Monster Hunters
Monsters are hunted. The lore of their destruction is excessive, glowing, and dispersed. It is a crucial component of their mythology. There is no eluding the hunter, armed with the vampire stake and crosses and the werewolf’s silver bullet. But then it is the hunter whose tale it is to begin with. Beowulf cannot stay hidden forever, or he would not be Beowulf. Monstrosity relies, in this sense, on its exposition for its production, and it is in this superficial sense of vitality by revelation that two theorists of monstrosity concoct a fantastic world of ‘society’ to keep themselves at bay. Michael Uebel’s “Unthinking the Monster” and Mark Dorrian’s “On the Monstrous and Grotesque” represent similar though distinct theorizations of monstrosity in terms of otherness, difference, relation to self, and production in/by rhetoric. The articles consider the relation between monstrosity and the terms against which it is defined. Yet the pieces are also monsters, and the worlds they sing of are the ones they behold with rapt attention. It is their theorization of monstrosity that allows for the continuation of both insides and outsides in a way more immediate than their encapsulation of such a movement considers.
Dorrian takes Uebel’s general form of abjection seriously as a description of aberrations of the body, the human body it even seems. “As a starting point we will assume the conventional understanding of the monster as a being whose existence runs against, or is contrary to, nature - with the proviso that for ‘nature’ we understand as ‘what has been naturalized’” (Dorrian 310). The article’s understanding of monsters departs little from the starting point, for the terms outlined here. What of the understanding itself? It seems accurate to require that monsters enact renditions of living bodies. However, this assumes monstrosity not only contrasts some pre-selected canon of bodies, but also is to correspond to a set body of monsters, which is of course never set, and thus monstrosity is to predict what might be called monstrous. But the term is not only part of an effort to describe some referent. Monstrosity is also to think through or around the functioning of monster as agency - how does the idea of a monster matter. Or, how does the monstrous feeling fragment representations? In any case, it is to be a study of monstrosity, for both Dorrian and Uebel, that is aware of the impossibility of identifying a definition or set of definitions of monstrosity.
In society, there have always been different roles in defining the boundaries between right and wrong; Monsters take a big part of that role. In Jeffrey Cohen’s “Monster Culture,” Cohen explains seven theses which provide a clearer explanation of how monsters take a part in establishing these boundaries. The oldest Anglo-Saxon story written- “Beowulf”- provides three different monsters which all connect to Cohen’s seven theses. In the older version, however, the monsters do not relate to humans in any way, except that they are enemies. The modern version of Beowulf portrays Grendel’s mother to still be evil but also have relations with the humans in the story.
Jeffery Cohen's first thesis states “the monster's body is a cultural body”. Monsters give meaning to culture. A monsters characteristics come from a culture's most deep-seated fears and fantasies. Monsters are metaphors and pure representative allegories. What a society chooses to make monstrous says a lot about that society’s people. Monsters help us express and find our darkest places, deepest fears, or creepiest thoughts. Monsters that scare us,vampires, zombies, witches, help us cope with what we dread most in life. Fear of the monstrous has brought communities and cultures together. Society is made up of different beliefs, ideas, and cultural actions. Within society there are always outcasts, people that do not fit into the norm or do not follow the status quo. Those people that do not fit in become monsters that are feared almost unanimously by the people who stick to the status quo.
...rs were and still are very active, but how we decide to define these monsters is changing. As our understanding of these monsters becomes clearer, our perception of the monsters will change. In his article and book chapter Monsters and the Moral Imagination and chapter 5 of On Monsters, Stephen Asma suggests that monstrosity, as we know it, is on the rise as humans progress and how we perceive monsters can often define monstrosities in itself, providing evidence of reasons why monster cultures are on the rise, and showing how human progress has evolved our perception of how we think on the topic that is monsters.
Frankenstein, speaking of himself as a young man in his father’s home, points out that he is unlike Elizabeth, who would rather follow “the aerial creations of the poets”. Instead he pursues knowledge of the “world” though investigation. As the novel progresses, it becomes clear that the meaning of the word “world” is for Frankenstein, very much biased or limited. He thirsts for knowledge of the tangible world and if he perceives an idea to be as yet unrealised in the material world, he then attempts to work on the idea in order to give it, as it were, a worldly existence. Hence, he creates the creature that he rejects because its worldly form did not reflect the glory and magnificence of his original idea. Thrown, unaided and ignorant, into the world, the creature begins his own journey into the discovery of the strange and hidden meanings encoded in human language and society. In this essay, I will discuss how the creature can be regarded as a foil to Frankenstein through an examination of the schooling, formal and informal, that both of them go through. In some ways, the creature’s gain in knowledge can be seen to parallel Frankenstein’s, such as, when the creature begins to learn from books. Yet, in other ways, their experiences differ greatly, and one of the factors that contribute to these differences is a structured and systematic method of learning, based on philosophical tenets, that is available to Frankenstein but not to the creature.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is ‘one of the pioneering works of modern science fiction’, and is also a frightening story that speaks to the ‘mysterious fears of our nature’. Mary Shelley mocks the idea of “playing God”, the idea that came from the Greek myth of Prometheus, of the Greek titan who stole Zeus’ gift of life. Both the story of Frankenstein and Prometheus reveal the dark side of human nature and the dangerous effects of creating artificial life. Frankenstein reveals the shocking reality of the consequences to prejudging someone. The creature’s first-person narration reveals to us his humanity, and his want to be accepted by others even though he is different. We are shown that this ‘monster’ is a ‘creature’ and more of a human than we think.
Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein is impressive, entertaining, and fascinating so is it no surprise there have been so many films and artworks influenced by her novel. Many of which have put their own spin to the horror novel, especially the character of the creature that remains one of the most recognized icons in horror fiction. However, there have been critics whom argue modern versions and variations have lost the horror and passion that is an essential to the creature. The start of the Creature is bound to one book. However, public impression of the Creature has changed severely since the publication of the original novel, leading to diverse styles and plot lines in its diverse film adaptations. People’s impression of the Creature have become so twisted and turned by time and decades of false film posters and article titles that most use the name “Frankenstein” to refer to the Creature itself, rather than the scientist who created him! It’s a shame! An understanding of literary history is a necessity to comprehend the truth of the Creature’s tragic history and how decades of film adaptations changed him into the hulking beast most people know him as today.
Baldick, Chris. In Frankenstein's Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity, and Nineteenth-Century Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Print.
Like all works that have been taught in English classes, Frankenstein has been explicated and analyzed by students and teachers alike for much of the twentieth and all of the twenty-first century. Academia is correct for doing so because Frankenstein can appeal to the interests of students. Students, teachers and experts in the areas of medicine, psychology, and sociology can relevantly analyze Frankenstein in their respective fields. However, Peter Brooks explains in “Godlike Science/Unhallowed Arts: Language and Monstrosity in Frankenstein” that Shelly had presented the problem of “Monsterism” through her language. According to Brooks, Monsterism is explicitly and implicitly addressed in Shelly’s language. While this may be correct, Brooks does it in such a way that requires vast knowledge of subjects that many readers may not be knowledgeable in. After summarizing and analyzing the positive and negative qualities of Brooks’ work, I will explain how the connection of many different fields of study in literature creates a better work.
Baldick, C. "Making Monstrous - 'Frankenstein', Criticism, Theory - Botting,F." Review Of English Studies 45 (1994): 90-99.
These two scenarios from Anglo-Saxon and modern times are similar, as well. They are similar because of the continuity of “monsters” terrorizing a society being a great influence among audiences of the past and present. The two works of both eras demonstrate the continual interest in defeating villains and “feeding” it’s listeners with tales such as these.
There are countless great authors in the world nowadays. Conversely, many believe that authors of the past were considerably more enjoyable. One of these fecund authors is F. Scott Fitzgerald. The end of his ephemeral life may not have been the best; nonetheless, it was his younger years that breathed life into his writing.
Peter Brooks' essay "What Is a Monster" tackles many complex ideas within Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and the main concept that is the title of the essay itself. What is the definition of a monster, or to be monstrous? Is a monster the classic representation we know, green skin, neck bolts, grunting and groaning? A cartoon wishing to deliver sugary cereal? or someone we dislike so greatly their qualities invade our language and affect our interpretation of their image and physical being? Brooks' essay approaches this question by using Shelley's narrative structure to examine how language, not nature, is mainly accountable for creating the idea of the monstrous body.
In 1896, F. Scott Fitzgerald was born in St. Paul, Minnesota on September twenty-fourth. Fitzgerald was named after the author of the “Star Spangled Banner” (LitFinder). He was the only child of Edward and Mollie McQuillan Fitzgerald, and he is Irish by ancestry(McMahon 89). According to Matthew Bruccoli, while Edward was a provincial aristocrat, his mother Mollie, was a “straight 1850 potato –famine Irish” (Bruccoli). Fitzgerald ended up moving to New Jersey in 1911 to obtain an education at Newman College Preparatory School. Two years later he transferred to Princeton University. After schooling, Fitzgerald became a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army, but he never saw war. Instead of entering line of duty in WWI, he was assigned to stay at camp Sheridan. It was at this camp where he met his wife Zelda (LitFinder). While she and Fitzgerald were engaged, he tried to succeed in the advertisement business; however, Zelda, unwilling to wait for him to succeed, broke off the engagement (Bruccoli). Then in 1919 he published, This side of Paradise. This novel allowed Fitzgerald to become a well known literary figure. One year later he married Z...
Fitzgerald’s personal life was just as intriguing as his writing. He was born on September 24, 1896 in St. Paul Minnesota as the son of Edward Fitzgerald and Mary Mcquillan. His mother was occupied as a wholesale grocer in St. Paul while his father was an old Southerner (Bruccoli). The family relocated to New York after his father failed as a manufacturer of wicker. His father took the job as a salesman for Procter and Gamble, but not soon after, Edward was dismissed and once again, the family found themselves back in St. Paul. In the Fall of 1913. Fitzgerald enrolled at Princeton where he dove deep into the literary life. He made contributions to the Princeton Triangle Club, the Princeton Tiger, and the Nassau Literary Magazine, as well as forming relationships with students who pursued a similar dream of being a writer...
From the time he wrote his first novel, F. Scott Fitzgerald was bound to be a classic novelist, portraying his life from birth, through his youth, and through his older years in mostly all of his novels, including his most popular novel, The Great Gatsby. Fitzgerald’s life from youth to death found full expression in some 160 short stories (Prigozy, 1). The elegiac note that characterizes his reminiscences of his early childhood and struggling adolescence greatly affected his work (Prigozy, 1).