Heroes and Monsters

[Dark Muse]

Is it just me, as I know I can be quite abnormal in my perceptions, or are there other people who find themselves feeling sympathetic toward the so called monsters and beasts, over the alleged heroes in epic tales of mythology?

I rarely find myself liking the hero of the story, and I find that I am empathic toward the monsters, and a part of me even roots for them, even when I know they cannot win, but this could stem from my general preference for beasts, animals, and such creatures over human beings, but I think it is also an underdog sort of syndrome. Though the heroes might come under the facade of being the underdog, in typical David vs Goliath scenarios, in which one lone man comes to battle something that no one before could defeat, by the very nature of the fact that it is an epic story, the monster becomes the underdog, because one you know it cannot win within the story, and two because it is so much hated and rooted against by everyone.

Beowulf in particular really annoys me for some reason. He just comes off as being so arrogant and egotistical, I never could really get behind him. I have always felt sympathetic toward Grendal, for some unexplainable reason, and while yes it is true he was slaughtering people for seemingly no particular reason, and I can accept that Beowulf slaying him was more or less an act of self-defense, with Grendal it is sort of a Frankenstein syndrome.

It is not Grendal's fault that he is what he is, and that he is made different from the others, and thus outcast, and he can hear the people in the hall having a good time and longs to be a part of that, but knows he never can, so he is driven to destroy it because it torments him so, and knows it is something that he could never obtain.

But the killing of Grendal's mother really from my perspective was completely unjust and just made me mad. I mean how egotistical do you really have to be to somehow see yourself as the wronged party when a mother is retaliating against the slaughter of her child.

Medusa is another one, where the killing of her was completely unjust, and really cold blooded murder. Medusa was not going around actively attacking people, she was just chilling on her island in isolation trying to mind her own business when people kept invading her home trying to slay her for their own personal gain because they wanted her power.

For one thing, it is not as if she could control her ability to turn people into stone, and for another it was completely self-defense. If you didn't want to be turned into stone than don't go and invade Medusa's island. There was no just cause for attacking her, when she remained in exile and so wasn't really a threat to anyone outside of her island.

I just personally often find that the so called heroes in stories are really just arrogant punks that are the ones acting in the wrong, usually they themselves have done something to provoke the beast before killing it or the go off to slay it simply to fulfill a personal desire of their own. They want to gain fame, fortune, glory, or some great treasure.

The bests are just trying to defend themselves and their territories by these people who keep coming up and attacking them and harassing them.

[dfloyd]

Then Cellini wouldn't have been able to cast his magnificent statue, and the autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini would have been cosdierably reduced.

[OrphanPip]

The one I really feel bad for is the Marathon Bull, he doesn't just get beat up by Hercules, but later gets captured and killed by Theseus.

[Paulclem]

There are different types of monsters in different genres etc. The obviously evil, world dominating, psychopathic, no redeeming features type monster holds little interest except as an aspect of the setting to contrast wth the hero.

A monster such as The Monster in Frankenstein is much more interesting in that he evokes sympathy even as you abhor the murders he commits. The sympathy you have with Viktor also diminishes as you realise that Dr Frankenstein is also a monster. A far superior monster type in my view.

[Nemo Neem]

Mr. Edward Hyde represents "human evil." Dr. Henry Jekyll, while innocently human, is himself a monster.

[Dark Muse]

Then Cellini wouldn't have been able to cast his magnificent statue, and the autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini would have been cosdierably reduced.

In a way I do yes, on the one hand it was noble that he wanted to do it to save his mother from further suffering, and was not out purely for his own selfish interest, but on the other hand, the slaying of Medusa was in my book was murder even if she was a so called "monster" all in all from where I stand she was still a victim, in fact it was because she was a victim that she became the monster in the first place.

She wasn't actively trying to hurt anyone, people were ultimately trying to kill her only because she was different and they could see externally the horror that happened to her internally, and thus saw her as being somehow the one who was to blame for Poseidon's rape.

They wanted to destroy her because of something which was done to her. She never had any power or control that was her own.

