Defeat Monsters

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Stevenson’s well-known horror story, identifies a monster that is actually lurking in the streets of the real world. In Stevenson’s tale, a well-mannered scientist named Dr. Jekyll turns himself into a monster at the swig of a potion. Once he becomes the monster, he is unaware of the monster he becomes. The monster, Mr. Hyde, is a heartless fiend carrying “an imprint of deformity and decay;” yet Jekyll does not initially recognize that his own alternate being is in fact a despicable monster (Stevenson 71). Dr. Jekyll, when looking upon his mirrored reflection as Mr. Hyde, discovers something intriguing about the monster. He explains, “When I looked upon that ugly idol in the glass [the mirror], I was conscious of no repugnance, rather a leap of welcome. This, too, was myself. It seemed natural and human” (71). Jekyll’s monster gives a face to the monster of almost truth. The difference between an apparent truth and an apparent falsehood is often unmistakable. However, the difference between the truth and the almost truth can be a fearsome trial marked with confusion and peril. Façades of promises and justifications, often tagged by good intentions, allow monsters to appear right and even beautiful. When Dr. Jekyll gives way to the repulsive Mr. Hyde, he makes way for destruction. In the end, the monster of almost truth overpowers Dr. Jekyll. A suicide/murder is Jekyll’s response. Yet the monster lives on, outside the pages of a book, vexing its victims throughout time. The perils of living according to the almost truth monster are evidenced by monsters of personal experience, media and history.

Before being able to see the almost truth monster at work, the foundation of understanding almost truth must be established. Understanding the almost truth begins with comprehending three terms: worldview, discernment and convenience. Everyone, whether or not they know, like or understand it, responds and behaves in accordance to a personal worldview. The author, J. F. Baldwin clarifies:
Your worldview is your framework for understanding existence—the way you look at the world […] Your worldview is like an invisible pair of eyeglasses—glasses you put on to help you see reality clearly. If you choose the right pair of glasses, you can see everything vividly and can behave in sync with the real world […] But if you choose the wrong pair of glasses, you may be in a worse plight than the blind man—thinking you see things clearly when in reality your vision is severely distorted. (29)
If the “framework for understanding existence” is off balance, the ramifications of what the truth has to offer will be unclear. This notion reveals great danger. The difference between the truth and the almost truth can be deadly. The vice of almost truth is even more harmful than flat-out lies. Renowned orator, Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said that, “Discernment is not a matter of simply telling the difference between right and wrong; rather, it is telling the difference between right and almost right” (Grant). Without identifying the monster, the almost truth becomes truly menacing. It’s found acceptable and then even indisputable.

Unfortunately, a false reality created by almost truth is often easier to face and therefore found desirable. It can be comforting or enjoyable to live at hands of this monster. This perception, when acted upon, becomes an issue of convenience, despite the great inconvenience that is likely to follow. Author of Do You Think I’m Beautiful?, Angela Thomas writes, “I have concocted a few lies to make life hurt less and then forced myself to live them” (6). Through a better understanding of worldview, discernment and convenience, the almost truth monster is pinned down. Now, it can be reckoned with on a physical level. Although the monster exists in all arenas of life, focusing on examples of personal experience, media and history offer a great deal of help; for these three examples demonstrate peril on three levels: an intimate level, an external level and a timeless level.

