My two cents (adjusted for inflation): They're unrealistic without motivations or dark histories. Because such wanton cruelty, hatred, and evil is extraordinarily rare, a Complete Monster
IS a psychological aberration, and there needs to be some insight or explanation for his/her behaviors. Take, for instance, a Complete Monster
that was executed extraordinarily well: The Joker
from Nolan's The Dark Knight.
He's universally reviled by everyone
for being so damn evil. There's no doubt that he's not evil. But we do know that something terrible happened to him and shattered his sanity. We don't learn what his past really is because he prefers that it be "multiple choice", but we learn that something
drove him so far off into the deep end he's completely crossed the Moral Event Horizon
. He was, I think, a realistic Complete Monster
who was twisted and tormented and tortured so thoroughly by his past that he was almost incapable of being good.
But this all depends on how you view and want to portray a person's character and integrity. Are you going to judge a man by what he is in the dark,
or are you going to judge a man by his actions upon the world, the intent behind the actions, and the consequences they have on the world and story at large?
edited 14th Mar '12 10:57:25 AM by Pyroninja42
"Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person that doesn't get it."