Monsters: Evil Beings, Mythical Beasts, and All Manner of Imaginary Terrors

by David D. Gilmore

The human mind needs monsters. In every culture and in every epoch in human history, from ancient Egypt to modern Hollywood, imaginary beings have haunted dreams and fantasies, provoking in young and old shivers of delight, thrills of terror, and endless fascination. All known folklores brim with visions of looming and ferocious monsters, often in the role as adversaries to great heroes. But while heroes have been closely studied by mythologists, monsters have been neglected, even though they are equally important as pan-human symbols and reveal similar insights into ways the mind works. In Evil Beings, Mythical Beasts, and All Manner of Imaginary Terrors , anthropologist David D. Gilmore explores what human traits monsters represent and why they are so ubiquitous in people's imaginations and share so many features across different cultures. Using colorful and absorbing evidence from virtually all times and places, Monsters is the first attempt by an anthropologist to delve into the mysterious, frightful abyss of mythical beasts and to interpret their role in the psyche and in society. After many hair-raising descriptions of monstrous beings in art, folktales, fantasy, literature, and community ritual, including such avatars as Dracula and Frankenstein, Hollywood ghouls, and extraterrestrials, Gilmore identifies many common denominators and proposes some novel interpretations. Monsters, according to Gilmore, are always enormous, man-eating, gratuitously violent, aggressive, sexually sadistic, and superhuman in power, combining our worst nightmares and our most urgent fantasies. We both abhor and worship our they are our gods as well as our demons. Gilmore argues that the immortal monster of the mind is a complex creation embodying virtually all of the inner conflicts that make us human. Far from being something alien, nonhuman, and outside us, our monsters are our deepest selves.

Genres: Nonfiction, Mythology, Monsters, Folklore, Reference, History, Philosophy

224 pages, Hardcover

First published October 11, 2002

Reviews

[Eustacia Tan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been meaning to read this book for a while, but the NLB didn't have it. Luckily I got one more free month of Scribd, so this was the first book I picked up.

Monsters is an overview of the monsters throughout the world. And this time, it really is an overview of monsters throughout the world, rather than monsters in Europe.

For the record, a monster is defined as "supernatural, mythical, or magical products of the imagination [...] monsters are imaginary, not real, embodiments of terror." The book specifically excludes humans turned bad (witches, wizards, zombies), and real things, like mass murderers, even if the label can apply.

While there is slightly more emphasis on monsters in the west - The Windigo gets its own chapter, plus another for American monsters, and two chapters for European monsters, compared to the two chapters for the East - the author does touch on Chinese, Indian, Japanese and Polynesian monsters.

Oh, and by the way, the chapter entitled "Japan and the Pacific Islands" is more about the islands than it is about Japan.

While this book is fairly academic in style, it's still readable. You shouldn't go in expecting a conversational telling of the various myths and legends, because there is none of that. It's an overview of how people react to and live with 'monsters', and what that means about us. In fact, my favourite part of the book was the discussion of what monsters may mean. Despite the various types of monsters, they all have a few things in common, like their size, their type, and such. The concluding paragraph sums up monsters pretty well, in my opinion:

"The power of monsters is their ability to fuse opposites, to merge contraries, to subvert rules, to overthrow cognitive barriers, moral distinction, and ontological categories. Monsters overcome the barrier of time itself. Uniting past and present, demonic and divine, guilt and conscience, predator and prey, parent and child, self and alien, our monsters are our innermost selves."

If you're interested in a study of monsters, I highly recommend this book.

This review was first posted at Inside the mind of a Bibliophile

[Carly Yingst · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Even the Frankenstein monster...cannot articulate beyond a rudimentary level."

ways to solve this problem include: actually citing mary shelley.

(this is not the only thing that made me give this book two stars - it just illustrates, i think, the problems the book gets into in trying to present a basically universal cultural history/theory of monsters--east and west, past and present--in <200pgs. generalization can be okay, and there's plenty that's useful and interesting here, but it can also give you a whole lot of inaccuracy, reductionism, and erasure of cultural/historical differences)

[Kate M. Colby · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book as inspiration for my own fiction, with the goal of learning about monsters from around the world. It provides a good overview of the big monsters from many cultures (except African and South American peoples), as well as the common traits the monsters share and the author's theory about why people invent and believe in monsters. It was interesting, but I wish it would have covered the missing continents and spent a little less time on theory.

[Rainboe Sims-Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

Monsters is an extremely well-researched and well-documented study of monster archetypes throughout all cultures cross-referenced with the work of Freud. Together, these two elements formulate several theses that discuss whether humans from each culture have the same fears and how those fears define, enrich, and influence the way-of-life for their respective societies. Gilmore extracts examples from Greek mythology, Christian lore, film, science, widespread psychoses of North American indigenous natives, Hindu lore, Asian legends, Spanish rituals and more to provide the reader with a thorough framework of monstrosity before integrating the research of Freud. Through examination of monster archetypes portrayed through the lore and history of each demographic area, Gilmore postulates that cannibalism is both humans' greatest fear and greatest desire. This book is an excellent source for monster study: succinct enough to cover a great deal of material, without losing the reader in a morass of facts and studies. Despite the depth and detail of its content, it does not bore the reader and maintains a scholarly tone without too much academic flair. Gilmore's work offers fresh input on a long-overlooked topic that is essential in all cultural and humanities studies.

[Brad · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good survey of international monster traditions. Gilmore's interpretation veered toward the psychological which I found less helpful than if he had related monsters to theories of social alterity.

[Ogi Ogas · Rating 3 out of 5]

My ratings of books on Goodreads are solely a crude ranking of their utility to me, and not an evaluation of literary merit, entertainment value, social importance, humor, insightfulness, scientific accuracy, creative vigor, suspensefulness of plot, depth of characters, vitality of theme, excitement of climax, satisfaction of ending, or any other combination of dimensions of value which we are expected to boil down through some fabulous alchemy into a single digit.

[Sean Lynn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Monsters is a straightforward scholarly look at boogeyman, demons, and dragons from around the world. In it, author David D. Gilmore examines the origins, commonalities, and meaning of monsters from multiple cultures and throughout time. From early depictions in cave paintings to creatures of the silver screen, Gilmore analyzes what makes a monster, and why they fascinate us.

[Megan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just realized she was never logged!

Read this in February, a cultural look at monsters that really helped shape how I approached the new play. Gilmore is my kind of academic, stimulating, provoking, and just this side of reverent for his topic. More monster scholars please !!!

Will be reading again

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting Freudian analysis of monstrosity. Does an excellent job of surveying mythological evidence to make his case. Though there is much to question and critique in Gilmore’s account, it is also instructive and insightful. Recommend.

[Stacey · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. An introductory survey on monsters around the world. I’ll be checking out some books from the works cited.

[Roland · Rating 4 out of 5]

Monsters are everywhere, and this book shows that whatever you may have heard, every culture has a history of them.

[Essey Of Da Books · Rating 2 out of 5]

My first read through I liked the book a lot more than the second. In the second read through, I ended up finding a lot of things that I didn’t like. Let’s first begin with the fact that it’s pretty obvious that the author didn’t have an editor. There were so many grammatical errors, spelling errors, etc. that it was at times sort of hard to read. One of the main things that I noticed were missing words, which were very noticeable and slowed my reading down. Another thing, is specifically, I remember when the author was talking about someone with the last name of Bogoras, he later in another paragraph, put the person’s name as Borogas. That stood out WAY too much, and rather annoyed me because if the author can’t even take the time to make sure the names are spelled correctly is just ridiculous.

One thing I noticed over and over was how the author related everything back to either Greek mythology or Norse mythology. EVERYTHING. The first time wasn’t a big deal, but the author continuously did this and after a bit it really grated on my nerves. The author took a lot of time and obvious research on Greek and Norse mythology, but took very little time and research in other areas. It was very obvious what the author really wanted to key in on, and frankly, it rather annoyed me. It almost came off as laziness. I’m not sure what nationality the author is, but it seemed to me almost like a white man was writing about all these different mythologies, because the author kept relating everything back to a type of white culture mythology. I’m usually not a person who notices these things, but to me it was pretty obvious.

