What Maketh a "Monster"?

General / off topic
1

We’re all used to the term “Doctor Who Monster”, used to describe pretty much any living thing that is neither human nor a part of normal Earth flora/fauna. It’s a shorthand used by the general public and the media to identify what is typically the threat of the week in a Doctor Who story.

The concept of ‘monsters’ has long fascinated me (hence this thread). This also ties in nicely with the Fifteenth Doctor’s assertion that “There’s no such thing as monsters. Only creatures you haven’t met yet.” So, my question is what precisely do we mean by monster? Moreover, how might we classify better?

The etymology of the word ‘monster’ is quite instructive. Monstre meaning malformed creature (medieval French). Monstrum from the Latin for omen of misfortune. This, in turn, derived from monere (to admonish, to warn or to instruct).

What, then, can we take from this? Three characteristics;

  1. Malformation (as in a deviation from normal form);
  2. Omen of misfortune; and
  3. Warning, punishment or instruction

Does a creature need to meet ALL three of these criteria in order to qualify as a true monster? Are two sufficient? How about a single criterion? If so, which?

Criterion 1: The criterion of malformation is the most troublesome here. Are we considering deviation from the norm to mean deviation from our expectations of normality? This would be deeply prejudicial for the unalike (which is, indeed, a core theme of much storytelling on Doctor Who). Thus, those who apply this criterion in defining a monster are showing their prejudice. The Doctor’s message is particularly important here. Alternatively, if we allow that differing from our expectations is not sufficient and that is deviation from the normal form of that species, we ensure that the term ‘monster’ only really applies to those individuals that are different from the species norm either developmentally or due to accident/design. Once again, this raises issues of prejudice. Once again, the Doctor’s message rings true.

I think, therefore, we must discount as monstrous anything that meets the first criterion. Creatures? Yes. Aliens? Often. Monsters because of their form? Categorically not. To classify otherwise is just plain wrong.

Criterion 2: A creature that is an omen of misfortune. Ooh, this is more interesting and ticks a number of Doctor Who boxes. By this criterion, the woman in ‘73 Yards’ could legitimately qualify as a monster. It isn’t that she, herself, is monstrous but that she is a portent of wrongness. This opens the doors for a large number of creatures that appear in Doctor Who (and aren’t necessarily malevolent themselves - although many, indeed, are).

Criterion 3: A creature that serves as a warning, punishment or instruction. This seems very similar to criterion 2 and, I agree, there is significant overlap. The ‘warning’ part certainly could be synonymous with 2. It’s the ‘punishment’ element that is a little different here. I’m now thinking of the Veil from "‘Heaven Sent’ as a definitive punishment style monster.

So, there we have it. In my humble opinion, the vast majority of creatures featured in Doctor Who (and casually referred to as ‘monsters’) are not monsters at all. They may be aliens, unknown creatures, robots, artificial intelligence or, even, people, but they are not true monsters. There are a handful, however, that certainly qualify (either by dint of criterion 2 or 3) and that these entities may often not be malevolent at all.

What other creatures etc. can people think of that would qualify as monsters according to criteria 2 and 3? Alternatively, is there anything I’ve missed in my exploration of the term ‘monster’ and its application to the worlds of Doctor Who?

Doctor-Who-Flux-Returning-Monsters
Doctor-Who-Flux-Returning-Monsters1200×675 113 KB

18 Likes
2

Very interesting, I enjoyed reading that!

Something I always find interesting is how DW likes to present itself as the kind of show that says ‘well, there’s no such thing as a ‘monster’ or universally bad species, everyone deserves a chance’ but then it wants to have a big bad and does that through the Daleks. And I think it’s why I get so tired of Daleks in most stories, because there’s only so much you can do with ‘every Dalek ever is totally evil’. Some stories try and do something else, and some succeed, but so often you just get a very one-note kind of Monster from them.

It happens in other episodes with other antagonists too, so I rather suspect the answer to your question ‘what is a DW monster?’ is ‘whatever is convienient to the narrative’, but I also do think it’s interesting to break this stuff down and think about it.

I will probably have more to say when I wake up a little more haha

15 Likes
3

Thank you for your comments @sircarolyn. Much appreciated, and I’m so pleased that you enjoyed reading what rapidly became an ever spiralling essay! I’ll certainly be interested to read any further thoughts you have (once you’ve woken up a little more :wink:).

I LOVE to break things like this down. It may not mean much to a lot of people, but I like to get under the skin of concepts. Plus, it was the ‘monsters’ (but really the creatures) that I became obsessed with as a small child and, subsequently, led to my career in ecology and biodiversity. It’s also why I developed a passion for the unloved and underappreciated creatures of our own world.

