I've owned my copy of this book for it seems forever. I don't remember reading it through before now, but know I've started it several times. My oldest memory of the author and the existace of this novel comes from high school and one of my teachers (Mrs. Betty Malloy... 1976-1980 Canton PA). Loved the book. Lyrical in it's prose, ecstatic in it's poetic interludes. Why, oh why, did it take me 35 years to read this? ( )

#420 in our old book database. Not rated.

I’m pretty sure the answer to life, the universe, and everything is somewhere in this book. A more philosophical monster than the nihilistic Grendel you would have trouble finding, even including Frankenstein’s creature. Good vs. evil, politics, religion, art, the power of language to construct reality, you name it, this book’s got it. I’m also motivated to finally get around to Beowulf, since it will be all the more interesting with Grendel’s view to contrast it with.

“The dragon tipped up his great tusked head, stretched his neck, sighed fire. ‘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.’”

( )

I adored Beowulf from the first time I read it as a little girl. My mother (I was homeschooled for a good chunk of my school years) assigned me this book as required reading (fairly rare, but then, I rarely needed to be told to read, even ‘classics’ or what my mother called 'nutritional' books) when I was about fifteen.

Possibly the worst part about this book was the utter betrayal it represented. I was actually really excited about this! And then. Oh and then. Then I . . . started actually reading.

I was so enchanted by the pitch – Beowulf told from the point of view of the ‘monster’? Grendel’s story? A familiar tale told from a new angle? That’s one of my favourite things! And one of my favourite stories!

This book is actually very short. 174 pages in a quite small volume. I wish I could say that was a blessing, but it took me roughly six weeks to read. (In that time I read about three dozen fantasy novels and about four other classics, including rereading some Wilde.) I dragged myself through every page, feeling like I was slogging on my knees through sand dunes. I even begged my mother to let me off reading this and replace it with literally any other classic she could name. I had never done that before – and never did after – so let it stand as a marker of how much I felt tortured by this book.

(I read classic Russian literature recreationally as a teenager. Depressing, dragging, dark literature was clearly not a deal-breaker for me even then. That was and is not my problem with this book.)

Grendel is depressing, and dark, and . . . well, it is ludicrously self-indulgent over those things.

The kind of ‘I am miserable’ where it feels as though the person complaining to one – which the book, in first person, reads as a kind of stream of consciousness internal monologue of revelling in despair and gore – is delighting in how miserable and awful they are. I’m a monster, you couldn’t possibly understand, everyone hates me and there’s nothing I can do but respond by becoming ever more monstrous feel my pathos while I howl dramatically and go kill and devour more people because what is the point.

I didn’t feel like I was reading the despair of a creature the humans refuse to – or can’t – understand, one who is forced into a corner and fights, kills, because it is all he can do against these creatures to whom he cannot make himself understood, nor understand in turn – which is how it was pitched. Instead I felt like I was hearing the joyously delighted, self-centred manifesto of a psychopath whose psyche’s only ‘torture’ is in the rare occasions he faces a consequence for his actions.

I was told that this book is about confronting the monsters within ourselves, and I see it listed that way in many lesson modules. I want to personally track down the person(s) who thought this book could teach this lesson well and shake them. Hard.

Grendel has no interest in confronting the monster within himself – he is that monster, and there is nothing else but the delight in blood and death, and the self-righteous anger and disbelief when he is forced to face a consequence – like a human that fights back rather than be shredded and eaten in large chunks. How dare they.

(Oh, and it’s also more grotesque and grisly than the original Beowulf, which is . . . delightful.)

I’ve read that Gardner wrote the book intending to ‘examine the main ideas of Western Civilisation in the voice of a monster’ from an already-written story rather than creating a new one, and ‘use the various philosophical attitudes, though Sartre in particular’. (Don’t ask me what ‘use the various philosophical attitudes’ means, I have no idea what he intended with that.) He also has said Grendel represented Sartre’s philosophical position, and that he borrowed much of the book from ‘Being and Nothingness’.

