What makes a villain a villain? And more importantly, who made up these rules anyway? As I watched Heroic (muscle god) James annihilate Villainous (old man) Randy, I thought, “oh, that’s not a fair match-up at all! James should have a hand tied behind his back or something!” And as the camera panned across first the Heroes and then the Villains, I could help but think that a more appropriate subtitle may have been Brawn versus Brains. Then it would have been completely acceptable to pit the ninety-pound Courtney against the (relatively) Amazonian Heroines. But alas, it is Hero and Villain being discussed here.
Why did I like the Villains so much more? Watching the Heroes begin to bite at each other is far more entertaining, after all. Besides, what makes these guys Villains anyway? Is it because they manipulate situations (Boston Rob), seduce people (Jerri), find idols without clues (Russell), lie (Sandra), cheat (Sandra) or steal (Sandra)? Is it because they’re mean (Courtney) or because we feel guilty for laughing when they are (Tyson)? Is it because, in some archaic society, these are the guys that would slip into your tent at night and slit your throat? Or is it because in modern-day survivor they totally would burn your socks and throw out all your fish? I know why I relate to them more: they’re smart. They use their cunning before their strength. But is that villainous?
I submit to you, poppets, that if you were David, staring down Goliath, that you should be allowed to even the playing field. There’s no way you’re going to win hand-to-hand combat, so sling those rocks as hard as you can and hope the great big lummox falls before he lays his hands on you – because if he does, you’re toast. That’s an easy one though – David’s always been a hero.
Why did I like the Villains so much more? Watching the Heroes begin to bite at each other is far more entertaining, after all. Besides, what makes these guys Villains anyway? Is it because they manipulate situations (Boston Rob), seduce people (Jerri), find idols without clues (Russell), lie (Sandra), cheat (Sandra) or steal (Sandra)? Is it because they’re mean (Courtney) or because we feel guilty for laughing when they are (Tyson)? Is it because, in some archaic society, these are the guys that would slip into your tent at night and slit your throat? Or is it because in modern-day survivor they totally would burn your socks and throw out all your fish? I know why I relate to them more: they’re smart. They use their cunning before their strength. But is that villainous?
I submit to you, poppets, that if you were David, staring down Goliath, that you should be allowed to even the playing field. There’s no way you’re going to win hand-to-hand combat, so sling those rocks as hard as you can and hope the great big lummox falls before he lays his hands on you – because if he does, you’re toast. That’s an easy one though – David’s always been a hero.
What about Delilah? She cut off Samson’s hair while he slept in her tent, taking with her the source of his great strength. Oh, yes, Samson sure did want him some Delilah, he loved her so much that he killed her husband to make it easier for her to come to him. Except: Delilah didn’t want Samson; some would even say that Delilah loathed Samson. But did that matter to him? Nope. He just kept tearing down the obstacles she erected, with brutal and bloodthirsty force. See Samson? He’s a hero – he’s battle-scarred and not too bright, but he’s a hero. Who’s Delilah to refuse him? Aside from a woman, she’s nobody. Do you think she could have taken Samson in one-on-one combat? Hellz no. So she did what she could to even the playing field – she waited until he was sleeping and cut off his stupid hair.
All the so-called dishonourable tactics of war are really nothing more than contrived rules to make the strong and stupid survive. Stealthy assassins that sneak about and stab you in the back of the neck? Villain. Rangers who use poison-tipped arrows? Villain. Women who seduce their enemies and strangle them in their sleep? Villain. Giants who wear thick plated-armour and who wield broadswords so they can hack men of lesser stature while riding destriers? Hero. ...does this make any sense? No wonder I relate to a good villain – I have no hope of winning a duel! Stabby stabby in the dead of night though? I may have a shot. Heroes always say lying is cheating; I think that they’re either mad that they fell for a trick or they’re jealous they didn’t come up with the plan themselves.
All the so-called dishonourable tactics of war are really nothing more than contrived rules to make the strong and stupid survive. Stealthy assassins that sneak about and stab you in the back of the neck? Villain. Rangers who use poison-tipped arrows? Villain. Women who seduce their enemies and strangle them in their sleep? Villain. Giants who wear thick plated-armour and who wield broadswords so they can hack men of lesser stature while riding destriers? Hero. ...does this make any sense? No wonder I relate to a good villain – I have no hope of winning a duel! Stabby stabby in the dead of night though? I may have a shot. Heroes always say lying is cheating; I think that they’re either mad that they fell for a trick or they’re jealous they didn’t come up with the plan themselves.
2 comments:
Yes, but the the true test of a hero is not their strength, but their altruism. Sure, villans are sly and can win the occasional suprise attack, but to maintain social order - you must believe that right is might, rather than the other way around. Reminds me of the proverbial conundrum of yelling fire in a theatre - if done at precisely the right moment, one individual can run free of the chaos and be saved. If all were villians, there would be no room for a clever plan - it would just be mass chaos. One can only win as a villian if there are less of them than the occasional hero and the rest of the dumb fucks without the balls to be either.
Anon,
Hmmm - I think we may be talking about two different things here. I was only talking about why "honourable" combat is defined in terms of brute strength and "dishonourable" combat almost always involves guile and cunning. In essence, if you outwit your opponent, you're considered villianous but if you beat them to a pulp, you're heroic. A true hero, in my book, would never engage in bullying behaviour, or in a fight where the odds were imbalanced.
The selfishness vs. altruism debate is slightly different. While I disagree with Hume when he says that humans are inherently altruistic, I do believe that selfish motivations can manifest in altruistic behaviour (e.g., finding personal salvation in God could lead you to be Mother Teresa, achieving social status could lead you to be a philanthorpist etc.).
Villians win often, but are never given credit. Heroes win often too, but are hardly fair about it.
I don't find the crowded theatre example particularly apt. A better one may be if you kill a thousand people to save a million or kill no one and risk millions more, which would you do? I don't think the answer is as black and white (or heroic/villainous) as we may wish it was.
Post a Comment