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:
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. "
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
Looking over the Godzilla entries, Hedorah should probably be cut, if for no other reason than it being a one line entry. Someone can always write a better example to put back on. Barring that one and Destoroyah, however, I'd say there's three solid examples there in Ghidorah (Cosmic Horror For Hire) that he is, Gigan (a forty-storey sadist, and frequent partner in crime of Ghidorah), and alien villain X, who takes Smug Snake to the point where it really is pushing into this trope.
The more I think about it, the more I think that nobody from Carrie should qualify. For the sake of argument, let's take the actions committed by the appropriate characters and move them to a different universe - one that's completely mundane. No threat of psychokinetic massacres, no supernatural monsters killing for fun, anything like that. In other words, the kind of universe where the bar for Complete Monster entry is lower.
That said, is anything done in Carrie so unambiguously horrible for the sake of horribleness that it would qualify for the trope in any universe? The only act in the entire story that would even hit that point to me would actually be the title character's massacre, and we all know she's a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds and wouldn't count.
I'm not saying that the acts that pushed Carrie to that point weren't bad. It's just that I don't think any of them were truly beyond redemption. Maybe it would have taken alot, but I don't think any of them were truly heinous.
Actually looking at the Godzilla examples... well, I've already given my logic on why Destroya (oh, sorry, I guess the usual Anglicization is Destroyah), in that he appears to be pre-morality. Ghidorah does fit. I'm actually inclined to cut Gigan - any character that has Heroic Sacrifice cited on their character sheet should not be considered for this trope. Hedorah shouldn't be on there at all. I'm not sure how we should treat the Word of God that they intended Big G himself to be one in Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack - this wouldn't be the first time that an author has tried for a particular depiction and failed (there's a reason Sephiroth from Final Fantasy VII isn't listed, despite Word Of God, while Hojo is). X should stay; Smug Snake is really just a reflection of his success, which is immaterial for determining Complete Monster status. What's important is that he tries.
So... I guess that really does leave just Ghidorah and X from Godzilla, really.
Though that reminds me, since I did just take a peek at the Final Fantasy subpage for this trope, I'm giving that a quick once-over.
Emperor Palamecia of Final Fantasy II - it's been a bit, so I'm hoping to replay this soon. But as I recall, he does belong, and the entry is actually glossing over a bit that should be in there. That'll be on tap after the long-put-off Skies Of Arcadia replay.
Kefka Palazzo of Final Fantasy VI - well, he's still one of the go-to standards I use when judging this trope. The entry manages to perfectly depict him properly without even hitting all of his crimes - I wish I wrote that.
Professor Hojo of Final Fantasy VII - I knew someone who used to work at Square back when FF7 was made, and he was the first to argue to me that Hojo was actually the Big Bad of the whole game, and that Sephiroth was just his puppet. That entry looks like he wrote it. I approve.
Fuhito of Crisis Core - Yeah, he counts, although fewer spoiler tags would be nice.
Folmarv of Final Fantasy Tactics - Yes, I'd count trying to kill as many as possible in order to revive a world-devouring monster to count. Plus, the whole "turn a guy's dead brother into a zombie forced to fight said brother" thing to be sufficiently cruel and jerky to get extra attention.
Argath/Algus of same - Well, there's no denying that he's a Jerkass that absolutely nobody likes. I mean that as literally as possible - I think that one of the few things that you can't find on the Internet is someone who likes him. That said, while is rudeness and classism is disgusting, plus he does have a Moral Event Horizon in killing the innocent sister of the main character's (then) best friend, his actions are fairly small potatoes in a world with people who actively participate in a Religion of Evil and who try to kill as many people as possible. This is another case of someone mistaking this trope for "character that everyone hates."
Dycedarg of same - pretty much the same deal as Folmarv above, except that he willingly merged with one of the demons out to kill everyone. The particulars might be a bit different, but he should also stay.
