essay about a monster

Search form

Research essay: a ‘monster’ and its humanity.

Professor of English Susan J. Wolfson is the editor of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: A Longman Cultural Edition and co-editor, with Ronald Levao, of The Annotated Frankenstein.  

Published in January 1818, Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus has never been out of print or out of cultural reference. “Facebook’s Frankenstein Moment: A Creature That Defies Technology’s Safeguards” was the headline on a New York Times business story Sept. 22 — 200 years on. The trope needed no footnote, although Kevin Roose’s gloss — “the scientist Victor Frankenstein realizes that his cobbled-together creature has gone rogue” — could use some adjustment: The Creature “goes rogue” only after having been abandoned and then abused by almost everyone, first and foremost that undergraduate scientist. Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg and CEO Sheryl Sandberg, attending to profits, did not anticipate the rogue consequences: a Frankenberg making. 

The original Frankenstein told a terrific tale, tapping the idealism in the new sciences of its own age, while registering the throb of misgivings and terrors. The 1818 novel appeared anonymously by a down-market press (Princeton owns one of only 500 copies). It was a 19-year-old’s debut in print. The novelist proudly signed herself “Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley” when it was reissued in 1823, in sync with a stage concoction at London’s Royal Opera House in August. That debut ran for nearly 40 nights; it was staged by the Princeton University Players in May 2017. 

In a seminar that I taught on Frankenstein in various contexts at Princeton in the fall of 2016 — just weeks after the 200th anniversary of its conception in a nightmare visited on (then) Mary Godwin in June 1816 — we had much to consider. One subject was the rogue uses and consequences of genomic science of the 21st century. Another was the election season — in which “Frankenstein” was a touchstone in the media opinions and parodies. Students from sciences, computer technology, literature, arts, and humanities made our seminar seem like a mini-university. Learning from each other, we pondered complexities and perplexities: literary, social, scientific, aesthetic, and ethical. If you haven’t read Frankenstein (many, myself included, found the tale first on film), it’s worth your time. 

READ MORE  PAW Goes to the Movies: ‘Victor Frankenstein,’ with Professor Susan Wolfson

Scarcely a month goes by without some development earning the prefix Franken-, a near default for anxieties about or satires of new events. The dark brilliance of Frankenstein is both to expose “monstrosity” in the normal and, conversely, to humanize what might seem monstrously “other.” When Shelley conceived Frankenstein, Europe was scarred by a long war, concluding on Waterloo fields in May 1815. “Monster” was a ready label for any enemy. Young Frankenstein begins his university studies in 1789, the year of the French Revolution. In 1790, Edmund Burke’s international best-selling Reflections on the French Revolution recoiled at the new government as a “monster of a state,” with a “monster of a constitution” and “monstrous democratic assemblies.” Within a few months, another international best-seller, Tom Paine’s The Rights of Man, excoriated “the monster Aristocracy” and cheered the American Revolution for overthrowing a “monster” of tyranny.

Following suit, Mary Shelley’s father, William Godwin, called the ancien régime a “ferocious monster”; her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, was on the same page: Any aristocracy was an “artificial monster,” the monarchy a “luxurious monster,” and Europe’s despots a “race of monsters in human shape.” Frankenstein makes no direct reference to the Revolution, but its first readers would have felt the force of its setting in the 1790s, a decade that also saw polemics for (and against) the rights of men, women, and slaves. 

England would abolish its slave trade in 1807, but Colonial slavery was legal until 1833. Abolitionists saw the capitalists, investors, and masters as the moral monsters of the global economy. Apologists regarded the Africans as subhuman, improvable perhaps by Christianity and a work ethic, but alarming if released, especially the men. “In dealing with the Negro,” ultra-conservative Foreign Secretary George Canning lectured Parliament in 1824, “we are dealing with a being possessing the form and strength of a man, but the intellect only of a child. To turn him loose in the manhood of his physical strength ... would be to raise up a creature resembling the splendid fiction of a recent romance.” He meant Frankenstein. 

Mary Shelley heard about this reference, and knew, moreover, that women (though with gilding) were a slave class, too, insofar as they were valued for bodies rather than minds, were denied participatory citizenship and most legal rights, and were systemically subjugated as “other” by the masculine world. This was the argument of her mother’s Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), which she was rereading when she was writing Frankenstein. Unorthodox Wollstonecraft — an advocate of female intellectual education, a critic of the institution of marriage, and the mother of two daughters conceived outside of wedlock — was herself branded an “unnatural” woman, a monstrosity. 

Shelley had her own personal ordeal, which surely imprints her novel. Her parents were so ready for a son in 1797 that they had already chosen the name “William.” Even worse: When her mother died from childbirth, an awful effect was to make little Mary seem a catastrophe to her grieving father. No wonder she would write a novel about a “being” rejected from its first breath. The iconic “other” in Frankenstein is of course this horrifying Creature (he’s never a “human being”). But the deepest force of the novel is not this unique situation but its reverberation of routine judgments of beings that seem “other” to any possibility of social sympathy. In the 1823 play, the “others” (though played for comedy) are the tinker-gypsies, clad in goatskins and body paint (one is even named “Tanskin” — a racialized differential).

Victor Frankenstein greets his awakening creature as a “catastrophe,” a “wretch,” and soon a “monster.” The Creature has no name, just these epithets of contempt. The only person to address him with sympathy is blind, spared the shock of the “countenance.” Readers are blind this way, too, finding the Creature only on the page and speaking a common language. This continuity, rather than antithesis, to the human is reflected in the first illustrations: 

In the cover for the 1823 play, above, the Creature looks quite human, dishy even — alarming only in size and that gaze of expectation. The 1831 Creature, shown on page 29, is not a patent “monster”: It’s full-grown, remarkably ripped, human-looking, understandably dazed. The real “monster,” we could think, is the reckless student fleeing the results of an unsupervised undergraduate experiment gone rogue. 

In Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein pleads sympathy for the “human nature” in his revulsion. “I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I had deprived myself of rest and health ... but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room.” Repelled by this betrayal of “beauty,” Frankenstein never feels responsible, let alone parental. Shelley’s genius is to understand this ethical monstrosity as a nightmare extreme of common anxiety for expectant parents: What if I can’t love a child whose physical formation is appalling (deformed, deficient, or even, as at her own birth, just female)? 

The Creature’s advent in the novel is not in this famous scene of awakening, however. It comes in the narrative that frames Frankenstein’s story: a polar expedition that has become icebound. Far on the ice plain, the ship’s crew beholds “the shape of a man, but apparently of gigantic stature,” driving a dogsled. Three paragraphs on, another man-shape arrives off the side of the ship on a fragment of ice, alone but for one sled dog. “His limbs were nearly frozen, and his body dreadfully emaciated by fatigue and suffering,” the captain records; “I never saw a man in so wretched a condition.” This dreadful man focuses the first scene of “animation” in Frankenstein: “We restored him to animation by rubbing him with brandy, and forcing him to swallow a small quantity. As soon as he shewed signs of life, we wrapped him up in blankets, and placed him near the chimney of the kitchen-stove. By slow degrees he recovered ... .” 

The re-animation (well before his name is given in the novel) turns out to be Victor Frankenstein. A crazed wretch of a “creature” (so he’s described) could have seemed a fearful “other,” but is cared for as a fellow human being. His subsequent tale of his despicably “monstrous” Creature is scored with this tremendous irony. The most disturbing aspect of this Creature is his “humanity”: this pathos of his hope for family and social acceptance, his intuitive benevolence, bitterness about abuse, and skill with language (which a Princeton valedictorian might envy) that solicits fellow-human attention — all denied by misfortune of physical formation. The deepest power of Frankenstein, still in force 200 years on, is not its so-called monster, but its exposure of “monster” as a contingency of human sympathy.  

Themes and Analysis

By walter dean myers.

Walter Dean's ‘Monster’ is loaded. Justice, hope and family as themes explored, are just a tip of the iceberg.

Article written by Chioma Julie

Degree in M.C.M. Awarded Best Graduating Student in Literature-in-English at UNISEC.

‘ Monster ’ by Walter Dean Myers has many lessons to teach. The reader has no option but to think critically. Some themes are subtle and might even attach themselves to bigger themes as subthemes. But most of them are clear and stand-alone themes. Now, let us pan our imaginary camera towards this thought-provoking masterpiece to explore for ourselves these themes, some of which will be handled side by side opposites or otherwise.

Monster Themes

Let’s dive into the captivating themes of ‘ Monster ‘ by Walter Dean Myers together. We’ll explore each focal point to unravel the essence of this compelling novel.

Crime and Consequence

Guilt or innocence, hope or hopelessness, humanity/empathy, connections/relationships, disappointment, dissatisfaction, and regret.

This is arguably the major theme in ‘ Monster .’ Most parts of this crime drama take place in the courtroom and the prison yard. We are all here, following Steve Harmon’s camera because a crime was committed. Mr. Nesbitt, a fifty-five-year-old black man, was murdered in his drugstore in Harlem City, with his own for which he had a license.

Anyone who commits a crime should very well be ready to do the time, for actions have consequences. People, including gangsters with criminal records, testify. The gangsters testify, hoping to get breaks from the times they are doing for the crimes they have committed. As long as it wasn’t any of them that murdered Mr. Nesbitt, any other crime must be excusable, they think. Bobo casually describes himself as cold-hearted to get a break. Osvaldo indicts himself. Cruz exposes himself to get a break. Actions have consequences, and James King was going to pay for his eventually.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That is not even my line. It is a popular phrase. Are things that way, though? Are things not always that way, even though they should be that way? I would say ‘yes’ to the second question. Sometimes, prejudice contributes, and it shows. There was something O’Brien said, and it stuck. Rephrasing what she said, the pressure rests on the defendant. The prosecutor goes about walking like the ‘good one’.

One time, Steve says he’s not guilty, and she tells him to say instead that he is innocent. The defendant’s job is to prove, not that the prosecutor is lying, but that he or she is mistaken. James King and Steve Harmon were each to be pronounced guilty or Innocent. The verdict is read, and the latter is to be freed, while the former is to be locked up. Perhaps he would go on to appeal, perhaps he would not.

What is life without hope? Steve lost hope in himself, his mother, the judge, the system in general, and even O’Brien at some point. It was then he began to realize why shoelaces and belts are taken away from people before they are locked up. Someone who has lost all hope would likely be depressed, and someone who is depressed would likely not be far from considering committing suicide. They don’t want that in there. Steve also gets to realize why people go on to appeal after they have been found guilty. All hope is not lost after all, for what is life without hope?

This is highly demonstrated in Steve’s life, earning this theme a place reserved for the major themes. Mrs. Harmon loves Steve so much. His situation makes her cry. One time, she brings Steve a Bible while visiting and tells him to read a passage out loud. Steve sees his father sob. It is his first time witnessing that. Jerry misses his big brother. Steve’s situation breaks Mrs. Harmon’s heart and makes her cry many times, and this in turn breaks Steve’s heart. At some point, Steve wishes Jerry was with him. No, not in prison but just with him, somehow. Jerry’s visit gladdened his heart so much. Steve Harmon’s family made life worth living for him even while in jail, especially while in jail.

