Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters ( Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock, ed.)

2015; Penn State University Press; Volume: 4; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.5325/preternature.4.2.0228

2161-2196

Greg Doran,

Gothic Literature and Media Analysis

Any publication that relies on multiple contributors tends to be uneven, and The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters is no exception. However, the strong contributions heavily outweigh the weak ones, which makes it a valuable resource. Editor Jeffrey Weinstock has collected a wide array of contributions on monsters both familiar and lesser known. In the end, its real strength lies on the literary side of the ledger, with the cinematic contributions not being up to the same standard.The book's introduction, which begins with a reference to a classic Bugs Bunny cartoon, suggests that it will not be a formal approach to the topic. In fact, the introduction provides an interesting exploration of society's ongoing fascination with monsters. As Weinstock writes, “Monsters in short are inevitably the most interesting—and, one should add, threatening—of ‘people’ because they are ontological puzzles that demand solutions. They are things that should not be, but nevertheless are—and their existence therefore raises vexing questions about humanity's understanding of and place in the universe” (1). In this way, Weinstock sets the contextual argument for the ongoing fascination with monsters and, by extension, the value of the encyclopedia.Weinstock does a very good job presenting the context for the book, and his exploration of society's engagement with monsters is a compelling argument. He offers a very interesting explanation for the ongoing nature of the relationship, which he attributes to the malleability of monsters. “That our monsters keep changing—or that the same monsters look, act, and function differently in different historical contexts—demonstrates the extent to which our understanding of them is always dependent upon time, place, and worldview” (4). If there is one issue with the critical part of the introduction, it is that it is not as extensive as a work of this size deserves. For readers familiar with these arguments, they will seem to gloss over the topic. For readers new to the arguments, it is a good introduction, which would have benefited from providing more background.The second part of the introduction falls under the heading “How to Use This Volume.” However, only part of this section is actually taken up with how to use the book. The rest of it is used to describe the methodology underlying the selection of entries for the book. It also serves as a sort of apology for the decisions made by the editorial team. Weinstock states, “Limited by space, the volume is as a consequence far from being an exhaustive bestiary or compendium of all the monsters in human history worldwide (such a project would be ambitious indeed and would extend to an entire series of volumes such as this). This project instead has sought to attend to the most common and significant monsters found primarily in the literature, cinema, and popular culture of English-speaking regions” (5). Indeed, it is this choice of focus that raises most of the issues with the book.The entries on the literary or, as Weinstock defines them, “ubiquitous monsters” are excellent. For example, the entry on “Vampires” is extensive, well annotated, and thought provoking. It begins with a brief introduction before moving to a series of thorough sections: “Characteristics of the Vampire,” “Historical Vampires,” “Romanticism and Vampires,” “Dracula,” “From Nineteenth- to Twentieth-Century Representations,” and “The Cinematic Vampire.” The entry concludes with a generous list of references and suggested readings. It is a comprehensive entry, which calls into question the need for a separate “Dracula” entry. Despite the overlap, it is representative of the strong contributions in the book. However, the same cannot be said for some of the more marginal monsters.When the book shifts to more marginal monsters, especially ones related to film or pop culture, it tends to be much less comprehensive. For example, the entry on “The Blob” is a somewhat superficial treatment of the B-movie from 1958. In addition to providing a brief summary of the plot, during which the contributor notes that it stars a “not-yet-famous Steve McQueen,” it goes on to enumerate the various sequels and discuss its evolution from script to screen. It even claims that it “has had a lasting impact on popular culture. Its title song, ‘Beware of the Blob,’ co-written by Burt Bacharach, was a major hit, spending three weeks on Billboard's Top 40” (55). Leaving aside the claim of lasting pop culture significance, which would be hard to substantiate, this whole entry could have been encompassed into a larger entry on screen monsters of the 1950s, similar to the entry titled “Children's Literature, Monsters In.” It does not merit its own entry, which is highlighted by the four brief entries under “References and Further Reading.”While it is challenging to compile a collection like this one, the book could have used a more judicious approach to editing. For example, the issue with the entry on “The Blob” is avoided elsewhere in the book, where there are single-line entries directing readers to overview entries. For example, in lieu of an entry on Casper, there is an extensive “Ghost” entry. Furthermore, some areas are addressed twice. A separate section on “Dracula” is maybe not needed, for it is addressed under the larger rubric of “Vampires.” Another example of this duplication can be seen with an entry on “Cenobites,” which are demons “originating in Clive Barker's The Hellbound Heart (1986)” (74). Again, this discrete entry seems unnecessary, when the subject of “Demon” is thoroughly examined later in the book. That entry runs to more than twenty pages, while the “Cenobites” entry is only three paragraphs long. Again, the book is at its best in its substantial entries, instead of its attempts to cover multiple bases.The final issue facing the book is the lack of color plates. For such a substantial book not to contain color plates for some of its illustrations makes it look cheap, which it is not. As with the issues that arise from multiple contributors, the quality of the illustrations also varies. They range from very good to amateurish. With the wildly varying degrees of quality and the lack of color plates, it might have been better to omit the illustrations completely. They are scattered throughout the book, and they do not add to it. Again, it seems to be related to the book's attempt to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.In the end, The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters is a mixed result. Its entries on the literary and “ubiquitous” monsters tend to be very good, containing both valuable information and interesting insights. Its entries on the cinematic monsters are less successful. These entries often provide superficial information and veer into tangential areas of potential interest. Therefore, the encyclopedia could have been a more valuable resource had it jettisoned the cinematic component in favor of expanded entries on the literary. It is an excellent guide to literary monsters, but it will leave the pop culture enthusiast looking for a better resource.