Why I **HEART** monsters with ALL the HEARTS

[capri0mni]

I've always loved monsters, for nearly as long as I can remember.

Actually, I should qualify that: I'm not fond, at all, of the "Hollywood monsters," such as zombies, or "The Thing from the Black Lagoon" or "The Blob" -- which are, imnsho, blatant representations of abject fear-without-thought, and show up in stories to justify unjustifiable bigotry. But I've always loved the heraldic monsters:

Unicorns (Note Well: they are not just sparkly ponies with a horn. And they do not poop rainbows), Dragons, &hearts Gryphons &hearts, Greenmen, and of course, the monster of my Astrological Sun-sign: Sea-goats

For most of that time, I just thought they were nifty because they were -- "fancy" (?), and they represent the "magical impossible," and are manifestations of the imagination, and creativity... All good stuff. But I never gave them much more thought beyond: "Nifty, Neat-O! Keen!"

Then, a few years ago, for naarmamo, I was overcome with a desire to draw new monsters of my own invention, several days in a row... like some sort of biological urge, or something.

And the geeky part of my brain thought: "WTF is up?! What is a monster, anyway? What, after all, is the basic definition?" And that's when I found the etymology, of "monster" being a "creature, human or livestock, with birth defects, and seen as a bad omen, and sign that the gods were angry."

And from that point on, monsters became a political statement for me, representing Disability Pride, Culture, and History, and the fight against Ableism/Disablism -- on top of being a manifestation of creativity and imagination. ... And here, I could mount an argument that creativity and the use of the imagination is an essential part of Disability Culture, because when Society makes a concerted effort to deny you access (because it views you as a monster) you have to be creative, to make a way of living for yourself where none is given to you.

(but really, that's for another post).

Then, the other day, when I posted the newest image of my newest monster,* pebblerocker commented that she loved the "joins" -- where feather meets fur and fur meets scales. And there was the "ding-ding-ding!" of realization, and third leg in the three-legged stool of my monster-love popped into place.

Back in my first years of my college education, I took a literary survey course called "Comedy, Wit, and Humor" (it was awesome; it was once a week, three hours long, and we got to watch Richard Pryor videos and tell dirty jokes in class). And the one thing from that class which has stuck with me over the last 30 years is this:

The punchlines of jokes work because the human mind can only follow one line of logic at a time. The main "body" of the joke tells a story along a certain line of logic, and in standard narrative fashion, the emotional tension builds to a climax. Then, the "punch" line comes in, from a completely different logical direction and knocks that emotional tension "ass-over-teakettle," revealing all our fears and worries to be nonsensical. And in that release of tension, we laugh. (And that may be why so many people say a compatible sense of humor is the most important trait in life partners -- your sense of humor reveals how you are likely to respond to life's ambiguities. Personally, I will never trust anyone whose humor tends toward causing pain or belittling another's intelligence).

The joke that was given as a model of this formula:

Once, a bishop and a lay woman fell madly in love, and started to have an affair. One day, the two of them were having sex in the woman's bed when the husband came home early from work. The two of them were scrambling to get out of bed and dressed as the husband came up the stairs. But they were too slow.

The husband comes into the bedroom, looks over the scene, and, without a word, goes over to the window and starts making the sign of the cross over the neighborhood.

The bishop and the wife were utterly perplexed; the wife stops her excuse midstream and says: "Ahem -- Dear? What are you doing?"

To which the husband replies: "Well, if he's going to do my job, I figure I'd better do his."

--

And puns and conundrums do the same thing with single words and phrases -- highlighting conflicting meanings in homophones.

Anyway, pebblerocker's comment flicked on the light bulb that monsters do this, too. The point where the goat's front half grows from the fish's back half, or the Green Man's beard grows as foliage instead of hair, is like the punchline of a joke: the moment when the logic of the world-as-we-know-it gets turned on its head.

This can be the moment of terror (especially if you are the Archbishop of Seville, and all the comfort and power in your life is built on the world-as-we-know-it), but it can also be the moment of laughter (which Jim Henson, in his genius, understood instinctively, if not intellectually).

And that's why I Heart Monsters: In one package, they represent:

1) The sublime reaches of Human Creativity
2) Righteous Anger against human cruelty
3) The ultimate life-saving power of the Absurd

*
A ballpoint pen sketch of a monster with a vaguely (hairy) human torso, arms, and legs, a bird's head, and dragon's tail.

Comments

[jesse_the_k]

1. Word
2. Word
3. Word

The beauty of monsters

[butterflydreaming]

Once again, you've made plot-idea wheels start spinning in my head.

Your insight illuminates the reason why certain animals, like the platypus, are commonly found funny just for existing. "Fantastic" is a superlative because things of fantasy surprise and delight... as long as those things are modeled on the standard ideas of beauty. What is beautiful by cultural standards changes over time and by culture, so a monster of one time (animal examples: whales and wolves) becomes a beautiful creature at a later time, once the fear has been removed. Just what you have been writing about all along!

[pebblerocker]

I found all of this post fascinating. I can tell that monsters make you happy, because your pictures of monsters make ME happy :o)

[spiralsheep]

My interest in medieval church architecture means I see a lot of mixed-up creatures. The main difference between those and yours is that they have more fear and you have more laughter, and when they are laughing then the joke is often scatological in addition to absurd. Anyway, I saw this medieval koala-bird last night and thought of your creation above... apart from the scatological green man conjoined twin, heh:

http://www.gloucestercathedral.org.uk/uploads/images/Gallery/StainedGlass/grotesque.jpg

[sqbr]

So the moment I looked at your icon, even before I read your post, I thought "OH. Maybe this desire to draw monster women has something to do with starting to go outside in my new wheelchair more lately and suddenly becoming visibly disabled" HMMM.

Consciously I was using it to explore the inherent monstrousness of being the Wrong Sort Of Woman, and right now exploring visible disability through art is a bit new and scary. But you've got me thinking.

[the_future_modernes]

Hell there. I am was linked to your posts through sqbr and I am like what you have to say. May I ask to link it to my blog the_school_of_philosophy?

Yes...

[ysabetwordsmith]

I love monsters too, for these and others reasons ...

* They show nature's variety.

* They remind us to think outside the box.

* They challenge social preconceptions.

* They present a powerful image of the disempowered: the bestial, the female, the deformed, the alien, etc.

I still love this medieval bestiary of decompensation.

And of course, all this stuff is why I so often write monsters as sympathetic, or seemingly normal/beautiful people as monstrous inside. I really enjoy exploring what it means to be a monster, and for me, the evil aspects are less about appearance and more about action.

[lb_lee]

Here via ysabetwordsmith.

I personally always liked monsters not just because of the disability angle, but the gender angle too. Monsters get to do pull sorts of gender stuff that humans are rarely allowed. My personal favorites are the constructs--golems, robots, and so on, for their metaphorical relevance to me as "human, maybe even passably so, but still not QUITE."