Understanding Monsters With Sin and Familiarity

What are monsters? An element essential for fantasy fiction, supernatural beings that partly resemble animals, or a “sacrifice” in the making of heroes? Perhaps all of the above, with one necessary feature warranted — an evil creature.

In the poem, Beowulf kills three monsters: Grendel, Grendel’s mother, and the dragon. Grendel’s lineage was inherently evil, as it was the decedent of Cain, the biblical character that killed his brother Abel out of jealousy.

On the other hand, the dragon was called “fell” in Tolkien’s translation of Beowulf, but it doesn’t provide much context in understanding the inherent evil in dragons. However, Tolkien discussed the underlying meaning of dragons in his work Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics, claiming that the dragons in Beowulf “[is] a personification of malice, greed, destruction, and the discriminating cruelty of fortune that distinguishes not good nor bad.” (Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics, 17.)

Similarly, Shelob was described as the utter manifestation of greed: “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.” (LotR, Book IV, Chapter 9)

It seems that monsters are not just creatures created for entertainment purposes. They actually represent something much deeper - a physical manifestation of a particular form of sin. These sins seem to explain the monsters’ primary motives, and can also shed light on how we can better understand these imaginary creatures that transmit along fantasy stories. It is fascinating to see how the creators of these monsters were able to take something as abstract as a sin, and turn it into a tangible and often terrifying being.

From another perspective, although most monsters borrow some aspects from natural animals (e.g. dragons with lizard bodies, bat wings, and snake eyes), are ethically different from animals. Monsters are described as “fell”, yet we do not usually use the term “good” or “evil” in describing animals, since it is pretty hard to judge animal instincts using ethics. How, then, are we able to judge the monsters from an ethical standpoint? When depicting monsters, Tolkien purposefully made them somewhat intelligible, such that their own will and their agency can be obscurely inferred. Shelob was a great example. If we study only the description of Shelob’s movement, we find that it is precisely the same as any other predatory spider. It is only by adding narratives such as “There agelong she had dwelt, an evil thing in spider-form, even such as once of old had lived in the Land of the Elves in the West that is now under the Sea, such as Beren fought in the Mountains of Terror in Doriath, and so to Luthien upon the green sward amid the hemlocks in the moonlight long ago.” can the readers be convinced that Shelob is, indeed, fell. (LotR, Book IV, Chapter 9)

However, not all of the “monsters” are evil. Tolkien mentions that there are very few good dragons in the stories while creating one himself — Chrysophylax, the dragon in Farmer Giles’ story. The dragon, still fire-breathing and greedy, is no longer intimidating because of its continued bargaining with Farmer Giles. It seems hard for me to consider Chrysophylax as a “monster,” mainly because Chrysophylax seems to be easily understood and easy to communicate. 

One of the key aspects of creating a successful monster character is to find a balance between familiarity and mystique. If a monster is too similar to a human being, it loses its intimidating presence and becomes less effective in its role. On the other hand, if a monster is too unfamiliar, it risks becoming completely unintelligible to the audience, which can lead to a loss of interest.

Therefore, it is crucial for a monster to retain some level of familiarity while still being otherworldly and inspiring fear. Its actions should be partly intelligible and interpretable by a certain kind of sin, but not wholly understood. This creates a sense of mystery and intrigue, which in turn, helps to solidify the monster's position as a powerful and terrifying entity. However, it is important to note that if a monster were to become too understandable, it would lose its need to be killed, which is a core element of the monster trope.

In Beowulf, the hero's act of killing monsters is depicted as a judicial dual, where the side favored by God emerges victorious. This narrative transforms a mere competition of strength into a duel that takes place on the moral ground. By doing so, the hero is not only justified physically, but also proves his "moral superiority" by claiming divine favor. This theme of divine intervention is seen throughout the epic poem and serves to elevate the hero's actions to a higher level of significance. Additionally, the act of slaying a fictional monster not only demonstrates the hero's physical prowess, but also serves as a metaphor for overcoming one's inner demons and fears. Furthermore, the hero's victory over the monster can be seen as a reflection of the triumph of good over evil, and serves as a reminder of the importance of staying true to one's moral convictions, even in the face of great adversity.

-- S.T.