Category Archives: CR Post #1

ALBD, American Born Chinese, announcements, Check in, CR Post #1, CR Post #3, CR Post# 2, Final Project Check-Ins, Frankenstein, Graphic Narrative Assignments, Group A, Group B, Group C, Group D, Group E, Monster, Monster by Walter Dean Myers, Monster Readings 1, Monster Readings 2, The Bluest Eye, The Outsiders, Turner Readings, Uncategorized

Group D: Final Project , Shatavia, Jeleah, Kye, Angel

1 Comment

What:  For our group project we are going to create a scrapbook.  A scrapbook is a book of blank pages for sticking clippings, drawings, or pictures in.  The scrapbook is going to be designed exactly how we think Jefferson, Grant, or a character from the book would create it.  We will be filling up the scrapbook with Jefferson’s important memories, moments, recipes, and his time in jail.  In order to do this, we will be looking for symbols in magazines, things from the internet, clippings in newspapers and physical objects.  Being in jail and confined to one place causes a person to use their imagination.  Similar to Jefferson and Grant they are both trapped in situations that cause them to do a lot of imagining and thinking.  Something our group will be doing in order to create the perfect scrapbook that represents “A Lesson Before Dying”.

 

Why: In the book “A Lesson before Dying” a lot of the book has to do with symbols and teaching.  Jefferson is being taught a lesson by being sentenced to death.  Grants job as a teacher is to teach and he is also asked to teach Jefferson how to become a man.  Since teaching plays a huge role in this book, the scrap book will be created to teach others about our insights, thoughts, and main ideas about the book.  We all thought it would be a good gesture to create a visual.  This way our imagination and how we views things from the book can be brought to life.

CR Post #1, Group C, Monster

Monsters

2 Comments

In her essay, Monsters, Tacey Rosolowski, recounts her childhood and her and hers sisters obsession with B-movies that featured monsters. Rosolowski grew up in the 1960s but was too young to fully understand the social and political climate of the time.  “…the Vietnam War, the exploding racial tensions [were events] that were beyond our [her and her sisters] grasp.” The manner in which the kids in her age group mimicked their older sibling’s way of dressing and being part of the “love movement” further alienated Rosolowski.  “In these scenes I was always the outsider.”  Being an outsider explains Rosolowski’s fascination with the monster movies.  Monsters possessed several qualities that Rosolowski wished to possess and tried to personalize those characteristics into her life. She was attracted as to how comfortable monsters lived outside of the social construct. Monsters are categorized as something abnormal. Abnormal not just in appearance but abnormal to the accepted social structure. Rosolowski and her sister would not behave in the manner that young ladies were expected to behave.  Watching monster movies offered that escape.  Not only was Rosolowski able to associate with the monster as beings outside the social construct,  she was able to personalize their physical appearance. As a child, Rosolowski battled weight issues, or better yet, was told that she suffered from weight issues.  Rosolowski appreciated the fact that monsters were not concerned with the appearance.  “…plodding monsters spoke to me. They burst out freely, throwing their weight around utterly unrestrained.”  Rosolowski was very much constrained. Into trying to lose weight and having controlled portions of the foods she ate.  Rosolowski desired the power to become free and to define herself outside the social construct. Because of this longing, it is clear as to why Roslowski sought refuge and found inspiration in monster movies.

  1. B-Movies are not as popular today as they were when Rosolowski grew up.  If Rosolowski grew up today, what genre of film do you think she would draw inspiration from?
  2. Children today are being bullied at alarming rates and in some instances resulting in death. Do you think that B-movies would help them find the strength and courage to be themselves?

 

CR Post #1, Group D

The Monster’s Sacrifice- Historic time: The uses of Mythic and Liminal Time in Monster Literature

The title to Nuzum’s article, The Monster’s Sacrifice- Historic time: The uses of Mythic and Liminal Time in Monster Literature, give us a small sense of what she will attempt to tell the reader. She begins the piece in a fashion that shows monsters to be relatable, how they have been used in literature throughout time, and for all ages. This gives us a rough definition of the genre, I say rough because the word monster could be replaced with almost anything at this point. To give this idea more definition, she gives us boundaries, lines inside which we can see things more clearly. Humans experience three planes of time, that being; linear, mythic, and liminal. Now with monsters they only experience two realities, either mythic, or a liminal one, not to say they don’t overlap. However, what is a monster? How do we know what one experiences? A monster is to quote her article, quoting Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary “1 a: an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure b: one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character 2: a threatening force” With this definition we can delve into the two realities they experience. Monsters are liminal in several fashion, in their physical appearance, often having characteristics of multiple species, they are spatially liminal, being constrained to the dark, or other liminal situations, and finally their time structure is liminal. This leads up to one of the centerpieces of her arguments “The primary concern of monster literature is existence in linear time. For the monster, the consequences of its temporal constraints are emotional isolation and estrangement from human society, human companionship, and human love. Most of human existence takes place within, and has as its core significance the one temporal reality that is unavailable to the monster: historic time” The next section contains examples to prove her point, and she uses three criteria for the examples, they had to be familiar texts, they had to span different age groups, and each had to have different perspectives on monsters.