[Paulclem]

Is it just me, as I know I can be quite abnormal in my perceptions, or are there other people who find themselves feeling sympathetic toward the so called monsters and beasts, over the alleged heroes in epic tales of mythology?

I rarely find myself liking the hero of the story, and I find that I am empathic toward the monsters, and a part of me even roots for them, even when I know they cannot win, but this could stem from my general preference for beasts, animals, and such creatures over human beings, but I think it is also an underdog sort of syndrome. Though the heroes might come under the facade of being the underdog, in typical David vs Goliath scenarios, in which one lone man comes to battle something that no one before could defeat, by the very nature of the fact that it is an epic story, the monster becomes the underdog, because one you know it cannot win within the story, and two because it is so much hated and rooted against by everyone.

Beowulf in particular really annoys me for some reason. He just comes off as being so arrogant and egotistical, I never could really get behind him. I have always felt sympathetic toward Grendal, for some unexplainable reason, and while yes it is true he was slaughtering people for seemingly no particular reason, and I can accept that Beowulf slaying him was more or less an act of self-defense, with Grendal it is sort of a Frankenstein syndrome.

It is not Grendal's fault that he is what he is, and that he is made different from the others, and thus outcast, and he can hear the people in the hall having a good time and longs to be a part of that, but knows he never can, so he is driven to destroy it because it torments him so, and knows it is something that he could never obtain.

But the killing of Grendal's mother really from my perspective was completely unjust and just made me mad. I mean how egotistical do you really have to be to somehow see yourself as the wronged party when a mother is retaliating against the slaughter of her child.

Medusa is another one, where the killing of her was completely unjust, and really cold blooded murder. Medusa was not going around actively attacking people, she was just chilling on her island in isolation trying to mind her own business when people kept invading her home trying to slay her for their own personal gain because they wanted her power.

For one thing, it is not as if she could control her ability to turn people into stone, and for another it was completely self-defense. If you didn't want to be turned into stone than don't go and invade Medusa's island. There was no just cause for attacking her, when she remained in exile and so wasn't really a threat to anyone outside of her island.

I just personally often find that the so called heroes in stories are really just arrogant punks that are the ones acting in the wrong, usually they themselves have done something to provoke the beast before killing it or the go off to slay it simply to fulfill a personal desire of their own. They want to gain fame, fortune, glory, or some great treasure.

The bests are just trying to defend themselves and their territories by these people who keep coming up and attacking them and harassing them.

I know what you mean about the arbitrary nature of the ancient world. It's interesting that your examples are from this ancient world where male dominion was an accepted fact. What do you make of the later models of monsters?

[Dark Muse]

I know what you mean about the arbitrary nature of the ancient world. It's interesting that your examples are from this ancient world where male dominion was an accepted fact. What do you make of the later models of monsters?

My sympathies for modern monsters are the same as they are for that of the ancient age. I always side with vampires and werewolves, and I always feel bad when ultimately they have to be destroyed, and even knowing they probably will not be allowed to win, I still root for them.

The way I feel about vampires is that they are unfairly persecuted by human beings, for me, the vampires necessity to drink of human blood, is really no different than humans who sustain themselves by living off the flesh of other animals. I do not see vampires as particularly evil because of what they are or their mode of life. It just so happens that they are above humans on the food chain, and that needles at human ego.

But I mean how egotistic is it that humans think vampires should all become martyrs and starve themselves just to avoid the drinking of human blood and spared human lives?

[Paulclem]

It reminds me of being vegetarian. There's a moral choice to be made with higher creatures. A human, and also a vampire, can choose to eat flesh or drink blood in a way that was not possible in other ages.

There have been developments in the depth of vampire characterisations away from the blood lusty instinctual vampire to a more reflective being. One example that I have read is Fevre Dream by George RR Martin, which I found to be a sophisticated take on the vampire idea and explores just this idea.

