What do you think?
Rate this book
The Science of Monsters: The Origins of the Creatures We Love to Fear
Modern audiences do not find dragons frightening. Fascinating as mythical creatures, yes, but terrifying, no. Yet, present them with a story about a virus that can kill a healthy adult in hours and they will have nightmares for weeks. The difference between the two is believability. Monsters are at their most frightening when they carry characteristics that tie them to the real world in some way.
Preposterous as they might seem today, dragons were no different in ancient times. Humans long ago stumbled upon skeletons that had sharp teeth and talon-like claws. These fossils were real and some were frighteningly large. Those who looked at them could only guess at how dangerous the animals that they belonged to must have been. From such interactions, dragons were born. Yet, in spite of ample physical evidence that dragons existed, none were ever seen in the flesh. Dragon bones were ultimately proven to be the bones of huge predatory dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus Rex, but before the mystery was solved, they were the makings of frightening beasts that managed to evade human sight by lurking deep within the shadows of the wild.
The Science of Monsters will explore monsters that have haunted humanity throughout the ages, from Medusa to sea serpents, giants, and vampires. In each chapter Kaplan uses scientific principles, current research, and his thorough knowledge of the natural world to explain why specific monsters came to be and what it was about them that was so terrifying to the people who brought them to life.
Preposterous as they might seem today, dragons were no different in ancient times. Humans long ago stumbled upon skeletons that had sharp teeth and talon-like claws. These fossils were real and some were frighteningly large. Those who looked at them could only guess at how dangerous the animals that they belonged to must have been. From such interactions, dragons were born. Yet, in spite of ample physical evidence that dragons existed, none were ever seen in the flesh. Dragon bones were ultimately proven to be the bones of huge predatory dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus Rex, but before the mystery was solved, they were the makings of frightening beasts that managed to evade human sight by lurking deep within the shadows of the wild.
The Science of Monsters will explore monsters that have haunted humanity throughout the ages, from Medusa to sea serpents, giants, and vampires. In each chapter Kaplan uses scientific principles, current research, and his thorough knowledge of the natural world to explain why specific monsters came to be and what it was about them that was so terrifying to the people who brought them to life.
248 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 23, 2012
92 people are currently reading
4313 people want to read
About the author
Matt Kaplan
5 books42 followersI'm a retained science correspondent with The Economist and have been contributing to the newspaper on a weekly basis for more than a decade. Over the years, I've also written for National Geographic, The New York Times, Scientific American, Nature and New Scientist. Outside of my journalistic endeavours, I've long been intrigued by the ways in which our ancestors tried to explain mysterious aspects of the natural world with mythology. To this end, I wrote two books on the subject: Science of the Magical and The Science of Monsters. I was awarded a Knight Fellowship in 2014, presumably for writing well, and used the opportunity to study immunology at MIT and folklore at Harvard.
An unabashed geek,* I wrote the widely circulated From Gollum to Avatar which explored how Hollywood made the technological leap from Yoda in the original Star Wars to Gollum in The Lord of the Rings and ultimately to the Na’vi in Avatar. I was also the voice behind many other Economist stories of technological evolution, including Stealing The Heat, an analysis of the fast developing field of heat recycling, The Coming Wave, an exploration of how wave generators on the coastlines came to be, and Superstructures, the story of how bridges, tunnels and buildings learned to detect danger and take action.
I am fascinated by the weird, wonderful and often less well respected members of the animal kingdom that have made life better for humanity on the whole. In How Illuminating I explored how the humble jellyfish has made it possible for glowing proteins to be inserted into the human body and used to track the behaviours of cancer cells so they can be better caught and destroyed. In Glue Bones I described how the saliva of the sandcastle worm, which builds the structures that its name implies, has made it possible for researchers to develop a glue that can hold bits of bone together in salty environments, like those found on bloody operating room tables. And in Electrical Potential I revealed that science is on the verge of creating a biological battery modelled after the cells found in the bodies of electric eels**.
I've written about how certain female spiders ooze sticky slime to capture the sexual organs of males so that they can better catch and eat their partners after reproduction (Sexual Appetite), how bats that build tents together out of palm leaves build better social relationships (Bats Building Bonds), and how bomb sniffing dogs are thrown off by the preconceptions of their handlers (Clever Hounds).
Outside of my work for The Economist, I've collaborated extensively with TED to create educational animations about the boundary between myth and science. Together The Science Behind Homer’s Odyssey and The Scientific Origins of the Minotaur have been viewed over three million times. I also annually donate several weeks of my time each year to guest lecture at schools that are keen to get their pupils jazzed about science. A palaeontologist by training, if you have read about evolution, ecology or dinosaurs in Nature, National Geographic or Scientific American, you have probably read my work***.
When not at my desk, I make a good effort at meeting the grim reaper for an early tea on expeditions in far flung regions of the world. I've hacked my way through the Alaskan bush, fended off tiger snakes in the bogs of Tasmania, nearly fallen into a crevasse in Switzerland and got my scuba respirator hose snagged on the sunken wreck of a British minesweeper.
---
*Who, by the way, can recite huge chunks of Star Wars by heart and readily explain the differences between the Faerunian gods Kossuth and Lathander. (Just in case you were wondering, Kossuth's portfolio is solely fire while Lathander's includes the sun, warmth and vitality.)
**Shocking, I know.
***My personal favourite is How to Eat a Triceratops.
An unabashed geek,* I wrote the widely circulated From Gollum to Avatar which explored how Hollywood made the technological leap from Yoda in the original Star Wars to Gollum in The Lord of the Rings and ultimately to the Na’vi in Avatar. I was also the voice behind many other Economist stories of technological evolution, including Stealing The Heat, an analysis of the fast developing field of heat recycling, The Coming Wave, an exploration of how wave generators on the coastlines came to be, and Superstructures, the story of how bridges, tunnels and buildings learned to detect danger and take action.
I am fascinated by the weird, wonderful and often less well respected members of the animal kingdom that have made life better for humanity on the whole. In How Illuminating I explored how the humble jellyfish has made it possible for glowing proteins to be inserted into the human body and used to track the behaviours of cancer cells so they can be better caught and destroyed. In Glue Bones I described how the saliva of the sandcastle worm, which builds the structures that its name implies, has made it possible for researchers to develop a glue that can hold bits of bone together in salty environments, like those found on bloody operating room tables. And in Electrical Potential I revealed that science is on the verge of creating a biological battery modelled after the cells found in the bodies of electric eels**.
I've written about how certain female spiders ooze sticky slime to capture the sexual organs of males so that they can better catch and eat their partners after reproduction (Sexual Appetite), how bats that build tents together out of palm leaves build better social relationships (Bats Building Bonds), and how bomb sniffing dogs are thrown off by the preconceptions of their handlers (Clever Hounds).
Outside of my work for The Economist, I've collaborated extensively with TED to create educational animations about the boundary between myth and science. Together The Science Behind Homer’s Odyssey and The Scientific Origins of the Minotaur have been viewed over three million times. I also annually donate several weeks of my time each year to guest lecture at schools that are keen to get their pupils jazzed about science. A palaeontologist by training, if you have read about evolution, ecology or dinosaurs in Nature, National Geographic or Scientific American, you have probably read my work***.
When not at my desk, I make a good effort at meeting the grim reaper for an early tea on expeditions in far flung regions of the world. I've hacked my way through the Alaskan bush, fended off tiger snakes in the bogs of Tasmania, nearly fallen into a crevasse in Switzerland and got my scuba respirator hose snagged on the sunken wreck of a British minesweeper.
---
*Who, by the way, can recite huge chunks of Star Wars by heart and readily explain the differences between the Faerunian gods Kossuth and Lathander. (Just in case you were wondering, Kossuth's portfolio is solely fire while Lathander's includes the sun, warmth and vitality.)
**Shocking, I know.
***My personal favourite is How to Eat a Triceratops.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 259 reviews
December 17, 2021
Sophomore-level writing that draws tenuous connections with lots of filler. Truth be told this wouldn't be a bad entry point to literary anthropology for someone brand new to the topic, but anyone who's already passed a "Folklore, Myth, and Legend" class won't find much new here.
Not the worst way to pass some time, but still: 2 stars overall.
Not the worst way to pass some time, but still: 2 stars overall.
December 5, 2012
I really wanted to like this book. I was psyched to hear Matt Kaplan on NPR and put my name in at the library so I was the first person to get it.
