Gothic Monsters as Metaphors

[Ail]

Hi

John Mangrum's post in the thread Gothic vs Lovecraftian horror has inspired me to view the classical monsters as allegories of sins or qualities that people dreaded or secretly craved in that society. More like impersonations of certain emotions, as I thought at first, or something more vast as I understood later.

As such, I would like to see if we could give suggestions for the actual meaning of monsters in this view.

To make things clearer, I'd best give examples.

Each of Van Richten's foes presented a different thematic/moral threat -- a different take on evil. Werebeasts represented our darkest natures unleashed; Created was about the hubristic need to control our surroundings. Shadow Fey morality was skewed by their lack of mortality. Fiends were ultimate evil, interested in nothing more and nothing less than spiritual destruction for its own sake.

Taking the cue from this, and enlarging a bit, the Werebeast may represent what happens to man when he decides to forego the restrictions imposed by society on his bejaviour, namely, the rules of civilization proper: temperance and civility, respect for the neighbour. Since many people probably resented many of the rules and prohibitions of the society, the werebeast was like an alter-ego of a fully released individual. I bet Freud could have something to say about this, but I don't know enough. reminds me of the monsters from the Id from a sci-fi film of the 50s (Forbidden Planet, perhaps?) shamelessly used later (IMHO) Michael Crichton's "The Sphere".

Ghosts and Vampires are not all too easy, and may be seen as duals. The Ghost is the dead (demi-)human being deprived of a body: only the soul remains.

The Vampire is the dead human being without a soul. Only the body and the mortality remains. It is still somewhat living, in that it has a biological function that needs some kind of feeding to keep the ability to walk, to preserve flexibility and usability of the body, etc. This may also encompass lower undeads, simple revenants for instance.

Now, I view witches rather clearly, but this is a very personal view, as a sign of a woman who has shunned the sexual moral imposed by the church (and this in real world terms). Mainly, the witch has commited the sin of fornicating for pleasure, attacking the preached practice that sex should be made only for procreation. We see many times sex as a main theme in witches' stories, be it because they fornicate with the devil or because they have love philtres or indeed sex toys predating our day's thingies available in sex shops. Since the most basic nature of their crime and evil was sex, they have been portrayed as having sex with devils and demons and all the other sins were conveniently added in time.
The old crane aspect, of a woman past menopausa, may actually be a curse attached to the witch, this is, she no longer has sexual desire or has grown past the age for it. Perhaps a dark reflection of her true crime.
This is just a personal opinion and I have not validated it.


The Ghoul, though apparently not Gothic in origin, seems to be a punishment of Cannibalism as a sin. I don't know whta a Ghoul is like in Arabian tales, I'm taking from the current D&D Ghoul.

As for Liches, I don't really know if they can be the metaphor of someone who foregoes everything that makes him/her a human except a single obsession. In game terms, it is magic, but Faust could be an example and there it would be knowledge. So, what we have here, is Obsession, one very fixed one. In exchange for it, the person loses all mortality, including body, feelings, biological needs.

I can't give a reason for Mummies. Golems, per se, seem more like the result of someone else's crimes which, on the other hand, may also involve Obsession.

Finally, there may be monsters attached to each of the capital sins. Once again, the Ghoul might be the Metaphor for Gluttony.

In more simpler terms than above, the Werebeast might be the metaphor for Rage, but I prefer the previous version.


I have no big ideas for the moment for other creatures, but I'd like to see others' opinions on this. I take it there are much more experienced people here who may have already thought about this better than I have or can do.

Ail

[Jack of Tears]

So, is your final question: "How can gothic creatures be used as metaphors?" or "What were the social and psychological phenomena which created these creatures in the first place?"

I'll tell you right off, I'm going to avoid the second question.

As for the first, I'll take a look at a couple here:

Ghosts: Ghosts are memories. They are reminders of what has come before; the sins and regrets of our past which will not let us go. Some, the gravest of sins, will not allow us to move forward - they can be possessive and demanding; taking over our lives. The weight of those memories ages us before our time and the longer we hold onto them, the more pervasive they become, until they have infused themselves in everything we do or touch ... and ultimately the only escape is to face them and hope they do not destroy you.


Werebeasts: Werebeasts may well be the beast behind the creature we call man. Though we have tamed ourselves and dressed our bodies in fine leaves, we are still animals underneath; constantly at war with the beast that dwells in each of us, striving to be set free. The beast is free from social strictures, free from moral laws. It does not answer for its actions and feels no compunctions about anything it might do. It is predator and scavanger equally, as the need arises. But it is a curse. Tame men (or women) we try to deny the beast - to lock it away and pretend we don't suffer from the urges that burn in that primal furnace of our soul.


