THE CREATURE
THAT HAS NEVER BEEN

by ChicagoTunnelKid

an essay originally published in the 2014 Conzine

Fans of the 1987 TV Show, Beauty and the Beast, love Vincent, the beast. The love for the character may be the only thing commonly shared among fans as many have distinctly different ideas and perspectives about Vincent: what he is, how he acts, and what he might do in a given situation. How can this be? The fans watch the same show. How are there such differences in understanding Vincent?

To answer that, let’s go back to the beginning and look at Vincent as an example of the creature that has never been. Why wasn’t Vincent just another male character on a show?

Why use a Creature that has never been?

Why do painters, sculptors, writers, folklorists, storytellers, and poets choose a ‘creature that has never been’ as a subject? It can be summed up in one word: possibilities.

Unlike using a subject known to anyone, using the unknown provides the artist, the writer, with no restrictions, no boundaries, and no limits on the imagination. A creature that has never been can be anything or do anything for any purpose from the imagination of the creator.  Consider the Hippogriff.

What is a Hippogriff? Part horse and part bird? What can a Hippogriff do? Why would the Hippogriff exist? For what purpose?  Or how about the mermaid? How would a half woman – half fish survive either under water or above? What advantage to a story might this provide?

Particularly for storytellers, the creature that has never been can be the vehicle to get readers to think about things differently because reality doesn’t get in the way. You don’t think about the creature having extraordinary hearing, or magic, or the ability to fly as something that couldn’t be real. What is real for a creature that has never been? And for readers to get the moral and to see the moral as a worthy attainment, using a creature that has never been removes the sting of failure that a reader might feel to see another human being capable of what the reader is not.

So the creature that has never been begins steeped in possibilities. However, after creation, the creature then moves into the public arena. This is where things can get interesting because what is seen or viewed by the public may or may not have much relationship to what the creator had in his or her imagination. Nor may one person see the creature the same way as another.

Why would this happen? The differences come between the perception of the viewer and the intended reality of the creator. Even within the creator, known quantities get pulled into the creation of the unknown. It is human nature to create meaning which helps lead us to understanding. In the above drawings, we see part of a horse, a fish, a bird, and a woman. It is the combinations that make it a creature that has never been. But meaning independent of the creator comes from knowing the various parts. Meaning also comes from other sources available to us.

Say, for example, I wish to create a creature I will call a Golgolith. Already your mind may have searched for similar words or word parts. Golgo may turn to gargoyle, or Goliath in your mind.  The ‘lith part may call up ‘monolith.’ You then take these pieces of information and create a perception of what a Golgolith might look like or act like.

Even if I provide you a picture of my image of the Golgolith, you may impart behavior based on your own previous perceptual clues. And now you have some further visual cues to add to your perceptive process. You deconstruct the Golgolith image that I created into parts that make some sense to you. You decide which parts take precedence over other parts in explaining behavior of the Golgolith.

This perceptive process explains in part the use of stereotypes. Stereotypes allow us to categorize chunks of information about common items or types. If the chunks of information are accurate, stereotyping gives us a short cut to understanding. However, if the information gathered into our stereotypes is false or inaccurate, then the attributions we make for understanding are false, misleading, or biased.

Of course, even with stereotyping, the wise person keeps beliefs based on stereotypes in suspension as she receives real information through interaction with the subject and can verify it against the stereotype or reject or amend the stereotype. If we can suspend our beliefs for a moment, and look for commonalities between the unknown, and ourselves, we have an opportunity for learning and connecting. Even with the creature that has never been.

Just as stereotypes may influence our perceptions, life experiences may influence both our perceptions and our stereotypes. Our experiences in life are a huge filter through which we view the world and events around us. As we gain more life experience, our perceptions change. So we may see an artist’s creation differently at two different times in our lives. This was true for me with this show: the second viewing of this show impacted me much more than the first viewing. Twenty-some years of living as an older adult gave me a much different perception of the show than when I was younger. Perhaps it is just this phenomenon that helps explain the longevity of fandom for this show: we perceive new things about the show as time goes by and our perceptions change, and our interest stays engaged.

One other point about the creature that has never been needs to be made before we look at this in relation to our show, Beauty and the Beast. One more piece of familiarity that may influence our viewpoint of a creature that has never been is when that creature is linked to a story or fairy tale that we already know. Now we see the creature through the information in the story. The story has placed some limits upon the creature because of our understanding of the story. In our minds, the creature must conform to the story. This may not actually be what the artist or writer had in mind at all. Perception, however, resides in the viewer.

