More handpicked essays just for you.
An essay on depiction of monsters in literature
An essay on depiction of monsters in literature
Humanity in literature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An essay on depiction of monsters in literature
Every Story has it’s monster, whether it’s fiction, fantasy, or real life. Although it may be a literal monster, in some cases in reality it’s disguised as ordinary people. Humanity can be defined in two ways: first is humankind, but it’s the second definition that we want which is humaneness, “characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for those suffering” (Stein). In the novel, The Island of Dr. Moreau, H.G. Wells demonstrates that the elements that make us humane are often exemplified in those we presume to be civilized but later shows the dualities of men when they revert back to their beastial nature. In our world we infer that being civilized makes us humane and that were better than those who are less fortunate than us. Dr. Moreau lived in a civilized part of the …show more content…
The abnormalities that Moreau created fear him and strive to follow his laws that he set forth for hope that they don’t revert back and get sent to the “House of Pain” (43). The monsters believe that they lived in a civilized manor in so that they are vegetarians, they don’t walk on four legs, they don’t drink on four legs, and that they follow laws. Now the vegetarian part of their lives falls under the compassion part of being humane because they don’t kill other living things and they all live peacefully together which works with the tenderness and so they are humane, but they also have a duality of man when they revert back to their beastial ways and break the laws. “But one has sinned“ (92). You can take the animal out of the traits, but you can’t take the traits out of the animal. Meaning they are still animals and they’ll remember their biological programming even through all the brainwashing that Moreau did to have human traits replacing
On page 81 of the novel, the monster is thinking to himself as he said, “My thoughts became more active, and I longed to discover the motive and feelings of these lovely creatures…” (Shelley 81). It is distinct in the quotation how the monster is seeing his humanistic abilities—he has feelings and he has motives. He is beginning to understand the relationships the human population has with one another and he would like to be able to experience a humanistic relationship with someone who is similar to him. The ethos in the quotation is distinct because the monster’s desolate emotion could incite and emotional response from the audience—the audience could become empathetic to his situation. On page 85 of the novel, the monster was discussing his life to date as he said, “But where were my friends and relations? No father had watched my infant days, no mother had blessed me with smiles and caresses; or if they had, all my past life was now a blot, a blind vacancy in which I distinguished nothing. From my earliest remembrance I had been as I then was in height and proportion. I had never yet seen a being resembling me or who claimed any intercourse with me,” (Shelley 85). The monster has the knowledge of his psychical difference in comparison to the human population. The ethos in the quotation is distinct because
...derstand, but he did everything within his power to fit in. He tried his best to help others, wanting nothing but acceptance in return. Yet he was cursed with a monstrous appearance. This was the one characteristic he had no control over, but it was the one that negated all his good intentions in the eyes of society, causing him a tremendous amount misery and eventually leading him to do some terrible things. If his monstrous appearance is just one example of any characteristic looked down upon by society, then his story is a powerful lesson for any reader. It brings to light the misery and pain inflicted – possibly unknowingly – by society onto those that do not fit in. Taking that into consideration, there remains a simple question: who really was the monster in the novel?
In Winesburg Ohio, the reader is first introduced to “The Book of the Grotesque”. This introductory chapter, provides the reader with what might be considered a summary of the characters in the novel itself. The elderly writer, who has obviously seen and experienced a lot of the world’s turmoils, e.g. The Civil War , has been haunted by the faces of all the people he has ever known. The faces of these people are twisted and distorted, and ultimately appear “grotesque” to the elderly writer: It was his notion that the moment one of the people took one of the truths to himself, called it his truth, and tried to live his life by it, he became a grotesque and the truth he embraced became a falsehood.” (p.24).
... audience felt from his formless and vague drawings of monsters could also stem from the general fear of degeneration of the species arising from the turmoil and despair after being defeated in the Franco-Prussian War. For it is during such depressions that one looks backand questions the Origins and human nature. Hence, his monsters were an uncomfortable yet enlightening opposition to a time of obsession with the factual and graspable.
