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