Overall this article is extremely thorough, she states her reasoning, and then gives excellent examples, not just one, but four specific books of different expected audiences all within the realm of monster literature. I don’t know if I buy her theory that monsters only exists in mythical, and liminal time. I understand that in theory monsters have rituals, and circumstances that are continuos in a sense, such as a werewolf always changing at the full moon, and she uses the example of a vampire sleeping during the day, and only coming to life in it’s liminal time when it is dark out. However, I feel that monsters still experience historical time. They are born, some die, these are specific experiences that only occur once and it is not a liminal time either. For example, many fantasy writers, Tolkien, Rothfuss, Martin, to name a few, give us very specific historical time lines that their characters exist in. In these books the monsters don’t only exist in the dark, or come to power once a month. They live every day lives, spanning decades, creating linage, I am not arguing that they don’t exist in the other time lines, because they do experience mythical and liminal realities. This doesn’t exclude them from the “boring” historical reality, but I think this instead helps them become more relatable characters.

Do you agree with Nuzam’s assumption that monsters only experience two realities?

Does age play a part in the reliability of monsters?

CR Post #1, Group D

Monsters Inspire Feminism

The author reflect upon their childhood love of monster films. Recognizing the monsters as symbolic of xenophobia and fear of technology the author mentions that as a child monster films provided an interactive experience. These monsters were more than just a symbol in film but helped to assist in the cultural drama of the viewers life. The films provided an escape, a way of being vicariously free from limitation and restraints forced upon the viewer.

Girls were a “its” similar to the monster because they forced to “display and understand themselves as objects”. Viewing herself from the outside, monster films provided the author with means of reconciling a negative self-image. Their own physical appearance was not of concern for these monsters. They thrashed about wildly destroying their surroundings while violating ideas of what was acceptable. While the girl had to keep negative emotions restrained to the point of showing appreciation for actions she resented, the monster had freedom to be its unadulterated self.

Watching the film with her sister the other feels as though they created a safe space in which they could indulge in ritual and be unnaffected by outside influence. The ritual space allowed the girls the freedom to indulge in traditionally “unladylike” behavior without fear of reprimand. They were free in this space to be take back their bodies from the objectification women experienced.

A woman’s body is dangerous to society if they do not conform to the standards and gave in to desire. Her life in turn becomes a battle between being “civilized” and being herself. Through the process of upholding “cultural paradigms” women help foster the destruction of self and others. Through the ritual of monster films, the author helped to solidify an idea of feminism. These ideas could never leave the ritual space. Girls were forced to deal with personal attack on their own without assistance.

Although her mother attempted to free her from some societal constraints, she could not provide the author with framework to understand herself as a woman outside of traditional paradigms. Like the monster attacking the city, women who chose to express themselves are met with heavy resistance.

The monsters were the vehicle for liberation for these girls even as women. It helped to liberate them from their restraints and the burden of expectations.  This is especially the case in which the author observes young girls role playing as raptors from Jurassic Park. The raptors worked together, were intelligent, and highly adaptable helping to free these little raptors from the fences of expectation.

These girls embodied ideals of feminism which a danger to hetero-patriarchal standards.  Considering the monsters as a metaphor for freedom the author reveals the pressure both she and many women feel under the pressure of societies burdens. Repeatedly, the author uses the monster as a medium to convey the ability to be true to one’s self and their desires.

How does the monster embody the idea of self-acceptance?

How does the struggle of girls/women go unrecognized?

CR Post #1, Group C, Monster

Ladies and Monsters

1 Comment

In “Monsters,” Tacey A. Rosolowski recounts some of her fondest and most fundamental childhood memories–gleefully watching campy horror movies with her younger sister. Too young to understand war, let alone march against it, Rosolowski felt alienated by the peace-and-love hippie revolution that had become her contemporary culture. She didn’t want to draw flowers on her face. She couldn’t yet, given her age and relative experiences, understand how creating and displaying beautiful images could effectively protest war. At the age of fourteen, what she did understand was that there was this idea of a feminine standard that was quickly descending upon her body, mind, and being.

