In Defense of "Woobie Villains".

[ladyhadhafang]

Mostly inspired by a conversation with darth_eldritch last night, but I felt this needed to be said. Let's say that lately (although, honestly, it's been around for such a long while that I have no idea why the fuck I'm surprised to start seeing this now), the whole idea of the sympathetic villain has come under fire. Some people (none of you,

Comments

[ladyhadhafang]

You make a very good point. But I don't think making them sympathetic necessarily ruins them. It really does depend on the execution. If it's done poorly, it can diminish them. But if it's done well, it can make them better. And in a sense, it makes the audience better as well. It shows them why -- it shows them the finer shades of why someone behaves how they do. Hell, even psychopaths and sociopaths have their own twisted reasoning as to how they behave how they do. Unless the person is Dr. Evil or severely loathes themselves, they're not going to think of themselves as evil

[ladyhadhafang]

That is true. On the other hand, I think the story is a lot more powerful if there's a degree of similarity between the hero and the villain. It's a time-honored theme in classic literature, the foil, and it still persists to this day for a reason. Because if it's a case of the hero being squeaky clean and the villain being purely evil, where is the tension? Where is the jeopardy? Not to mention very few people are clear-cut good and evil in real life. There is a place for pure heroes, but at the same time, there's really nothing wrong with delving into the darkness of the hero's psyche, their strengths and weaknesses, just as much as there is nothing wrong with delving into the glimmer of light in a villain's soul. As for the Daleks...I didn't say *they* were one note nuts. I said Palpatine was, because there's really no motivation for him besides "he was born evil". Which isn't true. Evil always has a point of origin. It doesn't always have to be a traumatic childhood. It can be anything. I think that's why they did it to Luthor,

[taekarado]

While we're on the subject of that, there's also the matter of the fact that nobody ever really thinks of themselves as evil. No one, with the possible exception of Dr. Evil, wakes up in the morning thinking of new evil things to do.
cant remember if youve watched spoony recently, but he brought up that very point in one of his recentish counter monkeys, talking against character alignments. no one thinks of themselves as chaotic or lawful or even neutral evil unless they have severe self hatred. they might question the decency of their actions, but ultimately theyll justify it to themselves that its for the good of something, even if for themselves. thats whats making dr wood in a posse ad esse very difficult to write at times; his actions have to be seen as villainous to anyone with sense, but justifiable in his eyes. because he lacks sense, if that makes sense in itself.

[ladyhadhafang]

That's very true, I agree. *Really needs to watch Spoony's videos more often, as she's fallen behind* And that really does make sense. Seriously, this, so very much.

[pwalkeri]

My favorite sympathetic villain will probably always be Azula. I dare someone to say that she's cuddly or wimpy.

I really like sympathetic villains because it just shows you that things aren't always black and white. People aren't just good or bad; they are a myriad of complications that result in their behaviors. I really liked Azula because you didn't really know or understand her reasoning for things until like the last 5 episodes. Then it all started unraveling and, by the end, she jumped ranks into one of my favorites on the show. THAT is good villain writing and development, IMO. And packs a much bigger punch than just "they do it because they're evil and hate people".

[ladyhadhafang]

Agreed so very much regarding Azula. Seriously. And Mike and Bryan don't necessarily try to excuse her actions, but they at least show how troubled she is and how sad she really is. They allowed that revelation to shed more light on her as a character. Same with Noatak/Amon and Tarrlok in LEGEND OF KORRA. I think portraying them as gentle, innocent boys really makes what happens to them later all the more chilling and heartbreaking, really. (I sadly haven't finished KORRA yet, but I'm planning to. And what I heard about Noatak/Amon and Tarrlok...ouch. ;.;)

And yes -- people really are complicated. I agree.

[darth_eldritch]

I think it is very important to point out that no one's idea of what a villain should be like it is more right than any one else's. You are not wrong by any means

[ladyhadhafang]

Eldritch...I think you summed it up beautifully. :)

[darth_eldritch]

Thanks!

I've been reading up on the Daleks (it's been years since I've read or seen anything Doctor Who) and what I've read about the evolution of the daleks over the years is plausible. Of course it depends on how well it is pulled off in actually presenting them in the shows, but the premises are laid. Of course there's been controversy since Terry Nation made his retcon on them, but you are always going to have that. And it is all a matter of personal taste and philosophy.

[ladyhadhafang]

You're welcome.

And yeah. Hell, things like Daleks gaining a conscience are nothing new. After all, look at stuff like "The Evil of the Daleks". Let's say what the New Series has been doing is nothing new. And definitely well-said regarding personal taste.

[zelda_queen]

I do love a good sympathetic villain. The only reason they bug me is more to do with the reaction of fans. I don't know if it's a recent thing or not, but it seems that with sympathetic villains, especially if they're attractive, there's at least a small group of fans who think that the villains were perfectly justified in their actions, the heroes were so bad to stop them, that the girl should have hooked up with the villain, etc

[ladyhadhafang]

Hey! :D *Hugs* ^^

And yeah, that's just made of frustrating. I can imagine. And it really doesn't help the character either. If anything, it overly simplifies them, which is pretty counterproductive, really. If that makes any sense.

And agreed so very much on the variety thing.

[aikaterini]

Yes, while I do like several sympathetic villains, it doesn't change the fact that I know that they *are* villains, or, at least, that they do bad things and that's why they're classified as villains.

Like I said in my comment, Magneto is a good example of this. People can sympathize with him, they can understand why he thinks the way he does. But that doesn't change the fact that while his motivation may be noble, his *actions* are bad.

Maybe the problem with both sides is just an issue of handling complexity. People who whitewash villains don't seem to see that a person can be sympathetic and still do bad things worthy of condemnation, and people who scoff at sympathetic villains don't seem to see that a person can do bad things and yet not be a complete monster.

[ladyhadhafang]

Very well-said. :)