What do you think?
Rate this book
Monsters in America: Our Historical Obsession with the Hideous and the Haunting
Monsters arrived in 2011―and now they are back. Not only do they continue to live in our midst, but, as historian Scott Poole shows, these monsters are an important part of our past―a hideous obsession America cannot seem to escape.
Poole’s central argument in Monsters in America is that monster tales intertwine with America’s troubled history of racism, politics, class struggle, and gender inequality. The second edition of Monsters leads readers deeper into America’s tangled past to show how monsters continue to haunt contemporary American ideology. By adding new discussions of the American West, Poole focuses intently on the Native American experience. He reveals how monster stories went west to Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, bringing the preoccupation with monsters into the twentieth century through the American Indian Movement. In his new preface and expanded conclusion, Poole’s tale connects to the present―illustrating the relationship between current social movements and their historical antecedents. This proven textbook also studies the social location of contemporary horror films, exploring, for example, how Get Out emerged from the context of the Black Lives Matter movement. Finally, in the new section "American Carnage," Poole challenges readers to assess what their own monster tales might be and how our sordid past horrors express themselves in our present cultural anxieties. By the end of the book, Poole cautions that America’s monsters aren’t going away anytime soon. If specters of the past still haunt our present, they may yet invade our future. Monsters are here to stay.
Poole’s central argument in Monsters in America is that monster tales intertwine with America’s troubled history of racism, politics, class struggle, and gender inequality. The second edition of Monsters leads readers deeper into America’s tangled past to show how monsters continue to haunt contemporary American ideology. By adding new discussions of the American West, Poole focuses intently on the Native American experience. He reveals how monster stories went west to Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, bringing the preoccupation with monsters into the twentieth century through the American Indian Movement. In his new preface and expanded conclusion, Poole’s tale connects to the present―illustrating the relationship between current social movements and their historical antecedents. This proven textbook also studies the social location of contemporary horror films, exploring, for example, how Get Out emerged from the context of the Black Lives Matter movement. Finally, in the new section "American Carnage," Poole challenges readers to assess what their own monster tales might be and how our sordid past horrors express themselves in our present cultural anxieties. By the end of the book, Poole cautions that America’s monsters aren’t going away anytime soon. If specters of the past still haunt our present, they may yet invade our future. Monsters are here to stay.
335 pages, Paperback
First published April 25, 2011
47 people are currently reading
2484 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews
February 27, 2012
I've had a question for a long time. When social conservatives oppose something, like - say - gay marriage, it is often on the premise that expanding liberty will somehow take something away from those currently entitled to those liberties. There isn't a clear explanation behind the complaint that the traditional institution of marriage will collapse if we allow people of the same sex to marry, but the "argument" persists.
The answer, of course, is that social issues - ranging from the culture wars to the bill of rights - are seldom zero sum affairs. Expanding marriage will not destroy marriage any more than expanding the voting franchise (to include women, poor people, teenagers, and non-whites) ended the republic. The resistance to such expansion is likewise identical. To characterize it as fear or xenophobia is to simplify it. It is better characterized as jealousy.
But jealousy, in many ways, comes across as more petty than fear, so the actual underlyers get convoluted in their perception. Since we're talking about something that's basically emptional, psychology - more than political science - comes into play. So where am I going with this? More specifically, how has W. Scott Poole helped me answer this question?
Two thirds of the way through Monsters In America, Poole talks about Vietnam prisoners of war returning to an America that has dramatically changed since their own dramatic departure. Comparing the experience to Rip Van Winkle's, the young men in question left an America that was still fundamentally fifties-ish in its holographic absorption of consumerism, conservatism, and the status quo and returned to find Brown v. Board of Education enforced, Roe v. Wade in the works, and a slate of equivalent social transformations roiling and burning and growling and reveling at every angle of American life. The white political patriarch - long held as the conservator of the republic - had not only lost market share (as women, minorities, and youth made gains in the political/economic franchise), but literally lost a physical war against a supposedly "backwards" enemy (a banana republic on one hand, the "inferior" communist system on the other). The challenge to the accepted wisdom of the preceeding 200 years must have been enormous.
