Complete Monsters

I don't like the idea of the term Complete Monster. It's this bizarre sort of mythologisation, like evil, that I can't rationalise as remotely comprehensible or encounterable. Maybe I've been lucky to miss that — no I've not been sheltered — but I don't like the term or the continuity it creates. Look at the trope page — a man who kills his girlfriend is considered just as bad as a person who commits genocide. That's not remotely the same thing, yet they're both Complete Monsters?

What is complete? What is a monster? It's just not clear to me that either of those things can be true — no one can be completely one thing.

I think that's a bit of a too literalist approach. Yeah, nobody is completely 100% one thing, that's understood. So that isn't really what is meant. Complete in this sense means more like "irredeemable". Clearly, a genocide is worse than killing one person, but yet already the latter, depending on circumstances, might be irredeemable.

Also, what do you mean evil is a form of mythologisation?

The trope goes beyond "the character him/herself is not redeemable" to "nothing about this character could be construed as good." But that obviously depends on what a creator decides to show about the character.

Kim Jong Il, for example. I certainly know of nothing admirable about him. However, that doesn't mean there isn't something. And I think that illustrates what makes this trope so flimsy; typically, these characters are over-the-top caricatures. It is rare, if not impossible, to find a human without humanity IRL.

When you think about it, isn't it better for a CM to have some good/relatable traits? Makes them scarier, because you can understand the motives behind their actions. That should make sense.

... my spellchecker doesn't think relatable is a word.

If they have good/relatable traits, they aren't a complete monster.

@Nicknacks - that's probably because other tropes suit the purpose of seperating the serial killers from the various types of genocidal maniacs. I think Complete Monster is about the ratio of evil acts to good acts they commit (as in, 0 good acts and any number of evil ones) and therefore how totally evil they are to the viewer, and it's not about the number or severity of evil acts he commits. The difference is important because, in the land of fiction, genocide really is not as bad as murdering a girlfriend if the viewers have built up a relationship with that girlfriend via lots of screentime. You'd probably want the rapist to die far more than his village-slaying friend if the former's act was shown on the screen and the latter petted the dog once.

Also, Complete Monsters stop being Complete Monsters as soon as they carry out a single positive act - even though the viewer still utterly hates him and wants him to die. So it's also not about how much the viewer hates them either. Or due to bad writing or the protagonist/viewpoint character himself being the Complete Monster, you may not want him to die at all.

Agreed. For that reason you may not find a Complete Monster is the best antagonist to use in a story. Depends really.

edited 8th Jan '12 12:36:07 PM by betaalpha

I really think the trope has defined itself into a corner. The bar is set so high that not even any fictional characters can said to fall absolutely into it, which is why the trope has been made YMMV. Which means the trope in its current definition has become somewhat worthless. Maybe we should hence apply some... less stringent standards here...

The very "monstrous" aspect of the Complete Monster already attempts to dehumanize it, which is ironic, because what defines a Complete Monster is a combination of very human emotions. Anger, lust, greed, envy or any feelings similiar to these as well as every action derived from these feelings are all human, because having them is all part of belonging to humanity; all part of being a human.

Every human can feel those things. What differentiates one human from another is the extent to which he can cope with these urges; these temptations. Or even the exact opposite of that, which is how far a person is willing to turn into action one or more of those destructive emotions.

And then you consider the literal meaning of the word "monster", which is something that is menacing, of course, which is something that was created to instill fear and anger, but ultimately, when you look at a monster in the classical term, it is something alien. Its biology is impossible to exist in the real world. It is gorgon or a minotaur or a horned demon, that sort of thing. And the monster, the first thing you will usually notice about the monster is its appearance, because that way you will that what is being talked about is a monster.

Also - aside from the tales most fantastic between the armies of the darkness and the angels of heaven or the several stores tall behemont of destruction - monster tales speak about death and pain and suffering, and every single one of those things are all within the capability of the human being to do. So, usually, when it comes to a monster tale, you need to have the image of the monster, because if you don't have that, then you could very well be telling the tale of a real killer; a real killer that is a human like you and me.

So when I think of a Complete Monster, I think it is actually a trope to raise those despicable people who did those horrible things to a category of their own. Through their deeds, they have transcended humanity and became the monsters of fiction. And I don't should we want to do that. Those terrible things that they did are all things that we, should we had been given the same means and resources, done as well, but we did not do it because those people lack our restraint.

So instead of calling them "monsters", I think we should settle to referring to them by what they really are: criminals. That's all they are. They are not special and they are not to be remembered as anything more than humans who could not resist the call to do evil.

edited 9th Jan '12 10:38:02 AM by jackcayman

jackayman - that was an interesting read - cheers for posting! You remind me that the word 'monster' is such a wonderfully loaded word - it communicates a lot in just two syllables. But that makes me feel Complete Monster is indeed a correctly titled trope. Monster as in an entity that's repulsively evil and threatening, and Complete as in 100% evil and no shown positive traits,

Monster has been used to describe humans at least as much as literal creatures so I think it can be used for both. Maybe the caller doesn't want his subject to _be_ human, he's such a rotten thing.

