Monster Theory: Reading Culture

by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen (Editor)

We live in a time of monsters. Monsters provide a key to understanding the culture that spawned them. So argue the essays in this wide-ranging and fascinating collection that asks the question - What happens when critical theorists take the study of monsters seriously as a means of examining our culture?

In viewing the monstrous body as a metaphor for the cultural body, the contributors to Monster Theory consider beasts, demons, freaks, and fiends as symbolic expressions of cultural unease that pervade a society and shape its collective behavior. Through a historical sampling of monsters, these essays argue that our fascination for the monstrous testifies to our continued desire to explore difference and prohibition.

Contributors: Mary Baine Campbell, Brandeis U; David L. Clark, McMaster U; Frank Grady, U of Missouri, St. Louis; David A. Hedrich Hirsch, U of Illinois; Lawrence D. Kritzman, Dartmouth College; Kathleen Perry Long, Cornell U; Stephen Pender; Allison Pingree, Harvard U; Anne Lake Prescott, Barnard College; John O'Neill, York U; William Sayers, George Washington U; Michael Uebel, U of Virginia; Ruth Waterhouse.

Genres: Nonfiction, Theory, Horror, Philosophy, Monsters, Essays, History

336 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

Reviews

[aída · Rating 5 out of 5]

(dfd once again)

this was super useful and interesting!

[Isabella Grace · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 stars

chapter one is one of my all-time favorite articles/book chapters I have ever read, the rest of the book is okay, but the whole thing is totally worth a read if literary (and real) monsters are in any way interesting!

[Ronnie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Monster Theory is a collection of essays that was published in 1996, and at times it shows its age. While its hard for me to know exactly how groundbreaking it was when it was published thirty years ago, now a lot of the concepts were things I was already aware of (mostly because I took a class on Ghosts, Monsters and Demons in 2019 which heavily influenced how I look at them).

I, for some godforasken reason, decided to read every essay in this book, even ones where I hadn't read the primary text it was discussing. Why? Because I'm insane, I guess. I don't fucking know. I only really had to read the preface and the introduction for the paper I'm intending to write. There's a couple other essays that I thought might have touched on other papers I'm considering writing, but I learned pretty quickly that they didn't so I could have just skipped them. Did I? No. No, I decided to give myself extra reading, which is definitely what someone needs to give themself in a semester where they're taking five high-level English classes. Go me, I guess (To be fair, this was an Interlibrary Loan, and I felt bad that my library summoned it all the way from BC if I wasn't going to make full use of it. And something useful might have cropped up! You never know until you try).

There were two essays that discussed conjoined twins and birth defects, and I'm not entirely sure how I feel about them being included in a collection of essays about monsters (though I recognize that historically birth defects were historically called 'monstrous births,' especially since I wrote a paper about Richard III last semester. But I guess it was the 90s so....)

Monster Culture (Seven Theses) by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen

Definitely the most useful chapter in terms of my "Pirates as Monsters" term paper I intend to write. This is just seven short theses, a couple paragraphs each, and while I have absolutely nothing to base this on, I suspect that this essay is where most of Monster Theory as we know it today arose from. I really nice overview of what monster theory is in general.

Beowulf as Palimpsest by Ruth Waterhorse

I have read Beowulf! I read J.R.R. Tolkein's translation of it last year! Unfortunately, most of this essay went over my head anyway. I'm definitely not a Beowulf scholar, that's for sure. But it was still pretty interesting, comparing Beowulf's monsters to modern day monsters such as Mr Hyde and Dracula (both books I'm also reading this semester for my Horror class). I generally enjoyed this one!

Monstrosity, Illegibility, Denegation: De Man, bp Nichol, and the Resistance to Postmodernism by David L. Clark

This essay is written in extremely difficult academic language, and is analysing a few texts which I didn't even know existed, let alone had read. It discusses the concept as language in and of itself as being a monster. It was pretty interesting, the things I was able to understand. Unfortunately, most of this essay sailed way above my head.

The Odd Couple: Gargantua and Tom Thumb by Anne Lake Prescott

I haven't actually read anything this essay covered, but it's basic English folklore, so like... osmosis haha. It discusses giants and extremely tiny people (like Tom Thumb, a man as tall as a thumb), and how they're often partnered together. I generally enjoyed this essay, and had some fun with it. It even gave me tiny plot bunnies that will probably never amount to anything but are happily hopping around in my brain anyway now. It also, weirdly, might have given me something for an essay I may or may not write this semester; it is the only essay besides the preface and the "Seven Theses" that did.