The psychological fallout of the confrontation with such catastrophic hubris continues to wreak aftershocks today. The 70s saw race riots, the Southern exodus from the Democratic party, women's control of both their domestic environment and their own bodies, gay culture, youth culture, and the threat of mutually assured destruction - and there was nothing the demagogues could do about it. To those empowered by some of these changes, life was improving. The ones who were satisfied with the status quo (or jealous of its powers) faced confusion (even rage). Without a clear way to enunciate their apprehension, diverse manifestations emerged. The religious right sprang out of Goldwater conservatism.
This isn't ostensibly what W. Scott Poole was supposed to be telling us about in Monsters in America. But it is. He contextualizes this, and many other, points by collating it with the way the psycho sprang from the creature feature. The creature (created by an atomic accident or international communism) stood in for cold war apprehension. The psycho came to personify some people's dread over the changing social landscape - more specifically the loss of patriarchal control over the family. As women and children gained more autonomy within the family unit, the fear was that the ensuing dysfunction would literally produce psychos - or monsters.
If this sounds suspiciously like Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky dipping their toes into film criticism, it is. But it's also pretty amazing. We've always known there was something bigger about the film and literary monster than the immediate, visceral thrill it delivers. W. Scott Poole does a masterful job of collating many of those layers of meaning with the American historical narrative. He skips around a lot and doesn't attempt a comprehensive, linear history. Had he done so, Monsters in America might have been tedious - counter-intuitive treatment of a subject designed to titillate. No, Poole strikes the perfect tone and holds up a frank mirror to America through the lens of our nightmare creatures. I would recommend this to just about everyone.
The answer, of course, is that social issues - ranging from the culture wars to the bill of rights - are seldom zero sum affairs. Expanding marriage will not destroy marriage any more than expanding the voting franchise (to include women, poor people, teenagers, and non-whites) ended the republic. The resistance to such expansion is likewise identical. To characterize it as fear or xenophobia is to simplify it. It is better characterized as jealousy.
But jealousy, in many ways, comes across as more petty than fear, so the actual underlyers get convoluted in their perception. Since we're talking about something that's basically emptional, psychology - more than political science - comes into play. So where am I going with this? More specifically, how has W. Scott Poole helped me answer this question?
Two thirds of the way through Monsters In America, Poole talks about Vietnam prisoners of war returning to an America that has dramatically changed since their own dramatic departure. Comparing the experience to Rip Van Winkle's, the young men in question left an America that was still fundamentally fifties-ish in its holographic absorption of consumerism, conservatism, and the status quo and returned to find Brown v. Board of Education enforced, Roe v. Wade in the works, and a slate of equivalent social transformations roiling and burning and growling and reveling at every angle of American life. The white political patriarch - long held as the conservator of the republic - had not only lost market share (as women, minorities, and youth made gains in the political/economic franchise), but literally lost a physical war against a supposedly "backwards" enemy (a banana republic on one hand, the "inferior" communist system on the other). The challenge to the accepted wisdom of the preceeding 200 years must have been enormous.
The psychological fallout of the confrontation with such catastrophic hubris continues to wreak aftershocks today. The 70s saw race riots, the Southern exodus from the Democratic party, women's control of both their domestic environment and their own bodies, gay culture, youth culture, and the threat of mutually assured destruction - and there was nothing the demagogues could do about it. To those empowered by some of these changes, life was improving. The ones who were satisfied with the status quo (or jealous of its powers) faced confusion (even rage). Without a clear way to enunciate their apprehension, diverse manifestations emerged. The religious right sprang out of Goldwater conservatism.
This isn't ostensibly what W. Scott Poole was supposed to be telling us about in Monsters in America. But it is. He contextualizes this, and many other, points by collating it with the way the psycho sprang from the creature feature. The creature (created by an atomic accident or international communism) stood in for cold war apprehension. The psycho came to personify some people's dread over the changing social landscape - more specifically the loss of patriarchal control over the family. As women and children gained more autonomy within the family unit, the fear was that the ensuing dysfunction would literally produce psychos - or monsters.
If this sounds suspiciously like Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky dipping their toes into film criticism, it is. But it's also pretty amazing. We've always known there was something bigger about the film and literary monster than the immediate, visceral thrill it delivers. W. Scott Poole does a masterful job of collating many of those layers of meaning with the American historical narrative. He skips around a lot and doesn't attempt a comprehensive, linear history. Had he done so, Monsters in America might have been tedious - counter-intuitive treatment of a subject designed to titillate. No, Poole strikes the perfect tone and holds up a frank mirror to America through the lens of our nightmare creatures. I would recommend this to just about everyone.
