On heroes, villains, and double standards
May. 20th, 2012 06:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xparrot(aka Xparrot is metaing again, run awaaaa~~~~y)(aka why don't I have a Loki icon yet?)
On my flist the question was posed, why is Loki getting so much love in Avengers fandom in spite of all his wicked deeds, while so many heroic characters are vilified for much less severe character flaws? Which, as a long-time villain fan, I just had to jump in and say:
To begin with, this is something of a false equivalency: in fiction there are many minor character flaws that are worse than grievous flaws from a storytelling standpoint, because they are less interesting. Huge tragic flaws can make for more compelling stories than minor, human flaws, and sometimes minorly flawed characters are disliked because their flaws are boring or annoying, as opposed to horrific or terrifying (and thus intriguing).
(And then, sometimes we like villains without ever considering their morality, because they're entertaining, because their scenery-chewing cracks us up or their wicked cleverness is so much fun to untangle - or just because they're sexy and we don't care what they're doing, as long as we get to watch - and since it's fiction, that's cool; file it under Not My Kink and move on.)
But putting that aside, as a fan of both villains and heroes (oftentimes in the same stories), I admit that I hold villain characters to different moral standards as hero characters. There's a lot a hero can do that will be unforgivable for me (killing is a big one for a lot of superheroes), while as a villain doing the same thing will not change my feelings for them substantially. Much of this is because of the different way characters tend to be treated in the narrative - heroes get rewarded in the end, villains punished. So a hero who missteps may pay for it to an extent, but largely will come out on top in the end - they'll have their friends around them, get the girl/boy, the adulation for saving the world (or at least the satisfaction of knowing they did); while the villain usually gets what's coming to him. Heroes sometimes get criticized when the audience believes they are not being held accountable for their flaws, while as villains rarely have that problem. A lot of the love of woobie villains is for characters who get no love (or not enough love) in canon, so fandom jumps in to fill the void. (Whether they deserve love simply for being pretty/angsty is a whole other question!)
Some of this isn't different standards so much as moral relativism - morality can be subjective, depending on a character's circumstances and history. Thor in the comics kills his enemies in battle on occasion, and this doesn't particularly bother me because that's part of the Asgardian code of honor he was raised with. While as Batman killing under any circumstances is just wrong. But it doesn't necessarily make either Thor or Batman a better or more moral hero.
But especially in fiction we tend to apply still more subjective-to-the-point-of-hypocritical standards to characters and their actions. In Gintama they reference the "Gian effect", named for the bully character in Doraemon - Gian is usually so mean that if he does even the smallest kind act, it makes him sympathetic (while as if a good, sweet character does anything even a little less than nice, it's demonic!) If Clark Kent adopts an abandoned kitten it's cute, but nowhere near as adorably touching as if Lex Luthor takes one in (in the absence of a kitten-involving master plan, of course.)
In real life, double standards can be vastly problematic, because they come from unreasonable, unfair expectations and prejudiced stereotypes. Sexist, racist, classist double standards arise from beliefs that a sex or race or class is inferior to another, less capable/less intelligent/less worthy of being offered the same considerations. There are some double standards that most of us agree are reasonable - e.g. children are not usually tried as adults in criminal cases, because children are considered to be less morally culpable than adults, less capable of making the right choices. And we all have a degree of subjective standards for the people we know personally. But multiple standards inherently fly in the face of social equality.
However, this sense of fairness or unfairness doesn't apply to fiction. Fictional characters are not real people; as characters in a story, they are deliberately written to follow specific roles, perform specific duties within the story. It's not unfair or unreasonable to place expectations on fictional characters, because the point of most stories is to make you have such expectations, to make you like them or dislike them and respond to them accordingly. An emotionally involving story will almost inevitably prejudice you for or against certain characters. So when a villain character does something good or noble, it's not unreasonable to say, 'That was unexpected!' Characters acting out-of-character, going against expectations, can make for compelling stories; and for many fans of villains, that's a big part of the draw. But that effect isn't so engaging if the villain hasn't been established as being truly wicked, if there's no proof that he's going against type when he turns good - while as with a truly despicable villain, even the smallest hint of good is fascinating, because it's so unexpected.
On the other hand, a hero who is good most of the time can be judged harshly for even momentarily lapses - because while many fans of villains enjoy both their entertaining villainy and their lapses into good, heroes are usually liked for their good qualities, and betraying those traits works against what makes them so likable.
