Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
ARTICLE
Monsters revisited: a comparative study of the use
of humor in dramatizing benevolent monsters in
The Monsters under the Bed and The Boy Who
Loved Monsters and the Girl Who Loved Peas
Heidi Mohamed Bayoumy 1✉
Works for children are filled with a myriad of creatures that are often used by writers to
convey certain messages to the young readers/audiences. From tamed to wild, real and
imaginary beings, such creatures emerge either as benevolent or evil forces. This study seeks
to highlight the role of humorous, benevolent monsters in works for children showing how
their presence is laden with meanings. For this purpose, two plays for children are selected:
The Monsters under the Bed (2007) by Fr. Dominic Garramone and Osb and the St.Bede
Theater Troupe, and The Boy Who Loved Monsters and the Girl Who Loved Peas (2013)by
Jonathan Graham. Drawing upon humor studies, monster studies, and child psychology, the
paper attempts to analyze the use of humor in portraying friendly monsters in the selected
works reflecting how it is through them that the children protagonists revisit their views of
monsters and understand that they are a reflection of themselves (their needs/fears). The
analysis of these benevolent monsters and their effect on the protagonists will be carried out
in relation to the different theatrical elements and the verbal and visual signs which clarify
and affirm the benevolence of such creatures and the humorous touch added to their roles.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y OPEN
1Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Arts, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt. ✉email: heidi.bayoumy@cu.edu.eg
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023) 10:839 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y 1
1234567890():,;
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Introduction
In several works for children, writers often resort to the use of
benevolent monsters. Whereas the use of typical terrifying
monsters often serves to assert children’s fears of the other, the
portrayal of humorous, benevolent monsters in works for chil-
dren stand out as they invite children to reconsider their own
preconceived views of monsters and what they symbolize in
relation to childhood. Unlike destructive or terrifying monsters,
the portrayal of monsters as friendly and harmless allows children
to rediscover themselves, understand their own needs/fears/pro-
blems in a safe environment without feeling threatened or
frightened. This paper aims to explore the use of humor in dra-
matizing friendly monsters in two selected plays for children: The
Monsters under the Bed (2007) by Fr. Dominic Garramone, Osb
and the St.Bede Theater Troupe and The Boy Who Loved Mon-
sters and the Girl Who Loved Peas (2013) by Jonathan Graham.
The paper seeks to highlight how it is through the use of
innocuous monsters that the children protagonists revisit their
views and beliefs of monstrosity and monsters. Beneath the layer
of humor, which is presented through the subverted monsters,
there is a profound moral message: helping children express
themselves, as well as explain and revisit their own ideas, beliefs,
needs, and fears. In other words, the monsters help children go
through a process of introspection; they learn to reflect, analyze
their needs/fears, and eventually come up with a new under-
standing of themselves and others. The children protagonists thus
emerge with a change in their attitude in the end of the plays
signaling the change that such monsters effected in the minds of
those children.
To children, monsters are seemingly destructive and fearful
creatures; nevertheless, they are fascinating because of the powers
and strength they possess. In other words, monsters carry the
duality of love/hate, attraction/repulsion, as Jeffery Cohen (1996)
asserts: “Th[e] simultaneous repulsion and attraction at the core
of the monster’s composition accounts greatly for its continued
cultural popularity, …We distrust and loathe the monster at the
same time we envy its freedom”(17). In fact, such dualism reflects
the parallelism between children and monsters as Michel Joseph
(2011) asserts: “like monsters, literary children dismayingly
breach boundaries, and in their passage into adulthood …, they
symbolize both chaos and order, antistructure and structure”
(139). Cohen (1996) also confirms that “monsters are our chil-
dren”(20) in the sense that they are a reflection of the self, they
are created by and reflect us. This closely knitted and inter-
connected relation between monsters and the children exists
because, as Margrit Shildrick (2002) explicates, the monster
“cannot be separated entirely from the nature of man himself. …
the monster is taken to reflect back at least some contingent
truths of the human condition. The monster is not thereby the
absolute other, but rather a mirror of humanity”(2002, 16–17).
Based on Shildrick’s view, monsters are a reflection of the self,
thus they can be perceived from different perspectives. They can
be the means to revisit what is meant by the monstrous and to
question what Ebony Thomas (2019) calls the “Dark Other,”
which has been associated with the “monstrous in our collective
imaginations”(70). In this respect, monsters invite children to
think about how they view themselves and others. Monsters thus
have a dual function, as Wolfe and Manzo (2021) believe, “on the
one hand, and most awkwardly, the monster is an individual who
is ‘pointed at,’who is shown; on the other hand, the monster is a
sign, a portent, an omen, and in that sense ‘shows us’something”
(1–2). Consequently, the appearance or creation of monsters has
a very important function in children’s works: it unmasks the
children’s emotional and psychological needs, such as finding a
friend, fearing people or objects, projecting emotions of sadness
or anger …etc. Monsters are also the means to understand the
minds of children and even their world because “these monsters
ask us how we perceive the world, and how we have mis-
represented what we have attempted to place. …They ask us why
we have created them”(Cohen, 1996, 20).
In works for children, monsters can emerge either as bene-
volent or evil forces. As Lauren Christie (2020) asserts, the
monster “can often be found championing good over evil, one
that is able to help a child through turbulent issues, or as a
comrade setting out to accompany them on great adventures”(2).
According to Janet Evans (2015), “in reality, many young children
have to deal with troubling, personal problems on a day-to-day
basis”(5). Christie (2020) maintains that “When children become
older, they are generally less shielded by adults, therefore they are
forced to face reality more directly. The world around them can
become increasingly darker when they are exposed to sinister
events connected with the evil that can occur in reality”(5). She
adds that “if fictional monsters act as a manifestation of this
transition, then their existence remains vital in the typical
maturational journey of the child; the monster allows the child to
confront their darkest fears in a controlled environment”(5).
Building up on Evans and Christie’s previously mentioned views,
the use of benevolent monsters is important for children’s
maturity and growth as they allow children to accept the pro-
blems or fears they encounter in real life and to revisit their own
preconceived views of monsters.
Approaching humorous monsters through monster and
humor studies
To understand the roles of humorous, friendly monsters in works
for children, it is important to approach them through the lens of
monster and humor studies. In fact, there has been extensive
research on the use of monsters in children’s literature, specifi-
cally, picture books or fiction, to mention but a few examples:
(De)monstartion: Interpreting the Monsters of English Children’s
Literature (2006), Monstrosity, Performance, and Race in Con-
temporary Culture (2015), The Morals of Monster Stories: Essays
on Children’s Picture Book Messages (2017), Monsters, Darkness,
Imagination: On Horror in Children’s Literature (2018), The
Monster in Theater History: This Thing of Darkness (2018), The
Dark Fantastic: Race and the Imagination from Harry Potter to
the Hunger Games (2019), “The Evolution of Monsters in Chil-
dren’s Literature”(2020), and “Humanizing Horror: Rereading
Monstrosity in Popular Literature”(2022). Such studies fall under
the umbrella of Monster Studies, which is a scholarly approach to
the concept of the monster and the monstrous. According to Asa
S. Mittman (2012), the origins of monster studies can be traced
back to “the Roman period, when, in the first century of the
common era, Pliny the Elder could be said to have been a
scholarly practitioner of Monster Studies, writing at length about
the wonders at the edges of the known world”(3). Mittman adds,
“as a modern academic field of study and theoretical discipline,
Monster Studies is relatively new on the horizon”(2012, 3).
