The story of his tortured wanderings through the centuries
is pieced together through those
who have been implored by Melmoth
to take over his pact with The Devil.
Influenced by the Gothic romances of the late 18th
century, Maturin's diabolic tale raised the genre to
a new and macabre pitch.
Its many admirers include Poe, Balzac,
Oscar Wilde and Baudelaire.
monster (n.)
early 14c., monstre, "malformed animal or human, creature afflicted with a birth defect," from Old French monstre, mostre"monster, monstrosity" (12c.), and directly from Latin monstrum "divine omen (especiallyone indicatingmisfortune), portent, sign; abnormal shape; monster, monstrosity," figuratively "repulsive character, object of dread, awful deed, abomination," a derivative of monere "to remind, bring to (one's) recollection, tell (of); admonish, advise, warn, instruct, teach," from PIE *moneie- "to make think of, remind," suffixed (causative) form of root *men- (1) "to think."
Abnormal or prodigious animals were regarded as signs or omens of impending evil.
Extended by late 14c. to fabulous animals composed of parts of creatures (centaur, griffin, etc.).
Meaning "animal of vast size" is from 1520s; sense of "person of inhuman cruelty or wickedness, person regarded with horror because of moral deformity" is from 1550s. As an adjective, "of extraordinary size," from 1837. In Old English, the monster Grendel was an aglæca, a word related to aglæc "calamity, terror, distress, oppression." Monster movie "movie featuring a monster as a leading element," is by 1958 (monster film is from 1941).
Origin and meaning of monster
Entries linking to monster
*men- (1)
Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to think," with derivatives referring to qualities and states of mind or thought.
It forms all or part of: admonish; Ahura Mazda; ament; amentia; amnesia; amnesty; anamnesis; anamnestic; automatic; automaton; balletomane; comment; compos mentis; dement; demonstrate; Eumenides; idiomatic; maenad; -mancy; mandarin; mania; maniac; manic; mantic; mantis; mantra; memento; mens rea; mental; mention; mentor; mind; Minerva; minnesinger; mnemonic; Mnemosyne; money; monition; monitor; monster; monument; mosaic; Muse; museum; music; muster; premonition; reminiscence; reminiscent; summon.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit manas- "mind, spirit," matih "thought," munih "sage, seer;" Avestan manah- "mind, spirit;" Greek memona "I yearn," mania "madness," mantis "one who divines, prophet, seer;" Latin mens "mind, understanding, reason," memini "I remember," mentio "remembrance;" Lithuanian mintis "thought, idea," Old Church Slavonic mineti "to believe, think," Russian pamjat "memory;" Gothic gamunds, Old English gemynd "memory, remembrance; conscious mind, intellect."
demonstrable (adj.)
"capable of being proved or made evident beyond doubt," c. 1400, from Old French demonstrable and directly from Latin demonstrabilis, from demonstrare "to point out, indicate, demonstrate," figuratively, "to prove, establish," from de- "entirely" (see de-) + monstrare "to point out, show," from monstrum "divine omen, wonder" (see monster). Related: Demonstrably.
DAVE FILONI: The First Time George Lucas Talked About Ahsoka
"Anakin Skywalker has a Padawan.
Anakin has a Padawan."
Early 2008 discussion with Dave Filoni and Henry Gilroy
"No, I like my own characters. I want to get Anakin and Obi-Wan in. I want to give Anakin a padawan
Let's take that girl there."
Early 2008 development of Clone Wars,
How Star Wars Conquered the Universe by Chris Taylor
DAVE FILONI: Ahsoka vs Vader Duel Breakdown
A *Brilliant* decision that I *HATED* at the time -- mostly due to her initial childish attitude with all of that "Sky-Guy" sass and backchat. But of course, that's what pre-Teen/Teenage Girls DO, and that's also precisely why she is there.
There is also a great symmetry to it -- George often talks about the symmetries or "rhymes" that occur throughout his structuring of The Saga.
