TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Go To

During the investigation of recent hollers in the Complete Monster thread, it's become apparent to the staff that an insular, unfriendly culture has evolved in the Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard threads that is causing problems.

Specific issues include:

  • Overzealous hollers on tropers who come into the threads without being familiar with all the rules and traditions of the tropes. And when they are familiar with said rules and traditions, they get accused (with little evidence) of being ban evaders.
  • A few tropers in the thread habitually engage in snotty, impolite mini-modding. There are also regular complaints about excessive, offtopic "socializing" posts.
  • Many many thread regulars barely post/edit anywhere else, making the threads look like they are divorced from the rest of TV Tropes.
  • Following that, there are often complaints about the threads and their regulars violating wiki rules, such as on indexing, crosswicking, example context and example categorization. Some folks are working on resolving the issues, but...
  • Often moderator action against thread regulars leads to a lot of participants suddenly showing up in the moderation threads to protest and speak on their behalf, like a clique.

It is not a super high level problem, but it has been going on for years and we cannot ignore it any longer. There will be a thread in Wiki Talk to discuss the problem; in the meantime there is a moratorium on further Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard example discussion until we have gotten this sorted out.

Update: The new threads have been made and can be found here:

     Previous Post 
Complete Monster Cleanup Thread

Please see the Frequently Asked Questions and Common Requests List before suggesting any new entries for this trope.

IMPORTANT: To avoid a holler to the mods, please see here for the earliest date a work can be discussed, (usually two weeks from the US release), as well as who's reserved discussion.

When voting, you must specify the candidate(s). No blanket votes (i.e. "[tup] to everyone I missed").

No plagiarism: It's fair to source things, but an effortpost must be your own work and not lifted wholesale from another source.

We don't care what other sites think about a character being a Complete Monster. We judge this trope by our own criteria. Repeatedly attempting to bring up other sites will earn a suspension.

What is the Work

Here you briefly describe the work in question and explain any important setting details. Don't assume that everyone is familiar with the work in question.

Who is the Candidate and What have they Done?

This will be the main portion of the Effort Post. Here you list all of the crimes committed by the candidate. For candidates with longer rap sheets, keep the list to their most important and heinous crimes, we don't need to hear about every time they decide to do something minor or petty.

Do they have any Mitigating Factors or Freudian Excuse?

Here you discuss any potential redeeming or sympathetic features the character has, the character's Freudian Excuse if they have one, as well as any other potential mitigating factors like Offscreen Villainy or questions of moral agency. Try to present these as objectively as possible by presenting any evidence that may support or refute the mitigating factors.

Do they meet the Heinousness Standard?

Here you compare the actions of the Candidate to other character actions in the story in order to determine if they stand out or not. Remember that all characters, not just other villains, contribute to the Heinousness Standard

Final Verdict?

Simply state whether or not you think the character counts or not.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 31st 2023 at 4:14:10 AM

AustinDR Lizzid people! (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Lizzid people!
#19901: Dec 11th 2013 at 9:32:29 PM

I know that, it just seems like an eyesore to read them all. Shouldn't we just give links to the YMMV pages for the Joker?

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#19902: Dec 11th 2013 at 9:35:54 PM

austin, please format with asterisks

SlenderMansDaughter Since: Apr, 2013
#19903: Dec 11th 2013 at 9:45:46 PM

19900: But in regards to being under the Administrator's influence, the Collective proxies still have enough free will to be individuals. And while they may not be able to defy him, they can still express thmselves. Again, the Observer has been shown to enjoy tormenting Noah and forcing others to kill, and he was furious when Firebrand prevents him from abducting Noah. These are all signs that the Observer is more than just a mindless puppet of the Administrator.

On an unrelated note, I need to point out a few entries from Game of Thrones.

I haven't seen Season 3 yet, so I don't have much to say about those entries.

While I am sure that Gregor does probably qualify, I don't think the part about killing the duelist and burning his brother's face should be listed. People die in jousts all the time. It's to be expected. And the whole thing about burning his brother's face was an offscreen tale told by a man known for lying and tricking people. Again, I don't know about the rest because I haven't seen Season 3. I'm not asking to cut him, just to remove those two things I mentioned.