Yasmine Musharbash and Geir H. Presterudstuen (2014) argue
that “the interdisciplinary field of monster studies”is “a relatively
young field”(1). They add that Cohen’s book Monster Culture
(Seven Theses) “constitutes something of a foundation to the
concerted interdisciplinary effort of studying monsters. Over the
last decade or so, monster studies has mushroomed as a cornu-
copia of recent articles, edited volumes, journals, and books about
monsters”(1). Still, it is worth mentioning at this point that
despite the presence of several books and articles on monsters in
children’s works from the lens of monsters studies and theory,
studies on using humor in dramatizing benevolent monsters from
the lens of humor studies are very few.
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y
2HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023) 10:839 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Like monster studies, humor studies is an interdisciplinary field
which includes studies on humor in children’s literature. In his
Encyclopedia of Humor Studies, Salvadore Attardo (2014) iden-
tifies the term humor as an “umbrella term to cover all the
synonyms”of humor such as “comic, ridicule, irony, mirth,
laughable, jolly, funny, ludicrous”(xxxi). In her study on the
relation between humor and the child’s development, Katherine
Kappas (1967) identifies ten types of humor: slapstick, exag-
geration, incongruity, surprise, the absurd, human predicament,
ridicule, defiance, violence, and verbal humor (qtd. in McGhee
and Frank, 2013, 35). Building on Kappas, Aileen Beckman and
Kerry Mallan believe that all ten types can be grouped under three
main categories found in children’s literature: humorous char-
acters, humorous situations, and humorous discourse/language.
Generally speaking, the use of humor in children’s literature “is a
very important aspect”(Nilsen, 1993, 262). In her important
study on humor Laugh Lines: Exploring Humor in Children’s
Literature, Kerry Mallan (1993) explicates that some children’s
writers believe that realistic works for children are more impor-
tant than humorous ones since they offer a realistic world to the
young readers and help them “see themselves, or people like
themselves, in the stories”(20). However, Mallan (1993) argues
that even real problems that children experience can be discussed
with a touch of humor: “What distinguishes [children’s] books
from adult books with similar themes is the treatment of the
subject matter and the tone the author adopts. It is the respon-
sibility of authors to make their stories manageable for the child
and present them from a child’s point of view. One way of
helping to do this is to introduce moments of humor or passages
of humorous tone”(20). In fact, humor in children’s literature, as
Elena Xeni (2010) asserts, “does not function for its own sake
only, but that it has a lifetime purpose: to alleviate childhood’s
anxieties, worries and fears, thereby supporting in this way chil-
dren’s well-being”(157). She adds that “children identify with
literature protagonists, who face common worries, anxieties and
fears, laugh, enjoy and learn throughout reading and experience
heroes’problematic situations with less stress and more joy,
learning in such ways to face their own worries with less stress,
anxiety and fear”(157). The power of humor is summarized by
Shaeffer and Hopkins (1988) as follows: “Humor is a magical
thing that allows us to endure life’s hardships such as death,
sickness, hunger, pain and fear”(89). It has a healing power as
Michael Cart (1995) argues: “Laughter is therapeutic. It is healing.
As a tonic for what ails us…If we hurt, we laugh. And laughing,
we heal”(1–2).
Despite the importance of humor to the children’s develop-
ment on the cognitive, intellectual, cultural, psychological, and
even social levels, very few studies that examine humor in chil-
dren’s literature have been conducted. Some of these prominent
studies include Humor in Children’s Literature (2010), Humor in
Contemporary Junior Literature (2010), Reading in the Dark:
Horror in Children’s Literature and Culture (2016), “Didactic
Monstrosity and Postmodern Revisionism in Contemporary
Children’s Films”(2016), and “Humor in Children’s and Young
Adult Literature: The Work of Gilles Bachelet”(2021). The
scarcity of studies on humor in children’s literature can be
attributed to, as Julie Cross (2011) believes, to the fact that
“humorous books for junior readers are often ignored by the
critical community”(1). Similarly, Diana Muela Bermejo (2021)
asserts that “in recent decades, several researchers have claimed
the presence of humor as one of the main mechanisms of chil-
dren’s and young adult literature which, however, had not
received sufficient attention from the critical community”(2). In
fact, there are several works for children in which humor is
extensively employed but have not gained enough critical atten-
tion. This makes the humorous portrayal of imaginary characters
like monsters an important area to explore given the fear children
harbor toward these creatures and given the problems and wor-
ries children usually have in their daily lives, which are often
reflected in the figure of monsters in works for children.
Based on the previous views, the study proposes to examine the
use of benevolent monsters that are given a humorous touch
which allows the children to identify with them, learn from them,
and, eventually, revisit their own views of monstrosity and
monsters. Most studies conducted on humor and monsters focus
on children’s stories, picture books, and films; therefore, it is the
aim of this study to explore the use of humor in portraying
monsters in children’s theater because this is an area yet to be
explored. In fact, the scarcity of studies of monsters in theater is,
as Michael Chemers (2018) asserts, “a sad fact”because “most
scholars of the modern monstrous devote their energies to literary
and cinematic achievements, giving short shrift (if any) to thea-
trical history- this omission …leaves critical gaps in our
understanding of what monsters are and what effect they may
have on the development of individual conscience and ideas of
social justice”(1). He adds that “unlike the monster in a novel,
short story, poem, or even a film, a theatrical monster does not
merely exist in the mind –it lives”(1). This makes the presence of
monsters on stage an important aspect because “when a monster
is not merely discussed or represented but performed, it enters
[an embodied] realm”(xi). Seeing the monster on stage “sum-
mons”the monster “into our presence, into the physical space we
occupy, and thereby makes possible an imaginative and emo-
tional confrontation that is often lost or evaded in other narrative
contexts”(Carey, 2018, xi). In children’s theater, the monster on
stage plays a bigger role. Given the immediacy children’s theater,
seeing the monsters on stage has indeed a great influence on
children. To borrow Rutter’s words on using children in theater,
“the dramatic fiction, the immediacy and presentness of [the
monsters and] child in front of spectators on …stage, gives
children space to speak, to act for themselves, to stimulate
agency”(qtd. in Donelle Ruwe and James Leve, 2020, 25). The
presence of monsters on stage and their interaction with the
children protagonists allows the children to see, understand, and
think of themselves, their fears, and needs. Moreover, the process
of identification with the children protagonists who commu-
nicate, interact, and even befriend monsters on stage subverts the
very essence of children’s beliefs and assumptions. By focusing on
plays in this study, the aim is to highlight how the use of bene-
volent and humorous monsters, despite its scarcity in comparison
to the frequent use of frightening, horrifying monsters, is a sig-
nificant technique especially when used in children’s theater since
it affects the children’s thoughts of themselves and others and
steers them toward growth and maturity.
In this study, an eclectic approach comprising humor studies,
monster studies, and child psychology will be adopted. Com-
bining the three approaches will show how utilizing humorous
monsters changes the children’s conceptions of monsters; that is,
their understanding of themselves and others. Whereas most
studies, as previously mentioned, either adopt humor studies or
monster studies in probing the use of monsters in works for
children, the combination of both studies is meant to highlight
the benevolent monsters’importance and impact on the children
protagonists. For this purpose, two plays have been selected: The
Monsters under the Bed (2007) by Fr. Dominic Garramone, Osb
and the St.Bede Theater Troupe and The Boy Who Loved Mon-
sters and the Girl Who Loved Peas (2013) by Jonathan Graham
1
.
