Critical Analysis: Beowulf

            People do not typically think of themselves as evil people, or want to be evil.  In the epic poem Beowulf, we look at Beowulf as the protagonist and Grendel as an antagonist.  Looking at Beowulf as a historical happening, rather than a fictional poem, our perspective is taken from that of the Geats.  The author clearly intended we read the book from this perspective.  The outlook of the entire story would change immensely if the perspective of the reader reversed.  It is believed that Grendel has only bad intentions and is an evil being. The German people believed that Grendel was out to get them for no reason, so they called upon Beowulf to save the day.  The humans never consider Grendel’s possible motives, in their minds he was just a demonic monster terrorizing the mead-hall.  The Geats thought of Grendel as an evil beast, but from the perspective of the monster, things are undeniably different.

            This is not an easy word to define.  The reason for this being is that the word evil is entirely subjective; one person’s evil could be comparable to another person’s good.  There are definitions of the word that are considerably encompassing for the most part.  An example definition would be “morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked.”(“Evil”, Dictionary.com)  Was what Grendel did morally wrong, immoral, or wicked?  This depends on what a community considers morally wrong and right.  The Ancient Germans’ morals at the time were based on Christian ideas, therefore their outlook on evil was similar to that of the Christian church‘s.  The poem originated at a time when the Ancient Germans were in the process of converting to Christianity.  Therefore, the writer probably had these Christian ideals in mind when writing the story. 

A typical Christian might think of evil as being any sin, and the devil as the person that best exemplifies evil.  In Christianity God alone is the creator of everything.  Characteristically thought of as the farthest person from evil, God must have created evil.  Everything God created he created for a reason, the same must be true with evil.  Most Christians consider the original sin in the Garden of Eden the first evil.  The understanding of what good and evil are is the subject of the serpent, or possibly Satan’s, challenge in the Garden of Eden.  Therefore, if the serpent represents Satan and the serpent persuaded Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, then Satan was a catalyst for the first evil done by man. (The New Jerusalem Bible Gen. 2-15:3)  If everything went as God originally planned, man would not know the difference between good and evil only God himself would.  According to Christian belief, this event is the sole reason good and evil are present in our society.

            Morgan Scott Peck presents the idea in his book, “People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil”, that “most evil people realize the evil deep within themselves but are unable to tolerate the pain of introspection or admit to themselves that they are evil. Thus, they constantly run away from their evil by putting themselves in a position of moral superiority and putting the locus of evil on others.”

            It is hard to characterize Grendel as evil from this portrayal.  Based on the aforementioned descriptions, Beowulf and the Geats may be considered evil.  Thus, Grendel would be in the right and the Geats in the wrong.  Beowulf and King Hrothgar were too prideful to admit they were evil or their actions were evil.  All of the Ancient Germans of the time had general lifestyles that included many things now considered evil.

            These Ancient German kingdoms waged wars and conquered their neighbors themselves.  All of the great successful leaders were imperialistic.  This was the only way to expand their kingdoms and influence at the time.  Wars were waged for many other reasons, but considered justified and necessary.  Another reason these ancient people clashed with each other was to prove their superiority and show their power.  War was an easy solution to resolving neighboring conflicts, as well as a source of wealth.  After defeating an enemy’s forces, soldiers would raid the towns and bodies to collect valuables and bring them back for pay.  Revenge was also a catalyst for staging an attack on one another.  If a soldier killed a man in battle, it was the responsibility of the deceased’s family and community to seek revenge on the killer. 

            With this being true, Grendel’s attack on the Geats was no different from the Geats’ attacks and conquests of their own neighbors.  The only difference is Grendel was a monster, and that was all it took to make his actions unacceptable.  In the poem, Grendel is described as having human-like features, and spoke a crude form of their language. (Anonymous)  If the monster and the human race acted in the same way, it does not make sense that Beowulf and the Geats are automatically looked at as the protagonists, and that Grendel is inevitably looked at as the antagonist.  Grendel’s attack on the Geats was probably justified, the Geats’ actions called for a response.

            In the poem, the author does not make it clear why Grendel attacks Herot.  As a result, several theories have arisen regarding the issue.  One of the most widely accepted theories states that that Grendel attacked the mead hall because of the uproar the Geats were making.  Some believe that this angered the monster because he could not rest; others believe it made him very jealous of their happiness.  Either way, the Geats were being loud and obnoxious neighbors.  He was bothered by the noise the humans were making so he attacked them in hopes of scaring them.  From there it became a long lasting issue between the German people and the monster and intensified over time.

            The question is whether Grendel had good intentions or bad intentions.  Was the monster simply trying to teach his neighbors a lesson by attacking them, or was he doing it to kill people arbitrarily.  Grendel’s intentions were most likely to look out for himself and his mother.  Like an ordinary neighbor of the time, Grendel used violence to help him achieve what he wanted.  However, this attack was not just a monster randomly assaulting his neighbors.  Grendel may have been simply trying to achieve better life, and the damage done to his neighbors came because of his efforts.  From the monster’s point of view, he was just doing as the Geats had always done in the past.  Unfortunately, the populace rarely considers this view.

            One person who took the time to look at the story from Grendel’s point of view was John Gardner.  Gardner wrote the novel “Grendel”, which was the entire poem of Beowulf told from the perspective of the monster.  In Gardner’s novel, the noise that the Geats made during their celebrations strikes Grendel’s curiosity.  He ended up watching the humans from a distance in a tree for many nights.  Then finally one night a band of German warriors run into the monster and attack him because they cannot understand him.  Grendel then attacks the mead-hall in retaliation to this incident.  From there Grendel battled with the Geats for the next twelve years. (Gardner)  Though this is just Gardner’s opinion, it is a very logical way to look at what might have happened.  Gardner implies that Grendel is justified in attacking the mead-hall, and that he may not have been such an evil creature.

            By looking at Beowulf from the perspective of Grendel, things are irrefutably different.  Grendel was probably not just an evil beast attacking the Geats for his entertainment.  There was likely something motivating the monster.  Grendel does not fit a typical mold of evil.  One could argue that Beowulf and the Ancient Germans would have fit the mold much better than the monster.  This argument is not often taken because the writer intended the story be read from the Geats perspective.  Since Beowulf is written from the point of view of the Ancient Germans, only one side of the story is told.  Grendel’s side of the story is left untold and is left up to us to determine.  Seriously, considering what evil is and what evil characters represent, one cannot be positive that Grendel was evil and the Geats were good.  There are two sides to every story.

Works Cited

“Evil.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 10 Dec. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil>.

The New Jerusalem Bible. Susan Jones, Genesis. ed. New York 1985

Anonymous , Beowulf. Trans. Heaney, Seamus. Boston, MA: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000.

Gardner, John. Grendel. New York City, NY: Topeka Bindery, 1999.