Can the hero be a villian?

[kshRox]

Really good post clippedwolf

I agree, this is a very good post Clipped.

I believe it illustrates the nature of the human animal.
Death and murder, of other animals as well as fellow humans has been an intrinsic part of the humanimals nature from inception (by whatever means) to present times.

The dissassociation from death in modern society obviously has left a vacuum leaving us with a morbid fascination for carnality. I believe the problem is the disconnect between 'real' violence and the preponderance of simulated violence has blurred the line of reality for some.

Many boys lust for war associating it with glory and the realization of masculinity. Many soldiers coming home from war are emotionally spent and have trouble adjusting to non-combat life.

I am fascinated by the psychology of individuals and societies which is probably why I am an avid reader and and aspiring writer.

My words are to share and learn not offend or criticize anothers perspective.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I think I'd agree with the Lieutenant Colonel to some degree. The changes in society over the last century or two have removed us in large part from the reality of death. So maybe you can argue from that that we have developed a morbid fascination with it. But death and killing / murder / violence are different things.

I don't think a fascination with death necessarily leads to thoughts / fascination with vilence, and vice versa.

If you want a scape goat for where the obsession with violence comes from look at more the news and films like Dirty Harry. These are where the argument for violence is made, not in the absence of death in our lives.

And as KshRox pointed out many young men rush to war thinking its wonderful and glorious and rightious and patriotic and all that crap. It's not. And it's when the reality of death close up and personal hits them in the face that they come back broken.

I think the absence of obvious death in our society only makes it easier to believe the lies we are told about the righteousness of war and vigilantism.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[nubins]

Isn't one of Joe Abercrombie's characters on the psycho side (or am I thinking Brent Weekes?)
Warrior type that when he reaches beserker he kills anyone standing too close, even allies and kids?

And for villain as hero

Flashman books.

One of Joe Abbercrombie's gifts is to make heroic characters with villainous traits. Glokta, Logan, Gorst, Calder spring to mind.

Glokta - vicious and merciless torturer, schemer, hideously deformed, written in such a way as he seems to slither through the book. Yet by the end of the trilogy he's a hero, of sorts, a character you are actively routing for.

Logan - seems like a down to earth hero type, pragmatic, tries to avoid trouble. But trouble tries to find him and when it does, he has a vicious streak a mile wide that noone is safe from and a past full of murdererous deeds.

Gorst - almost.. almost.. the perfect hero. Strong, hard working, down to earth, extremely skilled and intelligent. Yet due to one very simple physical flaw, he is never taken seriously and never given the accolades he deserves and so despises himself. Wallows in bitterness and self loathing, feels little pity for others and drives himself to great feats of bravery and heroism, only because he is looking for a way out from his own life.

Calder - scheming liar, coward and murderer. But due to his family, his impossible situation and his own lust for power, he becomes a hero of sorts.

You should read his book "The Heroes". It is a perfect example of doing exactly what you ask.

 

[paranoid marvin]

All depends on how the protagonist engages the reader.

A great example is Shakespeare's Richard II who is so villainous that it almost becomes pantomime, but interacts with the audience in such a way as to make them complicit in his actions. Get a reader to empathise/sympathise with the character and they may take on heroic status.

 

[kshRox]

All depends on how the protagonist engages the reader.

A great example is Shakespeare's Richard II who is so villainous that it almost becomes pantomime, but interacts with the audience in such a way as to make them complicit in his actions. Get a reader to empathise/sympathise with the character and they may take on heroic status.

Sweeney Todd - The Demon Barber of Fleet Street!

 

[paranoid marvin]

All depends on how the protagonist engages the reader.

A great example is Shakespeare's Richard II who is so villainous that it almost becomes pantomime, but interacts with the audience in such a way as to make them complicit in his actions. Get a reader to empathise/sympathise with the character and they may take on heroic status.

Sorry I meant Richard III.

