Grendel and Medea are different characters who appeared from the pen of different authors in different periods. However, they are united by one crucial detail — the monster’s nature. From this detail, a whole complex of similarities grows, such as hermit, rejection by others, savagery, and inability to accept oneself. Moreover, both characters have a clear tendency to nihilism and destructivism; their views and reasoning directly testify to this. In this way, their monstrous essences completely touch, referring readers to a much more critical foundation, standing at the foundations of any mythological being. The tragedy of these characters and their inability to do otherwise serve as an actual example, reminding readers that one cannot alienate oneself from society and generally accepted concepts of morality. Thus, the ultimate tragedy of these two outsiders and their need to find meaning, such as destiny or victory, is their similarity in the core of their monster nature.
Firstly, both characters are detached from society due to different circumstances. The reason for Grendel is his normal appearance, because of which people shun him. Moreover, the bloodline is another reason he was forced to wander in the wilderness alone. On the other hand, Medea was an outsider because of her excessive militancy, belonging to the barbarian culture. In this sense, both characters were excessively isolated from everyday human life, which turned them into social monsters. For example, Grendel, in the course of the story, states that “the world was nothing: a mechanical chaos of casual, brute enmity on which we stupidly impose our hopes and fears“ (Gardner 18). Moreover, he claims that “all the rest, I saw, is merely what pushes me, or what I push against, blindly” (Gardner 18). Such rhetoric is exceptionally close to nihilism, the philosophy of denying the world as a positive trend. Consequently, Grendel becomes a monster by changing his worldview, and both characters’ inability to build regular communications or stop in time in conquering activities is one of their main similarities.
At the same time, Medea has her reasons to follow destructive ideologies, different from Grendel’s. According to the book, she states the following: “I’d rather stand there three times in battle holding up my shield than give birth once.” (Euripides 11). From such rhetoric, it can be understood that she prefers death rather than life, which is part of nihilism. Medea mainly preferred destruction to creation; in mythology, such type of characters has always been perceived by mundane readers as a product of evil that wants to destroy the world. Thus, one can conclude that both Medea and Grendel are, due to different circumstances, supporters of nihilism and destructive ideologies, which make them become and be perceived as monsters.
Another element of the similarity of the two characters is their fate, represented by a tragic failure to achieve their goals. While Grendel wanted to find his place in life, in the end, he stayed alone, and Medea, being close to victory, still suffered a defeat: “I’ve lost all hope” (Euripides 58). However, these endings are presented not as victories of good over evil but as stories of individuals failed by the world, whose views were broken by the subjective reality surrounding them. Hence, one can logically conclude that the image of monsters carries an allusion to authentic social images, which is reflected in these mythological legends. This similarity of the existence of monsters unites Grendel and Medea the most; they are based on evil, not created but further developed by themselves.
Last but not least is the role monsters played in the history of mythology and the two characters’ specifically. Grendel, in this case, had reasonable goals, tried to find his place in the world and society, to live a life that could be loved. However, at the end of the story, he stays alone, disillusioned with his goal: “And though I fight it with all my will, I know in advance that I can’t win” (Gardner 123). The betrayal of his ideals due to not understanding the context of situations he found himself in led him to such an end. On the other hand, Medea became a victim of the war —a depressed person with no peace in life: “All I can say is that I feel so sad” (Euripides 42). What she initially attributed to her barbaric culture eventually became primal bloodlust. This barbarian has surrendered to her predatory instincts and used her strength to kill others instead of protecting them. Consequently, the monster’s purpose as a concept is to convey the mistakes that a person can make, and in this matter, Medea and Grendel have the same goal, so they are highly similar.
In conclusion, based on the nature of these two characters, their fate, perceptions of the world, and the very paradigm of existence, Grendel and Medea are similar in that they are monsters. Moreover, the importance of such a comparison lies not only in the literary value of mythological stories but also in what lessons can be learned by someone who understands the purpose of the monsters. They are designed not to embody the concept of evil, which is modified under the influence of morality and subjective considerations of the authors in different eras. The real purpose of monsters, the stories of Grendel, Medea, and hundreds of other characters in various epics and cultural legends is to reflect how a person should not join evil. Primarily, these stories are tragic, and the first thing that causes tragedy in an ordinary reader is a desire to change the course of events. Moreover, this desire is the crucial factor that can motivate one not to turn off the path he has chosen, not to become a monster.
Works Cited
Gardner, John. Grendel. Vintage, 1989.
Euripides. Medea. Translated by Ian Johnston, Richer Resources Publications, 2008.