I keep toying with the idea of a thread to explore speculative ecology of the creatures from DW. I know it’s pretty niche, but it is something that I think about pretty much daily.

11 Likes
4

I’d suggest that this is one of the monsters of the week from The Sea Devils…

vlcsnap-2024-09-12-03h19m28s587

15 Likes
5

He certainly meets criterion 2, as he is an omen of misfortune!

7 Likes
6

Since @sircarolyn mentioned the Daleks, I think they absolutely qualify from the Thal perspective as they were engineered to be a punishment meted out against the Thal peoples. Indeed, it may well be the case that the Daleks as a concept truly are the ultimate monsters in DW literally as well as figuratively in that they are intended to be the ultimate sanction against all other life until they are supreme. Davros pushes this to the extreme in ‘The Stolen Earth/Journey’s End’ but it’s evident throughout Dalek storylines.

A nice example of the Daleks as omens of misfortune is in ‘Power of the Daleks’. They are not monstrous to Lesterson or the people of the Vulcan colony, but they are definitively monstrous to the Doctor from the moment he first sees them. He knows what their presence means, and it doesn’t bode well.

10 Likes
7

Okay, I am awake now! And I have things to say! This thread reminded me of some essays I’ve read about the Monster in SF, and when skimming through some of my books I found this by Sian MacArthur to be interesting in her book about Gothic SF:

In early Gothic the role of the monster was clear and easy to define; it was a means of describing the villain of the piece– almost always male and almost always in a relatively high standing social position. As the genre developed and roles and boundaries became less easy to define the physical role of the monster came to be synonymous with the concept of monstrosity (particularly the committing of monstrous acts) and could often be applied to more than one character within a text, and in many cases led to characters demonstrating characteristics of both good and evil simultaneously. What has always remained however is the intent of the monster to terrify and to cause destruction.

[…]

It is out of early Gothic form that the monster in Gothic science fiction grew. Of course the type and nature of the monster is not static and just as in traditional Gothic, the term ‘monster’ does not necessarily mean a literal and physical ‘other’ within the text, but should be interpreted to encompass the theme of threat in its broadest sense. Certainly it is the concept of threat and the nature of intent that links the traditional Gothic monster and the monster of Gothic science fiction

She then splits up the SF Monster into three categories: animal origin, alien origin and human origin, and excitingly for us, she does go on to discuss Fenric and Krynoids as examples of the Monster in DW. And indeed, when we combine those two specifically with your framework of malformation, omens, and warnings, both of those fit into that perfectly.

As you say, malformation is a troubling concept, especially if we assess that physical malformation must inherently equate to monstrousness. This is something I would hope a modern DW would rally against, but something that does come up time and again is the idea of mutation. The Thals are engineered to become Daleks, the Krynoids and the Wirrn and countless others take over the human form, and whole worlds have been destroyed and ruined from war and plague.

Something else MacArthur touches on is the idea of mutation as a way of expressing human monstrosity - she discusses the trope of miniturisation (and its opposite) and how that reflected the fears of nuclear and biological war in the 50s and 60s. Immediately, this makes me think Planet of Giants, which very much touches on fears of problematic science, and also Planet of the Spiders, in which radiation (and giant spiders) are of course a huge theme. This, I would say, ties in greatly to your third criteria. Even if the monsters themselves don’t serve as ‘warning, punishment or instruction’, the story often does. Again, if we think Krynoids, we think about how the story is warning us of the effects of climate change; this is just one example of hundreds that we see in DW (which of course is not and never has been a political show :roll_eyes:)

I would, then, propose we add ‘intent to terrorise or destroy’ to your framework of what makes a DW monster a Monster, as time and again in the show and the EU we see the so-called villians of the stories set out with the intent of causing harm. Even in cases where the monsters are trying to survive or protect themselves, or the creation of the monstrous has been accidental, ultimately, many, many of these Monsters do spread harm and destruction. I think, to truly be a Monster, a creature should hit most if not all the criteria - though, of course, the most interesting stories are often ones that break against this kind of mold.