Barrington of same - Eh... maybe in other worlds, creating two Tykebombs to take over the kingdom, with attendant tortures and murders, would qualify. But he keeps it comparatively low-key compared to the others. He'd be heinous in other settings, but I think he falls short here.
Judge Bergan of Final Fantasy XII - He is a good addition, what with the attempted genocide which included major world leaders. He could use a bit more expansion, though.
The Occuria of same - Groups don't belong; plus, their decision to wipe out Ivalice based on the actions of other nominees for this trope make me think they're the group equivalent of Well-Intentioned Extremist.
Ba'Gamnan of same - He is amoral and is willing to kill whoever even threatens to distract him from his goal of killing Balthier. Not sure if he's merely The Sociopath or an out-and-out qualifier, since his aims are fairly small (and he seems willing to let people who aren't in his way live without a bother).
Dysley of Final Fantasy XIII - I think the problem here is that we have a huge issue due to lying. It's established early and often that Dysley is more than willing to lie through one of his many faces to get what he wants. This is even lampshaded by the player characters multiple times. So the question is, what does he want? If he really is trying to kill off everyone as a sacrifice to bring the Maker back, does that just make him a Well-Intentioned Extremist? (For simplicity, we're going to not go into how sensible his actions were... we're just going for motive, not looking for an excuse for me to rant.) Does he maybe instead want rampant destruction, which would bring him along into this trope? He hits all of the other qualifiers... it just goes down to whether he can be trusted with his claims on his motives. Unlike several other cases in the game, they never give a reason to suggest that his motives are lied about... so I'm inclined to say he doesn't qualify, but just barely.
Jihl Nabaat of same - She's a Jerkass, but again, mocking a guy over his son being taken from him and trying to kill the party is just not heinous compared to the acts of genocide that several other characters are explicitly attempting. I vote cut.
Orphan of same - Same issue as Dysley above, except that Orphan is never established to be a liar. I'm inclined to leave both off.
Exdeath of Final Fantasy V - Well, he is Made of Evil, he's basically out to destroy the world and all its inhabitants, manages to be a Bad Boss... the thing that keeps him from being a Generic Doomsday Villain is his pointless tortures of several party members along the way, which was totally pointless for his plans. I'm inclined to let that one stay as written.
Cagnazzo of Final Fantasy IV - Although he does the kill/replace routine with the King of Baron, is directly responsible for Cecil putting himself at risk of corruption by making him become a Dark Knight, and does result in two six-year olds making a Heroic Sacrifice to save Cecil later, the sequel does note that Cagnazzo was basically mind controlled by Zemus to do those acts. As such, I think he should be cut and all of his crimes be placed on the one who brainwashed him.
Dr. Lugae of same - On one hand, he's not an Omnicidal Maniac. On the other, it's perfectly clear that he has no respect for authority, he's not at all mind-controlled (if he had been, his actions wouldn't have happened), and he would be perfectly willing to kill anyone and everyone he could get his hands on if he thought of an experiment that would requrie it. In some ways, he might be one of the most chilling examples - he doesn't even want to kill the whole world. He's just willing to do so anyway.
Zemus of same - Yes, although the example needs fewer spoiler tags. He's the one responsible for the mind control of pretty much every assumed villain of the game (except, as noted, Lugae). So he gets the blame for all their deeds.
Shinryu of Dissidia Final Fantasy - That entry looks good to me.
Beyond that, I think that covers the entire franchise... heck, if we get agreement on this, we can lock it up.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.I have to argue against you on Chris and Billy from Carrie, sorry. Their actions are the kind of things, relentless and cruel, that push real-life bullied teenagers to kill themselves, and all the two of them can think about is a) where to have sex next and b) how to take these helpless kids down even more pegs. If Carrie happened in real life, the media would vilify those two as much as the teenagers who tormented Phoebe Price.
