Nature of Monstrosity

Nature of Monstrosity

Throughout many of the works we’ve covered this semester, the theme of monstrosity has been peeked at, glanced, and later fully discussed.  It is the nature of monstrosity that we try, over and over and throughout multiple stories and poems, to define.  The nature of monstrosity is in the juxtaposition of the supernatural, the sublime, with everyday life.  This fascination with the monstrous emphasizes the interest people have held about the definition, and antithesis, of humanity.  In feeling this curiosity, many authors have explored the thin line dividing humanity in general from the non-human, from the other.  According to http://www.redwedgemagazine.com/6/post/2012/10/bloodlines-ii-the-rise-of-modern-horror.html, horror and monstrosity can “Through superior allegory,…help the audience understand their world, and what’s happening to it; indeed, what’s happening to them!”

Let’s start with one of the more obvious examples of monstrosity: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.  In this piece, the nameless creature is a concrete example of this “other”, of monstrosity itself.  The creature’s appearance, as noted in http://suite101.com/article/the-monster-in-mary-shelleys-frankenstein-a215222, is supposed to be a “hybrid” of different races, partly Caucasian but also possibly “Mongolian”.  It is this hybridization, and gigantic size, that casts the creature as “other”, different, monstrous.  Size does also have a role to play, however: as Canguilhem states in his article “Monstrosity and the Monstrous,” “The relationship between the enormous and the monstrous has yet to be clarified.  Both are well beyond the norm.” Even in creatures that resemble us, mere size and coloring variations are enough to cast the shade of “other”.  The contrast of the creature’s original willingness to please and later avowal that he is the master, the very way in which he appears to Victor after so long, show monstrosity.

In Fuseli’s painting, The Night-Hag Visiting Lapland Witches, the witch reminded me very much of Frankenstein’s creation, from the grayish pallor of the skin to the sheer size of the witch.  In but another moment, the witch will have done something terrible to the child she is semi-holding on the sacrificial slab in front of her.  I also noticed the disembodied hands in the front, center of the piece that are threatening the witch with what appears to be a shard of glass of some sort.  In this painting, even the “heroes,” those there to defeat the witch, are not quite human, thrusting into sharp relief the idea of heroes being monstrous.

In Blake’s “The Tyger,” he wonders if the God was happy with the creations He had made: in lines 19-20, “Did he smile his work to see?/ Did he who made the lamb make thee?” leads me to ponder if Victor Frankenstein had ever read any of Blake’s poetry.  I see many parallels between Victor and the narrator of Blake’s poem.  The second half of the first and last stanzas, asking who made such a fearful creature, cannot but put me in mind of Frankenstein. 

Monstrosity is not only about physical strangeness, however.  According to Thanem, “One can therefore argue that monsters, monstrosities and the monstrous disrupt the boundaries of the normal, whether a matter of size, shape or morality.”  Appearances aside, monstrosity can be caused by actions as well as looks.  In William Wordsworth’s “The Thorn,” the narrator begins by describing in great detail a very beautiful mound of moss and flowers, “All lovely colors there you see” (38).  Wordsworth spends two entire stanzas describing how vibrantly radiant this is, before moving on to the weeping woman who is frequently near.  This is the first juxtaposition of the work, but so far it’s okay, nothing overtly monstrous waiting to jump out and say “Boo!”  In stanza twelve, Wordsworth again makes the juxtaposition, contrasting how joyful Martha was with “A cruel, cruel fire, they say,/Into her bones was sent:/It dried her body like a cinder,” (127-131). So Martha has now gone from the radiant bride-to-be to something consumed by an inner fire.  The transition from stanzas fourteen to fifteen is the last and most damning concurrence: in line 154, Martha goes from having finally “looks [that] were calm, her senses clear,” to the narrator having no concrete facts to give the reader, merely that the child she was carrying was never seen by another person.  It is the juxtaposition of the beautiful hillside’s appearance with what is buried beneath that smacks of monstrosity.  Two full stanzas to describe the beauty of an infant’s resting place.  The implication that Martha murdered and then buried her child, whilst never fully proven, is monstrous.

