A Monster, by any other name - Some thoughts on monsters (II)
So, a few days ago I wrote about monsters and asked the readers on their opinion. The result? An awesome compendium of great ideas and more interesting questions to keep the gray-one active.
One common point was the relativity of it all. The point of view. How things (or people) can be seen as monsters from one perspective and not so much from another. It got me thinking: there are some creatures that will be always seen as monsters, right?
Let’s focus on 3 main ‘stereotypical’ monsters: extraterrestrials, hybrids and creations. Let’s study some representative examples:
- In the first group we have the creature in Alien (1979). Foreign creatures with the means (and not necessarily the intent) of destroying us.
- Second group example: Werewolves. They do not belong to a specific set. In their nor human, nor animal nature they break the standard.
- Finally, for the third group we have Frankenstein’s monster; can’t get more ‘created-monster’ than that, right?
Now, all of this creatures stand out, they are not part of our human standards–hence they’re monsters. I think it was Deleuze who said something like that. Now, not to contradict him here but… what about aliens, hybrids and creations that we don’t find monstrous?
- What about Superman-oh mighty extraterrestrial hero? Hasn’t the Kriptonian race tried to erase the human one? Foreign creature? Check. Means of destroying us? Check.
- Horus was this Egyptian god, a man with a bird’s head. They sure loved hybrids, those ancient Egyptians. Horus was one of the more venerated beings, yet it definitely enters into that not-human not-animal kind.
- Can’t think on a more fitting example, so I’m gonna go with Baymax, from Big Hero 6 (2014) as an intended counterexample for the third group. It’s a created being, for sure, with a similar rationing power as that of the Frankenstein creature.
What makes them different, then? Isn’t it unfair that the first creatures fall into a dark world of fear and rejection, while the second set are mostly loved and respected?
Something to consider:
- Superman is pretty much human-like, morphologically speaking, and he protects the world from other outside monsters. Is the alien a monster if it’s a menace, but a hero if it allies itself with the society they reside in?
- Horus is a hybrid, but also a god, and gods cannot exist without the humans that venerate them. Gods follow a human pattern in their divine decisions. So, looks like a hybrid that behaves more like an animal tends to fall into the monster category, but if it is more rational it gets directed to the god category, right?
- Baymax is a creation, but its will is more or less subjected to its creator. It defends him. Obeys him. Are creations monsters if they–like Frankenstein’s–get out of control, but are companions if they follow the rules their creator dictates?
My thoughts? Gods or not, heroes or not, from Superman to Horus to Baymax… they’re still monsters, but they are so antagonistic to the monstrosity that it is possible to see them differently. The opposite of the standard is the monster; but the opposite of the monstrosity is the humanity.
Not the most exhaustive of reflections, and definitely needs more work, but it does give something to think about. I believe the monster isn't born by itself, but created by the norm. Now, it's the nature of that monster, according to our point of view, what makes them monstrous or not. Terrifying or not. Evil or not.
What are your thoughts?
I like this monster discussion so I'm going to chime in again :)
I want to say that monsters imply a negative connotation. I have ready Mary Shelly's Frankenstein though and I think the monster is a great example of a monster that, if you've read it, you know is not entirely, if at all, evil.
He is "monstrous" in appearance, which is something that doctor frankenstein cannot get past and fuels his hatred for it. You could argue that the monster's "monstrous" appearance is a reflection of the doctor. He cannot love it because its ugliness is a reflection of his own.
The monster in the novel starts off benevolent. The world and the doctor are what I think most readers would agree on to be the "true monster." Poor "wretch" creation doesn't have a pleasant go of things and isn't raised and taught any civilized ways. He ends up doing very terrible things but its done in revenge. Both Doctor Frankenstein and the "Monster" are both flawed characters.
Morally speaking, I'd say Dr. Frankenstein is the monster. He's a scary monster because his behavior is both understandable and unacceptable. He's the monster that resides within human-kind.
The "monster" creation is of course terrible to behold. He's large and becomes wild and terrifying. He does horrible things.
Within the novel and after the novel I can see my perspective shift on not only who or what is the actual monster, but the definition of a monster as well.
I'm going to stick with my original concept and say that a monster is that starts off as unknown and then wrenches a thing or situation into the terrible.
Where those monsters come from, what is driving them, and what made them? That is often a terrifying and mysterious place.
Yaay! Thanks for joining in again!
Indeed, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a must-read when it comes to monsters, precisely because of the complex shift the story put us through regarding the belief of who is the real monster, what are the monstrous acts and where the monstrosity resides. As you so eloquently put it:
We can find a monster in the doctor first, this man playing god. Not in vain it is called 'The Modern Prometheus'. The punishment for his hubris comes in the shape of what we too see as a monster. A creature created from corpse's remains, horrible to behold, yes. In its appearance it is a monster.
We see then the creator turning on his creation. We see the monstrosity of the doctor abandoning his creature. A creature we see as hideous, but innocent. One that seeks love and approval. At first.
When the monster is rejected, when the society it invades marks him as a monster is when the monstrosity really manifests in it. It is marked as a monster, so it starts to behave like one, doing all those monstrous acts.
It is, indeed, a really interesting question. Where do they come from? What would've happen if the Frankenstein's creature had gotten accepted by the humans by how he thought and felt and not how it looked? What if the doctor had made him a companion, somewhere to belong to? Maybe it would still be a monster, but not a bad one. Not a monstrous one in nature.
A really interesting point of view here. I'm glad you enjoy this discussion! Thanks again for sharing your thoughts :)
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. Resteemed
Thank you!
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by IsaB from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.