General Mandible: I can see the arguments of him being a Knight Templar. General Mandible wants to extinguish all ants he considers inferior, meaning the worker ants. He believes that the Soldier ants are the chosen race, but he still orders most of them to their deaths (because they were loyal to the queen) attacking a termite colony, and despite their fearsome appearances, it isn't known if they were hostile, but it was likely they weren't). His talks about purity make him ant Hitler.
He tries to kill the worker ants because he thinks they are inferior, and his intentions of purity are proven hallow as he only wants power for himself (Even if he thinks his kind are superior).
I think he should be on the page.
As for the Karma Houdini, it is irrelevant, perhaps the response should be less...venomous, but the intent's still there. (and I mean that without offending anyone).
edited 3rd Aug '12 10:16:23 AM by DrPsyche
For the bullies in Carrie... and for that matter, bullies in general...
Look, as a kid who got bullied earlier in life, I completely understand the urge to throw bullies into this trope. I'm fully aware, from personal experiences as well as those of my friends, just how damaging bullying can be. Both physically and mentally. I probably would have been the brunt of more physical bullying in my life if not for the fact that I hit growth spurts fairly early, which did intimidate some kids.
With that said, bullies in general do not desire to cause suicides. They don't generally try to kill others. Most don't try to rape others. Those cases happen, but they're outliers. No, their desire to torment and enforce alienation stems from general desires to create their own peace of mind by either enforcing conformity or unleashing mild xenophobia to keep that which is scarily alien away from them. And that's when it isn't done as a response to what they perceive to be bullying from other parties (I had a Heel Realization in my junior year of high school upon realizing that I did inadvertently create my own bully with some of my actions).
We do generally recognize now that bullying can have terrible, potentially catastrophic effects on people. That said, we have to keep in mind two things. One, not everyone to this day completely understands this, particularly children who do end up bullying. Two, this was not at all understood until very recently, so bullies wouldn't have even thought that their victims would potentially lash out violently in revenge.
So, with that in mind, I will posit that almost no bully would qualify for Complete Monster. Yes, some do inadvertently cause others to lash out terribly, such as in Carrie. But that falls under Bullying a Dragon. They just don't even have the motive of causing all this destruction; it just happens. In extreme cases, this crosses over with Mike Nelson, Destroyer of Worlds - they didn't mean to instigate all that death and chaos; it just happened.
Mind you, there are some cases of legit sociopathic bullies that really are out to kill and rape. Those, depending on the setting, can qualify for this trope. But there has to be a legitimate demonstration that they intend for these results (regardless of whether they succeed) before they can qualify.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.The examples from The Order of the Stick need to be discussed.
- I don't think Xykon pass the heinousness standard in any example in the entry.
Perhaps this is so but I haven't read Start of Darkness and killing a few birds with an undead dog does not meet the heinousness standard.
- We don't know when Haerta has used the Familicide spell. We need more details than this.
- The child of Sauron and Cruella is hypothetical and their evilness is an Informed Ability.
- The dragon's objective is to avenge her son.
- As noted in the entry, Tarquin loves his son. We no lomger make any exceptions from the requirement of no redeeming qualities.
edited 3rd Aug '12 3:31:35 PM by Lophotrochozoa
I'm not a reader of Order Of The Stick, but I'm of the understanding that the book that names Start of Darkness is supposed to actually show why Xykon qualifies.
Well, a Familicide spell, which I presume is a portmonteau of "family" and "homicide" and consequently Exactly What It Says on the Tin, does sound pretty evil. When does this Haerta use it? What else about them?
For that last one... wait, the character in question is only hyopthetical In-Universe? As in, they don't even exist within the universe of the comic, and consequently have actually done nothing? Easiest. Cut. Ever.
edited 3rd Aug '12 11:07:59 AM by 32_Footsteps
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.That's the problem, though. Chris' bullying DOES border on assault that you say bullies don't usually mean to cause, and it takes a severe level of sociopath to think that dumping freshly slaughtered pig's blood on someone is all in good fun. (The original showcase of the musical also adds a level of violent sadism to Chris and Billy by having them slaughter the hogs and drain their blood themselves, in a pseudo-sexual number. It's fucked up, but it doesn't happen in the book.) Billy also obviously intends to cause harm to others - he bullies everyone and physically assaults his own girlfriend in his bullying. Given that, maybe Billy is the only one who qualifies, given that he's worse than Chris, by virtue of being able to beat her up.
