The Final Statement

My final statement shall be to revise the short story, 'The Monkey's Paw'. I feel that the elements that are in the monkey's paw reflect all the reason's I really enjoy horror as a genre. Horror was one of my favorite genres this semester, and I wish we could have spent more time on the subject. I enjoy fantasy, it gets me out of the world and into another. But horror brings you back, screaming. I feel that they are good juxtapositions of one another. Horror reflects the worst things about reality, while fantasy can reflect the best, most exciting things. Of course, there are always exceptions to this rule, where the utopian fantasy of the future is far from the truth. Horror just happens to be the one that I enjoy reading more than any that I know of.
The short story 'The Monkey's Paw' reminds people of their own human nature. The ultimate truth is the truth of our own existence, and our own humanity. I always feel a great deal of empathy when I read this story. The feelings the story evokes pull me back to it and I seem to read it rather often. I read something in a book once which said, 'old stories are like old friends, you have to visit them once and awhile', and I definitely think this is the case. I could relate to the excitement the family felt at the prospect of some magic granting them extra riches they wouldn't otherwise have. The money wasn't incredibly substantial, either, as the family didn't entirely believe in the magic's existence. That was what made it even worse, I think, that the money they ultimately traded their son's life for was next to nothing compared to the life of the son. That comparison is rather haunting, and makes me think about my own priorities in life. What do I value most, and why? Constant questioning is always good for the mind, especially when it comes to how one values objects and people. If one's selfish desires interfere with one's ability to see clearly what makes them happy, only trouble will ensue. This is one of the first lessons 'The Monkey's Paw' teaches us.
After the parent's learn of their poor son's demise, and receive their petty amount, it's as if the story itself recoils in turmoil. There is a sudden stillness between the once loving and warm parents, neither one having the ability to think of anything else but their lost beloved son. Finally, the mother tormented with guilt, sorrow and longing can't think of any other solution but to turn once again to the very thing that caused the problem. As an outside looking in, it is rather easy to determine that nothing good will come of using the monkey's paw again. However, the mother in her state of mind sees it as the last that she might see her son once more. The only thing she can envision is her son's memory, and unfortunately, the husband out of both pity, terror and uncertainty acts upon his love's wishes. This eventually leads to the dead boy coming to the door, both parents realizing the horror that they have unleashed and wishing it away. This is one of the most interesting parts of the story, I think. It's the idea that even at life's worst, things can get even grimmer.
 That said, the course was extremely helpful and interesting. I can't wait to have more time to read even more off of the reading list!

On The Best of H.P. Lovecraft: Bloodcurdling Tales of Horror and Macabre

 

I've read quite a few Lovecraft stories. My favorite have to be 'The Rats in the Walls', 'Dunwich Horror', 'The Mountains of Madness', 'The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath', and 'The White Apes'. All of these have themes that I enjoy. 'The Rats in the Walls' deals with similar themes as  'The White Apes', which is to discover a horror found in one's very own lineage. In the case of the former, the recipient of an old mansion his family used to live in leads him to discover its horrors within. The townsfolk are horrified of the house and won't go near it, on account of hundreds, if not thousands of rats springing forth from the house itself to march upon the town, eating everything including small animals as well as children and livestock. In 'The White Apes', a man whose lineage grants him a horrible appearance and even an even worse family history of hysteria and obsession, is the main character. While researching some of his great-great grandfather's work, he discovers what his father's father discovered which made him go insane. He himself loses it and proceeds to kill anyone related to him or knowing of his recent discovery. 

Not all of Lovecraft's stories are outright horrifying, however. Some are even beautiful. In 'The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath', the main character Randolph Carter travels across incredible landscapes in order to find the sunset city. Even in 'The Mountains of Madness', the landscape described is absolutely breathtaking, to the point of it being otherworldly. 

I want to keep reading his stories, though they tend to be pretty meaty. Many of his stories are rather thick in terms of plot and description. Needless to say, however, I'll be reading more of these.

 

On Shaun of the Dead

I watched Shaun of the Dead this week in place of Night of the Living Dead. I used to see this movie on television in bits and pieces but never watched the movie all the way through. I'd heard mixed reviews on the movie, but I have to say I really enjoyed it. I thought it was a great integration of comedy, romance, drama and horror. I felt that the main character, Shaun, was pretty easy to relate to as well as funny. At first I thought it would be entirely comedy but the end actually gets pretty dark and gritty. The ending 'after' the end is pretty hilarious too. The actors work very well together as well. All in all, I think the this a good zombie movie.