[Modest Proposal]

I don't think you are at all alone. If anything English-major-types tend to read subversively as a general rule. I am shocked in class if the majority of the class doesn't immediately reach for a reason to like the 'monsters' over the 'heroes'. I think it has to do with the political nature of English classes--usually driven by a sort of anti-establishment or at least anti-hegemonic agenda.

I believe I was the only student in my upper-division class arguing that Frankenstein's creation was evil.

Frankenstein was irresponsible and experimented without enough forthought and then got scared and ran away.

His creation kills an innoccent child to get revenge on his creator and then frames a young girl to get executed for the act.

Frankenstein decides to show more forsight and not keep creating things he cannot control--i.e. a wife for the creation.

The creation kills several more innoccent people.

This in my opinion is the only logical way to look at the book's morality: Frankenstein is selfish and irresponsible and possibly a coward. The creation is a murderer.

[Nemo Neem]

I don't think you are at all alone. If anything English-major-types tend to read subversively as a general rule. I am shocked in class if the majority of the class doesn't immediately reach for a reason to like the 'monsters' over the 'heroes'. I think it has to do with the political nature of English classes--usually driven by a sort of anti-establishment or at least anti-hegemonic agenda.

I believe I was the only student in my upper-division class arguing that Frankenstein's creation was evil.

Frankenstein was irresponsible and experimented without enough forthought and then got scared and ran away.

His creation kills an innoccent child to get revenge on his creator and then frames a young girl to get executed for the act.

Frankenstein decides to show more forsight and not keep creating things he cannot control--i.e. a wife for the creation.

The creation kills several more innoccent people.

This in my opinion is the only logical way to look at the book's morality: Frankenstein is selfish and irresponsible and possibly a coward. The creation is a murderer.

I see a religious influence in Frankenstein.

Viktor Frankenstein is God. His creation --- the monster --- is humanity. He realizes that his creation is flawed, and therefore, he sets off to destroy it, but the monster still has feelings, even though it's "lost" and not "perfect." That's way the ending is ambiguous as to why the monster may have survived. Yes, humanity sinned and broke God's rules, but it still survived to reform itself.

[Paulclem]

I don't think you are at all alone. If anything English-major-types tend to read subversively as a general rule. I am shocked in class if the majority of the class doesn't immediately reach for a reason to like the 'monsters' over the 'heroes'. I think it has to do with the political nature of English classes--usually driven by a sort of anti-establishment or at least anti-hegemonic agenda.

I believe I was the only student in my upper-division class arguing that Frankenstein's creation was evil.

Frankenstein was irresponsible and experimented without enough forthought and then got scared and ran away.

His creation kills an innoccent child to get revenge on his creator and then frames a young girl to get executed for the act.

Frankenstein decides to show more forsight and not keep creating things he cannot control--i.e. a wife for the creation.

The creation kills several more innoccent people.

This in my opinion is the only logical way to look at the book's morality: Frankenstein is selfish and irresponsible and possibly a coward. The creation is a murderer.

Not only this. The book questions the morality of attempting to play God, which is what Viktor Frankenstein does. In this sense he is directly responsible for the actions of the Monster as the Monster's creator.

It also raises the question of the culpability of God in all the monstrous things that happen in his creation.

[Dark Muse]

Actually in the case of Frankenstein and his creation, I did not feel sympathy for either one of them. Frankenstein was selfish and created something of which he should not have, and it was his own focus upon himself which led to the death of his fiancee, because he thought for sure it was his life in danger, and it never coursed his mind that the "monster" would kill her instead. Not to mention the neglect he gave to the monster after being confronted with the realization of what he had done. He drove it to the acts of crime it committed by making it such an outcast.

But on the other side, I did not feel sympathy for the monster because it did show intellect and intelligence, it knew that its crimes were wrong, and out of peevish childish anger committed them in spite of their wrongness.

For me a creature that is merely acting within its nature, and does not in fact know the right and wrong of what it is doing, and cannot help its instincts is much more sympathetic, because ultimately it is destroyed for nothing more than just existing, for being what it is. In the way that many pit bulls now are killed simply because of how they were bread, they do not consciously act aggressively, that has become their nature, so in a way they are innocent of the crimes they commit, because they have no true choice of free will in what they do.