I didn't say that bullies generally don't mean to assault. Of course, bullies do that all the time. I said that bullies generally don't mean to murder. And nobody is asserting that murderous intentions were involved with the bullies for Carrie.
Moreover, nobody's denying that the pig's blood was cruel. I'm even willing to accept that it was sociopathic under a very tilted-head definition of the phrase. That said, dumping pig's blood on someone is disgusting, not murderous.
All of that is fucked up, undoubtedly. But the fact of the matter is, it's possible to walk back from all of that. Even taken in a much lighter universe than the general Stephen King universe, it would be possible (although with great effort) to come back from all of that. It's bad, but it isn't heinous.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.Well, if you're disagreeing in a general sense, tell me how that dumping pig's blood on someone is murderous. Tell me how "intent to injure" is the same as "kill someone."
But yes, as I noted above, I do think that nobody from Carrie qualifies. It just seems strange, taken in a vacuum, that we have two characters who have the sum crimes of "beats up kids and dumps pig's blood on someone" in a trope that's supposed to be filled with serial killers, rapists, omnicidal maniacs, and the like. Especially when they aren't intending for anything beyond humiliation.
The big reason that this trope has had issues is because so many people for so long put on characters that were a personal affront to them when, upon review, their actions were not so evil. I'm not saying that the characters in question are morally upright by any stretch. I'm just making a ruling over whether they reach an extremely depraved standard.
We all have personal biases regarding certain crimes - I include myself. But just because one person may not be inclined to forgive such a crime does not mean that everyone would be similarly inclined. That, above all else, has to be kept in mind, particularly when dealing with the "heinous" standard both in a work at large as well as completely in a vacuum.
Another way to look at it is to ask, if the character had a sudden change of heart, if they could be redeemed. If the right situation presented itself, and the character went through with it, would genuine redemption be possible? If so, then they cannot be a Complete Monster.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.Order Of The Stick: Xykon: keep, he's like the Joker, he;s funny, and some of his actions are hard to take seriously, but the sheer nature of his actions dismiss that. His actions include: The murder of his parents and Grandma, manipulating redcloak to kill his brother, putting Right-eye's family into a situation that killed them. He provides the page image for Moral Event Horizon, where he killed all of the paladins by driving them insane, just because he thought it would be fun (he even mentions that he could have just sniped at them).
Bloodsoak: too much offscreen villainy, cut her.
Tarquin is stated in the example to not be a CM. His character was a test to see how heinous a character could be and purposefully toe the line of the Complete monster. He murders so many for petty and callous reasons, but he loves his family.
Perhaps the hypothetical example should be moved to the works page, because he is what one would call a CM in universe. He doesn't exist, and comes off as an informed ability, but isn't it an In-Universe example (which should be listed as hypothetical)?
Dragon: Inverse of Even Bad Men Love Their Mamas, she genuinly loves her son, I vote to cut.
As for the Carrie Bully's, I thought they were very sociopathic in their actions, but my memory of the book and movie is fuzzy.
edited 3rd Aug '12 11:50:53 AM by DrPsyche
I disagree that an assault is automatically in a lower classification than a murder. A very personal, violent, seemingly meaningless assault on a human being can be just as morally repugnant as a murder, depending on the context. Yes, C Ms are mostly maniacs and murderers and rapists, but in a story where the entire point of the novel is to see Carrie flip a bitch at everyone who wronged her with powers no one knew she had, there's not gonna be a hell of a lot of murderers or rapists.
Within Carrie, it's clear that Chris and Billy are the worst problems the town and the high school have. If Chris' father wasn't a political figure, she'd be in juvenile hall; if Billy wasn't dating her, he'd likely be in prison as well. And it's not a personal bias against bullying that drives me to say they're C Ms - it's that I do view them as depraved, for so willingly toying with human life the way they do.