America's "United Siamese Brothers": Chang and Eng and Nineteenth-Century Ideologies of Democracy and Domesticity by Allison Pingree

This isn't about literature per se, and more about the historical case of... well, America's first set of "Siamese Twins," conjoined twins who were whisked away from their homeland of Siam so that they could be paraded around the UK and America and shown off for money in "Freak Shows" in the early 19th century. It discusses a lot about what conjoined twins say about American ideals, such as individualism and law (at one point, one of the twins punched/assaulted someone, but they could not be arrested because the other twin was innocent, and so it was a matter of "do we let the guilty man go free or do we lock up an innocent man"), as well as family values (they both got married, but how would the American public see that? Is it incest when they have sex with their wives if the other twin must be present? Is it homoerotic?). Overall, it was a generally interesting essay, even if it did see Chang and Eng more as a concept than as humans.

Liberty, Equality, Monstrosity: Revolutionizing the Family in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein by David A. Hedrich Hirsch

I have also read Frankenstein! In fact, am reading it again for my Horror Class. This was one of the essays I thought might help in one of my papers I might need to write. But, it mostly looked at Frankenstein through a historical lens of a piece of history I know about (the French Revolution) but do not know about that particular aspect of (how it revolutionized how families were seen). Probably interesting to someone who's both stoked on the French Revolution and Frankenstein, but that person is not me.

"No Monsters at the Resurrection": Inside Some Conjoined Twins by Stephen Pender

This is the second essay in this collection (seriously, why are there two essays in a book of 14 essays that is about this) that is about conjoined twins and birth defects, this time gazed at through a medieval religious lens. Didn't really interest me too much (and yet I still read the whole thing).

Representing the Monster: Cognition, Cripples, and Other Limp Parts in Montaigne's "Des Boyteux" by Lawrence D. Kritzman

An essay about a piece of literature I've never read and know nothing about. I read it. Most of it flew right past because I had no idea what it was talking about. Why am I like this?

Hermaphodites Newly Discovered: The Cultural Monsters of Sixteenth-Century France by Kathleen Perry Long

I have never read the book that this essay was about (Mostly Isle des Hermaphodites by Artus Thomas, though it also discusses the court of King Henri III which I knew nothing about but now know was probably extremely gay). Despite not having read the source material, this essay was still very easy to follow and understand, and I found it extremely interesting. It discusses gender norms and societal constructs and constraints, and overall I enjoyed it quite a lot.

Anthropometamorphosis: John Bulwer's Monsters of Cosmetology and the Science of Culture by Mary Baine Campbell

A lot about xenophobia and making other cultures monstrous through fiction. Overall, I found it fairly interesting.

Vampire Culture by Frank Grady

This was the second essay I thought might be an interesting resource for a paper I might write, but discovered very quickly that it did not apply, but I finished it anyway. It starts off discussing Dracula as a discussion of capitalism, and then shifts to Interview with a Vampire (which I also have not read) as the same, plus some feminist critques as well. Overall, fairly interesting, even if I only know of Interview with a Vampire through Cultural Osmosis.

The Alien and Alienated as Unquiet Dead in the Sagas of the Icelanders by William Sayers

I don't know anything about Viking Family Sagas, but they sound cool. I'll admit that I didn't read this essay especially closely (it was late at night and I was tired), but from what I gleamed it seemed fairly interesting.

Unthinking the Monster: Twelfth-Century Responses to Saracen Alterity by Michael Uebel

An essay about Islam as a monster in the twelfth century. Extremely interesting. I wonder how or if this essay would have changed had it been written post 9/11. Overall, I was very interested in this one.

Dinosaurs-R-Us: The (Un)Natural History of Jurassic Park by John O'Neill

Well, this guy certainly has a.... angry? writing style which could have been interesting if I could have at all figured out what he was trying to say. Is this a critique about capitalism? The family? Something about abortions? Children? Sexuality? I have no fucking idea. But whatever O'Neill was trying to say, he said it with a whole lot of passion.

[Violet-May Davey · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is a sense of questioning why monsters exist in the first place and to what their purpose is in this world. There are many types of monsters, both real and imagined. There are even monsters in all of us, which makes this theory so rich and strong.