What is Luke's ultimate vulnerability? *His Sister.* Vader learns of, discovers and threatens, in an obscenely leery way to harm and corrupt, His Sister -- *That's what unleashes Luke's Passion.*
(It's also what unleashes Luke's Passion in a moment of Pure Instinct, when he contemplates murdering His Nephew in his sleep)
He is fully prepared to lose -- to give up his life, and allow His Father (or Palpatine) to kill him, rather than murder his own Father, in the absolute faith and confidence that His Father would never do it... What Luke is NOT prepared to do is allow His Father to harm His Sister (again). That's *DEEP.*
But it also means, that Vader needs to have some insight into the effect that *threatening* to harm Leia will do to His Son, as his intent in that moment is to *PROVOKE* Luke into breaking cover, emerging from The Shadows and MAKE him confront him in swordplay once more. And he cannot really *HAVE* an insight of that kind, having not experienced that kind of relationship, or the bonds of filial closeness -- other than Ashoka, he has only one half-brother, whose existence he cannot really cope with or deal with, who he can barely even look at until he has brought home Their Mother's body, from which time onward, he obviously despises him, and so no actual real or close relationship between the two hostile brothers is either feasible or possible.
When Obi-Wan hides and places Luke in the household of Anakin's only surviving blood-relative (and when Palpatine has no way of knowing for SURE that Anakin's heavily pregnant wife and unborn child are dead), The Emperor never even thinks to have his Jedi Hunters or Inquisitors look for them there.
Mind you -- he never thinks to ask one of the most popular and eminent members of his Senate : "Your wife was never pregnant -- explain this newborn baby girl that you are now raising as your daughter."
Why he decided to do it...? Well, he has daughters -- and nothing brings out the protective instinct and exposes the vulnerabilites of a Man more, than having a little sister to look after and care for.
It's also critical just how contrary to the spirit and ethos of the late-antebellum, decadent Jedi Order she is -- Palpatine is able to see their weakness and corruption and exploit the opportunity to overthrow them, seize power and crush them as a rival centre of Power in The Republic, because they have become sterile, aloof and complacent, whilst at the same time, ignoring their own rules and violating The Jedi Code whenever it is convenient.
It is against The Jedi Code to train anyone as old as Anakin is when Qui-Gonn brings him before The Council, who still remembers (and loves) his mother, yet they question him anyway and apply their testing, knowning going in that they are going to reject him; then, when Obi-Wan threatens to resign from The Order and train Anakin himself, without their blessing to honour his dying Master's wish, Yoda decides (by himself) to over-rule The Council and ignore The Jedi Code and allow Obi-Wan to train him as his Padawan.
By the time Ashoka comes along, ten years later, The Wars have started, and The Jedi simply begin to ignore their Code of Honour whenever it is inconvenient not to do so, for reasons of military expediency -- since no Jedi should be assigned more than one Padawan learner and (ordinarily) no Padawan can advance on to become a full Jedi Knight without successfully completing a series of trials at The Jedi Temple on Coruscant, and undergoing a ritual initiation ceremony (where the other Knights cut off your Padawan braid and salute you, sabres drawn), like Obi-Wan, they make the administrative decision that his displays of extraordinary courage, bravery and valour in shown in confronting a Sith Lord in single combat -- and saving his Master's life in doing-so) satisfies the requirement for having undergone The Jedi Trials and they just *MAKE* him a Knight. And give a Padawan of his own, IMMEDIATELY.
They are failing to follow their own Laws and govern (themselves) in a Fair & Equitable Manner, and those that do so have abdicated from their inherent Right to Rule (both over themselves, and others) -- when Master Windu takes the final step of seizing control of The Government in a Palace coups by disarming and arresting Palpatine, then attempts to execute a prisoner in his custody who is begging for his life, he has taken the final step into Total Depravity and Palpatine and Vader Rightfully Act to crush The Jedi Order and Salt The Earth beneath it.
Well, I think that Star Wars is a valid mythological perspective.
It shows The State
as A Machine and asks:
Is The Machine going
to crush Humanity,
or Serve humanity?
And Humanity comes
not from The Machine,
but from The Heart.
(Clip from Star Wars)
VADER:
Luke. Help Me to
Take This Mask Off.
LUKE SKYWALKER:
But You’ll Die.