I should have quit early on. It got incredibly repetitive, had such snarky and completely unnecessary (but also incredibly predictable and unoriginal) footnotes that they tipped the book into Just Plain Bad territory. Considering how often Kaplan repeated himself, I wondered why he didn't combine a lot of his sections. Perhaps the book would have stood up better as individual articles, but as a whole, it just got to the point where I literally yelled at the book "OH MY GOD ITS FOSSILS ALREADY I GET IT."
Also what was with the 'here, let me give some wild theory and then immediately explain how wrongwrongRONG that theory is.' Why did you just waste my time with that?
Very disappointing.
I should have quit early on. It got incredibly repetitive, had such snarky and completely unnecessary (but also incredibly predictable and unoriginal) footnotes that they tipped the book into Just Plain Bad territory. Considering how often Kaplan repeated himself, I wondered why he didn't combine a lot of his sections. Perhaps the book would have stood up better as individual articles, but as a whole, it just got to the point where I literally yelled at the book "OH MY GOD ITS FOSSILS ALREADY I GET IT."
Also what was with the 'here, let me give some wild theory and then immediately explain how wrongwrongRONG that theory is.' Why did you just waste my time with that?
Very disappointing.
June 13, 2020
Part of the entertainment factor of this book is the fact that it takes its theories too far. After explaining Chimaera legends as the result of animals wandering into a tar pit and becoming fossilised in a weird tangle, the author goes on:
He then goes on to use tar pits to explain sphinxes and Scylla: "Indeed, if there is a monster that stands as evidence that the ancients were looking at fossils of multiple animal skeletons jumbled together, it is Scylla."
He does nobly admit right after that that "this requires tar pits, and Greece (and the rest of Europe) doesn't have any"! Yes, that would be a bit of a problem for this theory, but it's okay -- he then posits trade routes as bringing the stories to Greece...
The problem with this book is that there is a lot of truth in it: it discusses gigantism in humans as arising due to tumours in the pituitary gland and suggests that could be the source of some monstrous legends; it points to fossils and tar pits as origins of various monstrous legends and ideas; it points out that giant predators were around in the past. However, it leans on these ifs and maybes -- and on a good deal of special pleading -- and takes it way too far. Maybe we imagined Cerberus because a giant slavering dog with three heads just seemed scary, you know? No need for three wolves to be swept off to sea together and fossilised as a jumble of bones with three heads.
In the end, I got tired of the exercise for my rolling eyes and put this down, relieved that I never paid for it and instead borrowed it. Whew. If you're interested in some of the potential scientific seeds of monster stories, there are definitely nuggets of truth here. I learnt that the pituitary tumour thing actually ran in families due to a genetic disposition, producing families of giants! I learnt about some monsters I didn't know that well! But... I have serious questions about the author's seriousness here: his Chimera and Pegasus idea really begs for us to ask whether he thinks the fights between King Kong fighting Godzilla were inspired by film-makers finding an enormous ape fighting an enormous reptile in a tar pit? Or does he recognise that while the monstrous can (probably always does) grow from seeds of reality, probably a lot of ancient story-tellers were just thinking up ways to scare the shit out of each other, create amazing spectacles for artwork, or just tell a good story.
And Chimera was hardly alone. If a horse went down to a tar pit for a bit of water, got stuck, died, and was subsequently fed upon by a vulture that also got stuck in the tar, that would provide an explanation for the legendary Pegasus. Some art even shows Chimera battling with Pegasus. Was this linked to a find of fossils that people could barely make sense of?
He then goes on to use tar pits to explain sphinxes and Scylla: "Indeed, if there is a monster that stands as evidence that the ancients were looking at fossils of multiple animal skeletons jumbled together, it is Scylla."
He does nobly admit right after that that "this requires tar pits, and Greece (and the rest of Europe) doesn't have any"! Yes, that would be a bit of a problem for this theory, but it's okay -- he then posits trade routes as bringing the stories to Greece...
The problem with this book is that there is a lot of truth in it: it discusses gigantism in humans as arising due to tumours in the pituitary gland and suggests that could be the source of some monstrous legends; it points to fossils and tar pits as origins of various monstrous legends and ideas; it points out that giant predators were around in the past. However, it leans on these ifs and maybes -- and on a good deal of special pleading -- and takes it way too far. Maybe we imagined Cerberus because a giant slavering dog with three heads just seemed scary, you know? No need for three wolves to be swept off to sea together and fossilised as a jumble of bones with three heads.
In the end, I got tired of the exercise for my rolling eyes and put this down, relieved that I never paid for it and instead borrowed it. Whew. If you're interested in some of the potential scientific seeds of monster stories, there are definitely nuggets of truth here. I learnt that the pituitary tumour thing actually ran in families due to a genetic disposition, producing families of giants! I learnt about some monsters I didn't know that well! But... I have serious questions about the author's seriousness here: his Chimera and Pegasus idea really begs for us to ask whether he thinks the fights between King Kong fighting Godzilla were inspired by film-makers finding an enormous ape fighting an enormous reptile in a tar pit? Or does he recognise that while the monstrous can (probably always does) grow from seeds of reality, probably a lot of ancient story-tellers were just thinking up ways to scare the shit out of each other, create amazing spectacles for artwork, or just tell a good story.
December 6, 2012
Monsters, it turns out, evolve over time. Vampires didn’t always sparkle, zombies didn’t always crave the taste of human brains, and until very recently dementors didn’t even exist. Why is it that the monsters that left people shivering in terror during the bronze age are so different than the monsters of the industrial revolution, which in turn are so different from the monsters today? As society changes, the things that people fear change, and thus popular monsters change as well. In his first solo book, science journalist Matthew Kaplan takes us on an engaging romp through the history of monsters, exploring not just what those monsters are, but what they tell us about ourselves.
Kaplan is one of the top science journalists in the world, and it shows. His writing is clear, lucid, and even (dare I say it) funny. He makes complex scientific concepts accessible to non-specialists, and his talent helps make this book an engaging and thought provoking read.
The book operates on two levels. On the surface level, this book looks at a number of popular (and obscure) monsters, and tries to explain why people might have believed in them. Perhaps the fossil record might have led people to speculate as to the sorts of creatures that could have created the bones they found. Perhaps earthquakes could be the result of a rampaging minotaur, or fiery natural gas explosions the work of a dragon. While this is largely speculative, the speculations are based in historical and scientific data. The plausibility of the these discussions varies, and the range is well captured by the book’s title. The discussion of vampires is extremely compelling – I won’t describe it further here because I can’t do it justice. Meanwhile the section on the Medusa strains credibility; at one point Kaplan goes so far as to suggest that people may have believed in petrification because it would feel similar to going into shock. Fortunately, although no other section rises to the brilliance of the vampire discussion, more of the treatments are compelling (or at least thought provoking) than not.
Of course, the question of why people might have believed in monsters presupposes the fact that people DID believe in them. Here the book is on shakier ground. When my mom watched the Harry Potter movies she had to close her eyes at the dementor scenes because she found them so scary… but she doesn’t actually believe in dementors. Artists don’t need to believe in a monster in order to depict it, and in fact get credit for creativity if they can create monsters that are new or original. And many of the grounds for belief that Kaplan sketches out would not have been accessible to the masses who believed. Much of the fossil record or scientific data that Kaplan argues could have led monsters to seem plausible wouldn’t have been known by anybody but the most elite scholars during antiquity. So why this focus on why people might have believed in monsters?
This leads us to the second layer of the book, that monsters are more likely to be talked about and persist in culture to the extent that they are legitimately scary. And we are more likely to fear something that we believe is a threat to us. As such, for monsters to endure in lore, they must at least plausibly exist, and if they were to exist, plausibly represent a danger to us. The latter of these premises is straightforward: monsters that live in the forest are much scarier to a primitive forest society than an industrial society – people who live in a city are less threatened by a giant lion, but terrified of the vampire who can blend into urban life while stalking its prey. Thus as people move to cities, vampires will thrive while giant beasts become less terrifying.
And of course we do need to have some schema for how a monster could exist in order to be able to understand why to fear it. For example, it would be hard to be afraid of robots before electricity had been invented to power them.
But ultimately, while I recognize that plausible things are probably scarier, I also recognize that people are able to suspend disbelief. Movies with downright absurd premises can still have terrifying monsters because we can imagine ourselves in the artificial worlds that the movie takes place. I can fear the Nazgul in Lord of the Rings despite the fact that there is no conceivable way they could exist, because I can empathize with Frodo’s fear. As such, I didn’t think the present book’s focus on why people might believe in various monsters was all that informative regarding why those monsters are talked about. Put in other words, it is irrelevant whether or not the mechanism for producing dinosaurs in Jurassic Park is scientifically valid or not – the average movie-goer wouldn’t know one way or the other -- and the fear comes not from the fact that dinosaurs may be actually creatable, but rather projecting oneself into a world where they are hunting you.