On The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead

 In addition to Zone One, I read Max Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide. This was a pretty fun read. By the end of it I was completely convinced that zombies were real and was completely ready to go out and get all the gear I would need for a zombie apocalypse! That said, I think that's the sign of a good book. I had started reading the book a few years ago but never got around to finishing it, so I decided to go ahead this time around. I think some of the most interesting parts of the book, which kept me reading, were the examples of when and where 'zombie attacks' occurred. The author is incredibly convincing that these moments in history really happened, and manages to sweep you up in paranoia too if you're not careful, though I think that's what gives this book its charm. I found that the beginning was my favorite part, and toward the middle, but I will admit that after awhile things seemed to get repetitive. I felt that the scenarios Max Brook's would describe were repeating themselves, and his survival methods were rather redundant. Eventually instead of an interesting book I really felt like I was reading a manual. This aspect of it could also support the authors intention, however. However it was intended, whether to convince people that the dead walk among the living or to just have a good time with a new fad, I really enjoyed the book.

On The Monkey's Paw

In addition to reading Frankenstein, I read the short story 'The Monkey's Paw'. It peaked my curiosity because I've heard about the story from other collections of horror stories, some of which seemed to reference this one. I read the story and it gave me chills! I definitely thought it was worth the read. I ended up reading it a second time because of its short length. I thought it was incredibly chilling toward the end, when the mother wants so badly for her son to be revived. I thought one of the most scary aspects of the story was that the mother was going insane for the want of her son, and for that reason influenced her husband to call upon the monkey's paw to make yet another wish come true. I also thought it was interesting that the husband complied to his wife's pleas, but I think that happened for a number of reasons. Deep down he of course was feeling his own yearning for his son's return, and also had a vague hope that things would turn out right. It was only when his mind became clear hours later and there was knocking at the door that he came to wish his son back to death. I definitely found myself both sympathizing and empathizing for the old man and his wife. I think that most people, if not everyone, has put a great value into something only to have it taken away from them or lost. This goes for relationships, wealth, as well as death, which is the greatest loss of all because there is no possibility of it ever returning. I believe this is what motivated the mother to call upon the dark magic of the monkey's paw when she knew that it did not do any good. There was still the slightest bit of hope that her son would be returned to her. In the end, however, she learned that there was no hope and that things, while horrible, could be much, much worse.

On Labyrinth

I watched Labyrinth as an adult and not as a kid. I think that plays a huge part of how it is interpreted. For instance, I've never really had a big attachment to the old puppets used in these sorts of movies. My friends have always loved them and that is pretty much the reason the movie was recommended to me by them, so I figured I'd give it a try for this class. David Bowie was being himself, and I've got to say he was probably my favorite part. I can't say that I understand why the movie is such a big deal to people, but I did enjoy watching it for the first time. I thought the creatures in the movie were neat despite not having a large attachment to puppets. I definitely feel like they give the movie a very unique quality which reflects the feeling of the adventure. I like that there are dark undertones to the movie, but I find the making of the movie to be even more interesting. Jim Henson's son would describe the movie's release as his father's most difficult point in his career, and he never got to see his movie gain the cult following it now has. I think it's a neat movie though I'm not one of its biggest fans.

On The Girl Next Door

I chose to read The Girl Next Door this week because I've been curious about it. I had heard here and there by people who had read it that this is a horror story that sticks with you and never leaves. I completely agree with them now that I have read this, and I will never read it again. I didn't have any idea that most of what this book, as well as the movie, is based on events that happened to a young girl.
The most horrifying aspect to this book that makes it so distinctively disturbing is the fact that it makes you relate to the monsters that did this. The main character is assumed to be above the horrors that are placed upon the girl, and as the reader you relate him to yourself, as the story is told in the first person. This is, however, proven wrong toward the middle of the book, as it is explained that the boy's motivations are extremely self-serving, and not those of kindness. As the torturing of the girl continues, the boy realizes that he wants no part of it and attempts to help the girl escape, which in the end leads to her end. I believe it was inevitable that the torturing would escalate, but I never would have imagined that it would the way that it did. It's for that reason that I will never pick this book up again. The author very subtly makes the reader relate to both the torturers and the tortured, in an effort to horrify you through the sheer truth of human nature, and this completely works. It reminded me of reading Lord of the Flies, where one begins to question their perceptions of what evils one of really capable of. That said, it was a very thought provoking story, but the fact that most of it isn't just 'story' is what makes this book truly scary.

