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*

The paper examines how humorous, benevolent monsters in children’s theater help young protagonists reconsider preconceived notions of monstrosity and process their own needs and fears in a safe, non-threatening environment. Contrasting typical frightening monsters with friendly ones, the study argues that benevolent monsters enable introspection, reflection, and behavioral change in child characters. Framed by theories that position monsters as both attractive and repulsive and as reflections of the human condition, the study highlights the dual function of monsters: as figures children point to and fear, and as signs that reveal and teach. It posits that the stage presence of monsters in children’s plays—because of theater’s immediacy and embodied performance—can uniquely facilitate children’s engagement with fears and needs. The research focuses on two plays, The Monsters under the Bed and The Boy Who Loved Monsters and the Girl Who Loved Peas, to explore how humor renders monsters innocuous and catalyzes a four-step process in protagonists—feeling, analyzing, critiquing, and restorying—their fears and assumptions.

The study situates itself at the intersection of monster studies and humor studies, noting extensive work on monsters in children’s literature and culture but relatively scarce attention to humorous, benevolent monsters in children’s theater. Foundational to monster studies are texts such as Cohen’s Monster Culture and subsequent interdisciplinary expansions (Mittman; Musharbash & Presterudstuen), which conceive monsters as culturally situated reflections of the self and as liminal figures that both attract and unsettle. Humor studies, as surveyed by Attardo and others (Kappas; Mallan; Nilsen; Xeni), underscores humor’s developmental, therapeutic, and social functions in children’s texts, with classifications of humor types (e.g., slapstick, incongruity, verbal humor) often grouped as humorous characters, situations, and discourse. Despite humor’s recognized role in alleviating anxieties and supporting well-being, critics (Cross; Muela Bermejo) note a paucity of scholarly attention to humorous children’s literature, and even fewer to theater. Theater scholarship (Chemers; Carey) emphasizes the distinctive impact of embodied monsters on stage, enabling immediate, affective confrontation. This study addresses the gap by focusing on humorous benevolent monsters in children’s theater and their role in children’s cognitive and emotional processing.

The paper adopts an eclectic qualitative, comparative textual analysis drawing on monster studies, humor studies, and child psychology to examine two children’s plays: The Monsters under the Bed (2007) and The Boy Who Loved Monsters and the Girl Who Loved Peas (2013). Selection criteria include: (1) protagonists within McGhee and Frank’s stage four of humor development (multiple meanings; ages 7–11), who can appreciate more sophisticated language humor; (2) underexamined plays; (3) narratives where children face everyday concerns (e.g., fear of dark, boredom, family dynamics) rather than extreme trauma. Analytical lenses: (a) Mallan’s tripartite framework of humor in children’s literature—humorous characters, humorous situations, and humorous language; (b) monster studies concepts of subversion, reflection of self, and attraction/repulsion; (c) child psychology constructs of fear acquisition, coping, and positive pretense/approach strategies (Maynes). The analysis proceeds in two comparative strands: (i) initial portrayal of humorous monsters, their symbolism, and children’s one-sided perceptions; (ii) subsequent reconfiguration where protagonists critique and restory their views, achieving self-acceptance and maturity. Theatrical elements (visual, verbal, kinesthetic, auditory signs; stage directions) are treated as integral data points demonstrating benevolence and humor.

- In The Monsters under the Bed, seven stage-embodied monsters mirror typical childhood fears (darkness, noise, tests, needles, bullying, thunder, being grabbed), aligning with research that children aged 6–12 experience about seven distinct fears. Despite ominous descriptors, the monsters’ physical presentation and dialog mark them as non-threatening, with Gruntable (the ankle-grabber) subverting expectations through incongruity and friendliness, triggering humor and reducing fear. - In The Boy Who Loved Monsters and the Girl Who Loved Peas, Evan’s wished-for monster materializes as a giant Pea—an ironic fusion of Evan’s love for monsters and disdain for peas, and Sue’s opposite preferences—creating comedic surprise and transformation. Pea’s slapstick and benign behaviors (e.g., fork in head, burping, playful mischief) establish benevolence and foster bonding with Evan and Sue. - Humor modalities observed include: incongruity (expectation vs. reality in monster appearance/behavior), slapstick/physical comedy, verbal play, and exaggeration. These modalities operate within Mallan’s categories of humorous characters (subverted monsters), situations (roleplay, mishaps), and language (rhymes, playful dialogue). - Protagonists traverse a four-step process—feeling, analyzing, critiquing, and restorying—enabling cognitive reframing of fears: e.g., Melissa reframes darkness via a counter-poem and visual star imagery; Evan reframes Pea from a disappointing non-destructive monster into a family-bonding catalyst. - Theater’s embodied immediacy (live visual/kinesthetic/auditory cues) strengthens humor’s efficacy and the recognition of monsters as self-reflective others. - Setting within safe, familiar home spaces normalizes monsters, facilitating humor and acceptance. In Boy Who Loved Monsters, the brief Monster World scene underscores human–monster parallels and ultimately reinforces appreciation for home. - Outcomes diverge subtly: Monsters under the Bed emphasizes humor as a coping mechanism for individual fears; Boy Who Loved Monsters foregrounds humor/monster as a familial integrator, with Pea uniting the family.

The findings support the central hypothesis that humorous, benevolent monsters on stage enable children to re-examine and ultimately accept their fears and differences by reframing monstrosity as a reflection of the self rather than an external threat. Humor functions as both mechanism and mediator: incongruity and slapstick immediately de-escalate threat perceptions; verbal play and roleplay promote perspective-taking; collective joking enhances group cohesion among children. Theatrical embodiment intensifies these processes, turning abstract fears into manageable, dialogic encounters. The safe domestic settings further reduce cognitive load, allowing children to explore and restory fears without overwhelming anxiety. The comparative analysis shows that while both plays use humor to subvert monstrosity, they channel outcomes differently—individual coping versus family reconciliation—thereby illustrating the flexibility of benevolent monsters as vehicles for developmental and social learning. These results underscore the value of integrating monster and humor studies in analyzing children’s theater, highlighting how staged benevolent monsters can catalyze introspection, empathy, and maturity.

Humorous, benevolent monsters in children’s theater subvert traditional notions of monstrosity and serve as catalysts for a developmental sequence—feeling, analyzing, critiquing, and restorying—through which children confront fears, reflect on needs, and achieve greater self-acceptance. Embodied performance amplifies humor’s therapeutic and social functions, while safe domestic settings facilitate acceptance of difference. In The Monsters under the Bed, humor empowers children to cope with and reframe typical fears; in The Boy Who Loved Monsters and the Girl Who Loved Peas, the benevolent Pea fosters family cohesion and appreciation of home. The study argues for combining monster and humor studies to illuminate the ethical and pedagogical potential of benevolent monsters, inviting reconsideration of biases that cast others as monstrous. It also suggests that amplifying integrative elements (e.g., giving a figure like Gruntable a broader, unifying role) could heighten narrative impact, as demonstrated by Pea’s function as a familial catalyst.