But the Frankenstein monster actually makes a conscious choice to commit the crimes he commits, he has the knowledge and the free will to restrain himself and he does not because of his anger at Frankenstein, so he is liable for the crimes he commits.

[Paulclem]

I would agree with what you say without negating the creator theme. I'm sure Mary Shelley referred to both.

I also agree about the blame aspect as regards animals who act instinctively. Nature is red in tooth and claw by nature. Blame doesn't come into it whereas creation might, depending upon your worldview.

In terms of the simpler monsters of myth, they act as they do due their nature. This is why Frankenstein's monster is more interesting as, you rightly point out, he does have a choice, as do humans, vampires etc.

[Dark Muse]

I would debate how much choice vampires truly have. I suppose that depends upon whose myth you follow, considering how many times the vampires have evolved and been readapted, reinterpret etc. As obviously there is no right or wrong answer.

But looking at it from the core and base of the myth, vampires don't have a choice in the fact that their continued life relies upon the drinking of human blood, and they have just as much right to act to the sustainability of their own kind as any other living thing does.

If a vampire wishes to still live, it must drink the blood of a human, though in more modern myths, there have been ways of making vampires more humane you might say. And Anne Rice's noble ideal of feeding only upon the evil doer is an attractive way in which vampires and humans can find some harmony together.

[Paulclem]

Yes, I suppose its a power relationship within the book, with the original vampire conception representing the forces of evil. It's interesting that with the increasing secularisation of western societies, that this power relationship has broken down, as typified by your sympathy with the vampire icon. In fact I would argue that it is only because of the redundancy of the original power relationship that you can feel sympathy for a vampire.

[Apathy]

Actually in the case of Frankenstein and his creation, I did not feel sympathy for either one of them. Frankenstein was selfish and created something of which he should not have, and it was his own focus upon himself which led to the death of his fiancee, because he thought for sure it was his life in danger, and it never coursed his mind that the "monster" would kill her instead. Not to mention the neglect he gave to the monster after being confronted with the realization of what he had done. He drove it to the acts of crime it committed by making it such an outcast.

But on the other side, I did not feel sympathy for the monster because it did show intellect and intelligence, it knew that its crimes were wrong, and out of peevish childish anger committed them in spite of their wrongness.

For me a creature that is merely acting within its nature, and does not in fact know the right and wrong of what it is doing, and cannot help its instincts is much more sympathetic, because ultimately it is destroyed for nothing more than just existing, for being what it is. In the way that many pit bulls now are killed simply because of how they were bread, they do not consciously act aggressively, that has become their nature, so in a way they are innocent of the crimes they commit, because they have no true choice of free will in what they do.

But the Frankenstein monster actually makes a conscious choice to commit the crimes he commits, he has the knowledge and the free will to restrain himself and he does not because of his anger at Frankenstein, so he is liable for the crimes he commits.

interesting, but I consider the monster avictim of circumstance, he was thrust into a world that didn't want him and then abandoned by his creator. I think these things convinced the monster that he was 'Evil' by nature, this would be logical for any intelligent being who's only taught by old books. If he believes that his very existance is wrong then anything 'Evil' he does can only be considered natural.


I would debate how much choice vampires truly have. I suppose that depends upon whose myth you follow, considering how many times the vampires have evolved and been readapted, reinterpret etc. As obviously there is no right or wrong answer.

But looking at it from the core and base of the myth, vampires don't have a choice in the fact that their continued life relies upon the drinking of human blood, and they have just as much right to act to the sustainability of their own kind as any other living thing does.

If a vampire wishes to still live, it must drink the blood of a human, though in more modern myths, there have been ways of making vampires more humane you might say. And Anne Rice's noble ideal of feeding only upon the evil doer is an attractive way in which vampires and humans can find some harmony together.