I won’t lie to you, when I read those claims from Gardner my first reaction was ‘oh, so the book was terrible because you were trying to be pretentious?’ and it really, really is – pretentious, that is, not reminiscent of Sartre.

After reading that it was supposed to be, I can see (sort of) the way that Gardner wound the theories of Being and Nothingness into Grendel. But it’s hardly recognisable and in Grendel’s mind comes off as yet another self-centred backdrop of ‘here is why I am such a miserable being, and why it is not my fault’.

I’m glad I was familiar with Sartre before finding out this work was supposed to represent his philosophies, and that it was not presented to me thus in high school, or I might very well have been soured on an entire school of philosophical thought by this ridiculously drab, entitled, self-aggrandising drivel.

For another perspective on Beowulf, I recommend staying to the fascinating essays many very interesting people have written, and away from John Gardner. ( )

Beowulf's Grendel telling its side of the story. Is Grendel a ferocious monster, a mess-up child of a inattentive mother, or something else? Gardner has kept me confused. ( )

This parallel/companion novel to the legendary story of Beowulf is told from Grendel's perspective. Grendel is a monster who lives deep in a cave with his mother, whose precise nature is unclear, though she seems to be large, slow-moving and unable to communicate (in my head she looked something like a giant, monstrous larva, YMMV). Grendel one day ventures beyond the cave to hunt, at which time he encounters humans for the first time. He spends hours, days, years observing them, fascinated — but, you know, being a monster he's also hungry, so he frequently attacks and devours them as well.

The question I kept wondering throughout the book is what exactly is Grendel? He's certainly large and powerful with the ability to tear men limb from limb as easily as snapping a twig. However, he's also impulsive, overconfident and quite childlike at times. Every now and then we get a glimpse of a conscience. As a reader I wavered between sympathy (is it his fault he is the way he is?) and horror (so much violence and gore). The narrative occasionally wanders into philosophical territory, where I have to admit my eyes may have glazed over temporarily until the linear narrative resumed. I approached Grendel with a familiarity of Beowulf limited to what I had gleaned exclusively via cultural osmosis, so naturally I'm now significantly more curious to learn more about the original work. ( )

4.5/5 Having taught BEOWULF for a number of years to my sophomore honors, why didn't I have them read this, too? This book is not simply a retelling of BEOWULF from the monster's point of view; it is highly intellectual and philosophical as Grendel seeks to find some sort of meaning to his life. Drawn to and repulsed by humans, he reminds me of Frankenstein's creature, who also seeks the purpose to his existence. Several philosophies are explored here, most of which I can't wait to look into. The trope of reading a story from the supposed villain's point of view is not new, but it is absolutely heart-wrenching here. I dare anyone who reads this not to be touched by Grendel's utter isolation and loneliness. What a read. ( )

Tentative rating. Will give it another try. ( )

How do writers do it? Have thoughts so strange and put them in words so powerful? I read a book of Gardner's long ago (October Light) and thought it remarkable, but it was nothing like this. One short text to encompass human existence and meaning. Or was it just a story? ( )

The author has stated that this book is intentionally a philosophical book meant to poke fun at society at the time. Because of this, the book is incredibly confusing and isn't at all a good read if you are looking for a good story. ( )

A retelling of Beowulf from the viewpoint of the monster.
Retellings are a tricky business, I think. You have to stay true to the spirit of the original while also making the story your own and using it for your own purposes. I know this one has received high acclaim, and while I started out with high hopes, in the end it just didn't work for me. Gardner is clearly using the tale to engage with Big Philosophical Ideas (I mean the whole thing is lousy with Sartre), and that's fine, of course, but it just feels like the story gets lost somewhere along the way and there's more interpretation and metaphor than retelling, or for that matter, telling at all. Plus, it's so very grim. It's dark without the depth of actual feeling of the original, which mean we're left with just dreariness. ( )

Grendel by John Gardner takes the Beowulf story that some of us read in high school and turns it on its head.
If you think you know who is the hero here, keep reading.

