Answer and explanation:
I believe Gardner's rendition of Grendel to be an accurate one but in a very subjective sense. Characters are passive to interpretation. A different author could have chosen to portray Grendel in a completely different way.
In Beowulf, one of the most famous epic poems of all time, Grendel is described as a man-eating monster. He is incapable of feeling, and killing is his sole purpose. An example of his evil nature is the scene in which readers are told, "that the demon was going to descend on the hall, that he had plotted all day, from dawn-light until darkness gathered again over the world and stealthy night-shapes came stealing forth under the cloud-murk.
" The demon is Grendel, who had, in another character's interpretation of his actions, plotted all day to kill men.
However, John Gardner shines a new light onto the character in his work. He is not a monster as portrayed in Beowulf. He has feelings, he suffers; but since he has a monstrous appearance and seems incapable of expressing himself, he is misunderstood, The following excerpt shows how Grendel suffers emotionally from his inability to convey his feelings:
<em> Thus I fled, ridiculous hairy creature torn apart by poetry—crawling, whimpering, streaming tears, across the world like a two-headed beast, like mixed-up lamb and kid at the tail of a baffled, indifferent ewe—and I gnashed my teeth and clutched the sides of my head as if to heal the split, but I couldn’t.
</em>
Therefore, it is quite complicated to decide on how accurate an interpretation and rendition of a character can be. Since it is all very subjective, it can be accurate in its own subjectivity. That is, Gardner chose to see beyond the description of Grendel provided in Beowulf. He chose to find an emotional explanation for his actions. In that sense, his rendition of him is accurate.
