If you were to ever hear a loud shrilling scream in the middle of the night, followed by heaving breathing and desperate cries for help, you’ll certainly know that I have just crossed paths with a centipede. With sometimes over a hundred skinny legs attached to individual segments of their long brown bodies, these monstrous creatures never fail to make me cringe in utmost fear. They roam around dark, damp places and carry around deadly venom in their system as they search far and wide for prey to inject it into. Although this venom isn’t toxic enough to be life endangering to humans, the fact that these centipedes practically move at the speed of light and will disappear from my sights in a matter of seconds definitely doesn’t help to ease my mind at all.

Carroll points out that some artists use the technique of magnification as they significantly increase the size of creatures we already deem as horrifyingly disgusting in order to evoke a more intense feeling of revolution and fear among viewers. For me, a certain Dutch horror film called “The Human Centipede” immediately comes to mind. For those who have never heard of the movie, it is about a doctor named Heiter who specializes in separating Siamese twins but is eager to perform a new experiment where he surgically connects three humans to create a creature that shares a single digestive system. He trains his human centipedes to perform tasks and physically harms them if they disobey his orders. Eventually, in an attempt to escape from the ward, the victims attack Heiter by stabbing his left leg with a scalpel.

In a side by side comparison between the typical house centipede and this malicious human centipede, the house centipede truly appears to be harmless. My irrational fear is purely psychological and I’m aware that all sharp toothed, hairy, and hundred-legged critters have no intention of killing humans. In thinking under this light – Can this scenario apply to other monsters as well? Are some monsters more scared of us than we are of them? Have they just been exerting means of self defense because they see us humans as a threat? Have we just been oblivious to their true intentions all this time?

Gamera was known as “the original mutant turtle” when it first appeared on the big screen in 1965. Its title came from the second issue of the Gamera: The Guardian of the Universe comic. Gamera was a species of ancient prehistoric turtles that lived on the earth around 8,000 years ago. The size of Gamera was similar to that of Godzilla, which is estimated to be about 100-150 meters. Gamera was known as both a hero and a monster in the world of film, where he brought both destruction and happiness to the people of Japan. It was first awakened from his deep slumber by an atomic blast in the Artic. It consumed flames and other radioactive substances as food. After his awakening, it unexplainably goes on a rampage destroying towns and cities. Until, it met a boy, Toto, who lived on a small fishing island off the coast of japan. This changed everything, Gamera protected this boy with the cost of his life, by sacrificing himself to destroy evil kaiju (monsters) that began to appear. When Gamera successfully saved the boy, Gamera became a hero known as “friend to all children in the world”. Toto was left with an egg and shiny stone beside it.

The origins of Gamera were different between the two series of movies. One of which was created during the Showa era of films, which was explained in the paragraph above. The other was created in the Hesei era of films, in which Gamera was one of the many creatures created by the lost city of Atlantis to defend the human race against other kaiju (monsters) that were capable of wiping out the world. Some questions that Gamera brings up are: Can it really be considered a monster if he is kind at heart? Is it considered a monster even though it is an oversized tortoise? Can it be a monster if it wasn’t the only one of its species? Is Gamera a monster even though it was created to protect the earth?

“I am Legion”

Mark 5:2-5 “When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an impure spirit came from the tombs to meet him. This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain. For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.”

In Greek mythology and in many folktales, monsters are often animal-like creatures with the strength and physical physique that are threatening to humans. However, in religion a monster can include someone who is being possessed by a demon or demons. It’s no longer a religious idea but instead it has become part of today’s media culture. In Hollywood especially where the monster is no longer a 100-foot tall, man-eating, beast-like alien like in the 2008 movie Cloverfield directed by Matt Reeve. Instead, we now see monsters as being a person who has lost all free will and under a demonic possession of pure evil. For me personally, these types of monsters are the ones that scare me the most because it displays what a human being is capable of when he has lost all rationality.

Since the real scene from The Exorcist is too scary, I decided put this one.

