Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Monster / Literature

Go To

Jul 29th 2014 at 9:23:37 AM •••

Edit requests that have been approved by the thread go here. Better wait until the stack is done first, though.

Feb 3rd 2014 at 2:08:11 AM •••

All proposals or requests for removals should go to the Complete Monster Cleanup thread set up for that very purpose. Requests to add characters on the discussion page will get ignored.

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 5th 2014 at 5:29:01 PM •••

I think Smaug from The Hobbit should count. Sure, he's a dragon, but it's not like he's some animal going on instinct. He can think and reason. He destroys Erebor to claim its treasure and turns thousands of dwarves into homeless refugees, but also destroys Dale for no real reason other then it was there. He brags to Bilbo that he is a vicious and merciless killer and sets out to destroy Lake Town as revenge.

In the movie, Smaug is tempted to let Bilbo take the Arkenstone just to watch it drive Thorin nuts, and says he wants Bilbo to watch while he burns Lake Town. That shows he's not even totally owned by traditional dragon greed. He's a sadist who takes pride in death and destruction.

Hide/Show Replies
Telcontar MOD
Jan 5th 2014 at 11:34:41 PM •••

Go here to discuss the addition with other tropers; it can't be added unless there is consensus from that thread.

May 30th 2013 at 8:07:33 AM •••

Should we add the Grand High Witch to this list? I noticed that Agatha Trunchbull is on this page..,

Hide/Show Replies
Aug 2nd 2013 at 9:31:30 AM •••

The Grand High Witch definitely counts, so go ahead.

Edited by
Sep 6th 2013 at 5:29:53 PM •••

All examples go through the cleanup page first.

Dec 26th 2012 at 6:17:04 AM •••

As you all can see I am alphabatizing this page. It's a rather tough job, and I'm wondering if anyone can help me.

Sep 14th 2012 at 1:10:48 PM •••

I think we should include some Biblical villains. In The Bible, whether you take it as fact (which I don't) or not, he's described as having invented evil in the first place, so if Satan's not a Complete Monster, no-one is. Admittedly, Pharaoh wasn't because he loved his son. I also strongly believe that King Herod should be included for murdering every baby in land. You can't really get much worse than that! Also Caiaphus because he had Jesus crucified just for daring to challenge the established regime. Pontius Pilate at least showed doubt while Judas showed remorse. Caiaphus, nope. Haman also definitely deserves to be in there so well done for that. Just my two cents. Feel free to disagree.

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 14th 2012 at 1:46:40 PM •••

Sorry, but this is the wrong for such requests. Use the Complete Monster thread linked in the edit screen. And Satan is not a CM. Period.

Jan 20th 2014 at 10:55:12 PM •••

Satan didn't invent evil in the Bible, thanks all the same. You ever actually read it? He's not even a villain until Revelations. All the characters you mention have been discussed and cut, save Haman who was ruled a keep.

Jul 31st 2012 at 2:58:22 PM •••

As I also did on the YMMV page for Mansfield Park, I'm removing Mrs. Norris from here.

Here entry reads the following:

  • Mrs. Norris (no, not that Mrs. Norris) of Jane Austen's Mansfield Park is so cruel, she's one of the few Austen villains that is not a Karma Houdini. Because she has no life of her own (no children, no husband after he dies, no work or business because she's an aristocrat), she devotes her life to making one person's life miserable — the heroine and her niece, Fanny — making sure her sister and brother-in-law don't treat her as well as their own children, making sure Fanny's aware of how she doesn't deserve to be treated like their children and why (because her family is poorer), treating her like a servant even when the tasks cause her physical harm, and taking every opportunity to Hannibal Lecture the girl about how worthless and ungrateful and generally horrible she is and owes everything to her aunt's and uncle's "kindness", which she doesn't even deserve anyway...for no reason! Fanny doesn't even live with her! She doesn't even have the excuse of the girl ever putting her through any inconvenience. She is just that mean.

Mrs. Norris is definitely a jerkass and her behavior is presented humorously- she's very far from being the kind of character that deserves to be labeled a Complete Monster- she's not even close to the worst character in Jane Austen's novels. Also, not to blame the victim, but Fanny Price is an infamous Extreme Doormat, which does kind of give some perspective to the above description.

