The Beast Within and Without

In the world of literature, there are two opposing forces that tug at one another in a struggle for dominance in order to maintain the balance of harmony. The light requires a shadow, and the dark requires the light to merely exist. Good and evil occupy opposite extremes of the spectrum, and apply to all that subsists on the literary plane. Views and ideas reflect this, and so too does the literary character. Representations of what should be good, and what should be evil consists of human and inhuman depictions of beings that contrast by way of appearance and temperament. In spite of these apparent restrictions on the forms of characters, there is always a manner of challenging the guidelines.

The human mind is molded into understanding a set structure of that which is good, and that which is evil. The line between the two sides is rigidly established, and each holds a distinct pattern of behaviors, attitudes, and archetypes. One can discern the alignment of something based solely on an initial judgment. However, this form of understanding is not necessarily accurate, and requires more than a passing assessment. Appearances can be deceiving; especially when a deep-seated method of evaluation draws its conclusions from a basis of what is visible, not what truly forms a character and its disposition. If one were to look closer, the distinctive personality of characters considered on either on the right or wrong side of would be revealed. This will provide a new concept of what is good and evil based on thoughts and ways of thinking, not solely appearances.

Ugliness on the outside is attributed with ugliness on the inside. A person who is odd mannered and generally unattractive would be considered evil compared to a person who is good looking and sociable. This same process of reasoning applies to literary characters. A character that is introduced as something monstrous is inherently bad, while a character introduced as something human, is not. Characters of the literary variety allow for a better view of what makes up their morals, attitudes and thoughts, something that is far less clear in reality. The reader may understand something written [which they themselves must decipher] better than something they simply look at.

Monster characters are usually given only a modicum of humanity. The impression is that if there were to be more, the probability for pity would be higher than the probability for horror. Frankenstein’s monster was given a large dose of humanity, yet still retained an abject form of perpetual awfulness. He knew of his own conflicting states of right and wrong, and stated that “the fallen angel becomes a malignant devil” (Shelley. 204), whereas the innocence he owned was replaced by the darkness fueled by discrimination and hate. Frankenstein, of course, possessed a relatively violent temperament, as would be expected of an unnatural creature. Beneath the terrible exterior, however, rested an inner side that should be inconceivable, where intelligence and tolerance formed a base surpassing the set standard of a beast. The monster Frankenstein housed a noble spirit in the body of a being that was an abomination of nature. In essence, that which is supposed to be thoroughly depraved and wicked is essentially not.

Conversely, human characters are unquestionably expected to be aligned with good, and to always follow the straight path. The hero is often painfully good, virtuous, and is always the epitome of humankind. Problems are solved justly under their guidance, those that are not righteous fall beneath their tread, and no one openly dislikes them. There is also [in the average novel] a lack of truly bad humans that are not capable of reforming from their erroneous ways. Evil human characters, that is to say, the villain, exhibits inhuman qualities, so as to convince the audience that he is not a true human. By doing so, the terrible acts are not so terrible, for the evil human character is not really human, and the audience thereby does not feel guilty about the actions of a fellow being. At times, though, characters under further analysis provide a look into an different point of view.

At times, a human character can [albeit rarely] be given a role that allows for them to retain an outward semblance of normalcy, while concealing a deviant form of malevolence on the inside. The outward sheen of civilization covers something twisted from the suggested “pure” form of humanity. A character named Priest, from The Hammer of Eden, lived by a code that permitted all others to do as they please, so long as it was what he wanted. By uttering “Dear God Almighty, forgive me,” (Follet.21), his actions were justified, even the murdering of countless innocents for his own selfish cause. This kind of character, which has a truly evil core, challenges the very idea that only monsters and demons can be evil. Priest, whose name even invokes the idea of holiness, owned a soul of incredible cruelty, an abomination in human form.

Monster based evil is much more accepted than human based evil. The monster is generally always the one who performs acts of brutality without provocation. An evil human always has a specific motive for doing what he or she does, unlike a stereotypical dumb, brash monster. The most commonly accepted concept would be where the monster is unreasonably bad, and that the evil human is merely down the wrong path, as provided in literature, films, or any other form of fiction. In spite of this, representations of opposite conventional characters do exist, such as Frankenstein and Priest. Frankenstein is genuinely misunderstood in the start, while Priest merely pretends to be; a whole new outlook on character behavior is opened up, where the possibility of good being evil and vice versa is much like blindness [inability or unwillingness to accept an unusual idea].

Since monsters are straightforward in their obvious nature of aggression, human aggression is considered to be buried farther under the surface. There is a part of people kept from the eyes of the world, where one hides their true nature “there in his self-created cage,” (Armstrong. 16) Unless the kindness or wickedness is too strong to be fully concealed, no one is the wiser of a persons true position on the scale of good and bad. Heroic characters have an evident good center, but those that are simply regular or of questionable alignment hide their true personalities within themselves. A charming attitude and a silver tongue could very well belong to one of truly good intent or of malicious intent. Either is likely, yet one would not want to question the integrity of a person for the fear of broaching the very subject of what they have personally hidden.

Hidden malevolence is difficult to uncover, considering that it is only the person who possesses it that honestly knows of its existence. In literature, a person has their thoughts opened to the eye of the reader, who interprets what they wish from what they read. Characters may then take on a new perspective as secret manipulations and events are revealed through the written word, which would have been missed from a physical appraisal in reality. The darkness is distinguished from beneath the thin veil of righteousness that is cast over a human character simply for being part of humankind. Much like there is Mr. Hyde for the doctor, seemingly normal characters can be just as terrible and ruthless as their monstrous counterparts, or perhaps more so considering the false lull of security they provide. The line between the two sides begins to blur when uncertainty marks previously assured and proper thought patterns.

The external attributes of a character do not truly represent them, even if it may allow for a haphazard guess at exactly what they are about. There are definitely many characters that play into what they have been cast as, but at other times there are more variations to the idea of what is morally right and wrong. Characters that appear as murderous beings may be misinterpreted as such, while actually being at least kind to a certain extent, while the opposite goes for human characters. They may seem great and glorious, but beneath the surface lies a shallow to bottomless well of the reverse of the expected qualities.

In literature, there will always be the monster and the human, the unnatural and the natural, who are vastly different unless interpreted otherwise. The ugliness without will determine the repulsiveness within, and what is apparently evil will be considered evil. The fact is that appearances can be deceiving, especially considering appearances in reality. In literature, the reader must make the judgment of alignment by reading between the lines for a character, and understand their thought process. In truth, all that has been written and all that ever will be written is based on reality, and while there are monster characters and there are human characters, humankind exists to provide an equal example for both.