Next up Joffrey. Is he a sadist? Yes. Is he a sociopath? Yes. Is he a monster? Also yes. Is he a Complete Monster? Two little things have me say no. First, he cried as his *cough* "father" was dying, showing some sign of empathy. Second, after his mother slapped him, he warned her that striking the king is punishable by death, but instead of ordering her execution, he just firmly told her not to do it again, showing a tiny bit of compassion for his mother. By extension, he also spared his uncle Tyrion after he slapped him (the second time)... These are all signs that he holds the tiniest bit of love/respect/whatever for his family. A CM would have none at all.

So my votes are: Add the Observer, remove the unnecesarry parts for Gregor, and cut Joffrey completely.

edited 11th Dec '13 9:46:37 PM by SlenderMansDaughter

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#19904: Dec 11th 2013 at 9:54:22 PM

[up] No, people do not die in jousts 'all the time.' It is extremely rare, and Gregor outright murdered the man. It wasn't accidental. Secondly, Sandor's very existence is proof of the tale. We know it happened.

Also? On Joffrey. We've discussed him before and your interpretation is extremely off. Joffrey doesn't even remember Robert's death later. He's good at playing charmer for Robert and what's 'appropriate' but he doesn't really care much about Robert at all.

Also, what's another important facet of Joffrey as a character? He's a coward. He's a cringing, sniveling brat when you stand up to him, which Cersei and Tyrion do. None of Joff's men were going to side with him against Tyrion there and he knew it. He also quailed under Cersei (note how he squeals when she hits him) but then recovers and tells her never to do it again. This after he mocked her for being an inadequate wife. He does not show love for her. Ever. And he cares about Tyrion? He tried to have him murdered.

Keep in mind that when Tyrion hit him, they had all just escaped an angry mob. Joffrey was terrified and shaking and everyone had seen Tyrion take charge. Nobody was on Joff's side after he nearly got them killed, and Joff is smart enough to know killing his uncle, who was there with authority from Tywin, is monumentally stupid.

edited 11th Dec '13 9:57:08 PM by Lightysnake

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#19905: Dec 11th 2013 at 10:10:21 PM

Yeah, no way in hell is Joffrey displaying empathy. His apparent sadness over his father's death is demonstrably meaningless after he forgets who the man was. And Lightysnake is absolutely right about the other two scenes. Joffrey is a coward, and he knows that most of his men will take Cersei and Tyrion over him. More than that, Joffrey never attacks anybody who has any sort of power over him. He victimises people like Sansa, Dontos, etc—people who cannot strike back against him. He's a classic abuser, vicious to the weak, but quailing when faced with anything approaching firm opposition.

If Joffrey had said "it's death to strike the king BUT I'll spare you because you are my mother" you would have an argument. That isn't what he says though, and that isn't what happens. He just freaks out and breaks down because he's been stymied. Cowardice is no more a disqualifier for this trope than bravery is, and neither one should truly be taken into account (save in those situations where one or the other actually contributes to a character's heinousness).

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#19906: Dec 12th 2013 at 2:36:44 AM

I'm wondering if we should give Joker his OWN Monster page. P.S. If someone could add a link to Joker's YMMV page from his main page that'd be great smile

randomtroper89 from The Fire Nation Since: Nov, 2010
#19907: Dec 12th 2013 at 4:32:19 AM

I was the one who put the Joker writeups on the YMMMV page, and I am willing to give him his own page here. It should work in just a minute.

edited 12th Dec '13 4:32:40 AM by randomtroper89

DarthHowie Since: Jan, 2001
#19908: Dec 12th 2013 at 5:08:21 AM

I have to contest the inclusion of Harry Lime from "The Third Man." Only the police treated him like a villain and Holly and Anna, the two most sympathetic characters in the film actively liked him. The fact that Holly wanted to defend him is a major driver of the film's conflict. He does not inspire hate, fear and revulsion in the characters as a whole.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#19909: Dec 12th 2013 at 6:55:24 AM

A new troper dumped a bunch of entries on YMMV.Adventure Time, which it looked like we'd previously cleaned off.

  • Ricardio is often seen as this, being a villain with no redeeming characteristics. He A) attempted to mutilate a pregnant woman, B) forcibly tried to marry someone who was clearly terrified, C) kidnapped and poisoned innocent people, D) mutilated the Ice King and nearly killed him, and E) tried to kill Princess Bubblegum by cutting out her heart with a broken glass bottle.
  • Lemongrab is seen as this by a large portion of the fandom- and who could blame them? He tortured several children and a dog, tried to kill his mother on multiple occasions, he has physically beaten and abused his children several times, mutilated his brother, and unlike most villains in the show, he has actually killed someone! That someone, sadly, was Lemongrab 2, who up until that point was a kind, innocent, and tortured person.