To protest this personal war on herself, a war coming from all sides, including from internalized ideas within herself, she watched monster movies. Monsters, who look and behave exactly the way a modern, civilized lady shouldn’t, would momentarily free Rosolowski and her sister from the feminine mold that was fast closing in on them. In what she later recognized as a safe space, Rosolowski and her sister did not need to look or act any which way; they “pretended” to be the monsters they saw on screen, acting loud and brash and gross. These monsters–Godzilla, The Claw, Mothra–demolished cities unapologetically, in their own interest. Human girls, on the other hand, are taught not to do anything unapologetically–and certainly not when it’s in their own interest.

Rosolowski states “Kids will probably always love huge, fantasy beasts–they hold out the hope of omnipotence to anyone dwarfed by the world.” (281) While that is probably true, the question of why boys more often evolve into men who love monsters and gore, and why girls often evolve into women who shriek at the sight of monsters, follows. Men who relish in monster movies will harmlessly, often affectionately, be labeled “boyish,” or “still a boy at heart,” or simply, “a boy.” Women who hoot and holler or express anything but disgust and discomfort while watching scenes of horror are traditionally labeled, “barbaric,” “unladylike,” or, in many cases derogatorily, “a dude.” The difference between “a boy” and “a dude” is that though both are decidedly masculine descriptors, one (“a boy”) denotes a natural, inescapable, and mostly harmless attitude toward fun, while the other (“a dude”) suggests a slovenly, immature, underdeveloped attitude toward life. That males should be labeled one and females, the other, for displaying the exact same behavior and reaction toward a stimulus highlights much of what we expect of women, and what we expect in growth, in both women and men.

  1. What qualities do outcasted women and B-list movie monsters share?
  2. What qualities do successful men and B-list movie monsters share?
CR Post #1, Group B

What is a monster?

1 Comment

What is a monster?  Without much thought, most people’s immediate image of a monster would include creatures with inhuman features,   things that look like our imaginary friends’ evil enemy, or in some instances humans as ‘monsters’. As in the case with our class, it was evident everyone had their own ideas of what makes a monster, an actual monster. When posed with the question, “What makes your monster, a monster?”, it became an inquiry that delved deeper than what we imagined these “things” were suppose to be. Where did our understanding or lack there of, of monsters come from?

With the notions of monsters, it is something that is derived from our history and society. As in the article, “What is a monster?”, by Natalie Lawrence , she highlighted the different definitions of the word monster and how they were used. There are those who saw what was then considered exotic animals as monsters, for the simple fact that they were newly discovered and the world did not know how to identify such creatures with “strange forms”. They say the unknown is most feared.  Naming and considering them as monsters make them marketable, as “lucrative things”.Then there is the case of, “The Dentist” with Cecil the lion. The dentist, Dr. Walter Palmer, became a ‘murderer’ over night. Labeled as a public monster, his reputation  suffered and his life changed forever. Society persecuted Dr. Palmer, condemned him as a monster.

As Natalie Lawrence wrote, “Monsters are not self-evident; they were created to serve these roles”. The key word being “created”, is that suggestive that monsters are literal creations by society? With so much influence from what society claims as a monster, it is easy to instilled such ideas into people’s minds. What is a monster? Is it subjective? Lawrence makes a great case, monsters are not monster before they are given that name. It is society that deems them as so.

1. Why and how is it marketable when something is considered a monster?

2. Was the world severe to call Dr. Palmer, the dentist, a monster for his actions, even if some people believe gaming is a legitimate sport?  Would the world have the same reaction had not the lion been given a human name, Cecil?

CR Post #1, Group A

What is a Monster?

95 Comments

In her article “What is a Monster?” Ph. D. candidate Natalie Lawrence argues that society invents and reinforces monsters in order to better define the scope of human rationality and morality. Lawrence uses the example of the death of Cecil the Lion at the hands of Dr. Walter Palmer, where Dr. Palmer received the severe title of monster for committing the heinous act of killing the lion for sport. She argues that by referring to criminals like Dr. Palmer as a monsters, a person attempts to make sense of something that lies beyond the perceived limits of his own moral barriers. Because the individual cannot actualize something so foreign to his norm, he categorizes these things under “other,” reaffirming his own sense of normality and dismissing any infringements on that normality as a part of the supernatural realm. She then articulates how the monsters that we create hold economic value as objects sought after for their oddity.