We see the guards cruelly teasing the prisoners, even when some of them were yet to be found innocent or guilty. This depicts a complete lack of empathy and humanity, something O’Brien had in abundance. Yes, O’Brien was Steve’s lawyer. But nothing prevented her from keeping things strictly official. Bobo, James King, Osvaldo, and Cruz were all wanting in this area. Empathy cannot be faked, at least, not for long.

When O’Brien sees Steve writing ‘Monster’ (something he was already getting used to being called) repeatedly in the courtroom, she collects the pencil from him and cancels them out. When she sees Steve visibly shaking after taking the stand, his head bowed after one of the students on an excursion smiled at him, he smiled back, but she turned away quickly, she tells him that if he doesn’t believe in himself, no one else would.

Before Steve takes the stand (her idea by the way) she plays a ‘cup’ game with him to ensure that he answers exactly what would help his case. She was to ask questions and any time Steve gives an inappropriate answer, she was to turn the cup upside down. Steve learned from this game that it would be better to present himself as differently as possible from the others: James King, Bobo, and the rest. We also see her asking to know how Steve was feeling at some point. O’Brien had a lot of empathy to give, and she didn’t hold back even one bit.

If Steve had not associated with the likes of James King, he would not have found himself in the middle of a felony murder case as one of the accused. The saying ‘Birds of a feather flock together’ will always remain true. Clearly, he had a whiff of the robbery. He knew a robbery was being planned. He may not have participated actively in the whole thing, but he was aware that these folks planned to rob someone.

The type of people one chooses to associate with affects one in one way or another, whether one likes it or not. This is why the distance between him and his father continues to grow wider, even after he was pronounced not guilty. He just couldn’t come to terms with the fact that his son, his well-behaved son (or so he thought) could associate with gangsters even enough to get roped in a felony murder case. Some of what his father sees now, O’Brien must have seen. That explains why she moved away when Steve made to hug her after they won the case.

The story of ‘ Monster ’ is about justice. It is about seeking justice. Everyone has that right, or at least, everyone should have that right. Everyone has the right to live and pursue happiness if he or she so wishes. It is only just. Mr. Nesbitt’s murder, a crime against humanity, has the state seeking justice. Justice for the dead, yes? And, a loud and clear warning to anyone who might want to go the route that is criminality. Nesbitt would never come back to life, but justice can be served. The saying, ‘What is good for the goose is good for the gander’ holds sway here. Everyone is equal before the law (or should be, at least). Every life is precious.

These emotions were conveyed by O’Brien’s face when the verdict was given. She demonstrates these then, disappointed that she probably has helped the wrong person, someone that wasn’t particularly guilty or Innocent. Dissatisfaction, because she should have probed more, to know who exactly she was sticking herself out her neck for. Regret, that it is now too late to do all that. Mr. Harmon also displays disappointment in his son because of the type of people he chose to associate with, something that landed him in jail.

What important thing does one get to realize reading ‘ Monster?’

One important thing one gets to realize reading ‘ Monster ’ is that even though it is known that life in prison would not be easy, more of the unpleasantness of what is supposed to be a correctional facility was exposed.

What is the major lesson from ‘ Monster?’

The major lesson from ‘ Monster ’ is that life is not straightforward, most times, and it takes one wrong move (intended or not) for things to start plummeting for someone. We should all be careful about the type of people we associate with. Associating with gangsters was Steve Harmon’s major mistake.

What is the significance of Steve’s imaginary camera in ‘ Monster?’

The importance of Steve’s imaginary camera in ‘ Monster ’ cannot be overemphasized. A very significant tool in the story, it is Steve’s imaginary camera we follow throughout the trial and even beyond.

What is the central theme in ‘ Monster ?’

The central theme in ‘ Monster ’ is justice, however, it would be inappropriate not to mention other themes surrounding it. Race, guilt/innocence, hope/hopelessness, and so on, are also other major themes.

Join Our Community for Free!

Exclusive to Members

Create Your Personal Profile

Engage in Forums

Join or Create Groups

Save your favorites, beta access.

About Chioma Julie

Chioma is a graduate from the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. She has a passion for music, movies, and books. Occasionally, she writes to unwind.

About the Book

Discover literature and connect with others just like yourself!

Start the Conversation. Join the Chat.

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

• See blocked member's posts
• Mention this member in posts
• Invite this member to groups

Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

Walter Dean Myers

Ask litcharts ai: the answer to your questions.

Sixteen-year-old Steve Harmon recounts his and James King ’s trial for the killing of Mr. Nesbitt , a drugstore owner, in a botched robbery in Harlem six months prior. Through personal notes and a screenplay he writes in his notebook, Steve recounts the 11 days between the start of the case and the jury’s verdict. He names the screenplay “ Monster ” after what the state prosecutor Sandra Petrocelli called him in court.

On the first day of the trial, Monday, Steve sits with his attorney Kathy O’Brien and listens to Petrocelli make her opening remarks: according to the state, late last December, James King and Richard “Bobo” Evans entered a drugstore, tried to rob Mr. Nesbitt, and accidentally shot the man with his own handgun. According to the prosecution, Steve Harmon and 14-year-old Osvaldo Cruz both acted as lookouts during the robbery, and are thus legally culpable for the man’s murder, as well. Nobody actually witnessed the murder, but Petrocelli presents her first key witness, a man who claims to have information that connects King and Bobo Evans with the murder. The man himself is a convict who testifies so that his own prison sentence will be reduced. King’s attorney Asa Briggs challenges the witness’s ability to be objective since he is benefiting personally from testifying at the trial. Steve’s mind wanders back to violent scenes from his childhood growing up in Harlem, even though he himself never sought out violence.