[Josie Kochendorfer]

"Monsters ask us how we perceive the world, and how we have misrepresented what we have attempted to place. They ask us to reevaluate our cultural assumptions about race, gender, sexuality, our perception of difference, our tolerance toward its expression. They ask us why we have created them"

[elle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting essay collection. I came for the introduction and really enjoyed skimming all the works. Essays I've read and enjoyed:

* Monster Culture (Seven Theses), by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen
* Liberty, Equality, Monstrosity: Revolutionizing the Family in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, by David A. Hedrich Hirsch
* Hermaphrodites Newly Discovered: The Cultural Monsters of Sixteenth-Century France, by Kathleen Perry Long
* Vampire Culture, by Frank Grady (standout favourite)

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

I bought this perhaps without not paying enough attention, thinking Cohen had enlarged his 'Monster Culture (Seven Theses)' essay into a whole book, thinking it would provide coherent readings that I might de-theory-ise and utilize in an undergraduate course. That's not what this is; it's that and thirteen other essays on disparate topics which all pay at least lip service to the idea of 'monstrosity'; some of them make attempts to yoke it to Cohen's assertion in his intro that the monster is particularly relevant to the specific cultural moment of the mid-90s; most of the best don't bother. (Cohen's final proof of this in his intro is that 'some new and recent films' include the Coppola/Oldman Dracula, the Branagh/Branagh Frankenstein, and also Wolf, Mary Reilly, Interview with the Vampire, Species, and Nightmare on Elm Street VI. This is funny on a couple of levels: I'm not going to go to the effort of poking around letterboxd or imdb to prove I could find seven movies that do interesting things with the 'monster' in any given five-year period, take it as read that I could; funnier is that Cohen was not paying enough attention to popular culture to notice that he was one full Freddy Krueger movie behind: and it's the one that fits his claim better, too.)

Cohen's essay, which I believe is widely taught these days, sets things off: I find it annoying. It makes a series of largely sensible claims about the monster: monstrous figures recur throughout literature and history in ways that echo and reconfigure each other; they show up at places where culturally constructed categories are under threat; they are deployed to inscribe a boundary; in doing so they often reflect a desire for what has been put beyond that boundary; examining a particular monster, whether it's Beowulf or Frankenstein's monster or the figure of the Muslim in Crusade narratives, is a lever by which to pry open the boundaries, examine the desires, the cultural constructions, etc. -- anyway it is these claims but in twenty pages and invoking Bakhtin, Kristeva, and Derrida. All of whom might lead us to a reading of a lot of texts about monsters, but none of whom seem valuably deployed here. I have combined two of Cohen's seven theses into one, and skipped over the first ('the monster's body is a cultural body') as not making any meaningful claim. (The negative case would be something like 'the monster, unlike any other concept in human imagination, has no cultural resonance is totally impervious and opaque to critical investigation'.)

This essay (and the two that follow it) form a first section of four, titled 'Monster Theory'. I have just now (at the moment of writing) looked up Cohen and realised he was a Harvard-trained medievalist, which makes more sense, that essay and collection are an attempt to get from there to the then-culturally-relevant; his editor's foreword positions the book as moving in the opposite direction, which seems silly. He also notes that when he delivered it as a conference paper the audience laughed at the juxtaposition of Barney and of the Jurassic Park velociraptor, which suggests that the Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies Conference of 1993 was starved for amusement. Anyway this perhaps explains the second essay, ten pages by one Ruth Waterhouse on 'Beowulf as palimpsest', starting with the new-to-me-but-probably-not-to-anyone-who-can-read-Anglo-Saxon claim that Grendel's descent from Cain is a scribe's mistake, and then asking whether the figures of Hyde, Frankenstein, and Dracula are written over the monsters of Beowulf. It concludes with the notion that Grendel's mother suggests that in Anglo-Saxon England "women were not as marginalized as they came to be in the later periods" (of the Regency and of Victoria, presumably.) David L. Clark provides 30 pages on de Man and bpNichol that have nothing to do with anything. I have no interest in de Man and less in bpNichol so I don't know if he's making any worthwhile claim.