In Coleridge’s “Christabel,” too, is a monstrosity caused by the intersection of two contradictory senses: a beautiful woman in desperate need of help, the quintessential archetype of damsel in distress, who is later revealed as the evil monster.  Not only is the lamia described as “Nay, fairer yet! And yet more fair!” in line 374, Geraldine is also described as having “A snake’s small eye blinks dull and shy;” in line 585.  It is this juxtaposition of beauteous woman and conniving snake that shows the monstrosity of Coleridge’s piece.  Even more so, though, is the lamia’s perversion made evident in subverting Christabel’s father away from her; in turning the man who should protect his innocent daughter into the enemy she needs protection from, Geraldine has truly become monstrous. 

In “Lady Macbeth Seizing the Daggers” by Henry Fuseli, the monstrosity of Lady Macbeth, already in our minds as we know she is shortly to commit murder, is made the more apparent by the dog-faced man in the back ground of the picture, holding his companion steady as they observe Lady Macbeth rush off to do foul deeds.

Throughout this semester, we have studied the horrific, the terrifying, the sublime, and the monstrous.  I propose that it is really only a few of the many facets of humanity we have studied.   Humanity itself is monstrous, at times, and beautiful at times, and occasionally both at the same time.  It is our fears that cause us to create these works, in order to put a face to our fears so that we may name them.  Monstrosity is always changing and will probably continue to always change; human perceptions are constantly evolving and putting new bogeymen in our minds. 

 

 

Citations

Organization 2006 13: 163

Torkild Thanem.

Living on the Edge: Towards a Monstrous Organization Theory

DOI: 10.1177/1350508406061677

http://org.sagepub.com/content/13/2/163

 

Georges Canguilhem and Therese Jaeger.

Monstrosity and the Monstrous Diogenes December 1962 10: 27-42, doi:10.1177/039219216201004002vv

http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2555/content/10/40/27

 

The Cenci and Violence: Victims and Despair

One nature I thought was very interesting about the play that we're reading was that this is the first time we've been in the viewpoint of a woman who "is" truly a victim, many female characters of the works we've read are victims of circumstance or by the actions of another party, but not nearly to the physical or emotional degree of Beatrice Cenci. Count Francesco Cenci, her father who is the most sociopathic character i've ever seen, and absolutely relishes, violence and milks the misery of those lives he destroys in the most twisted and brutal ways possible for all it's worth.  The violence he enacts on people is simply astonishing to see and truly makes me wonder whether he is a human incarnation of evil itself. Francesco's physical and emotional violence enacted on his entire family in nothing short of disgusting, and the fact that nobody tries to offer any assistance to the family for fear of Francesco makes this entire play a lesson in that you have noone to protect you but yourself. The fact that Beatrice and her mother are nothing short of slaves to Francesco's whims and are treated little better than servants fills the reader with a tender sympathy, but also  a frustrated  sense of anger, or atleast to me, because Beatrice nor her mother seem to fight Francesco or they waited until something truly horrible happened, but that just shows the beaten down personalities of both woman and the staff because they are so afraid they can't even voice an true opinion. This entire play filled me with a absolute and pure disgust for Francesco and personally I was glad he died, but yet I can't help but feel terrified for Beatrice and her mother, because this world certaintly doesn't feel like a kind place towards woman.

monstrosity as a whole

When it comes to considering humanity as a whole in comparison to one human, the step is really wide in to the realm of monstrosity. For one thing, when one person analyzes the world, he/she would typically say that humanity is good but the world is cruel but when it comes to questioning the good or evil of humanity as a whole, people most commonly same that the world is good but humanity is cruel. And when we examine the nature of Frankenstein’s monster, we could say he too is good but the world is evil to him when it comes to analyzing the events for which he is a witness too. This in a grander scale of comparing Frankenstein and the monster as a whole of humanity would leave to the conclusion of the world being good but humanity being evil because Frankenstein was miserable and alone he wanted to bring life into something for him to have a friend but this selfishness that came by wanting to create a human being on his own led him to greater sorrow and instead of creating life he brought greater suffering to himself and his monster because of humanities cruel selfishness.   