On Tuesday, Steve writes about how much he hates jail and how afraid he is—everyone there is violent and only talks about hurting each other. They attack people for no reason, and one of them carries a knife. In court, Petrocelli produces another witness, also a criminal who tells the same story as the first, in exchange for a reduced sentence. Once again, Briggs challenges the witness’s objectivity and moral character, and the judge adjourns the hearing for the day when Briggs starts to get heated. That evening, Steve lies in bed listening to two men beat and rape another inmate. He thinks about his younger brother Jerry and how much he misses him.

On Wednesday, Steve wakes up thinking about how in jail, they take people’s shoelaces and belts so inmates can’t kill themselves. Steve can’t help but think of himself as a monster, just as Petrocelli branded him. O’Brien told him that her job was to make the jury see Steve as a human being instead, and Steve understands why. In court, Petrocelli brings Detective Karyl in to testify, who (supposedly) investigated the murder and made the arrests, even though he never found any actual evidence at the crime scene. Steve recalls the night Karyl and his partner first questioned him. Karyl automatically assumed he was guilty and said he hoped Steve would get the death penalty, even though he’s just a kid. Back in the courtroom, Briggs accuses Karyl of not actually investigating at all, but just finding a few convicts who’d testify for him instead. O’Brien worries that none of this makes Steve look any more innocent, since half the jury will automatically think he’s guilty just because he’s a young black male. Osvaldo Cruz, a 14-year-old kid whom Steve had to be careful not to offend in Harlem, since he is part of a dangerous gang, testifies that he was pressured into participating in the robbery against his will by Bobo, who threatened him.

On Thursday, Steve writes about his relationship with O’Brien. He can tell O’Brien wants to know who he truly is, and Steve wants her to know that he’s a good person, but he doesn’t know how to make her see that. In the courtroom, Osvaldo continues his testimony against King, Bobo, and Steve, which he is giving in exchange for an acquittal, since he is young and claims he was coerced into participating. However, Briggs and O’Brien cross-examine Osvaldo and force him to reveal that not only is he a gang member with a violent history, but he has also at least once committed savage violence against strangers without reason, which ruins the credibility of his claim that he was afraid of Bobo. Later, Steve meets with his father Mr. Harmon , but realizes that their father-son relationship has broken. He thinks that his dad now sees a monster where his son should be. Steve also recalls watching the murder reported on the news and being arrested by the detectives two weeks later.

On Friday, four minor witnesses testify while Steve thinks about Mr. Nesbitt, lying on the floor, knowing he is about to die. Through the medical examiner’s testimony, Steve learns that Mr. Nesbitt was shot through the lung and died after drowning in his own blood. He is horrified.

On Saturday, Steve thinks about how horrible it would be to spend the next two decades of his life in prison, which seems the most likely outcome. He knows O’Brien privately thinks that he’s guilty, even though she’ll still defend him. Mrs. Harmon visits Steve in jail, but he knows it’s too painful for her to see her son as a prisoner. At night, as Steve lies in bed, he questions his own innocence and recalls King telling him that he was going to rob a place and asking Steve if he wanted to be in on it.

On Sunday, Steve attends a church service in the jail until a fight breaks out and everyone is put on lockdown for the morning. He thinks about how nothing feels real anymore outside of jail, not his memories of his old life or the baseball game on TV. Steve’s parents walk Jerry past the window so Steve can see him, though Jerry is not allowed in the jail because he is a child. If he wasn’t an inmate, Steve wouldn’t be allowed in either. His parents visit briefly, and Steve worries about Monday, which will be a critical day for the prosecution.

On Monday, a woman testifies that she was in the drugstore shortly before the murder and saw King and one other man enter, though she admits she had difficulty identifying King. Once she saw the two men fighting with Mr. Nesbitt, she fled the store. Bobo Evans testifies next, also in exchange for a reduced sentence. From what King told him, Bobo understood that Steve was supposed to be their lookout, and he saw Steve enter and exit the drugstore and walk away. After that, he and King entered and fought with Mr. Nesbitt. When Mr. Nesbitt took out a handgun, King wrestled it from him and shot the man, stole cash and cigarettes, and then both of them went to a fast-food restaurant to buy some food and lay low. Briggs and O’Brien cross-examine Bobo, forcing him to admit that Bobo never actually spoke to Steve himself, nor did he ever threaten Osvaldo to help them with the robbery; Osvaldo wanted to be in on the heist. Petrocelli announces that the prosecution has concluded.

On Tuesday, O’Brien admits that it doesn’t look good for Steve. Bobo’s testimony was damning and Briggs is going to try to associate King with Steve, since it will make King look better, as Steve is obviously a decent kid. King’s cousin testifies and gives a weak alibi for King on the day of the murder. O’Brien wants Steve to testify and present himself to the jury as a good kid. She coaches him on what sort of answers to give and Steve realizes that the truth is less important than making the right case.

On the stand, Steve testifies that he was nowhere near the drugstore on the day of the murder (though he’s privately admitted that he was) because he was working on a film project all week. He also testifies that his relationship with King is minimal; he’s just some guy he saw at the playground occasionally when people were playing ball. When Steve is finished, his film teacher Mr. Sawicki provides a character witness and testifies that Steve is an honest, sensitive kid who makes uplifting films about his neighborhood. Briggs makes his closing remarks, claiming that his client King has no connection with Bobo Evans and did not participate in the robbery in any way. O’Brien claims the same for Steve in her own closing remarks, and adds that there is not enough evidence against Steve to lock up a young kid for the rest of his life. The jury leaves to make their decision and Steve and King are taken back to jail.

That Friday, Steve and King are brought back to the courthouse to hear the jury’s verdict. King is found guilty and duly sentenced for a felony murder charge. Steve is found not guilty. He spreads his arms to hug O’Brien, but she turns stiffly away. He remains with his arms outstretched as the image blurs and fades until Steve’s silhouette looks like “some strange beast, a monster.”

