WhyWe Invented Monsters
WhyWe Invented Monsters
Monstersare one of the most fascinating and horrific imagery creatures thatare always legendary. It is often hideous, ugly and dreadful.According to the article, ‘Why we invented monsters,` ogres mayhave different qualities but the underlying facts are that they arehuman eaters. This idea is acceptable because monsters have alwaysbeen depicted as human terrifies and eaters by many communities.Mythical narrative by Greeks, Native Americans, Africans and Hawaiianpeople described Monsters as mighty, horrendous and obscene (Trout,2011). However, there are disparities about the nature of thesemythical creatures. For example, in Hawaii, the creature has bothanimal and personal properties. In South America, the monster was aJaguar while the Greek mythology they were depicted as giganticcannibals. In Africa, the monsters are described as giant voraciousbirds. Each society defines monsters in their context. Thedescription seems to be related to the community’s most fearedcreature (Trout, 2011).
DavidJone’s story of the development of dragons is appealing and appearsto hold some ground. The reason is that it describes the origin ofbrain dragons from apelike creatures with a comparatively small brain(Trout, 2011). The assertion is also acceptable since it is knownthat such ancient creatures like Australopithecus had a little skulland hence brain. Besides, the creatures being described as ancestralwhich harmonize with most of the stories narrated by many communities(Trout, 2011). However, Jones suggests the spontaneous development ofalarm calls as response strategy. Such an assertion is not acceptablebecause it does not describe a correct, scientific or convincingexplanation for the development of such bells. Brain growth, as wellas the related changes outlined in the article “Why we inventedmonsters,” is satisfactory. The brain may have enlarged due tooverload or other needs because the organism was evolving.Additionally, this description fits many descriptions that have beenpostulated by scientist regarding how organisms evolved.
Nonetheless,Jones proposed that distinct creatures could be merged to form onemonster. This assertion is unacceptable (Trout, 2011). He does notprovide the basis of joining the organism together or rationaldescription of how merging was carried out. As well, his argumentthat the developing primate acquired new features that merged intothe brain of the primate is debatable (Trout, 2011). Conversely, theargument that features could be genetically or culturally inheritedis entirely insupportable. Features developed artificially could notbe hereditarily transferred to the next compeers. It is also almostuniversally acceptable that, with discovery and development of art,dragon images of were made real. This information is in consensuswith other fields of knowledge such as literature and history (Trout,2011). Jones’ narrative regarding the structure of dragons can beuseful in the explanation of the components of other monsters. Thereason is that they have first human components as well as animalcomponents. This postulation is acceptable since other monstersdescribe by the other narratives have similar or related constituents(Trout, 2011). It is also appealing because of such descriptionmanage to demonstrate monsters as well as dragons as appalling andoutrageous.
Correspondingly,the narratives of monsters may be alluring since there were creaturesdiscovered in South Eastern Asia which could weigh about ten timeslarger than modern ‘komodo’ lizard (Trout, 2011). This assertionis convincing because of the real creatures in which one couldassociate. There were also other organisms that existed a long timeago but are now extinct. These creatures include dinosaurs and giantamphibians. Thus, although monsters’ narratives are in most casesmythical, the existence of such creatures could be used to prove thereality of monsters myths. Another individual who worked to prove theexistence of monsters was Adrienne Mayor (Trout, 2011). Conversely,his discovery of Tyrannosaurus forelimb may not be definite. Thereason is that complete nature of the whole creature may not be afascinating.
Similarly,Alondra Oubre asserting that, proto-humans were able to fantasizecontrives and day-dream may not be a reliable fact. The reason is thefact that, the ability to access unconscious have not be proved(Trout, 2011). Also, the postulation that, memories were stored indistorted version thereby diminishing them remains hypothetical. Thecontention in the article ‘Why we invented monsters,` that,environmental and predatory threats led to monsters myths isappealing. Myths may have been created to ensure that individual willget used to many calamities that already existed (Trout, 2011). It isalso agreeable that people invented monsters.
Conclusively,the innovation made humans survive great catastrophes and lifethreatening tragedies, especially in the ancient times. Mythicalfigures, as well as monsters, are cognitive indefiniteness thatinspires imaginations. The introduction of mythical figures andmonsters into people’s lives ushered in an era where the humancould imagine all kinds of things. Most of the narratives that havebeen told concerning monsters are convincing. This convictionindicated that these creatures affected and still continues toinfluence people’s lives. As well, the evidence from archeologyshowing remains of extraordinary creatures further confirms thatmonsters and dragons possible existed. Also, the narrative cutsacross all communities indicating that there is a high possibilitythat these mythical creatures existed and still exist. However, thereare many missing links in the explanation that are given by variousindividual when they are attempting to confirm their existence.Monsters have and always remain one of the fascinating conceptionsthat ever existed.
TroutA. P. (2011, December, 3). Whywe invented monsters.Retrieved on 16, 2016, fromhttp://www.salon.com/2011/12/03/the_evolution_of_monsters/