Is it the deed or the effect?

“I, not in deed, but in effect, was the true murderer.” 

- Victor Frankenstein

This is an intriguing line in that it presses upon the fact that to be considered a monster may not lie only in the deed that is done but in the actions that lead to monstrous deeds.  Victor did not kill William nor Justine and yet his obsession in his work led to the creation of his monster and his inability to acknowledge, control and destroy said monster led to monstrous deeds and lives lost.

How does this change the way we look at monsters?  I think it expands the notion of monsters from acts only to acts and lack of actions.  If Victor had destroyed what he created, or at least notified someone that a creature was on the loose, there wouldn't be a metaphorical trail of blood leading back to him. 

Not only are we responsible and should be held accountable for the deeds we do, but perhaps we should also be held accountable for the deeds we don't do but greatly influence, as well as the acts we don't prevent when we are capable to do so.  I'm not saying that in situations such as a random knife attack we are held accountable to stop the attack.  I'm merely saying that there are moments when we do something questionable and we try hard to justify our actions in an attempt to assuage our guilt; and in those very moments we need to really think about if we are on the path of monster-like deeds as a result of inaction.

Yes, there is a difference between monsters, monstrous acts, and acts that lead to monstrous outcomes but how big is that difference and where does one end and the other begin?  It seems like a lot of gray area to me…

Sources:

1. Grimly, Gris and Mary Shelley. Gris Grimly's Frankenstein. N.p.: Balzer & Bray, 2015. Print.

2. http://thebookwars.ca/2014/03/gris-grimlys-frankenstein/

3. http://www.mememaker.net/meme/brace-ourselves-the-gray-area-is-coming/

Bridging the Gap: Frankenstein and This Dark Endeavor

Reading Gris Grimly's Frankenstein for the first time, I felt like I was revisiting an old friend that had vanished for months on end. In spite of what that comment might suggest, I am not talking about reading Frankenstein from the new illustrated perspective (although I am sure that is a fascinating topic to talk about as well). Rather, I am referring to the "head start" on Frankenstein I got by reading Kenneth Oppel's two prequels to it, This Dark Endeavor and Such Wicked Intent.

This Dark Endeavor and Such Wicked Intent take place in Victor Frankenstein's adolescent years, focusing on events mentioned in passing throughout the original novel by Mary Shelley, like his search for the elixir of life. I did not pick these novels up from my love of the classic gothic novel; rather, I am a massive fan of Oppel's works. He is one of my greatest inspirations for writing because of his creativity and world building skills. I remember staying up into the long hours of a Tuesday night finishing Such Wicked Intent, enraptured in its conclusion despite knowing how much the next day's practice would hurt on four hours of sleep.

Reading Frankenstein for the first time after finishing those two books has made the exercise into a series of revelations and obscure references finally making sense for me. The bolt of lightning that inspired curiosity in Victor early on in Frankenstein acted as the conclusion of Such Wicked Intent, foreshadowing his future in reanimating the dead with energy. Similarly, his quest to resurrect the dead becomes more tragic having read This Dark Endeavor, serving as a dark mirror to his previous mission to save his dying brother from a mysterious illness.

With this background in mind, reading Frankenstein is a lot like playing Minesweeper. The biggest difference is that, instead of losing when I click on an unusual square, an invisible connection between the books is finally created for me. In a strange way, it's immensely satisfying to "get" the books with the original context in mind. I may have to reread them to see what other hidden references will be uncovered with this new perspective.

I am certain some plot threads from Oppel's prequels may have been single-serving, like Victor's twin brother Conrad, the love triangle/quadrangle, and Elizabeth's implied interests in the occult and "darker" sciences. Regardless, I am eager to continue the novel and see what else is in store. Grimly's artwork has undoubtedly made this journey much easier for me than reading a wordy Victorian novel would. Not that I mind Victorian novels - A Hero of Our Time and The Count of Monte Cristo are classics in my eyes - but he has made the story more approachable for time-cramped people like me.

Like that coin toss in No Country for Old Men, everything just lined up perfectly to make this reading of Frankenstein a unique one. I intend to make the most of it.

Works Cited:

Grimly, Gris, and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. Frankenstein, Or, The Modern Prometheus. Vol. 1. New York: Balzer Bray, 2013. Print.