Grendel is an articulate monster, curious about life and art and his role as "Brute Extant" and mead hall wrecker. He wants to fit in, He wants to understand. He's lonely.

The Shaper - the King's blind harper - sings of a world of noble warriors and a benevolent God. Grendel knows better. He sees the world as a place of random violence and greed and lust and savagery. He's not the only "Monster" here.

The Thane's government, seen as wise and merciful, is just the way that the rich and powerful STAY rich and powerful. Sound familiar?

There is a curmudgeonly and know-it-all dragon, who pokes holes in all of Grendel's illusions, and Beowulf himself, who shows up late in the book to carry out his assigned role in the history. (Free will? Or pre-destination? You decide).

It's a advanced seminar in Existential Philosophy wrapped up in breathtakingly beautiful poetry, asking questions that are still valid and still important. Who shapes society? The Poets -- who lie? Or the monsters -- who by being "evil" teach men how to be "Good".

You want Answers? Talk to the dragon. ( )

My Beowulf journey continues. I first read this book in the late 1970’s and loved it then. I thought the idea of telling the story from Grendel’s point of view was brilliant. And It was my gateway to reading many more of Gardner’s works.

And in my re-read of it now, I love it even more.

I’ll leave it to others to explicate how Gardner wove the 12 Zodical signs into its structure (e.g. read The Twelve Traps in John Gardner’s Grendel), or infused Satrean nihilism into it. (Love the dragon: “Know how much you’ve got and beware of strangers!” [P.S. advice Grendel ultimately ignores]). And it seems a thorough exploration of Macbeth’s “life’s…a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

But in connection with the poem Beowulf, I appreciated the perspective of a sentient being trying to make sense out of the customs and artifacts of what was to it a foreign community. Not unlike the archeologists trying to make sense of the culture found in artifacts discovered at Sutton Hoo.

So I think I’ll add the audiobook reading by George Guidall others have highly recommended to my list. I need to mull whether I’ll add Sartre’s Being and Nothingness to that list.

Update: re-read Andrew DeYoung’s “Grendel at 50”.
Lithub. And gmail. ( )

"Tedium is the worst pain."

Gardner gives Grendel a voice that is difficult to ignore. It drills away slowly into your conscience, working its way deep into your subconscious and making residence there. His voice is sharp, eloquent, and persuasive to an offensive degree, to say the least.

I highly recommend this book for literary nerds (and Beowulf fans). For others, I suggest you read a chapter (on Amazon or elsewhere) before deciding to dive into it. ( )

Grendel is a heavily philosophical novel, and a pretty interesting read. It also has a lot more blood and guts than I would normally seek out in a book, but my fifteen-year-old son raved about it after reading it in school, so I had to give it a try. I love that John Gardner thought to turn Beowulf on its head by telling the story from Grendel's perspective. Although Grendel offers an empty alternative and I often found living in his head repellent, his critique of the war-making society and heroic idealism of his time (and perhaps several forms of human folly in general, too) felt painfully current at times. Well done. ( )

From the monsters point of view. ( )

Amazing book - really brings something to life. Shame the author died (motorcycle accident) as I'd like him to have written more. ( )

Monster with deep thoughts
when he's not talking nonsense
he's biting off heads. ( )

Enjoyed the existentialism. Felt for Grendel's solitude. ( )

We all know the story... at least from the hero's perspective. What about Grendel's side? Gardner explores Grendel's motivations in this masterwork. ( )

The Beowulf Tale but told from the perpective of the monster... but what if you had a deeper understanding of Grendel, about his feelings, his motivations - is he still so monstrous or are the monsters elsewhere!?!? This is an outstanding book beautifully written. So much in it for only 123 pages!