The Monsters under the Bed was performed in “Saint Bede Abbey
in Peru, IL at its Summer Theater Program”(The Monsters 6). It
was also performed several times in schools. It deals with a group
of young girls discussing their deepest and worst fears during a
night over at their friend’s place. One by one, they express their
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOC IAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023) 10:839 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023 -02361-y 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
fear of different things: darkness, noise, doctors, final exams,
bullying, thunder…etc. Despite the presence of seven monsters
that embody the worst fears of the girls, they are portrayed as
harmless. Even more, the last monster to emerge on stage is the
friend that acts as the real aiding force that helps the girls over-
come their fears. The Boy Who Loved Monsters and the Girl Who
Loved Peas “was developed and presented as a reading at Write
Now, a national theater for young audiences symposium spon-
sored by Childsplay Theater and Indiana Repertory Theater, in
March, 2013 …The play was first produced by Pollyanna Theater
Company (Austin, Texas) October 2013”(The Boy Who Loved
Monsters 6). It revolves around the young boy Evan, who feels
bored and lonely. Despite his parents’attempts to persuade him
to eat peas for dinner, he resents it, and wishes for a monster to
appear and devour his whole family. However, the monster turns
out to be nothing but a giant pea that, later on, befriends Evan
and his sister Sue. He takes them to his own home in Monster
World in which Even realizes that the parents are an exact replica
of his own; this in turn leads him to appreciate his own parents
and learn the value of home.
The aim behind selecting both plays is to examine children
protagonists who belong to stage four of humor development
(known as “multiple meanings”) identified by McGhee and Frank
(2013) who assert that, in this stage, children aging from seven till
11 begin to understand more sophisticated forms of language
humor including puns, riddles…etc. (79). Moreover, these plays
have been chosen because they have not received enough critical
attention and because the children in the plays do not suffer from
shocking incidents or events like death of parents, divorce, acci-
dents, loss of a family member or friend. The authors of the two
plays are thus able to use humor in the portrayal of monsters who
simply stand for what children protagonists need/fear. Both plays,
to borrow Peter Kunze’s words, view monsters as “the embodi-
ment of fear …and repression of some aspect of the self”
(2016, 50) as well as the projection of their inner desires/wishes.
The monsters thus mirror the children, who engage in a process
of reflection and analysis. In such an introspection process,
laughter is triggered and moral lessons as well. Both plays do not
patronize or belittle children’s concerns, but help them revisit
their own views of monsters. Thus, they end up accepting
themselves and their worlds. Just as Jones et al. (2022) assert that
there are “a four-step framework for discussing horror in the
English language arts classroom: (1) feeling horror, (2) analyzing
horror, (3) critiquing horror, and (4) restorying horror”(87), the
present paper argues that through the use of humorous monsters,
the children protagonists are able to “feel”fears, “analyze”them,
“critique”them, and eventually look differently at/ “restory”
them. This process takes place in a safe environment and with the
occurrence of humorous situations that allow the children to
both: laugh and think. The plays thus centralize children who
become active doers; they solve their own problems by them-
selves, without the interference of adults, but with the support of
monsters, who are shown from the beginning till the end of the as
reflections of their inner selves, in a light comic atmosphere. By
combining humor studies with monster studies and child psy-
chology, the paper will examine the subversion of monsters
focusing on their humorous and benevolent nature and how they
change the children’s beliefs and views. In analyzing their roles,
this comparative study draws upon Mallan’s classification of the
three elements of humor in children’s literature: humorous
characters, situations, and language, which are used in the por-
trayal of these creatures. The study will focus on comparing two
major aspects in the plays: first, the portrayal of such humorous
monsters, their symbolism, and how children initially view them;
and, second, how the children protagonists eventually change
their perspective of monsters and themselves, and reach maturity.
Viewing monsters through the eyes of children:
a one-sided view
In the first part of the plays, the children protagonists see monsters
based on their own preconceived ideas and on the connection they
create between such monsters and other meanings or experiences in
their own minds/lives. Therefore, the children initially focus on
expressing their own subjective views of such creatures and on
projecting their feelings on them. In TheMonstersundertheBed,
seven monsters appear to the young girls who are having a sleep
over at Stephanie’s house. The number of monsters coincide with S.
W. Garber, R. F. Spizman, and M. D. Garber’sviewonhow
“numerous research studies have found that between the ages of six
and twelve [children] experience an average of seven different fears”
(1993, 10). Significantly, the monsters appear after the girls engage
intheirplayasthestagedirectionsindicate:“One stage, the boom
box is playing a Halloween sound effects tape with ghostly moans
and screams. Suddenly one of the girls yells ‘Boo!’and they all
scream and laugh”(The Monsters 7). After this initial play with
their fears, the girls begin, one by one, to uncover their deepest
nighttime fears which are visually transformed into monsters, thus
the link between monstrosity and the feared, unwanted, and
undesired is established from the very beginning. Hence, the title of
the play is a symbolic sign that is repeated throughout the play
acting as a refrain that reflects the fear of girls from different kinds
of monsters that might exist under the bed; that is in their own lives.
According to King et al. (1997), “nighttime fears are experienced by
nearly all children”(1997 441). Fear of monsters is first introduced
when Cathy, Stephanie’s elder sister, asks girls, who are spending
the night at her house, to sleep:
Cathy: Okay –but don’t play that spooky tape again, and
don’t stay up late too, or the monsters will come out from
under the bed and GETCHA! (She tickles Melissa.) In fact,
you’d better go to sleep right now- it’s later than I thought.
(Exits.)
Melissa (afraid): Are there really monsters under the bed?
Ashley: of course not, silly.
Laurie: She was just kidding.
Jennifer: There aren’t any monsters in here, are
there, Steph?
Stephanie: (in a spooky voice): Who knows? (Girls all
laugh.) (The Monsters 8)
Cathy’s above words about monsters confirm how “fears of the
dark, ghosts, monsters, and the supernatural come to the fore-
front [and] can be stimulated by what [the] child sees on tele-
vision or a few gory stories told by an older sibling or friend”
(Garber et al., 1993, 12). Therefore, the children’s understanding
of monsters stems from the stories told by others as well as the
association children create in their minds between such creatures
and the negative feelings and situations that they experience in
real life. Evidently, Cathy’s words trigger immediate recalling of
the girls’imaginings of frightful monsters. Thus, once the lights
are turned out, Melissa calls for the lights since she fears darkness,
which is visually translated into the monster Darkonomo:
Melissa: Stephanie, turn on the light –I’m scared. …
Stephanie: Melissa, there’s nothing to be scared of. I was
just kidding about the monsters under the bed.
Melissa: I’m just scared of the dark.
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y
4HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023) 10:839 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Darkness is like a monster at the window.
The darkness monster, Darkonomo,
Comes in the night and makes the wind blow.
Tall and hooded, dressed in black,
Leave the window open a crack,
And he will slip into your room,
To fill your heart with fear and gloom.