Oppel, Kenneth. This Dark Endeavor. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011. Print.

Oppel, Kenneth. Such Wicked Intent. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012. Print.

Measure Up to the Monster

Rather than examining this article in light of the monster, I was drawn toward looking at it in consideration of the hero. What does it mean to be a hero? Why must we have them? It has never been so clear to me, as it was upon reading, “When fear is at a fever pitch, they always move onto the hero phase… Life and art seek to mutually conquer vulnerability” (Asma 5). As monsters serve to highlight our collective fears, heroes serve as a resolution to both external and internal conflict.

Monsters spring forth from both superstition and the exaggeration of fact in a myriad of shapes and sizes, and are often framed as obstacles – the hoard of gold is always guarded by a dragon. Regardless of their form, however, facing them is, “… an illuminating exercise in hypothetical reasoning and hypothetical feeling” (Asma 3). In contrast, the job of the hero is to confront and ideally overcome these obstacles. Externally, monsters can represent threats against life, limb, loved ones, or even something such as wealth. Using their wit, guile, bravery, and whatever other weapon deemed appropriate, heroes face the odds and surmount these challenges – they serve to let audiences experience a potential method of coming out of a harrowing event minimally-scathed. The external component of this age-old battle begs the question of whether we are physically prepared for whatever life might throw at us. On the other hand, the hero must usually prepare for their encounter with the monster, or otherwise face some sort of moral decision. Do you save the damsel, or the school bus full of children? To kill or not to kill? Do you possess the resolve to accomplish whatever task is at hand? This internal struggle on the part of the hero asks whether we are morally equipped to handle the stressors of life. Granted, these decisions may be as simple as deciding to attend class on any given day, but they are no less impactful.

Original Image © Crowsmack

By this logic, monsters are a method by which we assess our own preparedness for everyday life – which can only be the case when they reflect our real fears. Similarly, heroes are the ideal measure of competence – the hero always saves the day, which is the metric we aspire to. The monsters that thrive in our imaginations allow us to test ourselves in a safe environment, in order to breed self-assuredness. After all, if we cannot conquer the terrors in our heads, then how can we do so in reality?

Reference:

Asma, Stephen T. "Monsters and the Moral Imagination." The Chronicle of Higher Education (2009): 1-6.

Imaginary Monsters or Real-Life Issues?

In Asma’s “Monsters and the Moral Imagination, Asma argues against current “liberal” theory on monsters, which holds that monsters are dramatized and then used to “scold ourselves and our intolerant society for alienating the outcast [the monsters] in the first place” (2) and will likely disappear once we “embrace the difference[s]” (5) of the outcasts. Instead, Asma explains that “the monster concept is still extremely useful” and can “virtually represent the obstacles that real life will surely send our way” (5). Asma’s argument that the concept of monster is still relevant in today’s society is interesting, although I am not sure I agree with him.

First off, it seems like Asma’s argument is not supported by the examples he gives. Although he does list some stories of monsters – like Frankenstein for example – that’s just it: he simply lists these stories with no analysis of how they represent real-life obstacles. Instead, the majority of Asma’s support in the article consists of real-life anecdote. The anecdote of Bruce Shapiro, for example, was a real-life scenario in which real-life people were put into a terrifying situation in which they feared for their lives. The same thing goes for his anecdote of Malim Abdul Habib. Again, a scary situation featuring a monstrous group of attackers that actually happened.

My point is this: why do we need “virtual representations of real-life obstacles” when real life gives us those obstacles point-blank? Don’t get me wrong, I love fantastical stories as much as the next person does, but as far as all of them representing many different real-life obstacles like 9/11 or the economy, Asma does not have me sold. How can “monster stories” which are so similar that they can even be grouped into a category called “monster stories” (5) all represent different conflicts? Especially when, as Asma states himself, these stories focus on the “hero phase,” and not the “threat phase” (5).

I think that the term “monster” is still very relevant in today’s society. People definitely still act monstrous and create real-life issues from those monstrous actions. However, I am unsure whether or not monsters in recent literature and media represent current real-life issues. For example, what issue does Edward from “The Twilight Saga” (1) represent…? He is a vampire, after all. Obviously, that is an extreme example, but still, even the author himself mentioned Twilight. I think that in general, and in older literature, monsters can represent real-life issues, especially general societal issues; and that monsters can take on the worst qualities found in real-life people. But I am not so sure that in recent literature monsters represent obstacles found in daily life.