Zombies: Though not standard gothic fair, they nonetheless serve as a valuable metaphor. The Zombie represents conformity at its core; the loss of individuality as we give into the hunger to be acknowledge the same as everyone else. When you boil us down to our basic formulae, we see how easy it is to become like the zombie - a thing which lives only to eat, procreate and kill. The zombie has no appreciation for what it does to others or its environment; it is unthinking, unfeeling, and knows only that need to continue moving forward.


Vampires: The romantic vampire is passion. Though timelessness and a freedom from the burdon of mortality certainly have their place in the equation, it is the passion which defines the vampire most people relate to. But it is also loneliness. The very gift which allows the vampire time to appreciate everything also robs it of human company. Sure the creature can play the social animal, but it is always apart from its mortal cousins. First, its inability to move about in the light of day excludes it from much in honest society - then the need to feed soon forces it further away. Though it can be physically close to others, it cannot think of mortals as people, since they are food and so terribly short lived even when not taken by violence. (and that's all I'm going to vomit forth on that beast, I hate talking about vampires - they've saddly become trite)


Lich: The lich as we know it might be about power. Not merely power over others, but power over one's self - over one's destiny. The lich has so taken control of its existance that it has denied even death its due. It could also represent the immortal nature of knowledge. Though men and nations may come and go, the lich and its knowledge remain. Really, that is all the lich is any longer. It has give up its humanity, any ties to society, everything it was in life to pursue and protect what it knows. In that regard it could also prepresent our inability to let go of what we have; our insatiable thirst to take it all with us. (though that might be attributed to the Mummy as well)


Well, that's it for now. Certainly not the only way to utilize these creatures as metaphor, but a good start.

[Ail]

So, is your final question: "How can gothic creatures be used as metaphors?" or "What were the social and psychological phenomena which created these creatures in the first place?"

I'll tell you right off, I'm going to avoid the second question.

I myself am not really sure. I guess both things would be useful, and I've done both things in my first post, but I know my ideas aren't exactly clear.

Still, I was more interested in how the creature appeared in human societies' myths all around the world, sort of what was the occult meaning associated to it. It could have been warning, it could have been a memory of times past or it might have been something else, but I feel they were created because there was something very close to the societies that created them (and there were several, there are vampires all around the globe and in all kinds of cultures, from Slavonic Europe to primitive African tribes) that led to the creation of the idea of the monster.

Werebeasts, ghosts and walking dead (that can be a basic kind of vampire, before the romantic notion was attached) are probably the most basic ones
and could have appeared easily from a dead man that was not quite dead, vague indistinct figures that the Shaman claimed he could talk to and a warrior so fierce that he emulated his favourite animal by dressing in his skin and trying to sport the same ferocity it had.

But if the werebeast is perhaps an echo of something the man longed for, seeing in that animal-warrior the supreme example of his tribe, the ghost is the dread spirit of his ancestors which he fears and does not want exactly near (this varies by culture) and the vampire is indeed a parasite that preys upon his own society, a kind of creature that may give a concrete body to primeval fears of unexplained things, like diseases for instance. Something that comes to you in the night and saps at your vitality.

Of course, after the beasts existed in folklore, they were much solidified in written lore, be it sagas, poems, or the edicts of the church, and in this second phase they may indeed have been matched with several virtues or lack thereof, sins, unwanted behaviours, etc.

Bottomline of this all, I'm interested more in the first question but many times answering the second will shed light on the first.

Ail

[ScS of the Fraternity]

I always thought of Liches as the embodiement of mind over body. The lich is a creature of pure intellect - its body is long since rotted away intoa desicated mummy. Along with the body ahve gone all desires - food, shelter, comfort, companionship - all these needs have been removed. Even more telling, the body can be abandoned and replaced. It is the Intellect of the lich that is immortal.
The lich's existance is an exercise in futility. They may accumulate power indefinitly, yet they will never be satisfied with what they get. Liek a true scientist, liches discover that every answer they find only leads them to more questions.
Their hollow, unfulfilled existance shows the mighty power of the mind, but also the dependace on the spirit and the body.

