What do you think?
Rate this book
We Are All Monsters: How Deviant Organisms Came to Define Us
How the monsters of nineteenth-century literature and science came to define us.
“Was I then a monster, a blot upon the earth, from which all men fled and whom all men disowned?” In We Are All Monsters , Andrew Mangham offers a fresh interpretation of this question uttered by Frankenstein’s creature in Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel in an expansive exploration of how nineteenth-century literature and science recast the monster as vital to the workings of nature and key to unlocking the knowledge of all life-forms and processes. Even as gothic literature and freak shows exploited an abiding association between abnormal bodies and horror, amazement, or failure, the development of monsters in the ideas and writings of this period showed the world to be dynamic, varied, plentiful, transformative, and creative.
In works ranging from Comte de Buffon’s interrogations of humanity within natural history to Hugo de Vries’s mutation theory, and from Shelley’s artificial man to fin de siècle notions of body difference, Mangham expertly traces a persistent attempt to understand modern subjectivity through a range of biological and imaginary monsters. In a world that hides monstrosity behind theoretical and cultural representations that reinscribe its otherness, this enlightened book shows how innovative nineteenth-century thinkers dismantled the fictive idea of normality and provided a means of thinking about life in ways that check the reflexive tendency to categorize and divide.
“Was I then a monster, a blot upon the earth, from which all men fled and whom all men disowned?” In We Are All Monsters , Andrew Mangham offers a fresh interpretation of this question uttered by Frankenstein’s creature in Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel in an expansive exploration of how nineteenth-century literature and science recast the monster as vital to the workings of nature and key to unlocking the knowledge of all life-forms and processes. Even as gothic literature and freak shows exploited an abiding association between abnormal bodies and horror, amazement, or failure, the development of monsters in the ideas and writings of this period showed the world to be dynamic, varied, plentiful, transformative, and creative.
In works ranging from Comte de Buffon’s interrogations of humanity within natural history to Hugo de Vries’s mutation theory, and from Shelley’s artificial man to fin de siècle notions of body difference, Mangham expertly traces a persistent attempt to understand modern subjectivity through a range of biological and imaginary monsters. In a world that hides monstrosity behind theoretical and cultural representations that reinscribe its otherness, this enlightened book shows how innovative nineteenth-century thinkers dismantled the fictive idea of normality and provided a means of thinking about life in ways that check the reflexive tendency to categorize and divide.
- GenresNonfictionStem
344 pages, Hardcover
Published February 14, 2023
4 people are currently reading
2070 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
June 20, 2025
Five Stars, Folks!!!!
August 4, 2024
Well researched but as a non-literary historian, this book was a slog. The last chapter was the best.
February 13, 2023
DNF and yet 4 stars. Why?
For some reason, I came to believe this is about microorganisms that have a huge and yet mostly unknown impact on our human bodies. Many scientists believe that they can even significantly influence our behavior. So this is what I was expecting, honestly, I have no idea what I was thinking.
In this book, we have an incredibly detailed work based on enormous research on monsters and monstrosities. What do these words mean, and where they came from? who, when, and how used them, and in what context? Was it always a negative term? The science of medicine evolved significantly in the XVIIIth century only to explode soon after and continues to this day. Doctors, scientists, anatomists, and many others were fascinated by the human body and wanted to know all about it. Everything that was abnormal sparked even more interest. The ethics in using language was nothing back then like it is now, so anything different than normal was simply monstrous, the term was used not in an offensive and mean way, but simply because they had no other words.
Monsters were also popular in literature, especially in gothic.
So all this the author explains in tiny details, there are so many quotations, and so many other authors and their works mentioned that it makes me feel tired. I have some knowledge of the history of biology, medicine, and literature so I thought I should really enjoy this. Sadly it turned out that I know way too little about Mary Shelley´s "Frankenstein" or about Darwins' works or about Dickens´s works. For me, it´s just overwhelming. Too much for my little head.
Yet I rate this book at 4 stars out of respect for the authors' knowledge and his work and because I am sure that this book will find many happy readers, but among more sophisticated circles.
For some reason, I came to believe this is about microorganisms that have a huge and yet mostly unknown impact on our human bodies. Many scientists believe that they can even significantly influence our behavior. So this is what I was expecting, honestly, I have no idea what I was thinking.
In this book, we have an incredibly detailed work based on enormous research on monsters and monstrosities. What do these words mean, and where they came from? who, when, and how used them, and in what context? Was it always a negative term? The science of medicine evolved significantly in the XVIIIth century only to explode soon after and continues to this day. Doctors, scientists, anatomists, and many others were fascinated by the human body and wanted to know all about it. Everything that was abnormal sparked even more interest. The ethics in using language was nothing back then like it is now, so anything different than normal was simply monstrous, the term was used not in an offensive and mean way, but simply because they had no other words.
Monsters were also popular in literature, especially in gothic.
So all this the author explains in tiny details, there are so many quotations, and so many other authors and their works mentioned that it makes me feel tired. I have some knowledge of the history of biology, medicine, and literature so I thought I should really enjoy this. Sadly it turned out that I know way too little about Mary Shelley´s "Frankenstein" or about Darwins' works or about Dickens´s works. For me, it´s just overwhelming. Too much for my little head.
