The Boy Who Cried Monster! - A Look Into Our Underlying Archetypes

Why do we have stories with such things as monsters? Because we imagine them, of course. Why does our brain imagine those things we are so terrified of? Archetypal imprints on our mind. But why monsters to begin with? From a scientific point of view one can say that the archetypes we have now have stayed with us by helping our species survive (e.g. associating dark places with evil has helped our species to not get bitten by the things that reside in them.) However, monsters don’t fit into that category at all. In fact, monsters play on those archetypes, meaning that they are somehow above them – they are complex archetypes. I feel that sets of these are intended for a purpose, and ultimately, monster archetypes can show us a part of who God is

I know that this seems like a tough mountain to hike, but if you are willing, I promise the view at the end is well worth. Let me start by offering you “map” for classifying monster archetypes, one that hopefully crosses cultures and penetrates us deeply as an archetype should. In order to do this, we will explore what a monster is and is not, the three most basic of the complex archetypes types that I will lay out for you, and the implications that follow.

First, if and when you run into a story with both a villain and a monster (possibly one under his control, but not always) you will rationally decipher that the two are different in some way. The reason for this is because, psychologically, the monster(s) in a story is different from a villain in that there is some qualifier, an archetype that makes the supposed monster “not-human.” I know that this is a horribly general qualifier, but if I took the time to lay out an argument for what is human and what is not, I would be writing a book, not a blog. So bear with me, and assume you know what an archetype for a human is and place them in the not-monsters category of your mind if you have not already.

Second, the monster in a story, is an object of confrontation, in that, it was the will to do evil, the power to do it, and is in the proximity of the “hero” to have an actually confrontation following their conflict of interests (e.g. wanting to live). Now, the “hero” is a character we will discuss later, so for now, let us put him into the category of “anti-monster.”

Lastly, the true essence of “monster” is bad, and we know this because the exceptions are the ones that do or think good at times (yes, it is circular reasoning again and I will be doing it a lot more in this post for the sake of time. However, I offer this advice to the doubter. Listen to the statements and if they resonate with your unconscious as true, then it is up to your doubting to prove that they are not.)

From here, we can breakdown the monster archetype into three separate archetypes: The Dragon, the Ghost, and the Zombie. The true Dragon or dragons represent the natural/beastly monster. In most stories, this is the character that the hero must fight classically – by might. The true dragon presents his only threat by wanting to be at the top of the food chain, with no real desires other than to be dominant. “Dominant” is the key word here, for according to God’s plan, man is to rule the earth, and the dragon will not submit or even finds the man or his property very tasty. This upset which provokes an archetypal response to be dominant over nature is reason enough for the hero to fight. However, what strikes us with fear besides is the amazing power they wield, is the dark places they lurk: caves, the bottom of the sea (Loch Ness, Jaws), outer space, dark forests, etc.

Similarly, ghosts are commonly associated with dark places; however, unlike the dragons, ghosts have intelligence. The true ghost or ghosts represent a spiritual/unnatural monster. In most stories, the ghost is destroyed/“set free” using information, not might. There may be an investigation (e.g. “The Ring,” or “Ghost,”), but there will usually be a villain who started this (e.g. “Hamlet,” or “The Grudge”.) The simple archetypes in play are that one, if people die happily they do not become evil ghost, two, if people live good lives they do not become ghosts, and possibly a third, if people are good they will not upset the after life. There are others like respect for the dead, dwelling in places where evil took place, but the first three are the main ones which form the complex archetype in which the hero or audience must learn some lesson. Whether the ghost is real or not, or is doing evil or not, the lessons have a common implication; what you do in this life does have an effect on the next.

Now, you may have looked at all three and noticed how widespread and well-aged the first two are (as an archetype should be), yet found the Zombie to be rather recent. The word “zombie” only became popular in recent times, and previously, the barbarian or the werewolf was the closest thing we had to the idea. Yet I have included the zombie at the top because the idea behind the third complex archetype here is the inhuman-human.

No other category of a human who is not really human comes as close to the idea. Whether they come from the grave (“Night of the Living Dead,”) genetic experiments (“Resident Evil,”) rabies-like viruses (“28 Days Later,”) or even outer space (“Serenity,”) they freak us out like no other. They show us what we could become, the part inside of us that conjures up dread. They can easily fall under the “undead” category for they cannot really be living yet they are physical, and also under the beast category for they do not poses true intelligence yet they can problem-solve. They pose a threat to the hero not only as something he must fight, but also something he must not become. Maintaining one’s humanity in the face of adversity is a major complex archetype yet one that resonates deep within us (e.g. trying to be a man while avoiding being a jerk or a sissy, or trying to be disciplined without becoming a Pharisee or a Sadducee, trying to be wise as a serpent yet gentle as a dove.)

Given these three categories, we can breakdown every monster into one of the three, or hybrids of them. The “Alien” movies had different archetypes that the aliens embodied in each movie, where the first and third movies maintained a zombie-like problem solving alien, and the second and fourth movies maintain a dragon-like dominating body of aliens. In “Jurassic Park,” T-Rex was obviously the dragon, and the raptors were the problem-solving-not-yet-human zombies. If what I stated above is true, you should be hard pressed to find a monster that does not fit any of these categories, yet still maintains the classification of monster.

Looking from the top of the trail we see a revealing view with another mountain top in sight. The trail sign reads “Hero Mt.” and as you might have guessed, there are, again three basic categories for the complex archetypes (oxymoron?) I have never navigated my way to the top, but I can tell you that the three heroes are close to opposites of the three monsters. Kings and dragons, prophets and ghosts, priests and zombies, all are in opposition by idea yet not necessarily in function.

The King, or soon to be king, is in opposition to the dragon as he has the right to take dominion, yet this hero’s function may also be to challenge every kind of monster. The prophet is in opposition to the ghost having the information to avoid the haunting, yet this hero’s function is to spread that information, particularly to the hero, whereas the ghost is shrouded in mystery. Finally, the priest is in opposition to the zombie as he is a giving character, yet also in that he is a more-human, a kind human we should be. The priest’s ultimate function is to sacrifice himself, either for the king or the girl, or the entire world. (Think Batman, Alfred, and Robin)

As with monsters, there are hybrids and the more functions of a hero a single character takes on, the more memorable the story. (e.g. “Gladiator,” “Man on Fire,” etc.) It may be a while before I climb this mountain myself, but when see Christ at the top, I want to get there even more, fitting in with my belief that God’s design for us is to be completely amazed by Him in this life and the next.