Category: QCQ (Page 2 of 2)

Quotation: “If, as these histories show, Foucault’s “hermaphrodite” is a figure whose historicity reflects shifts in concepts of monstrosity, we may well want to understand this figure as including precursors of what have since, over the course of that very history, come to be known and come to emerge as transgender subjects. So, when Freeman writes that Frankenstein’s monster “contains a history of bodies and of bodiliness,” we can read that to mean that this monster contains a history of trans embodiment – and that having a body with an obvious history (of surgery, for instance, of changes in presentation, of gender transgressive embodiment) is construed as a sign of trans monstrosity. The transgender monster preexists transgender as a term. Despite the term’s much more recent specific emergence, then, transgender has long been part of monstrosity’s history and historicity.”-(Koch-Rein, 47).

Comment/Connection: Koch-Rein’s essay explores themes relating to transgender topics in Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein. The passage above refers to Foucault’s observation that in historical literature, hermaphrodites were seen as monsters, as people who were unintelligible both in the mental and categorical sense. This was, until, the term hermaphrodite was mixed in with the term homosexual, causing the ‘monstrosity of nature’ to become the ‘monstrosity of conduct’. Koch-Rein says, then, that Frankenstein’s monster is a combination of many historical trends  and popular viewpoints regarding transgender behavior during the 1800s. 

This essay and passage specifically made me think of how Shelley never explicitly identified the gender or sexuality of Frankenstein’s monster. It is implied that the monster has a male physique, with broad shoulders and a tall frame, but apart from the description and her use of ‘he/him’ pronouns, there is little evidence as to how the creature identifies. I also thought that when Koch-Rein quoted Freeman by saying, “the monster contains a history of bodies and of bodiliness”, they meant that the monster in Frankenstein is made up of a different variety of people, genders, and beliefs that don’t necessarily fit in the frame that Frankenstein intended. This also explains why Frankenstein was so frightened when he animated the creature. The creature turned out to be something other than what was intended, much like how two parents come together to create a daughter, only to find that their child identifies as male. It was also interesting to hear that Foucault discussed monstrosities of nature and monstrosities of conduct. During the 1800s, I can see how homosexuality was considered a monstrosity of conduct, as it was believed that people had a direct choice of the type of person they were and had relations with. Transgender beliefs, on the other hand, couldn’t be explained, much like how Victor finds his creature to be so unexplainable. Being transgender wasn’t (and still isn’t) a choice that people willingly made, so to describe that feeling as a monstrosity of nature, it alienates and dehumanizes that specific group of people. While it was Victor’s choice to reanimate a body (monstrosity of choice), the product was unintentional, meaning that Victor viewed his creature as a monstrosity of nature rather than a monstrosity of choice. 

Questions: How does a monstrosity of choice fit into Cohen’s theses? When the book was first published, did readers identify Victor’s choice with being monstrous, or was it considered to be simply a mistake or fatal flaw?

Quotation: 

“Prepare to hear of occurrences which are usually deemed marvellous. Were we among the tamer scenes of nature, I might fear to encounter your unbelief, perhaps your ridicule; but many things will appear possible in these wild and mysterious regions, which would provoke the laughter of those unacquainted with the ever-varied powers of nature;-nor can I doubt but that my tale conveys in its series internal evidence of the truth of the events of which it is composed.” (Shelley, 31).

Comment/Connection: 

This passage occurs when Dr. Victor Frankenstein agrees to speak with Robert Walton. Specifically, Victor agrees to tell Robert about why he is miserable and in a state of sorrow. He tells Walton that what he is about to say would most likely be deemed a ‘tall tale’ and that in any other circumstance, he believes that Robert wouldn’t believe him. However, Victor decides that due to where they are, in the middle of nowhere and secluded from their modern-ideals of life, he can trust Robert to believe him. Victor genuinely believes in Robert’s belief in him, most likely due to how close they’ve grown up until this point. In a way, it seems as though Victor hopes to impart knowledge, either scientific or moral, to Robert. 

This passage makes me think about one of Cohen’s theses. Specifically, thesis number five comes to mind. This thesis, (The Monster Polices the Borders of the Possible), comes to mind due to the fact that Victor decides to discuss his story while in the midst of seclusion, away from modernity and the public. It is only to a select and trusted person, Robert, that Victor trusts. As Victor is also seen as a type of ‘moral monster’ based on his actions throughout the book, it seems as though he takes Robert to the edge of the known world, metaphorically and physically. He polices the boundary by beginning a cautionary tale to Robert and the only way he can do that is by taking him away from modernity. In a way, it seems as though Shelley personifies this border of the possible through the use of isolation at sea. There is nowhere that Robert can go, as the ship is hundreds of miles away from any civilization. This forces not only Robert, but Victor, to see this border as a physical manifestation of what humans should and should not do. Victor, as a monster himself, polices this border via storytelling of his own hubris and thirst for knowledge. 

