Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Make that 11 for Bellatrix.

Now have we reached a concensus for the 40K examples yet?

Examples being contested:

-Abaddon the Despoiler: If his goal was "unite the Galaxy under Chaos" and "Kill everything in his way", then he's too much of a Blood Knight & Generic Doomsday Villain. WH 40 K is so Grimdark that it sets a bar for evil way higher than this. Someone like him needs to be WORSE. Perhaps in another, lighter universe, but not in 40K.

-Tzeentch: Possible Blue-and-Orange Morality issues regarding him and how in the warp it's all survival of the fittest or you're destroyed by something EVEN WORSE.

-Chaos Primarchs: This can be kept..........but needs rewriting. Because the nature of the entry all looks like they're a bunch of Generic Doomsday Villain. If it can be proven and rewritten that they qualify, this should be rewritten, otherwise, cut.

edited 29th Jul '12 9:40:56 PM by xie323

Yes, I think you summed it up nicely, and I also agree that it should be posted on the main it's a gundam thread.

While not familiar with Warhammer 40,000 (and don't use acronyms, please. There is a reason why it's locked. Also, courtesy link), I'll try and give some impressions from the pages:

• Fabius Bile sounds good, but it needs to merge the subbullet.
• Abaddon the Despoiler: Yeah, that fails the "heinous" standard.
• Lorgar: That one seems to fit.
• Tzeentch sounds more like an elemental force and not like something with a moral judgment, which is a prerequisite for Complete Monster.
• The Dawn of War entry is better off at Video Games.

Yeah, for the Warhammer ones I agree that the Chaos gods don't count for the Blue-and-Orange Morality and the fact they also embody positive traits. Abbadonn is generic, and clarify the rest.

If we've consented on the Harry Potter Monsters sandbox, then we can merge it into the Harry Potter Monsters page and ask for a lock there.

It looks like that discussion is done, but I'd want a couple more posts confirming it's ready to be merged and locked.

If the discussion is done, does that mean that I am allowed to bring one example for potential removal?

On Literature page, right below Harry Potter, there is a Complete monster subpage called Stephen King (why not discuss it fully?). The only book that I have read is The Green Mile and I saw Percy Wetmore on the list.

I doubt if he counts, because the only argument that people use for him qualifying is that he brutally and painfully executed Delacroix (or whatever the prisoner was named). Its more like people hate him and want him labeled CM. The questions is though, if he meets the heinous standard which for me he seems to fail.

Compare him to Wild Bill (the real complete monster).

Wild Bill: Raped and murdered two little girls.

Percy: Brutally executed one prisoner who was sentenced to death anyway, and all Percy did was simply giving him more painful death.

So, I think that he fails the "truly heinous" part.

edited 30th Jul '12 10:27:06 AM by Krystoff

I was pretty sure Percy Wetmore was just doing his job. I mean, he's a dick, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't he the prison executioner?

EDIT: Okay in reading through the page - and I've only read a few Stephen King novels - the page is totally slipshod. Some of these people seem to be characters the readers loathed; others have no detail added to them so I can't even tell what makes them heinous. From my admittedly minor studies in Stephen King, the Carrie examples count (though both Margaret, a religious nut who psychologically abuses her daughter in the name of God, and Chris, the world's most psycho Alpha Bitch, need more elaboration), as do the first two examples from IT. (The third is borderline - he's no where near as bad as Hockstetter, who, besides IT, is the CM of the book, hands down.)

edited 30th Jul '12 10:53:08 AM by LargoQuagmire

I think he was more of a prison guard, and he insisted to be in charge of execution.

I need to reread The Green Mile before saying anything else on the subject. Also, we need people who've read more Stephen King to help out with this one. I don't know what to do about, say, The Tommyknockers example, which SOUNDS bad but I have no idea.

