The Villain of a story is one of (if not THE) most integral parts to formulating a successful tale. Yet at the same time, the villain is also one of the most squandered opportunities that any story represents. Too often the villain of a story opposes the hero for very meaningless or even fake reasons (I'm looking at you pretty much every comic book villain ever.) and this is a prime example of the oversimplification that stories are so prone to doing. If the hero of the story can be a complex and three dimensional character with their own, why should their opposition be any less complex, any less thoughtful. In truth, the best villains are every bit as admirable as the heroes they oppose. some of the most satisfying conflicts occur when both sides have an admirable goal.
The idea of a villain who was still an admirable individual is not a new idea by any sense. even Homer, who's principle audience would have been the descendants of the Greek invaders, painted Hector, eldest son of Priam and the most powerful of the Trojan heroes as an honorable individual, who refuses to sell out his less-than-penitent younger brother, despite the fact that the odds are against both him and his city. Likewise pretty much every pantheon of gods has at least one "evil" deity who is associated with death or strife or mischief, but will still stand by the other gods at various points in the mythology
The other form of ancient story is the kind that has no villain. both The Odyssey and Beowulf, although featuring people and creatures that oppose the hero, do not really have villains. Yes there are foes, (Cersei, and Grendel, Polyphemus and the Dragon) but the actions of these foes do not dictate the course of the story, in the same way that The Joker orchestrates the occurrences of The Dark Knight or how Darth Vader affects the course of the Star wars trilogy. Ancient stories were focused on the hero, and him alone.
Which is why everything is King Arthur's fault.
King Arthur is the one who started the trend of illogical villainy that plagues some other wise brilliant stories (such as Ronin in Guardians of the Galaxy, and numerous unnecessary characters in Game of Thrones) Morgan le Fay and her sisters will do anything in their power to ensnare and oppose Arthur and his knights, without Arthur himself having done anything to them. (they are venting their rather legitimate frustration at Arthur's father, by opposing his son.)
But King Arthur is not the only legend to have illogical villains. Robin hood also has to regularly deal with Prince John, Guy of Guisborne and the Sheriff of Nottingham, all of whom have really no redeeming characteristics and are just greedy brutes.
And that doesn't mean you can't have a greedy brute who likes hurting people as your villain. But it does mean that no one cares about your villain. If your villain is the generic vileness that is found in so many stories (which is really Disney's fault but...) then it should be the hero that drives the plot, not that villain. Because in truth, the hero of your story is really only as good as the villain(or obstacle) they overcome.
There has been a growing trend in modern stories to have chapters from the villain's perspective, both to change up the points of view AND to establish the villain as dangerous by having him be evil to either some unlucky nobody or an inept minion. this rather generic scene can be found in almost any movie (it even snuck it's way into The Hobbit) and will always end with the villain dispatching whoever is groveling before them.
Oh, aren't they so evil!!!
Next Time: The Villain, part two: the ones that got it right
No comments:
Post a Comment