Not all double standards in fiction/fandom are fair or acceptable - e.g. audiences may place different expectations on female and male characters based on real-world sexism and ideals of masculinity or femininity. On the other hand, sometimes it's the story itself that imposes those expectations, by casting all the women in certain roles and all the men in other roles. But that either of these cases is problematic doesn't mean that the general practice of casting characters into roles is wrong; that's simply how stories work.
Which isn't to say that you should feel obliged to like villains, or feel sorry for them just because they've been written into their roles! Hating characters for doing terrible things is as justifiable as loving them for doing wonderful things - or liking them because they made you laugh, or because you wish you were them or wish you knew them, or because they're super-sexy and have great fashion sense. (Or disliking them because they remind you of someone you don't like, or because you know you'd never get along with them, or because their story isn't interesting to you, or because their helmet is stupid...) While your tastes in fictional characters can reveal elements of your own preferences and prejudices with real people (and should be something you examine, especially if your preferences tend to fall along the lines of existing prejudices such as sexism or racism), it's also about your preferences for stories, what kinds of stories entertain or involve you, and how deeply you relate and equate fiction with reality.
(Then there are those of us who especially like villains because we love a good redemption story - it fits my personal philosophies to portray all people as potentially redeemable, however unlikely - and the greater the evil, the more compelling the turn to good. More difficult struggles are more involving, and while a hero usually is doing what comes naturally, villains fighting against their base natures to be heroic can be fascinating, in the same way that an alcoholic turning down a drink can be a significant, triumphant moment while another character passing on a cocktail is not even worth noting. Which doesn't mean that heroes being heroic can't be compelling in their own right, but it's a different kind of story, enjoyable for different reasons.)
Or, tl;dr version: villains aren't heroes, what fans like in a hero may not be what they like in a villain, and that's okay.
Leaving the most important question unanswered: why do I still not have a Loki icon?
And to reward you for enduring my rambling - or if you just want to just skip to the good stuff - have an awesome and hilarious and adorable Avengers fic featuring redemption via a kid!Loki who, while not quite the comics char I so adore, is close enough to yet elicit dolphin noises from me (literally; I scared the cat last night reading it...) Plus it's got cute gen teaminess and h/c and an awesome tags list and a fantastic Clint POV and did I mention hilarious?
Amateur Theatrics (26585 words) by
galaxysoup
Fandom: The Avengers (2012), Thor (2011)
In which Thor’s primary problem-solving method (a mighty blow from Mjolnir) fails to have the desired effect on a magical artifact, and his secondary method (a mightier blow from Mjolnir) proves to be actively disastrous.
On my flist the question was posed, why is Loki getting so much love in Avengers fandom in spite of all his wicked deeds, while so many heroic characters are vilified for much less severe character flaws? Which, as a long-time villain fan, I just had to jump in and say:
To begin with, this is something of a false equivalency: in fiction there are many minor character flaws that are worse than grievous flaws from a storytelling standpoint, because they are less interesting. Huge tragic flaws can make for more compelling stories than minor, human flaws, and sometimes minorly flawed characters are disliked because their flaws are boring or annoying, as opposed to horrific or terrifying (and thus intriguing).
(And then, sometimes we like villains without ever considering their morality, because they're entertaining, because their scenery-chewing cracks us up or their wicked cleverness is so much fun to untangle - or just because they're sexy and we don't care what they're doing, as long as we get to watch - and since it's fiction, that's cool; file it under Not My Kink and move on.)
But putting that aside, as a fan of both villains and heroes (oftentimes in the same stories), I admit that I hold villain characters to different moral standards as hero characters. There's a lot a hero can do that will be unforgivable for me (killing is a big one for a lot of superheroes), while as a villain doing the same thing will not change my feelings for them substantially. Much of this is because of the different way characters tend to be treated in the narrative - heroes get rewarded in the end, villains punished. So a hero who missteps may pay for it to an extent, but largely will come out on top in the end - they'll have their friends around them, get the girl/boy, the adulation for saving the world (or at least the satisfaction of knowing they did); while the villain usually gets what's coming to him. Heroes sometimes get criticized when the audience believes they are not being held accountable for their flaws, while as villains rarely have that problem. A lot of the love of woobie villains is for characters who get no love (or not enough love) in canon, so fandom jumps in to fill the void. (Whether they deserve love simply for being pretty/angsty is a whole other question!)
