Christopher Blackwell

English 1101/ K. Redding

Composition 2
22 June 2016
Monsters on a Personal to Global Scale
In spite of Stephen Kings essay Why We Crave Horror Movies and Mike Daviss essay
Monsters and Messiahs both discuss the topic of monsters in general, the difference lies in how
we as people appeal to them, which bears examination because it helps determine the
effectiveness of monsters in each scenario. Stephen King is well known for his writings primarily
in the area of horror stories. His standing touch bases on a more personal level using logical
analysis. Whereas, Mike Davis is a professor whose writings consist of investigations primarily
in the area of urban politics. The monsters that he describes are affiliated to people on a broader
scale using strength of evidence. By comparing the two we as people are able to determine
which type of monster appeal to us more.
At some point as people we all either hear, watch, or read about something that was
pertaining to the news. That causes individual to categorize something as personal to them or it
appears as something broader that affect people as a whole. At any rate both cases allows us to
create monsters to cope with our fears. It urges us to put away our more civilized and adult
penchant for analysis and to become children again, seeing things in pure blacks and whites
(King 17). By approaching monsters in this way it simplifies the way we think or handle
complex fears. The delirious embrace of chupacabrismo by Mexico was, first and above all, a
celebration of the national sense of humor (Davis 49). Locally the monster chupacabra
provided Mexico with something to blame for their problems essentially giving them a way to

cope with their local epidemics. Initially in both cases monster provide relief but they differ in
how we are affected by them.
Although, both essay shows similarity in how using monsters to deal with fears, they
couldnt be further apart from each other. Whereas, King uses horror movies in order to show us
a way to deal with monsters on a personal level, compared to Davis who uses politics, global,
national, and local epidemics as a reason to create monsters to relieve us as a whole from our
fears. When we pay our four of five bucks and seat ourselves at the tenth-row center in a theater
showing a horror movie, we are daring the nightmare (King 16). The word nightmare direct this
approach to fear on a more personal level. For Instance, people who are afraid of snakes could
have went and seen the movie Anaconda allowing them to personally react to their fear of
snakes. So did El Chupacabra, a masked wrestler and social activist, who began to appear
regularly at some of the nearly one thousand anti-government protests held in turbulent Mexico
City during 1996 (Davis 48). By masking and naming himself as a monster he was able to
attack local fears that the government was causing. These two essays differ in that we perceive
the way we view monsters pertaining to our fears.
In conclusion, I think as a whole both essays are effective because we need personal,
global, national, and local monsters to be able to balance and categorize our fears. One without
the other would cause every situation or fear to become personal. Thus making it hard for those
fears to be conquered because it creates the swarming effect. Being that those fears are greatly
enlarge it makes it hard for us to conquer them. As pertaining to the book both essays develop the
idea that we create monsters to prioritize our fears.

Work Cited

Shelley, Mary. The Last Man. Lincoln: University Of Nebraska Press, 1965. Print
Campbell Joseph. The Hero With A Thousand Faces. Novato: Princeton University Press,
1968. Print
In spite of Stephen Kings essay Why We Crave Horror Movies and Mike Daviss essay
Monsters and Messiahs both discuss the topic of monsters in general, the difference lies in how
we as people appeal to them, which bears examination because it helps determine the
effectiveness of monsters in each scenario. That causes individual to categorize something as
personal to them or it appears as something broader that affect people as a whole. Whereas, King
uses horror movies in order to show us a way to deal with monsters on a personal level,
compared to Davis who uses politics, global, national, and local epidemics as a reason to create
monsters to relieve us as a whole from our fears.