Thinking About Monsters, Part Two: A Detailed Rubric

Core 105

O’Rourke

A rubric is an authoritative rule that guides conduct.  As you have seen in the first part of the rubric discussion, we believe that a rubric can serve as an interpretive tool that brings to the surface certain important aspects of a text.  The rubric we introduced was geared to monstrosity, but there is more that we want you to look for as you interpret the texts.  Since we are moving into the second semester of the course, it is time to complicate things a bit.  The first rubric could be cast as a set of questions, and that is what we do here; however, the questions in this rubric go into greater depth.  These questions should guide you as you read the texts.  When we prepare for discussions, look these over and be sure that you can answer them. 

Texts, by the way, can be understood as anything that can be interpreted for meaning, although this is a liberal characterization; more strictly, they are intentionally produced items that can be so interpreted.   As such, they can be anything from novels to films to editorial cartoons or even conversations.

I.          The Monster, Structure and Argument

A.                 Who is the monster? 

1.                   What normative values does the creature transgress? What does the creature do that earns it the right of becoming labeled a “monster”?

2.                   What is the creature’s motivation for transgressing these values? Why does it act in ways considered “monstrous”?

B.                 Who is the hero?

1.                   How does the culture or hero deal with the monster?

2.                   What normative values does the culture or hero reaffirm as it deals with the monster?

C.                Who is the monster maker?

1.                   How was the monster physically created? What was the actual process through which the monster came into being?

2.                   Why was the monster created? What was the creator or creators’ purpose in creating the creature or thing that became a “monster”?

D.                What distinguishes the hero from the monster?

II.         The Work, Structure and Argument

A.                How does the work use structure (information design, style, language or other compositional elements) to make the plot compelling? What elements are employed to capture the audience’s attention and elicit an emotional response? (Specify which elements are intended to elicit which specific emotional responses.)

1.                   How does the work use structure to make the monster persuasive?

2.                   How does the work use structure to make the hero persuasive?

3.                   What plot elements make it difficult to distinguish the hero from the monster?

B.                 What is the work’s central thematic message or argument concerning monstrosity? Cite specific elements of the work that compel the audience to reach conclusions concerning the nature of monstrosity and just or “heroic” responses to that monstrosity.

1.                 In what ways does the work confirm common conceptions of the nature of monstrosity and heroism?

2.                 In what ways does the work revolutionize or extend common conceptions of the nature of monstrosity and heroism?

III.       Same Monster Different Works

A.                Compare how the same creature or monster is treated in different works or different media.

B.                 Compare how the same story or general thematic message is conveyed and argued in different media.