Monster Hunters :: Essays Papers

Monster Hunters Monsters are hunted. The lore of their destruction is excessive, glowing, and dispersed. It is a crucial component of their mythology. There is no eluding the hunter, armed with the vampire stake and crosses and the werewolf’s silver bullet. But then it is the hunter whose tale it is to begin with. Beowulf cannot stay hidden forever, or he would not be Beowulf. Monstrosity relies, in this sense, on its exposition for its production, and it is in this superficial sense of vitality by revelation that two theorists of monstrosity concoct a fantastic world of ‘society’ to keep themselves at bay. Michael Uebel’s â€Å"Unthinking the Monster† and Mark Dorrian’s â€Å"On the Monstrous and Grotesque† represent similar though distinct theorizations of monstrosity in terms of otherness, difference, relation to self, and production in/by rhetoric. The articles consider the relation between monstrosity and the terms against which it is defi ned. Yet the pieces are also monsters, and the worlds they sing of are the ones they behold with rapt attention. It is their theorization of monstrosity that allows for the continuation of both insides and outsides in a way more immediate than their encapsulation of such a movement considers. Dorrian takes Uebel’s general form of abjection seriously as a description of aberrations of the body, the human body it even seems. â€Å"As a starting point we will assume the conventional understanding of the monster as a being whose existence runs against, or is contrary to, nature - with the proviso that for ‘nature’ we understand as ‘what has been naturalized’† (Dorrian 310). The article’s understanding of monsters departs little from the starting point, for the terms outlined here. What of the understanding itself? It seems accurate to require that monsters enact renditions of living bodies. However, this assumes monstrosity not only contrasts some pre-selected canon of bodies, but also is to correspond to a set body of monsters, which is of course never set, and thus monstrosity is to predict what might be called monstrous. But the term is not only part of an effort to describe some referent. Monstrosity is also to think t hrough or around the functioning of monster as agency - how does the idea of a monster matter. Or, how does the monstrous feeling fragment representations? In any case, it is to be a study of monstrosity, for both Dorrian and Uebel, that is aware of the impossibility of identifying a definition or set of definitions of monstrosity.