Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Okay, SPOILERS AHEAD LIGHT UP THE SPOILER SIREN.

Moriarty is pretty much the BC Sherlock series' grand Chessmaster. He's definitely missing a few marbles, but he's also a complete maniacal genius, intended to be the Foil for Sherlock - where Sherlock calls himself the world's first consulting detective, Moriarty calls himself the world's first consulting criminal.

His first actual appearance (after being offhandedly mentioned a few times) is in the episode The Great Game, where Moriarty, though not being revealed physically until the end of the episode, pretty much upends Sherlock and John's lives by strapping bombs to, in this order, a salary woman, a man involved in his own shady dealings with a car company, an old defenseless woman, a child, and John Watson. Each of these people, they say through Moriarty's messages, will be freed if Sherlock solves some sort of puzzle. The child is definitely the worst case in-universe - Moriarty's message is to figure out why a certain painting is a fraud, and the Moriarty, over phone line, gives Sherlock 10 seconds to figure it out, or the child dies. Moriarty also, off-screen but heard via cell phone, murders the old woman for trying to reveal who he is.

When Moriarty finally does reveal himself, he has absolutely no remorse for anything, seems to be getting some sort of sexual kick from all of his actions (and is potentially psycho-obsessed with Sherlock on a sexual level as well, given his behavior), has Watson strapped to a bomb, and... cliffhanger. (The resolution doesn't offer any other reasons to count Moriarty as a CM, but suffice to say, it was anticlimactic.)

Cutting to the last episode of the second season, The Reichenbach Fall, is where we start getting into most of the more ambiguous crap with Moriarty. Moriarty orchestrates a rather daring plot via his iPhone which involves releasing all the prisoners from Pentonville Prison, opening the vault at the Bank of England, and breaking into where the Crown Jewels are kept in Buckingham Palace, allowing himself to be caught in the process. He is acquitted at trial, but uses his vast technological genius to threaten the jurors/their families via their televisions, something shown in explicit detail. Sherlock, at Moriarty's trial, also comes off looking a bit like a crazy person, and also rebuffs an enterprising journalist who wants a story on him, since he is a fairly major crime-fighting celebrity now.

The entire episode soon devolves into Moriarty basically handing Sherlock an extended Break the Haughty - firstly, Moriarty kidnaps a few children, but stages their kidnapping to imply that Sherlock had something to do with the case, by using God-knows-what on one of them, causing them to be hysterically terrified of Sherlock (a man they've never met). Then he tells a vast section of the criminal underworld that Sherlock has the code he used to break into all three of his locations, a code that can, apparently, break into anything on earth, which leads to Sherlock constantly being targeted to be saved/killed by enterprising hitmen. Finally, he poses as an actor, Richard Brook, who was "hired" by Sherlock to play the part of a criminal mastermind to oppose him. "Richard" shares this information with the journalist from before, and combined, all of these things suffice to fully turn the public against Sherlock. (This is where my issue comes from - obviously Moriarty wants this to happen, but in-universe, at this point in time, Sherlock looks much, much worse than Moriarty in the public eye.)

Sherlock and Moriarty end up meeting on the roof after one of Moriarty's goons shoots Sherlock's landlord, who he absolutely adores. They end up having a conversation about their shared similarities and what-not, but Moriarty reveals he has snipers set up to dispose of the landlord, Watson, and Lestrade (a man who works at the police station who is very loyal to Sherlock and Watson) if Sherlock does not kill himself (I apparently remembered this wrong). Sherlock begs for the code, but the code doesn't even exist - Moriarty just paid off security at each location to allow for the heist to occur. When, after talking for an extended period, Moriarty realizes that Sherlock is safe as long as he's alive, Moriarty shoots himself in the head, instantly killing himself - he basically died to screw over Sherlock, and the implication is that, if anyone saw the body, they would assume Sherlock killed him. This drives Sherlock to jump off the roof of the building, killing himself. (There's some really weird "he's alive" shit after this, so Sherlock didn't really die, but the point still stands that Moriarty drove the protagonist to kill himself.)

Salt-Upon-Wounds added to "hell, no" list.

What is your opinion on Moriarty, Largo?

