The art showcased here is a from a great comic series, Once & Future written by Kieron Gillen and pencilled by Dan Mora. The series is about great literary figures, like the pictured King Arthur and Beowulf, coming to life as monsters, hence their apperances here.
While I am using this art partially because I am a fan of the series and especially Mora's art (and it's relevance is giving me an excuse to include it!), I also think the irony of turning Beowulf into a monster is very fitting. Beowulf is the monster-slayer, and we've tried to pinpoint why monsters—and their accompaining slayers—are so important for stories. But, we did not discuss the next question: what makes a "good" monster? Good, in this context, meaning fulfilling their role, not being on the side of the Angels.
What I want to try to do is put forth a possible framework for what makes a good monster, supported with examples from the Legendarium. By no means do I think this is entirely "correct" or "definitive" in any way; rather, I want to discuss what makes a monster compelling once we have accepted their overarching role in these stories.
We begin with the first necessary characteristic:
1. Powerful
There is a phenomenon in video games, especially turn-based roleplaying games (most of which are fantasy-themed!), where as you play the game, your characters level up and become more powerful, making early-game enemies much less of a threat. For example, consider the iconic Slimes from Dragon Quest. And while these certainly serve their purpose, the monsters I want to speak of, in the model of Grendel or dragons, must be powerful, like bosses in the aforementioned video games. Tolkien says "But we may remember that the poet of Beowulf saw clearly: the wages of heroism is death" (The Monsters and the Critics, 26). Therefore, heroism and the death heroes face would not mean anything, nor likely would even occur, if monsters were weak. There would be no reason to fight them, or little danger in doing so, since they pose such a small threat.
To see this power, consider Smaug. He is a great dragon, and through his power he nearly decimates Laketown with very little effort. Shelob similarly fits the criteria, a giant spider that attempts to crush Sam undernearth her weight. Additionally, she has webs so strong only elven blades were able to cut them, and a paralyzing venom to stun her prey before she eats them.
2. Terrifying
A monster should strike fear into the hearts of anyone facing them. This does pair with power, since a powerless monster is unlikely to be particularly frightening, but is separate. Power itself is not necessarily inherently scary. Gandalf, for example, is powerful, but not terrifying. Likewise, the Ainur and Valar (minus Melkor) as well as Iluvatar are extremely powerful, but not scary in the way a dragon would be (noting a difference between "fear of God" and "fear of monsters").
In this category, Shelob certainly reigns supreme. Humans already tend to have an aversion to spiders, so a giant, unabashedly-evil one would certainly strike fear into most people. Smaug does have some similar traits, though, with dragons resemblance to snakes and the inherent terror of a hulking beast of immense power.
3. Resilient
This, again, is tied to power, but is not the exact same thing. If a monster was defeated in a single, non-chalant hit, that would make for a very boring threat. There are even stories crafted around this concept, such as One-Punch Man. A monster needs to be hard to defeat, a challenge for the hero, a feat. The dragonslayer is not great because it is easy, but precisely because it is so difficult.
Shelob and Smaug certainly have this, with Shelob and her webs being nigh-impenetrable and Smaug being immune to spears and arrows, but both also have clear and exploitable weaknesses, Shelob's eyes and Smaug's bare patch. This makes them possible to defeat, albeit very difficult.
4. Evil
Finally, a monster should be evil. That is the fundamental difference that separates a monster from just a normal creature. When a lion kills its prey, it is doing so because it is its biological imperative to survive. But a monster acts because of its evil nature.
This can be seen very in both Shelob and Smaug. Shelob is described as
an evil thing in spider-form... she served none but herself, drinking the blood of Elves and Men, bloated
and grown fat with endless brooding on her feasts, weaving webs of
shadow; for all living things were her food, and her vomit darkness. Far
and wide her lesser broods, bastards of the miserable mates, her own
offspring, that she slew, spread from glen to glen, from the Ephel Dúath to
the eastern hills, to Dol Guldur and the fastnesses of Mirkwood. But none
could rival her, Shelob the Great, last child of Ungoliant to trouble the
unhappy world (The Lord of the Rings, 313).
While not as viscerally evil, Smaug destroys Laketown in vengeance and is extremely greedy and proud.
Thus, we have a description of a monster: powerful, terrifying, resilient, and evil. Again, I don't think this is the "definitive description" or anything of the like, and plenty of monsters don't quite fit this definition (the Goblin King is strangely easy to defeat, and Gollum has very monsterous characteristics but is not particularly powerful). But I think this is a good starting point for "great beasts to be slain" type monsters.
Now, having created this definition, I want to show how it characterizes Sauron as a great, if not the greatest, monster, through the use of the Nazgûl. As I showed in my previous blogpost, Tolkien cultivates Sauron as the ultimate evil, so theoretically that should remain the case here.