Apparently there's a vocal group of people who feel that domestic abusers are automatically CM's. /facepalm.

edited 12th Dec '13 6:55:32 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#19910: Dec 12th 2013 at 8:18:10 AM

[up][up] Okay, this is an example of not getting the trope. Harry is charming and manipulative, this doesn't detract from his being a monster. The fact is Holly is flat out wrong. He also rolls on Harry when he discovers what Harry really is, and Harry's care for his girlfriend is startlingly nonexistent. It doesn't matter how they feel about him, it's how he feels about them.

Holly views Harry as his friend, yes. Then what happens? Holly is taken to the clinic where he sees the results of what Harry has done, an the children he's deformed with his low-grade penicillin

edited 12th Dec '13 8:24:11 AM by Lightysnake

DarthHowie Since: Jan, 2001
#19911: Dec 12th 2013 at 9:31:35 AM

"The character's terribleness is played seriously at all times, evoking fear, revulsion and hatred from the other characters in the story." This doesn't happen. Harry isn't feared, hated or a cause of revulsion for Holly or Anna. He doesn't darken the tone of the story when he appears. He paradoxically lightens it. The fact that he doesn't inspire the sort of darkness in the story that a monster is supposed to inspire is a major part of the character. Harry Lime fails the second criterion.

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#19912: Dec 12th 2013 at 9:35:46 AM

So the traumatic moment of Holly seeing deformed babies and realizing what a monster Harry is and agreeing to give him up to the police should be ignored?

And the cops, who know exactly what Harry's true nature is don't count? Harry is charming, witty, seemingly friendly and fun to be around. He is also a sociopath and gives a speech (that is not lighthearted) on how he views everyone in the world as nothing more than a 'dot' he views from up high and he calculates how many he can afford to lose as he makes his cash. He has no regard for the lives of other, he puts Anna and Holly at great risk and Holly is forced to take him down.

Just because characters are deluded into seeing the villain as not so bad doesn't mean the film takes this stance. We have no "cut because other people in the movie like them" criteria if the recipient of the affection shows no reciprocation. Given how Harry manipulates them and his self-professed disregard for the entirety of humanity, I think we can discount this as a factor. More importantly, Harry's deeds are played with horrifying seriousness and the results of which cause Holly to realize how wrong he was

edited 12th Dec '13 9:38:43 AM by Lightysnake

OccasionalExister Since: Jul, 2012
#19913: Dec 12th 2013 at 9:51:16 AM

Like lightly said, we allow a caveat for delusional characters. Like how we don't cut Joffrey cause Cersei loved him, or Joker because Harley Quinn loves him.

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#19914: Dec 12th 2013 at 10:13:33 AM

More deceived than delusional with Lime. I mean, if the character is out murdering babies and everyone goes "Ohhh, you!" Then we probably have to consider the work we're in. But a Villain with Good Publicity can never be disqualified if he lacks any redeeming features under the mask, even if his followers worship him.

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
despoa Since: Aug, 2012
#19916: Dec 12th 2013 at 1:03:14 PM

The Joker page could use a bit more ham.

MarchVee Since: Nov, 2013
#19917: Dec 12th 2013 at 2:48:32 PM

I'd like to submit the character of Old Nick from the book Room as a possible example of a Complete Monster.

Who is Old Nick? What has he done?

Old Nick is a kidnapper and a rapist. He abducted the narrator’s mother seven years ago and has kept her captive in a backyard shed that entire time without once letting her outside. While sexually assaulting the mother he has impregnated her twice, the first time resulting in a stillbirth and the second in the birth of the five-year-old narrator. Old Nick keeps the narrator captive along with his mother in the shed for the first five years of his life. Not once during this time does the narrator leave the shed or encounter human beings besides his mother and Old Nick. To punish them he cuts off their electricity and water for several days and has threatened to leave them to starve to death if they ever try to escape. Several times during the course of the story he enters their shed at night to sexually abuse the mother, as has been his custom during the entirety of her captivity.

Are his actions heinous by the standards of the story? Yes.

Any good qualities? Well, he gives them a TV. He doesn’t beat the mother, at least in front of the narrator. He gives them enough food and water to survive.

Freudian Excuse? No.

