Guest Blogger: Sam M.

Over the last week, we’ve learned about the story of Grendel and the philosophies contained in John Gardner’s portrayal of the epic Beowulf. Before we got very far into the book, we talked about the philosophies of existentialism, nihilism, and solipsism. Near the end, we talked about humanism. In my mind, the book was about the battle between the Shaper’s humanism, which gave the humans’ lives meaning, and existentialism, which made Grendel’s life meaningless. The dragon’s nihilist philosophy came into play sometimes, when Grendel was thinking that the humans are nothing, and that he was alone. Solipsism played the smallest role of all; Grendel’s use of it could be included in his nihilist thoughts. There was one unanswered question, though: what is Gardner trying to make the reader think? One could make arguments for both the existentialist viewpoint and the humanist viewpoint based on the book’s content.
Existentialism is the philosophy that Grendel clearly follows. He has the thought that if he died, it wouldn’t matter, several times. He believes that everything is meaningless, and he goes so far as to attempt to destroy the meaning of others, Unferth in particular when he, instead of killing Unferth, brings him back unscathed to the hall. Despite being a gloomy existentialist, Grendel is actually a fairly likeable character. He acts like a small child a lot, and many of his actions are amusing. He has a good mind, though, and coupled with the first person point of view, this fact makes the reader identify with Grendel. So, John Gardner could be trying to promote existentialism.
The other side of the argument, the humanist argument, also has good points. The strongest evidence in favor of humanism is the meaning of characters. In the end, Grendel has no meaning, and typical loved protagonists have a deeper meaning than being an accident to the world. However, the humans have meaning and purpose, often given to them by the shaper, who seems to lead the way in the quest for deeper meaning. Also, the humanists seem to be the defenders: Grendel as an existentialist is trying to destroy them and all that they stand for. Humanism’s argument is as strong as existentialism.
My final thought is that Gardner isn’t trying to take a side. He makes points for both arguments for one simple reason: to make us think about both philosophies.