Wyso And The Other Creepy Kids on Gerard Street
Man's Best
Sparkers
Better Dig 2By Science Fiction Author,
Clara Bush
To be clear we are talking monster as in fictional monsters. All kinds of monsters exist that are real. And probably some of the most horrifying monsters are the human kind. I am not referring to those types, but to the type born from the imagination.
The Short of It
The most memorable monsters are on a loop in our society and are continually being resurrected on the big screen, like the current undertaking by Universal to reboot such classic movie monsters as Dracula, The Mummy, Wolf Man, and Frankenstein.
The Long of It
I have three questions to answer.
1. What makes a monster classic?
2. Is it possible to create a monster today that will survive
reanimation over the ages?
3. Do we have any modern-day monsters that you think will survive centuries like the Big Four classics have done?
For our Probe into monsters, I’ve listed a couple of guidelines.
- Creating a monster does not include aliens, zombies, dinosaurs, or dragons. (We will explore some of these in later blogs.)
- Must be a monster born of the imagination.
- Our creation would likely be found in a legend, a myth, a horror fiction or film, or a fantasy.
- He must be created from the imagination of a writer.
- The monster should be so depraved—in actions or appearance or both—that society and even his maker reject him and try to destroy him. This gives the monster something with which we as humans can empathize.
- His detestability is derived from something unnatural like the dead coming back to life, the undead, or being composed of the parts of numerous dead people.
“And now, once again, I bid my hideous progeny go forth and prosper.”
The Probe—probing the unknown in science fiction, science, paranormal, fiction, ghosts, monsters, aliens, space, UFOs, strange, and weird.
- Were Ancient Astronauts the Anunnaki? - August 18, 2020
- Part 6: Ancient Astronauts and Religion — How Human Are the Gods? - July 14, 2020
- Part 5: Ancient Astronauts and Religion — What Are We? - July 14, 2020
I think a classic monster should be born from societal fears. Suppression and oppression of the turn of the century..technology and nuclear fears of the mid century.. and the government or global fears of technology now..even aliens (fear of space/ other cultures/ technology). A classic monster should tie itself to the era in which it is born, but also tackle a subject that is universal and timeless.
Thank you, Orloff! Wow such insight. You bring up excellent points. I will definitely add this to our list.
I have been thinking about your comment Orloff. And I wonder if our monsters should be thematic of our societal fears. I mean I watch a good scary movie to escape reality. I think, as I watch: “At least my day is not as bad as his or theirs.”
Maybe the monster needs to be so badass and create such havoc that our world doesn’t look so bad.
We have plenty of real monsters—serial killers, terrorists, rapists. I need an imaginary monster that takes me away from all that.
What do you think?
Also, our Big 4 classic monsters all come from basically the same era. What classic monsters do we have today that compare?
Clara,
I think perhaps we have started a side dialogue on fear. Does fear create a monster? … and where does fear come from? – this is a larger discussion that I think neither of us (perhaps I should only speak for myself) want to get involved in. However, simply put, I purpose that monsters are exaggerated, fantastical (and amazing) manifestations of everyday societal fears.
You and I are on the same page regarding imaginary vs real monsters. But do we prefer the imaginary monsters because they are actually less scary?
Regarding monsters today, you pose a great question. Perhaps not a contemporary monster, but certainly more modern than the Big 4: Godzilla (and similar monsters drawn from the nuclear fallout of the 50s on). Not the best example.. but worth a second thought.
Keep up the great blog! Im loving all the monster talk.
Pleasantly scared,
Orloff
p.s. Is Frankenstein the monster or the monster’s creator?
Hi Orloff! I love. LOVE. Love your comments.
I was told numerous times by the Sci-Fi community that Frankenstein is the monster. And the creature is his creation and thus should be called Frankenstein’s Monster. I think, however, since the monster is Victor’s offspring, so to speak, we are safe in calling him Frankenstein, since children take their father’s name. The other part of your question can be answered in a similar way.
Both are monsters. Victor because he created him. And the monster— who took after his father—because he becomes destructive.
Since my original BIG Four, I have picked up several other suggestions to be included in our monster search like: The Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Fly, The Thing…
Godzilla? Definitely needs to be considered. Not that all dinosaurs are monsters, but ones contaminated by nuclear fallout could definitely rank in the monster category.
What would keep Godzilla from being included?
love? But I have to say that I’m not completely sold on that being a requirement.
I would say that maybe love is the “struggle” that fuels some monsters..
Perhaps the “struggle” is the requirement.
Orloff you asked: Does fear create a monster?
But shhhhshsh. ( I will be discussing this soon.) Excellent point.
There is always some kind of love going on in Godzilla. So I think the one guideline that Godzilla is missing is the fact that he is not based in literature but is purely cinematic.
So do you think I need to re-examine my first guideline, that a monster must be the creation of a writer?
I don’t think you need to re-examine your 1st guideline – though godzilla is a cinematic figure he was still born from a written character. Just not from literature. Up to you if you want o keep it strictly monsters derived from literature and adapted for the screen.