Cohen's seventh
thesis "The Monster Stands at the Threshold... of Becoming". It
really made me think. I agree with what
he says on this matter, for the most part. Monsters are our descendants, in a way.
They contain our strengths and weaknesses. Monsters can be curious about
things, even their mere existence. Frankenstein wonders about his purpose and
why he is here. Monsters learn from their experiences and may even have a
higher understanding for certain things than we do. Monsters push the limits of
right and wrong. Monsters feel curious for the world they live in and how misrepresented
it is. Monsters probably also feel they are misunderstood and misinterpreted. They
open the door to higher thinking. Attempting to understand their viewpoint and
feelings is surreal. It is a good thing that monsters do not actually exist. They
do exist if we count grotesque and deadly humans. That is a whole other story. Thursday, April 23, 2020
Monsters Are Our Children
Cohen's seventh
thesis "The Monster Stands at the Threshold... of Becoming". It
really made me think. I agree with what
he says on this matter, for the most part. Monsters are our descendants, in a way.
They contain our strengths and weaknesses. Monsters can be curious about
things, even their mere existence. Frankenstein wonders about his purpose and
why he is here. Monsters learn from their experiences and may even have a
higher understanding for certain things than we do. Monsters push the limits of
right and wrong. Monsters feel curious for the world they live in and how misrepresented
it is. Monsters probably also feel they are misunderstood and misinterpreted. They
open the door to higher thinking. Attempting to understand their viewpoint and
feelings is surreal. It is a good thing that monsters do not actually exist. They
do exist if we count grotesque and deadly humans. That is a whole other story. 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really like your point about how monsters may have a higher understanding than we do. Frankenstein's creation is a great illustration of this. He seems to be pretty self-aware. Maybe that awareness came about because he had plenty of time to sit and contemplate his existence. Or maybe it's because he doesn't quite fit into any of our classifications that he is able to think about his situation differently than any of the humans in the story. Either way, he does, as you say, push the limits of right and wrong. We can simultaneously understand his point of view and disagree with his actions.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit, your picture caught my attention. Once I read your post I was wondering if you think there is a distinction between monsters with "human like" tendencies vs those that don't. For example in Monsters Inc, Sully and Mike have playful personalities, goals etc. They have really developed human like personalities as they are playing in a Pixar movie. However many of the "traditional monsters", if such a thing exists, do not have as much clarity to them. Does this change how we view monsters as a whole?
ReplyDeleteI think monsters inevitably change over time and depending on their audience. I have taught semester-long courses on vampire lit/film and that is, in many ways the easiest way to illustrate the point. There definitely is a distinction, but WHY have we felt the need to create monsters who become increasingly more human, and less terrifying, over time? Why do monsters because beautiful and seductive, or playful and cuddly? What does this reveal about our society and what we need from our stories?
DeleteI think that is a function of how monster stories have evolved, and what the individual storyteller wants to convey. For example
Deleteyou can use a less human Werewolf as the "ravaging beast that represents the destructive tendencies outside the bounds of civilized society" or use a more human portrayal to show the nobility and freedom of transcending a repressive society.
I think part of the beauty and seduction of monsters is pretty old (I'm thinking of things like the sirens in mythology) - there's something even more terrifying about a monster that doesn't need to coerce his victims, that instead invites the victim, who goes along willingly. I don't think our movement towards more "human" monsters means that they are any less terrifying. Sometimes it might be an acknowledgment to how close we are to monsters ourselves.
DeleteI also love Cohen's point in thesis 7; monsters show us our future and ask us to rethink the assumptions that we have made as a culture. Even though Shelley created this monster 200 years ago, what lessons does he still have to teach us today? Is it sad that we still need him, that we haven't yet learned the lessons that he has for us - or is that just an inevitable side of human nature, that we keep repeating the same mistakes and need to hear the same warnings over and over again?
ReplyDeleteI agree with understanding the WHY of the monster. It's like looking at science-fiction and trying to understand the WHY of the evil. Death Star (Russian Iron Curtain?), Alien (Mutation), etc. I remember working on a folklore research project years ago that I did with ghosts and WHY people believe them. The fact that the ghosts always represented loss to the individual should not be ignored. It's always the WHY that matters!
ReplyDelete