In the second section, 'Monstrous Identity', Anne Lake Prescott has 15 pages on the frequent invocation of the figures of Tom Thumb and Gargantua near each other in pamphlets of the early modern period, which is the kind of thing that makes me briefly fantasize about setting down to read, like, 'Leonard Lack-Wit', before sadly waking and realising I likely never will; anyway it's the sort of essay that's really just 'here's all the good bits.' Allison Pingree's essay on Chang and Eng, the Siamese twins--that is, the pair of conjoined twins from whence 'Siamese twins'--considers how the rhetoric around their representation reflects the ambivalence around the conjoined body of the American democracy. It's the first essay in the book that seems to follow through on the methodology that Cohen suggests in his foreword with something like a coherent argument centred on a single object. Following this David A. Hedrich Hirsch has a long-ish reading of Frankenstein as troubling the Revolutionary notion of fraternité. Not bad, though I think it relies on taking the preface as a literal key to the novel a bit much. I might quote its last sentence as an example of something 50% of these essays do in their first or last paragraph, the vague rhetorical link to the moment of writing: Hirsch notes that Wollstonecraft once noted that "every page of history" proclaims, you know, bad things, "whether this page recount the republican Terror of 1793-1794 or the 'family values' terrorism of more recent Republican national conventions."

The third section, 'Monstrous Inquiry', opens with Stephen Pender on the figuration of conjoined twins and other lusus naturae in scientific and philosophical texts of the early modern era; seems perfectly serviceable but I felt I'd had my fill of that sort of thing. Similarly Lawrence D. Kritzman doing a close reading of Montaigne's essay on Cripples. Kathleen Perry Long is evidently drafting the introduction for the edition she will soon put out of the c. 1600 French 'L’Isle des hermaphrodites nouvellement descouverte', and I didn't want to get to the bottom of how she insists we understand the differences between Sextus Empiricus and Derrida for the sake of an introduction to a book I'm not reading. Mary Baine Campbell will get a book chapter out of her contribution on John Bulwer's 'Anthropometamorphosis', presented as a kind of pre-invention of the discipline of anthropology, a 'tantrum' that prefigures much of what is problematic in how nature and culture will be mutually defined in following centuries. I am tempted to read her Wonder and Science and see if it all hangs together better there.

The fourth section, 'Monstrous History'--n.b. literally any of these section titles could apply to literally any of these essays--opens with Frank Grady reading Anne Rice as a footnote to Moretti on Dracula, the essay that's in Signs Taken for Wonders. That Moretti essay is too busy trying to knit together seven disparate ideas about Shelley and Stoker and Marx and Freud, and then ends with a rhetorical throwing up of his hands. Grady takes up on Moretti's inversion of Marx's notion that capitalism is a vampire: Dracula, Moretti says, is capitalism, or the id of it, destroyed and/or absorbed by a collection of figures who incarnate the pieties of actually existing capitalism. Grady is here doing a late-capitalism expansion of that, aiming to demonstrate how the vampires in Rice end up 'the immortal custodians of Western culture, that realm of aesthetic endeavor that capitalism has always imagined as the repository of its conscience,' and then the second half of that sentence is a quote from Jameson. Anyway I was taken enough by this reading that I went and reread Interview with the Vampire, which ends with, oh dear, what ought to be a key moment in this reading and isn't actually taken up: the last thing Louis does in the past section of that book is break into the Louvre and reflect on how nugatory 'Western culture' has become to him. I have also since ordered a copy of Lestat and will revisit Grady's essay afterwards, probably. Also in the 'Monstrous History' section: William Sayers on 'the alien and alienated as Unquiet Dead in the Sagas of the Icelanders' doesn't manage to present a smooth surface unless you're already familiar with the sagas to an extent I'm not; Michael Uebel on 'Twelfth-Century Responses to Saracen Alterity' seems like it understood the assignment, and made me daydream about reading figures I'd never heard of like 'Guibert of Nogent' and 'Robert the Monk'. Then John O'Neill's 'Dinosaurs-R-Us: The (Un)Natural History of Jurassic Park, which I think may be the single worst piece of academic writing I've ever encountered.