First, the example of personal experiences identifies one of the many masks worn by the almost truth monster. The following paragraphs introduce the almost truth monster through the two perspectives of Maria Altamirano and Kala Ellis. Maria begins:
I was seven years old; I loved ballet. The twirls that made the tutu spin were my favorite. It would only be six months until I was politely told my body type wasn’t right and I had to leave. It was a nice way of saying I was too fat. I was seven years old and too fat. The web of almost truths began. Ever since I was little, I’ve always been underweight, not on purpose but just because I was active and had a fast metabolism. Most people would say I was blessed; I always thought I was cursed.
When you’re abnormally thin, everyone notices when you gain a pound or two, and then all of a sudden its, “Maria, you’ve gained so much weight. You need to eat less junk food.” Or when you loose a few pounds. It’s a never-ending cycle of trying to maneuver my body into society’s airbrushed image of a woman. I have news for you though; I won’t fit.
I let the years go by, not really worrying about my weight. Then I got into the vicious world of modeling. And all of a sudden those words came up again: too fat. And new words too: curvy, plus size, voluptuous. Being a size five, I was considered a plus size. And again with politeness, I was told, “Maria, you won’t be successful if you don’t loose some weight.” Me? The same girl who was called up to the nurse’s office and given crackers because they thought I never ate. From then on, I vowed that I was going to exercise and watch what I ate. Soon, pounds started falling away, revealing my bony frame. When I stood, my ribs stuck out, my hip bones, my collarbone. My cheekbones became more noticeable. I liked all the attention I was getting for my newly refined look. I liked how I now wore a size three. But, what I didn’t like was how I was always sick, first with pneumonia, then Valley Fever and about every form of the flu imaginable. And the pounds kept coming off. My 5’9” frame was now down to a disgusting 110 pounds. I had only lost a total of nine pounds. But that’s what made the difference.
Now I had been getting more jobs. Photographers were complimenting me on how my body looked from every angle, how I didn’t have a “fat side,” they called it. I was relieved. All my snacks in between meals really did matter. But the only problem was, I was missing out on the truth. A lot of good came out of dieting, but I was following this idea that success means “skinny.” There was tons of dangerous ideas that I was just dancing around as I played with the almost truth. Other people facing these same sort of issues get into trouble with anorexia and bulimia. I didn’t let my monster get me though. That is what matters most.
Regardless of the almost truths that were embedded into Maria’s everyday life, success does not require “skinny.” This almost truth has destroyed the lives of many because they became entangled in the lies. If the almost truth is not unmasked, it can be deadly.

The second testimonial comes from Kala Ellis:
The room was dark, touched with the softest yellow glow coming from the street light outside my bedroom window. The room was quiet, interrupted only with the sound of steady breathing coming from my little sister, sleeping in the crib beside my bed. Mr. Hyde was ready, so I gave way to the monster inside me. I grabbed the sharpest thing near me, revealed the skin above my chest, turned the object on its side, then hazed the already raw skin. The burn I felt was deep yet emotionless. Angry, selfish and lost, I waited for someone to find me. I was waiting there at the end of my rope. I knew the difference between right and wrong. I could see that distinction more clearly than that of the sun and moon. But that did not stop me. I loathed myself so greatly that I had to prove it by ripping into my skin. I was a cutter. Now, that word sounds strange and oddly funny. Cutter. Safety pins, pocketknives and scissors stayed close to me at all times. No one knew. I could put on a smile and no one really knew the truth. I am now distanced from that place of self-induced bondage. I come from that experience convinced of a new reality. When I set a knife hard against my skin, I was not driven by lies, but by almost truths. I told myself a little mutilation would make my emotions disappear; it did, temporarily. I told myself that the scars I carved did not really exist; for once I was around other people, those etchings were no where to be seen. I told myself that my secret markings were not really hurting anyone; and I was almost right. Those almost truths got me a long way from my convictions. In fact, even while under the so-called trance of almost truths, I was progressively helping others out of this same form of blindness. I ignored the truth. I ignored the fact that “hidden” does not mean “absent.” I ignored the fact that unknown hurt was certain. I continue to daily deal with the struggles of my monster’s whispering almost truths; but now, I recognize those almost truths as lies. While walking through the throws of my almost truth, I wrote a poem titled “Reality.” The poem is perhaps one of the most sincere glimpses into this piece of my past:
Those dark, precious, deep-set tears
Fall from dark, lost, painful fears.
This vision held close to heart
Burns as poison from the Dart.
Scream of some lost truth in time,
Soft tale cry a dream, sublime.
Reality is clearer, now. Reality is closer, now.
Now past much of the pain, fear and sadness of her almost truths, Kala is vast steps closer to living according to the truth.