A final thought about the book: In the conclusion, Kaplan discusses how in the movie Avatar, the monsters (Na’vi) are the protagonists and the humans become the monsters. He speculates as to why this modern conception of humans as monsters has evolved. I’m not sure that this is really all that modern. If you look at myths from antiquity, there are some pretty monstrous humans. Medea, for example, murders her own children in an attempt to get back at her lover, Jason (who’s no paragon of virtue himself). Mordred from Arthurian legend is pretty monstrous too. One doesn’t have to look far to find stories where humans are portrayed as monsters.
In other words, modern conception of monster and its relation with man is quite nuanced, and that was likely true historically as well – but much of what we know about monster stories from history comes from oral histories and incomplete records. Thus, while it is undoubtedly true that monsters take new forms to fit the cultures in which they are discussed, it is also true that we know much less about monsters of the past. This makes it hard to know how much of the differences are about cultural changes and how much are due to lost records.
Despite my quibbles, my overall impression of the book is quite positive. While the arguments in this book sometimes seem a bit of a reach, especially at the macro level, the individual micro level discussion of the monsters tend to be really fun to read and very thought provoking. Kaplan has clearly done his research, and I feel like I learned a lot from this book, about science, monsters, and culture. If you like science journalism or want to know more about monsters, this book is definitely worth your time.
Kaplan is one of the top science journalists in the world, and it shows. His writing is clear, lucid, and even (dare I say it) funny. He makes complex scientific concepts accessible to non-specialists, and his talent helps make this book an engaging and thought provoking read.
The book operates on two levels. On the surface level, this book looks at a number of popular (and obscure) monsters, and tries to explain why people might have believed in them. Perhaps the fossil record might have led people to speculate as to the sorts of creatures that could have created the bones they found. Perhaps earthquakes could be the result of a rampaging minotaur, or fiery natural gas explosions the work of a dragon. While this is largely speculative, the speculations are based in historical and scientific data. The plausibility of the these discussions varies, and the range is well captured by the book’s title. The discussion of vampires is extremely compelling – I won’t describe it further here because I can’t do it justice. Meanwhile the section on the Medusa strains credibility; at one point Kaplan goes so far as to suggest that people may have believed in petrification because it would feel similar to going into shock. Fortunately, although no other section rises to the brilliance of the vampire discussion, more of the treatments are compelling (or at least thought provoking) than not.
Of course, the question of why people might have believed in monsters presupposes the fact that people DID believe in them. Here the book is on shakier ground. When my mom watched the Harry Potter movies she had to close her eyes at the dementor scenes because she found them so scary… but she doesn’t actually believe in dementors. Artists don’t need to believe in a monster in order to depict it, and in fact get credit for creativity if they can create monsters that are new or original. And many of the grounds for belief that Kaplan sketches out would not have been accessible to the masses who believed. Much of the fossil record or scientific data that Kaplan argues could have led monsters to seem plausible wouldn’t have been known by anybody but the most elite scholars during antiquity. So why this focus on why people might have believed in monsters?
This leads us to the second layer of the book, that monsters are more likely to be talked about and persist in culture to the extent that they are legitimately scary. And we are more likely to fear something that we believe is a threat to us. As such, for monsters to endure in lore, they must at least plausibly exist, and if they were to exist, plausibly represent a danger to us. The latter of these premises is straightforward: monsters that live in the forest are much scarier to a primitive forest society than an industrial society – people who live in a city are less threatened by a giant lion, but terrified of the vampire who can blend into urban life while stalking its prey. Thus as people move to cities, vampires will thrive while giant beasts become less terrifying.
And of course we do need to have some schema for how a monster could exist in order to be able to understand why to fear it. For example, it would be hard to be afraid of robots before electricity had been invented to power them.
But ultimately, while I recognize that plausible things are probably scarier, I also recognize that people are able to suspend disbelief. Movies with downright absurd premises can still have terrifying monsters because we can imagine ourselves in the artificial worlds that the movie takes place. I can fear the Nazgul in Lord of the Rings despite the fact that there is no conceivable way they could exist, because I can empathize with Frodo’s fear. As such, I didn’t think the present book’s focus on why people might believe in various monsters was all that informative regarding why those monsters are talked about. Put in other words, it is irrelevant whether or not the mechanism for producing dinosaurs in Jurassic Park is scientifically valid or not – the average movie-goer wouldn’t know one way or the other -- and the fear comes not from the fact that dinosaurs may be actually creatable, but rather projecting oneself into a world where they are hunting you.
A final thought about the book: In the conclusion, Kaplan discusses how in the movie Avatar, the monsters (Na’vi) are the protagonists and the humans become the monsters. He speculates as to why this modern conception of humans as monsters has evolved. I’m not sure that this is really all that modern. If you look at myths from antiquity, there are some pretty monstrous humans. Medea, for example, murders her own children in an attempt to get back at her lover, Jason (who’s no paragon of virtue himself). Mordred from Arthurian legend is pretty monstrous too. One doesn’t have to look far to find stories where humans are portrayed as monsters.
In other words, modern conception of monster and its relation with man is quite nuanced, and that was likely true historically as well – but much of what we know about monster stories from history comes from oral histories and incomplete records. Thus, while it is undoubtedly true that monsters take new forms to fit the cultures in which they are discussed, it is also true that we know much less about monsters of the past. This makes it hard to know how much of the differences are about cultural changes and how much are due to lost records.
Despite my quibbles, my overall impression of the book is quite positive. While the arguments in this book sometimes seem a bit of a reach, especially at the macro level, the individual micro level discussion of the monsters tend to be really fun to read and very thought provoking. Kaplan has clearly done his research, and I feel like I learned a lot from this book, about science, monsters, and culture. If you like science journalism or want to know more about monsters, this book is definitely worth your time.
June 13, 2016
In this entertaining look at beliefs in monsters of various sorts, as with his more recent book on magical powers, Science of the Magical: From the Holy Grail to Love Potions to Superpowers, Matt Kaplan explores the ways in which science (and culture) create the background for belief in things fantastic. Kaplan's argument, that monsters serve an important purpose by representing deeply held fears and allowing people to “practice” facing those fears in a safe way, is hardly original, but he writes with cheerful, sometimes flippant enthusiasm, and, while bringing in plenty of real science and history, he rarely takes his imaginary subjects or his imaginative theories too seriously.
Kaplan's premise, that monsters are created due to specific and identifiable human fears combined with observable phenomena works better with some monsters than others. The link between Old Hag Syndrome and sleep paralysis is quite convincing, while the idea that the Golem of Prague was a vigilante seems, generously, a stretch. Most of Kaplan's proposed explanations for beliefs in monsters, ranging from Hercules's Nemean lion all the way to sparkly modern vampires and UFO's, fall somewhere in between these extremes of “sure, that seems plausible” and “ha!” Most often his proposals seem not unreasonable, but also, often, not fully convincing either. I'm inclined to give more credit to the wild imaginations of storytellers, who will create exuberantly hideous monsters even without needing the prompt of evolutionarily helpful fears, than Kaplan seems inclined to. Still, Kaplan's speculations are inventive and fun, and he wanders off down some interesting rabbit trails. I particularly enjoyed the story he tells about the scientific evidence for zombies, involving poison worms, Bufo toads, and puffer fish. Also, his footnotes are extensive and amusing.
I would recommend this to readers who enjoy exploring the “whys” behind belief in monsters and would give it 3 ¾ stars (Okay, I'm kidding. But if I ask for ¼ stars maybe GR will someday give us ½ stars, anyway!), rounded up to 4.
Kaplan's premise, that monsters are created due to specific and identifiable human fears combined with observable phenomena works better with some monsters than others. The link between Old Hag Syndrome and sleep paralysis is quite convincing, while the idea that the Golem of Prague was a vigilante seems, generously, a stretch. Most of Kaplan's proposed explanations for beliefs in monsters, ranging from Hercules's Nemean lion all the way to sparkly modern vampires and UFO's, fall somewhere in between these extremes of “sure, that seems plausible” and “ha!” Most often his proposals seem not unreasonable, but also, often, not fully convincing either. I'm inclined to give more credit to the wild imaginations of storytellers, who will create exuberantly hideous monsters even without needing the prompt of evolutionarily helpful fears, than Kaplan seems inclined to. Still, Kaplan's speculations are inventive and fun, and he wanders off down some interesting rabbit trails. I particularly enjoyed the story he tells about the scientific evidence for zombies, involving poison worms, Bufo toads, and puffer fish. Also, his footnotes are extensive and amusing.