If you'd like to discuss this further, probably should be taken to the Complete Monster thread in Special Efforts. By the way, not sure the relevance of stating whether or not the character is a Karma Houdini. The two tropes have nothing to do with each other (except that it is more aggravating if a character who gets away with evil is a Complete Monster; however, the fact that a character is a Karma Houdini is not evidence that they are a Complete Monster)

Edited by Jordan Hide/Show Replies
Apr 2nd 2013 at 10:29:11 PM •••

She doesn't fit in the least. If only for really loving her darling Maria and other Bertrams. She's horrible but she does have redeeming qualities.

Jul 25th 2012 at 8:12:35 PM •••

There's a discussion going on the forum dedicated to cleaning-up subpages, regarding which Harry Potter characters count as Complete Monsters. Voldemort seems to be a unanimous keep but there are differing opinions on whether or not Umbridge, Bellatrix, Fenrir and the Carrows count. If anybody wants to add to the discussion, please go here. This is also where you should go if you'd like to suggest an example to be added or deleted.

Edited by OccasionalExister
Mar 26th 2012 at 10:24:30 AM •••

I think that the series with their own Monster pages should be indexed.

Mar 23rd 2012 at 11:05:31 AM •••

How about Manus Keeley from Invisible Monsters?

The guy uses his job as a policeman to take advantage of vulnerable young men (The narrator's brother included, which lead to him getting Gonorrhea and being kicked out of their house) cheats on her with her best friend and attempts to kill her in the middle of the night. The worst part? He never feels any remorse for any of it. The closest he feels is fear when he thinks she's going to kill him.

Jan 29th 2012 at 5:37:11 PM •••

Considering that basically EVERY SINGLE VILLAIN in Redwall is a Complete Monster, why not give the series its own Monster page? Harry Potter as well, while we're at it. Both have a large number of characters that could be considered such.

Hide/Show Replies
Mar 15th 2012 at 5:32:45 AM •••

Someone went ahead and made one for A Song of Ice and Fire, and I made one for Harry Potter.

Jan 29th 2012 at 12:52:32 AM •••

I think we should remove Satan. While it's easy to see him as this, the Bible never seems to pin his monsterhood down. Haman, Job and the Pharaoh all fit the bill as their charactization is solid. Satan, however, is up to interpetation. It isn't 100% clear whether he's supposed to be treated as a Complete Monster, or even a proper villain(hence why Satan Is Good exists.)

Oct 25th 2011 at 7:07:32 PM •••

Huh, I'm rather surprised that Gallbatorix from The Inheritance Cycle is actually on this page, given some of the Hate Dumb for the series, and that many pages on this site refer to him as a Designated Villain.

Hide/Show Replies
Nov 9th 2011 at 4:55:21 PM •••

I removed Galbatorix due to your point.

May 9th 2011 at 1:35:18 PM •••

The Vogons from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

May 4th 2011 at 10:59:24 AM •••

If you all keep saying that calling God a Complete Monster is bad, shouldn't we just delete the troper called God Is Evil??

Hide/Show Replies
Jun 5th 2011 at 2:17:52 PM •••

You Fail Logic Forever. All complete monsters are evil but not all evil characters are complete monsters.

Also, looking at God specifically:

  • Commits actions considered heinous in-story- Nope- In-story everything He does is considered good.
  • Terribleness played seriously at all times: Kind of ties into the above. God is treated seriously, but He's not presented as terrible.
  • No adequate excuse- not sure how to answer this one. Being omnipotent and omniscient probably is a pretty good excuse.
  • Devoid of altruistic qualities: Nope- He does good things and is presented as having benevolent motivations
  • No chance of redemption- Well, this is kind of hard to apply to the Supreme Being. He did promise to never destroy the earth with a flood again, so I would say He showed repentance.

Edited by Jordan
Jun 24th 2011 at 5:29:23 AM •••

Being omnipotent and omniscient is a good excuse? That doesn't even make sense.

