The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "monster" as follows:
1a. An imaginary or legendary creature, such as a centaur or Harpy, that combines parts from various animal or human forms. b. A creature having a strange or frightening appearance.
2. An animal, a plant, or other organism having structural defects or deformities.
3. Pathology A fetus or an infant that is grotesquely abnormal and usually not viable.
4. A very large animal, plant, or object.
5. One who inspires horror or disgust: a monster of selfishness.
Would you agree or disagree with this definition? How might we add to or alter this definition to come up with a working definition of this term for the purposes of our course? Can we come up with a single definition, rather than a 1-5 type of definition?
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I would agree with this type of definition. The word "monster" is so widely used throughout cultures and literature that it is difficult to come to a simple, one sentence type of definition. If asked to define the term, I would say a monster is a creature, human or inhuman, that evokes fear due to grotesqueness or terrible traits or gigantic size.
I concur with Aslan. Although I believe this definition to be a very comprehensive one, I do not believe a single definition of the word "monster" exists. I believe the concept of a monster is so objective a single definition of it is impossible as many people have a wide range of fears from anything that goes bump in the night, to illnesses, to even foreign or hostile ideas.
The definition given above appears to be a valid one as it encompasses all that one would expect from a monster. For this course a good definition of monster would be anything that brings fear due to some characteristic of that thing, such as its behavior or appearance. I would say that this definition comes close to a single definition, but the definitions given above provide more detail and justly are still good definitions.
The definitions above seem sufficiently precise and inclusive. I also think King Arthur is accurate in his reasoning.
Additionally, there are some monsters that can be far more evil and dangerous because they are able to disguise their monstrosity (in this case, their willful intention to cause harm) under a mask of innocence, physical beauty, or pretending to be harmless. The perversity of their intent puts them, in my opinion, in a class all their own.
On the other hand, there is also the idea that nature is neither good nor bad. A shark is a monster to some humans and most surfers, a swimming stomach with fins to other people, but also a supremely well designed marine predator which has not had the need to mutate for millions of years. Sharks serve a specific biological function in the greater scheme of nature, whether humans understand it or not. It seems logical to me that what makes something monstrous or not is only the particular idiosyncrasies of whoever puts up the label "monster".
Definitions numbered 1, 3, and 5, I agree with. To me the word "monster" by itself invokes a sense of dread, or something having to do with the unexplained or the supernatural. Of course, many people refer to something abnormally big as being "monster-size" etc. But from definitions 2 and 4 I don't get the same feeling of fear in general as with the others. Also, I don't think we can limit the term "monster" to one single term. As we saw today in class, people had so many appropriate interpretations of what we saw in a "monster", I don't believe we can limit its definition to a concise statement. I'll simply say that as for me, "monster" immediately invokes a sense of fear, dread, being terrible, being of abnormal size and having the capacity to cause fear or harm in most all human beings.
I believe the definition of monster above is valid. Monsters are supposed to be abnormal or something you don't see everyday. Usually the abnormal evokes fear or uncomfortable thoughts in people like for example sailors long ago weren't afraid of regular squid but if one mentions giant or colossal squid, fear runs through their minds because its something very different than us and separated from the norm. Also becasue monsters are more physically powerful than us and its scary knowing we're not on top of the food chain.
I agree with Pegasus in that number one and five are appropriate for the definition of monster, because they invoke a sense of dread. I may be alone on this, but I never felt deformities or abnormalities as being monster like. While appearance certainly can invoke fear and dread, if the creature comes in a recognizable form then I see no difference. To give you an example, I believe a cat is a cat, no matter how many legs it may have. I see no reason to fear it anymore than a typical cat.
I believe that intent of the creature speaks far more than the appearance. For example, many would call Vlad the Impaler a monster, but by the above definition, only number five may be applied to Vlad. It seems an injustice to me that Vlad can a human when a deformed cat(to which 1b, 2, and 5 may apply) is a monster.
For these reasons, I believe that the definition should be more shaped for the intent of the creature rather than the appearance.
The book gives such a broad definition of what monsters are, but in reality, monsters can be anything and everything. To be labeled as a monster, the only thing you need is somebody (or something) to possess the emotions necessary to categorize you as such. For instance, a dragon probably wouldn't consider itself a monster, nor would Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, or Stalin. But having something oppose you allows you to be considered one. Perspective is the most important factor in what is and is not a "monster."
I wonder:
What is the absolute worst, scariest, most terrible form of monster I could imagine? Hmmmmm.....
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.