I would recommend this to readers who enjoy exploring the “whys” behind belief in monsters and would give it 3 ¾ stars (Okay, I'm kidding. But if I ask for ¼ stars maybe GR will someday give us ½ stars, anyway!), rounded up to 4.
October 9, 2019
Piemērota grāmata gaidot Visu Svèto dienu! Autors apskata slavenos monstrus un mēģina to eksistencei atrast zinātnisku pamatojumu. Piemēram, Nemejas lauvas prototips varētu būt kāds aizvēsturisks plēsējs, Medūza simbolizē cilvēku pirmatnējās bailes no indīgajām čūskām utt.
February 4, 2018
Some of the themes and characters in world mythology are near immortal. They take a life on their own and evolve into myriad shapes and forms over the centuries. A monster is one such character which has grown and metamorphosed across varied civilizations. At a time when the earliest of humans regaled each other at their communal get togethers with tall tales, the monsters took the forms of hideous, frightening and incredibly dangerous entities and the dread they unleashed was only as limited as the imagination of the person telling the stories.
Generations were terrified and thrilled by them and myths were modelled around them. Also as humanity evolved so did their heroes who could vanquish these deadly creatures. The ability to defeat a monster gave the hero a certain aura of invincibility that after a while, heroes came to life with the sole purpose of being a monster hunter. Imagine where would Heracles have been if he hadn’t defeated the Nemean Lion ? Would Beowulf have attained the same popularity if there was no Grendel ? What of Harry Potter and Voldemort ? Would the boy wizard still have been as powerful without his nemesis ?
Civilizations rose and fell and with them the forms of the monsters that they dreaded also evolved. Matt Kaplan’s book is an examination of various monsters across civilizations, the social scenarios in which they found their footing and what might have contributed to their wide spread acceptance in society then. The short essays in the book are a mix of science, assumption and many a times relies on pure guess work.
Some of the points that Kaplan makes are rather interesting, like :
•Earthquakes and volcanic activity might have led to the Minotaur legends
•The advanced stages of rabies might have given rise to the Werewolf myths
•How a corpse with a belly full of gas and post mortem bleeding might have given rise to the Vampire myths
•How the myth of a dragon might have arisen out of dinosaur fossils etc.
On the flip side there was way too much of guess work and assumption that Kaplan resorts to in these articles. There is a lot of ‘could have been’ ‘might have been’ and ‘assume’ that after a while I selectively tuned out a lot of information. While the author relies much on science to make his point, the analysis he offers isn’t very scientific in nature.
From a learning standpoint it helped me to understand about a few monsters that I had no clue about earlier. But on me a full rounded overview of the psychological or scientific effects of monsters on human beings, this did not strike the mark.
Generations were terrified and thrilled by them and myths were modelled around them. Also as humanity evolved so did their heroes who could vanquish these deadly creatures. The ability to defeat a monster gave the hero a certain aura of invincibility that after a while, heroes came to life with the sole purpose of being a monster hunter. Imagine where would Heracles have been if he hadn’t defeated the Nemean Lion ? Would Beowulf have attained the same popularity if there was no Grendel ? What of Harry Potter and Voldemort ? Would the boy wizard still have been as powerful without his nemesis ?
Civilizations rose and fell and with them the forms of the monsters that they dreaded also evolved. Matt Kaplan’s book is an examination of various monsters across civilizations, the social scenarios in which they found their footing and what might have contributed to their wide spread acceptance in society then. The short essays in the book are a mix of science, assumption and many a times relies on pure guess work.
Some of the points that Kaplan makes are rather interesting, like :
•Earthquakes and volcanic activity might have led to the Minotaur legends
•The advanced stages of rabies might have given rise to the Werewolf myths
•How a corpse with a belly full of gas and post mortem bleeding might have given rise to the Vampire myths
•How the myth of a dragon might have arisen out of dinosaur fossils etc.
On the flip side there was way too much of guess work and assumption that Kaplan resorts to in these articles. There is a lot of ‘could have been’ ‘might have been’ and ‘assume’ that after a while I selectively tuned out a lot of information. While the author relies much on science to make his point, the analysis he offers isn’t very scientific in nature.
From a learning standpoint it helped me to understand about a few monsters that I had no clue about earlier. But on me a full rounded overview of the psychological or scientific effects of monsters on human beings, this did not strike the mark.
April 5, 2013
This is a laughably simplistic book that purports to explore 'scientific explanations' for our fascination with, and fear of, monsters. It fails because the 'explanations' are extremely reductionist and abjectly stupid. Snakes + underground natural gas deposits = dragons. Rabies + tuberculosis = vampires, werewolves, *and* zombies. Tar pits are responsible for all monsters that have the head of one thing and the body of something else, and sleep paralysis causes demons, spirits, ghosts and haunted houses. And, of course, everything that can be 'explained' by evolutionary psychology is. I guess it goes without saying that this book is also sexist in addition to being puerile, but I have to share this quote: "Create a frightening monster with boobs, and even more people come to see it.* *By people, I mean men." I hope Kaplan gets eaten by a grue.
January 1, 2013
This book is amazing. The author presents plausible scientific information explaining why ancient civilizations believed in different monsters as well as why the same monsters lost their ability to scare over time. His wittiness breaks up the sometimes dry period of scientific data and several times throughout the nook made me laugh out loud. This is a definite must-read for anyone who wants to know where myths and legends came from....even if you still want to believe at the end.
Read
May 18, 2016Teratology is an area of interest to me, but this fell into the trap of so much non-fiction in that it remained largely a litany of speculation. I just prefer a little more of an academic tone, but maybe I'm not the target demographic. It is at its best when it is referencing the works of Adrienne Mayor, which reveals my anthropological biases just for saying so. --MK
Want to read
October 28, 2012Casey recommends this: "It's called Medusa's Gaze and Vampire's Bite: The Science of Monsters, and it traces the scientific origins of monster myths (including Frankenstein!). Anyway, I haven't read it yet, but it's at the top of my TBR, since it sounds pretty awesome (also, I chatted with the author for a bit, and he was really cool). "
Some other dude says it combines literature, history and science and that's okay with him, and you know what THAT'S OKAY WITH ME TOO.
Some other dude says it combines literature, history and science and that's okay with him, and you know what THAT'S OKAY WITH ME TOO.
October 31, 2012
Matt Kaplan does a really nice job balancing the scientific fact and evidence he presents with a sociological and psychological view of how these monsters have been depicted in art, film, and literature/fiction. He gives a broad overview which helps the reader make connections between seemingly different monsters, although I do wish there was more detail for each section. I could have kept on reading his clean prose, fascinating research, and humorous footnotes.
November 19, 2012
An entertaining, accessible, informative read that attempts to explain the scientific and psychological foundations of our most enduring monsters. I enjoyed its light tone and quick pace, found some of the history and science to be quite fascinating, and loved all of the pop culture references and snarky asides. Kaplan is certainly an entertaining author. Not the heaviest or most impressive of texts, but a diverting read.
June 5, 2016
3.5 stars. The first half of this book was a bit boring, but the second half was really interesting, perhaps because the monsters in the second half were more relevant to today. I found the footnotes obnoxious, but the writing was otherwise fine.
August 5, 2013
Medusa’s Gaze and Vampire’s Bite by Matt Kaplan (2012) was one of those impulse buys one makes when seeing an interesting title in a bookstore. Subtitled The Science of Monsters, I flipped through it at the bookstore and thought that it would be an interesting read. And in many ways, it was. However, I found there were areas, sources, and promised material that were either missing entirely or only very briefly covered. Because of my own hopes and subsequent disappointment, I can only recommend the book with reservations. In an attempt to more fully explain my reservations and what the book does cover, I will write a fuller outline of the book than I normally do.
Kaplan’s thesis is to attempt to explain the science, sociology, and psychology behind some of our legendary monsters. In this, he not only looks at the creatures of myth and legend, but also surveys some of the modern creations of literature and film. He organizes the book in two ways. First, his discussions are mostly chronological from the dim past to the present. Secondly, he organizes the monsters by type. The reader will see what I mean by this below.
