After reading a novel, have you ever turned to the back cover, read the rave reviews from reputable sources, and thought to yourself, “What were they reading?” I tried my best, I struggled through the book, analyzed my own reactions for fear of being too quick to judge another writer’s hard work, I even delayed my review by a day to allow the book time to marinate, all to no avail. I hate to write the sentence, but I did not like John Gardner’s Grendel (152 pages, $8.00). Don’t get me wrong, I picked the book up because I loved the concept of a story written from the perspective of Beowulf’s Grendel. I just did not like what I saw.
In terms of the protagonist, I found him to be too whiny to be relatable, and too senselessly violent to be sympathetic. I understand the idea that Grendel struggled with his identity--trying to come to terms with his given purpose--but Gardner’s execution of this resulted in an obnoxious character. Grendel, as a monster, does wrestle with his identity. He wonders what purpose he serves, and beats his fists at the universe for want of a direction. He is obsessed with humans, and Hrothgar in particular, right from the beginning, but cannot interact with them. Instead, he watches them progress from scattered hunters, to warring tribes, to warring tribes with better technology. He both envies and hates these humans, and his feelings of confusion lead him to visit a dragon. The dragon has the advantage of being able to see all time, and Grendel comes to him in hopes that the dragon will be able to give him answers. After a rather long-winded conversation, Grendel learns that his purpose is to drive the humans. Through his violence against Hrothgar’s people, Grendel reminds them of their mortality, and, in a way, stimulates their progress. Grendel bemoans this fact at first, and then embraces it with quite a lot of bone-crunching enthusiasm. His internal struggle becomes a war against Hrothgar and his people. Looking just at the themes, if the book were not so graphically violent, I would say that this would make a good addition to high school reading lists.
I think the graphic violence is where I start to disconnect from the novel. I suppose I should rephrase that. It’s not that graphic violence is present, it’s that there is so much senseless violence. For example, Grendel spots a mountain goat making its way toward Grendel’s territory. The goat obviously poses no threat. Huge monster with claws and teeth generally beats tiny mountain goat, horns or no horns. Grendel, completely aware of this, decides to stone the goat to death. He enjoys it, despite the fact that the poor goat keeps trying to struggle up the mountain no matter how severely injured he is, and Grendel takes his time killing something that could never hope to harm him. He doesn’t even eat the goat like he normally would. Now, I get it. The goat struggling up the mountain no matter how hard Grendel beats him represents the way the humans recover no matter how much Grendel raids the village. Grendel stoning the goat also comes after Mr. Gardner’s depiction of one of Grendel’s raids against Hrothgar’s people in which hero after hero attacked the beast despite the rising body count. Grendel’s need for violence and enjoyment of violence is ever present in the novel. Writing about a monster means displaying his brutality, but I was never one who could stomach brutality. For what it is, Mr. Gardner has done well, but I simply could not enjoy the novel.
On a side note, Mr. Gardner’s portrayal of Hrothgar’s people is an interesting illustration of a zero-sum game. In other words, a success for one tribe means a loss for another. At least, that is the way the humans view the situation. Hrothgar’s systematic conquering of the surrounding tribes is motivated on the surface by a desire to create solidarity and stop wars. Of course, the real aim is to keep enemies close. No tribe outside of Hrothgar’s is allowed any kind of success. Tribes bring various offerings so that the advantage of resources is all on Hrothgar’s side. Hrothgar attempts to maintain absolute control to ensure the survival of his own tribe. Despite the fact that the tribes are supposed to be allies, Hrothgar is murderously suspicious of any tribe that has resources he does not possess. The zero-sum game is a concept we can see in action every day. In foreign affairs, a country gaining control of a certain resource translates as a loss for other nations. Immigration translates as loss of labor for natives. In sports, we either win or we lose. It's Us versus Them. Mr. Gardner shows how the zero-sum game mentality limits Hrothgar’s tribe. They are consumed with paranoia and envy. Hrothgar cannot enjoy his success or prosperity because he must keep an eye on his allies.
I see literature as serving two functions: to entertain and to instruct. For me, Mr. Gardner’s book falls entirely in the latter category. As much as I love exploring ideas, I don’t think I will reread this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey, this is tony under my silly little pseudonym.
ReplyDeleteI picked up on something this last time around that I think made me like it a bit more. There is an awful lot critiquing of masculinity and probing of what I'd call anxious masculinity. This is couched in long winded cover of existentialist horror, but when you take into account with certainty, this is Grendel telling us, I think it becomes irrefutable that he becomes something of an unreliable narrator, unaware of the interesting portrayal of maleness he gives.
This stuff with his mother, the fascination with the wife, and hidden I think, behind all the violence, is a long dialogue, a critique, if you will, of popular modern male images, all that other stuff I mentioned before :)
As to more specifics.. bah. That would take me a few hours to parse out better. Suffice it to say, violence is core to male identity, one of the more horrifying sides I will personally add, and men, irregardless of orientation, have to come to terms with how they respond to this hidden social expectation.
And this is not to say there aren't other things going on, but the whole sex identity side of the thing is a bit richer than I think I got anywhere near to noticing before.
One more thought to add:
ReplyDeleteThe novel neither says nor engages femininity in any kind of real way at all. The mother and wife of Hrothgar(?) are both essentially cardboard cutouts, and kinda symbolic, but not much more. As long as this is recognized, and I believe it to be a failing in the novel, the rest that makes it shine, it compensates some.
For what it is worth, I got the impression Gardener was something of a idealist trapped in a solid middle-class temperament. It makes me wonder, at times, just how conscientious about those themes Gardner was. Does that make me less a gentleman because I asked, lol ?
Hey, thanks for posting! I love having people talk about the books.
ReplyDeleteI didn't pick up on the masculinity before...mostly because I'm a girl. Also, I can't say that I understand the violence thing. If it is as you say, that's a bit frightening. Protection, violence, dominance, there's definitely a gender barrier.
He is highly unreliable as a narrator, but I think any first person narration indicates an unreliable narrator. It's sort of like Notes From Underground (can't get stupid italics to work).
I agree with the part you said about the women. The wife was this entrancing ball of pure femininity, and the mother was maternal instinct in its most basic, animalistic form. Needless to say, it was annoying.
I wonder how often writers are conscious of the themes in their work. Can you really be a great writer if you are paying attention to how it might be interpreted? Do great writers just sit down and tell a story? I'm sure there is so much more to it, but do you know what I mean?