Analysis Of Mandeville's Travels And Bisclavret

In this reading, Cohen proposes a sketch of a new modus legendi, meaning, “a method of reading cultures from the monsters they engender.”(Monsters page 11) He also says that he’s going to break some rules from recent cultural studies. Now, Cohen offers seven theses towards understanding cultures through monsters by their character, appearance and representation, such as: Vampires, the Alien, Frankenstein, Werewolves, Grendel, the Boogey man, and etc.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein tells the tale of a man whose entire life turns to misery after creating what he calls a monster, a demon and a fiend. However, the real monster in this story is pride and the feeling of superiority. This is evident in the novel with Robert Walton’s view of himself and his expedition, Victor Frankenstein’s attitude towards himself in comparison with the creature, and mankind’s perception of the creature and their ignorance towards him.

The next thesis proposed by Cohen is that a monster is the harbinger of category crisis. In order to feel comfortable about places, people, and things in the word, we tend to group things into categories. All of these are placed in categories typically by physical appearance and certain traits that tend to stick out. Well, what’s scary about monsters is that they tend to be unnatural and not just fit into one category, but rather many different categories. One of the most common characters described by this thesis is Count Dracula, a monster that is neither dead nor alive. When one cannot be distinguished into a basic category this tends to frighten us because it goes against one of our common norms. He breaks our human-made laws of nature. Along with the violations of our norm groups, monsters also tend as an act to forewarn our cultures of crisis. The creator of Frankenstein can be seen as an act to

John Gardner’s Grendel and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein both include characters who are labeled as monsters. Grendel and the Monster share common characteristics such as being ugly, strong, large, and they kill others. They are both insecure about their appearance and how society portrays them. Grendel and the Monster use violence to try and cope with their insecurities. In the literary works Grendel and Frankenstein, both the monster’s physical appearance and their interactions with others cause them to become an outcast from society. This leads to rejection of themselves, low self-esteem, and ultimately they create havoc within their communities.

He gives more explanation of the pop culture refe rences, however, than he does of his more esoteric and academic precursors. This means that he expects that his audience is more familiar with the theory surrounding monsters than with m any of the pop icon monsters that have appeared throughout history. Cohen builds a strongly logica l argument that monsters are symbolic of the marginalized groups at the outer edges of c ulture, and in doing so he makes it clear that he feels his audience is well-rounded, academic , well educated and as interested in the theory of monsters as he is himself. Logos is not the only rhetorical device Cohen uses in this article, however. He also uses ethos to connect with his audience, and to differentiate bet

Monster exists long time ago and they are everywhere. However, there are different types of monster, some that are good and some that are bad. Many people that watched monster films get the desire of being one of the monsters that appears in the film. This essay will argue the different aspects and effects that monsters have in a person. I will use two article that will help explain the differences aspects and actions of the monster. One of the articles is “Here Be Monsters” by Ted Genoways, second article is “Fear of the Monster is Really a Kind of Desired” by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. “Monster can function as an alter ego, as an alluring projection of (an Other) self” (Cohen, 190). Furthermore, this essay will show some fallacies that the author

When people hear the word monster, they usually picture in their minds images of vampires, zombies, demons, ghouls, or other physical supernatural beings. However, today's society contains its own modern monsters contained in minds of people or in systems in society, as opposed to some type of physical entity. Examples for modern monsters of today can be pressure and apathy, but caring too much has more effect and negative results rather than apathy’s effect of caring too little.

Asma states, "Monsters can stand as symbols of human vulnerability and crisis, and as such they play imaginative foils for thinking about our own responses to menace.” This means that human weaknesses and fears are represented through monstrous figures, and these fictional situations provide perspective into how we react in fearful environments. In our current society we fear many things, including but not limited to failed or corrupt governmental systems, the afterlife, the unknown, and captivity, which makes this claim valid. Although we may not realize it, these fears are embodied by the horror monsters we see in popular culture. Society shares common fears, and often times the most prevailing fear is reflected in the most popular characters at any given time. Monsters are the fictional representations of society’s dark subconscious, exploring not only why the author’s statement is accurate but what we actually fear.

Introduction: Haunting Boundaries is the entry to the reader “Monsters” by the editors Brandy Ball Blake and L. Andrew Cooper. In the introduction, they talked about origins of monsters, Western and modern era to be more specific. Their origin reflect on the culture and the time being that they are in. These monsters were warnings, used to scared children and adults off dangerous area. Nowadays, monsters blend in among human, closely resemble a normal person to either further boost their fear factor or give them the foundation to have emotions, depth of character. Example of this given by the authors is vampire. Dracula is an iconic character for modern day literature overall and movie specifically. He is the vampire that uses his charm to

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Similarly, if a being is never provoked by man, will it become a monster? The latter is a question that is put into focus throughout Gardner’s Grendel and Shelley’s Frankenstein. The reader learns of Grendel, and of Frankenstein’s creation, and must determine if they are truly monsters or merely a product of the world they live in. It is very easy to take one glance at the seemingly heinous crimes committed by Grendel and Frankenstein’s creation, and based off of this, deem them to be monsters. However, it is the actions and words of man that transform both Grendel, and Frankenstein’s creation into monsters.

A common concept used throughout literature is monsters that are based solely off of the differences characters are able to identify between themselves and another character. This relates to the fourth thesis in Jeffrey Jerome Cohen’s essay titled Monster Culture, where he states that monsters are based on differences. These differences can include “cultural, political, racial, economic, and sexual” (Cohen 7) differences, just to name a few. This thesis is exemplified in many medieval poems, including Bisclavret, by Marie de France, and Beowulf. Bisclavret and Beowulf both exemplify Cohen’s idea of monsters lying at the point of difference by showing that people discriminate and create stereotypes based on these differences.

A little girl screams in fear for her parents as she envisions a green, three-eyed monster lurking under her bed, waiting to get her until she finally closes her eyes. A little boy scares fellow trick-or-treaters as he’s dressed as a vampire for Halloween brandishing his pointy teeth with blood dripping out of his mouth. Both of these examples of monsters focus on the physicality of a creature and undermine the weight which the word ‘monster’ actually carries. In Shakespeare’s play, The Tempest, and in Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, there are characters that perfectly fit the description of a tangible monster. However, monsters are more than their somatic features. Monsters are created within based on circumstances, decisions that are

In this essay I will examine how the monster’s looks and actions reflect the predominant cultural feelings that those who look different are bad, evil or incapable of normal feelings. That somehow because one may look different from the rest of us there must be something emotionally as well as physically wrong with them.

Monsters have proven to be more than just the fiendish appearance or the evil within such creatures – their monstrosity symbolizes, more or less, the characteristics that define mankind and/or our innermost fears. Prior to this Exploration of the Humanities course, I have interpreted monsters for what they are: heartless and destructive creatures that generate fear. However, I never bothered what the true cause of such fear is – only associating the gruesome presence with a psychological reaction of horror. But taking this class allowed me to broaden my perspective on monsters and monstrosity: humans fear the “Other” because we as individuals have an “Other” within us (subconsciously) that we are not willing to show to those in our

Monsters, the creatures of the night who prey on our fear. The ones who have no sense of emotion and lack the ability to show remorse. The big, the bad, and the ugly that lurks within all of us. The term “monster” has been around for centuries, throughout the years the view on monsters has changed, but the one thing that has stayed the same is the fact that we have always viewed them as something negative. We view monsters as evil and scary. Personally, I think of blood and murder when I hear the word monster. A monster brings out our darkest and weakest sides, whether it’s the anger that they cause or the fear they bring upon us. The term monster can be defined in many different ways, depending on how we view them, but I feel like the