Is Grendel a Monster?

I believe that Grendel is a misunderstood creature. In my opinion Grendel isn't a real monster. I believe that people turned him into a demon because that would make them look like innocent threatened people in need of a brave hero to rescue them. Just because Grendel killed a lot of people doesn't make him a monster. It makes him a murderer but not a monster. Beowulf killed a lot of creatures and people even, but he's not a monster, he's a hero. Grendel might have had good reasons of why he killed the people. He was mistreated by them in the first place. Was turned into an outcast, and bragged about killing the rest of his people. They tormented him for many years and Grendel snapped. He turned crazy. I can bet he wasn't a mean or bad creature, but a person can only take so much and Grendel took in plenty of abuses. All he could do was get revenge. To Grendel, the monsters were probably everyone else. I really do feel sorry for Grendel. The pushed him away to darkness into a cave in the swamp. No, Grendel was not a monster. He was treated like one and he had all right to take revenge. I bet that if he was treated nice and accepted, no matter how he looked like, then he would have been very nice and nothing would have happened and no one would have died. That is why I strongly think that poor Grendel isn't a monster.

Another Riddle

I am the wisest story teller. I dance across the pages of history. i leave my mark on my stories. A scratch on one corner of the world, a blot on the other. Yet no one recognizes me for my stories. They don't give me the credit of the other worlds I help create. Who am I?

Riddle

I am as free as a soaring eagle for a moment. My wings are so long they shade where I fly. As free as I might be, I have restrictions as to how far I can fly. Just once when I am having most fun, I am pulled down to reality by a string.

Response to "Good Readers and Good Writers"

This writing had many good ideas. I believe it did a good job describing how a reader should read and how a writer should write. It was useful to me in understanding what should a good reader do because I don't actually take time to actually "read" a book correctly(according to Nabokov). I don't actually appreciate most books and I certainly don't read a book with a dictionary at hand. In my opinion if I have to stop often to look up words and disrupt the wonderful; story being told then the magic of it won't exist anymore. It is OK to use a dictionary when reading something that isn't for fun and is more educational. This is one point I do not agree with Nabokov. The other definitions he gave I can agree on. As for what makes a good writer, there are many things I can agree on, such as a book should be magical and be able to tell a good story. But in my opinion, there are a couple books that don't follow his guidelines on what is good literature. I have read many books that are just great but might not have all the qualities he says. There can be stories that have all the qualities of the perfect literature but it just might not be appealing to me. In conclusion, Nabokov and I have have different perspectives, but his take on reading and writing have fantastic ideas and many that I agree on.