It threatens to start well: "Americans love big things, including themselves. They even love things bigger than themselves, like America." By halfway through the first paragraph we're at "The Disney complex contains both a psychic and technocultural apparatus through which Americans have totally erased nature and its original peoples, including the real history of their own domestication"; by halfway through the piece "the helicopter/heliraptor ... has already taught the world's peasants to equate the sun with death rather than life while offering life to its wounded and the refugees it rescues from its own death spray--so celebrated in Miss Saigon". I don't know if I disagree with any of these claims but I find them, as articulated here, exhausting; this one really is a tantrum, to borrow Campbell's term, a thesis-less wonder about technocracy, imperialism, the family, and capitalism, all twisted in a pretzel knot in the Jurassic Park of the author's imagination, "a composite entity constructed from the novel by Michael Crichton; Jurassic Park: The Junior Novelisation ...; and the 1993 Spielberg film Jurassic Park, the events of which are closer to the junior novel than to the original text." That O'Neill presents this as a gotcha probably suggests just how well he apprehends how popular novels and films work. Anyway. "In JP the dino-eye trianfulates the unwilling father, the desiring mother, and the terrible-terrified children--turning the elders into children and the children into elders, collapsing the generations, turning life into death and death into life. The eye of the dinosaur is the eye of the awful child who needs to be conceived in the unconscious desire of its parents killing their love, tearing them apart." There's also some more Barney.

I really do struggle to understand why this volume exists. It's not a helpful source for any one thing; you couldn't teach a course around it. Perhaps you could carve chunks out of it for a course on conceptions of the body in the early modern period, and stew the rest for a course on the development of horror or on the gothic novel. I am on the whole slightly better than indifferent to the fact that I read it; I needed something to look at in the winter vacation (after spending most of December reading, of all things, Homestuck) that wasn't quite slumming it but nor was it the most serious thing in the world. Parts of it, I'm sure, were good.

[Myrto Charalambous · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can only speak about the Preface, Monster Culture: Seven Theses, as that’s the only part I’ve read. It was interesting to compare Cohen’s schema with other books across centuries which feature monsters — for example, books like, Beowulf, Frankenstein, Dracula, etc. This was an exciting and insightful read and I am planning to edit this review again, upon finishing the whole book.

[Dolf Wagenaar · Rating 3 out of 5]

2,5 sterren. Deze bundel artikelen viel wat tegen. Ik had andere verwachtingen, en daarnaast is het bij het lezen duidelijk dat het uit 1996 is, en dus wat gedateerd - belangrijke nieuwere verschijnselen en aandachtsgebieden vallen bij het bespreken van 'het monsterlijke' daardoor buiten de boot.
Ik hoopte op artikelen over het duiden van meer letterlijke en moderne monsters, zoals die in films, games, boeken en in urban legends. De bundel gaat voor een groot deel echter in op de conceptie van monsters van vroeger en de minder letterlijke, zoals siamese tweelingen en het monster van Frankenstein - meer de 'andere' mens als monster, dus. Niet dat dat per se oninteressant is. Zo vond ik het artikel over 'kreupelen' in de essays van Montaigne interessant - maar meer vanwege Montaigne zelf dan wat daar weer over werd gezegd. Daarbij zijn veel artikelen weer hopeloos onleesbaar en/of vaag, een kwaal van veel (oudere?) cultureel-antropologische teksten.
Het laatste deel in de bundel ('Monstrous History') bevat artikelen die meer in de buurt kwamen bij wat ik had gehoopt te gaan lezen. De eerste gaat over vampiercultuur in de werken van Anne Rice (al ligt de nadruk op de paradox bij het samengaan van kunstwaarde en kapitalistische waarden, wat ikzelf een minder interessant aspect van de verhalen vind). Het tweede artikel in het laatste deel vond ik het beste van de bundel en gaat over de wedergangerslegenden ('draugr') die nogal afwijken van de bekendere zombieverhalen, en hun plaats in de familiesaga's van IJsland - overigens ook interessant om de Netflix-serie 'Katla' beter te begrijpen. Ook interessant: het artikel over de Saracenen (kort door de bocht: moslims) die door Christenen als monsters werden gezien en zo werden gebruikt om hun eigen identiteit en saamhorigheid te versterken, maar tegelijkertijd hun eigen zwakte daarin blootlegde. Het laatste artikel 'Dinosaurs-R-Us' was meer een schotschrift tegen Jurassic Parc dan een echt artikel, en waarbij ik steeds niet goed begreep waar iets cynisch of serieus was bedoeld (maar dat zal aan mij liggen).
Deze bundel kwam voort uit de zogenaamde 'Monster theory' binnen de 'human sciences'. Ik heb een flink dikkere bundel liggen: 'The Ashgate Research Companion to Monsters and the Monstrous' - deze is nieuwer (1e editie 2013, huidige 2016) en gaat over de 'diversity and richness of monster studies', en lijkt een stuk breder te zijn wat betreft de scope en (dus) meer interdisciplinair. Ben benieuwd of die bundel meer is wat ik zocht.