Yes Sweeney Todd is another, many of the gangsters and pirates too.

 

[clippedwolf]

Moral men develop a duel morality for surviving war, I know.
The good Christian, the faithfully married father of two girls saw 'them' as dogs that had to put down.
The medic, the trained healer of the group, felt the death of each dead brother was his personal failure, and so developed an enjoyment of exacting lethal vengeance.
The college boy with a fondness of literature and Latin, a natural leader with moderate temperament would cheer "Kill 'em all!" in joyous bravado before starting another day of working in death's shadow.
These are brief descriptions of some of the most honorable and generous men I know and knew when they were overseas at war.

We talk among each other because no one back home understands. They haven't heard a whistling bullet; a real bullet intentionally shot by a hostile man who intentionally tried to kill you. Nor have they seen a friend pale and bleeding and tasted pennies on their tongue from the smell of his blood in the air. Could I put myself in my enemies position and empathize with him? Is he going to try to empathize with me? Instead I think I will embrace the hate and survive the war.

You should read his book "The Heroes". It is a perfect example of doing exactly what you ask.

Thank you. I got it for Kindle. I'll mock you over the internet if it isn't any good.

 

[James Coote]

Lets say Dexter was set in London, a city of ~7mil people. Between 2006 and 2011, there were 864 murders, with a mean value of 144, which we'll use as an estimate for 2012. So lets say 1008 murders. In the same time, there have been 84 episodes of Dexter. Having not seen Dexter, but knowing the premise, there ought to be an average of 2 murders per episode (one serial killer, one Dexter killing the killer). So that's 168 murders. That would mean Dexter-related cases were alone responsible for over 16% of all murders

If you assumed all the Dexter episodes were set in a single year, 2011, and that Dexter kills one person per episode, that would mean he was responsible for some 70% of murders. Which is clearly impossible, because all his victims are themselves murderers

120 murders in London last year was the lowest level for over 25 years, and London had a smaller population last time the figure was that low. In fact, crime generally has been coming down, and quite dramatically and consistently for the last 20 years in both the US and UK. What's interesting is that even during recession, crime has continued to drop, suggesting actually the causes of crime don't have a connection with the wider economic situation. Whether that was always the case is another matter

However, ask anyone if crime is going up or coming down, and they will say going up. We live in a climate of fear of violence, where newspapers and 24 hour TV give us a constant rundown of the latest terrible crimes. That is what Dexter feeds into.

So the fear of crime is itself keeping crime low. Or maybe it's young people spending their time indoors playing violent video games, rather than hanging out on street corners getting involved in gangs and drug pushing, which in turn leads to a life of crime..

--

There is no such thing as a tangible hero or villain, as they are perceptions viewed through the lens of someone else. They are labels applied by other characters or the reader, but their is no innate hero/villain property.

As for how you become a villain, people don't go bad over a single event. Just because the character was abused as a child or whatever, doesn't mean they are necessarily going to grow up bad.

Becoming a villain is often a slow progression over time. When a character is under constant pressure or repeatedly put in morally ambiguous situations, their thinking will evolve

It's then interesting to see whether the reader's thinking will likewise change in the same direction. I.e. whether they will continue to empathise with the character. If they don't, then a villain is born

It's also possible to become a villain by when a character gets disconnected from reality. If they live in a rarefied environment, such as the boy King in his palace high above the city streets, or the guerrilla fighter camped out in the jungle for months at a time. If the reader truly becomes immersed in the story, then they may keep empathising with the character. Otherwise the contrast with what the reader knows that the character doesn't (in and outside the story's world), will colour the character in shades of villainy

 

[ralphkern]

In a lot of David Webers Harrington novels the 'hero's' and 'villains' are merely on opposite sides in a war. Actually some of the baddies are more sympathetic then the heroine

 

[Gumboot]

A list of heroic characteristics are courageous, skilled, sacrificial, destined, decisive, loyal, selfless, convicted, humble, etc...
These are all celebrated attributes and I don't think that anyone can argue that these are not noble.
If a character had all of these characteristics but was defined by violent action, at what point would this violence and against whom would it make this almost laudable character villainous?