Some of this isn't different standards so much as moral relativism - morality can be subjective, depending on a character's circumstances and history. Thor in the comics kills his enemies in battle on occasion, and this doesn't particularly bother me because that's part of the Asgardian code of honor he was raised with. While as Batman killing under any circumstances is just wrong. But it doesn't necessarily make either Thor or Batman a better or more moral hero.
But especially in fiction we tend to apply still more subjective-to-the-point-of-hypocritical standards to characters and their actions. In Gintama they reference the "Gian effect", named for the bully character in Doraemon - Gian is usually so mean that if he does even the smallest kind act, it makes him sympathetic (while as if a good, sweet character does anything even a little less than nice, it's demonic!) If Clark Kent adopts an abandoned kitten it's cute, but nowhere near as adorably touching as if Lex Luthor takes one in (in the absence of a kitten-involving master plan, of course.)
In real life, double standards can be vastly problematic, because they come from unreasonable, unfair expectations and prejudiced stereotypes. Sexist, racist, classist double standards arise from beliefs that a sex or race or class is inferior to another, less capable/less intelligent/less worthy of being offered the same considerations. There are some double standards that most of us agree are reasonable - e.g. children are not usually tried as adults in criminal cases, because children are considered to be less morally culpable than adults, less capable of making the right choices. And we all have a degree of subjective standards for the people we know personally. But multiple standards inherently fly in the face of social equality.
However, this sense of fairness or unfairness doesn't apply to fiction. Fictional characters are not real people; as characters in a story, they are deliberately written to follow specific roles, perform specific duties within the story. It's not unfair or unreasonable to place expectations on fictional characters, because the point of most stories is to make you have such expectations, to make you like them or dislike them and respond to them accordingly. An emotionally involving story will almost inevitably prejudice you for or against certain characters. So when a villain character does something good or noble, it's not unreasonable to say, 'That was unexpected!' Characters acting out-of-character, going against expectations, can make for compelling stories; and for many fans of villains, that's a big part of the draw. But that effect isn't so engaging if the villain hasn't been established as being truly wicked, if there's no proof that he's going against type when he turns good - while as with a truly despicable villain, even the smallest hint of good is fascinating, because it's so unexpected.
On the other hand, a hero who is good most of the time can be judged harshly for even momentarily lapses - because while many fans of villains enjoy both their entertaining villainy and their lapses into good, heroes are usually liked for their good qualities, and betraying those traits works against what makes them so likable.
Not all double standards in fiction/fandom are fair or acceptable - e.g. audiences may place different expectations on female and male characters based on real-world sexism and ideals of masculinity or femininity. On the other hand, sometimes it's the story itself that imposes those expectations, by casting all the women in certain roles and all the men in other roles. But that either of these cases is problematic doesn't mean that the general practice of casting characters into roles is wrong; that's simply how stories work.
Which isn't to say that you should feel obliged to like villains, or feel sorry for them just because they've been written into their roles! Hating characters for doing terrible things is as justifiable as loving them for doing wonderful things - or liking them because they made you laugh, or because you wish you were them or wish you knew them, or because they're super-sexy and have great fashion sense. (Or disliking them because they remind you of someone you don't like, or because you know you'd never get along with them, or because their story isn't interesting to you, or because their helmet is stupid...) While your tastes in fictional characters can reveal elements of your own preferences and prejudices with real people (and should be something you examine, especially if your preferences tend to fall along the lines of existing prejudices such as sexism or racism), it's also about your preferences for stories, what kinds of stories entertain or involve you, and how deeply you relate and equate fiction with reality.
(Then there are those of us who especially like villains because we love a good redemption story - it fits my personal philosophies to portray all people as potentially redeemable, however unlikely - and the greater the evil, the more compelling the turn to good. More difficult struggles are more involving, and while a hero usually is doing what comes naturally, villains fighting against their base natures to be heroic can be fascinating, in the same way that an alcoholic turning down a drink can be a significant, triumphant moment while another character passing on a cocktail is not even worth noting. Which doesn't mean that heroes being heroic can't be compelling in their own right, but it's a different kind of story, enjoyable for different reasons.)
Or, tl;dr version: villains aren't heroes, what fans like in a hero may not be what they like in a villain, and that's okay.
Leaving the most important question unanswered: why do I still not have a Loki icon?
