Thoughts on Villainy

Saw Watchmen again last night with Sir Gay, which he enjoyed. Bear and Sir Gay seem to be exceptions among people who have not read WATCHMEN who also enjoyed the film. (I am of two minds: the movie as a film was worse the second time around, but I can’t help loving it anyway because I’m such a fan.) “I’m impressed,” said Sir Gay, “Hollywood doesn’t make movies like this.”

Actually, they do. I think he’s referring to the subversion of “good” and “evil” which doesn’t belong to Hollywood at all, but Alan Moore. It’s very much a blockbuster Hollywood movie; it’s just that the source material is not, although I believe the transformation of Patrick Wilson into Dan Dreiberg was possibly the most impressive factor for both Bear and Sir Gay.

JJ: Dan Dreiberg? He was the pedophile from Hard Candy.
BEAR: Really?

JJ: Dan Dreiberg? He was Raoul from The Phantom of the Opera.
SIR GAY: The hot one? Really?

My friend Katranna made a post about superheroes, contemplating the swing in the pendulum from “glorious heroism” in comics to “gritty, realistic, and tortured heroes” (as so very nicely encapsulated in Watchmen‘s opening credits and no I won’t stop gushing about them), which had me thinking about the “antihero vs. the villain.”

I’ve perhaps documented too well my love of villains (Ben from LOST, Roger Chillingworth from THE SCARLET LETTER, Alec Stokes-D’Urberville from TESS OF THE D’URBERVILLES, etc.) but I’ve never exactly considered the why of it before. It would be facetious to say that I find Evil appealing, so there must be something else altogether that attracts my interest.

In my comment I touch briefly on the concept of the hero as the champion of the individual. My favourite character in WATCHMEN is Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias who in nearly any other book would be considered an out-and-out villain (he touches on this topic briefly himself). And he is, make no mistake about that, but as with anything else Moore has written, that isn’t necessarily the only aspect of his character. (Spoilers again below the cut.)

Rorschach and Adrian are probably considered your standard “antiheroes“, with Rorschach as a more “traditional” one; that is, a criminal with noble qualities in the vein of the first iteration of Batman. The difference between Rorschach and Adrian is the question of redeemability. Rorschach can be easily redeemed in the eyes of the reader: he is the champion of innocents, a crusader against injustice, and an upholder of conservative moral values (being against homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, etc.). He is also vastly more sympathetic in many ways; he grew up as the abused son of a whore, providing us with a conveniently credible reason for his vendetta against crime.

On the other hand, there is Adrian, the “smartest man in the world” with untold wealth, who grew up privileged in every way possible: mentally, physically, and financially. Villainy, after all, can only be funded with money. He has had everything in life handed to him on a platter and we (usually the American public) are distrustful of people who have had it “too easy.” With endless power, money, and resources, what is to prevent such a character from using those gifts for selfish ends? Nothing except an inherent goodness and inherent goodness is not a quality that exists in the WATCHMEN universe. What else then, if not a conscience? Since Veidt seems to have neither a conscience nor a poor upbringing, readers will find him less redeemable than Rorschach.

I would argue, however, that Rorschach is also a character without conscience and instead substitutes a rigid moral code (based on his personal experiences). Similarly, Adrian supplants his conscience with idealism. Why is he considered the more villainous one when ultimately he is trying to bring about the greatest good? In the end, I believe it comes down to compassion for the individual innocent, for which Rorschach has plenty but Adrian ignores in his bid for world peace.

“What, by killing millions of innocent people?” Rorschach accuses him.

“To save billions,” he replies coldly.

It is Adrian’s unemotional efficiency in achieving his ends that bestows upon him the traditional values of a villain. But the twist is he takes these villainous values to serve humanity, which would place him as an “antivillain.” I admire villains for the same reason I admire Adrian; the ability to put aside emotion for purpose. This is a character trait I admire in life; I have little or no patience for those who let their feelings get in the way of what needs to be done. Villains usually possess this trait in spades. Does this make me a coldhearted bitch? Yes, but I’m quite all right with that. I am, after all, shallow, vain, and judgmental, but I am also fiercely loyal and honest.

Hence my love of characters like Mrs. Coulter, Adrian Veidt, Ben, and even my own mother (who is most certainly not a villain, but possesses this quality). A “good” villain lives in his/her head because passion can make one heedless. Good vs. evil stories are often stories about the Head vs. the Heart. I find it interesting that the heart always wins. The capacity to feel is more highly prized than the capacity to act regardless of emotion. The reason “good” characters often annoy me is because more often than not, they are placed in a situation which victimizes them. Female characters have this problem more than most and a heaven forbid there exists a female character with her own agency.

(All generalisations don’t apply to good writers, of course.)

After writing this, I’ve just realised that my “Mary Sue” in my own writing is not Eva; it’s Lady Min. What does it say about me that my wish fulfillment character is a ruthless, calculating woman?