Maria and Kala were confined by the almost truth and freed by the actual truth. But what were the two reaching for? What mask worn by the almost truth monster had the two fooled? Why was Maria longing to conform her body? What was Kala so far away from that she found relief in spilling blood? They were searching for their idea of perfection. They desired to be perfection according to their terms, according to their limited eyes, according to the almost truth.
Second, just as the monster of almost truth lurks around on a personal level, almost truth has a strong hand in the media, a larger, more external level. Understanding the objectives and origins of the media will help uncover another sheathing of almost truth. Media functions, a great deal, through propaganda. Every piece of propaganda attempts to sell something. The most obvious example is the thousands of advertisements streaming through the Internet, the television, the radio, the periodicals, etc. But beyond advertisements, media uses propaganda in politics, news, industries of style, music, sports, entertainment and more. The media is selling brands, styles, agendas, body types, and most of all, ideas. It can be seen as the defining factor for what people, specifically in western culture, consider acceptable and unacceptable. America, as opposed to the majority of other cultures, greatly relies on the media to define what is normal and abnormal.
A very American idea of media can be found throughout the worlds of film, fashion, fame and fantasy. Andy Warhol, the well-known modern artist, creates many works depicting the opinion that “America was ruled by fame” (Hohenadel 167). Yet where does media come from? Who defines the ideas that media sells? The origin of media is hard to grasp. It is difficult to really pin down the balance between how much of the media consists of consumer demands and how much consists of viable options available for demand. How much has been forced upon us verses how much have we put upon ourselves? This notion may seem altogether unclear; so we must zero-in on a specific notion of the media summed up in the phrase Hollywood Ideal. F. Scott Fitzgerald clarifies through what is known as the ultimate Hollywood novel, The Last Tycoon:
I accepted Hollywood with the resignation of a ghost assigned to a haunted house. I knew what you were supposed to think about it but I was obstinately unhorrified. This is easy to say, but harder to make people understand. [Some] who pretended an indifference to Hollywood or its products, really hated it. Hated it way down deep as a threat to their existence. […] You can take Hollywood for granted […] or you can dismiss it with the contempt we reserve for what we don’t understand. It can be understood too, but only dimly and in flashes. (3,4)
People are fascinated by Hollywood because it portrays a vision of perfection, false perfection, but greatly longed after none-the-less. The consumer demand exalts the Hollywood Ideal and at the same time despises it. Beauty, riches, love; and therefore happiness. Isn’t that the overall message of Hollywood? And what’s wrong with beauty, riches, love and happiness? Nothing! The error comes down to how we define beauty, riches, love and happiness, how we define perfection. Beauty in Hollywood relates with how talented the plastic surgeons are. Riches are normally portrayed by how big the houses are. Love hangs in the balance of how good the divorce settlements are. And therefore happiness relies on how strong the material assets are. Yes, there is more to Hollywood than the come and go satisfactions of materialism; but how much more? When happiness has such a strong tie to all that is ephemeral, how much can anything of substance stand out? Author Sarah Bragg equates the Hollywood Ideal with Barbie:
I think that what I loved most about playing with Barbie dolls was that I could assign to them the identities of someone else by calling them the names of different celebrities. My dolls had the most amazing imaginary lives. It’s interesting that as I think back to my Barbie days, I don’t recall her ever going on a diet or worrying about her self-image. Why do you suppose that was? Why did Barbie never diet? Why did it never occur to me that she might need to diet? It must have been because she was perfect and had a perfect life. She got everything she wanted—boyfriends, jobs, and clothes that fit perfectly. Years later, Mattel created the heftier Rosie O’Donnell doll to be Barbie’s friend. But I didn’t want that doll. I wanted the “normal-sized” Barbie. I wanted my perfect Barbie. I liked her skinny. Why did I think that way? Because in my mind, I, too, wanted to be perfect like Barbie. […] She was my standard. (17)