And to reward you for enduring my rambling - or if you just want to just skip to the good stuff - have an awesome and hilarious and adorable Avengers fic featuring redemption via a kid!Loki who, while not quite the comics char I so adore, is close enough to yet elicit dolphin noises from me (literally; I scared the cat last night reading it...) Plus it's got cute gen teaminess and h/c and an awesome tags list and a fantastic Clint POV and did I mention hilarious?
Amateur Theatrics (26585 words) by
Fandom: The Avengers (2012), Thor (2011)
In which Thor’s primary problem-solving method (a mighty blow from Mjolnir) fails to have the desired effect on a magical artifact, and his secondary method (a mightier blow from Mjolnir) proves to be actively disastrous.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 02:37 am (UTC)Having said that, it does bug me when fans praise one character for having a certain set of traits and condemn another character for the exact same or similar traits. Especially when it's not mere differences of opinion, but vitriolic hate. I don't want people to not feel that way, or anything, but I wish they'd 'fess up to their own inconsistency, or at least admit that there are patterns to the way we (fandom in general) tend to react to certain character traits, and some of these patterns are less than flattering.
(Ack, gotta go, but I want to discuss this - I will probably be back later! :D)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 04:50 am (UTC)it does bug me when fans praise one character for having a certain set of traits and condemn another character for the exact same or similar traits. Especially when it's not mere differences of opinion, but vitriolic hate.
Hmm, well, vitriolic hate I think is somewhat different anyway. Most of the time when I see characters that passionately hated, the haters are either a) on the young side (so have a tendency to get overly passionate in all directions) or b) have personal issues (either in general or with particular char types) (or c) aren't genuinely hating that extremely but enjoy the vitriol for the sake of vitriol.) Which isn't to say it's necessarily defensible, but it tends to be an unreasonable emotional reaction, so logic doesn't apply.
But even in the less extreme cases of character criticism, a lot of times when I see arguments that 'this char was loved for doing X, but this other char was hated for doing the same thing!' the 'X' is a subjective thing, that to some people looks like the same thing, but to others looks like something completely different (akin to the way, when the drawing of female characters in comics is criticized for being unrealistic, someone invariably argues that the male chars are just as unrealistic - which is technically true, but missing that the distortion is done differently, for different reasons, sex vs power fantasies etc.) So it's not as clear-cut as blatant hypocrisy? And some of it is, too, that we come to want and expect different things from different characters - if our heart is taken by a master of snark, we may be irritated by another snark-master who joins the cast and gets perceived as muscling in on our favorite's territory, even if they're doing the same things...
(have fun traveling!)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 07:52 am (UTC)Yes, I love some characters specifically because they are such sweethearts, or so heroic.
Yeah; I love some characters who struggle against their dark or selfish side, but I also adore characters who are heroic sweethearts through and through. (Peter Burke! ♥)
And I totally have different expectations for Peter, as a character, than I do for ... well, Loki's not really a good example because I don't have the same fondness for Loki that you do (I enjoy him as a villain, but not really as a protagonist - at least movie!Loki; I'm not really familiar with comics Loki at all), but, oh, say, Gene Hunt from Life on Mars. XD Peter acting like Gene Hunt would be UNSPEAKABLY HORRIBLE. But Gene was loveable for those moments when his better nature showed through his generally awful mess of character flaws. Whereas I would find it dreadfully OOC and, heck, character-bashing for Peter to do ANY of the things that Gene does on a daily basis (beating up suspects, reassigning Diana to clerical work because she's a girl, etc ... just the IDEA of Peter doing any of this makes the mind boggle).
But, of course, they're different characters. Different setup, different expectations ... different things about them that make fandom squee. And of course we have different expectations for different characters - it would just be silly to expect the same things of them, since they're not the same person. (And different canons have different tones and moral "rules", too.)
a lot of times when I see arguments that 'this char was loved for doing X, but this other char was hated for doing the same thing!' the 'X' is a subjective thing, that to some people looks like the same thing, but to others looks like something completely different
Hmm, yes, I can see this. It's an eye-of-the-beholder thing. And I think it's a fair point that even if it IS the exact same thing, it comes across differently when different characters do it -- as in the Gene Hunt/Peter Burke example above, it's such an apples-to-oranges comparison that it doesn't even make SENSE to compare them, and fandom's reaction to them, on the same character-behavior axes.
On the other hand, I don't think it's impossible or unreasonable to make these comparisons anyway, even recognizing that they're flawed and subjective. We can talk about certain patterns in how fandom responds to and treats characters because there are patterns. And patterns in how various kinds of characters are written by TPTB, as well ...