On Bone: One Volume Edition

The first time I picked up this book it was on my brother's recommendation. I thought the cover looked neat and I loved the expressions of the dragon. I've now read this story twice now, and despite its thick volume, it's a very easy read. The beginning is always my favorite part of this story, however. There's a sense of unknowing, of adventure and mystery. I can't help but feel that as the puzzle gets solved in this story, the world in which it is set becomes smaller and less interesting. I also feel that the end of the story tends to break down and become muddled toward the end, and isn't nearly as easy to follow nor as appealing to me as the beginning.
That said, I enjoy the environment that the Bones find themselves in. While the forest they land in is full of friends, it is also full of incredible dangers and mysteries. I also enjoy Thorn as a character, though I never really understood some of her motivations and personality. My favorite part of Bone is the setting itself, the forest full of creatures, and the small towns full of farmers and otherwise oblivious dwellers of the land. I always imagined these people's lives to be those of magic, but also of danger, as there are many monsters designed to threaten their existence. The characters themselves are interesting to me, but I always seem to look at this book for the beginning stages and the feeling of the forest as it is first being introduced to the reader.

On Ender's Game

The first time I read Ender's Game I was very young and interpreted it much differently. Upon reading it again I understand the underlying messages Orson Scott Card was trying to convey. When I first read the story, I believe I was twelve, and I read it as a kind of adventure book. I imagined myself in Ender's place, and I would imagine what it would feel like to be a leader, overseeing everything that would happen in the 'battles' and using everyone's greatest strengths to my advantage. Reading it again, I realize that the stories interpretation of what the position of leadership is, is one of altruism. In order to be a leader, one must 'win' using all of the pieces, not just handle your own. To be a team member you must be aware of others, yes, but to be a team leader you must be successful both individually and in a group.
I also felt it was interesting that the entire time that Ender was 'playing' the games, in reality he was winning battles using ships as well as lives. I wondered at the end of Ender knew this was happening. I don't think he could have guessed at the beginning, but during the final battles and afterwards when it was revealed that he had been fighting for real he didn't seem too surprised. I fact, it was almost as if he was tired because some part of him knew all along. I have always felt that the ending doesn't quite match the rest of the story for some reason, but maybe it's because I don't include it in the story itself. I believe that the real story happens only at the beginning and during the battles that Ender is battling, and during the learning process. The last few chapters have always appeared somewhat dry to me, because I think all of the lessons occur before then and the ending is functions as nothing but that, simply because the story cannot necessarily have an 'end'. I have a feeling this is one of those stories that I'll read now and then throughout my life.

On Harry Potter

Harry Potter has always been one of my favorite book series. It is a book that I read very young and can continue to adventure back to. The originality and the world itself has always appealed to me, and in many ways so has the simple moral compass. I believe the way the book views morality is what makes it so well adapted to the minds of children. It is easy to understand who the 'good' and the 'bad' guys are, though it does leave some characters who are ambiguous throughout the plot. That element has always made me enjoy the book, the fact that characters like Snape and the Malfoy family are essentially characters that struggle with other matters that go beyond simple explainations like whether or not they are good or bad. They concentrate on love and fear, and fear is the element that I find most interesting in the Harry Potter novels. It is always in the background, and later in the books it is the foremost feeling one gets as they read, that everyone is in constant fear and anticipation of the battle that comes at the end of the seventh book, as well as the constant battle that rages throughout the series.

On Interview with a Vampire

 Interview with a Vampire by Anne Rice was a wonderful experience. It seemed to bring to life and personalize the living nightmare that is the 'vampire'. The book was a fantastic and compelling read, and I found in no time at all I had finished and desired to move on to the next novel, 'The Vampire Lestat'.
The character I found that I enjoyed the most was Claudia. Her position in life and in relation to the other characters is interesting in that she never knows quite what to make of this relationship. A little girl, who died young enough to forget her exceedingly brief human childhood, became a vampire. All she knew was killing, though she did receive some guidance from Louis. i can relate to her level of uncertainty within her life, and the constant pursuance of knowledge. I enjoyed her character the most because I believe her life had the most struggle, and that since she was created, she was doomed.

