Jump to content

Talk:Monster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zechariahmonster (talk | contribs) at 10:53, 30 July 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

untitled

Two points:

  • Judging from what links here, almost everything that points here relates to monsters as a sort of legendary creature. I don't see anything that links here that relates to the teratology sense. Teratology is a stub in any case. I would rewrite that paragraph and move it to teratology.

-- IHCOYC


I don't know a whole lot about the Bogeyman, but I added it as children often believe that such a monster is real. WhisperToMe 01:41, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Origin of the Word "Monster"

The etymology is off. OED says it's from monere and random blobs (to warn) not monstrare (to show). I've never wiki'd, so I'm not going to edit the original, but someone should check this out. I don't know, in disagreements over the etymology of English words, we should probably go with the OED, right?

Right.Chrisrus (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goldberg

According to Jonah Goldberg at http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200502090800.asp:

"The original meaning of the word "monster" derives, via Old French, from a word for "divine omen or warning." The Latin monstrum comes from the verb monere, meaning 'warn.' A monster was a deformed person or animal that people mistook for a harbinger of evil or bad spirits. The idea that monsters were horrible creatures came later. It wasn't until perhaps as late as the 16th century when the literary notion that monsters were big slobbery dragons and beasts was well established."

Has anyone else come across word origins for the word "monster" that conflict with those in the article?

MSTCrow 04:45, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) Hmm, kinda strange he says that 'it wasn't until the 16th century when the literary notion that monsters were.. ..well established'. I mean, we've got the beowulf epos from the early Middle Ages where there are monstrous creatures like Grendel and 'the dragon'. Also, throughout the Middle Ages we can read about dogheads, hybrids and dragon-like seamonsters in many forms and sizes (as can be read in 'the life of saint columba, created around 700). Why do you use such a weak and meaningless source anyway? I will add some info later to elevate this superficial entry about monsters on wikipedia. For those who are truly interested in the subject, here are some suggestions: - Monsters and the Monstrous in Medieval Northwest Europe, a bunch of essays editted by K.E. Olsen and L.A.J.R. Houwen (2001). - The Monstrous Races in Medieval Art and Thought, by John Block Friedman (Harvard Uni Press 1981). - Of Giants, by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen (Minneapolis 1999).

Etymonline, Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary also say "warn" rather than Show. The article should definitely be changed. --Mr. Billion 16:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I've just changed it. Looks like Wiktionary needs to be altered, too. --Mr. Billion 16:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do verbs have plurals?

Article says: "medieval vulgar Latin verb monstrare (plural monstrum)". Since when does a verb have a plural? I am assuming monstrare is the infinitive, and monstrum is a participle or gerund or something of the sort.

Should be "past participle." Fixed.129.170.221.154 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verbs do have plurals. (And a single verb does have a plural. :P ) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 15:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Monsters were generally composed under a group that befell humans." I can't parse this sentance. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 15:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ha ha ha! Jonah Goldberg is absolutely wrong and crazy! The concept of monstrum exists ever since the Roman Age, developed above all during the Middle ages, and was utilized to mean any sort of prodigy or miracle, even natural prodigies (i.e. freaks) contributions 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

PLEASYOBAC

What's this?

PLEASYOBAC This creature lives in woods and is found in suburb areas. It can get to 8 feet tall and is green some sightings say its body is blue but we have no photo evidence of a blue Pleasyobac yet.Please dont eat pizza rolls near this monster and if you hear a loud screetch noise run away! haha tessa we tricked you

Looks like spam or vandalism to me. I don't know how to delete it, someone else please?

regards

Menno

MNijhuis 19:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

A lot of this article has weird phrasing and could probably use a rewrite. Example from article: "Ancient peoples considered the birth of "freaks" representations of the wrath of the gods, a demonstration, as it were." Seems weird, rewrite please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.193.152 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 25 February 2007