“Monster” by Walter Dean Myers: Characters & Style Essay (Book Review)

Alongside with his poems, in 1999, Walter Dean Myers presented an excellent drama novel, Monster , about one 16-year-old black kid, Steve Harmon, who was charged with felony murder. One of the most attractive features of this book is its structure and style of writing. Monster by Walter Dean Myers essay shall provide an analysis of the characters of the book and author’s style.The reader is captivated from the very beginning of the story, as it is similar to the beginning of the famous Star Wars .

Steve Harmon is the writer, director, and main character of Monster. Such a decision to present the story from one person’s point of view, divide characters into good and bad ones, appeal to the facts from one diary only, and use not a standard form of narration is unique indeed.

The style chosen by the author of this story takes several pages to get used to. Monster writing style attracts the attention of the reader due to the contrasting mix of such strategies as controlled development of thoughts and stream of consciousness, which create unique tone and mood in the story. However, such a manner of writing influences Meyers’ development of the theme only in a positive way. Why did Walter Dean Myers write monster in the format of a screenplay? It may be assumed that, by doing so, he wanted to show the feelings of the characters and the development of the conflict at the same time.

Monster is interesting to read because it provides the reader with a chance to create his/her own impression about the main character. The writer does not tell you what to think, but let you make decisions and conclusions independently. During the whole story, it is not mentioned whether the main character is good or bad.

It was pointed out that the character is surrounded by bad people, with bad guns, and bad intentions. Kathy O’Brien is Steve’s defense attorney, and she does believe that Steve is guilty and tries to prepare him for the worst. “Both you and this King character are on trial for felony murder. Felony murder is as severe as it gets. Sandra Petrocelli is the prosecutor, and she’s great. They’re pushing for the death penalty, which is really bad” (Myers 12). Family members also support Steve, though the ending of the book shows complicated relationships between them. Thus, in Monster by Walter Dean Myers, characters provoke ambiguous emotions in the reader.

Steve, as the author of this script, realizes that he is too young to be sentenced to death or spend about 20 years of his life in jail. “They’re pushing for the death penalty, which is really bad” (Myers 12). He also understands that this case will be rather challenging to win because of two simple reasons: (1) even his attorney, O’Brien, finds him guilty, and (2) he is a young black man that makes him being concerned with numerous crimes and larcenies.

He tries to prove that he was just in the wrong place and certainly at the wrong time. (Jones 190) He cannot accept such a reality and decides to do everything possible to evade this likely verdict. He decides to escape if necessary, even if it costs him his life.

O’Brien’s decision to turn away from Steve after the verdict was announced makes all the readers think about why she did it. What made her turn away? Was it the right decision? Maybe, she saw something wrong that even made the screenwriter title this story as Monster .

Young adult literature is one of the most significant steps up, which allows comprehending and analyze various themes from different perspectives (Suen 41), Monster is the story about the importance of making choices in life, possible challenges, and consequences. This book is one of the most brilliant messages to young adults.

It underlines a straightforward truth that only a person, himself/herself, is responsible for all choices he/she makes. The consequences of any decision will undoubtedly affect both the life of the person, who makes a choice, and the lives of other people. This is why it is crucially important to realize such significance and make wise and well-weight decisions.

Works Cited

Jones, D. Painless Reading Comprehension. Barron’s Educational Series, 2004.

Myers, W. D. Monster. HarperTemest, 2001.

Suen, A. Picture Writing. Writer’s Digest Books, 2003.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, June 25). "Monster" by Walter Dean Myers: Characters & Style. https://ivypanda.com/essays/monster-by-walter-dean-myers-the-significance-of-personal-choice/

""Monster" by Walter Dean Myers: Characters & Style." IvyPanda , 25 June 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/monster-by-walter-dean-myers-the-significance-of-personal-choice/.

IvyPanda . (2018) '"Monster" by Walter Dean Myers: Characters & Style'. 25 June.

IvyPanda . 2018. ""Monster" by Walter Dean Myers: Characters & Style." June 25, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/monster-by-walter-dean-myers-the-significance-of-personal-choice/.

1. IvyPanda . ""Monster" by Walter Dean Myers: Characters & Style." June 25, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/monster-by-walter-dean-myers-the-significance-of-personal-choice/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . ""Monster" by Walter Dean Myers: Characters & Style." June 25, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/monster-by-walter-dean-myers-the-significance-of-personal-choice/.

• Dean & Deluca Company’s Marketing Mix
• “Single Minded” by Keith O’Brien
• Bob Myers: A Journey to Saving a Dynasty
• A Conversation with My Father and The Swimmer: Facing Tragedy at the End
• The Role of an Artist: Anne Deavere Smith and Tod Hackett
• The American Way of Death: Process Analysis in Writing
• “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” Ending and Main Scenes
• “The Management of Grief” by Bharati Mukherjee

Home — Essay Samples — Entertainment — Monster — Monster Culture Analysis

Monster Culture Analysis

• Categories: Monster

About this sample

Words: 521 |

Published: Mar 20, 2024

Words: 521 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Entertainment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1291 words

5 pages / 2217 words

7.5 pages / 3441 words

10.5 pages / 4766 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Monster

Walter Dean Myers’ novel Monster is a thought-provoking and powerful story that explores the complexities of the American criminal justice system through the eyes of a young African American teenager named Steve Harmon. The [...]

Monsters have long been a source of fascination and fear in human culture. From ancient myths and legends to modern-day horror movies, monsters have captured the imagination of people around the world. But what exactly are [...]

Intergenerational trauma refers to the transmission of trauma from one generation to the next. It is the idea that the effects of traumatic experiences can be passed down through the family lineage, impacting the mental health [...]

“The concept of the monstrous and the figure of the monster have haunted western history from its earliest records” writes Margrit Shldrick in her book Embodying the Monster: Encounters with the Vulnerable Self. Monsters [...]

