The single most defining quality of a legendary monster is corrupt humanity.

Many iconic monsters are not a corrupted version of humanity at all. I have been able to establish this and sources we both have provided have listed many legendary monsters that are not a corrupted form of humanity. H.P. Lovecraft’s horrific otherworldly monsters had a profound impact on the horror genre [4]. Other examples we have listed are jaws, Godzilla, King Kong, The Blob, Alien and the thing. The list goes on and on. Even in cases where there are corrupt monsters this often does not represent the ‘most defining’ characteristic of the monster at all and this is often a matter of opinion. Defining Legendary Monster Corrupted humanity should not be used to define legendary monsters because all legendary monsters do not share this characteristic. The whole purpose of a definition is to list the essential or necessary characteristics of the defined term. Pro did not dispute this point. Many legendary monsters do not have this quality so it cannot be a defining quality. - Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is no Werewolf story.” I’m familiar with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and I understand that they he/they are not werewolves, lol. I agree that he/they could be characterized as corrupted humanity but I disagree that you have established that this is the ‘most defining’ quality. To clarify I was saying that both stories are about the ‘beast within’ or the monster inside of us. When a werewolf or Hyde does something horrific we see ourselves. Monsters are often scary because we have something in common with us not a corrupted version just the worst aspects of humanity. Both Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde along with Werewolf stories use this as a device. These stories point to a dark side inside humanity. It is likely that the most defining quality is that they represent the dark part of humanity [7]. It is the evil we are all capable of that define these monsters more than corrupted humanity. Pro alluded to this when she said, “They remind people that they are steps away from being monsters themselves and that anyone they meet could already be one.” Man vs Nature I agree that this is a common theme and many legendary monsters rely on this. I don’t see how corrupted humanity would be a necessary quality at all with the monsters you mentioned. That King Kong developed a connection with some girl does not establish that corrupted humanity was a defining quality of King Kong. Vampires, Frankenstein and Zombies (oh my) That vampires and other legendary monsters have human characteristics does not really address the resolution. I agree that all of these monsters could be characterized as a corrupt form of humanity but not that you have established that this is the ‘most defining’ quality. I have pointed out that this is often a matter of opinion and certainly does not define legendary monsters in general. The fact that vampires are effectively camouflaged and predatory is a more important quality in defining them above their corrupted humanity [7]. I think I did read Frankenstein at one point and am definitely familiar with the popular meme. If you’re not aware, in popular culture Frankenstein’s Monster is often abbreviated to Frankenstein naming it after it’s creator [9]. The defining characteristic of Frankenstein may well be that he was created by science as the source I referenced indicates [7]. That Frankenstein’s Monster was man made is a prominent defining quality. I agreed that corrupted humanity is a common theme and is perhaps the most defining characteristic of some legendary monsters specifically, Zombies for instance. However, even this is debatable. That zombies are predatory and spread a deadly disease a violent way is a very important quality to mention when defining them. They just wouldn’t be zombies if they did not eat people. That corrupt humanity is the most defining characteristic is just your opinion and certainly this definitive quality cannot be applied to a large portion of legendary monsters. I think I did also read the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde novella at one point and I read Internet summaries to get a refresher on the monsters we discussed. I did not appreciate the assertion that I did not read these books (it’s not relevant if I did not) and using this to question my arguments overall. It is simple to point out any assumed errors directly. - Overall, I think Pro’s resolution was just too broad. You cannot assert that you have found the ‘most defining’ quality legendary of monsters when many legendary monsters do not have this quality. Even the legendary monsters Pro focused on have other qualities that are arguably more important defining qualities, which I have pointed out. [9] http://en.wikipedia.org...