JOSEPH CAMPBELL:
I think it was
in The Return of the Jedi when
SkywalkerunmasksHis Father.
The father had been playing one of these Machine roles, a state role. He was the uniform, you know? And the removal of that mask, there was an undeveloped man there, there was a kind of a worm. By being executive of a system, one is not developing one’s humanity. I think that George Lucas really, really did a beautiful thing there.
BILL MOYERS:
The idea of machine is the idea that we want the world to be made in our image, and what we think the world ought to be.
JOSEPH CAMPBELL:
Well, the first time anybody made a tool, I mean, taking a stone and chipping it so that you can handle it, that’s the beginning of a machine. It’s turning outer nature into your service. But then there comes a time when it begins to dictate to you. I’m having a bit of struggle with my computer, actually.
BILL MOYERS:
Your computer?
JOSEPH CAMPBELL:
I just bought one a couple of months ago, and I can’t help thinking of it as having a personality there, because it talks back, and it behaves in a whimsical way, and all of that. So I’m personifying that machine. To me, that machine is almost alive. I could mythologize that damn thing.
BILL MOYERS:
There was a wonderful story about, I think, President Eisenhower, when the computer was first being built. You remember that story?
JOSEPH CAMPBELL:
Eisenhower went into a room full of computers, and he puts a question to these machines, “Is there a God?” And they all start up and there’s all those lights flashing and wheels turning and things like that, and after about 10 minutes of that kind of thing, a voice comes forth, and the voice says, “Now there is.”
Well, I bought this wonderful machine, IBM machine, and it’s there.
And I’m rather an authority on gods,
so I identified The God,
and it seems to me to be
An Old Testament God
with a lot of rules,
andnomercy.
BILL MOYERS:
It’s unforgiving, isn’t it.
JOSEPH CAMPBELL:
Catch you picking up sticks
on Saturday and you’re out,
that’s all….
BILL MOYERS:
But isn’t it possible to develop toward the computer, the computer you’re wrestling with at this very moment, isn’t it possible to develop the same kind of attitude of the Pawnee chieftain who said that in the legends of his people, all things speak of Tirawa, all things of speak of God.
It wasn’t a special privileged revelation,
God is everywhere
in His Works, including
The Computer.
JOSEPH CAMPBELL:
Well, indeed so. I mean, the miracle of what happens on that screen, you know, have you ever looked inside one of those things?
BILL MOYERS:
No.
JOSEPH CAMPBELL:
You can’t believe it. It’s a whole hierarchy of angels, all on slats, and those little tubes, those are miracles, those are miracles, they are.
BILL MOYERS:
One can feel a sense of awe.
JOSEPH CAMPBELL:
Well, I’ve had a revelation from my computer about mythology, though.
You buy a certain software, and there’s a whole set of signals that lead to the achievement of your aim, you know. And once you’ve set it for, let’s say, DW3, enter, if you begin fooling around with signals that belong to another system, they just won’t work, that’s all. You have a system there, a code, a determined code that requires you to use certain terms.
Now, similarly in mythology, each religion is a kind of software that has its own set of signals and will work. It’ll work. But suppose you’ve chosen this one. Now, if a person is really involved in a religion and really building his life on it, he’d better stay with the software that he’s got.
But a chap like myself,
who likes to play with —
BILL MOYERS:
Cross the wires?
JOSEPH CAMPBELL:
The various softwares, I can run around, but I probably will never have an experience comparable to that of a saint.
BILL MOYERS:
But do you think that The Machine is inventing new myths for us,
or that we with The Machine are inventing new myths?
JOSEPH CAMPBELL:
No. The myth has to incorporate
the machine.
BILL MOYERS:
A pagan deity?
JOSEPH CAMPBELL:
Just as the old myths incorporated the tools that people used, the forms of the tools and so forth are associated with power systems that are involved in the culture. We have not a mythology that incorporates these. The new powers are being, so to say, surprisingly announced to us by what the machines can do. We can’t have a mythology for a long, long time to come; things are changing too fast. The environment in which we’re living is changing too fast for it become mythologized.
BILL MOYERS:
How do we live without myths, then?