The dolls that Bragg named after celebrities had the “most amazing imaginary lives;” yet when that life is the reality for some celebrity, how much of that life still consists of the imaginary?
No matter how many reality TV shows are produced by the minute, no matter how deep the Insider or the Inquirer go, no matter how lavishly beautiful or despicable Hollywood stars appear, the world of media will forever struggle to explore, define or stand up for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. All the celebrities out there have real lives, some of which are plastered across television screens while others are, more or less, unpronounced. When does the publicized life of a celebrity depict reality? Can the known life of a celebrity depict actual truth? Is it only when they are shown being escorted to a police car or can it also be when they are in full red-carpet-regalia? Stars, from past to present, are often understood as American royalty. The image of a Hollywood star pictures either an ideal character or an utter failure, with little variance. Usually, compromising issues and pictures and rumors concerning celebrities are desperately covered up. Yet more often than not, that information is, eventually or immediately, flaunted. Any publicity is good publicity! Any publicity is good publicity. Any publicity is good publicity? The reality is that much of America feeds off of the images created in Hollywood, whether or not they depict reality. Can publicity be good for anyone, audience especially? The results of media can come in forms as acceptable as your stereotypical, media-obsessed teenager or as tragic as the person facing down body dysmorphic disorder, one who is uncontrollably overwhelmed with appearances, because of an idealized image fashioned in Hollywood. Whether or not the intrigue of the Hollywood Ideal sets in with extreme circumstances, the almost truth deemed acceptable is still a lie and receives a level of power over its followers. This arena is where the almost truth monster makes an attack. If people refuse to recognize the possibility of almost truth, then the monster has won. The idea of worldview and discernment must come to the forefront. The wonderfully perceptive, Robert Traina states:
Unwilled observation is soon satiated and goes to sleep. Willed observation, vision with executive force behind it, is full of discernment and is continually making discoveries which keep the mind alert and interested. Get a will behind the eye and the eye becomes a searchlight, the familiar is made to disclose undreamed treasure. (Grant 140)
If America closes an eye to the reality of life, then what treasures will be passed by? This inkling does not beg the use of skepticism or idealism. Life is not Desperate Housewives, a recent popular dramatic/comedic program focusing on idiosyncratic women, as much as it is Full House, a past popular dramatic/comedic program depicting a happy-go-lucky family. Reality is not likely to be found in either utter failure or complete victory. Rather reality is more likely to be realized in all that is ideal and all that is deficit. The Hollywood Ideal often offers glimpses into the two worlds of ideal verses burdensome, yet rarely the whole truth. This concept explains the love/hate relationship with Hollywood. This theory explains the drive to be “perfect” like Barbie and the grief when Barbie becomes implausible. This thought explains how beauty, riches, love and happiness can be entirely fleeting and still highly desired. This notion explains how America can run media and media can run America. America can see pieces of reality in the exterior face of Hollywood, and the consumer yells out for “more!” Yet media rarely runs deep in truth or reality or substance, and therefore fails the consumer, time after time. With discernment, the almost truth monster can be unmasked and “undreamed treasures” that surpass the evanescent appeals, contracted by the majority of Hollywood, can be revealed.