I think the answer, fundamentally, is no, in that the two are mutually exclusive by definition. What I mean by that is not that you can't contain those conflicting attributes in a single character, but rather that such a character is, by definition, neither a hero nor a villain. If you think of all characters as existing on a moral spectrum relative to the reader, hero and villain are at opposing ends.

To address the specifics of your post; a hero, with the cited heroic attributes, is allowed to carry out violent action, as long as said action is justified and morally insulated. Where the action cannot be justified this undermines the heroic attributes listed, and the character ceases to be a hero.

Having said that, I think you can certainly have characters that take the "hero" or "villain" role within the story, but are not actually heroes or villains. This is quite common, and can very effective, particularly for challenging a reader's preconceptions, and undermining narrative stereotypes.

In my opinion, the many examples presented here demonstrate exactly my point; I would argue that the characters proposed aren't heroes at all, and note that "protagonist" does not mean hero. A hero is a particular type of protagonist, that is a protagonist who is unquestionably at the extreme "good" end of the moral spectrum.

Of course, you could instead apply the traditional meaning of "hero", which was a person who had one mortal parent and one immortal parent, in which case a hero can certainly be a villain.

 

[hopewrites]

late to the party, but I would throw Woody's hat into the ring.
Yeah from Toy Story. But just the first one.

At the start he embraces the ennobled idea that he is a hero. He is abrasive and defiant, jealous and destructive in his defense of this position. Not just in pushing Buzz out the window, but in pursuing him just to clear his name, and in that pursuit persisting in his tormenting demand that Buzz see the world his way.
Classic villain.
Self-righteous, and demanding others see the world his way.

But what happens to him?
In breaking down he finds the strength to overcome his worst enemy. Himself. The conflict with Buzz is just a facade. The peril of Sid is just a catalyst. In fighting with Buzz and trying to escape Sid he finds out things about himself he doesnt like.
Buzz doesnt change.
Sid doesnt change.
Woody changes.
By changing from villain to hero he is able to turn the tables and get home.
Get back to being his true self.

Naturally all this is subcontextual, which is what makes it such an enduring thing for people to enjoy.

Not the struggle of internal good against external evil. but the hidden paradox of our every day struggle of internal good against internal evil. The day in day out war within.

Do I think a character can be both hero and villain? sure. just not at the same time. but if an author wants to embrace the dichotomy of such a character. I'm all for it. When done right, it makes for a really good read.

 

[David Evil Overlord]

Just finished reading Confessions Of A D-List Supervillain. Told from the POV of a villain in a cheap version of Iron Man's armour, who ended up a villain when shafted by his former boss (a billionaire who used his employees' ideas to create a very expensive version of Iron Man's armour, and tied them up in contracts that prevented them from working for any competitor, so if they quit or were fired...).

One thing I really enjoyed about the book was the way the labels stuck. The POV character is still seen as a villain, even after he saves the world (he's promised a pardon, but the paperwork seems to be taking forever).

No one believes he's changed.

And his ex-boss gets away with very unethical behaviour, because he's a hero...

 

[jastius]

i am writing something where the monster turns out to be the hero, but he needs to be rescued. or they could just let him become toast... its kind of iffy at this point..
but the point is if someone is basically a good person, even if they are doing the wrong things perhaps they thought they were for the right reasons.
then there is the so called good person who is a megalomaniac. believes that what they do is right. no matter what. but then people get caught into situations they let carry them along.. and some of them stand up against that situation.. even if it kills them.

 

[MstrTal]

This shows up in Manga often.

Sometimes its a cruel, sadistic, self centered, arrogant jerk who actively works at appearing better than he is. Other times the protagonist can pull the most perverted or debase action and it is misunderstood as something positive. The inverse is also true.