Wholly defining the sublime seems to lead to a near endless compilation of puzzle pieces, all of which fill in only a small portion of the final picture. Edmund Burke attempts to assemble an authoritative definition of the [...]

The American Dream varies for individuals, but for most it includes providing a stable home for their children and ensuring future generations will have more opportunities to become successful. In the play, A Raisin in the Sun [...]

Related Topics

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

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

by Walter Dean Myers

• Monster Summary

Steve Harmon , the novel’s protagonist—and, at times, its narrator—is a sixteen-year-old African-American student from Harlem. At the beginning of the novel, the reader learns that Steve is in prison awaiting trial for his alleged involvement in a murder. He writes in his diary to pass the time, chronicling his observations and anxieties while imprisoned. As a coping mechanism, Steve records his daily life in the format of a film script. Steve’s lawyer, Kathy O’Brien, coaches him on what to expect during his court hearing. Both Steve and James King , another man allegedly involved in the murder, have entered a plea bargain and must testify in court.

Steve and James are cross-examined by Sandra Petrocelli , the State Prosecutor. In her opening statement, she brands the accused men as “monsters” for the crimes they’ve committed. The use of the word “monster” references the novel’s title and its overall thematic significance. As the trial progresses, more witnesses are called to the stand. The trial proceedings are interrupted by a series of snippets that explore the relationship between Steve and James. Some of the accounts suggest that Steve and James barely know one another, while others show James alleging that Steve was the gunman in the robbery. Osvaldo Cruz , a Latino gang member also implicated in the crime, explains that he was pressured to participate in the robbery due to threats by Richard “Bobo” Evans.

Steve begins to think about his parents and their reactions to his arrest. He feels his father’s disappointment and his mother’s anxiety. When Osvaldo is called to testify, he explains that Steve was meant to serve as the lookout for a burglary. Though the individuals indicted in the crime had no intention of killing Mr. Nesbitt, the reader learns that Mr. Nesbitt’s own gun—pulled out in self-defense—was then turned on him. During Bobo’s testimony, he asserts that James King was the individual who actually pulled the trigger, subsequently killing Mr. Nesbitt. Bobo also claims that he “barely knows” Steve, but that he was supposed to be the “lookout” at the crime scene.

A few bystanders that have been called to the stand recount that they have witnessed only two people at the scene of the crime. These two people are allegedly Bobo and Osvaldo. Using these testimonies, Asa Briggs , the lawyer for James King, argues that neither Steve nor James can be placed at the crime scene. Kathy O’Brien, Steve’s lawyer, is doubtful of her client’s innocence. However, she advises Steve to refrain from writing anything incriminating in his journal in the event that it is seized by the court. In addition, she tells Steve that he should emphasize the distance between himself and James in order to ensure his own innocence. During Steve’s testimony, he explains that he has no recollection of his whereabouts during the day of the crime. He utilizes his oblivion as evidence that he is uninvolved in the crime.

O'Brien highlights the conflicting eyewitness accounts, thus pointing to their inconclusiveness. Though some common testimonies frame Steve as the lookout during the crime, O’Brien explains that this role is highly distinct from “murderer.” O’Brien enlists George Sawicki , the advisor of Steve’s high school film club, to serve as a character witness. Mr. Sawicki paints a humane and upright image of Steve to the jury. He emphasizes Steve’s excellence in film in order to point to the defendant’s alleged sensitivity and honesty. The lawyers give their closing speeches. The final verdict finds James King guilty of the murder of Mr. Nesbitt. Steve Harmon is acquitted.

Steve, elated by his acquittal, turns to hug O’Brien. However, his attorney coldly turns away. This reaction bothers Steve, and he ponders his lawyer’s impression of his own morality.

The novel jumps five months into the future. Steve’s life has, essentially, returned to normal. He continues journaling and filmmaking, which brings him happiness and purpose. However, his dad has moved away, thus creating distance within his family. Steve finds himself haunted by O’Brien’s callous reaction. Did O’Brien genuinely believe in Steve’s innocence? Or was she merely defending a “monster” because her job depended on it?

Monster Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for Monster is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

Wednesday, July 8th

The script allows Steve to speak and express himself when in court... it symbolizes his reality.

Please post your questions separately.

Edgar Allan Poe

This depends on what you want to comment on. Can you be more specific? Is it a specific work that he has done?

what page number is "You do the crime, you do the time. You act like garbage, they treat you like garbage" on

Page numbers differ depending on your book copy but you can find this quote in chapter 6.

Study Guide for Monster

Monster study guide contains a biography of Walter Dean Myers, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About Monster
• Character List

Essays for Monster

Monster essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of Monster by Walter Dean Myers.

• Race and Identity: 'The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian' and 'Monster'
• A Modernist Monster: Techniques and Social Messaging in Myers' Novel

Wikipedia Entries for Monster

• Introduction
• Themes and format
• Autobiographical elements

54 pages • 1 hour read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Pages 89-200

Pages 201-281

Monster Additional Material

Character Analysis

Symbols & Motifs

Literary Devices

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Steve continually thinks back to the opening statement of the prosecutor in which she referred to him as a “monster.” Sandra essentially refers to Steve as someone who is not human or who has acted in a grossly inhumane manner. Why does this description haunt him?

Kathy, Steve’s attorney, acknowledges to him that his race predisposes many on the jury to assume Steve is guilty. What role does the race play in the trial of the two defendants? Consider whether Sandra’s description of Steve as a monster have any intentional or implicit racial implications and what Kathy does or doesn’t do to fight against racial stereotypes on Steve’s behalf?