Mummys, in my opinion, are the incarnation of History (or legend, if you want to get more romantic about it).
They are the embodiement of power and royalty - but a power and royalty long since dead. They aren't kings per se - for their glory is long since past. They are instead the voice of history, echoing off the walls of their lightless tomb.
Active mummys, like Anktepot or Renier, show the futility of their reign. Though powerful, they are hampered by the fact that they are dead and their power is over. They refuse to acknowledge that their time is over and that the world belongs to the living. They can kill and destroy all they wish - but they will never again be the rulers they once were.
The mummy is a living lesson - history holds great wisdom, and through that, power - but we must live in the ever-changing present.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Ghosts: Ghosts are memories. They are reminders of what has come before; the sins and regrets of our past which will not let us go.

Very well put. To that, I'd add that ghosts can be seen as the enforcers of commitment -- reminders to honor the dead, to seek justice for those who died as victims, to act out those gestures of courtesy we owe to our predecessors (living and dead) -- in much the same way that the Furies (Greek mythology, not RL) were, in enforcing loyalty to parents. Human beings first imagined ghosts when we started to think of the dead anthropomorphically, as if they still remained a factor in our social milieu, and strove to maintain a bond to our late loved ones. From that grief-born desire to retain social connections to the dead, we developed the idea that the dead could show up and complain if we failed to hold up our end of that posthumous relationship.

The Zombie represents conformity at its core; the loss of individuality as we give into the hunger to be acknowledge the same as everyone else. When you boil us down to our basic formulae, we see how easy it is to become like the zombie - a thing which lives only to eat, procreate and kill. The zombie has no appreciation for what it does to others or its environment; it is unthinking, unfeeling, and knows only that need to continue moving forward.

In addition to the conformity embodied by Romero-style zombies, one could also add compliance as a D&D zombie's metaphor. A D&D zombie doesn't dispute orders, doesn't question authority, doesn't think or doubt or imagine for itself. It's not so much a desire to conform that the D&D zombie embodies, but the trap of becoming an unthinking conformist through passivity, lethargy and lack of initiative.

The lich as we know it might be about power. Not merely power over others, but power over one's self - over one's destiny. The lich has so taken control of its existance that it has denied even death its due. It could also represent the immortal nature of knowledge. Though men and nations may come and go, the lich and its knowledge remain. Really, that is all the lich is any longer.

Another spin on the lich is that it's the ultimate expression of self-denial and self-erasure: the lich seeks to attain a higher goal (usually power or knowledge), but the path it pursues to that end is one that dehumanizes itself, stripping away all the things that make life more than just labor or dry intellect. Family, comfort, passions, are all set aside by the unfeeling lich as "wastes of time" or "irrelevant", until it has nothing left but the goal it strives for. Becoming a lich in the D&D game is much like a science fiction character's becoming a cyborg -- or worse, a disembodied personality-file stored in a computer -- as it's a sacrifice of the things that make one's life worth living, for the sake of a dry, empty objective which ultimately brings no happiness. It's the dark side to asceticism, taken to an extreme even a monk wouldn't consider, and without the spiritual harmony that allow monks to at least remain human at heart.

[Ail]

Thank you for all the answers thus far. I may add that the idea came to me also because I am at the moment thinking about the Doom paths my PCs should follow in case they fail enough PCs. Since the end of the path is a creature that should represent their failings, exaggerating their bad traits or mocking their good ones, this thread is the first step to do it well. It allows me to understand what each monster represents, what each monster mocks, what each monster punishes.

for instance, I've already talked of a PC of mine some months ago who used violence above any other means of solving a problem and had no respect for his fellows nor, indeed, for any other human being whom he deemed week. On top of this, he has an insatiable sexual urge (eg, every night he is in town he tries to get laid with one woman, be it a member of the party or a professional).

I decided the most suited for him would be some kind of hungry dead (currently a Ghoul, Ghoul Lord, Ghast or something in that category). The insatiable hunger is the metaphor for his sexual predatoriousness (if such a word exists!, good grief); his undeath represents his utter lack of emotion and respect for others; his preference of violence over diplomatic or any other kind of solution should be mirrored by a mindless state, more akin to zombies than Ghouls probably.
The player also says he is honourde though evil, but I haven't noticed much of it yet, so this has not been much considered. For now, it will simply translate into fanaticism, in that the transformed creature will never lose an opportunity to make another of its kind, even though it puts itself in danger.

Ail

[Rotipher of the FoS]

predatoriousness (if such a word exists!, good grief);Ail

"Predaciousness" is the word you're looking for, I believe.

[Ail]

predatoriousness (if such a word exists!, good grief);Ail

"Predaciousness" is the word you're looking for, I believe.

Thanks ! I did think that word shouldn't exist

Ail

[Rotipher of the FoS]

"Predaciousness" is the word you're looking for, I believe.