[Gina · Rating 2 out of 5]

The preface was awful. Then the first piece was also by the editor, so I wasn't too discouraged when it was equally bloviatingly pointless. Then I thought maybe it would be better after that section.

So Frank Grady's "Vampire Culture" in the last section, followed by "The Alien and Alienated as Unquiet Dead in the Sagas of the Icelanders" by William Sayers were actually pretty interesting. Then it ended on a terrible note with John O'Neill apparently hating Jurassic Park, Stephen Jay Gould, and families. I don't think he would say that was the point, but it was a really pissy piece that didn't seem to go anywhere.

When I was looking this up I saw another Monster Theory book and thought maybe I would try that too. I think it would take some strong persuasion now.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very well curated collection of essays. It's not quite what I was looking for when I started reading it for research purposes, but it still had several essays that deeply contributed to a wider understanding of the current debate in this area of the Folklore field. I don't agree with all the assertions, but this definitely provided a good groundwork for discussion!

[Mert Ali Akcan · Rating 3 out of 5]

for my medieval literature study, i read the Monster Culture (Seven Thesis). It was interesting, for a basic read. I would like to see if there is more to this seven thesis. Being short and like not literally complex, was a easy reading. Liked it but not loved it.

[Jade Driscoll · Rating 3 out of 5]

As with any anthology, some of the essays here were more interesting than others. I especially appreciated Cohen's own "Monster Culture (Seven Theses)" (which I've already read twice before in various classes), as well as Kathleen Perry Long's and Frank Grady's contributions.

[Melissa · Rating 2 out of 5]

The central idea of this book is very interesting, but unfortunately the writing is extremely dense and some ideas are very outdated and needed more critical reflection. Some references unfortunately went over my head as well, since I haven't read that many horror classics.

[Matt Sautman · Rating 3 out of 5]

The opening chapters are easily five stars due to the depth of theory and overall impact this book has had on the field of monster studies. Among the later chapters, however, I found it incredibly easy to set the book down and not come back to it for weeks at a time.

[Helga · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read the introduction as part of my English literature course. I feel like it was kind of interesting but unnecessarily long, like "this meeting could have been an email". Every passage can be shortened to 2-5 sentences and be more clear and carry more weight for the modern reader.

[Hanna · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5⭐️ have to admit that i didn't read the whole thing (only the sections relevant for my BA) but it was exactly what i needed and very well written. no complaints. other than that i seemingly can't escape freud.

[Elizabeth · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars for me. Interesting topic, but this turned out to be very different from what I was expecting and not really my kind of book.

[karla · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Difference that exists outside the system is terrifying because it reveals the truth of the system, its relativity, its fragility, and its mortality"

[Marty · Rating 3 out of 5]

A collection of essays, with the best first and those that followed being a mixed bag, exploring monsters across mythology and fiction. Some were too academic, but overall worth the read.

[Kym · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this over the course of a year or so as I was also reading different horror stories. Excellent read and I will be referring back to this in the future.

[elizabeth jacoby · Rating 3 out of 5]

interesting and quick way of rethinking monsters and their purpose in society

[soren]

Only read the preface for a class but very cool!

[Violet · Rating 3 out of 5]

only about half of the essays in this collection were interesting to me.

[˗ ˏ ˋ Lili ˎ ˊ ˗]

Read:
Chapter 1- Monster Culture (Seven Theses) by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen &
Chapter 11- Vampire Culture by Frank Grady

[meshi · Rating 4 out of 5]

“They ask us why we have created them”

[Demi · Rating 3 out of 5]

another dissertation read - started off with a gripping introduction and some really interesting analysis but started to lose me halfway through

[Soefae · Rating 5 out of 5]

Inspired by a social critique and lesbianism analysis essay I heard at a conference half a year ago, I read this very captivating piece. Thank you, Miss Blurry Face.

[Cheyenne · Rating 5 out of 5]

monster bible!!

[Maggy L · Rating 5 out of 5]

This will live in my head forever and ever