddenly, not sure what roused him, but there’s an ominous mood in the room. Then his vision’s black - he realizes something has intercepted the moon beams’ path to his eye. In an instant, it clicks; perhaps he hears a monstrous weight shift, or he smells the fiend’s putrid, bloody breath. For that infinitesimally tiny moment, he knows that the shadow of death has swept over him, and he doesn’t even have time to scream.
{5} Grendel is closely associated with darkness and by extension with evil and hell. Our first introduction to him (in Raffel’s translation) was “monster, living down / In the darkness” (1-2). He launched his first attack on Herot “when darkness had come” (30), and for the following years he “hunted in the darkness” (74). An interesting line was “He lived in Herot when the night hid him” (82) because it reveals the perception that Grendel’s connection to darkness isn’t only evil but also cowardly. The protagonistic Beowulf and Hrothgar would also have the deaths of many men tied to their names, but the difference between them and Grendel is this - they would have been proud and loud about the deaths. Their victims would have been slain gloriously in battle where all could see. Grendel, meanwhile, is dishonorable and sneaky, using the abhorrent tactic of striking under the cover of darkness.
Humans, Beowulf especially, are associated with light, goodness, and God. In Hrothgar’s hall, they told tales of how “[God] proudly made the sun and the moon to glow across the land and light it” (9-10). Beowulf, upon his disembarking, announces that “there’s nothing dark / Or hidden in our coming” (184-5). Herot was described as “glowing in the sun” (221). The author places a great emphasis on the importance of honesty and clarity, and on seeing things as they are. Beowulf is a very forthright and sincere person in addition to the acts of bravery and strength he accomplished.
{6} The first artifact is The Oseburg Ship. This showcased how every aspect of Beowulf’s tale was heroic, even before he reached Herot. He and his men traversed a dangerous sea in that rather small and unsafe vessel. A voyage such as that, which would have stunned other men, was second nature to the incredible Beowulf.
The second artifact is Detail of a dragon head on the Mammen horse collar. The people had never seen a dragon, but these monsters and heroes were so ingrained in their heritage that they spent time and resources on crafting artifacts such as this. Were monsters, perhaps, not always evil, but rather powerful, and possibly a benefit to your own side? Would decorating a horse collar with the likeness of a thundering dragon cause the horse to channel that same virtue when ridden into battle? Would it intimidate the enemy? Though the cause of crafting such an artifact is unknown, it is clear that monsters were a deeply rooted aspect of early Anglo-Saxan culture.
Part B
{1} At the root of our attraction to sensational stories such as the one told in Beowulf is this: we love when people win.

Beowulf carries audiences to a world of terror, courage, loyalty, and vengeance, with fantastical enemies and a triumphant hero. In modern entertainment, this story under different guises still appeals to us. For example, comparisons could be drawn between Tony Stark and Beowulf. He is to American society what Beowulf was to Anglo-Saxan. A self-described genius, billionaire, playboy philanthropist, Tony Stark represents the ideal American - he’s charming, strong, witty, and most importantly, successful. Sure, he can also be very vulnerable and human (modern audiences like to watch the hero break before he wins), but in the end he’s the hero, and heroes always triumph. For example, in one scene, a plane has exploded, and Tony is inexplicitly able to save every person that fell. The audience doesn’t care about the heavy suspension of disbelief - we love when the hero

wins.