I also like the Idea that vampires could live by feeding off only those who they consider 'Bad' but then again what is 'Evil' depends on the individuals opinion; if you know the manga 'Death Note' then you know that Shinigami(death Gods) use a notebook to kill humans and therefore take there remaining life span, this is they survive, it as dualities to vampyres but shinigami don't really care in the least about humans. But every once in a while aShinigami will drop their notebook and the first human to pick it ups becomes it's new owner. In the manga a dude named Light Yagami picks up one and starts using it to kill criminals; although he(and many others) believes he is creating new, better world, som, such as the detective known only as 'L' think that it is wrong and by the end of it Light has gone completely mad with power and use people such as Misa( a girl who is obsessively in love with him and also possesses a deathnote) to do his dirty work, like getting her to trade half her lifespan to get 'Shinigami Eyes' that allow her to see the names and remaining lifespans of others so she can find out 'L's name which allows them to kill the detective. I digress, back to Vampyres; I don't like the escape routes some authors use like feeding off animals but I also believe that the image of the vampire has been utterly corrupted in modern literature to fit some 'pretty boy' stereotype. I myself always felt more empathy for the werewolf, he(or she) loses themselves completeley(depending on the tale, no pun intended) but then have to live a normal life and deal with the guilt. And the transformation itself is symbolically just letting your baser instincts and natural animal emotions override their intellect. In most stories they couldn't possibly be legally held responsible for these crimes and thus their slaughter is 100% murder. The change one takes to become a vampyre could also be considered a transformation into an animal, but they retain the intellect and there fore have to dal with all the guilt and such even while they commit the act(again depending on the tale).

[Dark Muse]

The Death Note comparison is interesting, yes it does depend upon ones idea of "bad" or "evil" but considering if it is an accepted fact that vampires have no choice but to feed upon human blood, though some people might be inclined to think that even murdering criminals is still a crime, I would think most people would prefer the vampires if they had fed upon those with whom are a threat to society over feeding upon anyone or everyone.

Yes, I agree with you about the werewolves, the killing of a werewolf would be completely a murderous and unjust act unless it is done as a direct result of self-defense. That is if you are actively being attacked by a werewolf you certainty have the right to do everything within your power to defend yourself against it. But to simply hunt down and slaughter a werewolf for simply being a werewolf is a murderous and unjust act particularly if they are killed as humans, that is when they are not in the state of their transformation, for the human self of the werewolf truly has no responsibility for what the animal self does. They cannot control it, and they are often not even aware of what happens to them in their state of transformation.

[Dark Muse]

I have to say, one of the other things that bothers me about the whole mythical monster thing, is that it seems to me, the use of the word cannibal is frequently unfairly misused in a way to make something seem more vile and evil than it really is.

It seems to be that any sort of monster or creature (at least any with a humanoid type shape) that happens to feat upon human flesh is dubbed to be a cannibal. But the eating of humans is not what makes a cannibal, it is the eating of ones own kind.

The first two that immediately spring to my mind is the Cyclops, and the Minotaur, they are both refereed to as being cannibals.

While the Cyclops might look like some oversized one-eyed person, the Cyclops is not a human he is a Cyclops, and as far as we know the Cyclops does not go around eating other Cylopses so just because it might enjoy a human snack now and than, does not make it a cannibal.

And though technically the Minotaur is half-man as it was born of a mortal woman, it really isn't a human any more, it has become its own thing, it is a Minotaur, which is different than a human. So he isn't a cannibal for eating humans, and besides in his case he really doesn't have much of a choice. He was born an abomination under circumstances of which were not his fault, shoved deep in this maze, and as I really don't thin anyone was dropping him a steak dinner every so often, people were the only food source he was supplied with, so he didn't have a whole lot of options.

Vampires are also often referred to as being cannibals, but though they did indeed used to be human once they went through the transformation and were reborn as vampires, they are not human any longer, in face that is the purpose behind it they are alleged to have lost their humanity, so they become vampires, which is quite a different thing from a human, thus drinking a bit of human blood now and than does not in fact make them cannibals.

[kasie]

My sympathies for modern monsters are the same as they are for that of the ancient age. I always side with vampires and werewolves, and I always feel bad when ultimately they have to be destroyed, and even knowing they probably will not be allowed to win, I still root for them.

