A book that looks at the history of monsters in human society and civilization, and comes to insightful conclusions about their role in the narrative of our culture
Monster.
Let’s start this review of Humans: A Monstrous History by not with the book itself, but the dictionary. What does the dictionary say a monster is? Here are some of the definitions:
- one unusually large for its kind
- an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure
- one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character
- a threatening force
- something monstrous
And where does the word come from? What is the word’s etymology?
Middle English monstre, from Anglo-French, from Latin monstrum "omen, monster" from monēre "to warn."
The word monster, as you can see, is freighted with meaning, multiple meanings, and always has been. Thus monsters have always been with us, and this is one of the arguments in Surekha Davies’s book Humans: A Monstrous History.
I don’t normally lead off with the cover of a book, especially not a nonfiction one. But this is an exception that deserves further discussion. Look at the book image again. That shiny oval in the center is meant to invoke a mirror, with a suite of silhouettes of various monstrous forms as its. The author, right on the cover, is presenting her point of view and her concluding argument in visual form. We are the monstrous, or more accurately, a world where we can see all of us as monsters means that no one is monstrous.
To get to that final concluding argument, and working that thesis is the whole premise and mission of the book.
Davies takes us on a history of monsters, or as the jacket says, a history through them. This is really a look at how monsters have been seen and siloed and othered throughout human history. Although she does have some side discussions about other societies now and again, especially to contrast with the Western tradition, her study is mainly in that Western mold and that Western perspective. That doesn’t meant it’s all familiar; the author goes all the way back to Herodotus and forward through history. Gerald of Wales, a Norman/Welsh noble, looked down upon the English race as an abject sort, showing that racism can have unexpected axes, but has always been present in some way or another. There are always people to monstrify. There is always an out-group, it seems, and Davies has some good discussion about the role of others and their monstrification in society. There is a lot of discussion of people such as Antonietta Gonsalvus, the daughter of a “wild man” of the Canary Islands, and similarly afflicted with Ambras Syndrome, and thus hairy all over, including the face. Davies makes the point that, since such people seem to blur the boundaries between animals and humans, existing in that monster space, they are disquieting precisely because they make hard and fast lines impossible.
Monsters really are a way to put up a mirror to ourselves. In the process, Davies goes a lot into race and how groups have been sawed off of the norm. The Spanish colonial system of caste in North America, for instance, shows not only how people are divided and subdivided again as being more or less human (that is, Castilian White), but Davies also goes into how some of those boundaries and castes were far more porous than advertised. This just goes to her point that the identity of a monster is in the end often just a social convention or decision. Monsters and monsterhood can be situational, in time and space. A discussion of persecutions of Jews, up to the Holocaust, comes in as well.
So in that context, the most provocative group that Davies discusses in terms of monsterhood is women. I confess I had never thought of women in quite this way, but Davies lays out the case for the monstrification of women quite plainly. “Monstrous births,” both real and fake, are just part of this otherization of women and classification of them as monsters throughout history. This book made me think of the gorgon Medusa in a new light. This book is so rich with examples but it also provoked me and made me think of others she did not include in her thesis. Honestly, to list and discuss every example would have been impossible. Davies is selective. There is one "monster" I think she should have included, which I mention below when we get to the more science fictional aspects of the work.
This ties into a discussion of trans people and how they are being monstrified right now as of the time of the writing of the book and this review.
What this has to do with science fiction and thus this review space is, well, plenty. Science fiction, as the author points out, has dealt with the monstrous since its very beginnings in Frankenstein, with the titular character’s creation. And science fiction was an early proponent of embracing monsters. Monsters like Dracula, Caliban, King Kong and plenty of antecedents before the modern day. When the author gets to the modern-day depictions and ideas of what monsters are, her science fiction generally leans a lot on Star Trek. Data comes in for discussion, especially the episode “Measure of a Man,” which is all about the humanity (or non-humanity) of the android. Since we have already seen the whole idea of the not-quite-human as being a definition of monster before, the fact that Data is not quite human literally makes him potentially a monster in this context, to the author’s eyes. And for that alone, there are those who would seek to control him. Davies also makes an interesting point about Lore, Data’s double. In some ways he is very much more human than Data —he lies, uses contractions, mimics human speech and behavior more effectively than Data— and thus is very much more uncanny valley in the process. Lore is much more of a monster than Data ever is.
Davies goes on to talk about some other SFF properties, from Men in Black to, particularly, District 9 and how the plight of the protagonist, Wikus, and his slow transformation, his monstrification, makes him an outcast and distrusted in real time. It is a case study for the processes that she has described throughout the book. Battlestar Galactica, with its Cylons that can pass for humans and even interbreed with humans, particularly come in as well. Although she doesn't mention it, it is telling that many of the female Cylon "monsters" are very much concerned with motherhood while the male Cylons are not interested in fatherhood. Also consider that the most memorable of the Cylon infiltrators are female: Sixes and Eights.
However, I think she missed a trick in not discussing Spock. She does mention Star Trek: The Original Series in the context of the gender and race makeup of the bridge crew, and makes some points about monsters and boundaries in the process. But Spock is even more like Data in the sense of being a potential monster: he is half human, for one thing, which ties into earlier discussions in the book about the boundaries of humanity (Kirk’s words about Spock upon his death in Wrath of Khan come to mind). But the point is, even if Davies doesn’t discuss him, Spock and his transgressive nature, and on the bridge at that, as first officer to Kirk, fit in entirely with Davies’s thesis and is another data point in her favor.
The book ends with our present and looking toward the future. She points a finger at the new kinds of monstrifcation, including poverty, the use of LLMs and AI, and the anti-trans and anti-DEI campaigns. She concludes that, by having us embrace and see the people being called monsters right next door, the ones right within us, we can take steps to make this a more just and equitable society. If we are all monsters, none of us are.
With sound arguments, excellent and entertaining writing, and a fascinating dive into history, myth, and literature and art, Humans: A Monstrous History accomplishes Davies’s goal of presenting her thesis and ideas that the way to a more equitable world is for us to embrace the others. To embrace the monsters that are in fact us (remember, once again, the cover of the book). Monsters are warnings, just like the etymology states—warnings of what happens when we exclude and make the monster outcast.
--
Highlights:
- Excellent and crisply written and accessible
- Deep dive into history, culture, and science fictional aspects of monsters in human society
- Strong central theme and thesis
- Provokes thought and consideration of even more examples and ideas than in the book, extending the conversation and thought for the reader
Reference: Davies, Surekha. Humans: A Monstrous History [University of California Press, 2025].
POSTED BY: Paul Weimer. Ubiquitous in Shadow, but I’m just this guy, you know? @princejvstin.