That makes 1/5. God is still not a Complete Monster.

Also, evil does not mean Complete Monster.

Jul 25th 2011 at 5:32:57 PM •••

We should remove all The Bible examples because it says on the main page no Real Life examples.

Aug 14th 2011 at 6:00:19 PM •••

Calling The Bible Real Life may be Flame Bait itself. Then again, calling it fiction is probably just as much flame bait.

Aug 16th 2011 at 3:43:54 PM •••

So in case of The Bible, let's consider it as... both!

Aug 16th 2011 at 3:47:47 PM •••

I'm a Catholic (you can even recognize by my user name) but for me, it's okay to call it fiction because everyone has his own beliefs. The only reason, I wanted to remove it is because, I am not sure if for others it is a Flame Bait ro not. I thing we should just create a new page called Religion & Mythology and all The Bible examples will go there. So will Quran, Torah, and also Pagan religions.

Sep 17th 2011 at 5:43:14 PM •••

^^ Or we could, you know, not get involved.

^ The Torah is the first 5 books of the Bible, not a separate book. Doesn't seem to have created much of a problem to have the examples here though (aside from attracting additions of the Judeo-Christian God.)

Apr 12th 2011 at 5:48:40 PM •••

Going to suggest that Tywin Lannister also be removed from the Song of Ice and Fire CM list. Although he is guilty of everything accused of, he also has the best interests OF THE REALM at heart, at least while he is in charge. When not in charge of the realm, he has the best interests of whatever he IS in charge of. He is the sort of man who would burn through kings to find one who could actually rule - that is certainly why he betrayed Aerys (insane and ineffective), and it is strongly suggested that this is why he didn't work with Robert. His use of force - and Gregor - remind me a lot of Klaus Wulfenbach of Girl Genius, or Ender Wiggin of Ender's Game: it's not that he's trying to be cruel, but he has bigger concerns than coddling or second chances. IF you don't disturb the peace, he'll leave you alone.

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 15th 2011 at 3:29:52 PM •••

Tywin sat back and waited until he saw who'd win the fight before he picked a side, remember? He only joined up after the Trident. He didn't care about 'The Realm,' he cares about his personal wellbeing and advancement. He also sicced Gregor on innocents in response to an insult. Yeah, he's a bad, bad guy.

Mar 15th 2011 at 11:52:25 AM •••


  • Which makes his death an...infuriating Anti-Climax. Comes right after the Wham Episode of the Red Wedding, readers had been hyped up that this was the book where Joffrey's Karma catches up with him and he dies. Everyone expected he'd get assassinated...with a knife to the chest or to the neck. Instead, he gets poisoned. What. The. Hell? Martin, couldn't you come up with a more fitting death for the little evil turd?
  • Even though the Mad King Aerys only appears in other characters' flashbacks, from what is known about him he can the most certainly be classified as this. One of Jaime's flashbacks is disturbing with Aerys being implied violently raping his wife as Jaime and another kingsguard stand there because of their imposed obligations as Kingsguard. Furthermore, when Robert Baratheon rallies forces to reclaim King's Landing, Aerys orders it to be burnt to ashes, to leave a sting to the latter's opponents. Good thing Jaime decides, in spite of everything that it will cost him, to slay Aerys.

Aerys is not in control of his actions due to being completely insane and is mentionned to have been pre-insanity a good king. For Joffrey's death, it was kinda YMMV anyway since the poison was probably more painful than stabbing and it was irrelevant anyway so pulled.

Edited by guyvonneven
Jan 27th 2011 at 7:50:50 AM •••

Why did we deleted Judeo-Christian God?? As, it is written, it is ONLY one of many interpretations!! It sounds monstrous and is perfect for this trope!! I interpret him this way as many of my friends do, and we all think that he is perfect for this trope!

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 27th 2011 at 7:55:09 AM •••

First, because is flame-bait. Second, because the bible gloss out his acts or portrays them in one positive light.

Jan 27th 2011 at 7:59:33 AM •••

Oh, I understand, you mean that this offends you, ya?? Or what do you mean, I do not exactly understand. Please explain it more clearly...