The way I feel about vampires is that they are unfairly persecuted by human beings, for me, the vampires necessity to drink of human blood, is really no different than humans who sustain themselves by living off the flesh of other animals. I do not see vampires as particularly evil because of what they are or their mode of life. It just so happens that they are above humans on the food chain, and that needles at human ego.

But I mean how egotistic is it that humans think vampires should all become martyrs and starve themselves just to avoid the drinking of human blood and spared human lives?

I don't know where you are based, Dark Muse, but did you ever come across the BBC series 'Being Human'? Series I was broadcast last year and Series II is due to be broadcast sometime in the New Year. It was about a vampire, a werewolf and a ghost who share a house and try to pass themselves off as humans because they are so beset by problems being themselves. I'm sure it started off as an idea for a comedy and in parts was darkly humorous but as the series progressed, issues about 'being different' were tackled in an interesting way.

[Dark Muse]

I don't know where you are based, Dark Muse, but did you ever come across the BBC series 'Being Human'? Series I was broadcast last year and Series II is due to be broadcast sometime in the New Year. It was about a vampire, a werewolf and a ghost who share a house and try to pass themselves off as humans because they are so beset by problems being themselves. I'm sure it started off as an idea for a comedy and in parts was darkly humorous but as the series progressed, issues about 'being different' were tackled in an interesting way.

I love that show. I get the BBC over here and I watched it On Demand. It is very interesting, and I do like the use of humur within the show, while still having some more dramatic and serious elements. I thought it was a quite unique and original idea.

The first season was great!

[Akeldama]

Dark Muse, although you've probably heard of it (since it's a rather well-known novel), I think you would be interested in John Gardner's Grendel - the retelling of Beowulf from the point-of-view of Grendel him/itself. Of course, I haven't read the book myself, so I don't know if it's actually any good, but I have heard only good things about the book, if that means anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grendel_%28novel%29

[Dark Muse]

My sister really liked it and I am looking forward to reading it one of these days

[Night_Lamp]

I always felt a little sorry for Polyphemus, what did he do to deserve having his eye stabbed out with a pointy stick? Odysseus was a hero, but a bit of an arrogant dick-head; and his men did sneak into his cave and steal his food.

[Dark Muse]

I always felt a little sorry for Polyphemus, what did he do to deserve having his eye stabbed out with a pointy stick? Odysseus was a hero, but a bit of an arrogant dick-head; and his men did sneak into his cave and steal his food.

YES! YES! YES!

Thank you, that is spot on. I completely agree.

I loved the story The Odyssey, but I never cared for Odysseus himself, he was a complete arrogent egotistical jerk really. And most of his problems he got himself into in the first place, by being too full of himself.

I enjoyed the adventure and epic of the story, but he was always pissing me off most of the time.

[Paulclem]

I felt sorry for one of the suitors that had his hands, feet and soft parts cut off, and then left to die. A bit extreme I thought, but a sign of a more barbarous time - and people talk of the good old days.

[Dark Muse]

I cannot say I felt sorry for any of them. I thought they were all slimbeballs, though I do not think Odysseus deserved Penelope either.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Medusa is another one, where the killing of her was completely unjust, and really cold blooded murder. Medusa was not going around actively attacking people, she was just chilling on her island in isolation trying to mind her own business when people kept invading her home trying to slay her for their own personal gain because they wanted her power.

The bests are just trying to defend themselves and their territories by these people who keep coming up and attacking them and harassing them.

Maybe it could be interesting looking at these from a postcolonial perspective?

[Dark Muse]

Maybe it could be interesting looking at these from a postcolonial perspective?

Yes, that could be an interesting way to look at things

[Paulclem]

I cannot say I felt sorry for any of them. I thought they were all slimbeballs, though I do not think Odysseus deserved Penelope either.

Still - all their soft parts...

[Night_Lamp]

Margaret Atwood wrote a really funny satire of the Odyssey from Penelope's point of view called: The Penelopiad