On Zone One

Coleson Whitehead's Zone One is a zombie novel unlike any I have read before. Books on zombies, or zombie literature I suppose, have never really been my preferred horror sub-genre. I enjoy the existential dilemma that, as a rule, occurs in every zombie book and movie out there. The appeal of the zombie as a monster is that it reflects the monster within ourselves.
It was discussed in class that zombies reflect who we are afraid of becoming. We fear death, but more importantly, we fear stagnation. If we were to compare zombies to the living, breathing zombies found in our own daily lives, we find the juxtaposition easily recognizable. In other words, we see zombies, or lack of life, in our own routines. However, the horror of the zombie goes beyond the simple correlation between the live ones and the dead.
 When faced with the zombie, we are forced to make a choice. To see that zombie as the person they once were, or to see them as the walking dead. Or, in Mark Spitz case, one sees them as both of these things in one. The necessity to preserve life requires that zombies be exterminated. That simple fact can easily haunt the minds of the exterminators, as anyone could be among the ranks of the living dead. I find this particular aspect of zombies very interesting, in that no one can talk themselves out of admitting that they could become a zombie as well. Of course, when one imagines the zombie apocalypse, one always imagines oneself as the hero, or at least one of the surviving few. When we think of the horrors of such an existence, we think of ourselves as still existing, as being alive and willing to kill off those who are not. However, the coin flips both ways, and anyone can become a shell of what they once were, reduced to the basest of desires: the need to feed.

In this way I enjoy the premise of zombie movies and books, but Coleson Whitehead wasn't a favorite of mine. I felt that it took away the appeal of what made a zombie book in the first place: the struggle between life and death. The main character, Mark Spitz, reads as very bland to me. The author purposefully does this to allow the greatest number of people to be appealed to and be able to relate to the character. I like this aspect in the sense that it reflects the idea that everyone can be a zombie, even the living, though it made for a difficult and rather uneventful read. I always expected the character to have more life to him, to have some aspect that was his own that people cold still relate to, but I found none.
Nonetheless, I enjoyed the story simply because it was different from other zombie novels.

On Frankenstein

   

       Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was a novel created to generate questions. If we as people strive for self-cultivation, it is a necessity to fulfill the obligation of progress. Whether it be progress within ourselves or for others, one factor remains constant: incessant questioning. Opinions change according to the opinionated. When change does not occur, stagnation can only persist, and those creatures involved must partake in all of the consequences that should arise.
      The dominant question that one is faced with when reading of Frankenstein's exploits with his monster is the inquisition into the monster himself, or itself. What is a monster? What makes this creation of man a monster? Did he not come from man himself? This has always been an incredibly interesting question for me personally, because the very nature of the question generates a thousand more.
When it comes to the idea of a 'monster', or the disdainful nature of things, the only aspect of these manifestations that make them so repulsive and hateful is that they are only aspects of ourselves that we wish to deny, nothing more. Human nature is exactly that. There is no divine and no cursed, just as there is no black and no white. One would be hard-pressed to go out into nature and find something that does not contain both aspects of life and death. The most beautiful of trees still has bugs inside of it, rotting it from the inside out.
      And yet in Frankenstein we find what is essentially two antagonists. Frankenstein himself goes against nature to bring what is dead and inanimate back to the living, and once doing so cannot bring himself to the understanding and responsibility that the creature needs. By having only one opinion of things, to view life(and his monster), only as black, he ended his own life. The creature he created didn't kill him, he murdered himself when he murdered his understanding of humanity. Frankenstein sought to wrench the idea, even the memory, of his own creation from his mind. He could only understand one aspect of life, and in the monster's unfortunate case, it was only in the most shallow of aspects.
From my understanding of the book, there were two creatures, and only one possessed humanity. The monster was able to observe humans, and thus understand their nature. Unfortunately, it seemed that the monster only observed only those compassionate aspects of man at first. It is true that he was abandoned by his master and could not have the opportunity to observe him, but he very soon after discovered the family in the cottage. He saw only good and decency in them until he met with their wrath, and in turn responded directly to the environment.
      Frankenstein's monster isn't a monster, but he is also not human. He is a mirror. He reacts to the world around them, soaks in its information, and learns. He recreates himself constantly because he really has no other avenue. When he is shown kindness, always not directly, he responds with kindness and understanding. When he is shown wrath and anger, he responds in turn. On the days when the cottage people were sad, he mourned with them, and when they rejoiced, he celebrated. He was like that until the very end, and really had no sense of self within the book, other than that of his relationships, or lack thereof, with others and his outward appearance.
     As I mentioned before, the book was created to generate questions, and the discussion of such could be endless. Overall, I really enjoyed the theme that questions what the terms human and monster mean, as well as that of what is perceived as 'good' or 'evil'.