Feeling 6'2"

My friends constantly make fun of me because I often forget how short I am. I swear I'm not that short and you can be damn sure I'll reach that top cabinet... one way or the other. My height doesn't always match my personality and what I think I can do doesn't always fit with my physical abilities. In my mind I'm 6'2" and unstoppable.

Stephen Asma's article made me realize a lot about myself and that I'm not the only shortie who thinks she can dunk a basketball. He mentions that humans have this funny way of imagining how they will react in life-threatening moments. His example of a the knife attack in the 90's is a great explanation. We can all easily sit here and say "why didn't anyone stop him?" but really, when was the last time you were attacked with a hunting knife? We sit in class and criticize literary characters for their actions and decision but what would we have done? If I created a monster like Frankenstein, I'm pretty sure my reaction wouldn't be all that different. I probably would've run away faster honestly.

So while I mentioned that I often feel larger than life-sized, its not a constant thing. Story time: My parents house is in the middle of nowhere. I was home alone one dark winter evening when my cat freaked out and scared the shit out of me by running through the house slamming into cabinets. So naturally "burglar" comes to mind and what do I do? I grab a pair of scissors and the biggest knife we had and I scoped out the house. Turns out there was the biggest black bear in Western PA on our front deck. So now I'm standing in a dark room, suddenly feeling very small, holding a kitchen knife against the biggest animal I've ever seen. Let's just say, its a really good thing I wasn't born in a time where killing large animals was required to survive.

How does my little anecdote correlate to Asma's monster theories? If someone would have given my that situation as a hypothetical, I would have given a reasonable and logical response to handling the situation. But when theres a giant freaking bear outside your house and all you've got is a knife, you suddenly really start to question your flight or fight skills. And what if there was a burglar? I'm 5'2" and not Jason Bourne (surprising right?). My planning basically stopped at "knife" but it sure seemed like a good idea at the time.

Monsters (and big ass bears) exist to remind us that we aren't invincible. They force us to think about how we would react in a certain hypothetical situation so that when a situation does arise with real life monsters, we can at least hope we react in the best way possible. "No one likes to imagine oneself a victim." Monsters are around so that we never forget that anyone, anyone, can become a victim and no one really knows how they'll react.

Our Real & Imagined Monsters

Asma's article, "Monsters and the Moral Imagination," mentions several interesting points. He says that "in the denouement of most stories, the monster is killed and the psyche restored to civilized order" (Asma, 2).  While reading or viewing a monster tale, we are sucked into a gruesome world in which we are disgusted but also intrigued--perhaps we even enjoy it--but it can't last forever.  Once the story ends, we must be able to return to reality.  However, the stories in which the monster isn't killed better reflect our own reality; our experience with monsters is real and extends beyond the screen or page.  We are not always able to completely destroy our monsters. Sometimes we bide our time and build our defenses, hoping that the monster never strikes.  Other times the monster evades us, or it is not contained within a body that can be destroyed, living on indefinitely as an ideology.  It is this kind of monster we often face, and it is the most dangerous.

Asma also states that "monster stories and films only draw us in when we identify with the persons who are being chased..." (Asma, 2).  I must disagree with this overarching statement.  Asma uses Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles as an example of a monster story.  In these novels, the vampires--or monsters--are presented as the (surprisingly relatable) protagonists.  Instead of asking ourselves, "how would I escape the monster?" the Vampire Chronicles force us to ask ourselves how we would cope with being the monster.  Although imaginatively facing monsters is valuable, so is imaginatively being one.  This forces us to question if we would, or even should, retain our "ethical convictions," which we must create using "real and imagined challenges" (Asma, 3).  Unfortunately, many people are wrongfully ostracized, be it for their race, gender, economic status, or any (human-created) trait.  While we all fight against unfair inequalities, we must also remember to hold fast to our personal identities.  

"Evil is always possible.  And goodness is eternally difficult"

(Rice, 13)

Will we allow another person's perceptions of us dictate our choices?  Will we forget who we truly are and do monstrous acts simply because society labels us and treats us as monsters?

References:

Asma, Stephen T. "Monsters and the Moral Imagination." The Chronicle of Higher Education (2009): 1-6.