JOSEPH CAMPBELL:
Well, we’re doing it.
The individual has to find the aspect of myth that has to do with the conduct of his life.
There are a number of services that myths serve.
The basic one is opening the world to the dimension of mystery. If you lose that, you don’t have a mythology, to realize the mystery that underlies all forms.
But then there comes the cosmological aspect of myth, seeing that mystery as manifest through all things, so that the universe becomes as it were a holy picture, you are always addressed to the transcendent mystery through that.
But then there’s another function, and that’s the sociological one, of validating or maintaining a certain society. That is the side of the thing that has taken over in our world.
BILL MOYERS:
What do you mean?
JOSEPH CAMPBELL:
Ethical laws, the laws of life in the society, all of Yahweh’s pages and pages and pages of what kind of clothes to wear, how to behave to each other, and all that, do you see, in terms of the values of this particular society. But then there’s a fourth function of myth, and this is the one that I think today everyone must try to relate to, and that’s the pedagogical function.
How to live a human lifetime under any circumstances.
Essentially, isn’t Star Wars about transformation?
GEORGE LUCAS:
Well, it is about transformation.
And — and ultimately it’ll be about transformation of how young Anakin Skywalker became evil and then was redeemed by His Son.
But it’s also about transformation of how his son came to —
To Find The Call.
Luke works intuitively through most of the movie until he gets to the very end.
Everything up to that point is very intuitive.
He goes back and forth with his emotions about
Fighting His Father
or
Not Fighting His Father.
Finally he comes to that decision to say,
‘No, this is — this is what I have to do.
I have to simply throw my weapon down.’
And it’s only that way that he’s able to redeem His Father, which ultimately is the issue.
It’s not as apparent in the first three movies, but when you see the movies I haven’t made yet, that —
The issue of how do we get Darth Vader back is really the central issue.
How do we get him back to that little boy that he was in the first movie?
That good person who loved and was generous and kind?
BILL MOYERS:
Ultimately …
GEORGE LUCAS:
And had a
Good Heart.
BILL MOYERS:
Had a Good Heart.
Ultimately, doesn’t it take, particularly in religion, a — a leap of faith?
What — Kierkegaard’s leap of faith?
GEORGE LUCAS:
Yes. Yes. Definitely.
And that’s — that’s — you’ll notice Luke uses that quite a bit through the films.
Not to rely on his senses,
not to rely on — on the computers,
but to rely on Faith.
That is what ‘Use The Force’ is,
is a Leap of Faith.
That there are mysteries and powers
larger than we are,
and that you have to Trust Your Feelings
in order to access these things.
BILL MOYERS:
Your friend Joseph Campbell called it
‘the perfect eye to see with.’
GEORGE LUCAS:
Mm-hmm.
BILL MOYERS:
How do you develop that eye?
GEORGE LUCAS:
Well, I don’t know.
I mean, I don’t know whether I have that eye.
But…
BILL MOYERS:
Oh, you do.
People — your colleagues tell me you’re always making
quick decisions,
good or bad.
You’re making intuitive decisions
very quickly.
TRY NOT.
DO.
OR DO NOT.
THERE IS NO "Try".
GEORGE LUCAS:
I’m making intuitive decisions because I — I’m — I — I can see the picture in my head even though it’s foggy …
… and I know instantly whether this fits in there or doesn’t.
BILL MOYERS:
Do you have to work to keep nurturing your imagination, to keep feeding that interior pool from which these ideas and images …
GEORGE LUCAS:
I’ve — I’ve never had a problem with that. I mean, my imagination runs wild. It’s — it’s — you know, people say, ‘Well, you’re gonna run out of stories, you gonna … ‘ I — I don’t think I’ll ever run — I have more stories than I can possibly do in my lifetime. And more — and I’m interested in more things to do than I can possibly do in my lifetime. And I’m now beginning to confront the fact that the — the amount of time I’ve got is less and less, that I — more and more things are going to have to go by the wayside, and I’m going to have to focus more on the things that really are meaningful to me, you know, ’cause even if I have 30 or 40 years left, it’s not enough.