So with all this perceiving going on, is it any wonder that there are so many different perspectives about Vincent? How do we get to the truth about Vincent?

So what does this have to do with Beauty and the Beast?

Both the fairy tale and our show have a creature that has never been. Most fans are familiar with the fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast. Many have seen the Disney cartoon. There are many variations of the fairy tale. Which was uppermost in Ron Koslow’s mind, creator of the TV show? He needed to adapt the story to modern times, so already the creative process set up the potential for tension with viewer understanding of the story, whether we all agree on which version of the story to use.

Fans of the show find its creature that had never been, Vincent, very interesting. Do we understand Vincent as a creature that has never been? Do we understand Vincent as his creator intended? Do we understand all the possibilities that were intended in Vincent? What does Vincent have in common with all those beasts of the fairy tale? How is he different? And perhaps most important, can we ever know the answers to these questions?

First, we recognize that the Beast had many creators. Ron Koslow’s mind began the Beast; next, the artistry of Rick Baker created what we saw on screen supplemented by the acting of Ron Perlman. Finally, we had many writers with their own perceptions contribute scripts for the show; many directors shaped how each episode came out, and several producers oversaw the direction of the show throughout the seasons.  Was the original vision of the Beast perfectly communicated all the way down the line? Doubtful.

So when we, the viewers, perceive inconsistent behavior in the characters (based on our own perceptions of how the character should act), it is hard to detect where the problem might be. Is it from Ron’s vision? Is it the quality of the script or the scriptwriter? Could it be the acting, or maybe the direction? Maybe it is a combination of all those involved in bringing the show to us. Maybe our confusion is part of the possibilities that the creature that has never been was meant to convey.

With all these variables weighing into the production of this show, it would be astounding if 1) Ron Koslow saw his vision and concept perfectly rendered, and 2) that all viewers saw it as Ron intended. What, then, is the point for an artist or writer to use a creature that has never been if those who view it may never see it for the possibilities the artist had in mind?

Artists and writers must create, and creating for possibilities rather than reality is freedom for the creator. And I believe that these artists and writers also respect the possibilities the viewers’ perceptions bring to their appreciation of the work. Perhaps the greatest possibility that the creature that has never been brings to a story is not the vision of the creator, but the possibilities that the viewer needs them to be.

The Creature that had never been: Vincent

What is Vincent? How much the Beast, how much the man? Obviously, Ron Perlman is a man, so already our perceptions may be unfairly biased from the creator’s vision to the human qualities Ron possesses. Then there is the face. It is said that one thought had been to make the Beast with a snout. This was rejected as too likely to be unacceptable to viewers. Those stereotypes in action! So we got Vincent as he is on the show: a lion-like face on a human-like body.

Unless enraged, Vincent seems to be attractive to most fans. So how ‘beastly’ is an attractive Beast? Here we come to what our understanding of the word beast may be. Are all animals beasts? Are all beasts animals? Must the Beast possess any animal qualities? Fear-inducing qualities? Ugly qualities? Any negative qualities at all?

Given the lion-like aspects of the makeup used for Vincent, naturally viewers consider the qualities of lions and other feline animals in trying to understand the Beast part of Vincent. So some fans naturally put more weight into the animal side of Vincent believing a Beast must be mostly animalistic. However, I imagine more fans put more weight into the human side of Vincent because of the sum of the human qualities shown us, the physical, mental, and intellectual.

Controversy surrounded the show when it started due to charges of bestiality leveled against the program back when it aired. This influence likely had an impact on shaping the character of Vincent and the stories throughout the show. This sensitivity could be used to argue Vincent was more man than animal (it was therefor acceptable to have a love relationship with a human female), or more animal than man (the love that could never be respecting the boundaries of those type of fears).

Within the show, Vincent spoke of his ‘Other’ and we were shown a darker, more sinister looking Vincent. Was this the part of Vincent that was the Beast? The Other seemed within the episodes to be associated with the violence Vincent committed when protecting Catherine and his Tunnel family. This protective instinct is commonly associated with animal behavior but also of human behavior. Perhaps it is a ‘living’ instinct – protect others like yourself and those you love to help sustain both you and them for continued life. So the protective instinct is not a characteristic of a beast alone.

If you view Vincent as more human than beast, perhaps this ‘Other’ was meant to signify his unconscious aspect of his personality. The unconscious aspects are mostly unknown to us and certainly are not skillfully used when called upon which is usually when we are under stress. So when in the grip of our unconscious personality, others may remark that we are most ‘unlike ourselves.’ Are we ‘beastlike’ when that happens? Depending on our maturity level, it can be far from a pretty sight!