(As Melissa recited the poem, Darkonomo comes out from
behind the curtain, and swirls silently around the bed. As the
poem comes to an end, he stops and pulls his cape around
himself).(The Monsters 9)
Melissa’s above words exemplify how she does two things: she
“feels”and “analyzes”her fear (Jones et al., 2022, 87). She first
explicates her feelings toward the monster/darkness, thus assert-
ing how “Monsters…put into words feelings that we struggle to
express ourselves”(Erle and Hendry, 2020, 2). In this way,
Melissa “identif[ies] and analyze[s] [her] emotional responses”
(Jones et al., 2022, 88) to the monster of darkness. She lists what
makes her frightened by providing a visual depiction of this
creature which is accompanied by the physical emergence of
Darkonomo. The physical presence of the monster on stage
delineates the position of the monster as non-frightening. Even
though using verbal signs such as “black”and “gloom”connote
evil, the monster’s appearance negates such thoughts. Thus, the
discrepancy between the image Melissa has in her mind and the
physical appearance of the monster, which is harmless, paves the
way for the change in her perception of Darkonomo later on.
Worth mentioning is that fear of darkness is one of the typical
fears that almost all children have. Since “darkness and the
unknown would seem to represent situations that have the
potential to endanger humans”(King et al. 1997, 433); therefore,
it remains one of the main sources of fear to children at bedtime.
Once Melissa uncovers her fear of the darkness monster, the
other girls also begin to exhibit similar feelings and other mon-
sters soon follow. Darkonomo’s appearance thus acts as a prelude
to the other monsters: the noises under the bed monster
(Crumplebump), the math test monster (the Final Freak), the
doctor with the needle monster (Dr Wicked Schott), the bully at
school monster (Teazle), the thunderstorm monster (Big Bad
Boom), and, finally, the monster who grabs your ankles (Grun-
table). Like Melissa, all the girls engage in a similar process of
expressing their fear of monsters and “analyzing”what makes
such creatures disturbing or alarming from their own point of
view (such as their association with “pain,”“failure,”difficulty,”
and being “ma[de] fun”of). The seven monsters thus confirm the
connection children have between monsters and negative child-
hood experiences: “over the years, as [the] child’s world broadens,
do his fears. Whereas before, his fears centered on home and
family, in preadolescence, your child is likely to worry about what
others think. Fears of school and other social situations take
precedence”(Garber et al., 1993, 13). Rachman asserts that one of
the ways of “fear acquisition [is] direct conditioning (e.g., child
showing fear of darkness after being locked in a dark room or
closet)”(qtd. In King et al., 1997, 433). Therefore, the girls’fears,
which are exaggerated and visually translated into monsters,
symbolize all that is negative, worrying, and intimidating in their
real lives. Significantly, while the girls express their fears, the
physical appearance of such monsters is not menacing or
threatening. In fact, these monsters are given voice to explain why
girls fear them. One by one, they introduce themselves and
highlight why they seem frightening. The following extract recited
by the Final Freak is an example of how each monster introduces
itself: “Beware, I’m the Final Freak. Kids think that I’m a geek. I
flunk and fail kids like you. A year held back in misery, too…But
kids like you who panic and don’t study, …I frighten them and
freak them too”(The Monsters 12). Giving voice to the monsters
is a dramatic technique used by the writer to assert their con-
nection to the inner self of the girls. Here, the feared/the monster
is given voice, not to express itself, but to confirm the one-sided
point of view of the girls.
Significantly, Gruntable, the last monster to appear, offers a
different view of monsters which, in turn, effects a change in the
girls’perception of monsters. It destabilizes the very essence of
monstrosity by its benevolence and humor. Whereas the previous
six monsters are reflections of individual fears, Gruntable is the
incarnation of the girls’worst fear: the fear of having their legs
grabbed, which represents a physical threat. Upon Cathy’s inquiry
“did Gruntable reach out from under the bed and grab your legs?”
(The Monsters 17), the girls’anxiety and fear arise from the
knowledge that there is still one monster left. Amid the escalating
fear in expectation of the emergence of this terrifying monster,
Gruntable’s appearance seems rather comical as evident in the
stage directions: “The Girls lean down over the edge of the foot of
the bed. They discover their teddy bears under the bed and make
exclamations of surprise, etc. Meanwhile Gruntable comes out
from under the bed near the other end, munches a little popcorn,
and then leans down next to them”(The Monsters 18). According
to James Smith (1967), laughter is triggered because “of dis-
covering incongruities within a character or strange contrasts
between characters”(215). Gruntable’s appearance, which is a
stark contrast to what is expected of a monster, is an example of
incongruity. Paul E Mcghee and Mary Frank affirm that
“incongruity refers to the simultaneous, or almost simultaneous,
occurrence of normally incompatible elements (i.e., elements
which are not ordinarily associated with each other in a given
context)”(17). They add that
incongruity’designates the way in which the humorous
situation ‘works psychologically’in the individual who
encounters it; certain features that the individual identifies
activate familiar schemas (verbal or imaginal mental
representations) and create expectations about how these
features should relate to each other which are dependent
upon prior experience of the environment and internalized
representations of that experience. (17)
In the play, Gruntable appears in the peak of the girls’fear and
expectation of a violent monster that might physically harm them
but turns out to be a child just like them. Despite the initial
reaction of the girls, which is “screaming,”an auditory sign
unraveling their fear, Gruntable’s dialogue with Cathy confirms
its benevolence and humorous nature:
Cathy: Gruntable, buddy!
Gruntable: Cathy! (They hug.) Long time no snort!
Stephanie: You know each other?
Cathy: Sure! We’ve been friends for a long time! I told you,
this used to be my room. (The Monsters 18)
The obvious kinesthetic sign of hugging and the verbal signs
“buddy”and “friends”used in greeting Gruntable immediately
help the girls in identifying it as a harmless monster. Even more,
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOC IAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023) 10:839 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023 -02361-y 5
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
upon Laurie’s inquiry about the reason behind Gruntable taking
all their teddy bears and placing them under the bed, it simply
replies: “Because I was lonely. How would you like to live under a
bed with a bunch of horrible monsters with bad breath and no
table manners? And besides…ever since Cathy moved out, I
haven’t had anyone to play with, boo-hoo! (Cries noisily and
blows his nose. Cathy comforts him)”(The Monsters 18–19). The
previous words have two main functions: first, they reconfigure
the girls’view of monsters, allaying any potential threat or fear.
Gruntable’s words implicitly lists all the aspects that delineate his
benevolence. It thus eliminates elements of threat, horror, or evil.
If the other monsters analyzed what make them trigger fear,
Gruntable expresses what makes it friendly and harmless. In this
respect, Gruntable’s words destabilize the girls’fears and views.
Second, its words are a clear example of humorous language,
which is the third element of humor found in children’s literature
according to Mallan’s classification. Put together with physical
humor related to the appearance of Gruntable, laughter is thus
triggered since the monster resembles children. Kerry Mallan
(1993) explains that one main type of humor in children’s works
is the creation of humorous characters: “Exaggeration of human
traits and foibles is one device used to create humorous char-
acters. Of course, to appreciate the humor generated by exag-
geration, the reader needs to be familiar with the type of person
the character is satirising, whether it be a teacher, cleric, police
officer, shopkeeper or someone else”(9). Here the exaggerated
character is the monster that all the girls were initially afraid of.
The discrepancy between the image children have of monsters
and the appearance of Gruntable makes the girls realize that it is
parallel to them; the monster is merely a child that exhibits
similar fears and worries just like them. Gruntable thus reconfi-
gures the preconceived image the girls initially had of this
monster.