Sometimes the "Villain" is actually the good guy but due to labels, appearance or some other social stigma or action is chased by the "Heroes" and society.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Somebody mentioned The Engineer Trilogy by K J Parker to me today (in another place discussing a completely different topic), and now that I'm thinking about that series, I believe I will amend some of the things I said earlier in this thread.

Spoiler

The main character does terrible things. Then, instead of regretting them, he does even more horrible things. But it takes a long time to realize that he is the villain, because his ultimate goal is to go home to his wife and child. He does choose the most ruthless, intricate, and destructive way of achieving that, but that's not immediately obvious. And it isn't as though he becomes a horrible, ruthless person in the course of the story. It's that the story gradually shows him for what he is.

So I think, as tricky as it might be, it is possible to write a story where a character who appears to be the hero at the beginning is revealed to be the villain before the end.

 

[j d worthington]

Well... Moorcock's Erekosë might fit the bill. He is certainly heroic in many ways, and his changing sides to fight for the Eldren is a sympathetic move, yet he exterminates the human race, killing men, women, and children until absolutely no one is left. Other of Moorcock's characters are ambivalent in this way, notably Elric of Melniboné; possibly the greatest hero of his age, yet at times as villainous as they come; at others almost an innocent child. Or Konrad Arflane of The Ice Schooner; again, often quite heroic, yet at times despicable.

Howard's Conan at least verges on the villainous at times, as with his brutal slaying of his former sex partner's new lover in "Rogues in the House"; Howard even describes him as standing over the man like a ghoul; or his original bargain with the woman in "The Vale of Lost Women". And, once again, other of Howard's "heroes" reflect this ambivalence at various times, as with Bran Mak Morn in "Worms of the Earth"; or Black Terence Vulmea; or the characters in some of his straight (as opposed to his comic) Western tales.

Does Airar Alvarson of The Well of the Unicorn fit? Throughout the novel he is mostly of heroic mold, but occasionally does something more than morally questionable, as in casting a spell which causes a woman he desires to go to bed with him, forgetting that though the body may be present, the heart may belong elsewhere -- sorcerous rape. And at the end of the novel, his status is much more in doubt.

I'd say there are a fair number of characters in fiction which might suit....

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Would you call those characters villains, though, or anti-heroes, JD?

 

[FibonacciEddie]

Most of us are "morally good" (at least in the big things ... clearly we all finish the chocolate biscuits and then put the empty packet back into the cupboard to wind up the rest of the family ... that's just standard life skills)

and so I would think that our heroes have to try to do good things ... (they don't always have to succeed)

If the person is a villain then you would expect to write them in such a way as for the reader to wish them to fail ... it probably becomes a discussion about semantics

Joe Abercrombie does a good job with Inquisitor Glokta ... a clear villain who you end up rooting for ... well I did anyway.

 

[j d worthington]

Would you call those characters villains, though, or anti-heroes, JD?

A good question, and I suppose it depends upon the particular case. As I recall, at one point (in The Quest for Tanelorn, I believe), Erekosë would certainly seem a genuine villain, one whom Hawkmoon must defeat. Elric occasionally becomes so much a Melnibonéan that even "villain" hardly describes him (e.g., at the end of The Fortress of the Pearl; portions of Elric of Melniboné). And I suppose I forgot to mention Karl Edward Wagner's Kane, who most definitely fits on more than one occasion... e.g., Bloodstone, where the only reason he finally destroys the menace is not because it attempts to overtake the world and everything in it, but it has the audacity to try to make Kane its slave. He couldn't give a damn about anyone else, but he most certainly wasn't going to end up serving something he'd brought to play in the first place....

 

[Ray McCarthy]

The "Hero" can be a Villain, sometimes one that never reforms. I don't like those stories. Waylander is an "ordinary" person that becomes a Villain, but changes (for most of the time).