We all know the respective roles which heroes and villains play in stories. The question is whether the hero or villain is more important to the story? How many times have we seen the protaganists of a certain story carry the rest of the cast through the whole title? Yes, how many times do we root for a villain's diabolical schemes, even though we already know that said villain will inevitably be thwarted? Or is there a line drawn somewhere, where there is a concerted effort to play hero off villain and vice versa, but often at the expense of other character development?
I ask this because I personally feel that heroes are given too much credit in stories. Yes, we often see from the hero's point of view, especially if the story is in first person. Yes, the hero's actions are often excused because we know HIS validation of those actions, while the villain gets no such luxury. However, how many times do we see heroes and protaganists simply dwindling to nothing more than carbon copies of each other, often being able to be used interchangably?
On to villains. For everything that the hero is, surely behind every hero there is some bad-assed, kill-em-all-and-show-no-mercy villain? For every Beowulf there is a Grendel? For every F4 there is a Dr Doom? Villains often offer the most in terms of character building, and are pretty damn fun to write as well, especially when their darker psyches are explored, as in their motivations, their twisted views of the world, and the sympathy they can invoke when readers realise that villains are, in a nutshell, sometimes simply shortchanged by life itself. We often talk about how heroes are often ordinary people doing extraordinary acts, yet how often is a maligned villain often simply a victim of circumstance, someone at the wrong place at the wrong time?
Saying that, I want to open this debate to everyone. Do we go for the "Superman-esque", boyscout hero to save the day, do we delve into and attempt to understand the minds of Hannibal and his kin, do we play them off like Infernal Affairs (HK original of The Departed), do we root for the anti-heroes (come on, we all know that Snape DIDN'T turn bad
) or do we root for the villains that are blessed with a shade of grey morality?
Discuss
I ask this because I personally feel that heroes are given too much credit in stories. Yes, we often see from the hero's point of view, especially if the story is in first person. Yes, the hero's actions are often excused because we know HIS validation of those actions, while the villain gets no such luxury. However, how many times do we see heroes and protaganists simply dwindling to nothing more than carbon copies of each other, often being able to be used interchangably?
On to villains. For everything that the hero is, surely behind every hero there is some bad-assed, kill-em-all-and-show-no-mercy villain? For every Beowulf there is a Grendel? For every F4 there is a Dr Doom? Villains often offer the most in terms of character building, and are pretty damn fun to write as well, especially when their darker psyches are explored, as in their motivations, their twisted views of the world, and the sympathy they can invoke when readers realise that villains are, in a nutshell, sometimes simply shortchanged by life itself. We often talk about how heroes are often ordinary people doing extraordinary acts, yet how often is a maligned villain often simply a victim of circumstance, someone at the wrong place at the wrong time?
Saying that, I want to open this debate to everyone. Do we go for the "Superman-esque", boyscout hero to save the day, do we delve into and attempt to understand the minds of Hannibal and his kin, do we play them off like Infernal Affairs (HK original of The Departed), do we root for the anti-heroes (come on, we all know that Snape DIDN'T turn bad
) or do we root for the villains that are blessed with a shade of grey morality?Discuss