Rice, Anne. Interview with the Vampire. Ballantine Group, 1976. Print.

Are Monsters Really an Outlet?

After reading the article, I gathered that the feeling of vulnerability drives humans to explore unrealistic circumstances. When approached with a hypothetical situation, humans want to sincerely believe that they can handle what life throws at them. With this being said, everyone pictures themselves in a situation, such as being abducted by a raging psychopath or in contact with a figure of our own imagination. Is this thought process really about an outlet for people to deal with their vulnerability about scary situations?

In a way I do believe it serves as an outlet for our fears but at the same time I am not fully convinced it is a way for us to deal with them.

“The monster concept is still extremely useful, and it's a permanent player in the moral imagination because human vulnerability is permanent. The monster is a beneficial foe, helping us to virtually represent the obstacles that real life will surely send our way” Asma (6).

I understand situations in which people create such as abduction and what they would do in that situation but what are the odds of the particular situation really happening to you? I’ll have sudden thoughts about these types of situations but I wouldn’t necessarily say that they are “beneficial” to me. That’s a little farfetched of a scenario.   I do agree with the idea that people use monsters as a way to explore the most unpredictable situations through observing others that are experiencing the situation. People observe this happening in the form of a horror movie or novel. We like to see how OTHERS will handle the situation…. not ourselves.

In the article Asma relates the sudden fascination humans have for monsters such as zombies and vampires as a result of terrorist attacks, specifically 9/11. Do we want to imagine situations that are possibly more unimaginable than what has happen to us in the past? These two differing situations are definitely not on the same level whatsoever. This is why I am not fully convinced that our imagination of monsters is an outlet for us to deal with obstacles that life sends our way.

Clearly, I wasn’t sold by this article. 

Monsters Will Never Die

Monsters are woven within the moral fabric of society. In some capacity, people will always need monsters in order to satisfy their inner desires and feelings. To me, the most powerful statement in Stephen Asma's discourse lies in the idea that monsters reflect various problems and life transitions. Asma writes, "The monster is a beneficial foe, helping us to virtually represent the obstacles that real life will surely send our way" (Asma, 5). Certainly, the distinction of a monster comes from within and is shaped by our imaginations through morals, fears, and concerns. However, the notion that monsters are disappearing within our society is an illogical allusion (Asma, 5). In fact, monsters can actually stimulate positive effects on the morality of the individual. These imaginary monsters, once formulated in an individual's mind, can provide motivation for one's daily activities and contribute to one's success. 

As far as I can remember, monsters have influenced my life to varying degrees. Whether through sports, school work, or other problems that I have faced, oftentimes, I channeled the prism of the hero versus monster relationship to represent what I had to overcome. As a fan of both action and horror movies, I have witnessed these dynamic roles modeled numerous times. For as Asma explains, "Our ethical convictions do not spring fully grown from our heads but must be developed in the context of real and imagined challenges" (Asma, 3). Each example of monsters that people are exposed to causes them to question personal ideologies and morality. Generally, then, the monster serves as the obstacle we must defeat to achieve our own goals. This mentality allows each one of us to become the hero within our own story. People enjoy listening to stories of heroes and acts of courage. Therefore, it would be no surprise for them to want to view themselves in a heroic light as well.

In reality, monsters never die; they merely change and adapt, representing new challenges, fears, and anxieties. As society moves into an era reliant on technology, placing emphasis on the ideology of post-humanism, people will continue to devise new monsters, showcasing current fears and obstacles of humanity. As Asma states, "The monster concept is still extremely useful, and its a permanent player in the moral imagination because human vulnerability is permanent" (Asma, 5). Sadly, I cannot envision a world free of the distinctive lines defining an us and them. Therefore, when change occurs, something affects the status quo, or an opponent stands in the way of a person's hopes and dreams, monsters will endure. As long as there exists opposing viewpoints or different perspectives, one will conjure imaginary monsters in order to take a stance and conquer.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b6/e4/be/b6e4be551adf889233af6fe9f2d5ce54.jpg

I pledge that I have neither given nor received any unauthorized aid on this assignment. Anthony King

Sources:

Asma, Stephen T. "Monsters and the Moral Imagination." The Chronicle of Higher         

          

          Education (2009): 1-6. Web.