ENGLISH 400: MONSTER THEORY
Maria Guerrero Hernandez
Research Abstract
"The Wolves With Whom We Sympathize"
Werewolf stories have been around for generations, and the meaning of the werewolf has expanded overtime. Scholars like Cohen have analyzed werewolf texts and created theories about how werewolves function as symbols or tropes within fictional stories. People can see them as villains who violate others and indulge in their animalistic desires. But, they can also be seen as victims, with no choice in their monstrous bodies, and trying to hide their true selves in fear of being shamed by others.
This paper will examine one such case where a werewolf is presented sympathetically: Marie De France's twelfth century lay "Bisclavret." Why does Marie write her werewolf sympathetically, and what message is it trying to convey to the audience? What makes Bisclavret stand out from other werewolves? Marie warns at the beginning of her book that werewolves are dangerous and monstrous, but Bisclavret is instead portrayed by the author as the victim, and one with whom we should sympathize instead of fear. Marie gives him human attributes like loyalty and love that he displays to the king, with whom he forms a close bond that seems suggestively romantic. Bisclavret also has a sense of justice, an example being when he attacks his wife by ripping off her nose for betraying him for something that he cannot control. Even though this is a monstrous act that should deem him dangerous, it is seen as well-deserved justice. The wife and her offspring will have to suffer the same judgement for something they cannot control like Bisclavret. I argue that this shows "Bisclavret" is an allegory for same-sex desire because he cannot help being a werewolf, like a person cannot help whom they love, and that should not make them any less human. Marie punishes those, like the wife, for their judgement and lack of understanding.
Capstone Presentation
"Hungry Ladies"
In Nalo Hopkinson’s short story "Greedy Chokepuppy,” the women are monstrous vampire creatures called soucouyants who take babies' lives to sustain their own, because they have an insatiable hunger, or desire, that is never quelled. The only thing that stops this hunger is love because it is the only thing “filling enough” to stop it. The grandmother focuses on her love for her family, which fills her needs and lets her live a good honest life. The granddaughter does not focus her love on anything but herself, which makes her hungry for something to sustain her, so she does monstrous acts. I argue that Hopkinson is using this monster to represent the stigma felt if women did not have their lives set with a career, husband, and baby by the time they reach a certain age. If they do not get all of those things, they feel like a failure. The granddaughter’s monstrosity represents her hunger to have her life set according to cultural expectations, and she gets jealous when others do, like her friend
with the baby. The grandmother tries to show, not just her granddaughter but any woman who reads the story, that you do not need all that to be happy or to be “full.” The story’s monster teaches us to be satisfied with what is in front of us, rather than giving into a hunger that can never be satiated.