I bet we have a lot of users who read Stephen King on this page. He is a classic writer and he even has his own CM-subpage. I think that maybe we might discuss it since it is right below Harry Potter.

edited 30th Jul '12 11:01:35 AM by Krystoff

Having only seen bits from The Green Mile movie, from what I remember the inmate Percy killed, Delacroix, did a truly heinous crime in the book but I think it was changed in the movie. Either way Delacroix was remorseful and slightly sympathetic, and Percy deliberately sabotaged the execution to make it as painful as possible. He didn't do it for any sense of justice, he did it just because "he wanted to smell some guy's nuts cooking." I remember watching the scene and it did look like an incredibly agonizing and horrifying way to go.

However, I don't that's enough for Percy to meet the heinous standard. His actions, from what I've heard on this site, boil down to stepping on a Delacroix's pet mouse, and deliberately botching Delacroix's execution. The latter was definitely an onscreen Moral Event Horizon, but Percy actually seemed horrified watching the end result of his action. Of course, after the execution he puts on a big show and pretends like he doesn't care. Unless he's done more, I vote for removal.

EDIT: I read the page on The Other Wiki for The Green Mile. Delacroix raped and murdered a girl then accidentally killed others in a fire he started to cover up the first crime. I definitely vote for Percy's removal now seeing as his actions are nothing compared to the man who's death he sabatoged, no matter how sympathetic Delacroix seemed.

@Largo Quagmire: I like your write-ups for the Harry Potter characters but I'd like to make two small suggestions. For Bellatrix's entry I suggest adding a line that mentions her inclination towards personally killing members of her family who do not subscribe to her Pure Blood dogma, such as Sirius Black and Nymphadora Tonks. For Greyback, I'd mention that he took part in the invasion of Hogwarts solely for the chance of getting to eat children, and his mouth positively waters at the thought of eating or raping Hermione once Bellatrix is done torturing her. Also for Umbridge, you've written Dementor's Curse instead of Kiss. Other than that I think the entrys look great.

edited 30th Jul '12 11:36:43 AM by OccasionalExister

Re the Stephen King page: I've read The Tommyknockers years ago, and as far as I can recall, Anne (the female lead's sister) doesn't fit. She's a thoroughly unpleasant person, almost ludicrously so, but she never does anything that evil, except for verbal abuse. She's not even a villain in the story, just another victim of the aliens.

Going off of the limited number of responses I've gotten, and my own ambiguity about the example, I'm going to leave Katejina Loos cut for now. If someone makes a good argument for her later on, I can always readd her.

I get back from Otakon, and I see things haven't been brought up much (beyond examples I already gave opinions on). So this'll be fairly quick for me.

Re: Katejina - Well, as I said back in the day, I was doubtful on her. Based on some of the responses you got, I am inclined to think that she doesn't count, and is instead 99% Monster. It's a shame, in a way - you did a good writeup, Ambar.

With the Stephen King examples... are we going to go with a per story heinous standard, or a per author example? All of King's works are pretty much a Shared Universe, although how much they cross over can vary (The Dark Tower the most, although it only tangentially connects to some of them). I ask because, for example, the Rose Madder example would count if it's per story, but not for King's oeuvre as a whole due to the "heinous" standard.

The Under The Dome example looks like a solid pick, but it should get cleaned up for overuse of spoiler tags, gravedancing over a character's death, and overemphasizing the character's fault for the fire (yes, it was his fault, but it was an accident).

I have no problem with the titular creature of IT being on there, from what I remember, but that needs to be greatly expanded. Though I do wonder if the other two examples should be on there - even confining it to the story, those are comparatively not that heinous.

Randall Flagg of The Stand belongs on there, though I'd like to add a line how he's strongly implied to be The Devil.

I'm a bit torn on Margaret from Carrie - given her whole-hearted belief in her crazy version of Christianity, I'm inclined to give her credit for being an extremely dark Well-Intentioned Extremist. Chris and Billy from the same are a bit more ambiguous - I want to hear more about both (particularly the abuse bit from the movie - I'm inclined to think Chris in the movie would count for Jerkass Woobie instead).

Reverend Gardener needs expansion - I always go to cut a stub like that without expansion.

Percy of The Green Mile feels like he fails the heinous standard, even for the book. Really, it comes down to torture for him - not nearly so heinous given what Wild Bill does. Though I want an expansion on Wild Bill.