That was probably far more words than anyone wanted to read, so if you did, thank you! haha

16 Likes
8

Au contraire, @sircarolyn. 'Twas precisely the right amount of words as I very much enjoyed reading it. Thank you! So, following my etymological approach, you have enriched the dialogue by exploring literary interpretations in the Gothic tradition (a la MacArthur). Most illuminating! Yes, I am persuaded by your arguments and feel we should add a fourth criterion:

Criterion 4: The intent to terrorise or destroy: A creature that, by virtue of its nature or the intent of its creation, causes terror and/or destruction. Once again, whilst this certainly includes creatures that are malevolent by nature, I also think it allows the inclusion of those where the intent may not be their own but that of their maker. Daleks qualify both ways as it was certainly Davros’s intent but also individual Daleks very much intend to terrorise and destroy. It also means that, contrary to the Doctor’s claim, the Bogeyman qualifies as a monster in that the parthenogenesis machine had the intent to create a creature that instilled terror (even if not to destroy). Moreover, the Bogeyman is arguably designed as a warning to help the babies learn that caution is key to survival in the universe (the purpose, surely, of all fairy tales - aside, of course, from entertainment), thus meeting criterion 3.

Sticking with the most recent season, the Mantrap Slugs qualify by dint of criterion 4 and the intent to destroy. In this case, terror is not required. The blindness of the Finetime populace to the threat is kind of the point. They are, however, intended as a punishment thus fulfilling criterion 3.

How about a more classic example? I put forward The Malus as a literal monster. Designed with intent (the Doctor says “…a living being, re-engineered as an instrument of war…”), the Malus itself also has its own driving intent to terrorise and destroy. Furthermore, given that the aspect of the Malus is basically comparable to that of a Gargoyle (intended to warn of evil spirits), it also fulfils criterion 3 (a warning, punishment or instruction).

10 Likes
9

There is a lot of symbolism in ‘Planet of Spiders’ and the intent of the Great One certainly pushes her into the ‘monster’ classification. Interestingly, the society of the Eight Legs is monstrous, but there are enough suggestions of individuality within the council members to suggest that the spiders themselves are not necessarily monsters. It, as with humans, is their actions that determine their standing.

Onto the Wirrn and Kynoids (both favourites of mine, and both used as worthwhile examples in your own analysis). My determination is that, as both are creatures simply living their normal life cycle, neither are monsters but both are perceived as monstrous because they represent the threat of possession and, ultimately, destruction to the humans they encounter. In fact, if studied in their native environments, they are simply biota and are no more monstrous than the ichneumon wasps (that so clearly inspired the Wirrn) and carnivorous plants that are most akin to the Krynoids. In this sense, we beautifully see that context matters. Something can be monstrous in one context and yet not in another.

11 Likes
10

This is a great thread, wish I currently had the time to offer a more significant contribution! Just to say - the gent from The Sea Devils in the picture certainly was a monster; but he got his comeuppance. The actor played Joan Collins’ husband in 1972’s Tales from the Crypt. He came to a very sticky end. Much red paint was involved!

10 Likes
11

I love this entire thread, and wish I had the brainspace to add to it. Unfortunately my brain is quite fried right now, but I will say that–similar to what @sircarolyn mentioned–although the equation of malformation and physical disfigurement to evil should, ideally, be antithetical to Doctor Who and its messages of empathy, the show definitely has parroted it often enough in the past!

Black Orchid, for example, which I watched recently, struck me as a very unpleasant take on that idea. The ‘villain’, while he is allowed some level of sympathy, is treated by the cast and writer as fundamentally monstrous because of his deformity. (And that deformity is intrinsically linked to racism and colonialism, also.)

(An aside–Black Orchid is very Gothic, actually! The labyrinthine manor house with its secret rooms, the upper-class family with its terrible secret, even the fire… I don’t think it’s mentioned too often when discussing the Gothic in Who, possibly because it’s shot in broad daylight with such a deceptively cheerful tone, or that the Gothic undertones simply aren’t executed very well! But although I don’t like it personally, I do find its employment of those Gothic tropes interesting. It’s certainly unique in the Davison era.)
.

The other thing I wanted to add was that lots of Who–and lots of sci-fi in general–is built around the concept of aliens as intrinsically monstrous or destructive because of their alienness–quite literally their otherness.

60s Who is quite interesting to me from this perspective–the First Doctor’s era actually undermines and subverts it in stories like Galaxy 4 and the Web Planet, whereas the Second Doctor’s era is, by contrast, chock full of alien races attempting to invade and destroy human colonies and civilisations. Season 5 is literally the “season of monsters”. (Of course, One’s era also has the Daleks, but I’m generalising.) There’s an interesting discussion to be had here on how Who approaches alienness, and I think you can link that back to the colonial ideas of the the other as inherently monstrous, but I don’t have the spoons for that!

I’d love to keep this thread going though. Excellent analysis!!

14 Likes
12

Many thanks to @Napp and @nyssaoftraken for both of your contributions to this thread. I really want to respond as you both make valud points that I wish to discuss. Alas, I shall not have time until tomorrow but, please, both rest assured that I shall address your comments in full when I have time.