Steve himself as the producer, director, and star of his autobiographical motion picture. This portrayal, however, clashes with his frequent protestations that his prosecution is something that simply happened to him and is beyond his control. Is Steve the master of his own story who is responsible for all that is happening to him or a naïve teenager who accidentally falls into a situation beyond his control? Or is he both? Explain your response using examples from the text.

Don't Miss Out!

Access Study Guide Now

Related Titles

By Walter Dean Myers

Autobiography of My Dead Brother

Walter Dean Myers

Bad Boy: A Memoir

Fallen Angels

Somewhere in the Darkness

Street Love

Sunrise Over Fallujah

The Glory Field

The Young Landlords

Featured Collections

View Collection

Black History Month Reads

Books About Race in America

Books on Justice & Injustice

Coretta Scott King Award

Diverse Voices (High School)

National Book Awards Winners & Finalists

Required Reading Lists

Truth & Lies

The Final Judgement in “Monster Culture”

Article sidebar, main article content.

“In this distribution of functions, the scholar is the delegated intellect. In the right state he is Man Thinking. In the degenerate state, when the victim of society, he tends to become a mere thinker, or, still worse, the parrot of other men’s thinking.”

—Ralph Waldo Emerson

It is rare for a writer to put his or her theory at risk by exposing its secret vulnerability, to set out on that fragile, shaky wooden bridge stretching across a chasm—the gap between the two cliffs of understanding. Daunting is the possibility of trust collapsing. One would be a fool to turn one’s idea against oneself. Yet, Jeffrey Cohen leads readers of his essay, “Monster Culture,” on this bridge of uncertainty when he poses a polarizing question that could either make the readers believe him completely or doubt his entire theory: “Do monsters really exist?” (20).

In “Monster Culture,” Cohen extensively discusses and analyzes monsters in connection with the cultures from which they rise. “What I will propose here by way of a first foray, as entrance into this book of monstrous content, is a sketch of a new modus legendi : a method of reading cultures from the monsters they engender,” he begins (3). Maintaining the formal tone of an academic, he contends that monsters rise at the “crossroads” of a culture, where differences emerge and anxiety heightens. The monster is an embodiment of difference—of any quality, whether it be ideological, cultural, sexual, or racial, that inspires fear and uncertainty in its creators (7). The monster is frequently a “disturbing hybrid” that defies categorization––its hybridity rebels against nature (6). And though there are fictional monsters, real people can become monsters too. In order to bring “freaks” under control, those who abide by the standard code of the day impart monstrous identities to those who do not. Anxiety is what breeds them and defines their existence. Thus locating the origin of monsters, Cohen strives to reveal our culture’s values and tendencies. For the vast majority of the essay, the monster is simply the subject of our examination, an otherworldly creature under our scrutiny.

It is when Cohen approaches the end of his essay that he adds another dimension to the monster’s entity and exposes its vulnerability:

Perhaps it is the time to ask the question that always arises when the monster is discussed seriously (the inevitability of the question a symptom of the deep anxiety about what is and what should be thinkable, an anxiety that the process of monster theory is destined to raise): Do monsters really exist? Surely they must, for if they did not, how could we? (20)

In an essay in which monsters are central, he chooses to investigate in his final paragraphs whether monsters even exist after all. This query boldly shifts the focus away from the discussion of his monster theory and introduces a counter argument, pushing readers to either end of the spectrum of their belief in monster theory. They will have to choose whether monsters exist, and whether they will believe or disregard Cohen’s work. Pressing his readers to decide, Cohen places his readers in this foggy gap between the two extremes in order to, paradoxically, eliminate their indecision about his theory.

From the first page––in fact, the first sentence––Cohen seems to be building up to this eruption, the boom moment. Grave and rather stiff in his tone, he is full of purpose––“What I propose here . . . is a sketch of a new modus legendi ” (3). By starting with a rather abrupt announcement, he lays out his objective plainly and explicitly as he launches into a “foray,” a sudden raid, to destroy the protective walls of convention and comfort (3). The risk he takes in unveiling his argument’s potential flaws and testing the readers’ judgments will bring forth the anxiety that permeates not only his essay, but also people’s minds. This sense that a quest is underway reappears in the diction of his concluding passage. His language and tone, departing from the academic study of monsters, demonstrates a serious yet playfully provoking attitude toward the audience. We see the subtle, ironic sense of humor that he has well hidden under the seriousness and technicalities of an academic. Imagine him smirking as he encourages, “Surely they must, for if they did not, how could we?”—content that he has the power to spark trouble and uneasiness in his readers. But to arrive at this point, he detoured from his scholarly discussion of his theses.

Let’s return to the beginning of the passage. The word “perhaps” marks a careful interjection that brings a pause to the flow of his ideas. It is a gentle motion to stop and think. The following phrase “it is time” displays Cohen’s anticipation: he has been building up toward this moment. Thus pulling his readers out of the text and back into reality, he raises the central question: “Do monsters really exist?” (20). The answer to this question holds the key to his theory’s credibility. Can we trust his theory, which is wholly based on the assumption that monsters do exist? His answer is a testament to his confidence, for he replies, “Surely they must” (20). Sly and expectant, his response is not only a challenge to the conventional understanding that monsters are forms of our imagination, but also a design to trigger a little indignation from the readers. For example, the word “surely” gives a sense that his answer is an obvious one that “surely” everyone should know (though he provides no more concrete evidence than his emphatic interpretation of common sense). Indeed, Cohen’s use of “must” suggests that there is no other rational answer that can be true. With these subtly forceful word choices, he appears to challenge readers’ knowledge or, more importantly, their pride in what they know. We can start to see here that Cohen is aiming at a specific part of the subconscious—the ego—that will allow him access and even control a reader’s sense of what is real.