In The Boy Who Loved Monsters and the Girl Who Loved Peas,
Evan, unlike the girls, desires to have a monster as a friend. Evan
thus welcomes monsters and monstrosity seeing them as the
gateway to escape his boredom, dissatisfaction with his busy
parents, discontent with his dinner (peas), and his inability to
befriend to his younger sister Sue. Evan’s negative feelings toward
his family gradually escalate and culminate in his wish for a
monster: “If I was Godzilla, I sure wouldn’t eat any peas. Pine
trees, maybe. Or pianos. Or the pyramids in Egypt, but not any
stupid peas. (He squishes the pea softly with one finger.) I wish I
had a monster that would eat all my peas, then I wouldn’t have to.
I wish a monster would come and eat this house”(The Boy Who
Loved Monsters 12). According to Cohen (1996), “The monster is
born only at …metaphoric crossroads, as an embodiment of a
certain cultural moment—of a time, a feeling, and a place”(4).
The creation of the monster at this moment, with such negative
feelings harbored, and in Evan’s home is symbolic of his strong
desire for freedom and independence. Unlike the girls, Evan
embraces monstrosity which, to him, stands for freedom and
rebellion against all the established values imposed by the parents.
Hence, in Evan’s eyes, the monster signifies the violation of rules.
To borrow Cohen’s words, the monster in Evan’s mind, “is
continually linked to forbidden practices, in order to normalize
and to enforce. The monster also attracts. The same creatures
who terrify and interdict can evoke potent escapist fantasies; the
linking of monstrosity with the forbidden makes the monster all
the more appealing as a temporary egress from constraint”
(15–16). Evan’s repeated wish to have a monster is an outlet of his
inner desire to escape and break parental authority and rules: “I
wish I had a monster who was my friend. And it would eat my
family, and then we could go on an adventure instead of going to
bed. (An enormous PEA now begins to emerge from EVAN’s
plate.)”(The Boy Who Loved Monsters 12). Ironically, the
appearance of the monster is a subverted version of what he
desired. In other words, it is a combination of what he and his
sister love/hate: Evan loves monsters, but hate peas, and Sue, on
the other hand, loves peas, but fears monsters. The duality of
love/hate, surprise/ disappointment is thus embodied in Pea.
According to Smith (1967), “Probably the most common of all
sources of children’s humor is the physical situation with its
obvious elements of contrast and surprise”(207). The visual
appearance of the monster that Evan wished for in the form of a
pea is an example of physical humor. In fact, the mere trans-
formation of the pea he initially refused to eat into a monster is a
confirmation of the humorous nature of the monster. According
to Kerry Mallan (1993), “The motif of transformation is common
in traditional literature …It is also used by contemporary writers
to create comic situations”(13). The transformation of Pea
becomes the means to revisit the image of the monster that Evan
has always had; this is because, paradoxically, it is the incarnation,
or rather a merge, of the hated/desired things, love/hate duality.
In other words, the physical appearance of Pea disturbs the
preconceived image of monsters in Evan’s mind; thus his first
reaction is shock.
Reticent and intimidated, Evan initially resists the very exis-
tence of the pea monster that seems rather comical. According to
Asmaa Abu Taleb (2002), children at this age love adventures and
have a wild sense of imagination (57). Christopher Day and Anita
Midbjer (2007) also assert that “adults live (mostly) in a world of
material facts –‘known’and unchanging. For children, the ‘real’
world is often servant to an imaginary world. Even single rooms,
gardens or behind-the-shed forgotten places can be whole palettes
of mood, whole geographies of mountains and jungles, harbors
and shops –places to live out fantasy through action”(4).
Therefore, Evan’s disappointment stems from the realization that
Pea can never fulfill his long-desired dreams and imaginary
adventures: “I wanted a monster that could pull out trees by the
roots, pick up trains right off the tracks and even scare grown-
ups. And you’re not that kind of monster”(The Boy Who Loved
Monsters 28). Whereas the girls in The Monsters under the Bed
engage in a process of “analyzing”what seems terrifying about the
monsters, Evan does the opposite. He engages in a process of
expressing how he “feels”toward this monster and what he
abhors about it: its mildness. He thus “analyzes”the benevolence
of the monster and its humorous acts. In this respect, Evan,
unlike the girls, does not express fear of monsters, but rather
disappointment of the domesticated monster, which clearly
conflicts with the exaggerated image of the destructive monster he
had in mind. Evan’s rejection of the pea monster thus results
from his realization that the monster’s tameness signifies com-
pliance and abidance by the very rules that he is revolting against.
Significantly, it is Pea’s otherness, symbolized in his humor,
tameness, and subverted appearance, that become the key to
change Evan’s attitude and to trigger laughter. According to
Roderick McGillis (2009), “children’s humor depends largely on
the body …slapstick, caricature, parody, the grotesque, ridicule,
and the improbable in human predicaments concern the body,
and so does the nonsense”(258). The mere appearance of Pea
with his big pea head exemplifies this type of humor. McGillis
(2009) also adds that “humor in children’s literature comes in a
variety of forms, both verbal and visual”(270). In the play, there
are several visual and verbal examples of slapstick humor defined
by Rod A. Martin (2007) as a type of humor that comprises
“minor mishaps and pratfalls such as the person slipping on a
banana peel or spilling a drink on one’s shirt. These sorts of
events are funny when they occur in a surprising and incon-
gruous manner and when the person experiencing them is not
seriously hurt or badly embarrassed”(14). Examples of slapstick
humor in the play include the fork stuck in Pea’s head, stealing
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y
6HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023) 10:839 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
the shoes of Evan’s father and wearing them, and taking the
cookies and pancakes of Evan’s parents. Another example is when
Pea hides under the table, eats ferociously, and burps out loud,
thus triggering laughter since, as Mallan (1993) argues, children
“appreciate …gross exaggeration”(7). Such moments reinforce
the image of Pea as a humorous and benevolent monster and
pave the way for its friendship with Evan and Sue.
Re-viewing monsters: self-acceptance and maturity
In the second part of the plays, the children begin to “critique”
and “restory”monsters (Jones et al., 2022, 87), thus steering their
perception of such creatures away from the two poles: fascina-
tion/hatred to be positioned in a midway state which allows the
children to rediscover themselves and to reach growth. In The
Monsters under the Bed, the girls reflect upon monsters/fears
every time one of them expresses her fear of a certain monster.
An example of this is when Melissa expresses her fear of darkness,
Stephanie helps her look at darkness from a different perspective:
Stephanie: This is silly! There’s nothing to be afraid of
Melissa, come to with me to the window. (They walk to the
window and look out.)
Darkness comes when it is night,
So I can see the stars so bright.
I’m not scared by the dark you see,
Because all the stars are winking at me.
(During this poem, Darkonomo switches on the lights built
into his shirt and opens his cape to reveal ‘stars’shining.
During Melissa’s next speech, he returns backstage.)
Melisa: Gee, Stephanie, I never thought of that before.