October 23, 2020
“Perhaps monsters are made in our society more purposefully than we realize. In fact, perhaps our own beliefs about monsters and their intractable nature help to produce the monsters we fear the most.”
I will readily admit that I love W. Scott Poole’s books: he writes engaging and entertaining non-fiction, social history on topics I happen to love, and explores those topics through a lens very similar to the one I look at the world through. After loving his book on Lovecraft (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...) and his book on Vampira (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), I wasted no time tracking down a copy of “Monsters in America”.
In this book, Poole draws fascinating and thought-provoking parallels between American history and the cultural fascination with monsters and the evolution of what one might call horror culture – from sea serpents legends to “Dexter”, and how these things reflect and express the anxiety of a culture. It would be oversimplifying Poole’s work to say that the twist in the book is that the monsters in America are, well, Americans. But it is interesting to see how the national obsession with race, sex and power creeps up in the cultural landscape.
That the monsters and villains of books and movies reflect our society's anxieties and neurosis is fairly obvious but it is nevertheless quite interesting to see it broken down so systematically by era. Readers must be warned that Poole's political biases certainly show in the way he analyses both historical events and the cultural products that they end up generating. I share his biases, so I agree with him and his interpretations. Fans of horror novels and movies will undoubtedly find this book fascinating, and it might make them look at their favorite stories and characters in quite a new light.
I will readily admit that I love W. Scott Poole’s books: he writes engaging and entertaining non-fiction, social history on topics I happen to love, and explores those topics through a lens very similar to the one I look at the world through. After loving his book on Lovecraft (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...) and his book on Vampira (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), I wasted no time tracking down a copy of “Monsters in America”.
In this book, Poole draws fascinating and thought-provoking parallels between American history and the cultural fascination with monsters and the evolution of what one might call horror culture – from sea serpents legends to “Dexter”, and how these things reflect and express the anxiety of a culture. It would be oversimplifying Poole’s work to say that the twist in the book is that the monsters in America are, well, Americans. But it is interesting to see how the national obsession with race, sex and power creeps up in the cultural landscape.
That the monsters and villains of books and movies reflect our society's anxieties and neurosis is fairly obvious but it is nevertheless quite interesting to see it broken down so systematically by era. Readers must be warned that Poole's political biases certainly show in the way he analyses both historical events and the cultural products that they end up generating. I share his biases, so I agree with him and his interpretations. Fans of horror novels and movies will undoubtedly find this book fascinating, and it might make them look at their favorite stories and characters in quite a new light.
October 8, 2018
A lot of people gave it poor reviews, maybe because they didn't like what the author plainly demonstrated, that the real monsters in America are the Americans, mainly the white Americans.
June 8, 2012
An excellent history of the American obsession with monsters, Poole analyzes our religious and nationalist beliefs to see how we have dealt with the Other in our long, horrifying existence as a nation. Everything from Communists, feminists, and foreigners to Candyman, Dracula, and The Exorcist are examined for the social attitudes to evil that they illuminate (and that we may believe, consciously or subconsciously). This isn’t a book for the squeamish as Poole details how a horror film like Candyman is based in fact to a great deal. It’s not a salacious book, either. Sex and violence are the recurring themes of the book, but Poole always provides context for why they recur so often. What becomes disturbingly apparent is that most of America’s hatred of the Other is based in Christian religious belief. If you will, a shining city on hill built on the bodies of natives, blacks, women, and anyone else we don’t like very much. Poole stays far away from polemic and sticks to the facts. However, his interpretations and implications are nothing less than threatening to whatever status quo our authorities would prefer us to maintain. I think that what makes the book riveting is that despite the particular social factors and grisly historical events, the book is about the Other in media. “Why are we scared of this person?” is always a question behind each chapter and Poole is careful to never reduce it purely to matters of sociology or psychology while still using those tools of analysis. He’s never less than canny on the pop culture angle: Dracula and Frankenstein are almost everywhere in the book, his insights into the fear of zombies are sharp, the comparison of Patrick Bateman and Dexter Morgan is inspired, and the analysis of fifties icons like Vampira and the Addams family are very good. At the very end, Poole implies that for what has gone before, it could very well get worse. Bloodshed and hatred are universals in human nature and Poole’s book is a very unsettling history of its American manifestation. Poole’s bibliography is an additional treat as it includes many excellent books for further reading or study - "1973 Nervous Breakdown: Watergate, Warhol, and the Birth of Post-Sixties America" and "Sacred Terror: Religion and Horror on the Silver Screen" were two titles that jumped out at me – that’s so full that one could even write their own treatment on the subject. This is an important book that I’d recommend very highly.
