Scan barcode
woowottreads's review
2.0
I was quite excited about this book. I waited a while to plunk down money for it. But, sadly, it wasn't really what I thought it would be, nor was it as engaging as I hoped. It was not slyly and cleverly written, as reviews on the back intimated. It was not a feast. It was difficult to slog through, actually. It was uneven and unfocused. And whilst he decided to summarize Beowulf and Blade Runner and make inaccurate assessments of certain aspects of horror, he neglected to dissect certain elements of his psychological and philosophical lingo. There are parts where one feels as though one is reading around in circles. Tell me more of what I DON'T know; don't tell me the plot of something that is a complete no-brainer.
That being said, since my education lacks in certain sciences (due to a highly conservative Christian education), I was interested in information with which I was not familiar. It gave me a brief introduction to things I didn't know I wanted to know. And so, I don't really regret reading it, problematic as it is.
Also awkward. He talks about things that he, as a white male, doesn't necessarily understand. That's almost always awkward.
That being said, since my education lacks in certain sciences (due to a highly conservative Christian education), I was interested in information with which I was not familiar. It gave me a brief introduction to things I didn't know I wanted to know. And so, I don't really regret reading it, problematic as it is.
Also awkward. He talks about things that he, as a white male, doesn't necessarily understand. That's almost always awkward.
kikiandarrowsfishshelf's review against another edition
3.0
Three stars for the first half of the book; two stars for the second.
The first part of the book is intersting. It is look at how people viewed or defined monsters at various points. Asma then moves into the changing view of monsters. The second half (more like the last 1/3) seems to ramble. It feels like little more than a list and obvious statements about mass media. He almost seems to go off topic and wants to avoid offending anyone. It isn't boring, but it isn't very interesting.
The part on the anicent Greeks and Biblical times was the most intersting and fasinating. Asma does an in depth look at how the anicents viewed the other. He does not group Romans and Greeks together, but takes each and examines them. The discussion in this section of the book is lively and quite present to read. This section really makes the book. Also of note was Asma's look at the once popular freak shows and how the views on biology changed the way we looked at monsters. This seciont, it should be noted, includes pictures that if you can not handle the Mutter Museum in Philadelphia, you should skip.
Average rating of 2.5. The first half of the book is worth reading; the second isn't.
The first part of the book is intersting. It is look at how people viewed or defined monsters at various points. Asma then moves into the changing view of monsters. The second half (more like the last 1/3) seems to ramble. It feels like little more than a list and obvious statements about mass media. He almost seems to go off topic and wants to avoid offending anyone. It isn't boring, but it isn't very interesting.
The part on the anicent Greeks and Biblical times was the most intersting and fasinating. Asma does an in depth look at how the anicents viewed the other. He does not group Romans and Greeks together, but takes each and examines them. The discussion in this section of the book is lively and quite present to read. This section really makes the book. Also of note was Asma's look at the once popular freak shows and how the views on biology changed the way we looked at monsters. This seciont, it should be noted, includes pictures that if you can not handle the Mutter Museum in Philadelphia, you should skip.
Average rating of 2.5. The first half of the book is worth reading; the second isn't.
amarieb's review
4.0
A very interesting take on Monsters. A good read, but a bit dry in some parts. I really liked how the author covered many different kinds/aspects of monsters which made the work very well rounded.
bashbashbashbash's review against another edition
4.0
On Monsters is a genre-straddling volume that seeks to answer the questions: how has Western civilization defined the monster over the past two millennia, and how does this definition correlate to historical paradigms?
These queries are perhaps too large for one text to answer, but Asma provides a well-researched précis of monsters in ancient philosophical texts and mythology, monsters in theology, the monsters of 18th and 19th Century natural history and literature, the psychology of monstrousness (Freud and beyond), and contemporary and future monsters, from murderers to cinematic slashers to cyborgs. Each chapter also contains Asma’s own meditations on the meaning of monstrousness and the ways in which the monster embodies changing cultural taboos.
On Monsters straddles several areas: it is written in the accessible tone of the general interest title, but the but philosophical analysis and historical details have clearly been lovingly and laboriously researched. Asma’s background in philosophy, theology, and natural history shines through; in fact, translations from Ancient Latin texts are the author’s own.
