Monsters as a Social Commentary
Monsters have seemingly existed since the dawn of time. They can be distinguished by a variety of characteristics; for example, a grotesque appearance or detestable personality. As the horror genre has steadily developed over a period of thousands of years, monsters, too, have evolved to fit both cultural and societal fears. Does this assertion still hold true, even after the sudden influx of “new-age” horror medias?
What is a monster, and what are some of its conventions? Do they truly reflect societal beliefs and values, and if so, which ones? These are two questions that this research essay hopes to explore, and then answer. In order to adequately answer and support the arguments written in this paper, the primary sources in which I will draw examples from are Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein,” “Beowulf,” and “World War Z” by Max Brooks.
Firstly, what is a monster? There seems to be no “right” or “true” answer, but the Oxford American Dictionary offers an interesting perspective: “an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.” While I believe that this definition definitely true in its own (admittedly stereotypical) way, my primary complaint is about its lack of depth. Yes, a good deal of monsters within the horror genre fall into this category—take Mary Shelley’s “Monster,” or Grendel in “Beowulf.” These are primarily monsters of antiquity, however—perhaps a little relevant with a rise in horror fiction in which we, mankind, are the true monsters. I think that this definition fails to address the actual actions of so-called monsters.
This raises yet another question: what goes into making a monster? Is it based purely on physical appearance, as the dictionary definition strongly implies? Or do other characteristics, such as actions and personality, count? Personally, I believe it’s a mixture of all three.
Also, one must recognize that there seems to be a noticeable trend, however, in the “popular” monsters of every era. That is to say, the development of monsters seems to follow a subtle pattern, one that concerns how societal attitudes also evolved alongside their respective horrors. Consider this: thousands of years ago, during the development of some of the world’s first cities, mankind’s greatest fear was the unknown. Technology and the advancement of knowledge was incredibly limited, and therefore people had to utilize their own imaginations to explain natural phenomena. This rationalization of certain fears can partially be attributed to the creation of monsters. In earlier eras, humanity’s greatest problems involved fear of predatorial animals, as well as death by natural disaster. As time went by however, there’s a noticeable shift from an animalistic or god-like being to something a little more personal, more humanoid in shape and though processes. Compare “Beowulf’s” Grendel to “World War Z’s” zombies, for example. The contrast between the two could not be starker. Grendel is an unholy beast, born of sin, whereas the zombies of Brooks’ universe are created through a viral virus. In the “creation” story alone, we can see the clear divide in time periods, as well as traditions and cultures.
One of the most important elements of analyzing a monster is historical/cultural context. First, consider “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley. The novel was written in the 17th century, during a period of two conflicting ideologies: Romanticism and the Enlightenment. Each concept represented two very different values: whereas Romanticism revered nature and valued human emotions, the Enlightenment prioritized logic, and was aimed toward understanding the natural world worked. These two beliefs are among the novel’s main themes, and as one reads through the novel, it becomes increasingly clear where Shelley’s allegiance lies.
The entire premise is of a wild science experiment gone wrong, a clear attack on the beliefs and values of the Enlightenment. Viktor Frankenstein is a man who has been cursed with an overly curious soul. This causes him to make the biggest mistake of his life; attempt to reanimate a corpse to life. To “right this wrong,” karma seems to bite Frankenstein back: the Monster, though not nearly as horrifying as its appearance implies, essentially destroys every aspect of the scientist’s life. One big question that this novel raises, however, is “Who is the real monster?” Is it Frankenstein, because of his lack of responsibility for his actions, or is it the Monster, who has actually committed heinous crimes, but for a good reason? I’m inclined to agree with both sides, which is a large part of the reason why I do not agree this the dictionary’s definition of a “monster.”
Frankenstein’s transition from “human to monster” is gradual, but Shelley makes it quite clear that Frankenstein’s innate curiosity about science and the workings of the world around him is the cause for his change. For example, it is Frankenstein’s curiosity that causes him to commit the ultimate sin; that is, to reanimate the dead. His passion for rationality and reason also ostracizes him from the rest of his peers, who are all devout followers of Romanticism. The Monster, like his creator, also suffers because of his passion for learning. Frankenstein and the Monster, with their “enlightened” mindsets, emphasize the importance and goodness of Romanticism and persuade others to not follow in their footsteps: “Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than he is.” (Shelley 39)
Therefore, in this example, it is easy to see how societal attitudes, beliefs, and values are reflected in the characters of the Frankenstein and the Monster. While one could analyze the novel further to find more examples of Victorian beliefs being projected into the novel, the most evidence can be found for the Romanticism or Enlightenment debate.
A more modern example of monsters acting as a social commentary can be found in the novel turned movie, World War Z, by Max Brooks. The book is about the so-called “zombie war.” It has a modern setting and is similar to Frankenstein in that the theme of reanimation is prevalent throughout the story. As the Monster is resurrected by Frankenstein, zombies arise through some mysterious phenomena. This is one of the key differences between the books; the manner in which the reanimation happens. World War Z barely touches upon how the virus started, only mentioning that Patient Zero was from New Dachang, China. It is unknown whether the creation of the virus was an accident, an act of God, or some sort of science experiment. The only thing that is understood about the zombies was that they “contradicted every… law of nature.” (Brooks 239) Like many other deadly diseases, the zombie virus has no cure; and the only way to truly “kill” them was to destroy the brain. Zombies didn’t abide by what humanity considered “normal” biological processes, they rose from the dead and killed without logic or rationality. This in itself is a reflection of modern society’s values: unlike the decidedly “Romantic” ideas that took hold in the 17th century, mankind shied away from the unknown, rejected what they couldn’t understand. The manner in which the zombies operate in the book also reflects certain societal values. They are oftentimes described as roaming in large groups. This makes sense, as this is the only way the virus could be spread as quickly as it was. They are mindless, sparing no thoughts or emotions, operating on instinct alone (this relates to Grendel, as he, too, operated on pure primal instinct). Though they may vary in gender, size, and ethnicity, they are all essentially the same. This is a reflection of what Westerners fear the most: loss of freedom and individuality.
The use of zombies also suggests another social taboo: cannibalism, the act of eating another human. It’s not a common fear in the Western world–the so-called “civilized” world–but elsewhere, in the deep recesses of the jungle or desert, it is practiced. In a way, the book also acts as a social commentary. The zombies highlight the worst parts of humanity; points out the people who would be willing to kill others to ensure their survival, inadvertently criticizes the government, and reveals the effects of war on ordinary citizens.
It is clear that the monsters in WWZ are different from that of Frankenstein. Not only does the novel reflect completely different values and attitudes, but they reveal humanity’s greatest adversary: us. Unlike Frankenstein, Brooks’ zombies hit a little too close to home, as it is implied that humans are, more often than not, the true monsters. Although zombies were the biggest enemies, humans also proved themselves to be pretty monstrous. Also, whereas and Shelley preferred to distance themselves from their abominable creations, WWZ points out that mankind is not always inherently good.
Despite evidence strongly suggesting that monsters in the horror genre do in fact reflect societal beliefs and attitudes, this viewpoint seems to be less and less valid as Hollywood belts out a steadily increasing number of horror films, all with differing storylines and antagonists.