Response to Vacarescu's article and Carson's novel

I am not really sure what to think of Theodora Eliza Vacarescu’s article entitled, From Frankenstein’s Monster to Haraway’s Cyborg: Gender in Monstrosity, Cyborgosity and (Post)humanity. Vacarescu argues that all human beings are cyborgs (basically machines) and that all cyborgs are monsters, therefore all humans are monsters. To me, this is a bit over the top. I would suppose that it depends on how you define “monster.” Vacarescu argues that Western culture made Shelley’s monster monstrous simply by the way they treated it. Hence, Shelley’s monster was “made” by humans, or Western culture (3). I would have to agree with this specific point because I understand that others can be pushed over the edge and ultimately turn into monstrous beings.

Additionally, she points out the fact that since Shelley’s monster’s sex is not clearly defined, the lack of an obvious gender identity makes him a monster. Hence, she is implying that all neutered humans are essentially monsters, which is ludicrous. I suppose that humans can behave like monsters and/or cyborgs from time to time, but I cannot agree with her argument that all humans are both cyborgs and monsters.

In addition, Vacarescu argues that monstrosity does not lie outside of humanity, thus all monsters are human beings (1). I would have to disagree with this because I know that there are certain animals that can be quite monstrous when they attack their prey, or just are vicious to other living things as a means of protecting themselves. For example, piranhas bite at whatever they can get their teeth on—even human flesh, so one could reasonably argue that piranhas are monstrous. Another example of a monster could be a mountain lion because a number of them have attacked unarmed humans just for the sake of attacking them. Therefore, one could argue that animals that attack any unarmed living creature are monsters.

I really liked the way that Anne Carson wrote her novel, Autobiography of Red because I am very interested in poetry—especially the kind that forms a story. Carson uses free verse and bases her story on the Greek myth of Geryon (a.k.a. Red), but changes the ending of it a bit. Instead of having Herakles literally kill Geryon, she has Herakles kill Geryon on the inside by means of breaking his heart. It seems that the main message of this story is that you have to love yourself before anyone can love you. This is something that I have learned fairly recently, so I understand Red’s struggle to gain love from another.

At first, this particular novel was a little hard to follow with its mini poems and appendixes—mainly since it is not written in a way that I am used to reading. Nonetheless, once I got to the part that focuses on Red, it became much easier to follow. I ended up enjoying this work of art because it defies the rules of novel writing as well as poetry writing.

The main character, Red, constantly struggles with his appearance, identity and his sexuality. The fact that his skin is red and he has wings makes him appear monstrous. Once he finds his love for the art of photography during his college years, he starts to enjoy his life much more. The fact that his older brother verbally abused him and sexually molested him during his childhood is disturbing to me. I appreciated the uniqueness of the way this story was set up, but I did not really like this story as a whole because I tend to like books with happy endings. I guess I like to read books in order to escape the sadness as well as the brutality of the real world.