Jeffrey Jerome Cohen: The Different Types Of Monsters

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a monster is described as “part animal and part human”, “ferocious”, “ugly”, and “frightening”. Yet at the same time, a monster can be “amazing” and “extraordinary” . From these characteristics alone, a monster can essentially be anything. In the literal sense, a monster is perceived to be large and physically grotesque, however inner qualities of monstrosity can be easily masked, and are therefore often overlooked. Three 19th century novels, Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes: The Sign of Four, and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde reveal both physical and mental qualities of monstrosity through the characters and demonstrate how these qualities relate to one another.

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.

Most of these instances come from humanity. The De Lacey family rejects the creature before he has a chance to say a word to any but the blind father. Prior to that, the creature’s attempts – however barbaric –at finding shelter “grievously bruised” (Shelley 91) him “by stones and many other kinds of missile weapons” (Shelley 91) from the villagers who think themselves as superior and despise the creature at first sight. Even in the eyes of a child who has not yet conformed to society’s views, William Frankenstein still sees the creature as a monster and proudly yells ‘‘Hideous monster! Let me go. My papa is a Syndic… he will punish you” (Shelley 127). Mankind may help itself, but it will not help the “inferior” and the

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.

Rhetorical Analysis of “ Monster Culture ” In his opinion piece at the beginning of the book Monster Theory: Reading Culture , entitled “ Monster Culture (Seven Theses) ” , Jeffery Jerome Cohen tries his best to detail to his audience why monsters are symbolic of those things which e xist on the edges of culture. What monsters are changes according to the ideas and convention s most disruptive to any given culture at any point in time.

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.

Oxford dictionary defines monster as, “Originally: a mythical creature which is part animal and part human, or combines elements of two or more animal forms, and is frequently of great size and ferocious appearance. Later, more generally: any imaginary creature that is large, ugly, and frightening. (Oxford English Dictionary)” This definition is basic in nature. What must be added is whether it is nature that makes the monster what it is or is it nurture that makes it what it is. In both Beowulf and Frankenstein the monster complex engages, complicates and has an effect on us. Beowulf has to battle Grendel, his mom, and the dragon to do his duty as a warrior, but the monsters only make it more difficult to tell

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.

What defines a monster? Is it their grotesque, unnatural appearance that separates them from the rest of mankind, or is it their lack of remorse and compassion that makes them different? The word monster conjures up figures from gothic horror of exotic peoples with horrifyingly exaggerated features, and the kinds of impossible delusive beasts inhabiting the pages of medieval bestiaries. Well at first I thought exactly that. When I used to hear the word “monster”, my mind immediately pictured the petrifying beast that took residence under my bed for a substantial portion of my childhood. It had demonic beating red eyes, razor sharp teeth that glistened with fresh blood and amphibian like scales covering every inch of its enormous body. However, as I got older, I started to realize that there was no such thing as monsters and that it was all just a figment of my imagination. Accordingly, the fear of the monster under my bed slowly dissipated. Nevertheless, it wasn’t until after reading a quote by my favorite author, Steven King, that I was finally able to fully comprehend what the true definition of the word “monster” really was. “Monsters are real, ghosts are real too. They live inside us, and sometimes they win”. It had taken me awhile to truly grasp what King had meant, but then it clicked. Everyone has a monster inside them, dormant or not. That monster is the voice we hear in the back of our heads, urging us to cheat or to steal, and in some instances, worse. That monster

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.

When monsters are thought of a very distinct picture comes to mind. An ugly creature that is out for blood, born into a life where causing misery is his driving force. Do these features really define what a monster is; works of literature like Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Shakespeare’s Othello tell quite a different story. Monsters are not born but made just as people are not born evil but can sometimes end up there. Othello and the Monster start of as good men looking to be part of society but were pushed out because of what others perceived them to be. This caused them to mentally and physically isolate themselves from everyone allowing hatred to take over. Iago and Frankenstein also helped to instill thoughts

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

What is a monster? The word "monster" causes one to imagine a hideous, deformed or nonhuman creature that appears in horror movies and novels and terrifies everyone in its path. More importantly, however, the creature described generally behaves monstrously, doing things which harm society and acting with little consideration for the feelings and safety of others. "Thus, it is the behavior which primarily defines a monster, rather than its physical appearance"(Levine 13).

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