He opens the book in Chapter 1 calling it Giant Animals—Nemean Lion, Calydonian Boar, the Rukh, King Kong. One can see this is a mixed bag. The first three are from ancient legends and cultures, the last, a modern-day (well, 1933) film creation. The first two he argues may simply be large genetic mutants. For the Nemean Lion, he discusses the cave lion of ancient Eurasia as being the source of the legend. Regarding the Lion’s invulnerability, he offers us a condition known as scleroderma, a thickening of the skin. As for the Caledonian Boar, since no boar is known to have existed of such large size, he argues for a genetic mutation or a pituitary gland disorder. The Rukh (which I think is better known as the Roc in Western literature) was a giant bird mentioned in the tales of Sinbad. Following his discussion of the actual size needed to lift the objects claimed, Kaplan argues that the legend grew from people’s experiences with fossils. He concludes the chapter with King Kong, the giant gorilla from Skull Island. His discussion is interesting in that he argues that the film presents the story as a morality tale in which the giant creature was not the villain, but rather man is. However, I felt it was out of place being positioned next the previous three. He then argues that our society is no longer afraid of giant creatures. If he was consistent, where is the discussion of Them! (1954), Tarantula! (1955), and The Black Scorpion (1957) among others.
Chapter 2 concerns creatures made of several other animals. The chapter spends the majority of its time discussing the Chimera, a creature made of a lion, goat, and serpent. He returns to a further discussion of genetics and fossils. In particular, he looks at fossil beds and tar pits in which the fossils and bones of several species are mixed together. Along the way, he has brief passages on the Hydra and Cereberus, the three-headed dog that guards the gates of Hell. This leads him to write about H. G. Wells’ novel, The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896) which was also made into a film twice (1977, 1996). However, I’m not sure this is the place for this discussion in that he has a later chapter (8) on monsters created by man. But if this is where he wants to discuss this, where is the film The Human Centipede (2010)?
Chapter 3 is subtitled, “It Came from the Earth.” In this chapter, Kaplan tackles two main creatures, the Minotaur and Medusa. For the Minotaur, he concentrates on the legend of the labyrinth and his roaring that shakes the earth to delve into the geology of Crete, tectonic plate movements, subduction zones, earthquakes and volcanoes. Although interesting, the Minotaur is lost in these discussions, and quite frankly, this is a lot of writing to explain its roar. As for Medusa, Kaplan looks at the phenomena of being scared stiff as a psychological response to shock to explain the legend of people turning to stone. Then he spends time writing about venomous snakes and arguing that we have an innate fear of snakes that is passed on. I have an issue with that in that it smacks of Lamarckian evolution in postulating that learned behavior can be genetically transmitted.
As I was reading the previous chapters, I kept wondering about the great sea monsters and in Chapter 4, Kaplan addresses them. In particular, he discusses Charybdis, Leviathan, the Giant Squid and Jaws. Two of these are fictional and the other two, although existing, may be exaggerated. Charybdis was one of two legendary monsters usually paired with Scylla. Charybdis, according to legend was once a lovely naiad and daughter of Poseidon and Hera (not mentioned in the book). In Greek legend, she becomes a vicious whirlpool that drags down ships in her father’s feud with Zeus. Kaplan attempts to explain the possibility of a giant whirlpool that operates several times daily. I’m dubious. As for Leviathan, he looks at it possibly derived from an unusual whale sighting, serpents again, and possibly eels. He has almost no mention of the Kraken.
Turning to creatures that exist, first up is the giant squid. Although known, it is rarely seen and little is known of its habits, etc. Perhaps the best book about the giant squid is Richard Ellis’ The Search for the Giant Squid (1998). This leaves Jaws by Peter Benchley (1974) with a film version by Steven Spielberg in 1975 (which arguably started the summer blockbuster phenomena). Here, we are introduced to a large Great White Shark. Kaplan uses this as a jumping off point to write, albeit briefly, about shark attacks. Given his use of the Great White, I was surprised when he didn’t include among his denizens piranhas or large alligators and crocodiles.
Chapter 5 is about dragons. Kaplan returns to the serpents and the introduction of fire-breathing and flying. He concludes the chapter by saying dragons are not feared today and looks at examples from the Harry Potter films, How to Train Your Dragon (2010) and briefly mentions the film Reign of Fire ( 2002).
Moving on, Kaplan next addresses the spirit world. His subtitle implies that he will discuss demons, ghosts and spirits. However, he mostly addresses demons, in particular, incubi (male demons seducing women at night) and succubi (female demons seducing men at night). In his discussion, he spends a lot of time concerned with dreams and their interpretation along with sleep disorders. This leads him to address the Sirens of the adventures of Odysseus (Ulysses). However, there is almost nothing on ghosts. This makes the chapter very deficient.
Chapter 7, at long last, covers our current popular monsters: vampires, zombies, and werewolves. Although he does a fair job in discussing the background and possible explanations for vampires including how they’ve evolved to our present conception, he leaves out one possible myth of their origins which regards Lilith, who was Adam’s first wife in Jewish mythology. She is sometimes presented as the first vampire. He doesn’t talk much about where the idea of blood-sucking comes from. He does deal with premature burials and bodily decomposition to explain some aspects of a vampire’s appearance in their coffin. Turning to zombies, Kaplan spends considerable time writing about voodoo rituals and the origins of the zombie myths. In particular, he discusses research done in the late 60s through the 80s in a search for a “zombie serum” which could turn people into zombie-like beings. He spends several pages describing work by Lamarck Douyon, the director of the Psychiatric Institute in Port-au-Prince, Haiti and later work by Edmund Wade Davis, a Harvard ethnobiologist. Surprisingly, however, he doesn’t actually reference Davis’ classic and best-selling book on the topic, The Serpent and the Rainbow: A Harvard Scientist’s Astonishing Journey into the Secret Societies of Haitian Voodoo, Zombis, and Magic (1985). The chapter has very little on werewolves. There’s not much on the history and no mention of the medical condition known as hypertrichosis. But he does write about sexual selection and human behavior.
Chapter 8 is about creatures man has created. The ones Kaplan discusses are the Golem, a creature made of clay animated to save Jews from brutality in a pogrom; the Frankenstein monster; HAL 9000, the rogue computer from Arthur C. Clarke’s novel 2001: A Space Odyssey [1968 based on his short story, “The Sentinel” (1948)] and the film of the same name by Stanley Kubrick (1968) (Kubrick and Clarke worked together on the screenplay and through delays, etc. the novel actually was released after the movie); and finally the Terminator [from the movie The Terminator (1984)]. The theme of this chapter is that of science unchecked. What happens when humans continually explore and experiment with matters beyond their control?
Chapter 9 returns us to monsters of our past, the dinosaurs. Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park (1990) and the accompanying film by Steven Spielberg (1993) is the major work written about in this chapter, although Kaplan does mention Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Lost World (1912). Again, the theme is of science unchecked. However, this chapter is interesting in that Kaplan looks closely at the science Crichton used to plausibly create his dinosaurs. Unfortunately, although the process Crichton uses is not plausible for dinosaurs, it may be possible to one day clone some Ice Age mammals. The best way to possibly bring dinosaurs back is through back-breeding their ancestors—birds. Of interest here is a small book, How to Build a Dinosaur by paleontologist Jack Horner and James Gorman (2009).
The final chapter looks at aliens. Kaplan first examines aliens who do not come in peace or are very dangerous. His examples are the Martians from H. G. Wells’ 1898 tale, The War of the Worlds (and it film versions—1953, 2005); Ridley Scott’s 1979 film, Alien; the Martians from Tm Burton’s Mars Attacks! (1996); and Independence Day (1996). In all these, the aliens are creatures to be feared. Kaplan uses these movies to discuss the evolution of species in isolated geographic locations and the transmission of disease. Kaplan then looks at movies where the aliens are essentially peaceful starting with the classic 1951 film, The Day the Earth Stood Still and moving on to such modern classics as Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and E.T., the Extra-Terrestrial (1982). He finally concludes his book by looking at the reversal of monsters in James Cameron’s Avatar (2009). In this movie, Cameron manages to lead the viewers to believe humans beings are the monsters and not the Na’vi.
Alright, so I have written extensively on Kaplan’s book. I think there are some good points in it and it’s worthwhile for those. However, I was, in the end, disappointed. It felt like a missed opportunity to me. There was so much more that could have been done. I do realize that the book I wanted would have been significantly larger, but I also think it would have been much better for it. I believe Kaplan missed quite a few opportunities and some I thought he was going to cover, her wrote about only minimally or not at all. So…I can only recommend this with the caveats I’ve mentioned.
Kaplan’s thesis is to attempt to explain the science, sociology, and psychology behind some of our legendary monsters. In this, he not only looks at the creatures of myth and legend, but also surveys some of the modern creations of literature and film. He organizes the book in two ways. First, his discussions are mostly chronological from the dim past to the present. Secondly, he organizes the monsters by type. The reader will see what I mean by this below.
