28 October 2009

From ghouls to Nyarlathotep: Who would win in a fight?

Threat Quality Press | Braak | A Hierarchy of Monsters

Over at io9, they’re doing another one of those “who would win?” voting contests, this time between classic horror monsters. This is, obviously, madness–the general population is ignorant as to the nature and danger of assorted monsters, and consequently their opinions on the potency of those monsters is suspect. This is evidenced by the very first competition: ”Zombie versus Mummy,” in which Zombies won by about 30%.

This is nonsense, and it needs to be rectified. I am going to explain the order that the monsters go in, so that it can be settled. In the future, if your children ask you, “Who would win in a fight? The Mummy or the Wolf-Man?” please refer them to this list, as it will save a lot of time.
Go. Read. It is genius.

I am a complete sucker for taking trivial things and giving them an analysis that is way, way too serious.*

In the comments, Braak also analyzes the Ghost Busters as well as specifies why he left certain monsters off the list. He considers Godzilla etc. to be more natural disasters than monsters, and defeating them is a matter of bringing sufficient fire power to the party. He also left off Giant Squid, because he was focusing on the supernatural rather than natural.

This is a good point he raised when I asked about the Ogdru Jahad:
If the primary interest of the entity is in the destruction of humanity, it gets a lower ranking than an entity whose unfathomable goals happen to accidentally include the destruction of humanity.
Good rule of thumb: apathetic evil is more troubling than antagonistic evil.



* See also Romance: An Analysis.**

** I not only indirectly called romance a "trivial thing" right there, but I also sort-of equated thinking about your relationship and girlfriend to thinking about monsters and demons. Whoops. Sorry, Special Lady Friend.

No comments:

Post a Comment