November 11, 2013
I want to start out by saying that I absolutely love the notion behind this book. I am fiercely passionate about two things: History and Monsters. For me, there are intertwined. I love ghost stories and folklore because they reveal an aspect of history and popular thinking in an entertaining way. I was thrilled to find a book that went with that mindset.
It is hard to express what I feel upon reading this book. I wanted to like it so badly that I tried several times to read it over the course of the last two years. This was my last attempt and was successful only because I was bound and determined that the money that I spent on it would not have been a waste.
I will not say that I feel that this book wasted my time. Poole shared interesting information on different historical events and, ultimately, achieved the goal of educating me in this subject. However, Poole's writing style makes it difficult to reach these nuggets of information. The book reads like the essay of a college junior. He reaches half formed conclusions and fails to adequetly prove to me that this subject matters or has any validity whatsoever. There were times that I was not certain what point he was making or the conclusions to which he wanted me to come.
Ultimately, this book was a chore for me to read. This is sad because I love this subject.
It is hard to express what I feel upon reading this book. I wanted to like it so badly that I tried several times to read it over the course of the last two years. This was my last attempt and was successful only because I was bound and determined that the money that I spent on it would not have been a waste.
I will not say that I feel that this book wasted my time. Poole shared interesting information on different historical events and, ultimately, achieved the goal of educating me in this subject. However, Poole's writing style makes it difficult to reach these nuggets of information. The book reads like the essay of a college junior. He reaches half formed conclusions and fails to adequetly prove to me that this subject matters or has any validity whatsoever. There were times that I was not certain what point he was making or the conclusions to which he wanted me to come.
Ultimately, this book was a chore for me to read. This is sad because I love this subject.
April 12, 2012
Through the two and a half weeks I took with this book, I have been citing it in conversation. I found it informative, fascinating, thought-provoking and well-written. Whether your interest is literature, American history, popular culture, race and ethnicity, women's studies, or religion, you would be happy reading this book.
July 2, 2020
I thought this was gonna be about different monsters from American folklore. Instead it's more about the social function of the monsterous and why people believe what they believe and how different folkloric monsters became popular at different times in history.
Really fascinating, and timely - the book has a lot to say about race, gender, and American society.
Read the updated, second edition.
Really fascinating, and timely - the book has a lot to say about race, gender, and American society.
Read the updated, second edition.
August 24, 2014
This book is quite well researched, makes a few interesting connections, and is very accessible. If you're looking for an introductory book to the subject, it's a great resource. However, at times the overt political messages can be more aggressive than effective, the book frequently covers more breadth than depth, and I was left without a clear sense of how monsters in America (US, presumably, rather than hemispheric) differed from those in international nightmares--or how the globalization of monster culture influenced American culture. In the end, though, I could easily see assigning parts of this book to undergraduates.
July 31, 2017
I have read Mr. Poole's work before, so I knew I was in for a treat and I was right. "Monsters in America" is a work that touches on the many facets of Horror in America. It is not just about film and fiction, but the cultural events that mirrored the works on the screen and in our nightmares.
Lovecraft, Elvira, Vampira, The Scooby Gang, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Edgar Allen Poe, Nathaniel Hawthorn, UFO's all make guest appearances.
This book was thoroughly enjoyable, and I will, of course, own it.
Lovecraft, Elvira, Vampira, The Scooby Gang, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Edgar Allen Poe, Nathaniel Hawthorn, UFO's all make guest appearances.
This book was thoroughly enjoyable, and I will, of course, own it.
May 24, 2018
This well-written and thought provoking book examines what scares us and what monsters in popular entertainment have to say about our fears and values in society.
