QUOTE BY V:
Why are we all so "obsessed" with the concept of evil/villaneus characters? Above we have discussed at length what it takes to make a good villian, what is evil and why they may or may not be made up of many combinations of flaws ad fallacies,
How come no one has attempted a definition of a "good" character, aside from the overall argreement that too good is too much.
What sort of combination of character then makes up your favorite "hero"? If a villian needs some positive strains does a good guy need a fallacy? Or can he be good simply by not doing anything neither good nor "evil"?
Hmmmmmmmm. Good question. I can't really answer it. Perhaps because most people restrain their darker desires and are fascinated by a character that doesn't? But what about a character that possesses a twisted set of ethics and adheres to them rigidly? Such a character is still very interesting, but no doubt there would be times he has to restrain himself. I can't say, but it seems to be a topic people like discussing.
Secret Master listed off a few of my favorites. The classic flawed hero and the brooding dark hero are two of my favs. The accidental hero is less of a fav only because I have seen it done poorly so many times. When done right, it can be a real treat.
QUOTE BY STOREY:
I just was stunned by the negative/resigned view of life that I kept running into in the books I read. Could you recommend a Russian comedy that has been translated into English?
I'm no expert of Russian lit, but from what I am told and what I have read, that famed “Russian fatalism” pervades much of the writing. I also have been told that Russian comedy does not translate well. To further prove his point, my teacher told us a few Russian jokes. Believe me, they did not translate well. That said I am no expert and I'm sure Gajin can provide us with a better take on the subject.
QUOTE BY V:
SM, as to the good evil thing, What you basicly say is that both a "good" and a "bad" guy is a composite person, two sides of the coin, with only a mrginal difference, the hairthin line seperating them from one another.
And that thin line is mostly defined by circumstances such as context, environment and perception of the reader as well as the writer?
QUOTE BY MRT:
That is right on the money! What may be good in your eyes may be evil in mine, and visa versa...all of it being a product of our respective upbringings, circumstances, societies, etc. The challenge for the author is find interesting lines and to spend the story walking them.
V the “two sides of the same coin” concept is a very interesting one. Once long ago, I attempted to write a story told from two POV. The AT was a cynical homicide detective who was investigating a serial killer. The PT was the killer. I alternated between the two but what I never got around to revealing was that they were the same person. (It was abandoned long before I reached that pivotal revelation) There are a lot of cases where the line between the hero and villain are only a matter of circumstance or perspective. Other times the villain and hero are closely linked and if only a few choices were changed they could easily switch roles. Star Wars is a great example. Anakin could of controlled his hate and resisted the darkside. On the flip side, Luke could of just as easily given in to his hatred and succumbed to the Emperor and the darkside.
QUOTE BY MRT:
We all change over time as well...even when you're old you're not necessarily so set in your ways that there's no room for movement. That "movement" - or the discovery that you have two mutually incompatible beliefs or moral stances - can make for a great read.
I'm not trying to say that older people are incapable of change or movement. Only that as we become more set in our ways it becomes more difficult and a slower process. There are exceptions who live their entire life rapidly going from one set of core values to another, but most folks settle into a routine and a comfort zone. The longer you are there, the harder it is to leave.
Regarding Hannibal Lecter, I have read two of the three books and seen all three movies. In the first book,
The Red Dragon, HL is portrayed with no redeeming qualities what so ever. He's sadistic, manipulative, and treacherous and has no problem endangering Agent Graham. His portrayal in the movie
Silence of the Lambs is very much the same. Though in the end, he says he won't come looking for Clarice. His fondness for her could be seen as a redeeming quality. In the third book,
Hannibal, it becomes quite obvious that in his own twisted and warped way Dr. Lecter is in love with Agent Starling. The movie (but not the book) even has him commit an act of self sacrifice, even if it is to aid in his escape.
I think the part of the reason that both the Hannibal the book and movie were so poorly received by the public was they rejected the attempt to humanize Lecter. Hannibal Lecter was, at least for modern western audiences, very close to evil personified. The attempt to make him seem sympathetic or at least possessing the capability to love or care for anything other than himself seemed to contradict the already established character.
This is an example of hard it is to sell dramatic change in a character. Readers and moviegoers alike rejected
Hannibal. In the movie it was hard to accept Hannibal choosing to harm himself rather than Clarice. In the book it was impossible to accept Clarice joining with Lecter and becoming a killer herself. It violated the central core of each character and gave us no justification.
QUOTE BY LD:
The nature of good vs evil has been debated long before even I was born. But, let's not drift from the task at hand, and that's to keep the discussion in a literary context.
Isn't literature in many ways the study of the human experience? So wouldn't any discussion about good and evil, the nature of man, ect. be applicable? That said, I understand what you mean, but this stuff gives a lot to chew on and can be useful in our writing.
QUOTE BY LD:
Oh, and I'm impressed by the number of references to the Free Company. If I can cast aside modesty for a moment and state that the project has proven its usefulness and success as a vehicle to draw reference material from for these discussions.
Yup.
Lastly, I must comment on MrT's post. Yes, you can paint a portrait were a suicide bomber would seem to be a noble if not flawed character. That does not mean that there are no absolutes. Let's take the actual tragedy of 9/11. The average victim of the World Trade Center attack had no direct link to the supposedly evil US government other than happening to live under it and pay taxes to it. The president, congress, or the state department never consulted these people before deciding US foreign policy. To highjack a plane and fly it into a building to slaughter these innocent people is absolutely evil. No one can paint a context where it is not.
To go back and refer to an event in history that is not as fresh in our minds, the Holocaust was absolutely evil. No one can create a context where it is ok to murder 6 million people just because of who the happened to be descended from.
Chris, I know you hold no ill will towards my country and your post was not meant as a show of support for terrorism. I am not angry with you, though your example did hit a nerve with me. I could actually feel my blood pressure rise as I wrote this last segment. Again I understand what you were saying and I agree that context often does play a role in what we perceive to be right and wrong. BUT, there are absolutes. Perhaps there are very few, but they do exist.
One last time. Chris I am not angry at you and I respect your opinions. In fact I often am eager to hear what you think about a given topic.