Walking the Wall

In my medieval literature class we’ve been having some interesting discussions on the ideology of monsters–why they exist, why we are so drawn to them at the same time as we are repulsed by them. We read a poem by the first known female author in the middle ages, and it was a story about a Bisclavret–a werewolf. This was written in the 12th century, and it wasn’t even the oldest recorded werewolf story. Apparently the idea goes back to King Lycaon who, according to Ovid, was turned into a wolf by Zeus for trying to sacrafice his own son, and obviously if Ovid was writing it down, it was likely part of the oral tradition for longer than that–and then last night, firmly in the 21st century, two of my friends and myself settled into an evening full of entirely too much food and two movies, Underworld and Underworld Evolution, based on a war between vampires and werewolves (I highly recommend Underworld, love it, but not so much UW Evolution, though it is good to see how the story plays out, it plays out in a much more violent, bloody way than the first).

This doesn’t even touch on the whole Buffy phenomena either, vampires being another excellent example of this monster theory. So why is humanity so drawn to monsters? According to Jeffery Cohen in a piece called Monster Culture, here are some things to consider:

• Monsters are metaphors for the cultures they haunt.
• The monster’s body is threatening in that it blurs categorical distinctions such as: human/animal, good/evil, man/woman, nature/culture
• Setting up someone as different allows that violence against individuals or groups can be justified because of this difference (Hello, R, Buffy & Spike!).
• Monsters allow people to project an “outside” in relation to the “inside” of official culture.
• Because monsters both attract and repulse us, we recognize through them that our own identities fluctuate.

People in class thought we saw in monsters the ability to act out instinctually without guilt, that they represent what we fear most–loss of control, or what we desire most–power; lots of interesting discussion. Then there is the whole "vampires are seductive" versus "werewolves are hairy and scary"–although in the Underworld universe if you’re a little bit of both, you’re pretty seductive AND scary.

For an exam I have coming tomorrow, we were asked to think about what Cohen said in terms of the monsters we have read about and I’ve been mulling that over (beware, what follows is my own attempt to prepare for this question and therefore might be entirely boring [except for the movie review] for anyone else):

I choose to focus on Beowulf.  NOTE: If you have the opportunity to see the Canadian/Iclandic version of Beowulf with the yummy Gerard Butler…don’t, it is really very awful and painful to watch despite Gerard Butler–I can only hope that the upcoming version with the equally gorgeous Angelina Jolie as Grendel’s mother [??] is better! It has an excellent cast, though, and Neil Gaimen is part of the production so it MUST be good. Anyway, I chose Beowulf because the only other monster we have read about was the werewolf who was really more human than his monstrous human wife. While Grendel is an excellent example of a monster on the edges, a creature frightening for the boundaries he keeps to, it is his mother that is the most interesting in terms of Cohen’s idea that monsters are metaphors for he cultures they haunt. (And as another side note, did you know the Celts believe the only thing scarier than a monster, was a monsters mother?) As Grendel is portrayed as only vaguely man shaped, it is difficult to see humanity in him whatsoever. Yet for his mother, the poet gives her distinctive human characteristics…she grieves the loss of her son, she takes him home to die, and she exacts revenge in the form of a life for a life. While Grendel’s attacks on the hall are never explained, the audience can understand and even empathize with Grendel’s mother—she has lost her son, she is bereft and in pain and according the wergeld system of the time, she is due recompense. Her killing is justified by the very system they live by. However, she is still hunted down and killed for her actions. It seems that on one hand the culture is questioning the idea of “an eye for an eye” mentality, questioning where that ends, where are lines drawn if you start down that road. On the other hand, it is clamping down its boundaries and saying that if you step outside the bounds of society, you’re an outsider and won’t get granted the same rights as an insider. It is almost as if the mother stands in between Grendel and society, that they are afraid that with their blood feuds they are no different than Grendel, but they aren’t ready to really go there intellectually, so they clamp down the lines and say “do not cross”. I think that the poets inclusion of Grendel’s mother as a monster that reflects their own ideology indicates a society on the brink of change, questioning their selves and how they define humanity.

So what does that mean for us in the 21st century with our vampires and werewolves and creeeeeeeepy Grudge II nasties popping up on commercials for the unaware? Have we come this far from King Lycaon and still question what it means to be human? I suppose that unfortunately the monstrous side of humanity is present in every generation, and it is a good thing that we are still questioning and not just giving  over–because often times it’s the human’s that are really acting like monsters and the "monsters" are only something different than ourselves.