3. Carroll (2003) and King (2010) discuss how the “monster” is really a defining feature of a horror story. Using references, explain in your own words how a monster in horror differentiates from monsters in other popular genres.
Monsters as a defining feature of horror is something that can also be said for several other genres and subgenres outside of horror, such as science fiction, fairy tales, myths and odysseys (Carroll, N., 2003). However, both Carroll and King agree on the way in which the monsters in horror stand out and display three distinct themes: the terror, the horror and the disgust (King, S., 1982). Where the monsters in science fiction are often described and portrayed as species whose origins are placed in far away galaxies, undersea societies or communities deep within the earth, the monsters of horror are distinct in the way in which they are both familiar and unfamiliar (Carroll, N., 1990).
Carroll mentions that monsters seen in horror are often portrayed as abnormalities, a mutation or a “disturbance of the natural order” (Carroll, N., 2003). The monster is identified as being an extraordinary creature in a mediocre and ordinary world and this is shown through the means of which that the human characters of the story behave and react in the face of the discovery of such a creature. The human creatures will experience the initial terror and fear of the monster they are witness to, a primal reaction to an impossible threat (King, S., 1982) which is shortly followed by the horror at the realization that such a thing could exist at all in ordinary society to only then to finally experience the last of the trademark reactions to a monster from horror, which is the disgust (Carroll, N., 2003). The revulsion and the nausea that the characters experience, and the inevitable recoil from the monster’s physical contact with the characters. There are numerous examples of this revulsion, but we see it in Harker from Bram Stoker’s Dracula, in which Harker shudders when he is touched by the Count.
As the Count leaned over me and his hands touched me, I could not repress a shudder. It may have been that his breath was rank, but a horrible feeling of nausea came over me, which do what I would, I could not conceal.
Carroll argues that monsters within horror are “impure” (Carroll, N., 2003), that they are not so removed from reality that audiences cannot find something familiar in them, but see it as perverted or twisted by the monstrosity of it. Hanscomb provides examples within his study Existentialism and art-horror: living and dead (vampires, zombies, Frankenstein’s monster), human and beast (werewolves, the Fly), human and supernatural entity (demons, omens), the innocence and corruption/insanity (child possessions and poltergeists), and others (Hanscomb, S., 2010).
King goes further, arguing that what makes a horror monster is the reactions that it elicits from its audiences, the readers or the viewers of the horror tale. The emotions and reactions of the human characters within the creative text of horror must reflect the emotions and reactions of the audience, when a character withdraws into themselves as the monster approaches, the audience must also withdraw. When a character experiences the nausea and the revulsion at the sight of the creature coming towards them, the audience must also experience the same feelings of disgust and discontent (King, S., 1982).
References
Carroll, N. (1990). The philosophy of horror: Or, paradoxes of the heart. Routledge.
Carroll, N. (2003). The nature of horror. Blackwell Publishing.
Goss, T. (2012). What the freak and monster tell us. Conjunctions.
Hanscomb, S. (2010). Existentialism and art-horror. Berghahn Books.
King, S. (1982). Danse Macabre. Everest House.
Sauchelli, A. (2014). Horror and mood. North American Philosophical Publications.
Pop Genres 2020 