Frankenstein and Prometheus: Dangers of Knowledge

I found it interesting how the name of the book or another name for the book was The Modern Prometheus and realized just how similar Frankenstein and Prometheus truly were in that Prometheus steals fire from the Gods and gives technology to humanity suffering by having his liver torn out by an eagle every day. The same vein appears in Frankenstein by having Victor study such things as Alchemy and be obsessed with The Elixir of Life of which such thoughts become the thought to create the Creature. Creating the Creature is Victor's stealing of fire from God in that by trying to create life he crosses a line he "Never" should have crossed and it brings him misery of the ultimate kind. The punishment of both is severe in that Victor suffers the death of family and friends, along with innocents while Prometheus has his liver torn out each day by a large bird. The men of each suffer and strive to do something amazing for humanity and both inevitably fail spectacularly with disastrous results for themselves and the human species.

My thoughts of this was that Mary Shelley was using this analogy as way to warn society of the dangers of doing anything without considering the consequences of your actions to yourself and the world.  We used bombs to destroy our enemies, but also destroyed the lives, property, and personal safety of countless innocents people in WWII in the countries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan and such technology resulted in a real threat of war between us and the Soviet Union for fear of being taken over if we didn't have more "weapons of mass destruction" than the other countries did. The danger of weapons that that are so dangerous in the hands of someone without a proper respect and fear of such dangerous technology is a recipe for disaster on a massive scale and Frankenstein illustrates that concept flawlessly.

Trying to recreate the sublime

When we discussed the sublime earlier in the semester, I remember someone describing it as something so beautiful that it frightens you and that’s what the sublime in Frankenstein does. When I think about those massive, majestic snow-covered mountains I am in awe. It is something so awesome, and man took no part in creating it. This novel is partly about Man not having limits on what he wants to create with all this new scientific knowledge. I think the mountains serve as a reminder of the limitations of Man.

Frankenstein’s fascination in natural philosophy is spurred by a sublime scene, when he witnesses a “Most violent and terrible” storm that he watches with “curiosity and delight.” He learns about electricity when a lightning bolt destroys a tree. In that moment, the power of nature is displayed.  Perhaps, Frankenstein’s creation can be seen as his attempt to mimic nature, to harness the power of nature. He tries to recreate the beauty, but when the monster comes alive, “the beauty of the dream vanished and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” There is no terrifying beauty, just terror.

A Human Monstrocity

As I read Frankenstein, I am continually intrigued by the format of the creature. The monster is mad from individual human (and animal) parts, yet seen as a creature unlike any other? If an observer looks at just the creature's forearm, or nose, or foot, or and segment it would look strikingly similar to the observer's own piece of flesh. Now this comparison of parts ignites two different thoughts in my mind:

1. Humans as a whole are a monstrosity. And when we look at history this may indeed be true. For instance, take the French Revolution. When looking at the Jacques executing who they deem guilty in their Reign of Terror without justification or remorse we look at the whole event an act of inhumane and horrible circumstances setting all of society's biggest flaws on a platter with the clear potential of damnation on earth being reached. However, if you were to look at each human as an individual they would not seem quite so horribly insensitive. The individual does not seem crazy, scary, or out of the norm. We see this when we look at the whole of the society much like looking at the whole of the monster.

2. Human judgement is natural and imminent. Despite the monster's features being almost completely human, we are horrified. He is made of humans, yet we conclude him not to be one of us? Why is this? It is because we outcast those who are even slightly different. If we cannot directly identify ourselves to the same category then the other does not belong. Yet there are no written rules of this matter. Who decides the monster is not human and on what grounds? There is no law or precedent, just the consensus of fear amongst the public judged upon appearances.

