Complete Monster - Serious threat or Hilariously Over the Top?

Well, there is always the possibility that revealing the character's motives could actually make them more alien rather than less. A true "pure evil" villain figure of the non-cardboard type has a certain force-of-nature aspect to them most of the time, or are otherwise driven by pathological lines of thinking—malignant narcissism, violent psychopathy or sociopathy, certain forms of ideological fanaticism—that are so extreme or foreign to most people's lines of thinking that where sympathy may occasionally exist (especially in cases of abuse as a formative experience), true empathy cannot.

Then again, like nrjxll (again, again), I am of the school that a Complete Monster antagonist is more effective as a figure of terror or horror than hatefulness per se... though hatefulness, in addition to the key factors of fear and disgust, is often a component of horror, if not one of terror (which is more speculative and anticipatory).

But such inhuman drives, while making it hard to relate to a character, usually still make them interesting and difficult to hate. If they really come across as a force of nature, then you can't really hate them anymore than you could hate a tornado or a tsunami.

Exactly what I say in my last paragraph, in case you didn't notice.

Context is key.

What you talk about in that paragraph doesn't seem to be what the OP's after, though. They seem to want villains that readers really will hate, not just be scared of yet fascinated by.

A character can be horrifying enough for the reader to want them permanently removed from the story with extreme prejudice. It just has to be in an appropriately satisfying, cathartic manner, preferably at the climax of an intense arc of conflict.

This is also not taking into account that there are certain qualities in a villain that can be horrifying in an uncomfortable way rather than a spellbinding one. Luxuriating in cruelty as one might a physical pleasure is one, as is showing absolutely no joy or interest in such relentless depravity. Another is smugness, particularly the condescending, petty kind found in certain ladder-climbers and power-mad bureaucrats, which when transposed on an actual human monster is both frightening and disgusting.

Bile Fascination and Love to Hate can be quite easily parried into unsettled loathing with the right manoeuvres. Even more, they can be crossed with it, which makes the reaction all the stronger: "I hate that I love to watch this person. My feelings are confused. Kill them now."

edited 17th Jul '12 11:25:50 AM by JHM

So just keep it simple. Don't give them deep motivations. Say they do it for fun.

I always found that a cheap kind of cop-out. I mean, if you really analysed what kind of person would do that sort of thing for fun, that could be interesting, but just saying that their sole motivation is kicks without elaborating upon or examining that notion strikes me as lazy and unengaging.

I disagree. And for the record, I was listing that as just one option, not the only way. If you don't want your audience to begin identifying with the audience, wouldn't it be best to keep it simple? Not just For the Evulz necessarily, but something simple. I probably should have worded it better. A huge part of a Complete Monster is that they don't have a sympathetic motive - when you try to look past the hatred and violence and bloodlust...you find more hatred, violence and bloodlust. So give them a motivation, but make it sick and twisted and something that can be easily summed up. Don't be too simple, but don't make it too complicated. Be careful not to make anything they do sympathetic.

There's nothing lazy about a simple villain, or even a simple hero. Simple can mean lazy, but it can also mean clarity. Take Captain America for example. In the movie, Dr. Erskine asks Steve Rogers why he wants to join the war and fight the Nazis. Does Steve come up with a long-winded reply about truth and justice and the American way? Does he say he's out for revenge because Nazis killed his family? No. His response is: "I don't like bullies." That's about as deep as his motivations go. That doesn't mean Steve is shallow, or that "truth and justice and the American way" aren't part of his motivation, but the simple truth is that Steve Rogers doesn't like bullies, and when he sees someone being bullied, he wants to help them. That's Steve Rogers in a nutshell. No complicated, convoluted, deeply philosophical, or psychological back-story. Steve just doesn't like bullies.

You're absolutely right that simplicity can be a result of laziness. But not always. Simplicity can make a character interesting. For an example on the opposite end of the scale, take The Clown Prince of Crime himself, The Joker. What are his motives? Where's his justification for the murderous psychopath he's become? I'm aware that he does have some back story, depending on the writer, but when you get right down to it, The Joker's nuts. He's sick and twisted and bloodthirsty and terrifying, and that's all you need to know.

I actually find more complex villains more interesting than straight-up Complete Monsters. But to make a Complete Monster effective, I think simplicity is best. If the character is only there to be the bad guy that everyone hates and who scares the hell out of everyone, does the back-story really matter? I think they're most effective in the kind of story where everything is clear-cut. These are the heroes, those are the villains. We want the heroes to be the good guys, the villains to be the bad guys, and we want the psychotic monster to go down. That's just my opinion, though, and I suppose Complete Monsters can fit in to other kinds of narratives. I just think they work best when you keep them simple - not lazy, just simple.