This is not an article, it is a trivial list of films, books, and television episodes where monsters have been witnessed by random editors. Shame. Burntsauce 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not an article and in need of a rewrite. I've never created a wiki page, but would be willing to do so for this page. A monster is a more or less universal concept and carries with it all kinds of cultural, psychological, and other meanings. The article as currently stands is remarkably bad. I'm not sure of the etymology, so I won't address that immediately. The second paragraph, though, is abysmal: the word 'ecosystem' seems a bit absurd and representative of a particular academic framing rather than an attempt to actually define (why not 'worldview,' 'social norm,' or any one of many other categories that this or that author may favor as important); the second sentence arbitrarily selects several of many possible characteristics of a 'monstrous' person; and, the third sentence is just a poorly written repetition of the second. Finally, because I am not all too familiar with Wiki protocol, is it necessary or desirable to capture all of a word's usages? Does this article really need to describe all the reasons that an English speaker may use the word 'monster' to describe another person? After all, an unusually large person may be described as 'a monster,' so too a particularly well-hit home run, a truck, a wave, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.188.216 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Vandalism has been excessive, this page needs to be restricted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feyre (talk • contribs) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I agree. Just now, I had to use rollback three times in the space of six minutes. AyrtonProst Sign Here/Contact 14:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There's a strange phrasing in the "Monsters in Gaming" section: "Other times, the term can carry a neutral connotation, such as in the Pokémon franchise, where it is used to refer ugly animals said that they ate their poo at may resemble, but are not, real world animals. Characters in games may refer to all animals as 'monsters'." I'm assuming that talk of autocoprophagia is not up to snuff for Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.87.237 (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

I rarely edit Wikipedia, so I'm asking: Is there a "collaboration of the day/week" type of thing we can nominate this page for? This page needs some attention really badly! --68.96.79.79 (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think individual WikiProjects sometimes have "collaborations of the week/month", but so far this article hasn't been claimed by any WikiProject. +Angr 07:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page needs a lot more international perspective. It's highly Eurocentric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.129.145 (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside movies and video games?

Is there really nothing that can be said about monsters outside movies and video games? It's annoying to read about movies here, with no mention of the books they are based on. (Not to mention the folkloristic and psychological basis for all of it.) JöG (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the legendary creature article to this one, considering that "monster" is used as the de facto term for these types of things. Disputable, but it seems like it would fit perfectly within the article. On the other hand, things like unicorns would not fit in, so this article may have to be moved to another title. Maybe it could be merged back and the popular culture part be moved to Monsters in popular culture, so that Monster (disambiguation) could be moved to this page.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation!

On behalf of Elmo, may I object to the description "dangerous" and "hideous"?! Draggleduck (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you aren't being a troll here, it actually would be good to mention the Henson "Monsters" as a reaction to the fearsome "legendary monster" sense of the word that actively works against childhood fears, etc. Geoffr111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The Prodigious

Granted, the "legendary creature" sense of the word may be the one most often used to link to this page, but shouldn't it also include some sort of mention of the sense of prodigies and omens? Especially given that legendary creatures are often prodigious. In the example of Medusa that is mentioned, her ugliness is prodigious in the sense that it is punishment for her sin of hubris and vanity. Teratology is one aspect of this, but not all. Why else do we call criminals "monsters"? Shouldnt this be touched upon?

Also, though OED gives MONEO as one of the etymological roots, it also gives the noun MONSTRUM, which is in fact related to the verb MONSTRO. Monsters are as much about warning as they are about showing and revealing the invisible or hidden. Literal deformities and abnormalities of literary and legendary creatures can often (as with Medusa) reveal inward sins or transgressions. Is there no space here to include such matters? Some more pre-20th century examples would seem to be important as well. Geoffr111 (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are you proposing to use? Fences&Windows 20:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of possible sources that would make a very fine point of all this (in addition to the expansion of the OED etymology I have suggested), but I would prefer to keep it more general so that heavy citation wouldn't be necessary. Note that the article as it is currently doesn't cite source material in any significant (or clear) way.
However, I can name some here... A.W Bates has a book called Emblematic Monsters that discusses, among other things, the relationship between physical and moral deformity in purportedly real "birth" monsters. Julie Crawford's Marvelous Protestantism discusses the "deformity" metaphor of sin and vice/crime. As to the correlation between punishment and transgression as in the example of Medusa... is it really necessary to provide citation? Hers was an ironic punishment, reflective of the crime of hubris/vanity, just like that given to Tantalus and others in classical mythology. Does this not constitute a common knowledge?
I suppose what I am proposing here is just the inclusion of a different branch of interpretation than "Legendary Creature" that includes the moral implications of monstrosity as something that constitutes a prodigious manifestation of evil/vice —either metaphorical (appearance, physiognomy, etc.,) or in action (the commission of sin, violent crime, deplorable acts, etc.). Even a brief acknowledgment that the word monster is more than just a category that includes Draculas, dragons, and video game creations would be prudent. Geoffr111 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pokemon

"with the most famous examples being the Pokemon franchise"

how is pookemon a franchise?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.249.20 (talk • contribs)

To quote the article Media franchise: "A media franchise is an intellectual property involving the characters, setting and trademarks of an original work of media (usually a work of fiction), such as a film, a work of literature, a television program or a video game." Ian.thomson (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children

Why isn't there anything about how most kids think monsters exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.98.35 (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it's just a stereotype. I never believed monsters were real, and neither did any of the kids I've known (then or now). 98.65.166.26 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list

The list at the end of the article is pointless and useless, it's just a collection of whatever monsters came to someone's mind. Linking to one of the lists of legendary creatures would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.247.86 (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Wikipedia July 25 2018 2 Zechariahmonster (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boss fights

Not all monsters in video games are regular they are tougher ones called "boss fights" they should be a subsection about them and a few examples plus a link to the boss fight article. --109.76.35.231 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But not all boss fights are monsters. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncanny Valley?