Probably best read after you have read some version of the original Beowulf. Grendel is a fascinating character in line with Milton's Satan in Paradise lost and Shelley's portrait of Frankenstein's monster, sharing some family traits with Tolkien's Gollum - man makes the monster and the monster makes man. The dragon is an ironic commentary on the strain of godly knowing-it-all. The novel is philosophically minded and stylistically interesting, treating the relation between the singing of stories and the world of men and monsters as it unfolds. ( )

In [Beowulf], the mythic epic of battles in ancient Scandinavia, Grendel is a grisly monster that terrorizes the kingdom ruled by Hrothgar. Grendel is without thoughts, character, ethics; just a horrible creature that lives deep underground, venturing out to feed on wildlife, cattle, and humans, collecting bodies to drag into any secluded spot, then crunching them up, hair, bones, flesh, and all.

John Gardner, in this novel published in 1971, gives Grendel a life beyond mere animation, as well as a voice. The story, as he tells it, is unlike that of the poem. Men are not very smart and they are not fearless warriors. For his own part, he's bored and puzzled by his own existence.

…"Why are we here?" I used to ask her [his mother]."Why do we stand this putrid, stinking hole?" She trembles at my words. Her fat lips shake. "Don't ask!" he wriggling claws implore. (She never speaks.) "Don't ask!" It must be some terrible secret, I used to think. I'd give her a crafty squint. She'll tell me, in time, I thought. But she told me nothing…

He speaks of his discovery of a sunken door that allows him to escape the den and explore the outside. "I played my way further out…, cautiously darting from tree to tree challenging the terrible forces of night on tiptoe." His first confrontation with men happens when he catches his foot—inextricably—in the crotch of a tree. He survives an assault by a bull, though one leg is gored and ripped. He sleeps. Awaking, he sees and hears men, and realizes he can understand that they are saying. What follows smacks of a Monty Python sketch, in which Grendel is judged to be a fungus growth on the tree that must be chopped away to save the tree. Then he's seen to be a spirit, a hungry one, hungry for...pig! Yes, but also a scary spirit. The men hurl spears and like weapons at him. When his mother appears, coming over the ridge to save her baby, the men run away.

As he continues to grow and mature, Grendel spends most of his time observing the humans, hiding himself in the treetops or outside the huts, peeking through and listening at gaps between logs.

In the beginning there were various groups of them: ragged little bands that roamed the forest on foot or horseback, crafty-witted killers that worked in teams, hunting through the summer, shivering in caves or little huts in the winter, occasionally wandering out into the snow to plow through it slowly, clumsily, after more meat. Ice clung to their eyebrows and beards and eyelashes, and I'd hear them whining and groaning as they walked. When two hunters from different bands came together in the woods, they would fight until the snow was slushy with blood, then crawl back, gasping and crying, to their separate camps to tell wild tales of what happened.

The time comes when Grendel emerges from hiding.

...I come through trees and towns to the lights of Hrothgar's meadhall. I am no stranger here. A respected guest. Eleven years now and going on twelve I have come up this clean-mown central hill, dark shadow out of the woods below, and have knocked politely on the high oak door, bursting its hinges and sending the shock of my greeting inward like a cold blast out of a cave...The thanes in the meadhall blow out the lights and cover the wide stone fireplace with shields. I laugh, crumple over; I can't help myself. In the darkness, I alone see clear as day. While they squeal and screech and bump into each other, I silently sack up my dead and withdraw to the woods. I eat and laugh and eat until I can barely walk, my chest-hair matted with dribbled blood...

Then Beowulf enters the story...

Wow. I feel like much of this book just went over my head... but what I did grasp (or at least what I think I grasped) took my breath away.
This novel is more philosophical than plot-driven, and these thoughts could have been expressed by any character. So why did John Gardner choose Beowulf's Grendel?

"Poor Grendel's had an accident... so may you all." ( )

I could not get enough of this book when I read it. ( )