quote: Original post by Crydee
A good villain should be believable - not some cardboard cut out figure of evil. Thus he or she should not be deformed in someway - Shakespeare has a lot to answer for in Richard III - or too mentally aberrant.

However most villains have pschyopathic tendencies, otherwise they wouldn''t be villains - there''s no such thing as a loveable rouge. Perhaps the worst villains are actually the one that seem most ordinary.

(oh - if the villain can have a white cat to stroke, this helps though )

I have to disagree with you strongly on both points.

Shakespeare''s Richard III is one of his best villians...indeed probably one of the best of all time. The best villians are often mentally aberrant, although they do not think so. A good villian doesn''t necessarily mean a likeable villian.

And there is such a thing as a loveable rogue -- haven''t you ever heard of Robin Hood?? In fact, the word rogue has some decidedly soft or likeable qualities associated with it. A rogue is a troublemaker, a rascal, a scoundrel -- not really a hardcore villian per se.

R.

Oh sorry...that last post was from me.

The villain doesn''t necessarily have to dislike the hero - maybe the villain likes the hero a lot, perhaps wants to capture the hero and keep them as a love slave? ^_^

I agree that Richard III is one of Shakespeare''s best villains. That''s the problem. It led to a genre where the villain had to be deformed in someway to show that they were evil. My point was that a villain should not be instantly recognisable - like in the old westerns where the good guy wore white and the bad guy black.

A rogue ends up hurting people - what''s loveable about that?

Actually, the most appaling villain I know of in Shakespear''s stuff I know must be Iago, in Othello. I just hated that the man, profoundly; and mostly because he just didnt really have a *reason* for acting the way he did.
This is actually quite different from a villain that you "like" for the depth of his character. In this case it''s IMHO the writer that you respect, because of the work put into the character.
But in my opinion a good villain is someone you really hate, just like a good hero is someone you love.

I was thinking of another properly written (as opposed to extremely dislikable). I saw this episode of Farscape yesterday where the nemesis of the hero, Scorpius, who until know was just your really one-sided evil guy that you just really really dislike (so it makes him a good villain, if you follow me ) for so often causing troubles to the heroes. In this episode, Scorpius basically tells his story of how he came to be what he now is. In just one episode, he becomes IMHO this really cool written character that was turned into what he is by all the shit he went through. He also get a somewhat respectable motivation for all his action : saving, ultimately, the galaxy from a much more aggressive race than his.
The scary thing though, is that he suddenly becomes a three dimensional being, with feelings and a really really crappy childhood, and that makes him almost likeable, or at least much more understable.

And that''s where I kind of worry... if the evil bad guy suddenly becomes "human", doesnt that destroy the whole purpose of the bad guy, which would be to scare us, to make us the spectators hate him ?

Darth Vador is so effective because he behaves really really bad, but if we discover this facet of his personality that explain all this evil behaviour (through the new trilogy), will that not lessen him in his evilness ???

Do I make any sense ?


Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !

quote: Original post by ahw
Actually, the most appaling villain I know of in Shakespear''s stuff I know must be Iago, in Othello. I just hated that the man, profoundly; and mostly because he just didnt really have a *reason* for acting the way he did.
This is actually quite different from a villain that you "like" for the depth of his character. In this case it''s IMHO the writer that you respect, because of the work put into the character.
But in my opinion a good villain is someone you really hate, just like a good hero is someone you love.

I was thinking of another properly written (as opposed to extremely dislikable). I saw this episode of Farscape yesterday where the nemesis of the hero, Scorpius, who until know was just your really one-sided evil guy that you just really really dislike (so it makes him a good villain, if you follow me ) for so often causing troubles to the heroes. In this episode, Scorpius basically tells his story of how he came to be what he now is. In just one episode, he becomes IMHO this really cool written character that was turned into what he is by all the shit he went through. He also get a somewhat respectable motivation for all his action : saving, ultimately, the galaxy from a much more aggressive race than his.
The scary thing though, is that he suddenly becomes a three dimensional being, with feelings and a really really crappy childhood, and that makes him almost likeable, or at least much more understable.

And that''s where I kind of worry... if the evil bad guy suddenly becomes "human", doesnt that destroy the whole purpose of the bad guy, which would be to scare us, to make us the spectators hate him ?

Darth Vador is so effective because he behaves really really bad, but if we discover this facet of his personality that explain all this evil behaviour (through the new trilogy), will that not lessen him in his evilness ???

Do I make any sense ?


Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !

Ahh...sympathy for the devil.