Rather than dwell on popular monsters like vampires, On Monsters revels in historical and contemporary oddities. Readers are treated not just to Plato’s thoughts on monsters, but also to accounts from the “history” of the rather gullible Pliny the Elder who believed in every latter-day monster save the werewolf; excerpts of the Malleus Maleficarum – the definitive medieval text on witch hunting – appear lovingly translated; and a delightful subsection on taxidermy hoaxes of the 18th Century entertains as well as informing. Even readers knowledgeable in one area or field that the book covers are likely to discover an new and intriguing angle on monstrousness.
Perhaps due to the wide scope of his topic, Asma’s analysis of the meaning of monstrousness seems incomplete, and therefore less satisfying than his historical recounting. In fact, snappy chapters are often interspersed between heavier ones full of philosophical analysis, which sometimes gives the feeling that one is reading two different works inserted into one book. Half of the chapters dwell on philosophy, and the other half on history, without the twain ever quite coming together.
A further sticking point: Asma inserts his own opinions freely into the text. While this post-positivist approach can be refreshing, it does, at times, color the text. Some readers may chafe at Asma’s emphasis of personal choice (rather than social structure) as being responsible for criminal acts. His scorn for other theorists may be off-putting for some: in footnote Asma dismisses both Julia Kristeva’s The Powers of Horror and Judith Butler’s Bodies That Matter, stating, “I have not found Kristeva’s and Butler’s work very helpful in understanding monsters or anything else, really, but the work certainly has its own devoted following.”
Regardless, On Monsters is always interesting. The footnotes, which double as a bibliography, are copious, lengthy, and entertaining. The book also benefits from excellent overall design and well-considered visuals aids including, in some cases, the author’s own drawings.
On Monsters would make excellent pleasure reading for those looking to find a new angle on a well-loved subject. The chapters are not detailed enough to serve as individual overviews for a reader wanting to get into a topic, but as introductions to new areas of interest, it works well, and individual chapters could be given to students as a starting point for discussion on taboos or beliefs of specific centuries. Despite its fragmented nature, On Monsters is at its most delightful when read as an imperfect but fascinating meditation on the the fluctuating meaning of monstrousness.
These queries are perhaps too large for one text to answer, but Asma provides a well-researched précis of monsters in ancient philosophical texts and mythology, monsters in theology, the monsters of 18th and 19th Century natural history and literature, the psychology of monstrousness (Freud and beyond), and contemporary and future monsters, from murderers to cinematic slashers to cyborgs. Each chapter also contains Asma’s own meditations on the meaning of monstrousness and the ways in which the monster embodies changing cultural taboos.
On Monsters straddles several areas: it is written in the accessible tone of the general interest title, but the but philosophical analysis and historical details have clearly been lovingly and laboriously researched. Asma’s background in philosophy, theology, and natural history shines through; in fact, translations from Ancient Latin texts are the author’s own.
Rather than dwell on popular monsters like vampires, On Monsters revels in historical and contemporary oddities. Readers are treated not just to Plato’s thoughts on monsters, but also to accounts from the “history” of the rather gullible Pliny the Elder who believed in every latter-day monster save the werewolf; excerpts of the Malleus Maleficarum – the definitive medieval text on witch hunting – appear lovingly translated; and a delightful subsection on taxidermy hoaxes of the 18th Century entertains as well as informing. Even readers knowledgeable in one area or field that the book covers are likely to discover an new and intriguing angle on monstrousness.
Perhaps due to the wide scope of his topic, Asma’s analysis of the meaning of monstrousness seems incomplete, and therefore less satisfying than his historical recounting. In fact, snappy chapters are often interspersed between heavier ones full of philosophical analysis, which sometimes gives the feeling that one is reading two different works inserted into one book. Half of the chapters dwell on philosophy, and the other half on history, without the twain ever quite coming together.
A further sticking point: Asma inserts his own opinions freely into the text. While this post-positivist approach can be refreshing, it does, at times, color the text. Some readers may chafe at Asma’s emphasis of personal choice (rather than social structure) as being responsible for criminal acts. His scorn for other theorists may be off-putting for some: in footnote Asma dismisses both Julia Kristeva’s The Powers of Horror and Judith Butler’s Bodies That Matter, stating, “I have not found Kristeva’s and Butler’s work very helpful in understanding monsters or anything else, really, but the work certainly has its own devoted following.”