I learned quite a few random facts--such as I didn't know that "Twilight" was written by a Mormon and championed by some cultural conservatives because it apparently preaches abstinence and traditional gender roles. I knew it was a vampire teen drama, but not much more than that, because I couldn't care less about vampire teen dramas. This revelation put a weird new spin on the series's explosive popularity for me at least.
I learned quite a few random facts--such as I didn't know that "Twilight" was written by a Mormon and championed by some cultural conservatives because it apparently preaches abstinence and traditional gender roles. I knew it was a vampire teen drama, but not much more than that, because I couldn't care less about vampire teen dramas. This revelation put a weird new spin on the series's explosive popularity for me at least.
July 29, 2013
If you view everything that has happened in the last ten thousand years as an atrocity committed by (American) White Anglo-Saxon Protestant men against the wide-eyed, helpless, innocent (and rather stupid) non-male/non-white world in a concerted race (or gender where convenient) war and stolidly ignore all contrary evidence, the world is full of monsters.
Unfortunately for W. Scott Poole, this view of history only really flies for kids and dull-witted adults.
Unfortunately for W. Scott Poole, this view of history only really flies for kids and dull-witted adults.
October 4, 2018
I loved this book. I feel like the author did a great job at deconstructing America's social issues and how they connect to the monsters/fears/entertainment of the time. I highly recommend this for fans of the horror genre and anthropology.
November 5, 2018
damn good primer on monsters in America. wish it felt more “american”- some of the trends were too broad, and I wish there’d been more emphasis on early America (e.g. the bell witch, the roanaoke colony, etc.) but on the whole, an engaging and thought provoking read
May 27, 2023
I really thought this book was going to be a bit better than what it was. The introduction to the book and its general aims of illuminating aspects of American history and connections to horror sounded great, and even with quite a bit of knowledge in that arena I thought that there was going to be lots that I'd learn. And I did learn some, sure, but there were also whole chapters that seemed just excessively cursory in contrast to others, and points of comparison and analysis that never quite made sense. Despite claiming to be a narrative about culture in general, Poole often ignored certain aspects of horror culture despite their seeming obviousness. The two most glaring examples to me came when he analyzed the films Carrie and Rosemary's Baby and attributed thematic concerns exclusively to those films when such ideas were clearly (and arguably more) present in the books that served as their source material; he would acknowledge their origins as books and then...just talk about the films? Despite stating at the outset that this wasn't just a book about films? And then the chapter titled "Haunted Houses" was primarily about...spiritual/demonic horror and possession? There were just a few too many things that didn't quite add up at times. The rest of the book had a lot going for it and made some interesting claims/had some interesting history, but there was just enough wrong at times to make this a bit more disappointing than I'd expected.
October 13, 2020
Earlier this year, I read Wasteland: The Great War and the Origins of Modern Horror by W. Scott Poole. The book impressed me with its great arguments, its deep dive into the inspirations of so many impressive artists and characters in the development of horror, and an honest look into the worst of World War I. Looking into the backlist of its author, historian W. Scott Poole, Monsters in America immediately struck me as the book to read next.
My instincts ended up being completely correct.
Read the rest of the review here.
My instincts ended up being completely correct.
Read the rest of the review here.
August 29, 2025
Read this for a D&E class about Monsters in Film and I absolutely loved it. I want to put it on my shelf eventually. It's a neutral, but sometimes cheeky book about the history of the hideous and how they reflect the most vulnerable in society.
September 12, 2017
The book made a few strong points, but ultimately it was a mediocre read. Its cohesive, cursory, and has a smattering of typos. It felt more like I was reading a college midterm (not even open book), and less like strong literary criticism. I feel like three stars is generous for a book that did not bring me any new insights, but it was neither especially good nor especially bad.
February 4, 2024
LOVED it!! He did not hold back on the gritty, real, horrifying history that birthed the monsters we know today. It’s a heavy read for sure but still super interesting and eye opening.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 22, 2012
My boyfriend handed me this book knowing I am very interested in monsters, serial killers and ghosts.