What I found particularly interesting in the article was the inclusion of the treatment Dr. Palmer received for his misdeed of trophy hunting. According to the article, Palmer was forced to “resign from his practice, flee from his home, and hire armed guards to protect himself and his family” (Lawrence). Here we see how society’s responds to people, things, and ideas that we cannot comprehend to exist in normality: with violence and hatred. Despite people believing themselves constructive and expecting to approach every unknown fact with understanding, one sees that the innate response to something alien is to deny it legitimacy and/or attack it. This can be seen not only in Dr. Palmer’s willingness to shoot a lion because it’s strange to him, but also the crowd’s instinct of attacking Palmer and designating him to a position of “barely human” for his actions. This can be connected to how society views criminals in general: despite being people with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations, they become symbols of degeneracy, caricatures of their sins for people to rebuke.

Questions:

  1. If the “monsters” represent things society cannot accept as normal, are the actions to remove the undesired being justifiable such as the backlash against Dr. Palmer? Aren’t we in danger of becoming monsters ourselves in this pursuit?
  2. As society marks monsters as attacks against normalcy, is “monsterfication” a definite result for those who exist outside of societal norms?
CR Post #1, Group A

What is a monster?

In the article “What is a Monster?” by Natalie Lawrence, the idea of what makes a monster is explored as well as the roles that monsters have in society.  Lawrence doesn’t explain things in black in white, she writes about positive and negative attributes and leaves the reader to decide what makes a monster.  Lawrence connects people that have been labeled as monsters (like ‘The Dentist’) with gothic monsters, and states that they have certain characteristics that our society has trouble acknowledging whether they be psychological or cultural. Therefore, by excluding them and treating them like scapegoats we are removing those monstrous traits that they have from ourselves. Lawrence explains that in order for something to be defined as monstrous, there has to be the definition of what’s “normal”. She goes on to show examples of when birds that didn’t fall into the definition of the term “bird” at the time were introduced and changed the norm.

Natalie Lawrence then discusses the most interesting idea to me, which was that with monsters came profit and marketing. I thought this was a unique perspective of roles that monsters have. Typically, when I think of monsters I don’t think of people getting interested in them and buying merchandise. I think of negative things like people leaving towns or being afraid. However, there is a lot of truth in what she said. Monsters generate interest and curiosity. People will pay to see rare sights or things they are different from what they’re used to. That can be proven by just looking at how popular horror is as a genre. Lawrence doesn’t just mean fictional monsters either. She points out that the story about Cecil the Lion and “The Dentist” was used by various media outlets to cash in on the story. You can even say that with all the attention that people give to monsters, real or fake, that they’re getting glorified in a way.

  1. Should monsters or monstrous acts like ‘The Dentist’ killing the lion be used for money, marketing, or personal gain?
  2. By giving monsters so much attention, are we glorifying them/ giving them more acknowledgment than they deserve?
CR Post #1, Group B, Group E

What is a Monster?

What is a Monster? In class we all had different and similar views to what a monster is. In this article most of those views were explained. This article defines a monster to have certain qualities whether it is physically, mentally or just by behavior. I say behavior because it explains that a person can be a monster due to their actions that can cause harm. The example of the dentist who shot the lion; he was viewed as a monster because in the public’s eye he did a monstrous thing. The article also stated that monsters have distinctive looks. They don’t look “normal.” During various times, normalities took on different forms. Animals that didn’t have any limbs were considered monsters and even those who contained characteristics or multiple ideas were monsters. Some deformities were viewed as monstrous, even babies that were born deformed. According to this article monsters are considered to be beings that do not apply to the social norm. People who commit murder, animals that seem different, and other ideas that create fear are monstrous.

Many examples were applied to what a monster is however it caught my attention that animals that are part of the norm today were considered to be monsters such as walruses and armadillos. In paragraph six of the article it tells us that armadillos and walruses were brought into Europe as exotic beasts and made into monsters. It makes me think back to the drawings that we did in class. Some of those monsters had horns which look similar to a walrus tusks. Long, pointy objects can be intimidating and frightful so it makes me think that in some ways the Europeans associated those tusks to be somewhat monstrous because it created fear within. As I’ve mentioned some people saw animals as monsters because they had no limbs so this can be a reason as will. A walrus appears to not have any limbs and move around using their entire body. As for the armadillo, their shell makes them seem out of place and seem a bit frightening.

Questions:

  1. Dr. Palmer was considered a public “monster” for shooting Cecil the lion.  According to the text what were these public “monsters” considered to be similar to?
  2. Why do you think that animal without limbs weren’t considered “normal” and were made to be monsters ?
  3. I agree that people who cause harm to others intentionally and brutally  are considered to be monstrous. What’s your take on that ? and why?