Darkonomo makes the stars come out, and I like stars, so I
guess he’s not really trying to scare me. (The Monsters 10)
In the above quote, Stephanie identifies and “critiques”the
aspects that make the darkness monster terrifying in Melissa’s
eyes (such as darkness, gloominess, fear) and reverses them. She
thus “restories”Melissa’s fear by reciting an alternative poem
(opposite to the one Melissa said when she expressed her fear of
darkness). Such restorying results in the change in Melissa’s
attitude as she immediately admits that such an angle of seeing/
perceiving darkness is not frighting, but rather fascinating. Such
repositioning of the monster becomes possible through the use of
two psychological strategies. First is what Mary-Louise Maynes
(2020) calls “Positive pretense,”which is that “either the monster
changes in physical form or the [child’s] understanding of the
monster changes”(4). This change happens because “the child
protagonist has misunderstood or misinterpreted events or phe-
nomena. The imaginary scary event, creature or situation is
recognized and accepted, but the characteristics or perception of
it change, so that it is no longer a danger”(4). Maynes (2020)
further clarifies that “a scary monster who initially seems frigh-
tening to a child is, for example, revealed as having different, less
scary characteristics or properties than was previously supposed,
or the child may acquire abilities or equipment to overcome the
monster/ fear, such as a magic blanket or shield”(4). The girls
overcome their fears not because they are equipped by some
magic powers, but by a change in their own understanding of
monsters. They thus learn to accept the otherness of the monster
which is a reflection of their own individual otherness and dif-
ferences. The second strategy is what Maynes (2020) calls
“approach strategy,”(4), which is facing the fear itself. By going to
the window and looking at the dark sky and the darkness
enveloping the world outside, Melissa is directly facing her herself
and her own fears. She thus rethinks and reconfigures her per-
ception of herself and of monsters.
Another strategy used in restorying monsters, paradoxically,
comes from Gruntable itself: the monster. In this respect, accepting
monstrosity, represented in Gruntable, allows the children to have
the power to understand and accept themselves and their own
worries/fears. Significantly, Gruntable advises the girls to use humor
in facing their fears. The following extract is an example: “Melissa (to
Darkonomo): I love this cape, it is so cool. Black is like my favorite
color, you know? Can I borrow this for Halloween? Stephanie, come
feels this material…(Darkonomo hurriedly exists)”(The Monsters
20). The humorous way that Melissa follows in facing her biggest
worry, Darkonomo, shows the power of humor, which is one of the
tools used to help children overcome their own fears. Martha
Wolfenstein (1954)arguesthat“joking is a gallant attempt to ward
off the oppressive difficulties of life, a bit of humble heroism, which
for the moment that it succeeds provides elation”(11). In the play,
“joking”about the monsters becomes a technique that enables the
girls to resist and even overcome their established beliefs and ideas
about monsters and about themselves. The use of the same
humorous technique by all the girls confirms how humor is “one of
the most flexible tools in social interaction, serving a variety of
functions including enhancing relationships, increasing or main-
taining group cohesion, relieving tension, saving face, and expressing
aggression in a socially acceptable way”(Semrud-Clikeman and
Glass, 2010, 1). Employing humor in this scene confirms its social
function: it unites the girls as a group, increases their interaction, and
helps them address their fears collectively because the humorous
pattern used by Melissa is followed by the other girls, who now
understand that the more they use humor in facing their monsters,
the stronger they become. This is an implicit message to the young
of the power of humor in alleviating tension, attacking the estab-
lished authority, and establishing a sense of empowerment. The
stage directions indicate that “the girls cheer, laugh, and congratulate
themselves”(The Monsters 21). Thus, their laughter at the end after
driving away their fears/ monsters confirms their maturity because
“humor is a way of relieving anxiety; children enjoy feeling superior
to their younger selves and are relieved to know they’ve grown”
(Cleary, 1982,560–561). In this respect, the use of humor, especially
in this scene, “is inextricably tied to development and serves a social
and developmental purpose”(Semrud-Clikeman and Glass, 2010,2).
Worth mentioning is that this humorous confrontation and inter-
action between the girls and the monsters is one of the significant
theatrical moments in the play as the girls communicate directly
with the monsters and eventually reverse their own fears.
In The Boy Who Loved Monsters and the Girl Who Loved Peas,
the change in Evan’s point of view of the pea monster is carried
out through a different process. Since Evan, unlike the girls, never
feared the monster, but welcomed its existence, the change in his
attitude is centered on his acceptance of a different monster,
which is parallel to his own peculiarities and those of his own
family members. In other words, Pea compels Evan to reconsider
differences and otherness and to accept them. Its benevolence and
humor become the force that attracts Evan to befriend it. Hence,
Pea’s friendliness instigates Evan to “restory”his own under-
standing of monsters. In fact, their closeness can be seen in the
roleplay which allows Evan to realize that Pea is more human
than monstrous. Such roleplaying has a great impact on Evan
because it helps him interact and reconnect with his own sister.
According to Johan Meire (2007), “play helps children to
understand and deal with their emotions …different identities
and social relationships can be tried out in role play”(33). During
their play, both Evan and Sue pretend to be flying in outer space
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOC IAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023) 10:839 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023 -02361-y 7
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
free and away from the rules and restrictions imposed on them by
their parents; they thus “play with ideas”and “rules.”This dis-
covery asserts how “inside every monster lurks a human being. …
This is because all monsters are human creations. They exist
because we create or define them as such. We therefore owe them
our care and attention”(Mittman and Hensel, 2018, x). Pea after
all is Evan’s wish as he asserts at one point in the play: “Pea: Well,
Evan wished for a real monster, because that’s what he’s wanted
most of all”(The Boy Who Loved Monsters 42). Therefore, Pea’s
resemblance to Evan is striking: he is friendly, “likes to play and
make up stories”(46). Pea himself acknowledges his difference
from the other monsters in his own world: “I don’tfit in so well in
Monster World. I’m not into knocking down skyscrapers or
swallowing grandpas in one big gulp. I might get a little rowdy
sometimes”(The Boy Who Loved Monsters 47). Such an admis-
sion clarifies the parallelism between both Pea and Evan. In fact,
the dialogue between Evan’s parents and the pea monster con-
firms how they also had a monster when they were at Evan’s age:
DADDY (to PEA). How did you get in here?
PEA. As I was saying, Evan wished for a monster. And of
course, Sue loves peas. So you put the two together and,
well—
DADDY. So you’re saying they dreamed you up?
PEA. I’m saying that of all the monsters in Monster World,
I’m the one for you.
DADDY. No offense, but I really don’t think I need a
monster.
PEA. You didn’talways feel that way.
DADDY. What are you talking about?
PEA. Don’t tell me you’ve forgotten about Mr.
Sarcophagus?
MOMMY. Who is that?
DADDY. Just a monster I had when I was a kid—
EVAN. You did?
PEA. And your mommy had a castle haunted by the Bee-
Gee-Wee-Gees?
SUE. What’s a Bee-Gee-Wee-Gee, Mommy?