He opens the book in Chapter 1 calling it Giant Animals—Nemean Lion, Calydonian Boar, the Rukh, King Kong. One can see this is a mixed bag. The first three are from ancient legends and cultures, the last, a modern-day (well, 1933) film creation. The first two he argues may simply be large genetic mutants. For the Nemean Lion, he discusses the cave lion of ancient Eurasia as being the source of the legend. Regarding the Lion’s invulnerability, he offers us a condition known as scleroderma, a thickening of the skin. As for the Caledonian Boar, since no boar is known to have existed of such large size, he argues for a genetic mutation or a pituitary gland disorder. The Rukh (which I think is better known as the Roc in Western literature) was a giant bird mentioned in the tales of Sinbad. Following his discussion of the actual size needed to lift the objects claimed, Kaplan argues that the legend grew from people’s experiences with fossils. He concludes the chapter with King Kong, the giant gorilla from Skull Island. His discussion is interesting in that he argues that the film presents the story as a morality tale in which the giant creature was not the villain, but rather man is. However, I felt it was out of place being positioned next the previous three. He then argues that our society is no longer afraid of giant creatures. If he was consistent, where is the discussion of Them! (1954), Tarantula! (1955), and The Black Scorpion (1957) among others.
Chapter 2 concerns creatures made of several other animals. The chapter spends the majority of its time discussing the Chimera, a creature made of a lion, goat, and serpent. He returns to a further discussion of genetics and fossils. In particular, he looks at fossil beds and tar pits in which the fossils and bones of several species are mixed together. Along the way, he has brief passages on the Hydra and Cereberus, the three-headed dog that guards the gates of Hell. This leads him to write about H. G. Wells’ novel, The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896) which was also made into a film twice (1977, 1996). However, I’m not sure this is the place for this discussion in that he has a later chapter (8) on monsters created by man. But if this is where he wants to discuss this, where is the film The Human Centipede (2010)?
Chapter 3 is subtitled, “It Came from the Earth.” In this chapter, Kaplan tackles two main creatures, the Minotaur and Medusa. For the Minotaur, he concentrates on the legend of the labyrinth and his roaring that shakes the earth to delve into the geology of Crete, tectonic plate movements, subduction zones, earthquakes and volcanoes. Although interesting, the Minotaur is lost in these discussions, and quite frankly, this is a lot of writing to explain its roar. As for Medusa, Kaplan looks at the phenomena of being scared stiff as a psychological response to shock to explain the legend of people turning to stone. Then he spends time writing about venomous snakes and arguing that we have an innate fear of snakes that is passed on. I have an issue with that in that it smacks of Lamarckian evolution in postulating that learned behavior can be genetically transmitted.
As I was reading the previous chapters, I kept wondering about the great sea monsters and in Chapter 4, Kaplan addresses them. In particular, he discusses Charybdis, Leviathan, the Giant Squid and Jaws. Two of these are fictional and the other two, although existing, may be exaggerated. Charybdis was one of two legendary monsters usually paired with Scylla. Charybdis, according to legend was once a lovely naiad and daughter of Poseidon and Hera (not mentioned in the book). In Greek legend, she becomes a vicious whirlpool that drags down ships in her father’s feud with Zeus. Kaplan attempts to explain the possibility of a giant whirlpool that operates several times daily. I’m dubious. As for Leviathan, he looks at it possibly derived from an unusual whale sighting, serpents again, and possibly eels. He has almost no mention of the Kraken.
Turning to creatures that exist, first up is the giant squid. Although known, it is rarely seen and little is known of its habits, etc. Perhaps the best book about the giant squid is Richard Ellis’ The Search for the Giant Squid (1998). This leaves Jaws by Peter Benchley (1974) with a film version by Steven Spielberg in 1975 (which arguably started the summer blockbuster phenomena). Here, we are introduced to a large Great White Shark. Kaplan uses this as a jumping off point to write, albeit briefly, about shark attacks. Given his use of the Great White, I was surprised when he didn’t include among his denizens piranhas or large alligators and crocodiles.
Chapter 5 is about dragons. Kaplan returns to the serpents and the introduction of fire-breathing and flying. He concludes the chapter by saying dragons are not feared today and looks at examples from the Harry Potter films, How to Train Your Dragon (2010) and briefly mentions the film Reign of Fire ( 2002).
Moving on, Kaplan next addresses the spirit world. His subtitle implies that he will discuss demons, ghosts and spirits. However, he mostly addresses demons, in particular, incubi (male demons seducing women at night) and succubi (female demons seducing men at night). In his discussion, he spends a lot of time concerned with dreams and their interpretation along with sleep disorders. This leads him to address the Sirens of the adventures of Odysseus (Ulysses). However, there is almost nothing on ghosts. This makes the chapter very deficient.
Chapter 7, at long last, covers our current popular monsters: vampires, zombies, and werewolves. Although he does a fair job in discussing the background and possible explanations for vampires including how they’ve evolved to our present conception, he leaves out one possible myth of their origins which regards Lilith, who was Adam’s first wife in Jewish mythology. She is sometimes presented as the first vampire. He doesn’t talk much about where the idea of blood-sucking comes from. He does deal with premature burials and bodily decomposition to explain some aspects of a vampire’s appearance in their coffin. Turning to zombies, Kaplan spends considerable time writing about voodoo rituals and the origins of the zombie myths. In particular, he discusses research done in the late 60s through the 80s in a search for a “zombie serum” which could turn people into zombie-like beings. He spends several pages describing work by Lamarck Douyon, the director of the Psychiatric Institute in Port-au-Prince, Haiti and later work by Edmund Wade Davis, a Harvard ethnobiologist. Surprisingly, however, he doesn’t actually reference Davis’ classic and best-selling book on the topic, The Serpent and the Rainbow: A Harvard Scientist’s Astonishing Journey into the Secret Societies of Haitian Voodoo, Zombis, and Magic (1985). The chapter has very little on werewolves. There’s not much on the history and no mention of the medical condition known as hypertrichosis. But he does write about sexual selection and human behavior.
Chapter 8 is about creatures man has created. The ones Kaplan discusses are the Golem, a creature made of clay animated to save Jews from brutality in a pogrom; the Frankenstein monster; HAL 9000, the rogue computer from Arthur C. Clarke’s novel 2001: A Space Odyssey [1968 based on his short story, “The Sentinel” (1948)] and the film of the same name by Stanley Kubrick (1968) (Kubrick and Clarke worked together on the screenplay and through delays, etc. the novel actually was released after the movie); and finally the Terminator [from the movie The Terminator (1984)]. The theme of this chapter is that of science unchecked. What happens when humans continually explore and experiment with matters beyond their control?
Chapter 9 returns us to monsters of our past, the dinosaurs. Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park (1990) and the accompanying film by Steven Spielberg (1993) is the major work written about in this chapter, although Kaplan does mention Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Lost World (1912). Again, the theme is of science unchecked. However, this chapter is interesting in that Kaplan looks closely at the science Crichton used to plausibly create his dinosaurs. Unfortunately, although the process Crichton uses is not plausible for dinosaurs, it may be possible to one day clone some Ice Age mammals. The best way to possibly bring dinosaurs back is through back-breeding their ancestors—birds. Of interest here is a small book, How to Build a Dinosaur by paleontologist Jack Horner and James Gorman (2009).
The final chapter looks at aliens. Kaplan first examines aliens who do not come in peace or are very dangerous. His examples are the Martians from H. G. Wells’ 1898 tale, The War of the Worlds (and it film versions—1953, 2005); Ridley Scott’s 1979 film, Alien; the Martians from Tm Burton’s Mars Attacks! (1996); and Independence Day (1996). In all these, the aliens are creatures to be feared. Kaplan uses these movies to discuss the evolution of species in isolated geographic locations and the transmission of disease. Kaplan then looks at movies where the aliens are essentially peaceful starting with the classic 1951 film, The Day the Earth Stood Still and moving on to such modern classics as Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and E.T., the Extra-Terrestrial (1982). He finally concludes his book by looking at the reversal of monsters in James Cameron’s Avatar (2009). In this movie, Cameron manages to lead the viewers to believe humans beings are the monsters and not the Na’vi.
