Monster or Not?

Noel Carroll believes that a threatening and disgusting monster is a requirement in order for a work of art to be considered horror. Monster, by Webster’s dictionary standards is “any animal or human grotesquely deviating from the normal shape, behavior, or character.” Carrol, however, says that a monster is a creature that isn’t supposed to exist and is fearsome, threatening and disgusting. While anything of that description should indeed be considered a monster, aren’t there other horrific creatures not meeting that description that should be considered a monsters? I believe so. A creature that exists but shouldn’t by scientific means is indeed frightening, but since it shouldn’t exist, what are the odds of it existing in real life? Therefore, I personally find creatures that do if fact exists to be more dangerous. Any scary movie I’ve seen that involves unreal creatures doesn’t leave me scared, those with more realistic horror complete their purpose.

This explains why I personally have always considered “The Most Dangerous Game” to be a work of horror. Rainsford is up against General Zaroff who I think definably qualifies as a monster. Is General Zaroff something that shouldn’t exist, disgusting and threatening at first look? No he is not. Therefore, Carol would not classify him as a monster, but he hunts men on an island where they have little chance of survival for the sake of its difficulty . If I was Rainsford, I’m not sure what else would scare me more than being hunted by another human. Any other real creature I could out reason in almost all cases. But with Rainsford and General Zaroff, both are human, both can reason. In conclusion, while I agree with many of Carrols ideas, I do not agree with his criteria of an unnatural monster being in a piece of art to make it be considered a work of horror.