But there's also got to be space for people who want to play uncritically and just ride the squee wave. We can and SHOULD pick apart and criticize canon, but I think we also should to be able to make our journals into squee-only zones if that's what we need. (I enjoy doing critical analysis of something I'm not terribly fannish about, but trying to do it when I'm at the height of the squee wave kills it dead.) And it is also easy for the critical analysis to come across as kink-shaming ... it's great to have a critical fannish dialogue about fandom's tendency to gravitate towards a certain type of asshole white male character at the expense of other types of characters, but Fangirl X shouldn't have to feel bad and second-guess herself if she just wants to go read slash without worrying that she's a bad person because her id is slashing the "wrong" characters.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 08:21 am (UTC)(And then, a lot of my favorite villains, my way of liking them is just *different* than how I like heroes. Loki has gone beyond this due to kid!Loki; but in the Avengers movie I like Loki *as* a villain - even though I love the idea of him being redeemed, I also love that canonically he's an evil asshole who doesn't twirl a mustache only because he doesn't have one. I find him tremendously entertaining and that I think he's woobie and needs a hug doesn't mean I think he's right, or justified, or even really deserves that hug. I love him anyway but it's hard for me to explain how that works! Especially when in the case of Avengers I really truly loved everyone else as well (Tony, Thor, and Natasha especially - and Nick Fury obviously - and Bruce, with Tony especially - and Coulson of course - okay I actually really liked Hawkeye too - and yeah, Cap, you too!) And somehow my fangirl heart is totally fine with loving them while loving their nemesis too. It's similar to how in pairings and things, I have my cute fluffy twoo wuv OTPs, but I also have some dark bad wrong ones, that when I'm in the right mood are what I really crave. My id contains multitudes, often contradictory...)
And yes, the balance of the critical with the squee is always difficult, and the line between questioning one's unconscious biases and kink-shaming can get fuzzy...(that being said, I gotta say that Tumblr is good for the squee...I am sure there is plenty of bad stuff there, but so far I've mostly lucked out in finding the silly and the squee and haven't actually run into any character bashing. The lack of interaction is still depressing but if I view it more as a bookmarking platform than a blog it makes more sense to me?)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 08:32 am (UTC)Yes, exactly! Good, interesting characters are not the same thing, necessarily, as good, likeable *people* -- they don't have to be people that we'd want to know in real life, in order to be fun to watch on the screen.
Another thing which occurred to me, about comparing/contrasting the fannish response to different characters .... it's not particularly effective to approach it from the "... and all you people are CLEARLY WRONG" perspective unless you're just venting (and don't mind alienating some of your flist). XD Again using White Collar as an example, there are times when I wander around sulking because it sometimes seems like the fandom will let Neal off the hook for ANYTHING, whereas Peter hardly even gets to be human without fandom coming down on him like a ton of bricks. But there's not really a discusson to be had about that. In fact, generally speaking, there's hardly even a decent venting post to be made about that. Mostly it's just me being knee-jerk defensive of a character I like.
Whereas, if you're in the mood for critical analysis, you can have a more interesting time by looking at *why* fandom responds differently to Neal than to Peter, and seems to hold Peter to a higher standard of moral behavior ... (Or whether they even do it at all, objectively speaking. I get the impression that there are at least some Neal fans who think the fandom is terrible and awful and unfair to Neal, as well ...)
We probably tend to notice the negative fandom reaction to our favorite characters and tropes out of proportion to its actual prevalence in the fandom -- sort of how you can get 10 nice reviews and one flame, but it's the flame that you remember...
no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 03:05 am (UTC)This probably comes closest to it for me; I like reading about characters who struggle with good and evil or struggle against their own natures. I don’t know if you are familar with Magik from Marvel’s XMEn/New Mutants (she was Colossus' sister) – as a kid she got suced into this hellish limbo world where 3/5 of her soul was twisted and emerged back as a teenager. The thing was she really had this cold evil streak that was real and that she fought to control, and that fight made her sympathetic. Although she wasn’t a villain, the same thing occurs with villains.