We know from the show that Vincent was wary or cautious about this side of himself. Was it a fear of losing himself to his beast side? Or was Vincent in a battle within himself, fighting for his humanity to stay in command of him, rather than having the Other (Beast) be in command of him? Or had his childhood rearing (as a scholar by Father) so suppressed his Other nature that his psyche never became integrated with his Beastly aspects? But when you are a creature that has never been, there is no model to show anyone how to help you grow up into who or what you are.

How will we ever know what Ron Koslow intended this beast, our Vincent, to be? We can parse every word of dialogue for clues. We can see Vincent through the eyes of the other characters. Except this exercise is often one of frustration as dialogue can be vague, and characters’ viewpoints can be inconsistent, vague, or even lacking.  We can read interviews that Ron Koslow has given; yet he even seems to shift his view. He staunchly stuck to his ‘love that can never be’ line at the beginning of the series, yet later, he seemed to hold out hope to the fans that eventually being together could happen. So did his vision of what his creature that could never be change?

So many questions, as Kristopher Gentian would say!

What were the possibilities Vincent was created for?

So if creatures that have never been are created for possibilities, for what possibilities was Vincent created? The most obvious, given the title, is the moral from the fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast: beauty comes from the inside, and one should be capable of looking beyond the external to see the goodness inside a person.

I think another possibility was that Vincent was created to show us how to be the best of humanity. Catherine said it herself in ‘Nor Iron Bars A Cage,’ when she told the scientist “whatever he is, he’s also the best part of what it means to be human”. Father also states in Song of Orpheus, “then I came to know someone who had every reason to curse fate, to feel punished and yet he accepted all that life had to offer with gratitude and love.”

Vincent embodies all those qualities that we all wish we had, and wears them with such grace for a creature that has never been. He is loving, caring, selfless, courageous, curious, fair-minded, supportive, and principled to name a few. Ron Perlman’s performance makes it believable, even enviable, rather than saccharin sweet pabulum fed to the masses.

Another possibility that Vincent embodies is to teach us about ‘aloneness’ and how to overcome that feeling. In the pilot, Catherine and he have a conversation that I’ve always thought was interesting, yet never understood as well as when I thought about what it meant to be a creature that has never been. Vincent told Catherine: “I’ve seen your world. There’s no place for me in it… I know what I am. Your world is filled with frightened people.  And I remind them of what they’re most afraid of…” Catherine responded: “Their own ignorance…” And Vincent gently corrects her: “…Their aloneness.”

When I first heard that conversation, I wondered, what was wrong with Catherine’s answer, as it fit very well the theme of Beauty and the Beast? It wasn’t until I gave some thought to the meaning behind a creature that has never been that it made sense to me. I believe that all living sentient beings share the desire to be connected at a deep level, to be loved at the core of their being. This is a tall order for any person or creature. But what chance does a creature have who had never been before? The aloneness for this creature is absolute.

Perhaps the human example to put this into some perspective is human adoption. Consider how so many adoptees hunger to know their birth parents, regardless of the happy life they had with the parents who raised them. This need to know what stock you come from, who you are, is so great in us. But for the creature that has never been, there is no sense of where it came from, no connectedness in family and the thought that there is not another one of them out there with whom it can share a life is isolating.

This does not mean that such a creature cannot have loving friends. Indeed, many a heart-warming story exists of across breed friendships among the animal kingdom. And humans develop many friendships across man-made divides, such as race, nationality, religion, geography, etc. Vincent was loved among the community. But he had no hopes for that connected love that was available to everyone else around him. Until Catherine. Yet, until Catherine, Vincent did not spend his life mourning what he believed he could not have. He made his life as rich as he could; enjoying the life he was given.

Many other possibilities exist. One last I will mention is the acceptance of being different and showing compassion to others who are not ‘like’ us. This creature that had never been, Vincent, helps us redefine the word ‘normal.’ Differences need not be labeled as ‘abnormal.’ The tunnel community showed it was possible to love and accept a creature that has never been and others cast off by conventional society who came Below to heal themselves and feel their personhood once again. Vincent demonstrates that if you focus on the beauty inside a person, you discover more commonality between you than a superficial external glance would ever suggest.

Will we ever know what possibilities Ron Koslow created Vincent to achieve and what kind of beast he meant Vincent to be? Even if he stated what he intended, the reality of what was finally produced and shown to the audience likely morphed considerably. Perhaps the morphing was intended as part of the creative process beyond even Ron Koslow. For me, it is enough that I can use my perception and think about what the possibilities might be and that I can learn from Vincent’s example.