What Is The Dragon In Grendel's Journey

The human struggle, because of its adept nature, too often involves a thirst for a sense of belonging and a comprehensive understanding of the genuine purpose of life. In his novel Grendel, John Gardner ponders on and expresses various perspectives on this issue. Gardner implements this through the character of Grendel, who is withdrawn from any semblance of an interpersonal relationship, lacks a coherent ideology, and attempts to find fulfillment and purpose. On Grendel's journey various characters try to sway his perspective and feed him their various ideologies. Of which (one of) the most pivotal and alarming was the dragon. In Grendel, the dragon served as an extremist who tried to sway towards his ideology, and in quest for meaning the

dragon is ultimately a charlatan, who misrepresented humanity and human values, declared and implemented a false sense of authority, and meticusly set his aims on a weak target so that he could spread his ideology.
In itself, Grendel's isolation facilitates an air of objectivity. Gardner’s ideology, however, is biased and has claimed that human purpose is established based on the things that humanity is surrounded by and values. Gardners ideology is dissected in a letter written to PBS, where he writes:
Meaning is not something you stumble across, like the answer to a riddle or the prize in a treasure hunt. Meaning is something you build into your life. You build it out of your own past, out of your affections and loyalties, out of the experience of humankind as it is passed on to you, out of your own talent and understanding, out of the things you believe in, out of the things and people you love, out of the values for which you are willing to sacrifice something. The ingredients are there. You are the only one who can put them together into that unique pattern that will be your life. Let it be a life that has dignity and meaning for you. If it does, then the particular balance of success or failure is of less account. (Gardner)

This, same perspective is shared in his novel, where Grendel comes to term with this very philosophy through his interactions with Wealtheow and Beowulf.

Grendel's acceptance of this ideology then serves as the denouement, as Grendel is able to navigate past the false paths and come to peace with his existential crisis. One of the aforementioned paths is that of the Dragon. Which in many regards is the furthest away and even considered the antithesis of the philosophy of Gardner and later Grendel. The Dragon promoted a world view opposite to Gardner, he promoted a mysenthropic philosophical outlook, and tried to drive Grendel away from humanity and his human nature. Gardner implements this idea in a method where there is nearly a uniformity in ideologies is reached, when the dragon says:

“Ah, Grendel!” he said. He seemed that instant almost to rise to pity. “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” (Gardner

72)

Despite this similarity in ideology , the result of his speech produces an entirely different result. The dragons speech does not align him with humans and gave value from their interactions, rather it tell him to detest them, and Grendel's concludly takes to a nihilism, Gardener does this to stress the power that humanity and human interaction possess. The dragon like any other character holds his world view and the maxims that drive it as facts, and the first interaction between the dragon and Grendel displays the dragons attempt to make these ideas law. The dragons, first line of dialog was, “We’ve been expecting you” (Gardner, 58). The motive for doing this is clear as the dragon attempts to establish his ideology as gospel, despite this grendel too has some doubts and the dragon then quells them by deconstructing the ideologies of the humans where he considers humans to be, “Theory-makers . . . They'd map out roads through Hell with their crackpot theories, their here-to-the-moon-and-back lists of paltry facts” (Gardner, 74). Huffington Post journalist Christian Platt recorded a very similar phenomena, in his article on false prophets and charltons, he dissected the idea of false gospels, and claimed , “ Ultimately all of these schemes are about chasing a fleeting feeling or some nonexistent sense of total fulfillment which simply isn’t real. And to suggest that the primary message was that it’s all about you, and that your happiness is what matters most, is a gross distortion of the Gospel” (Platt). Platts explanation of the creations of false gospels, demonstrate how the dragon is able to concoct one so that he could assign meaning to Grendel’s life a sense of meaning. Platt’s idea gains further validity when taking into account and understanding that the second portion of his qoute shares relation to the initial quote from the dragon where he paints Grendel's relationship with humanity to be parasitic in nature. Conclusively, the dragon is shown to be a charlatan, who, in his own right, attempts to indoctrinate Grendel by appeasing his ego and ultimately ravelling his mind into “crackpot theories” which are not grounded in reality.
The implementation of these theories however, cannot be done in any conceivable way possible.

Meaning, that to convince a subject to adopt a certain ideology, the speaker who is presenting and attempting to would undoubtedly have to use persuasion, but, more importantly; they would have to have a certain level of credibility. In the case of the dragon credibility is built through what Platt identifies as false authority which in tern presents the speaker as reputable and by extension believable. However, the criteria to determine this is circumstantial, in the sense that credibility and perceived credibility vary based on subject matter. In regards to philosophy and outlook the outlook on life, credibility is established through authority or rather false authority. Platt writes in his article that it is too common for a charlatan to establish credibility through a false sense of authority. Strikingly, platt writes that, “ False prophets always claim to have access to information you can’t otherwise access without them” (Platt). The dragon, too, displays authority and credibility over Grendel. This concept is initially seen by the dragon establishing himself as a an “all-knowing being” to have dominion over Grendel. Grendel, too, entertains this idea in hopes that his questions about the meaning of life and his questions about the shaper, and in response to his questions the dragon crushes the shapers ideology, to assert a greater sense of dominance over Grendel and creates

the dependency as the dragon is all knowing and hold a monopoly over knowledge himself, which is the very phenomenon Platt describes. Another author Sam Harris noticed another phenomenon which is common amongst spiritual leaders. Harris writes, “Spiritual life can certainly follow the pattern one sees in the fake martial arts, with most teachers making nebulous and magical claims that never get tested, while their students derange themselves with weird ideas, empty rituals, and other affectations” (Harris, 32). The dragon establishes a similar relationship with Grendel. For instance the dragon, despite claiming omicents throughout chapter five, where he says, “ I know everything, you see ... the beginning, the present, the end. Everything. In a billion, billion, billion years everything will have come and gone ... A certain man will absurdly kill me” (Gardner 60). However, despite this claim when questioned on it, he says that even if he tries to prevent this outcome another man will wind up killing him making the action the same. He then doubles down on his argument and says, “ Of course it's correct, but knowledge is not cause. Anyone who argues otherwise is stupid ignoramus" (Gardner 63). The nebulus nature of his response is put in further context and is solidified when he then uses a nonsensical argument while also building authority and shutting down debate with the use of an ad hominem which makes any oppositional force cower by way of ignorance and establishes a greater sense of credibility for the dragon, and ultimately it is that very credibility that enables him to spread his ideology.
The Dragons methods, however, didn't stop there. In fact, his appearance, in itself, was similar to that of a cultist. The New York Times too often reports on sorties of cutlists, and the script nearly reads the same every time:

A typical manipulated conversion, involves a vulnerable person - a student leaving home, or at exam time, or someone who has lost a friend or lover - who is enticed by some reward: companionship, peace of mind, a place to stay or an implied sexual offering. (Collins)

Similarly to the average cult leader targeting those who are sunken, lost, and emotionally torn. The dragon sets is mark on Grendel during a pivotal point, where he was doubting his nature, the meaning of existence, and began doubting the only person who stimulated him in any fashion whatsoever.
Despite there being the overwhelming consensus of people claiming that the dragon is a voice of reason and the shaper in their eyes is the one closest to a charlatan, this analysis is surface level. Unlike the shaper who promotes an ideology similar to Gardner’ own which favors human stories, experiences, and interaction the dragon provides a corrupt insight and is ultimately a false prophet, who shared an ideology which was ultimately toxic. He resorts to targeting the emotionally weakened, and gained credibility through sly and nebulous incoherent drivel, to share an ideology whose misanthropy that ultimately caused a bigger void in Grendel's life.