Monsters: Creator and Creation

    In the world of Frankenstein, the theme of monsters is discussed with Frankenstein's creature being thought of as the worst monster but was he truly? Frankenstein by going against nature and creating his creature as an affront to God and self proclaiming science is more important than anything, even his soul though this is before he realizes what he's done is wrong and rejects his creation which fuels the creatures hatred for humanity because it's lonely. The creatures monstrosity by being "what it is" a animated body created of the dead limbs of various people would be quit horrifying for any person to accept but the monstrosity of being ostracized from society, being rejected by his creator, and the attitudes of the villagers when they see him and immediately are disgusted all serve to make you feel pity for this creature and put him as a victim of circumstance.
   
   Frankenstein's monstrosity in his flaunting of natural rules shows a pride on the level of the  devil in Paradise Lost because he believes he's justified in creating this creature because science gives him the ability to do this and why shouldn't he if it's possible than God is okay with it? This monstrosity of character only seems to drive Frankenstein more insane as the story goes. The monstrosity of human pride and entitlement serve to be a social critique of how far humanity "should" go in the terms of science and research.

The Innocent and The Temptress

Cristabel is initially described as a helpless, innocent, girl who needs a man's protection and guidance.  There is no such pretence in Lamia.  She is automatically described as the seductress that even Nymphs and Satyrs cannot resist.  Hermes swears his allegiance to her and is bound to her.  She and Geraldine are in a way sisters.  They both have an unnatural and supernatural command over men. I think Lamia's power is greater than Geraldine's because mythical creatures and Gods are held to a higher standard than a mere mortal. The fact that Lamia can bewitch them so easily is proof of her greater power.

Known and Unknown Monsters

When we are introduced to Lamia she is described as a serpentine monster with some redeeming human features. Only after receiving aid from Hermes does Lamia become a beautiful woman. Geraldine seems to be normal throughout “Christabel,” aside from several hints: needing help over the threshold in line 131, the growling dog in line 148, and the mark on her chest in line 252. Yet even though Lamia is the more physically monstrous, Geraldine strikes me as more evil. Lamia is motivated by her desire to be with Lycius. Geraldine is never given any motivation but the reader is still led to believe she has some ill intention. The mystery surrounding Geraldine makes her appear sinister. In reality there is not much to indicate that Geraldine is evil but Coleridge sets the reader up to believe that she is. Keats describes a monster but gives her motivation that is somewhat innocent. Geraldine, to me, is more frightening than Lamia because she is entirely mysterious.

Aesthetic movements; sublime & picturesque in painting; ruins

Here is the main info from the presentation Mitch and I did:

Picturesque:
The picturesque is an aesthetic ideal that emphasizes a harmonious relationship with nature.  The picturesque is generally pleasant to observe and has little sense of danger or tension.

Examples of the picturesque in paintings:

"Entrance to Copenhagen" by J.C. Dahl




"Crossing the Brook" by J.M.W. Turner
In this painting there is a more distinct interaction between people and nature (woman at river bank).  There is also a solid structure in the background, emphasizing human beings harmonious relationship nature.





"The Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog" by Caspar David Friedrich
This painting is where picturesque and sublime meet.  Nature is portrayed in a slightly more chaotic light, but the spectator is still on safe ground.  Nature also borders on the sublime due to its awe inspiring characteristic.




Now for the sublime.
Sublime:  Described by Victor Hugo as a combination of the "grotesque and beautiful", the sublime is an aesthetic ideal that emphasizes natures awe inspiring power and generally diminishes man to the role of a passive observer.  Notice how small man is in relation to nature in both paintings.

Some examples of the sublime:

"The Great Day of His Wrath" by John Martin



"Hannibal and His Army Crossing the Alps" by J.M.W. Turner



Finally, ruins are important because they give an impression of a time of greatness that has passed.  They are simultaneously a symbol of a time when the structure was great, and an aesthetic structure within themselves, presenting its own decay to the observer as an aesthetic experience.

"The Chancel and Crossing of Tintern Abbey" by J.M.W. Turner

Tyger, Tyger, Tyger Tyger Tyger!