From a historic point of view this was good and well written, I enjoyed going through history of what people feared and that causing the creation of monsters from that time. He also seems to really love what he is writing about which is awesome. I do think some of his monsters are jumps, I am not convinced all monsters are just people turning their social fears of those who are "different" into something beyond human, like Dracula being a fear of outsiders. I think truly some of them are for entertainment and money making purposes only. True, he makes a good point, people fear what they do not understand and destroy what they fear, so on that level, bravo.
However while the first part of the book was really interesting I think the author could have done more towards the 20th century. Not enough hauntings for me personally, not enough of the creepy factor and he did not touch of spiritulasim at all.
I would have enjoyed tcovering on ghosts and haunting, vampires and werewolves a little more since that is was I am passionate about and he fairly skips over humans making Death into a monster.
But his take was liberal, pro homosexuality and really fed off how as humans we demonize anything we deem different. I really respect this novel and found many passages fun in the dark way I usually enjoy, the pop references were a delightful touch as well.
From a historic point of view this was good and well written, I enjoyed going through history of what people feared and that causing the creation of monsters from that time. He also seems to really love what he is writing about which is awesome. I do think some of his monsters are jumps, I am not convinced all monsters are just people turning their social fears of those who are "different" into something beyond human, like Dracula being a fear of outsiders. I think truly some of them are for entertainment and money making purposes only. True, he makes a good point, people fear what they do not understand and destroy what they fear, so on that level, bravo.
However while the first part of the book was really interesting I think the author could have done more towards the 20th century. Not enough hauntings for me personally, not enough of the creepy factor and he did not touch of spiritulasim at all.
I would have enjoyed tcovering on ghosts and haunting, vampires and werewolves a little more since that is was I am passionate about and he fairly skips over humans making Death into a monster.
But his take was liberal, pro homosexuality and really fed off how as humans we demonize anything we deem different. I really respect this novel and found many passages fun in the dark way I usually enjoy, the pop references were a delightful touch as well.
November 4, 2011
I hated this book. It was just way too "all over the place" for me. In some ways, this felt more like a book about racism and sexism on celluloid and in politics than a book about "Monsters." I wasn't ready for the overtly sociological approach of the book, and was expecting a history, as alluded to in the title of the book. I had trouble finding a consistent narrative in a book that talked about sea monsters, Bigfoot, Universal Movie Monsters, Freak-shows, and several other topics, and never spending enough time on any of them to feel like I was more informed after reading.
I was also troubled by the political tone of the book. I'm about as liberal as they come, but the Right bashing just went on and on. The political bias was just so obvious that it left me annoyed at points.
One last thought, in a book with the word "haunting" in the title, you'd think there would be at least a few pages spent on America's fascination with Spiritualism (spirit communication) in the 19th Century. Spiritualists were a very large segment of society back then, to totally ignore this fascinating, and ghostly, period absolutely baffled me.
I was also troubled by the political tone of the book. I'm about as liberal as they come, but the Right bashing just went on and on. The political bias was just so obvious that it left me annoyed at points.
One last thought, in a book with the word "haunting" in the title, you'd think there would be at least a few pages spent on America's fascination with Spiritualism (spirit communication) in the 19th Century. Spiritualists were a very large segment of society back then, to totally ignore this fascinating, and ghostly, period absolutely baffled me.
March 15, 2014
I used this as a textbook for a themed English course: Monsters, Myths, and Magic. The book is rich in history, pop culture references, and analysis. I found it to be a perfect model for critical thinking about the social representations of various popular monsters, and the book led to wonderful class discussions. I was pretty fascinated through this whole book. It's organized well also: a chapter on one specific type of monster and era makes for a really focused and easy to digest historical examination.
July 29, 2018
Excellent examination of horror movies evolution through the years and also how societal happenings influence the movies at the time they are made. Good references in the book that I looked up to further read about horror movies and their importance to our sociological perspective.
January 12, 2021
Subject I have a lot of interest in and the author seems to have done a lot of work/research. Unfortunately, however, the writing just reads as super amateurish and unnatural--to the point where your brain feels exhausted after slogging through only a couple pages.
May 15, 2017
This is an amazing book. The author explores American History and how people's fears and reactions to changes in society both affected and were affected by monsters in print and film.
