Why Hamlet and Grendel Should Become Friends

As we begin to read new novels and plays in class, it has become a subconscious habit for me to compare each new character to protagonists and antagonists of previous works. The same is the case with Hamlet, and as we analyzed Hamlet’s character traits in class, I could not help but notice as strong connection with John Gardner’s Grendel (the character). What first stood out to me was both characters’ isolation from their respective society. They both appear to be cast out for their difference. At the same time, however, they both evoke a sense of enlightened state. Whether it is through Grendel’s commentary, or Hamlet’s first soliloquy, both characters show signs of a deeper intelligence or awareness regarding their surroundings and those around them. This fact is especially apparent through their tendency to judge people. Grendel was notorious for watching the Danes, forming judgments about individuals’ characters. Similarly, Hamlet’s soliloquy reveals that he too is forming judgments. He compares Claudius to a satyr, not worthy of the throne, almost a disgrace when compared to his father, a sun god. He also judges his mother for re-marrying only two months after his father’s death, condemning her for her frailty and incestuous act. It is important to note that in both cases, we are allowed to see into each character’s mind while left to wonder about the deeper motives of others. Both characters are also severed from their respective parental figures. Grendel has no real father. As he comes to age and begins to explore, he falls victim to his curiosity. He is trapped in a twisted tree and is attacked by a bull and then by the animosity of man. At this point he loses the feeling of protection he once felt from his mother when he becomes aware of his alone-ness in the world. Hamlet’s father and idol is killed in battle. Two months later his mother re-marries and he loses all respect for her. While he still obeys her wishes (when she asks him to stay close), he is now unable to speak to her. Like Grendel, he too now finds himself robbed of parental figures on which he can rely. Hamlet can be perceived as a very sensitive character. He reacts strongly to emotions, as can be seen in the outrage of his soliloquy. This same trait is found with Grendel at a similarly early point in the novel, before he is introduced to the dragon’s nihilism. Grendel too was a highly emotional character, sometimes compared to an angry teen throwing fits.  Finally, the greatest similarity between Grendel and Hamlet is found in the nature of their conflicts. Both characters are faced with a strong inner conflict that is at the center of their anger and isolation. Of course, at only the third scene of the first act out of five, it is still very early in Hamlet to make such a heavy judgment on his character. My observations will likely be contradicted in many ways as we penetrate further into the play. We will just have to find out!

A Poison Tree by William Blake

I was angry with my friend:
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.

And I watered it in fears,
Night and morning with my tears;
And I sunned it with smiles,
And with soft deceitful wiles.

And it grew both day and night,
Till it bore an apple bright.
And my foe beheld it shine.
And he knew that it was mine,

And into my garden stole
When the night had veiled the pole;
In the morning glad I see
My foe outstretched beneath the tree. 

William Blake

            Written by William Blake, “A Poison Tree” was published in 1794. The poem was part of the Songs of Experience, the collection of poems that followed (and contrasted) Blake’s Songs of Innocence. The narrator of the poem remains anonymous throughout the length of the poem. By withholding any traits of the narrator, Blake allows the poem to connect with the audience by being able to place himself or herself in the position of the narrator. The poem is a strong representation of the experienced and knowledgeable side of Blake’s poetry. Unlike the innocence that Blake would traditionally associate with youth, the narrator of “A Poison Tree” is in touch with the emotions he experiences. The narrator contrasts two conflicts he has experienced. In one, he told his friend of his anger and so the conflict ended. This conflict serves as a contrast for the second one, in which the narrator chooses not to reveal his wrath to his “foe,” leading to a disastrous result.

In the first line of the second stanza, the narrator mentions watering the wrath “in fears.” The close association of fear and anger is most likely meant to serve as an example of the destructive power they can have when combined in wrath. The narrator “sunned” his wrath “in smiles,” showing that he slowly let the wrath grow within him. He hides it with “deceitful wiles.” The narrator, who previously appeared to be the victim of his anger and fear, now becomes the perpetrator. The wrath can be perceived as the poison from the poem’s title, that is slowly corrupting a previously innocent narrator. This shift follows the traditional transformation presented in Blake’s poetry.

Blake continues the extended metaphor of the wrath’s growth portrayed as a poisonous plant into the third stanza. The narrator’s wrath does not stop growing until it produces an apple. The fruit is important for several reasons. The presence of the fruit means that the plant (and the wrath) have come to the final stage of their growth/ development. Fruits are also representative of sweetness and pleasure, indicating that the poisonous wrath may have corrupted the narrator to the point of enjoyment. The apple is a clear biblical allusion to the story of Adam and Eve. In this case, the apple (representative of the narrator’s wrath) becomes a temptation for his foe. The foe comes for the apple and is apparently killed as a result. It can be inferred that the “foe” was murdered by the narrator. By going back to the first stanza, the audience can see the contrast the author draws between the two conflicts. The conflicts serve as two distinct experiences by the narrator, both of which follow different outcomes of human nature. The first conflict demonstrates that by being open to emotions and communication, one is able to surmount the wrath and proceed with their life. In the second case, however, the lack of connection with his wrath leads to the growth of the apple-bearing “poison tree” and eventually results in the narrator, who was once only victim to his angers and fears, murder another being.