In the article “Alas, Poor Grendel,” Robert L. Chapman analyzes the author of Beowulf and his beliefs based on his depiction of Grendel in the poem. Drawing his own conclusions and drawing on other sources, Chapman points out that the poet expresses sympathy towards Grendel, despite all the harsh terms used for his description. He uses many phrases and makes it clear that Grendel is doomed and destined for a sad, miserable, and evil life. He knew that the monster was cursed at birth because he was the descendant of Cain; However, this is not the monster's fault. Grendel was who he was because of his nature, not because of his will, thus making him God's victim. Despite all his killings, Grendel technically committed no sin because he never went against his destiny or God's will. The author of the poem described in his work compassion and sympathy for Grendel because he thought this fate was unjust, thus demonstrating his "incomplete commitment to the doctrine of Providence, and that it does not denote an orthodoxy naive but a fallacious reserve” (Chapman 335). It's unclear how any self-aware Christian could have felt compassion for such a demonic beast. Either the poet had difficulty understanding Grendel, or he experienced two contrasting emotions and alternated between them, which left an imprint on his work, or he had several authors. However, it is also clear that the poet is still primarily interested in Beowulf (the human) and may have made Grendel a suitable adversary, since the monster was a new concept at the time. Finally, Chapman concludes that the poet was a "Christian not quite purged of his pagan autonomy" (337) or a "Christian quivering with Pelagianism" (337) whose sympathy for Grendel arises from an unrestricted and insubordinate human will . Say no to plagiarism. . Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay I find it very interesting that you can talk about a person's religion, morals, and beliefs based on their relationship with a character they created. By analyzing the period in which the poet wrote his work, Chapman is able to interpret the feelings expressed towards Grendel and their origin. However, I disagree with Chapman when he proposes the idea that the poet thought Grendel's fate was unjust. Although there are contrasting feelings towards Grendel, I believe the goal was to make the monster more interesting. Although the author calls Grendel a "demon" (133), a "killer of souls" (177), a "God-cursed brute" (121), and other strong terms, he makes it clear that Grendel was cursed at birth. . By adding human characteristics to Grendel, I think the monster becomes even more evil because he understands what he is doing and the consequences of his actions. However, Grendel's purpose in life is to fight heroes, and if he stops his demilitions, he will lose his purpose. In my opinion, Grendel's decision to choose himself over the lives of many people is truly evil and selfish. Therefore, the potential choices versus the choices Grendel makes demonstrate his true monstrosity, which I believe is what the author was trying to portray. As mentioned in the article, the author mainly sympathizes with Beowulf, who is a hero like no other. So he needed a monster that would be unlike any other. By showing Grendel's selfishness, the author brings him closer to humans and gives him dimension, which makes him a worthy enemy..