Regardless, On Monsters is always interesting. The footnotes, which double as a bibliography, are copious, lengthy, and entertaining. The book also benefits from excellent overall design and well-considered visuals aids including, in some cases, the author’s own drawings.
On Monsters would make excellent pleasure reading for those looking to find a new angle on a well-loved subject. The chapters are not detailed enough to serve as individual overviews for a reader wanting to get into a topic, but as introductions to new areas of interest, it works well, and individual chapters could be given to students as a starting point for discussion on taboos or beliefs of specific centuries. Despite its fragmented nature, On Monsters is at its most delightful when read as an imperfect but fascinating meditation on the the fluctuating meaning of monstrousness.
snixo048's review
1.0
I really wanted to like this book as the premise and the topic are great. However, the author began to lose me when he went on a totally unnecessary side bar about how men just have this protective instinct that women don't have and they can't escape (sorry....have you seem a Momma bear)? But I have sloughed through casual sexism for good content and information before. So I persisted.
However, a relatively uncritical chapter on hermaphrodites as monsters (and how the ancient Romans used to drown them) killed it for me. Sure he was kind of saying that this was silly of the Romans, but no. Just no.
To take an already oppressed group (Intersex people....not hermaphrodites) and include them in any way in a book titled "Monsters" is insensitive, shortsighted, heteronormative and perpetuates a dangerous narrative. I suggest visiting http://www.isna.org/ to see why the author totally missed the mark here.
However, a relatively uncritical chapter on hermaphrodites as monsters (and how the ancient Romans used to drown them) killed it for me. Sure he was kind of saying that this was silly of the Romans, but no. Just no.
To take an already oppressed group (Intersex people....not hermaphrodites) and include them in any way in a book titled "Monsters" is insensitive, shortsighted, heteronormative and perpetuates a dangerous narrative. I suggest visiting http://www.isna.org/ to see why the author totally missed the mark here.
allisonthurman's review against another edition
4.0
Less about monsters than about people, psychology, medicine, and folklore - what makes us call some things "monster". Dense academic prose in places but a wonderfully unique take on the monstrous.
missmarketpaperback's review against another edition
4.0
I bought this book for the ancient monsters section. I thought that section was well done! I love Stephen Asma's voice and how accessible he made the material. I was less interested in the medieval section, but I loved the sections on modern killers and psycho paths and body modification.
christytidwell's review against another edition
1.0
I am so disappointed in this book. Not only is not what I expected when I ordered it but it is bad. It rambles, lacks a clear argument, reiterates a lot of stuff that is already widely available elsewhere, sets up straw man arguments about postmodernism (which seems rather off-topic for a book about monsters), includes way too many endnotes that distract from the main body of the text, lacks a cohesive style or tone (sometimes condescending and overexplaining and sometimes forgoing explanation of complicated or unfamiliar terminology altogether), and, for no good reason, casually reinforces gender stereotypes (Men are heroes who fight monsters because this narrative of the monster-killing hero is something that all fathers who want to protect their children identify with; boys play video games and invent play narratives that are about monsters--where do the girls and women fit into this? One mention of Ripley from Alien isn't going to cut it, especially when most mentions of women in the book are to show them as the monsters themselves (e.g., Medea, Susan Smith, witches, Grendel's mom) or as victims).
I began the book expecting to enjoy it and my estimation of it gradually decreased as I read. The first half of the book is somewhat interesting if you are not already familiar with the material he covers, but otherwise I recommend skipping it.
I began the book expecting to enjoy it and my estimation of it gradually decreased as I read. The first half of the book is somewhat interesting if you are not already familiar with the material he covers, but otherwise I recommend skipping it.
countolaf's review against another edition
3.0
3.5 stars.
The first half of this book, which covers medieval Christians and demonology, was much more interesting than the last half, which waffles on about serial killers and terrorists.
The first half of this book, which covers medieval Christians and demonology, was much more interesting than the last half, which waffles on about serial killers and terrorists.