Cohen demands a definite answer, a conviction—whether it be disregard or trust—for vacillating on that unsteady bridge is a source of anxiety in itself. But under the appearance of a perfectly probable motive lies a more intricate pursuit. By calling the question’s inevitability a “symptom of the deep anxiety about what is and what should be thinkable,” he challenges his audience’s scope of thought (20). Notice his inclusion of the word “should.” The clear, crucial distinction between what “is” and what “should” be thinkable serves to differentiate the mundane, average thinking ability from the sophisticated intellect Cohen requires from his readers. It is his way of coyly, maybe even with a hint of haughtiness, asking, “Can you handle my ideas?” In an ever-so-charming manner, he prods our ego—something that we so treasure that we will go to extreme lengths to save it from damage or belittlement. With his suave patronization as the bait, he is fishing for our overprotectiveness of our egos.

And as Cohen’s prey, the readers may feel their ego threatened and become perceptibly anxious. When Cohen calls “the inevitability of the question a symptom of the deep anxiety,” “symptom” is also a carefully chosen word that appropriately renders a disease-like quality. According to this notion, anxiety is a contagious epidemic––one that takes over people’s reason and causes them to constantly feel insecure, leading them to eventually produce monsters. Interestingly, anxiety in Cohen’s text is a revisited subject—a constantly reoccurring term—that mirrors the prevalent, lingering nature of a disease. It is ironic that his own monster theory, which analyzes the anxieties that create monsters in the first place, might itself engender anxiety—both his and his readers’. The anxiety can rise simply from the essay’s content (a solemn discourse on monster), which Cohen says inevitably prompts his central query, or it can also come from ambivalence regarding the question (of the monster’s existence) itself. “Monster Culture” brims with uncertainty and tension.

In many ways, then, reading “Monster Culture” is not just reading but rather thinking and questioning, and all the while coping with anxiety. Fueling the anxiety, Cohen establishes a dependent relationship between monsters and us. According to the rhetorical question in “Surely they must, for if they did not, how could we?” we cannot exist if monsters do not (20). But consequently, if their existence equates to our existence, does that not mean we are monsters? Here is the epitome of the break between thinkable and unthinkable. We all are monsters, and in choosing whether or not one can accept that fact is the key to complete comprehension of Cohen’s theory—and deciding on which end of the bridge we will land. In fact, with the question, Cohen allows the readers to actively experience the making of a monster. As Cohen says, we detest monsters. So, we naturally don’t want to be monsters ourselves—or casted out as different or freakish. But when Cohen suggests that we are all monsters, a non-monster (who is thus unlike all others) becomes a monster nonetheless. With this prospect, anxiety turns into panic, and as a result, his question “If they did not, how could we?” acts as reverse psychology: rather than be appalled, we are tempted to swiftly accept Cohen’s bait and concur, “Yes, you are right. I, too, am a monster.” We don’t want to be left behind on that bridge. When the essay ends and the bridge falls, we could either plummet down and flounder in that bottomless gulf of uncertainty and anxiety—with no one to pull you out, to persuade you to either side. Or, we could escape the easy way: follow his lead.

Thus, Cohen’s concluding inquiry was not a question at all, but a powerful shove to his readers toward believing him completely. Though in a glance, he appears to be simply questioning the existence of monsters, he is really testing the readers’ level of thought and urging others to question everything and everyone (even him, the author, and themselves). But, even in this, there is deception because he in fact is pushing the readers to the side the bridge that corresponds to trust and belief in him. By speaking to the readers’ egos, he actually makes readers, afraid of humiliation, want to agree with him. And with the suggestion that everyone is a monster, he entices them to accept it as a plainly apparent reality. Rather than putting his theory at risk, Cohen has convinced his readers––by causing their anxiety to rule over their reason––to want to be on his side even if they aren’t necessarily his believer. Thus, the vulnerability exposed isn’t that of his theory, but that of his readers. “Monster Culture,” then, is Cohen’s lonely battle against “un-thought,” which ironically, and unfortunately, shows the prevalence and inevitability of it (3).

WORKS CITED

Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. “Monster Culture (Seven Theses).” Monster Theory: Reading Culture . Ed. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. Minneapolis: U. of Minnesota Press, 1996. 3-25.

Emerson, Ralph W. “The American Scholar.” Speech. Phi Beta Kappa Society, Cambridge, MA. 31 Aug. 1837. EmersonCentral.com . Web. 20 Feb. 2013.

SUE BAHK '15SEAS is an undergraduate student in The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science. Though she is an engineer, she considers herself also as a humanities person who believes in the value and power of writing. She was born and raised in Seoul, South Korea, but started studying in the States since the 6th grade. In her free time, Sue enjoys reading, listening to music, and traveling.

Article Details

Essays Of All Types And Subjects

Easy as 1, 2, 3....

ESSAY MONSTER

BRING YOUR ESSAY MONSTER ESSAYS TO THE TABLE

Essay Monster is a student-run organization that helps students in grades 6-12 with writing their essays whether it be a narrative essay, persuasive essay, research paper, or more! We offer essay proofreading services working around your deadline and will answer your personal questions about essays in less time.

Get your burning essay questions answered within less than 5-7 business days guaranteed! You may also submit your essay for proofreading with a response within a week or less.

Essay Monster has compiled answers to frequently asked questions about essays. If you want to find out how to stop procrastinating, improve grammar, and more...click on the link below.

L earn about Essay Monster's core values and message to help your school and personal essays get polished in no time! Click on the link below.

Every month, Essay Monster posts an essay tip based on your inquiries. Click on the link below to find out what this month's tip is. 

Click on the link to expl ore Essay Monster's favorite tips on writing research papers, narrative essays, persuasive essays, and comparative essays.

Meet our monsters! You can find all of our monsters on each page of Essay Monster. You can try to find them all on the website...some are hidden. We'll leave you to the search!