Shadow Hero?

In psychology, we discussed the different archetypes that Carl Jung created. While I was reading the different passages I noticed some key points that really helped put Grendel into perspective, and put it in a way that seemed to capture Grendel specifically.

The first aspect that stood out was “the shadow” character that Jung argued is found in every single work. The Shadow can also be called a villain. What stood out the most though was that, the shadow is neither good nor bad, but is similar to an animal. It stated that an animal is capable of tender care for its young and vicious killing for food, but it doesn’t choose, it does what it has to do. But in the perspective of a human, the animal looks harsh and inhuman, so we as human beings push it aside. This brings back the question of whether Grendel is good or bad. Although in Beowulf, it characterizes him as a ruthless killer for just sport; his personal narrative shows his true proposes. It is hard to characterize whether Grendel is good or bad, and it is difficult to determine if what he is doing is moral or not. He needs to attack to eat, but he also doesn’t need to attack the specific people of Herot (Hart). Grendel was born into the monster that he is, and although he tried desperately in the beginning to gain the trust and love of the humans, they saw him as a threat and treated him as such. This makes the humans look like the monsters. It makes me wonder who is right and who is shaping our ideas to make their own ideas sound better.

The other character that Jung created was called “The Persona”. This character represents the public image of a character and it also comes from the Latin for mask. It can be a good impression or a false one, depending on the individual. Both of these sides show Grendel. He wants to be accepted by the people, but he knows the consequences that will follow. The mask that he puts on could be his “monstrous face” or his gentle side. Both have been seen. Sometimes Grendel kills ruthlessly without a care. Other times he gently treats people; him lifting Unferth up and carrying him home. The characters in the mead hall only see his public face, which shows that he is violent and filled with rage, while he stomps around the castle killing people. The private side shows that he is still scared of weapons, even though he knows they cannot harm him. The different masks that Grendel puts on, helps increase the complexity that arises in determining whether he is good or bad.

We read this passage today in psychology class, and it just jumped out at me how similar it was to Grendel, and how it shows that this difficulty in determining whether the “villain” is good or bad is found in all different kinds of works. It also helped to word the mixed feelings that I was trying to express about Grendel.

Their True Side

I thought the character shifts from Beowulf to Grendel were very interesting to observe, and that is why I chose to write my blog on it this week.

In Beowulf, Hrothgar is characterized as a man of great worth and respect. The mood when he was around was pitiful because of all the hardships that he had gone through. He was losing beloved friends and men, and his large mead hall that was compared to heaven was being torn to shreds by one monster. This is the tone that followed Hrothgar around throughout Beowulf. But when Grendel speaks of him, the reader sees how Hrothgar came into power. He overpowered all the other tribes of individuals living in the woods and made them pay tribute to him. The tribute was so large, that many had a difficult time paying for it, and had barely enough goods to manage themselves. Although Hrothgar offered comfort and safety for them, his character was not the same one that was seen in Beowulf.

Another character that changed quite a bit was Grendel. Even by the first few pages of the book, the reader understood more aspects of Grendel than an entire section of Beowulf. Grendel is described in such great depth, while in Beowulf, it is almost like a game to try and uncover small facts about Grendel. Yes he is the main character in this book and needs to be characterized, but the fact that so much of him was explained in less than half the time he had in Beowulf, shows that the character that he was personified to be in Beowulf, was not even close to the individual that he is.

Grendel’s mother was also different from Grendel to Beowulf. In Beowulf, the mood was fierce and full of revenge. But, as Grendel pointed out earlier, only individuals with thought and knowledge could process the act of revenge. In Beowulf, Grendel’s mother seems to have a plan of attack and knows what she must do in order to properly avenge her son. She seems almost human in this respect, because the Anglo- Saxons believed in avenging their dead and fallen kinsmen. But in the book Grendel, she is portrayed as a monster who has no understanding of language or reasoning. She sits in the corner of the cavern and does little to nothing during the day. Grendel, her own son, does not understand her and has a difficult time approaching her.

The characters started to show their true colors in the beginning stages of this novel. The discovery that Hrothgar was not as honorable of a king as he appeared to be in his later years, helped show how he came into complete power over all of the towns. The characterization of Grendel and his mother also seems switched. This adds more depth to character, in contrast to Beowulf where none of the characters were heavily described.