Alright, so I have written extensively on Kaplan’s book. I think there are some good points in it and it’s worthwhile for those. However, I was, in the end, disappointed. It felt like a missed opportunity to me. There was so much more that could have been done. I do realize that the book I wanted would have been significantly larger, but I also think it would have been much better for it. I believe Kaplan missed quite a few opportunities and some I thought he was going to cover, her wrote about only minimally or not at all. So…I can only recommend this with the caveats I’ve mentioned.
January 18, 2013
This was a fun, fast read and I certainly learned some new things about the history of monsters - particularly about zombie-makers in Haiti. I had no idea zombie legends could have a pretty solid basis in history and science (Zora Neale Hurston did though, apparently). A lot of the science and theory behind it is probably guesswork anyone with a little understand of evolution and human psychology could propose, but it was still interesting. I don't think James Cameron's Avatar was as much as a revolution in human/monster reversal as Kaplan's conclusion claims it was, or that its so-called "resonance" with audience had anything to do with plot or themes, or anything other than fancy animation (booo Avatar!).
Ultimately, it felt a bit like a long, slightly repetitive college essay about the potential truths or reasons behind monstrous mythologies, but had enough tidbits and facts to keep me interested (if had been any longer than 200 pages though, I probably wouldn't have bothered). I did, though, appreciate the kind of threatening end to the book when he finally says outright what he's been hinting at all along and everyone knows and fears: we are the real monsters and we will surely destroy ourselves if we don't get it together.
Ultimately, it felt a bit like a long, slightly repetitive college essay about the potential truths or reasons behind monstrous mythologies, but had enough tidbits and facts to keep me interested (if had been any longer than 200 pages though, I probably wouldn't have bothered). I did, though, appreciate the kind of threatening end to the book when he finally says outright what he's been hinting at all along and everyone knows and fears: we are the real monsters and we will surely destroy ourselves if we don't get it together.
February 10, 2013
Matt Kaplan's "Medusa's Gaze and Vampire's Bite: The Science of Monsters" is an engaging, lightweight survey of the origins of various mythical monsters like the Minotaur, Rok, Medusa, dragons, demons, vampires, ghosts, spirits and others. This is not a book about crytpozoology, and scarcely a word is said of Nessie, Bigfoor, Yeti or other modern legends. Instead, Kaplan's book is a fun romp with lots of speculation about how beasts as diverse as fire-breathing dragons and Frankenstein's Monster came to occupy a place in the mythic imagination. For better or worse, the book is a bit like a long and informative magazine article, not a scholarly work.
For meatier entries in the same genre, you might want to take a look at Vampire Forensics: Uncovering the Origins of an Enduring Legend (a thorough explanation of the origins of various vampire legends); When They Severed Earth from Sky: How the Human Mind Shapes Myth (a fascinating book about the origins and uses of myths); and The First Fossil Hunters: Dinosaurs, Mammoths, and Myth in Greek and Roman Times (New in Paper)(how fossils inspired the Greek and Roman myths of mighty monsters).
For meatier entries in the same genre, you might want to take a look at Vampire Forensics: Uncovering the Origins of an Enduring Legend (a thorough explanation of the origins of various vampire legends); When They Severed Earth from Sky: How the Human Mind Shapes Myth (a fascinating book about the origins and uses of myths); and The First Fossil Hunters: Dinosaurs, Mammoths, and Myth in Greek and Roman Times (New in Paper)(how fossils inspired the Greek and Roman myths of mighty monsters).
August 17, 2015
This book can best be described as a collection of introductions to the scientific explanations of fantastical creatures and phenomena. The writing is witty and easy to read, however as someone who was looking for something more in depth, I was left a bit disappointed. Sure, there are a lot of interesting things cited, as well as specific examples that were new to me, but overall much of what was covered I already knew. So if you're looking to further your knowledge on the topic, this probably isn't the book for you, but if you're looking for an introduction, I would highly recommend it.
July 19, 2013
Speculative theories on what has inspired the monsters in our literature, folklore and art. At first, I was put off by the speculative nature of the "science;" then, I just decided it wasn't a science read. It was interesting to me - particularly the theories about nightmares, ghosts, vampires and werewolves. And, his footnotes are funny and fun.
September 3, 2020
Kaplan examines monsters throughout human history and asks if science can explain our fears. The book is strongest when he talks about the fossil record, human physiology, and other hard sciences. I found myself progressing through these parts riveted and I really enjoyed his take on this topic.
However, for me the book has some pretty big weaknesses when it comes to cultural analysis. Kaplan tried to extrapolate meaning from some monsters where they defy science — fear of things like Medusa, which doesn’t correlate with any real creature or illness. He mentions cultural feelings about womanhood or seductresses while discussing Medusa, but fails to analyze the meaning of rape in her origin story. I get that the book focuses on science, and so that may not seem relevant to him, but I think if you’re going to examine meanings beyond hardwired biological fears (as he does in the vampire chapter when mentioning Victorian attitudes towards sex)you have to look at it.
Furthermore, his analysis of films and books leaves a lot of be desired. First - and this is a personal pet peeve as a librarian and literature student - Kaplan frequently refers to film versions of stories without acknowledging their book origins, particularly with children’s books. Maybe it doesn’t matter to him that Percy Jackson is a book series that is FAR superior to the movie he ridicules, but the larger problem is that the Percy Jackson books DO examine some of these smaller and subtler human parts of the myths and monster stories that he’s omitting in favor of science. Medusa isn’t as terrifying in that story because Riordan seeks to highlight her former humanity, as he frequently does throughout the series.
Don’t even get me started on the long winded ode to Avatar (James Cameron, not the Airbender) and how it’s so revolutionary when he flips the script and makes a human see that humans, not aliens, are the monsters. Never mind that a film he barely mentions one chapter earlier, District 9, does the same thing more creatively. Eye roll.
However, for me the book has some pretty big weaknesses when it comes to cultural analysis. Kaplan tried to extrapolate meaning from some monsters where they defy science — fear of things like Medusa, which doesn’t correlate with any real creature or illness. He mentions cultural feelings about womanhood or seductresses while discussing Medusa, but fails to analyze the meaning of rape in her origin story. I get that the book focuses on science, and so that may not seem relevant to him, but I think if you’re going to examine meanings beyond hardwired biological fears (as he does in the vampire chapter when mentioning Victorian attitudes towards sex)you have to look at it.
Furthermore, his analysis of films and books leaves a lot of be desired. First - and this is a personal pet peeve as a librarian and literature student - Kaplan frequently refers to film versions of stories without acknowledging their book origins, particularly with children’s books. Maybe it doesn’t matter to him that Percy Jackson is a book series that is FAR superior to the movie he ridicules, but the larger problem is that the Percy Jackson books DO examine some of these smaller and subtler human parts of the myths and monster stories that he’s omitting in favor of science. Medusa isn’t as terrifying in that story because Riordan seeks to highlight her former humanity, as he frequently does throughout the series.
Don’t even get me started on the long winded ode to Avatar (James Cameron, not the Airbender) and how it’s so revolutionary when he flips the script and makes a human see that humans, not aliens, are the monsters. Never mind that a film he barely mentions one chapter earlier, District 9, does the same thing more creatively. Eye roll.
November 8, 2025
Rounded up from 4.5. Really interesting analysis of the fears that make up our monster legends and more modern horror, though occasionally outdated since the book is over a decade old now. Even if there is new research that would add to the analysis if an updated version were made today, the core theses still hold up in my opinion. Though certainly some of the analysis of ancient monsters relies too heavily on “they had to have seen something exactly like this somewhere”, when it’s entirely possible they just thought it was a cool and scary idea (the chimera chapter is definitely the weakest in the book!), this tactic is less and less relied upon as we move into more modern times. Very engaging read with humor as well.
May 2, 2019
I absolutely love Matt Kaplan's prose. He's a great storyteller and a great scientist. Originally published in 2012, with a new Afterword added in 2013, "The Science of Monsters: The Origins of the Creatures We Love to Fear" is an excellent, informative read. I would recommend it to anyone who loves reading top-notch science journalism combined with mythology, folklore, and pop culture references.
Kaplan's book, "Science of the Magical," is also brilliant. I love his work so much!! He's a genius.
Five stars. Highly recommended.
Kaplan's book, "Science of the Magical," is also brilliant. I love his work so much!! He's a genius.
Five stars. Highly recommended.
January 24, 2018
Sometimes straws are meant to be grasped. I admire Matt Kaplan for reaching out and grabbing those suckers. Pretty entertaining in its ideas.
June 13, 2014
The theme and thesis of this volume is to illustrate the science background or mysteries that gave rise to various myths and legends from pre history to modern times. Kaplan starts very strongly, but I found the second half of this book to be slightly weaker and less interesting than the first. This could be because I have read Paul Barber’s book on Vampires and death, a book that Kaplan draws on, but I honestly thought the alien chapter was really unnecessary.