Thanks ! I did think that word shouldn't exist

Ail

De nada. I teach biology, so I know a lot of words that my students wish didn't exist ... particularly right about now (Finals).

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Werebeasts: Werebeasts may well be the beast behind the creature we call man. Though we have tamed ourselves and dressed our bodies in fine leaves, we are still animals underneath; constantly at war with the beast that dwells in each of us, striving to be set free.

Here's a question for you: How does this metaphor apply to non-werewolf werebeasts? For werewolves, yes, sure I'm with you. The same applies for weresharks, weretigers, wereboars, weregorillas, werecrocodiles, maybe even werebears. But what about the weirder ones? What about wererats? hardly the beast within, are they? wereravens? werejackals? werebats? werefoxes?

Are they simply the symptom of variation-happy munchinkin-ism? or do they have some more mythic quality about them? Does the type of animal imply perhaps the type of emotion that's being repressed? Werewolves are repressed savagery, maybe wererats represent repressed greed? wereboars repressed gluttony?

What about "true" lycanthropes, do they represent anything beyond someone who can control their urges, letting them out when they wish? (I'm thinking here, maybe it's the serial killer mentality. They can blend with society when they need to, but see themselves as something apart from it, and when it's "safe" to do so, they can let their repressed animal side out at will.)

[Nathan of the FoS]

How about:

Vampires: Lust
Hags: Gluttony
Werebeasts: Wrath
The Walking Dead: Sloth
Liches: Avarice
Ghosts: Envy
Constructs: Pride

Several of these are a little dicey, but I think it's an interesting starting point. Sloth is kinda hard to figure; I put the Walking Dead there because they could be said represent a loss of individuality, which I associate with the extreme passivity of Sloth.

Throwing in hags for Gluttony is a kludge for having moved the walking dead to Sloth, but I think it has a couple of interesting corrolaries. Hags are associated, both in Ravenloft and in folklore, with eating people (Baba Yaga, anyone?), and, in Ravenloft, with a distortion and defiling of the natural world which correlates roughly to "environmental overconsumption", which I think could fit under the Gluttony rubric.

Vampires and lust obviously assumes Anne Rice vampires, not the old versions, which are more gluttonish in aspect.

Wrath for lycanthropes is pretty strong, I think. I will address your objections in a moment, gonzoron.

Liches might be better as Pride than Avarice, but constructs really have to be Pride, so there you have it. And lich-hood is inherently grasping and selfish--obsessed with getting.

Ghosts as Envy is pretty good, too, IMO. Many ghosts persist from a desire for vengeance, but that's not "evil" per se, and if they confine themselves to that then they're somewhat sympathetic figures. The really dangerous ones are those who hate the living because they want Life for themselves.

Constructs as Pride is another natural. The motivation behind all (or almost all) constructs in Ravenloft terms is either the desire to transcend natural law and replace the real with what one thinks should be.

Which makes me think, someone should write Pygmalion from a Ravenloft perspective...

[Nathan of the FoS]

WRT your question, gonzoron--I would say that the werebeasts who don't represent Wrath are essentially fey creatures, who are disturbing because ordinary ideas of "right" and "wrong" don't seem to apply to them. And werebears are definitely Wrath, with a capital W. ("Berserker" means "bear shirt"--the berserkers wore bear pelts and thought themselves possessed by bear spirits in combat. )

So, fey don't get a spot on the Seven Deadly Sins scale, and that's what makes them disturbing, while fiends hit all seven at once. If we lump the ancient dead with ghosts and set aside the Vistani as a special case (they're not evil, for one thing), I think that covers all the VRGs to the present.

What do y'all think? Too pat?

[Undead Cabbage]

One of the many neat things about Ravenloft is that the Darklords represent what the monsters allegorize.

The idea of the construct is definately a matter of pride. Golems are about taking our abilities as human beings too far. They are a representation of how far people will go to create their dreams. This was well established by Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. This is reflected though the Hubris of Dr. Mordenheim. The Golem is also a symbol of humanity's growing tendency towards aetheism; since the work of the divine is being done in mortal hands the golem is a symbol that perhaps the divine is not all it's cracked up to be.

Vampires, definitely romanticism and passion. Blood itself is a symbol of passion, as is the color red in general. Characters in history that are associated with vampirism, such as Vlad Dracula and Elizabeth Bathory, are high-lighted for their passions and desires. Vampires also tend to be a fairly sexual monsters, both in the past and in the present. This is reflected though Strahd and Kharkov, and their passions towards either one or multiple women.

Vampires and lust obviously assumes Anne Rice vampires, not the old versions, which are more gluttonish in aspect.

