The story of Frankenstein can be related to Beowulf by the idea that there are humanoid like monsters

that terrorize the people. In Beowulf, we also read a short snippet for the book Grendel. In this book, we
learned that the monster didn't feel accepted by anything and unloved so he killed things and ate them
because that is what was socially expected of him. Frankenstein's monster feels the same about people in
the story. He feels that it is socially expected for him to be a terrible beast that people are afraid of and
that is going to kill others. Its 'in his nature,' even if he doesn't want it to be. Grendel's mother abandoned
him in his last moments or early in the Grendel book like Frankenstein did to the monster in its early
creation. This set both creatures to an ultimate end that was neither pleasant or wanted.
Reply
Replies
1.

AnonymousApril 22, 2015 at 5:40 AM

I agree with the connection with the Monster in Frankenstein and Grendel. I believe
that in both, from the outside the monsters look like vicious killers but when we see
the back story we are able to see why they are killers, because they aren't accepted
by society.
2.

AnonymousApril 22, 2015 at 5:42 AM

I didn't even think about this, great connection! I agree that both Grendel and
Frankenstein's monster were both exiled early in life due to their grotesque
appearance and overall differences from modern society. Both monsters would have
liked to be accepted by the world, but since they were treated so poorly, they lashed
back. Both choose to be feared by man as a form of repayment for their
mistreatment.
3.

AnonymousApril 22, 2015 at 5:44 AM

I agree. Frankenstein's monster and Grendel are quite similar. I think a big
difference between the creature and Grendel is that the creature at least tries to
become accepted by society. He was once benevolent and kind, but society changed
him into the monster that he is.
4.

AnonymousApril 22, 2015 at 5:46 AM

I agree with the connections you made between Frankenstein's creature and
Grendel. Grendel and Frankenstein's creature both are outcasts of the society
surrounding them and are in their minds expected to do evil.

Grendel connects to Frankenstein in the way that both monsters

During my Heroes and Monsters of the North Sea Literature course, Professor Smith made the argument that
the epic poem Beowulf was a tale that centered on humanity’s duality. To a more causal audience Grendel is
the monster and Beowulf is the hero – no argument. However, the case is not as simple after a closer
examination. Beowulf is a monster of pride. In the end it is inability to pass the torch that spells his doom.

Victor Frankenstein is the same in this aspect. I find this story so appealing because he is a character that
makes an audience cringe at the amount of stupidity that fuels his actions, and yet he is relatable – more so
than the creature. While the creature faces the world, his viewpoint steadily darkening, Victor grew up
alongside a great childhood. His motives are selfish and his actions are sometimes irrational, but that only
adds to why he is so relatable. While a gross generalization, it is reasonable to think that people who grow up
with a happy childhood go on to live normal, productive lives. Victor simply takes it to the extreme. It is as if
his normal childhood psychologically fueled this need to separate himself above the norm – to go above and
beyond. After Victor creates the monster, regret sets in. But this only happens once his personal life is
affected to such a horrible degree. A reader would like to believe that he or she would rise above such
egotistical decisions, but it is a biological impulse to flee in the face of danger. Victor wants to save his own
ass in layman’s terms. That mentality is human.

Then the creature confronts him. The creature leverages safety for a companion. Victor latches on the first
chance he gets. He wants to stop the roaring wrath of the creature from affecting anymore of his personal
life. But then his egotistical nature takes over. Instead of thinking about the safety of his family or the woman
that he “loves,” he opts to save himself the embarrassment of being known for the creator of an entire race
of demons. He disregards his own creation’s will for his own pride. In failing to complete one last scientific
endeavor, he ends up getting burnt alive by the dragon so to speak.

This is why the two stories are great comparisons. Grendel and the creature are the traditional monsters –
ugly and deformed. They represent a primal form. They represent ignorance. They represent what happens
when arrogant individuals assume that what they see is reality. Beowulf and Victor represent the more
reformed monstrosities, the kind that only humans can offer towards one another. Two sides of the same
coin.

https://summarystory.com/gullivers-travels/comparison-between-geoffrey-chaucers-the-canterbury-tales-
and-jonathan-swifts-journal-gullivers-travels-thematically-and-philosophically/

Geofrey Chaucer and Jonathan Guliver are two of the most notable authors of their time, who, in their
attempt to explain the happenings in the society, came up with a satirical way in doing so. Their writings
which alternate between pilgrimage or travels demonstrate their quest in finding the most appropriate and
intriguing way of narrating their stories in the most satirical way if not humorous. By using his fictitious
character Gulliver, Swift is able to portray the politics of his period through various adventures in the most
satirical form (Myles 11). The ideas reflected in Gulliver’s Travels have always aroused literary critiques on
whether they were Swift’s ways to describe the political and philosophical concepts of his time or whether
they were ideas put into the mind of his fictitious character Gulliver (Myles 11). During his Swifts time, most
people were always fascinated with adventure into far unknown lands and thus his writing reached a far
much greater audience (Myles 11). An example of Swift’s use of satire is in the introductory excerpt in which
he shows the hypocritical nature of politics in England. In the passage, this he does by narrating the customs
and politics of the Lilliputians and emphasizing that the tallest man who happens to be the leader is only a
nail taller than everybody else (Myles 11). This way he is able to express show that, the fact that the king can
give orders and command his every other ways, this does not mean that he is extra-ordinary or does it make
him superhuman.

Chaucer’s fictional works differ slightly from Swift’s given the fact that they mostly portrayed the people
most of the same social class and interactions. This confinement slightly gave his works a more or less
restricted to explaining and understanding of one’s social circle of friends at stereotyping and satirical nature.
The social constructs are demonstrated in his works that revolve around a group of friends who on their
pilgrimage to Canterbury, engage in a tale-telling contest to as a way to pass the time (General Prologue &
Frame Story; para. 1). Chaucer based his story upon the medieval estate stereotypes of his period upon
which individuals were judged by their profession (General Prologue & Frame Story; para. 2). Throughout
most of his tales he brings out the idea of religious anticlericalism a characteristic that evolved in response to
the verbal abusive nature of the church clergy during the medieval periods (General Prologue & Frame Story;
para. 5). He was therefore able to portray the monks, nuns, priests, and the like in the same light. What
comes out strongly in Chaucer’s tales is the stereotypes associated with people and what they happen to be
when we get to know them personally. In his tales, the pilgrims on their way to Canterbury are total
strangers. In their tales, they may happen to agitate each other based on the stereotypes they have heard,
but they soon wake up to realize that the people who are ascribed such values turn out to be different
(General Prologue & Frame Story; para. 12). The Canterbury Tales, seem to portray a society in which
individuals can be judged by what they look like (General Prologue & Frame Story; para. 5).

In conclusion, it can be seen that the two author’s were very diligent in their work which demonstrated a
vast amount of knowledge to different places and interaction with people. They possessed a similar
philosophical mind of thought in their view of the society which is extensive in their use of satire to express
the human nature which is evident throughout their literary works. The fact that their works survived their
period and era in time leaves no doubt what they had to offer was impactfull.

Works cited
Myles, Shenitria. ‘The political Implications of Gulliver’s travels’ Volume 10, Issue 1,
December 2012. Scholarly Note. 10-15.
‘The Canterbury Tales: General Prologue & Frame Story’. Shmoop. Web 2014. Accessed on
May 1st, 2014 at