Yet I rate this book at 4 stars out of respect for the authors' knowledge and his work and because I am sure that this book will find many happy readers, but among more sophisticated circles.
February 27, 2024
This is not a text for the faint of heart, in several respects.
First, this is pure academese. Saltationism, teleogical, ontogeny and phylogeny, unregenerate, homologies, epigenesis, architectonic ... can you follow? Because the list goes on. If you're a historian or a philosopher of science or some sort of pure, traditional scientist, I'm sure you'll have a better time than the rest of us with this language. A certain readership and level of acquaintance with the material is assumed.
... monstrosity came to represent life's relentless fecundity and 'the monstrous' a mode of uncontainable vitality.
I'm not criticizing Mangham's writing; it's excellent, in fact. For example, "vital excess"! What great wordcrafting! But the rest is obtuse. Second, on that note, is the sheer amount of bulky quotations. Block quotes, direct quotes in-text of all lengths and states ... how much of this is Mangham's writing and how much of it is the writing of others is a worthy question.
... malformation is not a fault, but a variation; it is a symbol both of possibility and nature's creativity ...
Third, the rather vague topic at the heart of it all. I think this was a deep reading of a certain slice of mostly white, Western, privileged, male academics within a few hundred years' span of the last century. Why? Beats me. I gather that this group of people influenced and/or represent a certain framing of "the monstrous" that may be considered hegemonic. I think? The thesis is unclear to me.
... where singularities are represented, in varying degrees, as a part of life's varietyーnecessary in a world whose diversities reflect the true ingenuities of nature.
Finally, the topic: monsters and monstrosity. Mangham requests a sympathetic reader at the start. Monstrosity is framed as a "shorthand for a broad, varied, and complex range of discussions undertaken on the subject of congenital structural deformity." He argues that he's taken a historical, critical disability perspective on the term (no reference for this, however), claiming his use of "monster" is equivalent to how critical scholars use "disability" in a fully interrogated and "objective" (his word) way. He claims to distinguish between this take and the modern "pejorative" version of monster, using quotes throughout to indicate this. Frankly, I didn't notice this use of quotes, although I recognize that he was both bland and critical of how his subjects constructed the idea of "monstrosity."
In interrogating the meanings and possibilities of monstrosity, not as the exception but as the rule, they revealed how othering is not the only approach to diversity available to us. Monstrosity is reclaimable, they showed, as a symbol of a natural order shaped by variations, redirections, and novelties. A vital starting point for understanding the true power of difference, whatever its cause, is the acknowledgement that, in a certain sense, we are all monsters.
Nevertheless, I find myself asking "why"? Why are we spending time on how things once were? The reason escapes me.
Thank you to MIT Press and NetGalley for the advance copy.
First, this is pure academese. Saltationism, teleogical, ontogeny and phylogeny, unregenerate, homologies, epigenesis, architectonic ... can you follow? Because the list goes on. If you're a historian or a philosopher of science or some sort of pure, traditional scientist, I'm sure you'll have a better time than the rest of us with this language. A certain readership and level of acquaintance with the material is assumed.
... monstrosity came to represent life's relentless fecundity and 'the monstrous' a mode of uncontainable vitality.
I'm not criticizing Mangham's writing; it's excellent, in fact. For example, "vital excess"! What great wordcrafting! But the rest is obtuse. Second, on that note, is the sheer amount of bulky quotations. Block quotes, direct quotes in-text of all lengths and states ... how much of this is Mangham's writing and how much of it is the writing of others is a worthy question.
... malformation is not a fault, but a variation; it is a symbol both of possibility and nature's creativity ...
Third, the rather vague topic at the heart of it all. I think this was a deep reading of a certain slice of mostly white, Western, privileged, male academics within a few hundred years' span of the last century. Why? Beats me. I gather that this group of people influenced and/or represent a certain framing of "the monstrous" that may be considered hegemonic. I think? The thesis is unclear to me.
... where singularities are represented, in varying degrees, as a part of life's varietyーnecessary in a world whose diversities reflect the true ingenuities of nature.
Finally, the topic: monsters and monstrosity. Mangham requests a sympathetic reader at the start. Monstrosity is framed as a "shorthand for a broad, varied, and complex range of discussions undertaken on the subject of congenital structural deformity." He argues that he's taken a historical, critical disability perspective on the term (no reference for this, however), claiming his use of "monster" is equivalent to how critical scholars use "disability" in a fully interrogated and "objective" (his word) way. He claims to distinguish between this take and the modern "pejorative" version of monster, using quotes throughout to indicate this. Frankly, I didn't notice this use of quotes, although I recognize that he was both bland and critical of how his subjects constructed the idea of "monstrosity."
In interrogating the meanings and possibilities of monstrosity, not as the exception but as the rule, they revealed how othering is not the only approach to diversity available to us. Monstrosity is reclaimable, they showed, as a symbol of a natural order shaped by variations, redirections, and novelties. A vital starting point for understanding the true power of difference, whatever its cause, is the acknowledgement that, in a certain sense, we are all monsters.
Nevertheless, I find myself asking "why"? Why are we spending time on how things once were? The reason escapes me.
Thank you to MIT Press and NetGalley for the advance copy.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews