(Roche)
There are two types of monsters
to me in literature. There’s the complexity of the “good” monster and there’s
the stark vision of the “pure” monster. The concept of a monster is often seen
clearly and definitively as a specific type of villain. I have always been
drawn to the perceived villain because often times the character is far deeper
than their heroic counterpart. The archetype of a monster is commonly one that
is antagonistic because of some unseen motivation for the destructive behavior.
Commonly the monster is overlooked or misinterpreted causing resentment for the
“good”. To strike against the negligence of mankind in its perception of what
is ugly or bad, the “monster” will self-fulfill the very label it loathes. These
characters on the surface seem evil and possibly grotesque but there is essentially
a human layer to their depth. To examine this type of character is frequently
the most rewarding experience in literature for me. The “pure” monster is a far
more crystalline character. Their motives are mostly black and white within the
narrative of the story. They commonly serve a single purpose as the plot device
to upset the balance of the “Hero” or protagonist. This “pure” monster brings
nothing but turmoil and chaos and cannot be reasoned with. These two types of
monsters both fascinate me, and are often my primary catalyst for reading
literature.