PDF of the Day

[malymin]

Monster as Victim, Victim as Monster: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,Redemptive Suffering and the ‘Undead’

Abstract:

When surveying the vast pantheon of monstrous incarnations, from Frankenstein’s creation to Godzilla, it is nearly impossible to find a creature in the definitive works of fictional monstrosity that doesn’t, in some way, owe its creation to a violently traumatic event. This paper analyses the monster as victim by comparing the symptoms of monstrosity to the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. It would appear that monsters, most specifically the undead monsters such as vampires, zombies, and Frankenstein, are merely hyperbolic representations of human post-trauma symptoms. The persistent presence of violent trauma at the birth of the monster, as well as a violent death at his end, implies that these monsters were purposely created as a way to manage society, as examples of how not to act in the face of overwhelming personal catastrophe. The fact that we, as consumers of monster stories, do not recognize monsters as victims and cannot pity them is due to our cultural belief in redemptive suffering. We believe, innately, that all suffering results in redemption, that all stories have a happy ending. The possibility that this might not be true is may be the most horrifying thing that we as human beings could be made to face. Either the monster deserves his fate, or our long-held belief in redemptive suffering must be called into question.

Comments

[stepnix]

This reminds me of two things

1) This post from cohost, which describes the "misanthropic oppression narrative"

2) Gorgon Far Roofs my beloved

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> When surveying the vast pantheon of monstrous incarnations, from Frankenstein’s creation to Godzilla, it is nearly impossible to find a creature in the definitive works of fictional monstrosity that doesn’t, in some way, owe its creation to a violently traumatic event. <<

Well, it depends on how you count both monstrosity and trauma, which are two interesting conversations on their own.

Jurassic Park dinosauroids were originally created in a lab for entertainment. Damnfool idea, but not initially traumatic. Then life found a way and they started reproducing naturally.

King Kong (and other inhabitants of Skull Island) were naturally born in a bigger, more violent ecosystem. This is a whole branch of monster fic that we might call "Lost World" stories of natural creatures that humans just aren't equipped to handle. This is taken to extremes in Fragment where every species is a weed species. It's an interesting read if you can ignore the glaringly obvious flaw in the base premises.

Still, I agree that a majority of monster stories do seem to rely heavily on trauma -- and often, the uncanny valley of things that are almost human but not enough.

>> This paper analyses the monster as victim by comparing the symptoms of monstrosity to the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. It would appear that monsters, most specifically the undead monsters such as vampires, zombies, and Frankenstein, are merely hyperbolic representations of human post-trauma symptoms. <<

That's not all they are, but it is one thing that they can be and is probably a common underpinning. Bear in mind that undead appear around the world in myriad variations.

>>The persistent presence of violent trauma at the birth of the monster, as well as a violent death at his end, implies that these monsters were purposely created as a way to manage society, as examples of how not to act in the face of overwhelming personal catastrophe.<<

Sometimes. But that is absolutely not the theme of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's Frankenstein. That one is all about putting the highest-ranked social role (a white male doctor) in the role of villain. The "creature" was presented as innocent, but like any child, capable of destruction in his ignorance. A feminist annotated edition will usually highlight these aspects.

>> The fact that we, as consumers of monster stories, do not recognize monsters as victims and cannot pity them is due to our cultural belief in redemptive suffering. <<

Guess that's why it doesn't work on me, my culture is different. I look at actions a lot more than appearances -- and it's not the "monsters" waving the pitchforks and torches. I have no trouble identifying a character as a victim if other characters are trying to murder them, especially if their only crime is being different and/or defending themselves from a mob, which is not exactly rare.

>>We believe, innately, that all suffering results in redemption, that all stories have a happy ending. The possibility that this might not be true is may be the most horrifying thing that we as human beings could be made to face. Either the monster deserves his fate, or our long-held belief in redemptive suffering must be called into question.<<

I'm guessing that's a privileged perspective. Lots of people already have experience in how suffering doesn't redeem anything and happy endings are for romance novels.

I guess I look for different things in monster stories. I like Godzilla because it's such a classic warning not to fuck with nature. I enjoyed the hell out of The Lovecraft Country because the white racists kept getting eaten.

Re: Thoughts

[malymin]

Well, it depends on how you count both monstrosity and trauma, which are two interesting conversations on their own.

I do think this paper defines "monster" a bit narrowly, focusing primarily on the category of monster that were once ordinary humans (or, like in Godzilla's case, animals) before being subject to a transformation. A category that primarily contains undead (because it's easy to imagine death itself being traumatic, when we know near-death often is), but also ventures into werewolves, nuke-created "mutants" like Godzilla, et cetera. There' a lot of monsters in this category, but also many that are simply born outside of normality, only become "abnormal" via juxtaposition with something else. The fauna of Skull Island probably fit under the latter category, as do alien lifeforms in a science fiction story. Also, I think the authors are in many ways focused more on the modern iterations of "undead" than on folkloric traditions, which often only loosely resemble their literary/cinematic/etc descendants.

Sometimes. But that is absolutely not the theme of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's Frankenstein. That one is all about putting the highest-ranked social role (a white male doctor) in the role of villain. The "creature" was presented as innocent, but like any child, capable of destruction in his ignorance. A feminist annotated edition will usually highlight these aspects.

Have you read the PDF? I hesitate to insist on "one true reading" for any given work of art - the PDF authors focus on the perspective of the monster, as a being who becomes frustrated and enraged by the isolation that his uncanny shape traps him into:

Complete isolation from the world around the victim can result in suicidal depression. It can also result in rage and in a desire for revenge. 19 In the words of Frankenstein’s monster, ‘I, like the arch-fiend, bore a hell within me; and, finding myself unsympathised with, wished to tear up the trees, spread havoc and destruction around me, and then to have sat down and enjoyed the ruin’. 20 Here, then, is the root of our inquiry. The real issues of monstrosity are rage and violence. Arguments pointing out obscure symptoms of post-traumatic stress are moot in the face of the greater question of whether or not trauma can turn a previously tame person into a creature capable of the horrific acts that monsters routinely perform, whether or not a person can be so changed by their experience with cruelty that they become monstrous themselves.

The thing is, even when the original text begs you to sympathize with a monster, there are always people who come out the other end simply hating the creature for daring to defend itself when it's wounded and scared, for daring to eat when it's hungry. I still think about how one of the Star Trek reboot showrunners somehow got a message of "the gorn are pure inhuman evil" out of the Original Series episode they originate from, when its message was pretty blatantly "recognizing the personhood in others even if they look scary and different."¹ I've seen it many times, and I'm not sure what can be done.

Guess that's why it doesn't work on me, my culture is different. I look at actions a lot more than appearances -- and it's not the "monsters" waving the pitchforks and torches. I have no trouble identifying a character as a victim if other characters are trying to murder them, especially if their only crime is being different and/or defending themselves from a mob, which is not exactly rare.

I think the "we" the authors describe is a shorthand for Mainstream Culture. I think a lot of geeks are predisposed to sympathize with monsters (though not all - god knows there's a strain of half-ironic "human supremacist" TTRPG fan that leans suspiciously close into actual fascism) as outcasts; likewise, members of minority groups that see mainstream society's fear of them reflected in monsters may choose to embrace and reclaim them. I spend all my time in online spaces where the idea that even the most "inhuman" creatures can be cute and lovable is normal - and in the real world am reminded there are still people who think snakes are Ontologically Evil Emissaries of Satan that should be actively tortured and killed, where I live.

---

_{1. See: timestamp 1:17:41 in this Youtube video}