Monsters
Monsters. A “reanimated human corpse that feed on living flesh?” (Munz et al, 1) Or a scary “large primate lineage descended from the extinct Asian species Gigantopithicus blacki?” (Lozier et al, 2). Throughout the course of this class, we have taken a close look at all sorts of monsters ranging from Sasquatch to zombies to even the Neotropical Skipper Butterfly. So, the question comes into play: what exactly is a monster? Is it something that crawls and slithers, or is it something that only seems to be heard of, but never seen? From my experience in this class, I have come to one specific conclusion. In my opinion, a monster is simply something that perplexes the minds of humans while intriguing and terrifying us. These are indeed everywhere and seem to show up in the absence of definite explanation. From the very first day, we spoke of “mutated daisies”. This is where I first realized that as people we tend to blame disasters and radiation for unnatural things that we cannot seem to explain and label those things as “monsters”. Even in the absence of high radiation levels, people still chose to use that as an explanation for the cause of these “mutated daisies”. Another example popped up in an article I read called the “‘Godzilla’ Fossils Reveal Real-life Sea Monster”. This article speaks of a large skull found in the Pacific Ocean (Lovgren, 2005). Without a concrete explanation for the appearance of this enormous skull people simple chose to label it a “monster” (Lovgren, 2005). Specifically, it was labeled a “real-life” monster, which brings up the question if a monster is “real” is it really a monster at all?
However, when there is a lack of something to serve as the cause of things that are unnatural, like radiation, this is when we move toward the term “monster”. We have all heard the myths of “Big Foot,” and how it is this indescribable large creature that can never be caught. I found it extremely interesting that this creature has existed for such a long time without leaving behind any concrete evidence of its existence. We even spoke in class of the different requirements this creature would need in order to survive and provide a large enough population to support the reported sightings. So if there is little to no proof besides an old man saying that Sasquatch had some really “pretty hair”, then why do we resonate on the idea of it? People have even taken the time to carry out in-depth processes in order to explain and predict the existence of Big Foot. Ecological niche modeling was used in order to predict the distribution of Sasquatch throughout North America. Due to databases, and internet access, however, the range of error in using such a process as greatly increased. Even with this increased error and decreased reliability, people still chose to use this method in order to provide an explanation for these supposed sightings. Scientific measures were used including “auditory detections and footprint measurements” (Lozier et al). According to the article the distribution of this creature also correlated to the distribution of Black Bears (Lozier et al). So once again if most signs were pointing away from the existence of Big Foot, then why do we still bother to be intrigued by it? I believe these simple facts prove that this sort of creature does not necessarily exist, but even the slightest doubt of it existing compels us to label it as a monster, because we cannot explain it.
Once again bringing the idea that monsters are simply the things we fail to accurately explain, is the idea of a zombie. There has not been any significant evidence of zombies or an outbreak anywhere other than in the media. Yet, researches still chose to dedicate their time into producing a mathematical model of zombie infection (Munz et al). Researchers went on to even labeling separate classes of zombies including those that were susceptible, removed, or of course zombie (Munz et al). Each class was defined and an equation was formed in order to determine the likelihood of zombie infection. Models of treatment, quarantine, and impulsive eradication were all used in order to define this idea. Once again, it is easy to wonder why so much time and science would be put into something that has only been seen on TV. I believe that the idea in the back of out mind that somewhere zombies may exist, propels us to once again look for an explanation. This explanation, however, we are unable to definitively provide gives us reason into labeling this as just another “monster”.
To blatantly answer the question of monster existence, I believe this is true. Monster exist all around us, but it is the definition of monster that comes into question. Is it just something we are scared of? Is it just something we can’t see? I believe a monster is something that forces us to find explanation for, which usually cannot be found. In the existence of much evidence, monsters usher our minds to search for further explanation. This is because the explanation serves as our protection from the unknown. However, sometime we must leave some things unexplained.
Works Cited
Lovgren, Stefan. ""Godzilla" Fossils Reveal Real-Life Sea Monster." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 2005. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.
Comments