Banks 1

Kieva Banks

Dr. Watkins

English T121: 1:30 MWF

05 November 2020

The “Monsters” and the True Monsters

In Octavia Butler’s Fledgling, there are characters who at first glance appear to be what

we would identify as “a monster”. With further reading, our view on that label becomes based on

more than just a physical description, but also actions and intentions. By technicality, all of the

“vampire” characters, or Ina, would be considered monsters because of their opposing human

characteristics. Unlike humans, the Ina have more animalistic and supernatural behaviors and

abilities such as: heightened senses (clearer vision at night, very strong sense of smell,

inhumanely fast), ability to survive off of drinking human blood, hunting and eating prey like a

wild predator, and the ability to heal themselves and others quickly. However, not all of these

said “monsters” are bad in relation to their actions, some use their abilities for good and others

for evil. This means there are the Ina and there are monsters of the Ina. In comparison, a human

might call another human who committed a heinous crime, a monster because they have acted in

an evil, inhumane way; the same applies to the Ina. Shori is the protagonist Ina trying to find the

murderers of her family, and the Ina family who killed hers are the antagonist monsters. They are

alike in the sense that they are all Ina, but what differentiates them from each other and creates

the actual monsters are their actions and intentions. It is not logical to label someone or

something as a monster based solely on the way that they look and because they do not fit your

definition of normal. By that knowledge, people with disabilities that are visible to the human

eye would be grouped in with the fairy tale monsters, but we would not do that because it is

unethical and is complete nonsense. Determining if someone is a “monster” should be based on

 Banks 1

their character, the way that they act/what they do, and where their morals lie instead of relying

solely on their appearance to determine whether or not they fit the definition and/or description

of a monster.

While one should judge the actions of someone or something to guide our impression of

them, one should also take into account the intentions behind those actions. When we are first

introduced to Shori she is described to be acting in a way that we clearly would not describe as

human. As she comes to she almost immediately slips into her animalistic instincts, “I seized the

animal. It fought me, tore at me, struggled to escape, but I had it. I clung to it, ...found its throat,

tasted its blood, smelled it's terror. I tore at its throat with my teeth until it collapsed. Then, at

last, I fed, gorged myself on the fresh meat that I needed” (2). Shori is clearly not a human based

on what she has just done, but that does not automatically mean a monster even though that is

where our minds would naturally go. She did just viciously murder an animal, but her intentions

behind that decision and those actions were not with malicious intent. She simply did what she

needed to do to survive. She did not take a life for the fun of it, but out of necessity. She most

certainly cannot be faulted for this in any way because humans kill animals for food as well, they

just go about it differently. Shori also cannot be faulted for her actions because there are humans

who do kill not out of necessity, but for the sheer sport of it.

Now, it is not to be ignored that Shori does have some non-animal blood on her hands as

well, but what is important is the reason it is and how it got there. Shori and her newfound

symbionts had just come down from finding out that yet another portion of her family had been

murdered and the same killers had now come for them, “Before he realized I was there, I was on

his back, … one hand over his nose and mouth, my legs around him, my other arm around his

head under his chin. I broke his neck, … as he collapsed, I tore out his throat” (115). Shori had
 Banks 1

just reconnected with her father and his side of the family since losing her memory. But before

she got the chance to reconnect enough to remember anything about them, they were taken away

from her again, permanently this time. These attackers killed Shori’s mother and her side of the

family, then went for her father and his side, and finally tracked Shori down again and showed

up intending to kill her and whomever she was with (her symbionts). Shori was not going down

without a fight and now has bloodshed on her hands because of it. However, this situation and

these actions do not fall under the circumstances that would usually classify her as the human

conception of a monster. She acted completely out of self-defense and she intended to protect

herself and her symbionts. Therefore she still has no unjustified malice that would warrant her to

be considered a monster like the murderous Ina family she just encountered.

The true monsters of the “monsters” in this story are the family that discriminated against

this child and took it out on her entire family in cold-blooded murder. The tipping point that gave

away who was behind all of the murders and attacks on Shori’s family was the murder of one of

her symbionts, “The odor that screamed the loudest at me was the strong blood-scent in

Theodora’s hair -- her blood. I looked and found the wound there. Her hair was stiff and matted

with dried blood … I touched her head … and found the place where there was a softness, an

indentation. Someone had hit her so hard that they broke her skull. Someone had murdered her''

(252). An Ina woman named Katharine Dahlman and her Silks family are behind the massacre of

Shori’s family and symbiont, Theodora, and the several attempts on Shori’s life. One of

Katharine’s symbionts was unaccounted for during the time of Theodora’s death and Kathrine

was not doing anything to hide the fact that she had done it. She ordered all of it to happen and

she did it because she hated the fact that not only was Shori black, but she was “not fully Ina''

because she was part human. Shori is like an experiment in a sense because she is essentially a
 Banks 1

new and improved evolved Ina. Since she is black, her melanin helps her be able to tolerate the

sun to a higher degree than the white Ina. And for some reason, her being mixed with humans

and Ina has made some of her senses more heightened than the others. Katherine and the Silks’

discrimination against Shori resembles the racist discrimination that humans have towards

people of color and mixed children. They are the true monsters because their hatred did not just

stop there, they went to the extent of mass murder and attacks because a child was born

something that they were not.

There are “monsters” and there are the true monsters. What separates them are their

actions and intentions. Both Shori and the Silks have killed other Ina and people, but the

motivation behind the killings is what allows one to decipher who is the actual monster. Shori

killed out of self-defense and to protect the ones she loved. The Silks killed unprovoked and out

of hatred for people who did nothing to them. This is why one cannot decide that someone or

something is a monster based solely on their appearance. All of the Ina have the same

characteristics and they happen to be ones that humans would characterize as being a monster.

Yes, they are the same in reference to their non-humanness, but regarding their actions, they are

very different. Their actions define them not the way that they look because they cannot control

that. It would be completely irrational and unfair to clump them all together and judge them as a

whole based on the actions of a handful of Ina instead of as individuals and who they are alone.

Word Count: 1368