I don't know, I'd still argue they represented lust back then. Remember that current day society would be considered jaded as far as what's considered 'lustful' by people of previous times. The idea of a man sneaking in through your window and biting your neck now is seen almost as a cliche now: during Bram Stoker's time it was likely seen and a very lewd thing.

Lichdom is power for the sake of itself. A Lich quite litterally over-powers his own body, which is bound to decay and die. A lich will seak the power, and doesn't like it when other beings over-power him. The Lich is a symbol of humanity's desire to over-power things that seem impossible to out do. This is why the Lich lives beyond death; something that we humans see and incombatable. Azalin Rex is very much the lich.

Ghosts: Ghosts are memories. They are reminders of what has come before; the sins and regrets of our past which will not let us go. Some, the gravest of sins, will not allow us to move forward - they can be possessive and demanding; taking over our lives. The weight of those memories ages us before our time and the longer we hold onto them, the more pervasive they become, until they have infused themselves in everything we do or touch ... and ultimately the only escape is to face them and hope they do not destroy you.

Agreed whole heartedly. The Ghost is all about loss, and our natural habits towards that which is lost. Godefroy and Tristessa are both very habitual characters (Trissy still looks and cares for her child, Godefroy is still 'in charge' of Mordent). Ghosts are the things that we want to be there, but aren't.

Nathan, the 7 sins idea is neat, and I've used them through allegories IMC on numerous occasions, but I don't think they tell the whole story.

For two that haven't been brought up

Dopplegangers: Represent two things: both our 'doppleganger' (or our evil opposit), and the idea that any-one can be your worst enemy. I've said before that the doppleganger is a symbol of a serial killer: the face is human, but the inside is not. A serial killer can hide in a crowd like a parasite until it is too late. I think its obvious how this relates to Paridon and its darklord.

Skeleton: Straight up Death. You cannot have a living skeleton (The Bones themselves are mainly inorganic matter); to see a skeleton means that someone has most definately died. Throughout all of history, the skull has been a symbol of Death (hence the Darklord).

[Rotipher of the FoS]

I think Constructs are a much better candidate for Envy than either ghosts or liches, as the classic dilemma for a construct is that it longs to be human, yet it probably never was and certainly never will be. Even constructs that don't covet a human shape are generally jealous of the social bonds which humans share with one another. A construct's maker may be guilty of Pride, but the construct itself is a creature of envious cravings that can never be fulfilled.

Personally, I'd assign Pride to liches -- what's more arrogant than thinking Death should allow for some special exemption in your case? -- and Avarice to the ancient dead. Walking dead have so many different personalities that I'd hesitate to assign them as a group to any one deadly sin, but would divvy them up by specific type (e.g. revenants are angry, wights are jealous, ghouls are gluttonous, etc). Shadow fey, I might put in the Sloth category by default, as they're essentially bored out of their wits thanks to their indefinite lifespans and hence, are just idly toying with the world around them out of jaded ennui. Ghosts, I'd leave out of the "Deadly Sin" running for the same reason that the Vistani are out of it: not all ghosts are evil.

[Nathan of the FoS]

I think Constructs are a much better candidate for Envy than either ghosts or liches, as the classic dilemma for a construct is that it longs to be human, yet it probably never was and certainly never will be. Even constructs that don't covet a human shape are generally jealous of the social bonds which humans share with one another. A construct's maker may be guilty of Pride, but the construct itself is a creature of envious cravings that can never be fulfilled.

Personally, I'd assign Pride to liches -- what's more arrogant than thinking Death should allow for some special exemption in your case? -- and Avarice to the ancient dead. Walking dead have so many different personalities that I'd hesitate to assign them as a group to any one deadly sin, but would divvy them up by specific type (e.g. revenants are angry, wights are jealous, ghouls are gluttonous, etc). Shadow fey, I might put in the Sloth category by default, as they're essentially bored out of their wits thanks to their indefinite lifespans and hence, are just idly toying with the world around them out of jaded ennui. Ghosts, I'd leave out of the "Deadly Sin" running for the same reason that the Vistani are out of it: not all ghosts are evil.

I like this so much better than what I had that I move my previous comments be stricken from the record.

I considered the shadow fey for sloth, but sloth is hard to shop for; I still think the real thing about the shadow fey is their weirdness; to ascribe any human motivation to their actions diminishes their essential character, I think.

The construct/construct's creator duality is an interesting one; can we properly ascribe the evil actions of a construct to its creator? (Here we actually are talking, at one remove, about the problem of evil--one of the great things about Ravenloft is that it brings up so many philosophical question. )