The reason I say I understand your ruling, though, is that in the story proper, one of the girls who does take part in the maxi-pad prank, Sue Snell, does do a Heel–Face Turn, and is held up as a redeemed figure, which leads me to believe that if Chris/Billy sought to redeem themselves, and found the right moment, they could (assuming no one learned that Billy beats the crap out of Chris on a regular basis).
Hmm... it sounds like Xykon's description should be reworded to give a better description of why he qualifies, then.
Given that the entry for Haerta uses the word "probably", definite cut for Offscreen Villainy. Eh, if there's a flashback or the like depicting said atrocities, the character can be added back in later.
The dragon mentioned on the page should be cut - that's just good old-fashioned "eye for an eye" revenge. Nasty, but not Complete Monster territory at all.
The hypothetical example would not belong even on the work's page. For one, there should NEVER (forgive the abuse of caps/bold) be an example that's only on one side. That's wiki policy. Beyond that, though, In-Universe declarations of "monster" status are covered by the trope You Monster!.
For Tarquin, even a mentally skewed version of love for one's offspring is still love. If his love is genuine, despite its twisted nature, he's an easy cut.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.Okay, if assault is on the same moral level as murder, then Batman is on the same level as The Joker, with only his reasons for his assault/murder keeping him from qualifying as being just as bad. Same with Superman - who may be even worse because he's assaulting people with laser vision, several tons of projectiles, freeze breath, and whatever else he can do with his Combo Platter Powers.
For that matter, pretty much every team in movies about football, hockey, boxing, and other sports that involves hitting would qualify as potential murderers. They are going out there and trying to hit the other guys, right?
I could keep going, but have I made clear yet just why assault is not as bad as murder? Yes, practically speaking, there's always the chance that an assault attempt will result in a death. But that's much different from saying that wanting to hit someone for any reason is the moral equivalent of wanting to kill someone.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.On the subject of the Godzilla examples, the line about Gigan having a Heroic Sacrifice references Godzilla Island, an alternate continuity television series from the 90s. It should be ignored when discussing the film examples.
And on that subject, I'm inclined to keep Gigan. His characterisation is fairly similar to that of Ghidorah, coming off as the kaiju version of a Psycho for Hire. He's blatantly sadistic, as can be evidenced by most of his fights. When given the opportunity to slowly carve an opponent to ribbons or go for the killing blow, Gigan choses to take his time without fail. A notable example of this is in Final Wars, where instead of cutting Godzilla in half while Monster X has him trapped, Gigan instead starts slicing little pieces off of him. Like Ghidorah (who he's twice been The Dragon to) he takes a very obvious enjoyment in causing as much destruction as possible, and unlike most of the other monsters in the franchise, appears to be smart enough to know what that entails. Even in a sillier film, like Godzilla vs. Megalon he's played fairly seriously (his attempt at beating Robot Buddy Jet Jaguar to death is not funny in the slightest), he's got a real tendency towards abandoning his allies when the going gets tough, and he's one of the few kaiju other than Godzilla himself to successfully kill another kaiju (Mothra in Final Wars).
In any case, he's heinous by the standards of the story, is played absolutely seriously, and within the film series, has no shot whatsoever at redemption. I'm not necessarily opposed to cutting him, but I want to make sure it's for the right reasons.
If we're cutting on the basis of not having killed anybody, should the example of Chad from In The Company Of Men go? I haven't seen the film, but the example on the film subpage certainly doesn't imply that he's done anything approaching those qualifiers.
edited 3rd Aug '12 12:12:23 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
I think you're mischaracterizing the bullies, 32 footsteps. You can't apply the same reasoning to the characters that you can to bullies in general. These aren't normal bullies - these are Stephen King bullies. These are basically eldritch abominations in human form.