William Blake's Poem "The Tyger" makes an interesting point with the line "Did he smile his work to see?" in which the poet seems to be asking God if He deployed the Tyger upon Earth as a means for humanity to discovering God's divine plan. It is ambiguous if the "smile" is that of God or that silly smile the Tyger wears on the accompanying engraving; however, the aim of the question is made clear from the following line "Did he who made the Lamb make thee?" which  expresses that the Lamb is clearly Good while it is hard to find the purpose or virtue of the Tyger in the mind of God. In a way, the Tyger is what makes the Lamb virtuous but this relationship is symmetric as the poem implies; that is to say, both animals or modes of existence (fierce or passive) are Good insofar as one cannot defined in allegory without the presence of the Other. In this case, they are both Good because of faith. Faith in the Lord leads one to believe that their is deeper meaning in what inspires terror into our hearts such as the Tyger and that God has given the Tyger to humanity just as God has given us the martyring Lamb. It sounds almost as if the poet is implying that things seem Evil only because we do not have an adequate understanding of their cause (God).

The symbol of the thorn

That Wordsworth's poem is about more than a simple thorn on a simple hill is easily enough discerned in the text. The tale of Martha Ray and her woeful cries on the hill that may hold the body of her infant child is one of betrayal, anguish, and love lost. It is a tale of a thorn. The thorn becomes a symbol for her whole ordeal. It is the prick of her lovers betrayal.  It is the stab of finding herself alone and with child. The thorn, overgrown, is the child she may have killed. Just as the story of betrayal is an old tale, so is the thorn itself. This is not the thorn of a rose, balanced with the sweet smell of the flower.  This is the thorn of bitter anguish, without redeeming grace. The scarlet of Martha's cloak echoes the blood this thorn draws.  Just as the thorn is bound with moss to the hill, so is Martha bound to the hill. This is something that transcends the mortal realm. The hill itself has become a symbol, something wholly "other". The hill itself rebuffed the townspeople's intent to find the bones of the infant, it rebuffed mortal intrusion into its otherworldly realm. We can but look upon the hill, we can but mark this sad tale, unable to change it. We are observers, who may, if we are fortunate, glean some lesson from the hill, the moss, the thorn, the pond, and the woman. While Martha may have once been mortal, she is now wholly symbol, undying, unchanging, like the hill itself. And the thorn, which never lives, yet never really dies, like her pain, and the death of her child.

Fatalism in The Castle of Otranto

The "The Castle of Otranto" by Horace Walpole revolves around fatalism such as the prophecy of the ruling families demise. Fatalism or determinalism tends to have a dark effect since as human beings we like to believe we have a will that is free. The events in the story are the mechanical workings of the higher power that operates the universe rightfully called both God and Nature. Superstitious elements enter into the story when God is given the characteristics of humanity; the will of God is quite human insofar as it concerns the morality of the human characters (punishment). Within the story, God is the effective cause of everything and even seems to be acting transiently or with abrupt and impulsive actions such is the case with the moaning statue as a reaction. By giving God human affections, Walpole creates a superstitious atmosphere, where we can and will be judged at any moment by an all powerful and vengeful God. The fatalism present within the story operates in a way that is contrary with our logic on some regards; however, the adaption of a higher power concerned with our actions conforms to our broken, egocentric logic. This I believe to be superstition.

Small Instances of Atypical Female Behavior

I found that in "The Castle of Otranto", I was really intrigued by the characteristics of the women in the novel. Mostly uniform with the attributes of female characters displayed in literature both prior to and in the 18^th century, the women are portrayed mainly as obedient and kept individuals who lack independence in thought, choices, and identity. However, two of the female characters do display moments of uncharacteristic and surprising behavior. Firstly, there is Isabella, who despite her initial role as simply a bargaining tool, becomes the only character to attempt to control her own fate. While her hope to escape is entirely in response to the actions of Manfred, she escapes and saves herself from what would have been a future of compliance and submission. The other main example of defiance of the typical female character is Matilda, in that she releases Theodore from prison, completely and entirely knowingly defying her father. I found it very interesting to see quite strong instances of self aware and defiant behavior in two women from a time of passive, obedient, and disinteresting female literary characters.