Constructing the Monster

Constructing the Monster:

Why and how our ideas about Monstrosity are characterized through literature

Defining Monstrosity

           

Monsters, specters, and ghosts have been around for centuries. However, during the Romantic era we see a raise in the vernacular of monstrosity. In the post, Monsters and the Unknown, there is an inquiry into the very idea of monstrosity and our notion of it. The definition of “monster” provided states that a monster is “an imaginary creature that is typically large, frightening, and ugly.” This definition is simply not enough, there must be more. The post goes on “there had to be some reason, some event, some anything that slowly changed them [the monsters] into the monsters that they are now.” Our idea of monstrosity is a social construct: beginning with the destruction of the English Commons and its validation in our everyday vernacular through the literature of Gothic Romanticism—dichotomized as monstrosity of the actions of an individual or by society.

Destruction of the English Commons

           

Author David McNally argues in his book, Monsters of the Market: Zombies, Vampires and Global Capitalism, that the changing social relations associated with the rise of a market economy saw an increase of enclosure acts driven by the need to commodify and quantify communal land, as the ruling class sought to demarcate boundaries and solidify its authority. Thus, for the ruling class, “all that was common was dangerous, unruly, and subversive—the common people as much as the common lands,” (McNally 43). The need to privatize the common lands led to the ruling class criminalizing those who resisted, “just as commons referred to land that was unenclosed and communal, land that defied the exclusive rights of private property, so it also referred to the ‘uncivilized’ poor, the unruly commoners” (McNally 43). Naturally, the commoners did resist enclosure of their lands and there were several riots and rebellions, however, this ‘unruly’ nature of the poor only served as the justification to label them as ‘deviants’—as the ‘other’. During these uprisings, the commoners often described the rich as beastly and cannibalistic—in their attempts to ‘eat’ the poor and their land. Conversely, for the rich, the uprisings of the commoners symbolized monstrous transgressions against property, the state, and the church (McNally 46). This dichotomy of monstrosity reveals an embedded socio-political significance in the very form of the monstrous.

Characterizing the Monster in literature

           

            Now, we turn to depictions and descriptions of the monstrous in literature. A few posts have commented on the idea of monstrosity representing human beings and their actions, inquiring about what makes the monster…is it our actions or our society? The Romantics utilized a wide array of supernatural tropes when writing Gothic literature. Even though this genre of literature was often presented as nonsense, or for purely entertainment purposes, the author usually used the Gothic to make social and political commentary on current events—ranging from commentary on the French Revolution (during and its aftermath), labor reforms, slave reforms, and contributing to the fight for gender equality.

French Revolution

In the preface to Percy Shelley’s, The Cenci, Shelley states, “The highest moral purpose aimed at in the highest species of the drama is the teaching the human heart, through its sympathies and antipathies, the knowledge of itself; in proportion to the possession of which knowledge every human being is wise, just, sincere, tolerant and kind.” In other words, the play is to serve as a mirror into the depths of the audiences hearts in an attempt to teach them about themselves. As one post claims, “Even in the most imaginative story there are bits of humanity, society, culture, reality, or some piece of relatable material for the audience.” This mirroring of society through fiction lends a reading of the characters to be allegorical, in reference to the French Revolution. The character of Count Francesco Cenci is depicted as a tyrannical figure that terrorizes his family, emotionally and physically. Cenci is a member of the upper class and has ties (via bribery) with the Church—which also means ties to the state. Cenci is portrayed as monstrous through his actions as a consequence of his social position. Count Cenci represents the personification of the failure of the French Revoution—its aftermath, the ties with the church and the state, etc. Beatrice, on the other hand, represents the disillusioned people who believed and fought for the Revolution, only to be betrayed in the end. This disillusionment is seen most poignantly in the beginning of Act III when Beatrice wildly describing what her father did to her, she says “The pavement sinks under my feet! The walls / Spin round! I see a woman weeping there,/ And standing calm and motionless, whilst I / Slide giddily as the world reels” (Lines 9-12). The spinning round, the pavement sinking, and the reeling world portray Beatrice’s world turning upside-down after her father rapes her; this act of incest jars and destroys Beatrice’s perception of the world, much like how the disillusionment with the ideas of the Revolution distorted the people’s perception of the world after Napoleon crowned himself emperor. Shelley compares the monstrosity of the Count’s betrayal of his daughter’s chastity with the monstrosity of Napoleon’s betrayal of the Revolutionary ideals in the aftermath of the French Revolution; both are monstrous in terms of social actions—social deviance.

Labor

            William Blake alluded to the need for labor reform (specifically regarding child labor)—albeit not explicitly—in his poem, The Chimney Sweeper in his Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience. In the post, The Horror of Parallels, the poster describes the working conditions and hazards for the chimney sweepers in England at the time—“Being suffocated or burned alive in chimneys as narrow as 9 square inches was a common fate for these children. The flues [openings] were so narrow that only small bodies could climb them, often nude, or clog them if the child was unlucky, or lucky, depending on your perspective. These were narrow, sometimes burning columns of jagged angles and suffocating blackness that became the world for these young unwanteds.” The monstrosity evoked here is that of their social condition—enforced by their society. Also, note the use of the word “unwanteds,” these children were often orphans or came from poor families; it was necessary for the children to work, especially when their parents were demonized for being poor. Additionally, in the Songs of Innocence version, the little protagonist, Tom, is dreams of seeing his fellow sweepers who were “locked up in coffins of black” when an angel came and set them free. In the end of the poem, Tom does not fear death, but rather welcomes it, because if he dies then he will be reunited with his friends and with god. Also, in Songs of Experience, the child is clothed in the “clothes of death,” his story is more of a dirge. Here, the monstrous is represented by the Chimney Sweeper’s social status (“unwanted”) and his working conditions. The Chimney Sweeper is stripped of his innocence not by choice, but by society.

