Monster Culture by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen Book Analysis

📌Category: Books
📌Words: 1366
📌Pages: 5
📌Published: 04 February 2022

“Monster Culture ” by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen examines monsters as a metaphorical representation of the anxieties that arise from different time periods. He elaborates on how monsters are forever evolving as the shared fears in a culture can gradually change and fail to exist within the social parameters. Implementing rhetorical devices throughout his work enables Cohen to present the dual nature of monsters. Cohen effectively uses scholastic and concrete diction to shift away from the egotistical social norms that create biased notions of monsters as socially unacceptable to the audience accepting his argument, in turn accepting monsters as their creations.

Cohen begins by describing the piece as a “foray,” immediately grabbing the audience’s attention by admitting to the faults in his argument (1). By acknowledging the flaws in his writing, he establishes ethos and presents himself as a trustworthy writer. The term “foray” provides a negative connotation as he bluntly reveals his unconventional piece of writing. He deliberately moves past the walls of traditional and orthodox writing to instantaneously create tension within the reader of his argument. With this, he continues to describe his work as “a book of monstrous content” (1). The use of “monstrous” implies that his work is a ‘monster’ in the literary world; he characterizes his work as socially unacceptable by abandoning traditional means. He intentionally creates a bridge between the acceptable reality of conventional writing techniques and his fabricated world of atypical writing which both distresses and attracts the reader. By deeming his work dissimilar, he reinforces tension in the reader and implies that his ideas transcend the boundaries of traditional writing techniques. Additionally, Cohen also states how he “violate[s] sacred dicta,” which strengthens the tension within the reader (1). Similar to how he describes the monsters as traditionally unacceptable, his use of language develops similar anxiety amongst the readers as his self-made ‘monster’ is designed to pivot from traditional writing design.

Cohen’s complex diction exhibits how he speaks to an educated audience through his writing. The elaborate vocabulary level speaks to the complexities within the “monster'' that he describes. Just as the “monster” in the reading is highly complex because of its open interpretation, his use of sophisticated language creates a similar effect amongst the audience. 

Cohen juxtaposes the concept of monsters by contrasting its character as repulsive, yet desirable. He describes the monster as abhorrent, unattractive, and emotionally detached. This stereotypical image of the monster has been repeated across many cultures, so he utilizes this image to attach the readers to a familiar concept. For instance, Cohen describes how “the monster’s very existence is a rebuke of boundary and enclosure” (7). The use of “rebuke” presents how Cohen places the ‘monster’ outside of mainstream society which is referenced with “boundary and enclosure.” “Rebuke” invokes a negative connotation, emphasizing the hostility towards the monster; his choice in describing the monster as such alludes to our conventional perspectives on what monsters are. By creating an inferior image, the author appeals to the natural human response as we associate monsters with anger and hate. Humans have always associated monsters with negativity, so the writer feeds into this narrow thinking about all monsters. This allows the reader to remain attracted to the text despite its irregularity, which parallels the juxtaposition of the nature of the monster. 

He continues to build on the hatred for the monster due to its atypical features as he illustrates the monster as a “defeaturing, self-deconstructive...single, unnatural body” (9). These cacophonous words add to the horrible image of the monster, separating it from normal social norms. This adds to the anxiety that Cohen had developed in the beginning. His use of derogatory language exposes our apprehensions to incoherence in the social world. Despite the demeaning words used to describe the monster, the reader is somewhat comforted as this depiction of monsters is what they are accustomed to. As we are socialized into fearing the monster, Cohen alludes to the readers’ shared preconceived notions of monsters. 

As mentioned before, Cohen’s work functions as a monster itself in the literary world. Although his sophisticated word choice can pose a challenge with comprehension, the audience continues to read because the audience seeks to resolve the tension Cohen creates in the text. 

Eventually, he presents the monster in an alternate viewpoint as attractive and emotionally alluring. He explains how “the repressed, however, like Freud himself, always seems to return” (16). The term “repressed” provides a negative connotation and paints the image of the monster as a victim, which begins to confuse the reader. Cohen’s choice to include this makes the readers question whether they truly hate the monster as the author creates sympathy for the monster within the reader. The use of “return” shifts the perception of the monster from its degrading self, surfacing doubts about the true nature of the monster. Cohen goes into how the monster “evoke[s] potent escapist fantasies” (17). His contrast to the previous image continues the apprehension created throughout the text as the reader begins to question their perception of monsters. The term “fantasies” creates a positive connotation, developing the image of monsters as desirable. By developing an attractiveness towards the monster, the reader’s ego in not accepting the monster begins to surface. Our social norms teach us to outcast monsters, so that the social world remains in order and our self-made norms remain desirable. 

Cohen presents the alternate image of the monster as covetable to make the reader question their self-interpretation of monsters. The reader subsequently questions the social norms that define a monster in the social world. In addition, he also states how monsters are a “simultaneity of anxiety and desire” (19). The term “desire” contradicts the former unacceptable image of the monster, hence attracting the reader to the text and out of the socially bound reality. He contrasts the image of the monster to challenge the audience’s ego and causes them to accept their creations; the readers come out of their socially restrictive world to accept their monsters. 

Towards the end, Cohen brings upon a question that leads the reader into a spiral of inquiry, reinforcing the dependent relationship between monsters and humans. He poses the question: “Do monsters exist?” which shifts the focus from examining the monster in a social context to questioning their existence (20). This question forces the reader to examine the cultural norms which set the boundaries of traditional and novel. He reinforces the initial anxiety that he had created in the text by forcing the reader to come out of the rigid conventional social structure that they reside in. His response to this question “surely they must, for if they did not, how could we?” (20). This question establishes logos by causing readers to think deeply about his argument, convincing readers to agree with him. “Surely” implies that the writer believes that the readers are well aware of this answer despite shying away from it. Cohen self validates his question to the audience, causing the audience to evaluate the social norms that define a monster. The use of “must” speaks to certainty as the author is sure of his answer and the readers. For the first time in the text, Cohen drifts away from his tense environment as he speaks in conviction. The reader is forcibly removed from their “perfect” depiction of the social structure and begins to doubt the social norms that they strongly believed in. He continues to ask other questions from the perspective of monsters as it states, “they ask us why we have created them.” (20) This forces the reader to question oneself and move towards acceptance of the monster. Using a rhetorical question makes the reader reevaluate their prior perspectives on monsters. Cohen uses pathos as he makes the audience feel guilty as we abandon our creations and reveals our heavily dependent relationship  (monsters depend on the audience to be created and readers depend on monsters because they are representative of our anxieties).  

In turn, this unveils an aspect of human nature that the audience tries to neglect which is vulnerability to the monster. He teaches the audience a lesson that they are susceptible to the monster and our social norms make us egotistical. By creating doubt within the reader, this reveals the reader’s ego in not accepting monsters. The audience accepts the monster as they now understand their dependent relationship. In a sense, the readers become the monster themselves as in actuality we are the ones acting undesirably by being judgemental and setting strict standards of what is normal.

The motive of this essay is to understand how Cohen’s diction exposes an important aspect of the rigid social world and the audience’s vulnerability to monsters. He creates his version of the ‘monster’ through his work that is riddled with unconventional writing techniques. His efforts in creating such a ‘monster’ allows the audience to reevaluate their definitions of monsters. His language alters the audience’s anxieties concerning monsters into acceptance.

+
x
Remember! This is just a sample.

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Order now
By clicking “Receive Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.