December 18, 2023
I agree with that others are saying that this reads like a college essay. A lot if the ideas seem half baked, there’s not a lot if cohesion to the argument and all if it’s different strands, and the writing is amateurish. It’s an interesting premise that starts well, but the further you go the more you see how stretched the author’s idea is to try to fit such a vast subject. There is never much real substance or depth to the argument, just the author repeatedly restating the same theme without really examining and justifying that conclusion. The writing is also pretty weak, it’s repetitive and rare attempts at flourishes fall flat. The author also seems to have a habit of misusing quotes to misrepresent other’s writings (in one case literally one paragraph after quoting the fuller context that shows the actual intent of the line). The book also seems I’ll thought out for when topics should be discussed; breaking discussions up by topic leaves you wondering how the concurrent fascination with possession and ghosts, zombies and the resurgence of classic monsters like vampires are related; while sometimes the coincidence of these fads are addressed, other times they’re largely ignored. Another issue I found is that despite the Vietnam War commonly being referenced as an influence on pop-culture throughout most of the book, we don’t actually get a deeper look into the experiences of soldiers in the war until the second last chapter, despite this discussion being obviously relevant to other topics like the increased blood and gore in media and desensitization to violence in general.
The author also seems woefully unaware of the broader context of many topics he talks about. For example he makes a point of discussing a rise in the mid-20th century if an emphasis on bodily perfection in Christian culture, yet never makes a connection between this trend and the already existing movement of muscular Christianity, a hugely popular strand of thought that had such advocates as Theodore Roosevelt in the 29th century and continues stronger than ever today in conservative Christianity and “male empowerment.” The author reveals his tunnel vision by merely discussing the critical feminist perspective of this movements as relating to mid-20th women, with apparently no awareness of the wider context of the movement that goes back all the way to the founding of the YMCA (and it’s sister org YWCA) one hundred years prior.
It’s an interesting premise, but the further you go the more the flaws become apparent.
November 14, 2022
If you, like me, are both a person that loves old monster movies and cares about history, you'll find this book to be a fun read. Poole argues that "Monstrous metaphors in American historical life have a way of becoming real...they are intertwined with attitudes and social structures that make the monster possible. The tendency to view American monsters as primarily psychological archetypes ignores how closely they have reflected actual historical events and actual historical victims."
While Poole makes generalized connections between events in American history and the monsters created or preferred by Americans in those eras, he usually doesn't go deeper to explore how those monsters were used in cultural debates or why they mattered. A lot of his arguments felt either oversimplified or underexplained. Of course, he was trying to get through the entire span of American history in a few short chapters, so he didn't really have time to dive deep. It would be interesting to read a more detailed account of a single example (which he has apparently done in his book Wasteland). Still, it's a good, light read, and I could see people who picked the book up for the horror angle coming away wanting to learn more about American history.
I thought one of the strongest sections of the book was about how Americans in the nineteenth century--both abolitionists and those who were pro-slavery--interpreted Frankenstein as being about race and slavery. I would have thought that the "natural" interpretation of the book would be as a warning parable about unethical science or a tragedy about how humans treat those who are different. I found it a fascinating reminder that interpretations of literature are always shaped by your own experiences and time. It makes sense that, at a time when slavery was the major issue in American life, readers would have read issues of race into the book. A lot of that chapter seems to have been drawn from Elizabeth Young's book Black Frankenstein, which I now very much want to read.
While Poole makes generalized connections between events in American history and the monsters created or preferred by Americans in those eras, he usually doesn't go deeper to explore how those monsters were used in cultural debates or why they mattered. A lot of his arguments felt either oversimplified or underexplained. Of course, he was trying to get through the entire span of American history in a few short chapters, so he didn't really have time to dive deep. It would be interesting to read a more detailed account of a single example (which he has apparently done in his book Wasteland). Still, it's a good, light read, and I could see people who picked the book up for the horror angle coming away wanting to learn more about American history.
I thought one of the strongest sections of the book was about how Americans in the nineteenth century--both abolitionists and those who were pro-slavery--interpreted Frankenstein as being about race and slavery. I would have thought that the "natural" interpretation of the book would be as a warning parable about unethical science or a tragedy about how humans treat those who are different. I found it a fascinating reminder that interpretations of literature are always shaped by your own experiences and time. It makes sense that, at a time when slavery was the major issue in American life, readers would have read issues of race into the book. A lot of that chapter seems to have been drawn from Elizabeth Young's book Black Frankenstein, which I now very much want to read.
