The chatter around the library for the past few weeks has been unarguably focused on Twilight: Was the movie any good? Who is the best character? Who would make a better boyfriend, Edward or Jacob?
The last question caused me to pause, one is a werewolf and one is a vampire so neither should make a good boyfriend. Oh wait, that's right, they are not really vampires or werewolves, Stephenie Meyers managed to strip them of what made these creatures monsters, the subject of horror movie-their uncontrollable nature, their complete otherness. This is most evident in the werewolves who did not have to change at the full moon, who could transform back and forth at will, and who retained all of their mental capabilities. While in the fourth book she at least has the decency to say they are not traditional werewolves but rather shape shifters, it still felt week. Despite both Jacob and Edward's frequent assertions that they were monsters neither Bella nor the readers bought it.
I began thinking then about the Harry Potter books, the last big fad in teen lit which transcended that genre and were popular with a broad spectrum of people. In that, at least, the monsters are monstrous--no one meeting a dementor, troll or Voldemort would expect compassion and they were not objects of infatuation. Yet in Harry Potter it is set up as a one-on-one struggle, not part of a larger problem. Voldemort is the evilest wizard and Harry the boy destined to kill him, an act which will restore order the the world and everything will be fine again.
Stories where the monsters stand out, where they are truly terrifying are those where defeating a monster does not eradicate evil but merely stems the tide until the next monster arises. At the beginning of the Dark Knight Gordon tells Batman that his taking the out the mob bosses did not save Gotham but opened the door to a new generation of criminals. In the Lord of the Rings the unspoken knowledge that Sauron was not the first dark lord and probably would not be the last is evident. For the characters in these stories this is no reason to stop resisting, but there is also no talk of chosen ones, just of a person standing against the monsters until it is someone else's turn.
Tolkien got at the heart of this mentality in his essay The Monsters and the Critics, "The monsters had been the foes of the gods, the captains of men, and within Time the monsters would win. In the heroic siege and last defeat men and gods alike had been imagined in the same host. Now the heroic figures, the men of old, remained and still fought on until defeat. For the monsters do not depart, whether the gods go or come."
Defanging monsters robs the struggles of everyday life of their virtue. The fact Beowulf still resonates with modern audiences, that the Lord of the Rings has not flagged in popularity since it was "discovered" in the 60's, and that superhero stories are becoming popular with a whole new generation means that the idea of an unending struggle against evil still speaks to people at least as much as stories where the main problem is finding a date to prom or staying on top of your clique. Leaving monsters monstrous sparks the imagination and gives people a guide for when the dragons come.
4 comments:
Interesting post! You make a good point, but I don't think that monsters necessarily have to be so monolithic. The kind of total evil you describe is one way of using them, and it might well be a bit underutilized at this point.
But I also think that what Stephenie Meyer and her ilk do with monsters is interesting in its own way, because she's playing with the idea of redemption. I think what makes vampires so scary is the idea that any one of us could become one, and that the victims don't usually "earn" their fate in any concrete way. Yet they become these walking demons. So it's interesting to explore how redemption might still be available to such a creature.
J.K. Rowling, of course, uses monsters as fairly transparent allegories for cultural diversity (see her werewolves, giants, etc), though she does keep the genuine scary creatures, like the dementors.
I guess my point is that I like the flexibility monsters can offer. They can stretch your imagination to the limits of evil, or they can stretch your imagination to the limits of grace. One really classic monster, Frankenstein, actually manages to contain a lot of those possibilities within one character, which is rather clever, I think.
Anyway. Thought-provoking post. Thank you!
I completely agree with your assessment that monsters stretch the imagination to the limits of evil or grace. Their potency comes from the fact that there is something recognizable in each monster-they hold up a mirror to the dark side of humanity. Vampires are so human in appearance and yet prey upon people.
I think that for the most part the vampire in Twilight fall short of being walking demons. The one exception to this is James, who kills for the enjoyment of it. Meyer's provides too much rational for every other vampire's actions--Victoria is avenging James, the Volturi are trying to cement their power. When there is the big gathering of vampire in Breaking Dawn the non "vegetarian" vampires are just as friendly and welcomed by the Cullen's as the others.
If this is how monsters are currently being treated in fiction it is little wonder that the trend in teen-lit seems to be towards books with out a real conflict in the plot.
Real monsters in fiction do stretch the imagination, and cause people to contemplate things like sin, evil and redemption. Watered down monsters lack the ability to help inform peoples moral imagination, help them develop and evaluate a system of virtues, and challenge how they see the world. While Meyer's vampires work well within the story she is trying to tell, they miss having this greater relevance and larger punch.
Would you mind if I posted a link to this post on my blog? I'm still thinking about it! :)
Not at all! Please feel free to do so at any point. I love to hear other people's feedback to my rambling.
Post a Comment