Final Verdict? The biggest problem that I can see is, due to the narrator's age, many of Old Nick's actions, such as the abduction, happen before he was born, thus being Offscreen Villainy. However, their captivity and the nightly abusive visits are witnessed or directly experienced by the narrator. Much of the book takes place while they are imprisoned in their single room. The narrator is hidden in a closet while Old Nick is abusing the mother and can only hear, not see or understand, what is happening, but this is a sort of Rape Discretion Shot rather than Offscreen Villainy. I think Old Nick's actions during the narrative may qualify him as a Complete Monster.

AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#19918: Dec 12th 2013 at 3:07:13 PM

[up]If he's deliberately trying to shield the narrator from seeing what he does to the mother he doesn't count.

MarchVee Since: Nov, 2013
#19919: Dec 12th 2013 at 3:09:38 PM

[up]

No, it's the mother who is hiding him in there to protect him from Old Nick.

Lightysnake Since: May, 2010
#19920: Dec 12th 2013 at 4:04:30 PM

[up][up] Why? That's not a moral standard all the time. It can easily be "I don't find it fun." Look at Agent Kruger from Elysium for one.

Anyways, he sounds like a keep.

TVRulezAgain Since: Sep, 2011
#19921: Dec 12th 2013 at 4:24:03 PM

Okay so I saw this on Deliver Us from Evil Series

  • Complete Monster: In-universe, Watson and Lestrade regard Moran as this - in Real Life, fans were outraged by the Colonel's cold-bloodedness in the same chapter. (Then the author went and showed that Moran does have standards and even went so far as to give him a Crowning Moment Of Awesome against Professor Moriarty.)
    • Another in-universe example: Holmes regards Culverton Smith as this. (And, again, so did the readers.)

And here's the Fan Works entry:

  • In the Deliver Us from Evil Series:
    • Colonel Sebastian Moran briefly exults in the power he has over a more-than-half-dead Sherlock Holmes, infuriating Watson and Lestrade, who are hidden nearby. And our heroes weren't the only ones - the fans were pretty outraged/chilled by Moran's cold-bloodedness. Just a few chapters later, however, even the Complete Monster is shown to have standards, because he refuses to shoot Holmes on Christmas Eve. Then he goes so far as to defend his decision before Moriarty, neatly making the Professor the real Complete Monster of the story.
    • Culverton Smith is shown to be even more of a monster than he was in the Canon, and is even mentally labeled this by Holmes. Smith goes around infecting people with his deadly tropical diseases just to study the results, then murders his step-nephew out of Greed for his stepbrother's estate (an action on which Moriarty actually calls him out). Then he gloats over a dying Sherlock Holmes, and this rewrite of a canonical scene is actually pretty painful to read. All this makes his eventual fate immensely satisfying.

Well, whatever the case is, Moran's gotta go.

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#19922: Dec 12th 2013 at 4:38:02 PM

Angrish alert: FEWFAERKLFJW COMPLETEMONSTERSCANTHAVESTANDARDS DQJKLFER

edited 12th Dec '13 4:40:14 PM by ACW

AustinDR Lizzid people! (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Lizzid people!
#19923: Dec 12th 2013 at 5:12:39 PM

I beg your pardon?

Nohbody "In distress", my ass. from Somewhere in Dixie Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Mu
"In distress", my ass.
#19924: Dec 12th 2013 at 5:28:33 PM

Moran definitely needs cutting. Not sure on the other guy (though leaning "keep", albeit without the gravedancing at the end), but the misuse of CM for You Monster! (the "in-universe" stuff) should earn the editor who posted it a rap on the knuckles with a ruler.

edited 12th Dec '13 5:28:59 PM by Nohbody

All your safe space are belong to Trump
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#19925: Dec 12th 2013 at 5:37:23 PM

@Lightysnake

You'll note my wording was "if he is deliberately trying to shield the kid". If the character genuinely didn't want the kid to know what was going on out of a concern for the kid's well-being (which is what the word shield would imply, as it means "protect") he would not qualify. And there are in fact no circumstances under which such a character would qualify, as it is in fact a moral standard all the time, so why you felt the urge to go off on a tangent there and criticise me, I'm not quite sure.

In any case, I'm going to say no to Old Nick. He kidnaps the mother and child, but unless I'm missing something he doesn't particularly abuse the child (or at least not anymore than is necessary to keep control). It also strikes me that if the entire story takes place within the shed, then this is one of those cases where we just don't see enough of the candidate to get a firm idea of what they're like. I say nay.

@ACW

Once you've recovered from your fit of angrish burn that.

edited 12th Dec '13 5:39:26 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar


Total posts: 326,048
Top