Slaves/Slavery

            The post, Sentimentalism and Slave Suicides, provides an insight into some of the treatment of slaves during transportation aboard ships. The treatment of the slaves included cannibalism (sailors eating the slaves when rations ran dry) forcing slaves to dance, pouring boiling sugar on them, etc. The poem, The Slave Trader in the Dumps, features some of the torture devices and practices used on slaves:

                        “Tis a curious assortment of dainty regales,

To tickle the Negroes with when the ship sails,

Fine chains for the neck, and a cat with nine tails,

            Which nobody can deny, deny,

            Which nobody can deny.

…

 Here's padlocks and bolts, and screws for the thumbs,

That squeeze them so lovingly till the blood comes,

They sweeten the temper like comfits or plums,

         Which nobody, &c.” (Lines 11-15 / 21-25).

The monstrosity evoked here stems from the treatment of slave owners onto the slaves. This monstrous treatment made the slaves commit suicide, en route and at the ports. Suicide was a means of escape from the horrendous treatment of the monstrous slave owners. The dichotomy of monstrosity can be seen in the slave’s portrayal of the owner’s as monsters for eating other slaves and also in the treatment of the slaves by the owners. Additionally, the suicides of the slaves also served to justify the dehumanization of the slaves and the owner’s treatment of them—because they were monsters, right? (wrong).

Women

            In the presentation of women, we learned of the subservient expectations of women in society. Additionally, when women stepped outside of the boundaries of what was expected of them, they were often institutionalized and labeled a deviant. For example, in Wordsworth’s The Thorn, there is a female character, named Martha Ray, who, after her fiancé left on their wedding day for another woman, lives on this hill and cries everyday near a small mound of moss. Martha Ray was pregnant at the time of her former lover’s infidelity. Because of societal views of chastity until marriage, the villagers ostracized Martha and procured a multitude of rumors about her dead child: that she killed her child by hanging it from a tree and that she drowned it in a nearby lake. These rumors and ostracizing of Martha resulted in her being portrayed as a monster and as a wild woman, for killing her baby and running away from the village. The villagers turned Martha into a monstrous figure because of her deviation (premarital sex) from what was expected of her (chastity). In the second stanza of the poem, Wordsworth writes:

                       

“Up from the earth these mosses creep,

And this poor Thorn they clasp it round

So close, you’d say that they are bent

With plain and manifest intent

To drag it to the ground;

And all have joined in one endeavour

To bury this poor Thorn for ever.” (Lines 12-22)

            Here, the mosses are that creep are the villagers, the thorn is Martha Ray. The moss clasps around the thorn and “with plain and manifest intent,” drag the thorn to the ground. The villagers drag Martha through the dirt, to ground, or bury, her to the hill by ostracizing her from their society—by creating a monstrosity out of her because of her deviation from expectations thrust upon her by society. The monsters here are the villagers that produce the monstrosity and the otherness of Martha Ray.

Visualizing the Monster: The use of the Sublime in Frankenstein

            Many authors utilize descriptions of Nature to exhibit the sublime. However, one can also note the sublime used (intentional or not) in the depictions of monsters—most notably in Frankenstein. When discussing the sublime in the presentation about aesthetic movements, we learned that the sublime is used by instilling terror into the audience by emphasizing awe-inspiring characteristics of an object (usually from Nature). The sublime is described by Victor Hugo as a combination of the “grotesque and beautiful,” however, according to Edmund Burke, the sublime is instead rooted in “whatever is fitted in any sort to excite the ideas of pain and danger… or operates in a manner analogous to terror” (Burke). As mentioned in the post, Burke’s ‘Philosophical Inquiry’ as applied to Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’, this Burkean notion of the sublime resonates most aptly to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Beginning with the Creature, his very composition epitomizes the terror of the sublime in direct opposition to Victor’s own aesthetic idea of beauty. Victor’s appeal to the beautiful was sparked—literally!—after witnessing a lightning bolt destroy a tree during a violent and terrible storm. This sublime scene spurred the young Victor to study natural philosophy and attempt to recreate and harness the power of Nature (the sublime). This endeavor ultimately fails when (in Vol.1, Ch.4) Victor pushes the boundaries of Nature and (re)creates life; his creation is robbed of its beauty once it awakens when Frankenstein says, “The beauty of the dream vanished and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart”. Victor’s utter disgust and rejection of his creation exhibits the separation of beauty (pleasure) and the sublime (pain), according to Burke “when danger of pain press too nearly, they are incapable of giving any delight, they are simply terrible.”

           

Bibliography

Burke, Edmund. On the Sublime and Beautiful. Vol. XXIV, Part 2. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001. Web.

McNally, David. Monsters of the Market: Zombies, Vampires and Global Capitalism. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2012. Print.