Similar to the example in the beginning, the possessed showcased in movies like “Paranormal Activity,” “The Exorcist” and “Deliver us From Evil” display supernatural powers that may consist of levitation and abnormal strength that along with loss of morals and consciousness can lead to the harming of others. For me this form of monster is the scariest because it shows how vulnerable we as humans can be to the unknown. And people may argue the authenticity of demonic possessions and whether they are real or faked but like much of the world, religion has taught me that our soul and well-being can be easily affected by evil forces and spirits.

To a certain extent, one may even argue that religion is one of the founders of this idea of a monster-like human that is pure evil and capable of unimaginable torment and fear to the rest of society.

Season three of American Horror Story begins with the introduction of a brutal monster- Delphine Lalaurie, an eighteenth century slaveholder who mercilessly mutilates her slaves. Not only does she regularly harvest her slaves’ organs to create an anti-aging face cream, she also  performs sick experiments with their bodies. For one of her experiments, she transformed a man into a minotaur by sewing a bull’s head to him (Would Carroll consider him to be a monster?). Unfortunately for Delphine, however, this man was the lover of Marie Laveau, an immortal voodoo queen. To punish Delphine for her evils, Laveau curses her with immortality and then buries her in a tomb where she is meant to spend the rest of eternity.

This is the minotaur Delphine had created. Does this qualify as a “fusion figure”?

In 2013, however, eternity is cut short when Delphine is prematurely exhumed by a witch named, Fiona Goode. Fiona operates a school of witchcraft and employs Delphine as a servant to her three students: Zoe, Madison, and Queenie. So that you may fully appreciate the irony, I will also tell you that Queenie is African American. Delphine is, to say the least, vocal about her unwillingness to serve Queenie, but this changes as the season progresses. As Delphine becomes acquainted with Queenie, she begins to recognize the evil she had done in the past and makes an active attempt to become a better person. Delphine and Queenie, in fact, form a beautiful friendship, each willing to risk her life for the other.

This is before Delphine changes her racist ways.

Delphine and Queenie after they became friends. 

This was a beautiful turn of events, but also the beginning of my confusion. Marie Laveau learns that Delphine was exhumed and begins to enact her revenge. She kidnaps Delphine and tortures her just as Delphine had tortured her slaves. This should be satisfying to watch, right? Wrong! I actually found it very difficult to not have sympathy for Delphine. This is because she had become a better person and so desperately wanted to prove this, especially to Queenie. Delphine’s situation raises some questions, such as: Can a monster really change and better itself? And, if so, can it ever be truly deserving of our sympathy?

Religion in its essence is a medium by which individuals seek comfort and security. Its principles are supposed to serve as a framework in which ethical foundations are set. The benign aspects of religion can be numerous, however, religion is free from defects. Religion can easily diverge into its dark side which consists of cults, extremist, demonic  possessions, and witchcraft. Folktales in particular, play an eminent role in disclosing the dark sides especially those that deal with demonic possessions  A Jewish folktale for example, whose roots are trace back to the old testament of the Bible, revolves around a spirit known as Dybbuk. This spirit is known to linger  in the world of the living because it is unable to rest in peace due to the sins it committed in the past. The lamenting soul would then cling itself into the body of an individual. By doing so, it completely takes possession over the body and its actions, with the only purpose of torturing the being it took over. It must be taken into consideration that this spirit, according to the folktale,  is only able to take over a body of a sinner or someone who is not spiritual. The immense popularity over the concept of Dybbuk has enabled it to be adapted to the big screen by movies such as, The Possession, The Tenth Man, and The Unborn.

The idea of the wondering spirit itself isn’t so taunting what does make it taunting, in my perception, is the fact it lies under the spectrum of the religious taboo. It adds a certain kind of trill to know how thin the line can be between good and evil when it comes to religion. Throughout history most things that are related to darkness and evil have one way or another a certain influence of religious object. For example, churches that have a Gothic style serve as a place of worship, but at the same time they provoke a sense of horror because of its style. Similarly with angels that can be both painted as good creatures or as monsters. It is apparent that monsters and frightening things can derive and even be the creation of concepts that at one time were meant to only promote goodness such as religion itself. Is it even possible to create something monstrous out of something good?

