“the relation between animal and monster that such recognition calls into question has remained curiously under-theorised.”
“the figural operation that installs the beast as a human other in the fictional text through the medium of the monster is no different in kind from the discursive acts that structured Victorians’ attitudes towards non-humans.”
-Mario Ortiz-Robles
I found the article from Ortiz-Robles to contain a very interesting theory that was applicable to much of what we have seen so far in The Beetle. This idea that a monster many times has a more animalistic than human appearance. Ortiz-Robles talks about how this stems from the Victorian ideals of the superiority of “normal humans” over others. The connections between many of the monsters we have read about and animals is very obvious, especially in The Beetle. This shows the fears of people at the time to those who were from different places, especially areas that England was expanding into, mainly Africa. This nonhuman representation of the Arab depicts the fears that people had at the time. They simply did not know what to expect, and they feared that their “perfect” way of life was in danger. Although they felt superior to these different people and their “uncivil” ways of life, they were still worried. They were worried because they did not know what to expect. The uncertainty of this situation is very apparent in the novel, as the people involved feel as though they lack control when the Beetle is present.
Question: Does the animalistic representation of certain monsters make them more or less predictable?