George Stark is again a stub, although being a killer does at least go into something he does.

Jack Mort sounds like he belongs. I need more detail on the Hitler brothers.

Ace Merrill is a stub.

The Sisters - Unless they get more development than they got in the film, they're not nearly heinous enough to qualify.

Dussander and Todd need more development. I seem to recall that, at least in the movie, they do both qualify by the end.

Leland Gaunt's entry is one of the few that can stay on its own.

Beyond being poorly written, the example from The Tommyknockers looks to be just petty more than anything else. I think that's the sign of being a Jerkass instead of actively evil.

I agree with many things you said particularly about Percy, but I strongly disagree about It. Honestly, Patrick Hocktetter not heinous enough? Murdering your kid brother and locking poor animal in the fridge? Damn, he is more heinous than most villains on the list (in my opinion, and I am still willing to listen to others). While I understand that the titular thing might be worse, the problem with it is that we don't know if it is sapient.

In case of Wild Bill, it is hard to expand, since thats all he does.

The Sisters from Shawshank Redemption? Wait a minute, what are they doing on the list? Is Shawhank Redepmtion Stephen's work also? I thought its only a movie...

edited 31st Jul '12 9:23:34 AM by Krystoff

Well, Wild Bill can be expanded to describe an amoral personality.

As for Patrick Hocktetter... torturing a non-sophont to death is cruel, but it's not enough on its own to qualify for this trope. If he had tortured a person to death in that fashion, or if it was an intelligent, talking dog, then I'd include that. But as it stands, that's petty sadism - not enough for this trope.

As for killing his baby brother... the problem is that he did it when he was five, and morality is a shaky thing to define in a child that young. That kind of act can set the table for future Complete Monster status, but I'd need more than just that.

EDIT: Wait, you didn't know? Rita Hayworth And Shawshank Redemption, the short story upon which the movie was based, was originally a short story in an anthology that King wrote. While I'm not inclined to include any examples from either adaptation to his page, it is an appropriate place to place them.

edited 31st Jul '12 9:29:20 AM by 32_Footsteps

Thanks, it is nice to learn that. The only character that I am willing to include is Warden Norton.

In case of Patrick, I think that doing it to a dog is so horrible, is because dogs are not sapient thus "it didn't know what was happening to it while dying painfully". I think this is what makes it that horrible. As for killing the brother, it makes him Enfante Terrible. And with killing a dog, it might be more to do with the fact with my love for animals. Maybe, I wouldn't consider it heinous if I would not be an animal lover.

edited 31st Jul '12 9:53:49 AM by Krystoff

According to the audiobook version of IT, when Patrick murdered his baby brother it awakened a great euphoria within him, the narration alikening it to getting high. The murder of the puppy listed on the page wasn't the only animal he killed in this way. It was a hobby of his to kidnap then slowly kill the pets of his neighbors. He did this to recreate the blissful feeling he got when he murdered his brother. In fact, it's mentioned he actually got sexual arousal from murdering these animals. I vote to keep him. He's a Serial Killer in training and even if the Eldritch Abomination is worse, we get a good enough look into Hoffstekker's head to realize there's nothing remotely human about him.

I got some info from the Other Wiki that could be used to bolster Wild Bill's entry. He was arrested for the murder of two people in a bank robbery, one of them was a pregnant woman. Throughout the story he's presented as violent and Axe-Crazy. When he's first taken into prison he pretends to be catatonic only to try to strangle one of the guards to death when the man's guard was down. When Del's botched execution is going on Wild Bill is actually singing while it happens, "He's cooking now! He's frying now!" When Wild Bill touches Coffrey near the end, Coffrey finds out that Wild Bill was the one who raped and murdered the two little girls that Coffrey eventually gets executed for. In order to stop the girls from resisting, Bill told each of them, "If you make a noise, it's your sister I'll kill, not you."

edited 31st Jul '12 11:47:14 AM by OccasionalExister

Ahh Steven King. I've never read his books, but I have seen the movies based upon them. Wild Bill: Murderer, child rapist, and Jerkass. Any further elaboration has already been covered by the other tropers. I vote to keep.