Going back to Dybbuk, can it be considered a monster even if it is not tangible and when it is nothing else that a Folktale? Also, can the creators of it be considered the true monster?

As I was sitting in my Speech Communications class, the teacher asked “How many of you know how to kill a vampire?” Now it may be out of context but the professor was explaining a person’s “frame of reference” and wanted to show how many of us were knowledgeable about a certain topic. So as a random example, he asked about vampires. Personally, I am a fan of all of these different monsters and I knew the answer but what surprised me is that the whole class raised their hand with the exception of two people.

It came to my attention at this point that something as crazy as knowing how to kill a vampire is almost like common sense. This really shows us how closely monsters like vampires have been integrated into our culture. Every vampire movie that will come out or has come out in the past few years will not have to explain why a wooden stake in the heart would kill a vampire but will just include that since everyone knows that’s the only way to kill a vampire. Similarly, we know that in order to kill a werewolf, one needs to shoot him with a silver bullet.

It is clear that in today’s society we have a wide range of shows, cartoons, and movies that are based on monsters like vampires and they all seem to follow one particular model that was illustrated in the movie Dracula. This is the basic and “ideal” image that any regular person living in the United States has in their mind when they think of vampires. Noel Carroll uses vampires in his examples of fusion monsters and he too uses the Dracula model when he refers to them. According to his definition, a monster must be threatening and impure and surely this common Dracula model satisfies both conditions. The good thing though, is that if one of these threatening vampires try to suck our blood, we all know how to kill them.

         My older sister is in love with the gothic horror of the cartoon and anime world. Of course being the typical younger sister, I followed in the foot steps. I fell face first into the Tim Burton film franchise. The scary horror done so well and the fantastic Johnny Depp acting. In these cases the “monsters” are human in a sense. Edward Scissorhands was a human with well scissors are fingers. The people in the movie depicted him as a monster and in this film, love blossomed. A little cheesey, but yes the misunderstood monster that fell in love with the human and is pursued by the ones that love the human. Sound familiar? Cough cough that vampire zombie movie maybe?

I never really enjoyed the “real life” monsters, meaning the movies with human actors. Yes I am a child for life, but I can only really enjoy the cartoon horror. Anyway continuing on, Sweeney Todd and Sleepy Hollow, hard to swallow but I can appreciate the art of it. Sweeney Todd is neither a fusion or fission monster, in Carroll’s The Nature of Horror, wink wink. In this case it is the well discussed human monster. A murderer for example, in which case Todd is. Disguised as a barber, but murders his clients, psychologically threatening and impure with his multiple cruel murders.

Sleepy Hollow is now a fusion monster in Carroll’s case, a headless horseman, classic. Anyway I believed and Ichabod Crane believed that the headless horsemen was just a typical murderer, a true human. But as the evidence stacked up against that idea, it looked grimmer and grimmer. Of course it was a psycho in the end, and that finishes that.

Truthfully maybe it is the tragic human monster, but those stories are always more moving. The monsters that kill just for the sake of it does not bode well with me.

         When I entered the fourth grade, they started an after school program where you have lunch and finish homework. After all the educational stuff you get to have fun, we created lanyards and had fun in gym. That particular day my grandmother picked me up and we walked home as usual. I came home to witness my mom watching some random movie in English, which was weird because she didn’t speak English. My two older sisters were cuddled in blankets on my parents bed watching the movie. So I just casually sat down and watched with them. Worst decision, I do not know why I didn’t turn away or leave. The movie was called “The Bride of Chucky”, and being nine years old, I was literally scarred for life. For your protection I will not post a picture, you don’t wanted nightmares for the next three years like me.