What are fascinating are the conditions that Kaplan makes between Hercules’ famous lion and actual animals that existed. The connection between fossils and tar pits with strange creatures like Medusa and the chimera is one such point. It is dealing with the ancient legends as well as those about dragons that are the book’s selling points.
Though there is also a very strange weirdness to it. While I agree that film is, in part, an inheritor of the ancient myths, so are books. Why, for instance, is the film version of Percy Jackson dealt with but not the book (which isn’t even listed in the source list)? Why deal with all the Harry Potter films, but only mention a few of the books? Why when dealing with daemons does Kaplan point out the connection to Harry’s owl, Ron’s rat, and Hermoine’s cat, but not the Partcus spirits or the more important daemons of Pullman? Quite frankly, Hedwig does not really fulfill the same point as Crookshanks, and the Potter animals were far less important than those spirits in Dark Materials. If Kaplan’s points are well thought when he is on nice scientific ground, his points seem to weaken when he focuses primarily on the film medium as the only holdover of storytelling.
There also is a very facile look at the female killer alien (or exotic female half human of genetics). His comments about way such characters are frightening seem apt, but I have to wonder are we really supposed to see them as scary? Furthermore, to simply chalk up to morphing scary stories is simplistic considering how society views women and sexuality from a pre-dominantly male entitled view. To be fair, Kaplan does acknowledge this. What I find puzzling is why he doesn’t address, even in passing, why scary robots, such as the Terminator, tend to be male either in looks or pronoun usage.
Those thoughts aside, this book was actually far better and interesting than I thought. I am quite glad I own my copy. And Kaplan has given some things that I want to look up or see, like some interesting fossils.
Crossposted at Booklikes.
What are fascinating are the conditions that Kaplan makes between Hercules’ famous lion and actual animals that existed. The connection between fossils and tar pits with strange creatures like Medusa and the chimera is one such point. It is dealing with the ancient legends as well as those about dragons that are the book’s selling points.
Though there is also a very strange weirdness to it. While I agree that film is, in part, an inheritor of the ancient myths, so are books. Why, for instance, is the film version of Percy Jackson dealt with but not the book (which isn’t even listed in the source list)? Why deal with all the Harry Potter films, but only mention a few of the books? Why when dealing with daemons does Kaplan point out the connection to Harry’s owl, Ron’s rat, and Hermoine’s cat, but not the Partcus spirits or the more important daemons of Pullman? Quite frankly, Hedwig does not really fulfill the same point as Crookshanks, and the Potter animals were far less important than those spirits in Dark Materials. If Kaplan’s points are well thought when he is on nice scientific ground, his points seem to weaken when he focuses primarily on the film medium as the only holdover of storytelling.
There also is a very facile look at the female killer alien (or exotic female half human of genetics). His comments about way such characters are frightening seem apt, but I have to wonder are we really supposed to see them as scary? Furthermore, to simply chalk up to morphing scary stories is simplistic considering how society views women and sexuality from a pre-dominantly male entitled view. To be fair, Kaplan does acknowledge this. What I find puzzling is why he doesn’t address, even in passing, why scary robots, such as the Terminator, tend to be male either in looks or pronoun usage.
Those thoughts aside, this book was actually far better and interesting than I thought. I am quite glad I own my copy. And Kaplan has given some things that I want to look up or see, like some interesting fossils.
Crossposted at Booklikes.
February 4, 2014
An interesting book, though the subtitle might have been more accurate if it was "the psychology of monsters," or at least "the science and pscyhology..."
Kaplan takes a look at monsters that have captured the human imagination from ancient times up through today's cinematic terrors. He groups them into categories -- monsters created by the gods to terrorize humans (or at least teach them a lesson), mysterious beasts that lurk in the shadows, transformed humans like vampires and werewolves, human-created aberrations, things from outer-space, and more. Early on, he makes attempts at looking at how such a thing as a chimera or dragon could or could not have existed from a scientific standpoint, but as he moves toward the modern age, the explanations for these creatures' existence focus more on human psychological needs and fears rather than the world around us.
I thought the idea of werewolves and vampires stemming from experience with diseases such as rabies was pretty insightful. I thought that perhaps he relied a bit too much on films for his monster examples -- although it did bring to my attention a few things I'd like to see.
I liked that this book had explanatory footnotes at the bottom of the page, although some of them were a little silly. And hooray for in-text illustrations rather than plates. I always appreciate that.
Kaplan takes a look at monsters that have captured the human imagination from ancient times up through today's cinematic terrors. He groups them into categories -- monsters created by the gods to terrorize humans (or at least teach them a lesson), mysterious beasts that lurk in the shadows, transformed humans like vampires and werewolves, human-created aberrations, things from outer-space, and more. Early on, he makes attempts at looking at how such a thing as a chimera or dragon could or could not have existed from a scientific standpoint, but as he moves toward the modern age, the explanations for these creatures' existence focus more on human psychological needs and fears rather than the world around us.
I thought the idea of werewolves and vampires stemming from experience with diseases such as rabies was pretty insightful. I thought that perhaps he relied a bit too much on films for his monster examples -- although it did bring to my attention a few things I'd like to see.
I liked that this book had explanatory footnotes at the bottom of the page, although some of them were a little silly. And hooray for in-text illustrations rather than plates. I always appreciate that.
January 2, 2014
I have always had an interest in monsters, mythology, and nightmarish bogeys. The only thing I like more than reading scary stories about these sort of things is reading about where they come from, and how the myths have evolved over the centuries. That's why I picked up this book.
I was generally pleased with it, but it didn't really wow me. I was a bit annoyed with some of Kaplan's theories, especially
Over all, though, it was an interesting collection of concepts, and I enjoyed reading it. It just wasn't the greatest book in its genre, but it was a good read.
I was generally pleased with it, but it didn't really wow me. I was a bit annoyed with some of Kaplan's theories, especially
Over all, though, it was an interesting collection of concepts, and I enjoyed reading it. It just wasn't the greatest book in its genre, but it was a good read.
November 21, 2012
4.5
Oh man, this was a GREAT book to savor little by little. If you've ever been curious about the roots and history of monsters and modern-day scientific explanations for where some of these age-old superstitions come from, you must pick this up!
I felt like Matt Kaplan was writing one long college essay uncovering the truth behind all manner of unnatural beings, which actually made it even MORE enjoyable. He's a scientist, but he cuts through the minutia and academic tone to bring you something really fun to read. His snide, sarcastic footnotes had me laughing out loud on the train into work... they are worth the read alone!
Fascinating and highly recommended!
Oh man, this was a GREAT book to savor little by little. If you've ever been curious about the roots and history of monsters and modern-day scientific explanations for where some of these age-old superstitions come from, you must pick this up!
I felt like Matt Kaplan was writing one long college essay uncovering the truth behind all manner of unnatural beings, which actually made it even MORE enjoyable. He's a scientist, but he cuts through the minutia and academic tone to bring you something really fun to read. His snide, sarcastic footnotes had me laughing out loud on the train into work... they are worth the read alone!
Fascinating and highly recommended!
August 7, 2015
I gave this my all to try and finish - especially being so close to the end, but I just could not do it. A good friend recommended this and the concept of the book sounded very promising. Science to explain monster origins? Let's go! Well... I think that maybe the author should have explored the cultural sciences to expand on a more believable approach. Many explanations, such as his layered fossil theories, seemed extremely implausible at best. Some of the stories and myths were interesting, but just not enough to keep me going. When you have to talk yourself into reading - you're doing it wrong and it's time to admit to yourself that it is time to move on.
April 28, 2013
Although many of the explanations Kaplan gives for the features of monsters are far-fetched and the second half of the book seems somewhat incomplete/hurried, this is very enjoyable and light reading for people interested in monsters of all kinds. Speculations about specific features of monsters aside, the major insight on the historical reversal of monster roles between creatures and humans – hinted throughout the book and explicitly formulated in the Conclusion chapter – is definitely worth thinking about. This is a book I wished was much longer.
July 5, 2016
A very interesting book on the inspiration of monsters throughout time: from the chimera and similar Greek monsters to Ridley Scott's Aliens. In addition to the titular monsters, Kaplan covers rocs, dragons, werewolves, Frankenstein, ghosts, King Kong, zombies, dinosaurs, sharks, lions, and many more. He explores literature from ancient mythology to Harry Potter. His writing is engaging and at times laugh out loud funny.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 259 reviews