Really happy the discussion points have struck a chord with everyone!

:smile: :heart_eyes:

11 Likes
13

Thank you! I want to add something more valid and considered to this interesting chat, but need to find the proper time to do it justice. Tomorrow could be the day!

7 Likes
14

Haven’t fully thought this out, but something I find interesting is how you look at it from a definition-first perspective (I feel like there is some scientific word for it but I don’t know it), whereas my first instinct would be more empirical? So looking at beings in doctor who (not specifically creatures or anything) and then categorize them with one of those categories being monsters. Or perhaps, using some examples we consider monsters (say daleks or cybermen) and other we wouldn’t (the ood maybe?) and then working out from there similarities and distinguishing factors

12 Likes
15

There is much to be said, given the above analysis and four criteria, that the most persistent and truest monsters in the Third Doctor’s era were, indeed, people (and often politicians and/or bureaucrats). Chinn is another example, of course. Human monsters of a non political bent included; Mailer, Reegan and Sir Charles Grover.

I think Grover’s a particularly interesting example. He saw himself as benevolent, yet he (and his co-conspirators - including our very own Captain Yates) used the dinosaurs to spread terror as well as to cause destruction. It could even be argued that they were meting out a punishment against humanity for the wrong turns they perceived society to have made. This meets both criteria 3 (punishment) AND 4 (intent to terrorise and/or destroy). Does this mean that Yates qualifies as a monster in this story? I would argue that this is NOT the case, because Yates was very much a pawn, manipulated and used as a tool.

9 Likes
16

Thank you. And, if I may, you absolutely DO have the brainspace to add to it. Indeed, you do precisely this in your excellent post.

It’s a complex picture, isn’t it? I think there is an undeniable thread, running from the very first season (e.g. ‘The Sensorites’) that shows a positive attitude towards different appearance. This theme, although sometimes less than artfully delivered, cuts against racism and bigotry throughout the show. At heart, then, Doctor Who does broadly reject (although inconsistently) criterion 1 (malformation) as a signifier of a true monster.

That said, you are quite right in that there are significant periods (the first of these is the much-loved Second Doctor era) where alien or monstrous appearance equates time and again with threat and, thus, becomes synonymous with the monstrous. This, we know, was because of Innes Lloyd’s much more pulp Sci Fi entertainment approach to DW. I think there’s also a strong Cold War politics at play in this era - the enemy from outside posing a significant threat to the cosy safety of “our” way of life.

Taken in isolation, season 5 in particular is really quite xenophobic (very unlike most of DW) and certainly uses criterion 1 repeatedly in its portrayal of the “monsters”. As a whole, though, I think we can broadly forgive these moments because, given that there are so very many cases to the contrary across the 60+ year history of DW, the show as a whole still rejects that something we perceive is hideous or “other” is necessarily a monster. That said, there are no free passes. In the staggering vastness of time and space, it would be absurd for us to assume that everything which looks different is well intentioned. Whilst we should not judge by appearance, it is no less likely that there will be genuine monsters that might appear to match the prejudice. The key point to remember is that their monstrous nature arises not as n inevitable consequence of their appearance. Appearance is inconsequential. Intent and meaning matter far far more. In this sense we, as fans, can forgive (and even excuse) eras like the Second Doctors as simply being periods where the Doctor was unlucky enough to encounter a number of races that appeared to conform to stereotypes. The Doctor, however, never allowed this to colour his overall view. The Third Doctor, following immediately on from such a period, does not allow this to colour his approach to life as a whole (though, rather neatly, it does colour his initial perception of the Ice Warriors, leading to him realising he needs to adjust his view).

Apologies. I think I may be rambling now, but I’m off on a roll!

As for ‘Black Orchid’, you are quite right to highlight this. In a way, however, it plays with audience expectations of the monstrous and should make us question who the real monsters are here? For my money… Lady Cranleigh has a great deal to answer for! I do agree that ‘Black Orchid’ plays to the stereotype. In part, I think it is trying but it is rather awkward in the ways it does this. I’d actually like to see a similar approach today, showing much more nuance.

What we see, throughout the decades then, on DW, is an evolution of the way to explore these issues. Sometimes more succesfully thjjan others, but frequently with more depth and persistence than in most other genre TV.

And, yes, the Gothic influences in ‘Black Orchid’ are rich. It is a story replete with Gothic themes and symbolism.

I think that’s where I’ll leave it for now. Until the next time, fellow analysts and critics of the concept of… the monster! :wink:

9 Likes
17

Indeed! It’s funny you should say that because, professionally, I am an empiricist. In truth, I have considered “monsters” in DW and the portrayal of concepts of the monstrous for decades (yes, I confess it is something of an obsession).