Third, in line with the manifestations of almost truth on a personal and external level, the monster shows up in a rather eternal form. Throughout history the almost truth has played a huge rule. The almost truth surfaces throughout the story of humanity. Many historical issues of wars, ideologies, cultures, policies, social statuses and identities have lived out the almost truth and accepted monsters. The huge stage of history exhibits the almost truth through a diversity of topics, as through the agendas of dictators and the assumptions of economic conditions. Time presents almost truth in some rather variant formats, in contrast to the other points presented thus far. Through the specifics in both arenas of personal experience and media, the differences between each almost truth, from extreme to commonplace, often display only slight variances in subject matter. However, when opening up to the entire spectrum of time, the variances between the dramatic and extreme to the mediocre and accepted seem to leap onto entirely divergent topics. The leap is important to the idea of almost truth; for it shows its capability to excel in a multiplicity of venues and distinguishes the notion that, no matter the façade, the almost truth is the same monster. With that being said, we make the jump from historical and political monsters to historical and cultural monsters. We bound from issues of fascism and autocracy to issues of poverty and charity.

First in the stage of time, three monsters that lived out almost truths were Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. Although these three figures each brought about death and destruction in extensive, diverse forms, each person embodied the same monster. They were living out the almost truth as if it were absolute. Now one might think, “how is the massacre of countless souls any form of almost truth? Is this madness not undeniably corruption and vice and lies?” There seems to be nothing “almost” about it. However, the atrocities conducted by these monsters would not have reached the worldwide scale of war that they had if not found desirable and acceptable by so many. People were buying into the ideas sold by Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. Yet what could they possibly be buying into? Murder does not exactly have any attractive qualities on wholesale. However, what if the term perfection comes back into play. Perfection is not wrong; by its very nature, it cannot be wrong. It is perfect. Yet once again, perfection presented with faulty parameters spurns on terrible outcomes. Those monsters in history used that almost truth of false perfection to sell racism, humanism and utopianism (Grant Killer Angel 4). Many people bought those ideas, philosophies and lies for the hefty price of countless lives. Hitler clarifies all too well in his book “My Struggle,” Mein Kampf:
There are some truths which are so obvious that for this very reason they are not seen or at least not recognized by ordinary people. They sometimes pass by such truisms as though blind and are astonished when someone suddenly discovers what everyone really ought to know […] Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principle’s of Nature’s rule: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on this earth. (Beatty 302)
Hitler gives himself away as one who found the almost truth indisputable. He saw the requirement for devastation as a necessary reality. For these monsters in history, fascist dictatorship looked like truth. In The Doctrine of Fascism, Mussolini argues:
Like every sound political conception, Fascism is both practice and thought; action in which a doctrine is immanent, and a doctrine which, arising out of a given system of historical forces, remains embedded in them and works there from within. Hence it has a form correlative to the contingencies of place and time, but it has also a content of thought which raises it to a formula of truth in the higher level of the history of thought. (309)

The acceptance of almost truth as truth is detrimental. Deeming an almost truth acceptable is the precursor to enacting faith in almost truth. And real faith in anything is the precursor to action. If one places faith in truth, good is likely to result. If one places faith in almost truth, harm is likely to result. Stalin led his troops under the slogan, “There will be no pity. They have sown the wind and now are harvesting the whirlwind” (Harris). The Soviets were devoted to an almost truth and therefore acted out as they saw fit, as Stalin saw fit. Stalin was acting out on faith in a falsehood. These events enforced by monsters engage the almost truth on destructive levels. Yet the almost truth does not have to present itself in such dramatic ways.

Second in the stage of time, the assumptions of poverty and status expose several almost truths. The almost truth presented throughout time can manifest itself in such simple ways as the timeless separation of rich verses poor. From the Middle Ages to current day, the distinctions between the rich and the poor are synonymous with various assumptions. These assumptions often envelop both truths and almost truths. The responses to these assumptions manifest in both good and bad ways. Specifically, the uses of charity encompass both good and bad consequences. The good of charity is a beautiful truth; yet, can the term charity be established with faulty parameters? Can it be established as yet another almost truth? Charity is a precious piece of existence, but it can be abused. Mother Goose’s poem “Humpty-Dumpty” alludes to the issue as it was presented many years ago:
Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall;
Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall;
All the kings horses and all the kings men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again. (Grant Bringing in the Sheaves 38)
The poem can be understood on a perhaps surprising level: A man, fragile on many accounts, sat in the balance of life. That man fell from grace, from stasis, from wealth, from it all. Everyone rushed to help. But they could not restore the man.

Sometimes when charity is abused, a cure for poverty becomes perverted or, in the least, postponed. Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “To dole out relief is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit” (38). This problem does not lead to the conclusion that charity is wrong; nor should it follow that all charity is good. The government does have role to play; but acts of generosity are important throughout communities and societies. Discernment is the key to discovering the almost truth and the tool for establishing the truth. Whether the issue is as extreme as the massacre compelled by monsters or as ongoing as the difference between the haves’ and the have-nots,’ the almost truth deserves attention. All of these issues, which can appear grand and sometimes untouchable or so close to home that they can hardly be grasped, entail the use of discernment in order to approach the truth.