Question: My main question is from a craft perspective. Did Shelley intentionally place Victor as a guard against the realm of possibility? What would change if Victor told this story in another location, such as in an apartment in London, or at his childhood home? If Victor truly acts as a safeguard for the borders of the possible, does that confirm that Shelley saw Victor as more of a monster than the actual ‘Creature?’.

• Read Jeffrey Cohen’s essay “Monster Culture” (Seven Theses)” available as a PDF from the course schedule.
• Identity a contemporary monster (or contemporary version of a monster) and describe it.
• Use the most relevant of Cohen’s theses to explain what makes this monster a 21st-century monster, or an American monster, etc. How does your chosen monster embody this cultural moment?

An example of a contemporary monster is the Point Pleasant native known as the Mothman. The Mothman was first ‘seen’ in West Virginia in 1966 and had a supposed reign of terror until 1967. Witnesses claim that the creature is about seven feet tall and was able to closely pursue their vehicle while going about one-hundred miles per hour. As the name suggests, this creature looks like a hybrid between a man and a moth with large red eyes. Its body resembles a human frame, however, according to witnesses, the creature is completely covered in thin, black hairs. Mothman also has two antennae-like structures on the top of its head and two wide (ironically) bat-like wings. Many Mothman enthusiasts believe that sightings of the creature predate horrific tragedies. Notable events such as 9/11, the Chernobyl disaster, and a Minnesota bridge collapse have been linked to Mothman sightings. Witnesses of the creature described that its eyes gave the impression of ‘pure evil’ and some witnesses were even reported to suffer from extreme fear and distress that lasted for months to years.

Many of Cohen’s theses can be used to explain what makes Mothman a 21^st century monster. The first of which is thesis three: The Monster is the Harbinger of Category Crisis. Cohen writes that, “They are disturbing hybrids whose externally incoherent bodies resist attempts to include them in any systematic structuration,” (Cohen, 6), which I believe fits the description of the Mothman incredibly. As stated above, Mothman has many different characteristics such as a humanoid body, bat wings, big, and glowing moth eyes, which, as Cohen writes, makes it very difficult to categorize it. Many have categorized the creature as typically male, yet there are no definite accounts that describe the creature’s gender. I believe that this is very important in our cultural moment today, considering that many in the LGBTQ+ community are fighting for trans and gender-nonconforming rights. When Cohen says, “the monstrous offers an escape from its hermetic path, an invitation to explore new spirals, new and interconnected methods of perceiving the world,” (Cohen, 7), I can see the Mothman as a physical manifestation of that sentiment. By not conforming with one form or another, by not specifically showing male or female identifying traits, Mothman allows people to step away from the heteronormative path.

The next thesis that was used to explain Mothman’s role in the 21^st century was thesis number five: The Monster Polices the Borders of the Possible. Cohen writes, “The monster stands as a warning against exploration of its uncertain demesnes…curiosity is more often punished than rewarded,” (Cohen, 12), essentially explaining that monsters are used to safeguard certain areas or even ideas that others do not want explored. There is a theory that Mothman acts as a guard to a site of environmental disaster in the forests of Point Pleasant, so much so that the famed ‘Men in Black’ were threatening witnesses of the creature to stay silent. In our cultural moment, environmental activism is a contested topic, especially in America. Some may use the Mothman as a safeguard to protect sites of environmental degradation in order to avoid activists from bringing attention to it. Cohen sums up this sentiment on page 13 by describing sea serpents on medieval maps, “It is possible, for example, that medieval merchants intentionally disseminated maps depicting sea serpents like Leviathan at the edges of their trade routes in order to discourage further exploration and to establish monopolies,” (Cohen, 13).

The last thesis that describes Mothman’s influence on the cultural moment is Thesis number six: Fear of the Monster is Really a Kind of Desire. In Point Pleasant, there are statues dedicated to the Mothman. The world’s only Mothman museum is located just beside that same statue. Merchandise, stuffed animals, shirts, and DVD’s are all testaments to Mothman’s grip on society in Point Pleasant. Why is that the case? It is obvious, in Cohen’s words, that it “cannot be assimilated,” (Cohen, 19), so how come there are teams and enthusiasts that actively search for the creature? It may be a natural desire to become like Mothman. Cohen describes the phenomenon by saying, “they [monsters] are also realms of happy fantasy, horizons of liberation. Their monsters serve as secondary bodies through which the possibilities of other genders, other sexual practices, and other social customs can be explored,” (Cohen, 18). In the case of Mothman, many may wish to have the freedom, the anonymity of the Mothman. As described earlier, Mothman could serve as an example of gender non-conformity. This, in turn, could cause many people to envy that freedom and to have an innate desire to live in a nonconforming way that Mothman does. Especially in a tense cultural moment that we are currently in, many may want an escape from terse political debates and fights for rights, which is a niche that Mothman may fill for them.