The first characteristic is powerful, and the Nazgûl certainly qualify there. Just with one stab of the Morgul-knife, Frodo was on his way to becoming a wraith, and "[Frodo] felt that he was commanded urgently to halt. Hatred again stirred in
him, but he had no longer the strength to refuse" (The Lord of the Rings, 214). They were able to command after this as well, so they certainly are extremely powerful.
Second is terrifying, and this holds even more true. The imagery alone shows the horror of their appearance:
Soon there could be no doubt: three or four tall black figures were standing there on the slope, looking down on them. So black were they that they seemed like black holes in the deep shade behind them. Frodo thought that he heard a faint hiss as of venomous breath and felt a thin piercing chill. Then the shapes slowly advanced... In their white faces burned keen and merciless eyes; under their mantles were long grey robes; upon their grey hairs were helms of silver; in their haggard hands were swords of steel. Their eyes fell on him and pierced him, as they rushed towards him… The third was taller than the others: his hair was long and gleaming and on his helm was a crown. In one hand he held a long sword, and in the other a knife; both the knife and the hand that held it glowed with a pale light (The Lord the Rings, 196).
And, very fittingly, the primary tool of the Nazgûl is fear.
Third is resilient, and this likewise holds true. When initially being pursued by them, Frodo and the others have no ability to fight them, only to hide. On Weathertop, Aragorn attempts to use fire, which seems to help but certainly doesn't defeat them. And though some are swept away by the river, they are certainly not killed. This is not to say they are impossible to defeat, as the Witch-king of Angmar is defeated individually and not with the destruction of the Ring, but it is extremely difficult.
Finally, evil. This feels well summed up in everything before. Their appearance, methods, and weapons are all pure evil. Plus they serve the ultimate evil, so they certainly qualify.
So the Nazgûl are great monsters. But that is not what is particularly important. The Nazgûl serve Sauron. They are chess pieces, albeit powerful ones, that Sauron is controlling, and controlling totally as they have no will of their own. Thus, without actually having to establish much about Sauron concretely, he is established as an extremely credible threat because he controls them. This is why my analysis focuses on Book I, since this is the establishing part before the threat is fully unveiled. The Nazgûl lead into Sauron, making Sauron a great monster.
To end off, some art from Once & Future of Grendel:
-CVB
3 comments:
I like the test of monsters via the role-playing situation, but I am not yet convinced we have the essence of them. One thing that occurred to me as I was reading your description of their power is how the demons get stronger the stronger the saints get—the more powerful the virtue, the more powerful the temptations sent against it, as it were. Could you do a similar description of heroes as the counterparts to monsters? Heroes need to be resilient, but they are also somewhat terrifying to those not given to standing up to monsters. How much does the hero's goodness depend on the willingness to FIGHT? And how do we tell the difference between the hero who kills and the monster who kills? This seems to me to be important! RLFB
I am also interested by this question of how we characterize monsters and distinguish them from heroes. In particular, I wonder how appearances tie in to the four characteristics of monsters that you outline here. That is, does a monster necessarily need to have certain physical characteristics? It seems to me that a monster’s appearance conveys power and an evil nature and inspire fear. You touch on this subject in the terrifying aspect of monsters, as they often resemble real creatures that most humans fear, such as spiders and snakes. Additionally, a common theme in the terrifying nature of monsters like Shelob and Smaug is their size. However, the Nazgûl, by comparison, don’t exactly resemble anything from our human world and I don’t think they are comparable in size to Shelob or Smaug, so how does their physical nature contribute to their recognition as villains? Perhaps its their dark cloaks, shrouding them in mystery. After all, we often fear what we do not know. And what about the greatest villain of all, Sauron, who almost lacks a physical form entirely? It seems to me that while appearance contributes to the villainous characteristics you outlined, physically, monsters seem to have no defining features. - JMR
You skillfully dissected the characteristics of an effective monster in literature, using powerful examples. I appreciate how you tied these ideas back to the Once & Future comic series and its unique rendering of monstrous characters like King Arthur and Beowulf.
An aspect of this discussion I find intriguing is the role of empathy in shaping our perception of monsters. Can a monster that evokes a certain level of empathy from readers—due to their backstory or moral ambiguity—still fulfill its role effectively? While these characters might not meet your fourth criterion (evil), they could arguably enhance the narrative by introducing moral complexity and emotional depth. I believe it would be interesting to apply your framework to such characters.
Personally, I find that these "gray-area" monsters often bring additional depth to stories, making them more engaging and thought-provoking. They serve as a reminder that evil isn't always simple or straightforward, and that even the most fearsome creatures can sometimes evoke sympathy or understanding.
- WS
Post a Comment