Everyone loves a good mystery. (If you disagree, let me clarify that mysteries which end with the lead character drawing everybody into a room, announcing his/her outrageous accusation based on a series of completely implausible conclusions, and the guilty party admitting his/her guilt by breaking down, running away, and/or becoming violent are not really "good" mysteries.) Anything which sparks one's curiosity may be a mystery, and there is a lot to be curious about within nature. Take the vampire octopus, a brilliantly red cephalopod which has developed sharp spikes on its tentacles in place of suckers. Yikes! That is certainly curious, leaning toward downright disturbing. So it should come as no surprise when people are fascinated by reports of Sasquatch, lake monsters, Mokele-Mbembe, and other creatures as yet unverified by the scientific establishment. Their existence may never be proven, but there will always be speculation and interest. In time, they may become myths or legends themselves.

In my own personal vocabulary, there is a semantic difference between myth and legend. Myths are normally the result of stories handed down from generation to generation within a culture to explain the way things are. Mythological monsters are not myths in themselves, but rather parts of a greater whole. Legends, on the other hand, are usually based in fact (e.g., "Wayne Newton: the man, the legend") and get exaggerated or changed over time. Most myths are relatively localized. Many towns have their own stories, such as an old haunted mine shaft or the Boo Radley house at the end of the street, which give the place "character." The ultimate value of these creatures of modern legend are as tourist attractions. For that reason alone, people will wish to perpetuate the belief in their existence.

One profit area still largely unexploited is that of the film industry, which in recent years has been dominated by aliens. So far, creatures like the Loch Ness "monster" and the Sasquatch have had no real opportunity to enter the horror arena. Personally, I am tempted to say there just is not anything frightening about the creatures, especially since they have not been proven real. They are only borderline nightmares. There is a great potential for terror, but for some reason no one seems willing to explore the possibilities. If hundreds of hikers disappeared every summer in the Pacific Northwest, presumably fodder to giant primates, or tourists reported spouses snatched by some unidentifiable menace of nature and dragged into Loch Ness, screaming and gurgling as they went under, then there might be a universal terror of these creatures. Just the possibility of such an episode certainly seemed to do wonders for ruining the reputations of sharks. Jaws is a fun movie, but if you are truly convinced you will be eaten by sharks the next time you swim in the ocean, you just don't swim in the ocean; it is an avoidable menace. Most of the creatures of legend which seem to get people riled up, however, are terrestrial or landlocked aquatic/amphibious forms. They will get you if they want to. Perhaps if more people were confident that these undiscovered animals were pure fiction, we would feel comfortable demonizing them and turning them into the stuff of nightmares. It may well be that unconsciously people do not want to fear something which may turn out to be real. Notice that there are very few mainstream movies about familiar animals on a purely malevolent rampage. In the movies which do exist, the offending animals are generally diseased, exposed to some sort of radiation, or part of an evil plot by the Russians; because the justification for their behavior is usually easily dismissed as improbable, the fear inspired by the film is often short-lived or based purely on suspense. Take the case of the Sasquatch: many people believe at least in the possibility of their existence, but for obvious reasons know nothing about their intelligence or natural behavior. Will it make anyone happy to see a film which leads them to believe that there is a terrible, diabolic race of fiends hiding in the woods? That is why the only film anyone is familiar with about Bigfoot is "Harry and the Hendersons." Yes, watching this movie may be a truly frightening experience, but it has nothing to do with the filmmakers' intentions.

There is certainly great raw material for the creation of monsters out of our modern myths, but maybe the film execs just do not feel they will sell at the box office. Still, I can see the movie promo for the Sasquatch film even now:

"In the sleepy little town of Harmony, the townspeople are about to be contacted by the original inhabitants," says the man with the gravelly voice.

We see a barn with a hole ripped out of the side where two men are looking at the half-eaten carcass of a horse. "What d'ya think could've done it, Sal? A bear?" "To rip through your barn like that? It'd hafta be one crazy mother--"

Switch scene. A little boy picks up a dog collar from the ground and then, facing the dark, impenetrable woods behind his house, calls out, "Scruffy? Scruffy?"

Gravel Man says, "They've been biding their time, and now they're coming to reclaim their territory."

A look of terror on the boy's face. Switch to woman in a kitchen drying dishes. Suddenly she hears a child's panicked scream. "Bobby?!" She runs outside to an empty yard, staggers around crying his name hysterically.

"There will be no compromises, no negotiations."

Switch to more dark woods with the vague impression of a large, hairy bulk crashing through the bushes. Continue with scenes, mostly at night, of men running to get their guns as something huge crashes through the window behind them. Men with guns meeting in a town hall at night to organize a defense. Men with guns out in the woods, at night, yelling in fear, "It's a trap!" Women without guns trying to get their cars started in a panic, at night, in the woods. Women without guns grabbing their children and running through a house, at night, slamming doors behind them. Women with guns trying to figure out how the damn things work.

Promo ends with a shot of the woods at night, a full moon hanging overhead, with some unearthly scream emanating from the trees. Black screen with white print which reads, "The Reckoning," or some other completely innane title. Then, for shock factor, just so the people going to see "The Smurfs' Christmas" know that this really will be a scary movie, a quick shot, with some horribly loud, sudden noise to accompany it, of a snarling Sasquatch face jumping practically out of the screen at the audience. "Coming May 18."

And that is only if the producers decide to do a relatively tasteful film. With an adequate budget and the special effects and quality computer animation available to Hollywood filmmakers today, there should not be anything to prevent the creation of an effective Sasquatch, especially since there is no physical specimen with which filmgoers can compare the movie version. I think they should go for it.

What it really comes down to is that the hillfolk of Alabama are more frightening to most people than giant hominoids roaming the backwoods of British Columbia. Anybody ever seen "Deliverance?" How about "Abducted?" I think this guy was in Montana, but he definitely qualifies as backwoods. Likewise, the Scots are more frightening to the English than any amphibious beastie roaming the lochs. If the existence of any modern myth is proven, the novelty will wear off as soon as it is placed in a zoo, and the residents of the area will have to find another way to lure tourists.