In conclusion, throughout the spheres of history, media and personal experience, almost truths are monstrous lies, whether seen as extreme or as mediocre. Dr. Jekyll was forced to commit suicide in order to destroy his monster. Hitler killed himself as well. In the personal example from Kala Ellis, suicide was occasionally considered as a tentative possibility; however she recognized the almost truth and killed her monster in its tracks. To face the truth, we must ask questions. Rudyard Kipling, the brilliant and prolific author, explains:
I have six faithful serving men
Who taught me all I know.
Their names are what and where and when
And how and why and who. (Grant Bringing in the Sheaves 140)
What lies are you telling yourself? Can you tell what they look like or have they already hidden beneath layers of justifications? What is your worldview? Maybe the lies in your life will not result in suicide; maybe they will not bring about death and destruction; maybe no one will ever know they exist. Is that okay with you? Will you allow little monsters to follow you to the grave? Edmund Burke once said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” (64). Do something. Look past the face value of all you see and make sure you know the truth. Whether you begin to see lies in your own life or in the world around you, take a stand. Speak out for the truth when no one else can or will.

Defeat monsters.

Works Cited
Baldwin, J. F. The Deadliest Monster: An Introduction to Worldviews. New Braunfels: Fishermen, 1998.
Bragg, Sarah. Body. Beauty. Boys. Birmingham: New Hope, 2006.
Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Last Tycoon. London: Bantam, 1976.
Grant, Dr. George. Bringing in the Sheaves. Atlanta: American Vision, 1985.
Grant, George. “A New Despotism.” Humanities. Franklin Classical School. 24 Feb. 2005.
Grant, George. “Flash Gordon Worldview.” Humanities. Franklin Classical School. 29 Nov. 2004.
Grant, George. Killer Angel. Franklin: Ars Vitae, 1995. Beatty, John L. and Oliver A. Johnson. Ed. Heritage of Western Civilization. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1982.
Harris, Bruce. “Heroes and Killers.” MoreorLess: Heroes and Killers of the 20th Century. September 2006. 15 October 2006. .
Hohenadel, Kristen. “Lovers and Killers,” Vogue. October 2006.
Thomas, Angela. Do You Think I’m Beautiful? Nashville: Nelson, 2003.
Stevenson, Robert Louis. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekkyl and Mr. Hyde. NY: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2003.







Selected Bibliography
Baldwin, J. F. The Deadliest Monster: An Introduction to Worldviews. New Braunfels: Fishermen, 1998.
Boa, Kenneth. Augustine to Freud. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2004.
Boom, Corrie Ten with John, Elizabeth Sherrill. The Hiding Place. NY: Bantam, 1971.
Bragg, Sarah. Body. Beauty. Boys. Birmingham: New Hope, 2006.
Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Last Tycoon. London: Bantam, 1976.
Grant, Dr. George. Bringing in the Sheaves. Atlanta: American Vision, 1985.
Grant, George. “A New Despotism.” Humanities. Franklin Classical School. 24 Feb. 2005.
Grant, George. “Flash Gordon Worldview.” Humanities. Franklin Classical School. 29 Nov. 2004.
Grant, George. Killer Angel. Franklin: Ars Vitae, 1995. Beatty, John L. and Oliver A. Johnson. Ed. Heritage of Western Civilization. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1982.
Harris, Bruce. “Heroes and Killers.” MoreorLess: Heroes and Killers of the 20th Century. September 2006. 15 October 2006. .
Hohenadel, Kristen. “Lovers and Killers,” Vogue. October 2006.
Johnson, Samuel. The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia. London: Penguin Classics, 1985.
Thomas, Angela. Do You Think I’m Beautiful? Nashville: Nelson, 2003.
Stevenson, Robert Louis. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. NY: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2003.