More’s knowledge of Greek is evident in his choice of title, Utopia, which is Greek for “nowhere”. His humanist education made him familiar with Plato and he used his knowledge in writing Utopia. In the ideal society that More portrays in his work, education is of paramount importance. Like all humanists, More believed education to be the necessary center of a good society. As a Northern humanist, More also believed religion to be the moral center of society. While the citizens of his ideal society hold varied religious beliefs, More underscored his belief that “(if the matter were handled with reason and restraint) the truth of the right doctrine would at last come to light” (More, 1516). This again asserts the Northern humanist belief that, with the proper education, people will reach the right conclusions, especially concerning faith. While More uses his Utopia as a counterpoint to the ills he sees in his own English society, the reader is left with a feeling of ambiguity as to the author’s agreement with all aspects of the ideal society he describes and so must make his own conclusions. Again there is the Northern humanist approach to necessary reform and the ability of man to draw the right conclusions (Rice and Grafton, 1994; Thompson,
Montgomery provides an alternative perspective, and he introduces a degree of relativity to the issue. Separated from other men for so long, he has become much closer to the Beast Men, and he does not make as clear a distinction between them and himself as does Prendick. Perhaps as a result of the variation in Dr. Moreau's experiments, the Beast Men are not uniform in their degrees of bestiality versus humanity; besides, some animals are by nature closer to men than others are. While Moreau's actions are abominable, Wells did not create a one-dimensional antagonist. This scientific objectivity is understandable, if humanly inexcusable. Even so, his actions are not purely objective; quite the contrary, they result from his overpowering desire
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 more humane beings, such as I, Robot, and Ender’s Game.
Peter Brooks' essay "What Is a Monster" tackles many complex ideas within Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and the main concept that is the title of the essay itself. What is the definition of a monster, or to be monstrous? Is a monster the classic representation we know, green skin, neck bolts, grunting and groaning? A cartoon wishing to deliver sugary cereal? or someone we dislike so greatly their qualities invade our language and affect our interpretation of their image and physical being? Brooks' essay approaches this question by using Shelley's narrative structure to examine how language, not nature, is mainly accountable for creating the idea of the monstrous body.
...ces and the reactions he chose to have. The book serves as a moral, if the monster had been given proper attention and guidance he could have been accepted and become ‘good’ but since society chose to outcast him and treat him cruelly, he mimicked those behaviors and likewise in turn treated humanity with cruelty. The development of the monster was extensive in the emotional, psychological and intellectual areas, the dualism of his personality gives him a double-identity which leaves us to question whether he truly became like Adam or Satan.
In this world, from a long time ago, monsters have appeared and presented around us in many telling story. In fact, monsters are considered as something which is abnormal, and usually accused of having the ability to threaten and destroy humanity. Perfectly, the film The Elephant Man emphasizes about John Merrick who has a disfigured appearance, and also is called a monster. Fortunately, Dr. Frederick Treves finds out about Merrick when he is wandering around the freak shows, and tries to examine and help Merrick come back to the real society. On the other hand, people have opportunities to observe and judge Merrick as a new phenomenon. In the connection to the same focus, Jeffery Cohen’s Monster Theory gives contentions about monsters and their influences to the real life and humanity in the relation to the film, especially the first thesis – Monster’s body is a cultural body, the sixth – Fear of the monster is really a kind of desire, and the seventh one – Monster stands at the threshold of becoming.
The creature shows sympathy through his actions towards the DeLacey family. When he understood that stealing food from the DeLacey’s had negative consequences, he states “but when I found that in doing this I inflicted pain on the cottagers, I abstained, and satisfied myself with berries, nuts, and roots, which I gathered from a neighbouring wood” (Shelley, 107). In addition to sympathy, the creature shows many emotions, for example, during a conversation with Victor Frankenstein, he becomes self-aware of his physical appearance and falls into despair; the creature states “I sickened as I read. Hateful day when I received life! ' I exclaimed in agony. Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even YOU turned from me in disgust?" (Shelley, 126). Another human characteristic demonstrated by the creature is the mental capacity through his extreme intelligence. The creature mastered the native language and history in a year whereas it takes others longer. One may argue that this incredible intelligence contributes to the inhumanity of the creature; however, he does not possess the intelligence to create a companion for himself and instead relies on Victor Frankenstein for the creation of a mate. Furthermore, the creature shows desire for companionship, for example, when he stumbled upon an inhabited cottage in the woods, and after observing the individuals living there, he stated, “I lay on my straw, but I could not sleep. I thought of the occurrences of the day. What chiefly struck me was the gentle manners of these people; and I longed to join them, but I dared not” (Shelley, 105). This sentiment exemplifies the human characteristic of
He uses the characters to bring about points that went against common thought at the time. More does give some insight to his thoughts when he says, “When Raphael had finished his story, I was left thinking that not a few of the laws and customs he had described as existing among the Utopians were really absurd” (p. 106). More explains these things consisted of war, religion, and other smaller customs. More next says that “… my chief objection was to the basis of their whole system, that is, their communal living and moneyless economy” (p. 106). It is clear here that More was not completely for the Utopian society. He even goes as far as dismissing the communal practices which is the basis of the entire society in the first place. It makes sense since he was heavily involved in the Roman Catholic Church and an important figure. Much of Utopia goes completely against the norms that were set by 1516 in England. More also ends book II by stating, “Meantime, while I can hardly agree with everything he said… I freely confess that in the Utopian commonwealth there are very many features that in our own societies I would wish rather than expect to see” (p. 107). More is showing that even though he doesn’t agree with many of the aspects of Utopia, that it isn’t all bad. The only problem is that More poses the practices he likes with wishful thinking and not practicality. According to More,
In Sir Thomas More 's Utopia, he creates broad distinctions between the way that things were done in his homeland, and they way that they are done in his fictitious country of the same name. In his writing, he describes many aspects of Utopian life, from geography to clothing, all in his attempt to create the perfect society, one that does not, and could not, exist. More specifically, he attempts to eliminate the follies of European society in his descriptions of the Utopians, referencing their societal pillars of utility, uniformity, and humility. He describes their government, clothing, opinions on precious metals, and euthanasia practices, all in an effort to display Utopia as a country of logic, built to hinder and prevent the possibility of human failings.
Monsters are hunted. The lore of their destruction is excessive, glowing, and dispersed. It is a crucial component of their mythology. There is no eluding the hunter, armed with the vampire stake and crosses and the werewolf’s silver bullet. But then it is the hunter whose tale it is to begin with. Beowulf cannot stay hidden forever, or he would not be Beowulf. Monstrosity relies, in this sense, on its exposition for its production, and it is in this superficial sense of vitality by revelation that two theorists of monstrosity concoct a fantastic world of ‘society’ to keep themselves at bay. Michael Uebel’s “Unthinking the Monster” and Mark Dorrian’s “On the Monstrous and Grotesque” represent similar though distinct theorizations of monstrosity in terms of otherness, difference, relation to self, and production in/by rhetoric. The articles consider the relation between monstrosity and the terms against which it is defined. Yet the pieces are also monsters, and the worlds they sing of are the ones they behold with rapt attention. It is their theorization of monstrosity that allows for the continuation of both insides and outsides in a way more immediate than their encapsulation of such a movement considers.
The monster learns quickly, trying to be more manlike, but he uses his newfound knowledge in the wrong way. For instance, he is introduced to the concept of suicide in the The Sorrows of Young Werther, which influences his concept of life and death. He reads a story about the death of the girl shows the “sorrows” of a woman who has been overcome by her passion and sensibility and is struggling to make sense of her inner torment caused by the imbalance of reason and heart, much like the creature and his feeling of abandonment, neglect, and alienation that cause him distress. His concept of life and death, has been heavily influenced and intertwined with the importance of love to one’s existence.