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.

Astonishing Jean?

In the Astonishing X-Men issues one through three, I was shocked to see the leadership of Jean throughout the comic. This makes me wonder if there are subcategories of heroes. I would also argue the same for monsters. For now, I am focusing on the subcategories of heroes and specifically Jean’s standing in the hero category.

In my thoughts I would consider all of the X-Men heroes, but they are all different calibers of heroes. In the comic issues, Jean stuck out to me the most. She was the leader of the heroes and I would consider her the superhero of the group. She does everything in her power to help others, she is almost selfless to a fault. When the X-Men help Nina and the Mannites to protect them from the Death, she is willing to sacrifice herself in order for the Mannites to live long enough to “discover their powers and decide their own fate”.

Along with Jean’s selfless nature, she is the leader of the group throughout the comic issues. When an event arises or action needs to take place all of the characters look to Jean for instruction. For example in the third issue, Nate says “You call the shots, Jean”, Jean acts as the mission leader throughout the quest.

In class we’ve agreed that a superhero acts in a selfless manner and has some type of power that makes them superior to the average hero. As far as powers in the X-Men comics, telekinetic power is definitely the strongest of them all. Jean’s telekinetic energy makes her an obvious choice as a leader.

I feel like Jean’s role in the X-Men movies was underrated immensely. Why would such a central comic characters role be substantially diminished in the movie? Jean serves as the character that overshadows all of the characters to a character in the film that would show up everyone in a while. Does that make sense to anyone else? It sure doesn’t make sense to me!

References:
https://www.google.com/search?q=jean+grey&rlz=1C1OPRA_enUS594US594&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=662&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl8emm6pzPAhVD1CYKHZmZA4YQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=jean+grey+movie&imgrc=7iTfcwv_GysggM%3A

[Joss Whedon (w) and John Cassaday (a).] Astonishing X-Men, Vol 1. "Gifted" #1-3. (Dec. 2012). [Marvel Comics].

Monster or Mutant?

        When thinking of the term “monster,” many of us may think of a creature that disgusts, terrifies, and sometimes even fascinates.  Maybe it looks like something we’ve never seen before, or is capable of doing things that defy our understanding of physical nature.  In X-Men and X-2, we see these traits in characters like Jean, who looks "normal" but has telekinetic abilities, and Mystique, who is a shapeshifter with blue skin and yellow eyes.  If the definition of monster is only skin-deep, then all of the mutants in these movies are monsters.

            This is a simple conclusion that leads to very little conversation.  As an audience, we are granted the ability to choose who the monsters truly are.  If we define monsters as those that perform monstrous acts, then the members of the “monster” category change.  Non-mutant characters within the movies see mutants as monsters because of their inhuman abilities.  However, the audience is permitted into the mutant world, where we see their motivations, emotions, and everything that makes them human.

As a young Polish Jew, Magneto was made to feel like a monster even before his mutant abilities were known to exist in X-Men.  It is not explained in either film what happened to him after the Nazis discovered his abilities and the audience is left to ponder.  It is likely that Magneto underwent experimentation, given its known extensive usage by Nazis.  Due to his experiences, Magneto grows into a radical cynic that despises non-mutants.  In X-2, we see that this goes so far as to attempting to kill all non-mutants.  For non-mutants, he is a monster.

Although the reason for Magneto’s beliefs are understandable, they are not justifiable.  He generalizes Nazi attitude towards mutants to all of mankind, believing that all are hateful, aggressive monsters.  Opposite of this standpoint is Professor and his cohorts, who desire coexistence and see mutants and non-mutants as equals.  In X-Men, they protect non-mutants from transformation and ultimately death.  In X-2, they protect mutants, and then non-mutants, from total annihilation.  For mutants and non-mutants alike, they are heroes.

It is evident that society has the ability to transform people that are simply unique into monsters, such as Magneto.  However, people also have the ability to choose whether or not they become monsters.  Professor, Wolverine, Jean, and others act for peace despite being “othered” by society.  In X-2, we see this decision unfold when Pyro joins Magneto.  Although none of these characters had control over what society viewed them as, they could choose how they responded.  Stryker, the villain in X-2, is also a monster created by society.  Like many non-mutants, he believes that mutants are dangerous, and so they must be controlled or destroyed.  He allows himself to fall victim to this belief system despite his own son being a mutant.  Through this case, it is clear that it is the nature of the mind, not appearance or abilities, that defines the monster.

All X-Men are Monsters

X-Men and X-2 are two of my favorite movies. It is obvious why Dr. MB picked these incredible masterpieces for us to review. X-Men blurs the line between heroes and monsters. Just think of Magneto! He is a monster for kidnapping Rogue, but he is a hero for chaining Stryker. Professor Xavier’s relationship with Magneto represents that blur. He understands him, his actions, and his pain. That understanding is why Professor Xavier is so persistent with Magneto, and why he still considers him a friend.

I could talk about Magneto and Professor Xavier forever, but the movies made think about my definition of a monster more than anything else. I think that a lot of the scenes support my definition. A monster is a reflection of the unknown or of a specific unwanted feeling. The monster’s intentions are not necessarily to destroy and cause chaos, but ultimately that is what occurs. Unlike the hero, a monster is something everyone can become. It is a representation of unwanted desires, uncontrollable feelings, shameful actions, and abnormality. The more you suppress the monster, the more it grows. The monster needs to be let out and accepted to become a positive being.

The humans see the mutants as monsters because it is a reflection of the unknown. They do not know who they are, what they are capable of, and if they are here to help or destroy. The whole Registration Act is made up of all those fears. Once again, think of Magneto. He becomes a monster because humanity made him a monster. Humanity does not want to give him a chance, so why should he try?
In the beginning of X-Men, Rogue sees herself as a monster because her power causes destruction and chaos. She does not want to hurt others, but one touch or one kiss can do just that. Even when she is accepted by the rest of the mutants, specifically Bobby, she is still cautious and does not trust herself. In other words, she suppresses the monster. Suppressing it does not help her control it. I think that she needs to accept that monster and use it.

Mystique has let that monster out. In the conversation she had with Nightcrawler in X-2, he asks her “why not stay in disguise all the time? You know, look like everyone else.” She responds “because we shouldn’t have to.” Yes! You should not have to hide the monster in fear of not being accepted. Although Mystique does not appear in the films as a central focal point, it is clear that she knows who she is, she knows what she is capable of, and she is willing to do anything for all the mutants. She is fighting for a cause, who’s to say that cause is not positive?

Bobby’s family see him as a monster. In X-2 when Bobby’s mom asks him “have you tried not to be a mutant?” I wanted to reach into the screen and punch her. Why should Bobby hide who he is? I think Bobby is proud to be a mutant. His family’s rejection makes him feel like who he is and his desires are something he should not want and be ashamed for.

There is one part of my definition that I disagree with in the case of the X-Men: a monster is something everyone can become. A hero is something everyone can become as well. Everyone has a monster hidden within, and you can use that monster to become a hero. Magneto is just as much a hero as the X-Men. Their causes and methods are different, but they are all heroes. I have realized that my definition is heavily influenced by the sense of not belonging and how you can persevere through that. The mutants persevere through that rejection just like many of us have. Maybe that is why I love X-Men so much.