John W. Campbell 's Who Goes There?

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.

In Mary Shelly’s epistolary Frankenstein and Franz Kafka’s novella “The Metamorphosis,” the authors explore the dangerous impact of society and rejection. Both creatures are rejected and isolated by their families have been defined as monsters. But, the authors force the reader to look past physical appearance to uncover who the real monster is, society; it defines what make us human. Society defines others solely based on what they see, disregarding any humane characteristics they may possess.

The Alien is a science fiction horror movie. Its setting in space and the presence of technology and artificial intelligence empathizes on its science fiction genre. Moreover, the presence of the Alien and the fact that it is a threat to human lives reflects it is also a horror film. The movie revolves around seven human beings that have the mission to return to earth from the space.

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

Many timeless novels have impacts on our everyday culture, not only as a book, but also through music or movies. Many popular novels have multiple adaptations, which shape how we approach their interpretation, in ways we may never even notice. In some films, humans are depicted as monsters, whether through their actions, or through the thoughts of other beings. In these films we find issues with our own society, and in turn see ourselves as monsters, and look for ways we can change, for the better. One particular novel that influences this side of Hollywood is Mary Shelley's “Frankenstein”. The ways Frankenstein influences pop culture can be seen in science fiction films in which humans are depicted as monster, and “monsters” are seen as

Thesis Statement: In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the creature’s identity as a monster is due to societal rejection, isolation, and misinterpretation.

Alienation is a product of society’s inherently discriminatory bias, catalyzed by our fear of the unknown in the realm of interpersonal conduct. Mary Shelley, in her novel, Frankenstein, dissects society’s unmerited demonization of individuals who defy—voluntarily or involuntarily—conventional norms. Furthermore, through her detailed parallel development of Frankenstein and his monster, Shelley personifies the tendency to alienate on the basis of physical deformity, thereby illustrating the role of the visual in the obfuscation of morality.

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.

“ People fear what they do not understand. ” In the original 1888 edition of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, this saying is excessively shown throughout the journey of Frankenstein himself and his creation known as “ the creature.” Fear is spreaded in this famous, gothic novel because the epitome of society is lacked by both the creator and the creation, leading to much misunderstanding with who is the real monster. In this novel, the true monster is society because the ideals indirectly presented led Frankenstein to abhor and abandon the creature, the ultimate isolation of both, and the delirious vengeance developed by the two.

In respects to the Film of The Thing of both the 1951 and the 1982 versions of the film. They both share a same Sci-Fi theme in which they both had social fears of society. Depending on which version of the film, they both contrast in their social fears and themes. They also contrast in The alien itself from being a super intelligent carrot to an actual sinister like creature that both can manipulate or perfectly imitate humans. The story develops differently from both of the versions of the film that the effects of it leaves a big gap between the films.

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

“Horror and science fiction tend to present radically opposite interpretations of what may look like comparable situations.” (Kawin, 1981.) Bruce Kawin helps the reader to understand how a story in the genre of science fiction could be adapted, or bastardized if you like, into a horror. This is similar to the film adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Both “Frankenstein” (1931) and “Bride of Frankenstein” (1935) portrayed characters and events differently than Shelley would have desired. Her novel had many deeper implications than the movie portrayed.

These symbols, together with the aforementioned themes of manipulation, superficiality and social conformity promote an active reading of The Shape of Things as a modernist parable for an age in which style appears to be of higher worth than substance, and in which individual agency may be sacrificed in order to keep a romantic relationship stable. While it is of course possible to consider the movie as little more than a simple story about a man who changes himself for a woman he loves, we are implored by the director Neil LaBute to think critically about what these changes may represent and the role of manipulation and societal standards in their undertaking. As the character of Evelyn attests, The Shape Of Things reminds us of the length

“For the concept of the monstrous feminine, as constructed within/by a patriarchal and phallocentric ideology, is related intimately to the problem of sexual differences and castration.” (Creed, 1993, p.2) Creed takes an interesting approach to Kristeva theory of abjection and Freud’s theory of castration and applies it to horror film. Taking Kristeva’s theory of the abject and the archaic mother, she constructs monstrous representations of the abject woman. The monstrous womb which is the representation of mans fear of woman’s maternal functions. “Fear of the archaic mother turns out to be essentially fear of her generative power. It is this power, a dreaded one, that patrilineal filiation has the burden of subduing.” (Kristeva, 1982, p.77) Freud argued that woman terrifies because she is castrated. “Castration fear plays on a collapse of gender boundaries” (Creed, 1993, p.54) She suggests, that Freud misread Han’s fear in the Little Hans and that Han’s viewed his mothers as the castrator not his father, that his mother’s lack of phallus is seen not as a castrated organ but that of a castrating organ. The mother-child border is entangled in the complex and multi-faceted image of the castrating mother. According to Freud, man fears that of the mother as castrated and as that of the cannibalistic all devouring mother. “Construction of a patriarchal ideology unable to deal with the threat of sexual differences as it is embodied in the images of the feminine as archaic mother and is seen as the castrated mother.” (Creed, 1993, p.22) Kristeva suggests that the notion of the castrated women is to ease mans fear of woman, who has the power to psychologically and physically castrate him. The archaic mother as the monstrous womb and the castrating mother can be used as a way of understanding the work of Mona Hatoum and AIne Phillips, both