Well, in my opinion understanding something of the villian''s motivations and reasons for being evil is a vital part of me enjoying him or her. The only villian I can think of off hand that does not have some kind of fully-formed personality is Tolkien''s Sauron...but this is mostly because I haven''t gone through all the Unfinished Tales. Even Sauron, however, has a more ''human'' face when you realize that he was once a friend of the elves and loved and trusted by them. Perhaps someone else here is more up to date on their Tolkienia than I am and can fill us in on this.

But if we only consider the LOTR, Sauron is this faceless evil that doesn''t really have a personality. The only reason this works is because we have some other more transparent villians to look at -- the Ringwraiths, the Witch King of Angmar, Saruman, etc. We know how evil they are and assume their faceless master to be even more black-hearted than them. To me...Shakespeare''s Richard III is a fully-formed bastard (and I don''t mean he''s illegitimate, although he might be...can''t remember). You love to hate him, and can admire him for his profound misanthropy. Of course villians are not born this way. They have their own histories and motivations just like all characters do. To introduce a villain without offering some insight into their psyche is, I would say, sloppy and simple.

Taking the Darth Vader example, his villainy is so much more tragic when you realize that he was once a goodhearted, law-loving almost chivalric warrior. His fall was so much greater than that of the petty criminal...so it affects us so much more. Think of him as a villain vs. the Sherrif of Nottingham for example...the Sherrif of Nottingham is a petty criminal who''s just asking to get his arse whipped. You don''t think of him as being this ultimate evil figure.

And back to the rogue thing, Crydee...I''ll use my example of Robin Hood again. Robin may have hurt people, but he hurt the rich (bad in this case) and helped the poor (good in this case)...so how is he bad? Remember that good and evil deeds are always a zero-sum situation. Your good deeds always take away from what evil people strive for...their evil-doing takes away from the sum of good in the world.

Sorry for the long post.

R.

If done right, finding out the truth about the villain''s motivations can make an interesting twist in a story line.

I don''t know, just a thought.

Control ... the storm...
Danny (Array Master)

The Robin Hood / Sherrif of Nottingham is a good example of fiction taking over history. The Sherrif at the time of Richard I was Ralph Murdac. He was descended from Vikings - not a Norman. He also supported John - then Count of Mortain - who wanted to see greater integration between the "English" and their Norman invaders. John also wanted more reliance on the rule of law - which paradoxically led to Magna Carta.

Ralph Murdac in 1189 would have been seen as a traitor by many "English" people. At that time Normans were still the invaders, an occupying force. That is why he was hated. Yet his motives were to try and integrate more. He was up against people like Walter of Coutances who Richard made regent of England in his absence. Walter refused to speak English and regarded "English" people as animals. Ralph sided with John''s attempts to resist the worst of Walter''s tyranny and remained loyal to him when everyone else deserted him. Nottingham was the last of John''s castles to surrender to Richard in March 1194.

Ralph was deprived of his sherrifdom and judicial office but otherwise allowed to go free. If he was as evil as he has been cast he would have been executed or exiled.

Robin Hood was probably a petty villain. There is no historical record of his robbing the rich to pay the poor. He probably robbed the rich to pay himself. He was used as a symbol of English resistance to the invader and so given a good image. But the reality is likely to have been very different.

Ok, but was he really merry?

quote: Original post by Crydee
The Robin Hood / Sherrif of Nottingham is a good example of fiction taking over history. The Sherrif at the time of Richard I was Ralph Murdac. He was descended from Vikings - not a Norman. He also supported John - then Count of Mortain - who wanted to see greater integration between the "English" and their Norman invaders. John also wanted more reliance on the rule of law - which paradoxically led to Magna Carta.

Ralph Murdac in 1189 would have been seen as a traitor by many "English" people. At that time Normans were still the invaders, an occupying force. That is why he was hated. Yet his motives were to try and integrate more. He was up against people like Walter of Coutances who Richard made regent of England in his absence. Walter refused to speak English and regarded "English" people as animals. Ralph sided with John''s attempts to resist the worst of Walter''s tyranny and remained loyal to him when everyone else deserted him. Nottingham was the last of John''s castles to surrender to Richard in March 1194.

Ralph was deprived of his sherrifdom and judicial office but otherwise allowed to go free. If he was as evil as he has been cast he would have been executed or exiled.

Robin Hood was probably a petty villain. There is no historical record of his robbing the rich to pay the poor. He probably robbed the rich to pay himself. He was used as a symbol of English resistance to the invader and so given a good image. But the reality is likely to have been very different.

Crydee...of course you''re right that Robin Hood is a fictional figure, although I thought he was ''brought to life'' much later on...in the 1400s if I remember correctly.

In any case, I was only referring to him as a mythical figure, not a historical one. And the fact that he probably didn''t even exist doesn''t take away from the points I was making about the nature of villainy. But thanks for the history lesson anyways...



R.