I don't think criminal is a good word because it doesn't have the same instinctive, guttural feeling as monster. Also there are 'good' criminals, and some Complete Monsters who do their horrific crimes in lawless, places or who _are_ the law, like the horrible Lord Naritsugu from Thirteen Assassins.

Octo - Interesting point, but I don't agree. Complete Monster does a good job describing the extreme limit in the ratio of evil to goodness an entity can get, so I think it's a good trope. All I need to say is Complete Monster Serial Killer and you immediately get a good idea of the kinda person I'm talking about - how evil he is and what he's done. There are loads of examples of Complete Monster in fiction though I'd say the list in the trope entry does need a good pruning.

Yeah also it seems a way to dehumanize a particularly horrible person to make us feel, "Oh he was a monster, we could never be like that we are rational thinking humans!" Well the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments both proved this to not be the case. Every human has the potential to do unspeakable acts of cruelty and evil, but then again we all have the potential to do acts of kindness and compassion.

To an animal or insect, humans are Always Chaotic Evil. It's not about "monsters" being criminals that were thrown into their own category. It's about perspective. For example, some think Cheney is a Complete Monster, while others say that he's only saved from that term because he supports gay rights.

edited 12th Jan '12 1:49:45 AM by Serocco

I was too lazy to check the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned dolphins yet?

Dolphins are pretty much Judge Frollo with a tail fluke, killing and raping smaller animals such as porpoises and seals, which they don't even compete for food. They seem to be doing it just cause they get a kick out of watching things die. I also read about a dolphin who was using fish to lure in seagulls, then he/she (don't remember if it had a gender) would kill the seagull, then leave the body and wait for another. They also like to rape other dolphins species, by shoving their thick, slimy dick up their blowholes! If all that isn't passing the Moral Event Horizon, capturing people, dragging them over to these special "rape caves", raping them, and then KILLING them certainly is.

edited 10th Mar '12 11:19:31 PM by MrMediaGuy

I suppose they fall under Blue-and-Orange Morality since, you know, they're not sapient.

No, but they're very, very close to being sapient.

Tricky one regarding dolphins etc. Some may cross the Moral Event Horizon but they're not Complete Monsters unless they have zero positive traits - and most do look after their young, their mates and family members etc. Also, does dolphin-dolphin rape have the same awful results as human-human rape? Do the animals feel deep and long-lasting emotional trauma from such acts like humans do? Do they do such things because they enjoy other's suffering or do they just consider it to be a weird game? Sometimes you gotta be careful not to anthropomorphise them too much - smart they may appear, but they could be wired up in totally different ways to us.

Well, when people say that dolphins couldn't possibly be anything like us because they rape and kill en masse, you have to remember that we were Not So Different, in older times especially.

And as far as baboons, well...

edited 1st Feb '12 1:44:58 PM by Aryn

Even if they are complete monsters in real life, I doubt they wouldn't last too long. Even killers such as Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac are only human and evetually they will die if not in prison, then on their deathbed. Even fictional characters like Hannibal Lecture are going to die eventually as the book's universe is similar to our own. The thing that the anime series Monster stand out to me is that Johan didn't start out as a monster, he was created to be one or correctly he was created to be the perfect human.

Johan was just a child who was brought up in the harsh environment that was kinderheim and had his memories messed with. I need to rewatch the series again but Johan had it pretty rough. While we won't have any of that anytime soon, it kind of makes you realize the people we label as 'monsters' are human as well. They may be serial killers, crimnials, rapists, abusers or even dictators but they are still human nonetheless. They didn't start out as monsters but were molded into one or they turn themselves into one.

http://sonichu.com/cwcki/28_October_2011

Yeah, I think this qualifies. Everything has sorta inevitably come to this, and this is rather terrible by nature. This seems pretty confirmed to me.

You necroed a thread to link to something from Sonichu... why?

Read the post. We're talking about Complete Monster here, and now it seems that through trying to kill someone, he's come full circle. .

It's weird and disturbing, but hardly a Complete Monster, which is a concept which exists in fiction and nowhere else.

I think this post pretty much sums up this whole thread. Would anyone have an objection to simply locking this?

I quite like it when this thread comes back to life from time to time. Though yeah, I think we've pretty much covered every fictional or real-life potential and supposed source of complete monsterdom. Which was your favourite? I think mine was dolphins :)

edited 13th Mar '12 6:26:11 AM by betaalpha

Even a dolphin isn't a complete monster. I don't think there is such a thing at all.

The closest we got are parasites. They're horrible.

Parasites are just trying to survive, like everything else.

edited 13th Mar '12 8:00:57 AM by RTaco