The author made some off-handed comment about how there were still some people who believed in some of the monsters, and rather condescendingly stated they were uneducated. That statement REALLY pissed me off. I’m sure the author has heard a lot about cryptozoology, so are they stating that cryptozoologists are also uneducated?! If that’s the case, I would like to remind the author that there are a lot of people with PhDs that are cryptozoologists, so the statement of them being uneducated is at the very least false, and at most, a condescending insult. Maybe the author didn’t actually mean for it to come off like that, but it really did.

The author really didn’t include monsters or mythical beasts that didn’t fit in with their thesis. When writing, you really should include things that go against your thesis and address them. It’s something called good writing. The author really failed to do that, which detracted from the thesis. Another thing was that the author just stated things, like this monster was atavistic, and didn’t really explain why. Another sign of bad writing. When you state something, you need to explain why you believe that. There were times where I really didn’t see how a specific monster was atavistic, especially because the author just stated the monster was, and moved on. Another sign of bad writing.

A statement the author made that came off very wrong was, “All the great civilizations boast grandiose monster repertories in their folklore and art, and especially in the myths that explain the world and humanity’s place in it.” So is the author saying that if a civilization doesn’t have this, then it isn’t great? Rather condescending if you ask me. Mythologies don’t make a civilization great. There are numerous things that can make a civilization great, and to insinuate that mythology and monsters are what make a civilization great is short sighted.

I realize that I’m really starting to nitpick, but a lot of issues started to stand out in my second read through that I just didn’t notice the first time around. I think if the author had just taken more time with the book, with both research and the actual writing, this could have been a great book. Unfortunately, the author didn’t and this was the result.

[Alan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A useful series of case studies in monster theory that is a must-read for anyone working in the field.

Although the details of the case studies themselves were fascinating, Gilmore has the most to offer in his methodology and theory chapters, making some astute observations as to the relationship between monster and creator. I do wish there was more of an application of the theories he presents in the case study chapters.

A few minor, factual errors prevent me from giving the book the full five stars.

[Clifton Toliver · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really liked this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in this subject. Gilmore does a great job of putting forth his thesis and supporting arguements quite well. Especially on the psychological points on how monsters affect our psyche.

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book that studies the psychological role monsters play in the human psyche....I can't wait to get my hands on this one!

[AngelaGay Kinkead · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting sections on monsters in other cultures and continents (Japan, North, Christian World, etc.) and a concluding chapter, "Our Monsters, Ourselves."

[Rhonda]

Lots of lists: here are these monsters from these places. Nonetheless, the first and last chapters about the social NEED for monsters were quite interesting.

[Dovie · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book attempted to accomplish several objectives: 1) tell us about monsters that appear in different cultures 2) summarize the cross-culturally pervasive characteristics of monsters and 3) articulate a theory of monsters rooted in Freudian theory. He accomplishes all three tasks, but just barely. With respect to 1, the particulars of certain monsters are often abbreviated and superficial. With respect to 2, Gilmore says much that is true, but little that's original. Finally, with regard to 3, hours theory is underdeveloped and, therefore, unconvincing. First, Gilmore emphasizes Freud straight from the gate, but he ignores competing expansions of monsters. For example, some monsters clearly served and etiological function; the existence of some monsters are clearly efforts to explain poorly understood natural phenomenon, like crib death. Related to this point, Gilmore ignores an important distinction. Monsters that were considered to be metaphors by the cultures in which they appear, and "monsters" that were regarded as "real" by these cultures. This distinction is important because there's good reason that there's different explanations for "real monsters" and "fantastic monsters". For example, there's evidence that some cultural repertoires that contained dragons viewed them as allegorical, while simultaneously thinking vampires were a real threat to public health. The explanation for the persistence of an allegorical monster and that of the vampire would be different. This is not to say that these categories are distinct and impermeable; dragons were at one time thought to be real and vampires became allegorical after their etiological import disappeared. Theres also good reason to think that some monsters were based on incomplete observation of real, living animals. This all points to the fact that any single reason for the existence of monsters, let alone a speculative Freudian one, will likely be incomplete. Gilmore never considers these other explanations, so his theory of monsters is inadequate. This is a clear case of a book that tries to do too much and, consequently, accomplishes little.