December 18, 2024
Maybe it should really be 2 1/2 stars.
I don't want to be too harsh, because there are certainly some interesting ideas and there is at least an attempt at relating the monster perceptions with the broader social issues of the time. However, it then fails to connect at a profound level. It approaches intersectionality without quite getting there. Then the final chapter is really disjointed, which only emphasizes that things are not concluding as well as they should.
One thing that bugged me was what seemed like a resentment of Ann Rule, with the tawdry, sensationalistic emphasis of true crime at the time. Rule has been notably not part of that trend. While certainly being the biggest name, there was always a lot of humanity and emphasis on the heroic and the good in the work. Yes, there may sometimes be an emphasis on the sexual nature of the crimes, but sometimes the crimes themselves led to that, and certainly Freudianism was still a huge influence on psychology at the time.
Then, when he is writing about the treatment of women in horror, and some of the religious influences on that, it is another area where Poole really seems to be missing some important factors. Has he even read Backlash?
It's not that I regret reading it, and there are things I will continue to think about, but I believe it could have been more.
I don't want to be too harsh, because there are certainly some interesting ideas and there is at least an attempt at relating the monster perceptions with the broader social issues of the time. However, it then fails to connect at a profound level. It approaches intersectionality without quite getting there. Then the final chapter is really disjointed, which only emphasizes that things are not concluding as well as they should.
One thing that bugged me was what seemed like a resentment of Ann Rule, with the tawdry, sensationalistic emphasis of true crime at the time. Rule has been notably not part of that trend. While certainly being the biggest name, there was always a lot of humanity and emphasis on the heroic and the good in the work. Yes, there may sometimes be an emphasis on the sexual nature of the crimes, but sometimes the crimes themselves led to that, and certainly Freudianism was still a huge influence on psychology at the time.
Then, when he is writing about the treatment of women in horror, and some of the religious influences on that, it is another area where Poole really seems to be missing some important factors. Has he even read Backlash?
It's not that I regret reading it, and there are things I will continue to think about, but I believe it could have been more.
November 26, 2019
It's no secret that America is a little messed up. Before you get all "He's Anti-American!" on me, relax. I'm just saying that throughout the country's history, there have been some pretty dark times. Regardless of the gruesome event, whether it's the Salem Witch Trials back in the 1600s or 9/11 just 10 years ago, one thing remains constant: Americans are obsessed with them. Just watch any local news program and you'll see what I mean. It's rarely happy news being reported. The old newspaper adage still holds true today. If it bleeds, it reads. Author W. Scott Poole takes a look at America's fascination with the macabre in his book, Monsters in America: Our Historical Obsession with the Hideous and the Haunting.
You can read James' full review at Horror DNA by clicking here.
You can read James' full review at Horror DNA by clicking here.
December 2, 2021
Picked up on a whim, I certainly got the expected analysis of horror movies as a way for Americans to understand and react to their culture, but the author also makes the (very strong and well supported) argument that far from being a way to understand the world around us, monsters are also used by those in power to crush those without under their heel while also ignoring and excusing the fact that they're doing so.
Well worth the read.
(Fair warning if you pick this up: the secondary part of the author's argument unsurprisingly deals with slavery in America as well as Jim Crow era and the violence perpetuated toward black men in particular as a result of both of those. The text is not sensationalistically graphic, but neither does it shy away from the brutal behavior of those who claimed they were protecting other whites from monsters.)
Well worth the read.
(Fair warning if you pick this up: the secondary part of the author's argument unsurprisingly deals with slavery in America as well as Jim Crow era and the violence perpetuated toward black men in particular as a result of both of those. The text is not sensationalistically graphic, but neither does it shy away from the brutal behavior of those who claimed they were protecting other whites from monsters.)
September 15, 2021
Interesting as a surface-level exploration of "Monster Theory". I do wish the author would've delved into certain subjects more as he did the last half of the book which was very compelling. I also think this could've used a second editor before being published as there are many typos and grammatical errors, as well as a few points that could've used some fact-checking. Definitely would recommend it as a quick read and dive into monster history, as well as a great resource to find other books the author recommends to look into more!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews