In the last
assignment I talked about my experience with vampires when I was a little kid.
For context. Whenever I was taking a bath as a little kid there was a big tree
that grew next to the window. The long branches would hit the window on windy
days making a scratching sound fooling my younger self into thinking it was a monster,
specifically a vampire. This created a irrational fear of bathrooms and
windows.
In relating
to Cohen’s Monster Theory and what makes something monsterous, it supports the
idea that monsters police the borders of possible. In Cohen’s example rival
tradesmen would depict locations of where the monster Leviathan could be on
maps so that it would scare other traders in not using a particular trade
route. In my example vampires were easier to accept than venturing outside to
investigate the eerie noises. Because of
vampires I would be scared to use bathroom at night or close eyes when taking a
bath because I was scared of the monster that could be there at any second.
With this
example, being monsterous is synonymous with being “scary”. Monsters are supposed to be scary because they
guard the unknown. They instill fear and anxiety which discourages people to
examine further. A monster cannot be considered a monster if it doesnt do this.
A monster then is a manifestation of our
fear and anxiety that we use to guard ourselves from our fear of death. Possibly a self-defense mechanism construct
so that there is something tangible to fear. That way there is a way to combat
it. Otherwise how do you protect yourself from something you cannot even
imagine of?
In response to Danh, I think that another one of Cohen’s theories can be applied to his childhood story. The thesis: “The Monster Always Escapes” I think can issued to the point that Danh doesn’t go and investigate the noises because he is scared. If he happened to and investigate the window and why there was noise, he would have came to the conclusion that nothing is there. But, in a sense the monster escaped, Danh could believe that there is no vampire shortly after the investigation, but later the fear of this vampire may come back to haunt him again. Cohen does a good job of creating his theses because almost every thesis can be applied to any monster.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to trouble "a monster cannot be considered a monster if it doesn't do this," if only because I instinctively distrust firm, decisive statements. I can understand including "instills fear" into a definition of monster, but a fear that discourages people to examine further is a bit of a stretch. What about people who run towards the unknown, rather than away? And what about monsters that inspire fear, but perhaps not anxiety - I don't know that "anxious" is what I would feel if godzilla or a dragon were smashing and burning the world.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I personally love love love the digging deeper into the issue that you do. "Something tangible to fear" "guard ourselves from our fear of death", as though the simple idea of the monster were, instead of being DIRECTLY showing or illuminating (mostrare) the primary purpose is to put a screen or a face on our fear, which can either be hiding the real fear, or put a distortion which we might be able to look at, because it is one step removed. "Guard ourselves from our fear of death", love that turn of phrase.