Uncategorized

The Monster’s Sacrifice: Group C

The article “The Monster’s Sacrifice- Historic Time: The Uses of Mythic and Liminal Time in Monster Literature,” started out explaining the three different types of time. Humans go through the historical, mythical and liminal period whereas monsters only experience last two phrases. K. A. Nuzum explains that the historical time is where we spend most of out time. It is the time frame of our existence that marks the beginning and the end, birth, and death. The second temporal reality is called the mythic period. The part of reality is like a ritual, continuously happening within a certain time frame. The article used examples of celebrations humans use throughout a year. Halloween would be a good example to use because on that specific day children dress up to be monsters, then go around asking for candy. It is a custom that’s repeated every year of our historical time. A monster, on the other hand, lives only in the mythic and liminal phase. A vampire spends every day, as it was created to do, sucking blood from humans when night falls. They do not have a life, and death existence like humans do because they are set up in a world of fantasy. The moment a vampire sucks the blood from someone’s neck or a werewolf attack a person is when they become a monster. The inhumane trait of sucking blood and eating the flesh of another human being is unnatural to our society, and this is what labels these creatures as monstrous. That moment of transition is called the liminal period. In humans, the liminal period is a very common period to be in and occurs very often. The transition from child to adulthood is one of the most common liminal periods we can experience. We are not a child anymore, but we are not quite an adult yet, so we are stuck in the middle of where we share the small traits of both ends of the spectrum. The transition from one state to another is not just related to the growth of an individual it also applies to things like getting married; being a bachelor to a husband. The status of the person changes and that time of transition is called liminal time. The article closes by mentioning that the consequence of being a monster is that they are excluded from linear time. The creation rituals are re-enacted every day, but it can be a positive thing because unlike humans these creations do not permanently die.

 

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?
Group D, Uncategorized

Monsters by Tacey Rosolowski // Group D

When people hear or think of the word monster they instantly become fearful or scared.  Monsters are supposed to be scary, ugly, and creatures that shouldn’t exist.  In any sort of book, movie, or television show a monster is the cause of a lot of problems.  They are the reason why buildings are destroyed, people are frightened by them, and their physical traits alone are scary.  Unlike humans that are normally scared of monsters, the protagonists in the article are different.  Both of the sisters like the monsters because they can relate to them.

In Monsters by Tacey Rosolowski the sisters take on a liking for the monsters. Unlike most humans who would be terrified of them they actually enjoy watching the monsters.  When a monster dies or something bad happens to these monsters they become emotional and even sometimes cry about the outcome.  The sisters are trying to show how people become judgmental and worrisome about monsters because they don’t look like the rest of the world.  Big, scaly, or enormous were the words the protagonists used to describe the monsters. So because their physical features aren’t equivalent to what people see in others than they are automatically placed in the “monster category”.  The sister was fat is what her mother told her and she was placed on a diet.  She didn’t notice her weight or felt it was an issue because she was comfortable in her own skin.  That is the issue with lots of people in the world they become worried about their physical appearance.  Am I too big? Should I lose weight? can be common questions that plenty of human beings ask themselves.  The author reveals “If you couldn’t look like the slim, popular creatures in magazines and at school, the rationale went, this compulsive inactivity and self hatred was an important kind of activity.” (Page 284)  To the world the monsters were the problem but to the protagonists they were actually the superior ones.  The monsters were in society naturally and pure.  They knew who they were and remained true to themselves.  The ones that were the actors were the ones who took a daily count of their calories, strive to maintain an image, and do anything to keep up with the rest of the world.

Rosolowski touched on gender roles and physical features.  This is a world filled with both men and women but females are expected to take on way much more.  For example, if a boy smells then it is okay because he is a boy but if a girl smells she has poor hygiene.  There are lots of double standards when it comes down to females versus males and it starts at birth.  It starts when a baby boy wears the color blue and the baby girl wears the color pink.  If a new born girl has on the color blue she can easily be mistaken for a little boy.  That is some of the roles when it comes down to genders.  In addition, in order to be a model, an actress, a celebrity, or placed on a pedestal people must fit the image. It isn’t about their own personal choice but more of what society likes and they feed off from that.  As the author mentioned this is where adolescence, especially females begin to lose their innocence.   The author highlights “Adolescence transforms not only body image, but the intimate psychic places where girls live and generate the energy to actively reach out into the world.” (Page 284)  They begin to risk who they really are just to have a name for themselves and not feel out of place.  The sisters want to prove that shouldn’t be the case.  There isn’t anything wrong with remaining who you are.  if a person chooses to wear baggy clothes than that is there preference.  It shouldn’t make them feel less of a person.

1.) What defines a “perfect girl”? Which category were the sisters placed in?

2.) Why were  monsters so meaningful to the sisters?

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?
Group A

CR Post 1 Group A

in “What is a Monster?” by Natalie Lawrence, she talks about the how society dictates what a monster is. By using Walter Palmer’s shooting of Cecil the lion and European discovery of the dodo birds, she is able show how our ideas of monsters has changed based on time. Palmer killed a lion and was deemed a monster, while the dodo was a bird that defied what they classified as a bird. She therefore classifies a monster as an oddity that can be sold to the public as entertainment.

I think that Lawrence is right that we as a society tend to now blow up events where we think that someone who is a monster is involved. The news would plaster the face of a killer all over television, showing everyone the person killed, motive, etc. Learning that monsters were being used as a selling point for the masses at things like freak shows doesn’t surprise me. It just shows how drawn we are to look at monsters and try to understand them. We want to know how they work. People like Palmer that were deemed monsters my never be able to live it down. Monsters now may never live down that stigma.

 

 

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?