Blake and Grendel

When I was reading Grendel, I over looked the short poem at the beginning of the book. Whoops :) But I am actually glad I did. If I had read it in the beginning, I do not think I would have appreciated it and have understood it as much. But it makes me wonder, did Gardner really put it there so that I would not understand it? Did he want me to go back in the end and reread it?? I guess I will never ever know. Now, I'm reading the poem again, and I'm thinking about how weird and disturbing it truly is. "Nails him down upon a rock" and "catches his shrieks in cups of gold?" What?? That doesn't exactly make you want to read it over and over and figure out the true meaning and why Gardner used it, does it? I think Gardner used this poem for that exact twisted reason. It is supposed to be hard to read. It is supposed to twist your mind in ways it does not want to think. I mean that is what Grendel had to do. He had to think about everything in an entirely new way, twice even! Between the shaper and the dragon, Grendel had whiplash!! But that's another blog for another day.....maybe. Ok let's think. Gardner uses this poem because....well...I guess he's trying to say that when the baby is born, he will be given to an old woman who knows everything because of her age, and his shrieks of innocence will be caught in the gold cups?? But why gold cups?? When I think of gold cups, I think of kings and queens having a feast with their beautiful plates and silverware and cups. To continue the thought process, I think of Hrothgar and Beowulf. They were considered royalty, right? So if we make Grendel the baby--because he's brand new into the society of men--then it makes sense! Gardner uses the poem to basically summarize Grendel's beginning at life! Grendel does not know anything! When he was hanging in the tree he had no idea what was going to happen to him. But as soon as that axe was thrown at him, he's "shrieks" stopped, and he is no longer not aware of the humans and their capabilities. His innocence can no longer be served to the kings and queens to feast on. They can no longer rest and dine in peace. They now have no innocence to drink, if you will, and their gold cups are empty. The woman no longer has anything to catch, because the baby isn't shrieking anymore. The baby aka Grendel knows. He knows what's going to happen. He knows that without him, the people will still continue to thrive. He knows that the only way to stay alive and experienced, is to attack them. Feast over.

Innocence vs. Experience

Innocence and Experience are always battling each other. One day you are innocent, and the next you know too much and can no longer be considered innocent. But what makes one innocent?? Are you innocent just because you do not know?? For instance, if I don't know about psychology per say, does that mean I am innocent in that matter?? Or, is innocence just a universal idea that is all there at once and goes away at the snap of a finger??? When we talked about William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience, I did not expect them to be reciprocals of each other. I did not think one was about an innocent baby, and then on the other side, there was one about an experienced baby. For instance, in "Infant Joy," the baby and the mother are having a conversation and the mother's voice seems to dominate their conversation. The mom over powers the baby because the baby is a newborn and still has "no name" and is "two days old." The mom is so happy to have the baby and sings to the baby. The baby is just now learning what the world is about. Heck, the baby is brand new! It knows nothing! The baby has no idea what is going on other than that it has things to look at now and is just in a whole new setting! This is why Blake put "Infant Joy" in the Songs of Innocence. The innocent newborn baby is overpowered by the mother who has experience in life. However, when the coin is flipped, the baby explains how the mother and father are both upset. But what are they upset about??? OHH!!! The baby has learned and no longer has innocence!! "Infant Sorrow" does not seem to me like the baby is sad. It seems more to me that the baby is happy while the mom and dad are extremely sad. I mean the dad is crying. How often do men actually cry....?? And how often do women cry....?? Exactly. Women cry a lot more. The word that sticks out to me the most is the "swaddling." It makes me think of how the mom and dad are trying to trap the baby in its innocence and keep it there. When a baby is swaddled, it's kind of stuck--arms to its side and legs bound straight. There's not much you can do after that. The baby even says that it jumps into the "dangerous world." The baby knows life isn't fun and games. The baby knows that it needs to be careful with what it does. That is what I see in both of these songs as the change in innocence and experience. You cannot take away the baby's knowing of the world. However, I liked "Infant Joy" better because it was happy and I did not have to think about the "dangerous world" that Blake talks about.

Nope. Didn't Happen.

While I was reading Grendel by John Gardner, I wasn't exactly enjoying it. I definitely enjoyed it more than following George Williard around everywhere...no offense to Mr. Anderson...My favorite chapter is Chapter 5--when we learn about the dragon. I don't know if that's because I love dragons in general...or if it's because I didn't like the Shaper just because it seemed like a bunch of hocus pocus. Then again, I've always wanted a pet dragon that could fly me to school and make everyone jealous. A big controversy in my class was the end. If you think Grendel dies, I disagree completely. Also, if you think he killed the mountain goat, I disagree completely as well. Gardner doesn't say anything that could make us sway either way. He leaves it to us to decide. And I decided Grendel and the mountain goat don't die and you should too. So Grendel gets aggravated when another goat starts to bother him and this time instead of just yelling at it (because yelling really doesn't do much but make the goat want to bother him more), Grendel starts to throw things at it. First, Grendel rolls a "boulder" at him (139). The goat avoids it and continues to head towards the more and more angry Grendel. Each time Grendel throws something at the goat, the goat gets weaker and weaker. Finally "death shakes his body" (140). The last thing Gardner tells us is that Grendel picks up another stone. We never find out if he kills it or not. We don't know if he gives into his want to kill something, or if he gives into not killing it. We don't know if he gives into the animalistic want to kill something or if he goes back to his original thought of how killing something for no point is savage. We just don't know. It shows how he is torn with inner conflict. This isn't the first time he's struggled with this either--but that's another story. Then in Chapter 12, aka the end, Grendel's "enemies of old" have come to watch him 'die' (173). Grendel mentions a "sheepish smile" that makes me think back to the goat (173).  It's as if Grendel is mimicking the goat because he now understands the difficulty of avoiding death and how it can all be a big mistake or as Grendel says, an "accident" (174). Stupid Grendel, he just had to give into temptation. The last part of me that doesn't think that Grendel dies is when he is faced with the chasm yet again. In the beginning he yelled into it over and over as if he was taunting it. He was challenging the chasm to take him. When he finds himself back at the chasm missing an arm, the "voluntary tumble" that he thinks is going to kill him doesn't happen (173). He's already faced this problem and he's avoided it. So to all you Grendel'sdeadbelievers, he's not. He's simply alive waiting to give a humanish smile to his old friends when he gets his revenge.