I used to try and approach things with a more empirical eye. Trying to be empirical with something that is, ultimately, conceptual is challenging, however. Criteria matter, so that I can be sure I am applying fairly. For example, when working in biological taxonomy, I am closely studying anatomical structures or DNA sequencing. This is most effective in determining species and phylogenies in the real world but is, in my opinion, no use at all in identifying whether a creature is a monster or not. Hence, etymology (and, as @sircarolyn beautifully demonstrates) literary theory/history provides a more fertile ground for my approach.

That said, your own approach sounds interesting to me. I’d love to see what you come up with? In biological taxonomy, obviously field work is predominantly based on morphology and appearance (out of necessity - I can’t conduct molecular analyses when working in the field). Historically, phylogenies were determined via morphology because molecular tools did not exist. Now we have molecular evidence as well. A good deal of modern taxonomy requires us to determine if molecular evidence supports or rejects prior assumptions on the basis of morphology alone. Perhaps it would be instructive to compare your conclusions with mine and see if we agree on our taxonomy of monsters?

:wink: :smiley:

11 Likes
18

I’m not sure my following post tackles the subject as well as I’d like it to, but this is such a fine thread, I couldn’t just pass it by.

One of my favourite ever quotes from Doctor Who is “There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.” I don’t agree with everything Steven Moffat did, but that line’s a belter, and deals with the ‘shift’ of a perceived alien, or monster.

It must have been a lot easier to think in terms of black and white for a Doctor Who monster back in the classic days. If you’ve got three heads, or are covered in fur, chances are you’d be looked on as a monster. My favourite fictional character is Frankenstein, or more specifically, his creation. It’s established early on that this creature is just a child, a potentially intelligent child who just wants ‘to be friends’. It’s the treatment of him by those around him, those who fear him because of the way he looks, that actually makes him become a monster through his actions – which are simply those of an outsized infant who is treated badly. And yet, he is still called a Monster, even though it is the others – the normal, decent, respectable folk – who are far more monstrous. He becomes the monster they have always perceived him to be, and in effect, have ‘made’ him.

Look at the poor old Taran Woodbeast! Never did anything to anyone but no one has a good word to say about him!

I’m joking of course, but I think the days of judging a monster as monstrous just because of its appearance are long gone. Whilst this is a step forward and makes things more interesting/complex, it must also must be more difficult for writers who just want to give us a good scare.

The Pirate Planet is good in this regard, the ‘twist’ being that the big, scary shouting Captain is just an unwilling pawn, and it’s the beautiful Nurse who pulls the strings. While you can’t beat a terrifying Morbius-type figure lumbering out of the shadows, it’s the more presentable, ‘wolf in lamb’s clothing’ human masters who are the truest monsters. I’d argue that you can’t really have one without the other for a truly memorable double act. Monstrously speaking, of course!

14 Likes
19

This is, indeed, a great line. Yes, it identifies a lot of the potential issues we should be addressing.

Indeed so! What makes it all the more impressive, therefore, is that as early as season 1 there are examples to the contrary. I cited ‘The Sensorites’ earlier, where the different looking aliens turn out to be victims, not antagonists (City Administrator excepted). Even in ‘The Daleks’ (a much more ‘black and white’ story), though the Daleks turn out to be genuine monsters, it is they (the Daleks) that initially argue monstrosity is associated with ‘malformation’ (they even suggest that the Thals must be “disgustingly mutated”). The Thals, by contrast, do not judge the Daleks by appearance but by their terrible actions. In many ways, ‘The Daleks’ is a very simple story where the monsters look monstrous, but what subverts this is that the initial prejudice comes from the monsters. They are defined as such, not by their looks but by their actions.

Like I say, DW hasn’t always got it right and it’s sometimes been a little clunky in the way it has attempted to deliver this message (as @nyssaoftraken pointed out earlier, ‘Black Orchid’ really doesn’t get the balance quite right at all), there is a through line across the 61+ years (which is a joyous thing).

11 Likes
20

Do you know, I truly love ‘The Pirate Planet’. For all its flaws and apparent shoddiness, it is replete with fantastic ideas. There is no question that the Captain is a monster. He meets our criteria so well. Ignoring criterion 1 (yes, he’s a cyborg, but that isn’t the cause of his villainy) he uses omens and portents that signify death and destruction (even though the populace of the planet don’t realise it) and he certainly has intent to cause destruction (even if his ultimate motivation is to rid himself of Xanxia). He IS a monster, but she is THE monster of the piece!

7 Likes