MOMMY. It was the 70 s, sweetie. It’s hard to explain. …
(The Boy Who Loved Monsters 42–43)
The above conversation confirms the strong connection
between the self/childhood and monsters. It emphasizes how
desiring a monster as a play companion and friend is a normal
and ordinary wish that children, like Evan and Sue, usually
experience. According to Marjorie Taylor (1999), “fantasy play is
an important component of children’s cognitive and emotional
development. More specifically, the creation of an imaginary
companion is healthy and relatively common”(4). She adds that
the creation of an unreal friend, like monsters, “allows a child to
work on a variety of concerns, fears, and problems”(4). Evan’s
wish for a monster, which is transformed into Pea, helps him
accept himself and others, thus asserting how Pea symbolizes
individual otherness inside Evan’s family. In fact, Evan admits
that “Pea is like a gift that was sent to [them] because each
member of the family is engrossed in his/her own world with
nothing to unite them as a family: “EVAN (a lightbulb. To
MOMMY and DADDY). Yeah …but what do we all share
together? …. But if Pea was our monster, we could play with it
after school. And Pea’s good at cleaning up after we play, too”
(The Boy Who Loved Monsters 45, 47–48). While “restorying”
Pea, Evan engages in a process of “analyzing”why a monster
should be welcomed by the whole family. In other words, Evan
repositions the monster, asserting its place in his own family. By
instigating the parents to think upon what they lack as a family,
Evan views the monster as the link and the connection between
them. Thus, Evan is familiarizing the monster/otherness con-
firming that it is part of them and of their family. Evan even
asserts that “When I wished for a monster, I was wishing for a
monster that would be all mine …but I think Pea is for all of us”
(The Boy Who Loved Monsters 48). In this respect, the symbolism
of Pea is visually and verbally confirmed when the whole family
and Pea engage in their play about monsters. It is during their
play that humor is triggered once more asserting, as Kuchner
confirms, how “humor evolves through a social experience. It
emerges as a form of play: language play, play with and on ideas,
and play with social rules and relationships”(qtd. in Morreall,
1987, 115). The family’s engagement in this humorous roleplay is
the first visual sign confirming their integration; thus signaling
the reconciliation of the family members and sending an
important message to both children and adults of the importance
of embracing individual differences.
Finally, the change in the protagonists’view of the monsters
becomes possible, firstly, because of the benevolent and humor-
ous nature of the monsters, which is visually and verbally con-
firmed throughout the plays, and, secondly, because of the setting
in which such monsters appear. Cohen (1996) argues that “the
monster …resides in that marginal geography of the Exterior,
beyond the limits of the Thinkable, a place that is doubly dan-
gerous: simultaneously ‘exorbitant’and ‘quite close’” (20). Con-
trary to Cohen’s view, the monsters in the two plays emerge in a
well-known, friendly atmosphere, and safe environment: the
protagonists’homes; this establishes a significant connection or
correlation between the benevolent nature of the monsters and
the children protagonists, and allows for humorous situations to
happen which will in turn help the children change their pre-
conceived ideas of monsters. The girls accept the presence of
Gruntable and the other monsters under their beds, in their
homes, in their lives. In other words, they accept and embrace
difference. Similarly, Evan and Sue do the same. Even when
transported to Monster World, Evan and Sue soon discover that
Pea’s home and parents are very much parallel to theirs. Humor
is thus produced because of the parallelism between the two
homes in the two worlds, which at first disappoints Evan, but
eventually leads him to appreciate his own home, his life, and his
own parents, and to accept them as they are. At one point, Pea
even provides the real reason behind bringing the two siblings to
his home affirming the real value of home: “Pea: I brought them
here ’cause I knew they’d be safe”(The Boy Who Loved Monsters
31). The scene in Monster World is indeed short, but it has an
important structural and thematic function: it serves to reinforce
the parallelism between humans and monsters, since monsters
are extensions of the self. Thus, the scene is meant to change the
perspective of children showing how monsters represent one side/
aspect of them or their family.
Conclusion
The representation of monsters on stage in plays for children is a
technique used by writers to broaden the children’s perspective
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y
8HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023) 10:839 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
and understanding of themselves and others. The two plays offer
a lively and vivid portrayal of monsters which help subvert
children’s preconceived ideas of monsters. As Chemers asserts,
“because of performance’s unique qualities, it has provided a
happy home for monsters as far back in time and across human
cultures as history reveals. The study of monsters, then, must
perforce enrich both our understanding of our own culture and of
history in general”(2). Examining the use of monsters in both
plays confirms how the representation of monsters subverts the
typical imaginings of monsters. In fact, their physical presence
and interaction with the children protagonists, to borrow David
Wood and Janet Grant’s words on the importance of children’s
theater, “open doors to a new world of imagination, excitement,
and thoughtfulness”(2017, 6).
The use of humor in dramatizing the benevolent monsters in
the two selected works helps the children go through a four-step
process that eventually helps them in redefining monsters:
“feeling,”“analyzing,”“critiquing,”and finally “restorying.”The
combination of the monsters’humor and benevolence acts as the
agent that compels children to accept themselves and cope with
the real world. Humor, to borrow Rollo May’s words, helps in
“preserving the sense of self…. It is the healthy way of feeling a
‘distance’between one’s self and the problem, a way of standing
off and looking at one’s problem with perspective”(1953, 40).
Humor is thus used to “distance”the children from their own
beliefs, problems, and fears, and to allow them to rethink, rede-
fine, and, even, accept their own differences, symbolized in the
monsters. Kerry Mallan (1993) asserts that “humorous situations
and characters provide children with much appreciated sources of
laughter. …They need to see that even in life’s more serious
moments humor has its place not humor of the belly-laugh kind,
but the sort which shows that life can be viewed through different
lenses”(32). In this respect, humorous monsters instigate chil-
dren to explore the relationship between childhood and mon-
strosity from a different angle. The humorous portrayal of such
friendly monsters allows children to reconsider/reflect upon the
problems they experience in their everyday lives, their fears and
worries from a different perspective; thus giving way for self-
exploration and confrontation, and not “a creation of a false
impression of the real world”(Mallan, 1993, 20). Through the
humorous touches added to these innocuous monsters, the chil-
dren become involved in a process of reflection that eventually
leads them to understand themselves and others. It is thus an
enlightening process in which children listen, learn, and
eventually act.
Combining monster studies and humor studies in approaching
both works confirms how monsters and monstrosity can be
revisited in works for children. The subversion of the monsters in
both texts is an invitation to review certain values and beliefs
because they destabilize the concept of monstrosity in relation to
children. As Jones et al. (2022) argue, “When people regard others
as ‘monsters,’they reveal their underlying biases and values. It is
through the challenging of stereotypes that we counter what is
dehumanizing about horror texts”(90). Unlike other works for
children in which the dichotomy of the self, childhood/monster is
maintained, the two selected plays assert the strong connection
between childhood and monstrosity eliminating the boundaries
between them and emphasizing how embracing one’s differences
is the key and catalyst to reach maturity. The two plays thus
empathize with monsters; they thus instigate children to think
beyond their fears and differences. Hence, the moral messages are
sent through the use of humor in dramatizing these monsters
because, as Julie Cross (2011)affirms, works for children have
moral lessons and messages to deliver; such messages resonate in
the minds of children when they are presented/sugarcoated with
humor (26). The ending of both works shows the reconciliation of
the children with the problems, worries, needs, and fears and their
attempt to accept, face, and even change their understanding of
them without the need for any magical or external aid. The ending
thus shows the children coping and embracing what they feared/
needed before: the girls and Evan’s family embrace their fears/
differences. In The Boy Who Loved Monsters and the Girl Who
Loved Peas, the monster becomes the catalyst that brings the
family together. This specific dimension is missing in Monsters
under the Bed, in which the focus is more on using humor as a
coping mechanism with different types of fears. Indeed, it would
have been more effective if Monsters under the Bed highlighted the
children’s family life as well. Perhaps the playwright could have
also made all the monsters/fears embodied/personified in Grun-
table himself, as is the case with Pea, so that he would have a
bigger role throughout the play, not just the final scene of the play.
In both works, unlike other works for children in which ter-
rifying monsters are used, the monsters are not controlled or
dominated. According to Compagna and Steinhart (2020), most
“narratives,”a term they use to refer to both: “high arts products”
and “popular culture,”feature monsters that appear as “con-
tained,”have to be “destroyed,”sometimes there is even
“adjustment of (beauty) standards,”“modified,”or “integrated in
the social order”(xi). The two selected plays present a different
role of monsters, asserting how they should not be “contained”or
“modified,”but the children have to accept them in order to reach
self-acceptance. Thus, the monsters in the plays do not disappear.
