Did Science Kill the Monster?

Noel Carroll uses 5 basic methods to create an horror monster that will terrify its audience, but is science killing the monsters? How can we be terrified when science can prove the impossibilities of such monsters, thereby making the monsters so unreal they are no longer terrifying to the audience?

Carroll’s first method for creation of a monster is fission. Fission is defined by the element of different identities, such as werewolves, alter-egos, doppelgangers, etc. For example, Irena from Cat People, turns into a leopard due to jealousy and a kiss from a man. Irena blames the curse on witchcraft from her homeland. Such a monster is disproved by science. Science can prove that a woman can’t turn into a leopard, like Irena does, due to the simple anatomy and physiology of humans. We can not morph into different animals and science does not back up witchcraft that would cause such a morph.

Carroll’s second method of creation of a monster is fusion. Fusion is the combination of two contradictory elements into one identity, such as vampires, ghosts, mummies, zombies, etc. For example, Frankenstein is a combination of body parts from multiple corpses. He is the product of one man trying to be God. Science would say that it is impossible to bring a man to life from sew together body parts and lightning. The human body is more complex than that and it would take more medical procedures to work, if it actually did happen.

Carroll’s third method of creation of a monster is magnification. Magnification takes already disgusting entities and enlarges them, such as ants, spiders, snakes, etc. Tarantula, is a prime example. It takes the ordinary spider and makes it huge. Science would find this to be improbable due to the fact that we are unable to enlarge such animals. Even radiation wouldn’t make a spider that big.

Carroll’s fourth method of creation of a monster is massification. Massification takes already disgusting entities and multiplies them to great amounts, such as thousands of ants, spiders, snakes, birds, and even vegetables. For example, the birds has an unreal amount of birds in one flock that are terrorizing a town. Science shows that animals usually stay with in certain numbers when it comes to living together. To many causes dominance issues and such.

Carroll’s fifth method of creation of a monster is metonymy. Metonymy doesn’t deal with the monster as much as it deals with the environment. It is a method that makes the environment just as creepy as the monster it self. For example, Dracula’s castle or the windmill that Frankenstein is created in. This doesn’t deal with the monster it self and therefore I will not give as much attention too.

Science can prove these methods as illegitimate and impossible to the laws of nature. Does this actually affect the audience? Can we still be scared by monsters that we know can’t exist? I believe that terror can still come from these impossible creatures for the simple fact that maybe science could go amuck and something disastrous, like these monsters, could really come to existence.