And that points to the thing I often find most compelling with villains – there’s the sense that they could have been heroes if something had been different – that they got a bad break most people don’t… and we’re not sure how sane/good/whatever any of us would be if we’d been in their shoes. For me with the most compelling and sympathetic villains you can see how easily things might have turned out differently, especially if there’s a sense that other people could/should have stepped in and didn’t.
it's also about.. how deeply you relate and equate fiction with reality. This is something I’ve been struggling to sort into words. Often, it seems that fannish discussions take stories and evaluate them as if they were real and really happening today. I’m not saying that’s a “wrong” way to read or interpret stories, just that it isn’t the only way and it certainly isn’t my way. I tend to go into the story rather than drag it out with me. I think that means that I also tend to read much more metaphorically – and I think this carries over into villains. I’m much more likely to read stories as being about redemption or struggling within yourself, or self-isolation or anything rather than how I would react if this was actually happening in real life. Of course it probably helps that so much of what I read and watch is fantasy.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 05:03 am (UTC)Mmmm, yes, that kind of semi-literal fighting with inner demons thing I just love, I admit!
And that points to the thing I often find most compelling with villains – there’s the sense that they could have been heroes if something had been different – that they got a bad break most people don’t… and we’re not sure how sane/good/whatever any of us would be if we’d been in their shoes. For me with the most compelling and sympathetic villains you can see how easily things might have turned out differently, especially if there’s a sense that other people could/should have stepped in and didn’t.
Yes to all this as well! Villains can illuminate a lot of fascinating nature vs. nurture stuff - the more interesting ones to me tend to be the ones who weren't just born that way, but who were twisted into what they are by circumstances. Or sometimes that they were born that way, but that this is a point, that destiny dealt them a sociopathic hand or whatever. Or occasionally fate stepping in and literally casting them into the role of the villain (such as Fuuma in X/1999) - actually Marvel!Loki exists at the nexus of all these types, which is part of his charm...
I’m much more likely to read stories as being about redemption or struggling within yourself, or self-isolation or anything rather than how I would react if this was actually happening in real life.
Yes, this is true for me, too. I often seek ideals in fiction, not because I believe they're realistic, but because for me one of the draws of fiction is that you can *have* ideals - that there's immortal love and perfect friendship and totally happy endings, illustrating the goals that we spend our lives striving for even if we can never quite reach them (what would be the point of life if we could?!) I think it's one of the most important purposes of fiction, to show us not just the truths of what we have, but the truths of what we want; but it means that the stories I most like tend to be fantasies in any sense.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 11:37 am (UTC)I saw your question about heroes and villains and free will, but I think that's something that can go either way. One thing I have to fight against rolling my eyes at is when heroes win because they're the heroes - that has a pre-determined feel to it. For me, it's one thing when heroes have a flaw or do something wrong and it's acknowledged as such, it's when this is shrugged off or treated as heroic that I stop believing in the hero's hero-ness. The main change in The Two Towers I hated from the book to the movie was that twice at pivotal moments (meeting Gandalf and at Helm's Deep) Aragorn tells everyone to show no mercy. It seems like a small thing and it definitely didn't take away from they're being the heroes but it bothered me because the main point of The Two Towers was that the characters were struggling to hold on to their beliefs in the face of danger and fear. In the book, Aragorn tells them (paraphrasing here) "We can't attack an old man, alone and unarmed, whatever fear or doubt is upon us." It's not that I mind that the movie chose the opposite course - it's that no one recognized that they did so. I don't mind when heroes fail to hold onto their ideals, if anything that makes them more sympathetic - but I mind when the story acts like that never happened.
I also agree with a discussion below that for me, what makes a hero a hero is that he offers redemption. To switch to Yu-Gi-Oh! for a moment, (you knew that was coming) that's what makes Yugi the hero of the story.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 03:49 am (UTC)Though, while I do love him, and find Hiddleston's portrayal of him in these movies fascinating, Loki isn't my favorite. I tend to find villains interesting, and I really love it when they're written/acted well, but it's the heroes I glomm on to, particularly the flawed ones. Thor, for instance, with his sheer earnestness (and brave red cape), will always make me cheer, but it's RDJ's Iron Man that really takes my heart, with all his issues.
And I think I take the issue you're talking about -- that double standard we do (and probably should, possibly have to) give villains and heroes in fiction -- translates, to me, as a need for three dimensional characters. Like you said, a small, unexpected kindness simply matters more in a villain, like a petty fault can in a hero -- And while that can backfire (a petty fault can turn a hero completely unlikeable if you're not careful) it's one of the most efficient, most effective ways to bring a character to life.