         Luckily for me, the world created Toy Story and Monsters Inc., monsters are never scary and now toys aren’t as well. I actually hoped my Barbie dolls moved when I wasn’t home or asleep. And the cute cuddly monsters were blue and funny. Movies are a powerful tool people. I enjoy Greek monsters like the Cyclopes and sirens. I still despise that killer doll, I mean pouring acid on people, really? Mythological creatures are fabulous, the modern vampire and werewolves, unicorns, and Phoenix’s? They are epic, the monsters I dislike are the Grudge, Jason, etc. etc.

        My eldest sister enjoys horror with a passion. It was a big problem to get use to it. I soon learned to enjoy the Nightmare before Christmas. I love that movie now, but the boogie man freaked me out. I thought he was under my bed or staircase. So I still get scared, but now I can enjoy other horrors.

I, like many, do not have many memories from my early childhood. It is always amusing to hear of the little quirks I had as a kid. One of the things my dad had always laughed at was the way I approached scary content. He has told me that whenever I would get scared I would simply run out of the room and close the door, but just enough so that there was a little peephole left for me to watch through (although I don’t really understand why my parents allowed to me to do this haha). It is crazy that at such a young age I felt the need to battle through what was obviously scary. Even then, although I knew I hated whatever was on the screen, there was something inside that urged me on to continue watching. Fast forward to my junior year in high school and I am still doing the same exact thing. Last year, at our annual tennis sleepover, the girls had voted on watching Insidious. Imagine this: I had spent the entire movie covering the bottom half of my eyes with a blanket and the top half with a pillow whilst holding somebody else’s hand. You would think it’d be easier to just leave the room and chat to someone in the kitchen, but no. Twelve years later and a part of me is still intrigued by some horrifying movie.

There are days where I just really want to see a scary film, but knowing that I won’t be able to do it normally causes me to simply read the plot on Wikipedia in order to satisfy the subconscious calling for the gory. In some ways reading about a horror film  is natural for me (and significantly more interesting) since growing up I had loved the scary mythological creatures and more so later on since monsters have become so mainstream is tween literature (yes, I had a Twilight obsession for a week). I’m not sure exactly why I am not able to view horror films, but it is possible that is has to do with the unbearable sound effects (even the flat out silences) that make me cringe with terror. Another habit of mine: if you watch a scary movie with me, chances are I’ll be covering my ears most of the time. This just goes to prove how much effect sound and music have on us. Do you agree? When was the last time a sound/song made you feel such strong emotion?

When we think of MONSTERS, our minds automatically wander and think of those creatures and beings that are psychotic, evil, fear-inducing, “ugly,” and probably one of the last things we would ever want to see in our life! These images can range from iconic figures like Freddy Krueger and Godzilla to mythical ones like dragons and Medusa. However, we tend to forget about monsters like James P. Sullivan, Mike Wazowski and all the other workers in Monsters Inc. To me, it is weird how these “Monsters” that ranges from a Medusa-looking receptionist to a Cyclops-like assistant can be main characters in a movie intended for children. Nevertheless, the director Pete Docter is able to take these and other characters that may provoke fear to any youngling at the beginning of the film but by the end of the movie give a child a new favorite character and cause us to ask the question “What is a monster?”

In the animated film Monsters Inc, James Sullivan and Mike Wazowski are two workers in an electric company that produces power by scaring children all over the world around bedtime and storing their screams to convert into energy. However, the plot takes an unexpected twist when a child (shown above) enters the world of Monsters and causes widespread panic, chaos and fear in Monstropolis.

In my opinion this movie helps raise the question “What is a monster and how does it look?” If I were to show you this picture and ask you to determine if he looks like an evil and mischievous monster solely on this image (left) and on no prior knowledge of the movie, what would you say? Personally, I would say “OF COURSE!!! WHO WOULDN’T?”

But what if I showed you this picture (right)? Now, what would you say? To me, the question of “what is a Monster?” should be classified as a philosophical question that one may never be able to solve. To the workers of Monsters Inc, the children were seen as Monsters and vice-versa. To some extent, this movie shows that a monster may be described as a creature whose intentions are unknown and different from the norm whether it is physically or psychologically.