@6176 In-universe reputation is not a vital determining factor for Complete Monster status (like the You Monster! trope, it's at most a hint toward real examples), especially if it's the result of deliberate fraud. If anything, that's part of the argument for Moriarty.

edited 27th Dec '12 11:04:36 AM by Crowley

Examples of The Bible put without discussion in Monster.Literature

@6176: I don’t think that people’s in-universe perceptions matter so much when they’re either deceived or their opinions are outright wrong. A character can still be a Complete Monster if they’re a Villain with Good Publicity or if they’re put alongside a Hero with Bad Publicity. I think so long as all characters that are aware of a villain’s true nature are repulsed/afraid of/hate him then that character can still be a Complete Monster. This is barring people who are deluded into thinking there is some good in a Complete Monster (ala Harley Quinn), are in severe denial that the character isn't really bad (like Momo towards Aizen), or just can’t help loving the character regardless of how psychotic they are because… well you can’t choose who you love.

In summation I still think Moriarty from Sherlock counts regardless of the public’s opinion of Sherlock. The point is the audience knows the truth of both characters’ natures and can assess them accordingly. Also, Moriarty may be insane, but the fact that he still knows the difference between right and wrong and chooses to ignore it still makes him eligible for Complete Monster in my mind.

edited 27th Dec '12 11:26:27 AM by OccasionalExister

Oh yeah... shall we put Satan in the never again list too?

Just a quick couple of things- sorry for the sort of sidetrack about Dracula. I do think he counts, but am noting that the novel basically indicates that being a vampire causes you to lose the positive qualities you had in life, and turns your negative qualities Up To Eleven. Since Dracula probably wasn't that nice of a guy in life... When Dracula is killed, he does experience Dying as Yourself and has a look of peace- not sure how what that means in light of this trope.

Also, wanted to ask about a potentially problematic example on Joyeux Noël:

• Complete Monster: Though this film is about the inner goodness of humanity, there are sadly two people that could be considered examples of this trope here: the bishop, who is pretty much Disney's version of Frollo in real life, and the Kronprinz (even moreso if one knows that he went on to support Adolf Hitler and use himself as Nazi propoganda in order to help maintain his own power.)
  • The bishop and his speech really happened too.

This seems really close to calling real people complete monsters (in addition to basing the descriptions on a) a comparison with another character and b)Godwin's Law).

Also, saw this added on Monster/Literature in regard to Biblical characters:

• The Bible has some pretty vicious characters, ranging from the egomaniacal despot Haman in the Book of Esther who waged a genocide against Jews just because one Jews refused to bow before him, to Antioch who had people skinned and boiled alive and it's implied that that's not even the worst of what he did.
  • And naturally no list of Complete Monsters would be complete without the daddy of them all, Satan. The mightiest of the angels in Heaven, he rebelled against God in an attempt to usurp his throne and after being defeated and banished, let sin into the world by tricking Adam and Eve. That's right. He let evil into the world just to gratify his wounded ego, so everything every other villain does is because of him!
  • The Antichrist in the Book of Revelations forces people to bear his mark and worship his statue under pain of death.

Satan and the Antichrist seem rather problematic. Also the Haman example worries me- I think the character counts but I can't recall the mention of boiling and skinning people- is this actually mentioned, or is this apocryphal (I wonder because the entry refers to Ahasuerus as Antioc- this is seemingly an archaic name for Antichus, who is a totally different person)- basically, I'm thinking that this person is basing their description on some retelling of the story and/or faulty memory.

Edit- Sorry, missed the comment from a few posts above alluding to those entries.

edited 27th Dec '12 11:24:39 AM by Hodor

@6180 Woo, host of bad issues there. First, putting the examples at the top of the page instead of the bottom. Not coming in here to discuss the issue. Finally, we did actually bring up The Bible, starting in @2775 and subsequent. The only character who was deemed to qualify was the Biblical version of Haman - who is already on the page.

Given that we already voted on those examples, I'm going to cut with a citation to this thread.

I have signaled them. Waiting for a reply.

Does it really matter if they are at the top or the bottom? Bible should be at either of these though. It definitely should not be included in between any other examples.

Uhhhh, what? Any new examples should respect the sorting of the page. If the page is sorted alphabetically, they go in alphabetical order. If it's sorted by genre, they go in the proper genre. If there is no sorting, new examples go at the bottom. There is no arbitrary "this work is better known so it goes in the spot more people will see" parameter.

@6182 OK, the "Hell, no" list is getting a bit overzealous.

I think the point of that list is to make a blanket statement over the particular cases that were brought up way too many times and gave us way too many headaches. For all that I don't want to see Satan (or any non-Haman example) from The Bible listed again, we haven't had the headaches with Satan that we've had with others on that list (I'd rather hear another Satan argument right now than another Ghetsis argument, I'll say that much).