As another example, take The Reavers. No complicated motives. No redeemable features. They act much like a force of nature, like sharks in a feeding frenzy or a swarm of flesh-eating locusts. And yet they scare the ruttin' hell out of the whole gorram 'Verse. People loathe them, they despise them, and they're terrified of them.

I will end my statements on the matter with a quote from one of the wisest men in modern day literature, Alfred Pennyworth:

"Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men...just want to watch the world burn."

edited 17th Jul '12 3:58:35 PM by resetlocksley

'Some men just want to watch the world burn' is a cool line, but isn't really applicable to actual human beings, or to interesting characters.

Captain America, the Joker, and the Reavers from Firefly are all pretty shallow, two-dimensional characters (one-dimensional in the case of the reavers). Now, some writers may do good things with them and elevate them beyond that very low power-fantasy level, but it is always by adding extra complexity - extra motivation.

So if the OP just wants to write power-fantasy 'kill the monster' stuff, having them kill just because is fine. But it's not really much harder to just have the monster want something - power is a good one, nice & unsympathetic. Or don't write from his perspective, and let the other characters dread him & fear his actions with only a vague understanding of what he wants.

I think I've mentioned this before, but Macbeth is a good example to study for this, being essentially the story of the creation and (SPOILER LOL) death of a complete monster. Macbeth starts out as a honourable man, but ambition to power & increasing desperation at his situation & guilt for what he has done driving him mad - all of these things combine to make a man who orders the death of children. The audience is familiar with his motivations, and may feel empathy (& even sympathy) for him at the beginning, but by the end we want him dead.

I don't think they need to be much more complicated to be effective. Sometimes, you can take a simple concept and make it work very well. Captain America was an awesome movie, and Steve didn't need to be complex to be effective, entertaining, and interesting. I think going too far with the reasons behind the actions of a Complete Monster can be a mistake. Of course, "too far" is a very subjective term. Perhaps they want power, or they're simply angry at the world and are lashing out in an extremely unjustified way. What I was suggesting/advocating is actually pretty similar to your post above. :)

I have got four words to say about this:

Depends on the story.

Where simplistic may work in one, it may ruin another. Same goes when choosing between having a hammy villain and a serious one.

edited 17th Jul '12 6:57:46 PM by EldritchBlueRose

The problem with what you have been saying is one that I already addressed: An ethically alien and morally repugnant motive need not necessarily be a simple or simplistic one; a complex or sophisticated motive can be just as bizarre, disturbing and unsympathetic as a straightforward one.

That said, we are almost on the same wavelength about a very particular kind of "monster," that being the elemental variety. But even then, such a character need not be flat to be effective, and they are furthermore very hard to pull off as primary "planner" antagonists in a story with any degree of sophistication because they are so primal and inherently uncanny. In a way, such a character is death, and putting them as the man behind the man is selling them short as such. They destroy. That is what they do. Nothing more, nothing less.

In fact, this is exactly how I wrote my one character who was explicitly meant to be a Complete Monster (well, meant to be a "villain utterly lacking in redeeming qualities" - I never write characters meant to be any given trope as such).

Complete with a reasonable literal take on the death part, as it happens.

Anyway, the point is that the character in question was never intended as a primary antagonist, and in my opinion, would have done a terrible job of it had I made him one.

I'm not so much saying it needs to be flat as I'm saying it doesn't need to be complex. You're right that a complex motive can be just as disturbing as a simple one, but I also feel that the more complex a motive becomes, the easier it becomes (in some cases) for the audience to begin identifying with the Complete Monster, which you want to avoid. So you can either be careful when constructing your monster's motivations, or keep it simple and avoid that problem. I think both methods are valid, and the question of which is more satisfying is very subjective. I do see your point, though, and I'm not entirely disagreeing with you.

Absolutely. You're totally right. That actually applies to my point, too. Sometimes a simple monster is most effective, sometimes you need a more complex Complete Monster.

I have just thought of new types of complete monsters: how about tykebomb, child soldiers, laser-guided tykebomb, and patient zero, versions? For instance they start out having lots of redeeming qualities, but eventually they gradually discard them one by one, until none are left, that were abused, and or pampered and treated properly there whole lives, and rather than feel guilt for every horrible thing they are guilty of, they simply scoff at the notions of morals, principles, etc etc.

Edited by KnowoneknowswhoIam on Jun 26th 2019 at 10:26:01 AM

What do you all think?

I think that Child Soldiers and Tykebombs are usually too tragic to be Complete Monsters. Even as adults, most of them have a credible Freudian Excuse or can be considered to have impaired agency based on the fact they were essentially made into what they are by someone else.

Edited by Libraryseraph on Jun 27th 2019 at 9:13:44 AM