First of all, can we just acknowledge the fact that Gardner is low-key savage? Like, I have no idea who this "David" kid is, but Gardner was totally ripping into him. (Not like he didn't make good points, of course.) It's not common that us readers get a peek into the mind of an author, so it was really interesting to hear Gardner's thoughts about his own novel, Grendel.
I thought it was really interesting how Gardner pointed out that the statements in his work and his characters' beliefs don't necessarily match his own. It was a bit of a relief, actually, because a lot of the philosophies of the dragon and Grendel ended up being really nihilistic and negative. In fact, Gardner seems to give the dragon's ideas a little spin -- although everything may end up fading away to ashes and dust (I enjoyed his little spiel on Stonehenge and how no one actually knows anything about who made those monuments), it doesn't give humans an excuse to give up on life and not work towards any goals. Like Gardner says, "we don't need eternal values to assert and try to live up to eternal values."
Also, I'd just like to discuss his claim that Grendel is a much more optimistic work than Beowulf. Initially, this may seem like a ridiculous statement; after all, Grendel in Gardner's novel goes through a lot of pretty depressing philosophies, gets his arm ripped off, and is literally mocked and watched by animals before he flings himself off a cliff. (Positively joyful, no?) But in some ways, I really do agree with Gardner's explanation. Beowulf honestly seems like a very one-dimensional and shallow story; it's the quintessential epic, after all -- the bad guy terrifies the poor, innocent civilians, the good guy (with rippling abs and a perfect face, of course) comes and saves everyone, blah, blah, blah. Grendel, on the other hand, is a much more honest retelling of the story; Beowulf isn't perfect (honestly, he's a little creepy), the people aren't as innocent and sweet as you might think, and the bad guy really isn't all evil and doom (he might just be a cute lil' baby Grendel gallivanting through the forest, actually). And although Grendel does die at the end, he gains so more in death than in life by realizing that other things exist in the world and that he's not totally alone. And plus, there really are a couple instances of "inner heroism," especially in Unferth, who is kind of comical but also a kind of noble person. Near the end, he still wants Beowulf to save everyone and he supports him, although Beowulf just insulted him by reminding him that he killed all of his brothers.
I thought it was really interesting how Gardner pointed out that the statements in his work and his characters' beliefs don't necessarily match his own. It was a bit of a relief, actually, because a lot of the philosophies of the dragon and Grendel ended up being really nihilistic and negative. In fact, Gardner seems to give the dragon's ideas a little spin -- although everything may end up fading away to ashes and dust (I enjoyed his little spiel on Stonehenge and how no one actually knows anything about who made those monuments), it doesn't give humans an excuse to give up on life and not work towards any goals. Like Gardner says, "we don't need eternal values to assert and try to live up to eternal values."
Also, I'd just like to discuss his claim that Grendel is a much more optimistic work than Beowulf. Initially, this may seem like a ridiculous statement; after all, Grendel in Gardner's novel goes through a lot of pretty depressing philosophies, gets his arm ripped off, and is literally mocked and watched by animals before he flings himself off a cliff. (Positively joyful, no?) But in some ways, I really do agree with Gardner's explanation. Beowulf honestly seems like a very one-dimensional and shallow story; it's the quintessential epic, after all -- the bad guy terrifies the poor, innocent civilians, the good guy (with rippling abs and a perfect face, of course) comes and saves everyone, blah, blah, blah. Grendel, on the other hand, is a much more honest retelling of the story; Beowulf isn't perfect (honestly, he's a little creepy), the people aren't as innocent and sweet as you might think, and the bad guy really isn't all evil and doom (he might just be a cute lil' baby Grendel gallivanting through the forest, actually). And although Grendel does die at the end, he gains so more in death than in life by realizing that other things exist in the world and that he's not totally alone. And plus, there really are a couple instances of "inner heroism," especially in Unferth, who is kind of comical but also a kind of noble person. Near the end, he still wants Beowulf to save everyone and he supports him, although Beowulf just insulted him by reminding him that he killed all of his brothers.