Percy: Not as bad as Bill, but he was kind of sadistic, and would use his future position to abuse more inmates at the mental home. I do vote to cut him, as he isn't as heinous as Bill

The bully kid from IT, killed animals and his brother, (Again, don't want to repeat other arguments). I vote to keep.

Norton and the Sisters: still waiting to hear more arguments on them.

I've only seen the movie of Carrie, but I'd include the bullies before Carrie's mom. It's made clear that they completely understand how horrible the things they do to Carrie are, and it only makes them want to do it more.

Carrie's mom might count too, but it seemed like the blame for her evil-ness was supposed to go to Christianity, not the character.

edited 31st Jul '12 2:02:18 PM by abk0100

For the Sawshank Redemption characters, I have this to say. Norton was a thoroughly loathsome conman and got what he deserved. I'd say he's one of the cruelest Stephen King characters.

As for the Sisters Rape is heinous but this is a prison after all, there are almost always rapists in prison. Besides Norton is way worse. They still have no redeeming qualities so I'm on the fence with them. Any ideas.

I think folks are missing a few points here.

One, we have always discounted cruelty towards non-higher-thinking animals in regards to this trope (this would be sophonts - sentients are just those which have the ability to feel emotion, which is undoubtedly the case with animals like dogs). Quite simply, it's petty compared to cruelty towards humans and other beings capable of higher thought (which includes anything under Funny Animal and related tropes). When you have violence against other sophonts, torturing animals falls short of the heinous example in any universe.

Beyond that, particularly if the character doesn't commit any act of violence against humans after his awakening to evil at the age of five (again, showing a poor understanding of morality at that age), we have The Sociopath, not a Complete Monster. The former is required for the latter, but you can have the former without the latter.

In other words, the world of IT involves a horror that is up for killing all of humanity for indiscriminate thrills. Tell me how a sociopath with one human and a few animals under his list of murders can even hope to compare to that - particularly when animal murders do matter less than human deaths (insert sarcastic comment about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals here).

I heard somewhere though that Patrick attempted to murder some of his human friends too though. I don't know about the world that It is though. I haven't read the book. I think that the creature It is not sapient and thus cannot qualify either. I still do think that Patrick counts but you made a good argument against him.

Also, as an animal lover, I will say that I hate the treatment of animals on this page. Killing a cute puppy is not heinous JUST BECAUSE humans are capable of higher thought? a DEFENSLESS puppy is treated as a thing only?! Damn, for me thats damn awful crime.

I agree that killing a child is WAY WORSE though, and Patrick killed his brother and age definitely does not excuse him. At least not to me. Also, as I said I think he tried to murder some of his human friends when he was older.

edited 31st Jul '12 3:40:12 PM by Krystoff

It's not really the fact that he murdered an animal that makes him a complete monster to me. It's that he does get a totally fucked-up sexual high from it. But I have a very big problem with sexual sadists in media, and am much more likely to judge them harshly.

About Carrie - I read the book a bit ago, but Chris and Billy have these things on their tally for C Ms:

1) they put the whole damn plot of the book in motion. When Chris and Billy find out about how Sue Snell plans to make amends to Carrie for the abuse that occurs in the locker room, they plan the horrendous pig's-blood prank at prom that makes Carrie go completely batshit. Without them, the story, essentially, doesn't happen.

2) Chris herself is lovely [/sarcasm]. She's one of the girls who is seen, in the first sequence, verbally abusing Carrie in the shower after she has her first period and doesn't understand what it is, throwing maxi-pads at her while chanting "plug it up!" She has absolutely no remorse for this, and refuses to attend the detention assigned for it, which gets her banned from prom. She also, in junior high, put a firecracker in a girl's shoe for the severe crime of having a hairlip, and pretty much destroyed the girl's foot. Again, no remorse. According to the principal, she can be technically sued for assault - that's how bad her bullying against other students, including Carrie, is.

3) Billy is implied to be just as bad as Chris, with the added caveat that he physically abuses Chris, something she seems rather indifferent about.