Jan 27th 2011 at 9:25:00 AM •••

Not, not offend me in special-but offends MANY persons.

Edited by MagBas
Jan 27th 2011 at 9:28:36 AM •••

Well, this will TEACH them a lesson in order not to worship such a deity!

Jan 27th 2011 at 9:33:28 AM •••

With all the respect, is more likely that this causes one REALLY big Flame War than teach them a lesson.

Jan 27th 2011 at 9:42:28 AM •••

The idea that Christians have to be "taught a lesson" is bullshit and offensive in itself. I don't know what 9Darthmaul has up his ass about Christians, but this isn't the place to put his bullshit.

Jan 27th 2011 at 9:45:02 AM •••

I mean only that I don't understand, that when I tell many people that I am Agnostic, I always stop being a person to them... I don't understand, why do they force me to have the same relgion...

Jan 27th 2011 at 9:48:48 AM •••

Nobody should be forcing you into any religion; that's a fundamental right, you should be allowed to worship, or not, however you feel like it.

That said, quite frankly, the only thing that's going to happen if you insist on calling the Christian God a Complete Monster, and saying that we need to be taught a lesson not to worship "such a deity" is you're going to piss people off.

Jan 27th 2011 at 9:52:17 AM •••

That's NOT me. That was one of the users, and I agreed and decided to contribute... And as I wrote IT IS ONLY ONE OF MANY, MANY INTERPRETATIONS!!

Jan 27th 2011 at 9:55:25 AM •••

It's got your name on the post right on this page saying, "Well, this will TEACH them a lesson in order not to worhsip such a deity!" It's right there in black and white.

Whether it's one of many interpretations or not, again, the only thing it's going to accomplish is pissing people off, whether that's what you intend or not.

Jan 27th 2011 at 9:59:01 AM •••

Well, I often like saying that stuff when I am pissed of myself. About atheists, I said to teach them a lesson once too. I often say things that I don't mean to. But why does it piss people off??

Jan 27th 2011 at 10:06:58 AM •••

Are you seriously saying you can't understand why calling God a Complete Monster pisses people off? You do realize that he's worshipped by a lot of people in the world, people who take their religion extremely seriously, right?

Jan 27th 2011 at 10:08:47 AM •••

Hasn't 9Darthmaul already agreed not to re-add the Judeo-Christian God? If so, then this debate doesn't serve much purpose.

Dec 26th 2010 at 3:45:19 AM •••

I'm new to editing this website, but I wanted to pose a question. In the Harry Potter section, it says that Voldemort is a Complete Monster. While I would agree with this normally, the trope says that "MOST IMPORTANTLY" the character can not have any shot at redemption. In Deathly Hallows, Hermione mentions that one who's created a Horcrux can mend their soul back together by feeling remorse. Doesn't this give him an (incredibly slim) chance (that he would never take), which would not fit the Trope anymore?

Hide/Show Replies
Jun 12th 2011 at 9:30:53 AM •••

Voldemort is offered a chance at redemption, but he refuses to take it. Anyone can be offered redemtion, provided the one doing the offering is willing to- a Complete Monster will never take the offer, either because they believe themselves to be beyond redemption and are fine with that, don't believe there's such a thing as good in the first place, are too insane to change their behavior, or, more rarely, are completely blind to their own evil. Consequently, they can't be redeemed no matter how much redemption is presented to them as an option.

Jul 25th 2011 at 2:59:22 AM •••

I think you're taking it too literally. Taking the fifth criterion completely literally, noone would qualify because anyone could potentially be redeemed. What "no shot at redemption" means is that the character has reached a point where they are so evil, that there is no believable way in which they could be redeemed.

Dec 24th 2011 at 12:32:30 PM •••

I'd say he's incompatible for different reasons. For one, he shows remorse during the Battle of Hogwarts and has an Even Evil Has Standards moment on Harry. Second he artificially made himself a monster, rather than being born that way. A Complete Monster can't show remorse, he does it more than once in the last book. Thus he doesn't count.

May 23rd 2012 at 7:21:13 AM •••

He DOES count, and he never showed remorse.

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.