If you go by their actions alone, I understand where you're coming from. But you don't have to murder and rape people to be a complete monster - it should be less about what the actual actions are, and how the actions are treated. Next to maybe Margaret, Chris is the main source of horror in the story. Everything she does is played for total horror, but she doesn't have the excuse of thinking that it's what God wants her to do.
edited 3rd Aug '12 12:26:52 PM by abk0100
If my memory of Chris is accurate she's played as a psychopath. Whether that qualifies her or not, I don't know, but she's definitely a cut above your typical fictional bully in terms of heinousness, and as the poster above states, is the main source of horror in the novel.
I guess it depends on who you compare her to. Compared to villains in some of Kings other works, she might not count. Compared to your average depiction of bullies, on the other hand, she just might.
![]()
That was more what I was going for when saying assault can be as bad as murder. Obviously it would be in the context of the work. The Hansen Brothers obviously aren't C Ms for punching people.
edited 3rd Aug '12 12:16:20 PM by LargoQuagmire
@2192 Hmm... that's a very good argument for Gigan. You've changed my mind; I'm fine with keeping Gigan, as long as it's clear which continuity is being cited. Hardly the first time that we're being specific about which continuity is involved with this trope.
@2193 ... What.
There are so many tropes being poorly misunderstood in that short post that I can't even begin to address it. At the very least, read up on Eldritch Abomination (and the related trope, Humanoid Abomination) before you say stuff like that.
For that matter, I recommend going over Felony Misdemeanor (formerly What Do You Mean, It's Not Heinous?). There are more crimes that I consider beyond just rape and murder for this trope... it's just that those are the baselines involved for the kinds of crime that I consider. There's a reason that this trope had Trope Decay writ large all over this wiki, and it's due to the fact that examples like the bullies in Carrie set the bar extremely low.
Seriously, I'm being strict even with examples that my gut says should belong. See Algus, who I addressed in @2178? I fucking hate that guy. One of the reasons I've considered buying the PSP rerelease of the game is because they added in a mission where you get to beat up a bunch of clones of him. He's probably one of my least favorite characters in video gaming, he demonstrably makes things so much worse all around, and he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
And yet I still think he should be removed, because he wasn't that heinous as a whole.
I've got my standards for this trope - they're strict, they're harsh, and they may not be to everyone's personal liking when compared to their own (or even my own) morality. But at the end of the day, I'm hoping to come up with a list that unambiguously says "yes, these are the worst of the worst of the worst." One that won't get any arguments as to who is there, what standards are used, and most of all won't have to deal with the four-times-per-year call to cut the trope.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.At the very least, read up on Eldritch Abomination (and the related trope, Humanoid Abomination) before you say stuff like that.
Yeah, I understand what an Eldritch Abomination is. And so does Stephen King. And he probably also realizes that he writes them and bullies in pretty much the same way. Hence my metaphor. Humanoid Abominations are literal eldritch abominations in human form, not what I was talking about.
edited 3rd Aug '12 12:41:25 PM by abk0100
I've read enough Stephen King to know that a) he doesn't actually write up Eldritch Abominations much, and b) he does write up those characters in a distinctly different fashion.
I will grant that King writes up his more objectionable human characters like The Sociopath, which I don't think is disputed by anyone. But there's such a huge gulf between that and Eldritch Abomination that conflation of the two means that at least one trope is being seriously misunderstood.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.I disagree that the characters from Carrie were supposed to be abominations in human form. I think that would have undermined the message King was trying to get across. Granted, I've only seen the movie, but I've read enough of King's other works to have an idea of how he writes. What I saw was was some very real, very human people with typical human flaws realizing the unintended consequences of their actions. If the bullies were CMs, it would have undermined the power of the story. But they weren't (IMO). They were flawed people who got caught up in the moment and took things too far.
edited 3rd Aug '12 12:55:40 PM by Xtifr
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

Yeah, that's the feeling I got from the movie, and I never did get around to reading the book (even though I've read a fair amount of SK).
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.