@6183 Those "good qualities" that Dracula supposedly had in life are never shown or elaborated on in the novel Dracula - those count as an Informed Attribute, and I see no reason to count them. Plus, the look of relief on his face could, from the text, just as reasonably be the reaction of a Death Seeker who finally gets what he's seeking.

@6186 Religious myopia is just as bad for this wiki as Fan Myopia (depending on your point of view, worse - there's a reason religion is specifically cited on the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment). The Bible does not get to be at the top or bottom of any page just because I, or any other troper, happen to believe in its religious merits. There are rules about adding new entries (i.e. below all the current ones in the correct subsection), and nobody gets to violate that just because they happen to think God told them to.

Unless, of course, they can actually prove God told them to, but that's another issue entirely.

edited 27th Dec '12 11:35:58 AM by 32_Footsteps

Sorry for being longwinded about it, and I won't press the point. I don't think the guy is a Death Seeker. I guess I'm speculating that (judging from Lucy) the degree to which Transhuman Treachery/ Angelus vs Angel thing may be in play (probably not much, since Dracula seems to maintain his personality and motives from life)

Footsteps, God did not tell me anything! I am not very religious. I don't think that anyone is on this wiki. It's just that books like the Bible are not regular pieces of fiction, even for people who don't believe it. It is a book that inspires religion. It should be separated from the other books. Or best of all, it should not be on the page at all.

Also, lu127. I think that this is a perfect way of doing it. I think we should put the most famous in the place everyone will see it. I think that it is the best way to do it.

edited 27th Dec '12 12:03:23 PM by Krystoff

@6189 It's fine that you don't think he's a Death Seeker. However, the fact remains that it's a reasonable explanation for why he'd be at peace at the end, which means that being at peace (absent other information) cannot be used in either direction for an argument as to his qualifications for Complete Monster. We can only go by what's clear in the text. And it's never made clear that Dracula had any sort of positive aspect in the story.

@6190 First off, you can't make any sort of assumption about the level of religiosity of the editors of this wiki as a whole, Krystoff. For all that it matters, I actually am fairly religious. I just think that part of being a good religious person is not pressing the issue, particularly in a forum that isn't about religion (which is most of them).

Second, it's clear that you've never read How To Write An Example. To quote the relevant sections of this page, which is actually listed in the FAQ section for the site:

Your opinion on the matter, or mine for that matter, isn't up for debate. This is wiki policy. You have two choices - follow it, or deal with the consequences when you're reported. All things considered, I prefer the former.

edited 27th Dec '12 12:15:51 PM by 32_Footsteps

Oh please. 'Most famous' is nonsense in the context of this wiki, because the opinion on what is most famous ranges from Harry Potter, one of the best-selling series of all time, to Haruhi Suzumiya, a light novel that may be more famous than most anime but still obscure to most people. It's a time waster and against wiki policy. This isn't a "best example" contest.

edited 27th Dec '12 12:21:07 PM by lu127

Can we change Katejina's entry in the 'hell no' list to 'fails heinousness, moral agency, and 'no altruism' criteria', please? I think it gives a better idea of why she doesn't qualify.

edited 27th Dec '12 2:04:26 PM by Iaculus

Hey, I am sorry for being late on this, but I read the whole Tolkien discussion and I was wondering if you ever made a final decision on that? I could not figure it from reading the posts.

I just wanted to add that based on the arguments presented in this thread I believe both Melkor and Sauron count.

We already decided for Morgoth and against Sauron.

@6181: The only reason I bring it up is because one of the implied CM indicators is everyone hating a character. I believe quite strongly that Moriarty is a CM, but the actual mechanics of the plot he devised could've disqualified him under certain interpretations.

One issue with that is that it's quite possible for a Complete Monster to be a Villain with Good Publicity if they're skilled and manipulative enough.

And that makes total sense. I understand that the three criteria for CM are written to weed out the obvious non-contenders, but I wanted to at least have someone else vet Moriarty for me before I just up and wrote a whole new example. Maybe it's something that needs clarification? Like, "Being a Villain with Good Publicity does not necessarily disqualify someone from being a CM", or, vice-versa, "a villain opposing a Hero with Bad Publicity is not necessarily disqualified from being a CM"?

I mean, besides that little hiccup, Moriarty is a pretty damned clear CM. Insane but in control of his actions, his motivation is "besting Sherlock because he's just like me!", done enough to count if you just look at his track record with children, much less adults...

Don't forget that Sherlock saved the little boy, but was unable to save an elderly pensioner who Jim also wired with a bomb.

Satan is an obvious example to add to the exclusion list, so I took the liberty of doing so.