Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Adam Sandler, what do all of these horrific people have in common? Humanity refers to them, commonly as, “monsters”. It’s a phrase thrown around in whimsy by the general public, and one that needs to be much more clearly defined within the English language. The idea of a theoretical monster is subjective of course, you may not view Jack and Jill as a horrifying piece of rubbish, but the majority would disagree with you in that regard, leading on to the point of this paper: What constitutes the use of the word, “monster”? I’d argue that nothing is quite as prolific in horror as the usage of monster. We use it to define acts of murder, sabotage, stalking, sex crimes, hatred, and even something as simple as leaving a toilet seat up. These are all things I’ve heard people called a monster for; but at the root of everything, there’s something deeper than these arbitrary and surface-level issues, and that’s when the usage of monster is much more appropriate. I will begin this point with my opinion on Frankenstein’s creation: he is not a monster. For the sake of consistency in this essay, however, we will refer to him as such. At his birth, Frankenstein’s monster …show more content…
Those being, “a large creature who is generally large, ugly, and frightening.” and the other being in reference to nagging. Between these two, I’ve managed to find some middle ground that I believe monster can be described, not defined, on. If I’m using monster as a noun, I have to take into consideration the personal criteria I’ve created, that being something inhuman and free of decision-making abilities. Something similar would be a symbiotic relationship between the ant and certain plant species, inhibiting their ability to act as usual, and transforming them into slaves to the plant’s genetics. They become mindless zombies following pure instinct, and then die to become a host to a new plant. That is a