Is Grendel a Monster?

I think that Grendel is a monster, because even though he was part human he still ate people. There's no justification for eating people unless you're a wild animal or in this case a monster. Then it's just looked at as horrible, but unpredictable. Throughout the story he showed wild animal or monster-like characteristics, even though he was considered a child and supposedly didn't know any better. His mother still treated him like a child, but only because she was his mother. The story from Grendel's point of view shows him in a different light. He showed human characteristics and showed Beowulf as a monster. He had articulation and a thought process. However, he was still excited about the fact that he was eating people. That's the only problem I have with giving him his "Human (Not Monster) Card."

Anglo-Saxon Riddle

In the heat we try to be as far as possible,
in the cold we pack closely together,
speeding in different directions you can't see us,
even if we moved as slow as you we would still be invisible to you,
you see us in three different forms daily,
what we be?

Nabokov's Good Readers and Writers

I agree with Nabokov on the ideals for a good reader and writer. I also think that he should change some of it. The three facets for a good writer are true but aren't necessary for a good book. The Enchanter and Storyteller part are fine, but I don't believe that a story has to necessarily teach a lesson to be considered good literature. Also all the aspects listened to be a good reader don't apply in every situation. You shouldn't have to belong to a book club to be a good reader. One of the aspects I do agree with is the idea that no matter how many times you read a book it should teach you something everytime. However, I want to add that you can't put a limit on how many books everyone needs to read. There shouldn't be a limit because these same aspects don't apply to everyone. With all of that said I genereally agree with Nabokov's ideas on what a good reader and good writer is.