Is there a source for the uncanny valley segment? What's written there is sparse and doesn't do a good job of linking 'monster' with 'just different enough from people to be unsettling', especially considering that monsters are by definition very different from humans and quite obviously so at that. I looked at the uncanny valley page and a text find for 'monster' turned up 0 matches, so I don't see how or why this segment is here. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Uncanny Valley article, it primarily applies to androids. A lot of discussion of how this concept is used in other media goes on at TV Tropes, but, I don't think that it should be applied to this article without citations.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single and Double Monsters

This article needs to be expanded to include a broader definition of "Monster" (legendary creaturs only is not appropriate for a generic entry) - so, looking at — Public Domain This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) — I'll write a relevant section accordingly.--Monozigote (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Working Classic

§ "Classic Monsters" needs to be renamed or get different content. For classic should be something like monsters from mythology folk legend, etc. not the Walmartian concept of Classics. Or just remove it entirely doesn't fit rest of article which appears like it was written by editors that could appreciate the distinction. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this was addressed, ty. Lycurgus (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Birth Defects

I really don't understand why almost the entirety of § "Definitions" is just spent describing birth defects, this feels somewhat off-topic. Additionally, much of the language it uses is dehumanizing towards people with these conditions, outright calling them literal monsters. I understand that the article is "about legendary creatures and physical deformity", but it doesn't seem like that's what the article simply titled "Monster" should be about. Rather, I feel a page about the connection between the cultural ideas of monsters and physical deformities, separate from, but linked to/summarized in this article would be more appropriate. – 22:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Extremely Dehumanizing

I understand that birth defects/those with disabilities are, historically and culturally, tied pretty closely with the concept of monsters, but the fact that the majority of the article is discussing real-world birth defects and referring to them as "monstrosities", as if that were an actual medical descriptor (it's not) feels both unnecessary and offensive. The fact that most of the article is discussing disabilities and teratology (which is a completely separate topic and has its own page) feels odd, especially since the word "monster" is also used to denote actions, not just appearances (i.e., referring to a serial killer as a "monster"). I feel like a few parts of this article should absolutely be edited/rewritten, preferably by someone with maybe some more sensitivity towards actual people with disabilities/birth defects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tortoiseguy1 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:UNCENSORED.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because saying that the article for "monster", which is generally always used to talk about either weird/spooky creatures or people who've done horrible things, shouldn't be mostly about birth defects, is censorship now? --Jessietail (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for "censorship". I'm saying that referring to disabled people explicitly as "monsters" (rather than more accurately phrasing it as "once thought of as monsters", for example) is archaic, medically inaccurate, and unnecessarily cruel. I'm also saying that it's odd that an article about monsters as a very general topic is almost entirely dedicated to the subject of teratology, which, as I said, has its own article on here. The information on, say, mythological monsters, or monsters as a cultural and societal concept, is oddly minimal, with what information there is here seeming to still come from a strangely teratological slant (as well as bizarrely archaic, referring to those born with deformities as "human monsters" as if that were an actual technical term, which it definitely isn't). My saying it's offensive isn't me saying that it harms my delicate senses, but rather that the information presented in this article is lacking, and that much of it is phrased oddly, using terminology that the medical community hasn't used in a very long time (I don't know what doctors or teratologists the writer was talking to, but "monster" hasn't been an accurate or appropriate term to refer to someone born with a deformity in hundreds of years).Tortoiseguy1 (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That whole section seems to have entirely been added by some user Monozigote back in 2013 and somehow came to dominate the page with no one questioning it as far as I can see --Jessietail (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, I remember reading this article for research for an essay in high school back in 2014, and I have no memory of this article being like this.Tortoiseguy1 (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, fixed. It should lure the asshole who made the ableist section in for an edit war.Falconfly (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life inspiration

Should it be mentioned that real animals have historically been considered monsters? In almost all cases, they are carnivorous megafauna who consider humans to be a potential food source, such as bears, crocodiles, and tigers. I have read some sources which attribute these to the origins of the cultural and mythological variety. --King Starscream (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monster&oldid=852638633"