Cohen (1996) argues that monsters “can be pushed to the farthest
margins of geography and discourse, hidden away at the edges of
the world and in the forbidden recesses of our mind, but they
always return”(20). He adds that “when they come back, they
bring not just a fuller knowledge of our place in history and the
history of knowing our place, but they bear self-knowledge,
human knowledge”(20). In the selected works, the friendly
monsters help the children understand themselves, but they do
not disappear or are “pushed”away. They continue to exist and
even Gruntable promises to return. However, the protagonists are
aware that its return will not be frightening or worrying at all, but
rather accepted because the protagonists have learned to accept
their fears and differences. Maynes (2020) asserts that “the
monster should have the last word”in bedtime monster stories
(7). Applying the previous words to the selected plays, the ben-
evolent monsters are the ones who end the plays affirming their
existence as part of the children’s lives, but at the same time,
confirming that the children are now more mature as they show
deeper understanding of themselves and their own world.
Received: 31 December 2022; Accepted: 7 November 2023;
Note
1 When using extracts from the plays, the titles will henceforth be cited as follows: The
Monsters and The Boy Who Loved Peas.
References
Abu Taleb A (2002) Fan Alkitabah Alsinmaeya wa altivisyoniah lilatfal [The Art of
Screenwriting for Children’s Films and Television]. Cairo, Longman
Attardo S (ed) (2014) Encyclopedia of humor studies. California, Sage Publications
Cart M (1995) What’s so funny? Wit and Humor in American Children’s Lit-
erature. New York, Harper Collins
Carey M (2018) Forward. In: Chemers M (ed) The monster in theatre history: this
thing of darkness. New York, Routledge
Chemers M (ed) (2018) Introduction. In: The monster in theatre history: this thing
of darkness. New York, Routledge
Christie L (2020) The evolution of monsters in children’s literature. Palgrave
Commun 41:1–7. 6
Cleary B (1982) The laughter of children. Horn Book 58:555–564
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOC IAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023) 10:839 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023 -02361-y 9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Cohen JJ (ed) (1996) Monster culture: seven theses. In: Monster theory: reading
culture. University of Minnesota Press
Compagna D, Steinhart S (2020). Monsters, monstrosities, and the monstrous in
culture and society. Delaware, Vernon Press
Cross J (2011) Humor in contemporary junior literature. New York, Routledge
Day C, Midbjer A (2007) Environment and children: passive lessons for the
everyday environment. Oxford, Architectural Press
Erle S, Hendry H (2020) Monsters: interdisciplinary explorations in monstrosity.
Palgrave Commun 53:1–7. 6
Evans J (2015) Challenging and controversial picture books: creative and critical
responses to visual texts. London: Routledge
Garber SW, Spizman RF, Garber MD (1993) Monsters under the bed and other
childhood fears: helping your child overcome anxieties, fears, and phobias.
New York, Viallard Books
Garramone Fr D (2007) The monsters under the bed. Woodstock, Illinois, Dra-
matic Publishing Company
Graham J (2013) The boy who loved monsters and the girl who loved peas.
Woodstock, Illinois, Dramatic Publishing Company
Jones K, Corbitt A, Storm S (2022) Humanizing horror: rereading monstrosity in
popular literature. Engl J 2:85–92. 112
Joseph M (2011) Liminality. In: Philip N, Lissa P (eds) Keywords for children’s
literature. New York and London: New York University Press
Kappas KH (1967) A developmental analysis of children’s responses to humor. Libr
Q 37:67–77
King N, Ollendick TH, Tonge BJ (1997) Children’s nighttime fears. Clin Psychol
Rev 4:431–443. 17
Kunze P (2016) Didactic monstrosity and postmodern revisionism in contemporary
children’sfilms. In: Jessica RM (ed) Reading in the dark: horror in children’s
literature and culture. Mississippi, The University of Mississippi Press
Mallan K (1993) Laugh lines: exploring humour in children’s literature. Newtown,
(NSW) Primary English Teachers Association
Martin RA (2007) The psychology of humor: an integrative approach. California,
Elsevier Academic Press
Maynes M-L (2020) Monsters at bedtime: managing fear in bedtime picture books
for children. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 63:1–7. 7
Mcghee PE, Frank M (2013) Humor and children’s development: a guide to
practical applications. London and New York, Routledge
McGillis R (2009) Humour and the body in children’s literature. In: Grenby MO and
Immel A (eds) Children’s literature. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Meire J (2007) Qualitative research on children’s play: a review of recent literature.
In: Jambor T and Gils J Van (eds) Several perspectives on children’s play:
scientificreflections for practioners. Antwerp, Garant
Mittman AS (2012) Introduction: the impact of monsters and monster studies. In:
Mittman AS and Dendle PJ (eds) The Ashgate Research Companion to
Monsters and the Monstrous. Surrey, Ashgate
Mittman AS, Hensel M (2018) Classic readings on monster theory demonstrare.
Leeds, Arc Humanities Press
Morreall J (1987) Taking laughter seriously. New York, State University of New York
May R (1953) Man’s search for himself. New York, Norton
Muela Bermejo D (2021) Humour in children’s and young adult literature: the
work of Gilles Bachelet. Child Lit Educ 54:1–24
Musharbash Y, Presterudstuen GH (eds) (2014) Monster Anthropology in Aus-
tralasia and Beyond. Presterudstuen. Palgrave Macmillan
Nilsen D (1993) Humor scholarship: a research bibliography. Westport, CT,
Greenwood Press
Ruwe D, Leve J (2020) Children, childhood, and musical theatre. Oxon: Routledge
Semrud-Clikeman M, Glass K (2010) The relation of humour and child develop-
ment: social, adaptive, and emotional aspects. J Child Neurol 10:1–14
Shaeffer M, Hopkins D (1988) Miss Nelson, knock-knocks and nonsense: con-
necting through humour. Childhood Educ 65:88–93
Shildrick M (2002) Embodying the monster: encounters with the vulnerable self.
London, Sage Publications
Smith J (1967) A critical approach to children’s literature. New York, McGraw Hill
Taylor M (1999) Imaginary companions and the children who create them. Oxford
University Press, New York and Oxford
Thomas EE (2019) The dark fantastic: race and the imagination from Harry Potter
to the Hunger Games. New York University Press
Wolfe TC, Manzo S (2021) Monsters in early modern philosophy. Encycl Early
Mod Philos 1–8. https://www.memoria.fahce.unlp.edu.ar/libros/pm.5813/pm.
5813.pdf
Wolfenstein M (1954) Children’s humor: a psychological analysis. Bloomington,
IN, Indiana University Press
Wood D, Grant J (2017) Theatre for children: a guide to writing, adapting,
directing, and acting. Faber and Faber
Xeni E (2010) Meeting childhood needs: the need for humour in children’s lit-
erature. In: Hopkins L, Macleod M, and Turgeon WC (eds) Negotiating
Childhoods. Oxford, Inter-Disciplinary Press
Author contributions
The author is responsible for the correctness of the statements and content of this paper.
Funding
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding
Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).
Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.
Informed consent
Informed consent was not required as the study did not involve human participants.
Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Heidi Mohamed
Bayoumy.
Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party
material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2023
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y
10 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023) 10:839 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02361-y
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