For me anyways, that double standard isn't so much a double standard as it is a slightly skewed perspective -- I find that I condemn the same vices in a villain as I do in a hero, and praise the same virtues. But I don't focus on them equally -- Loki's urge towards showmanship, for instance, has a different flavor than Tony Stark's, but they are in many ways very similar.
So, basically, yes. What you said. ;D
no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 05:15 am (UTC)To be honest, while I really enjoy Hiddleston's Loki, he's not the reason Loki is my favorite - that's pretty much entirely thanks to kid!Loki of the comics, whose possibilities as a redemption character just break my heart and put it back together again. As far as the movie-verse goes, I found Loki very sympathetic in Thor, but in Avengers he's far enough gone that I more enjoy his antics than really empathize with him (I laughed with everyone else when Hulk does the 'puny god' bit XD) While as Tony Stark is amazing and pretty much my favorite in the movies (though yeah, I love Thor, too, he's just my kind of big dumb hero (with faux-Shakespearian dialog! I love the way the Asgardians talk, it is so ridiculously marvelously OTT ^___^)
And yes, adding dimensions is important, giving life to chars outside of their roles in a story...
For me anyways, that double standard isn't so much a double standard as it is a slightly skewed perspective -- I find that I condemn the same vices in a villain as I do in a hero, and praise the same virtues.
Ahh, that's a great way to put it! Not quite a different standard so much as putting different weight on different things? For any character you like, you'll have favorite things about them, and other things that you don't care about (maybe dislike or maybe just don't consider at all) - and for a hero, their strong moral center may be one of their winning points for you, while as for a villain their lack of a moral center is regrettable but isn't as important as their other traits?
no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 05:35 am (UTC)It's kind of interesting, trying to take an objective look at a favorite character (villain or hero, either one). It's almost impossible, for me -- I am very attached to my skewed perspective in a lot of cases.
I need to look up the kid!Loki arcs, I think. I've never been a big Avengers comics fan; the X-men, a bit, but mostly I was always a Spider-man Fan. Capitol F fan, and almost exclusively. The Avengers were just sort of . . . there. But lately, for obvious reasons, I've been meaning to dig in a little deeper. :D
no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 05:46 am (UTC)I've never really followed any American comics - most of what I've read before this is contained stories like Sandman or Watchmen; I've always found comic continuity so huge and sprawling as to be difficult to get into. And I didn't know Avengers at all into the movies (a year ago I wouldn't have recognized Loki!) - but yeah, the kid!Loki stuff is amazing (honestly, the Journey into Mystery comics are some of my very favorites of all the comics I've ever read; such clever writing, they actually remind me a bit of Sandman, but with less gore and more adorable snark...)
And Spider-man - I don't much care for the Spider-man movies (they're a little too teen-geeky-boy fantasy for me) but every time Spidey appears in the comics he is hilarious, it's making me curious to look up his books!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 07:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 10:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 04:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 05:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 02:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 04:36 am (UTC)Loki wasn't as fucked over by his supposed loving family and so-called friends as, say, Lex Luthor was; but he was, enough. (Actually, the Avengers do better than most because most of the characters are openly flawed, and the one moralistic guy, Steve, really is crazily upright...)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 05:25 am (UTC)I think that (unlike SV's Lex) movies!Loki is an excellent balance of understandable anger, unjustifiable ambition, and out-of-control madness; you sympathize with him, but not so much that you don't want to see him taken down. (It also helps that, unlike Lex, Thor really does still care about Loki and keeps reaching out to him, and it's Loki who rejects him - that's the proper sort of hero and villain relationship! Of all SV's many issues, I think that's one of the things that drives me the most nuts, that they had Clark turn his back on Lex. The villain should always be the one that turns away; any hero worth his cape should always have room in his heart for forgiveness...)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 05:17 am (UTC)Yes, yes! A thousand times, yes! For me, the central definition of a true hero is forgiveness and love to the point of foolishness. Thor does love Loki, he does keep reaching out to him, and he keeps getting fooled by him. But all that is what makes Thor a hero, not just a strong guy with a big hammer. And it's Loki's rejection that makes him the villain, because he could have taken Thor's offer, and they could have fought the alien invaders together, and then Loki would have been a hero, too.
On SV, Clark kept using Lex, and kept turning away from him, whereas Lex never really turned away from Clark until the bitter end. That's a major reason why I can't see Clark as a hero and Lex as his nemesis.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 06:37 am (UTC)Oh well. At least it means SV!Lex is one "villain" I don't have to come up with crazy redemption scenarios, because he's already halfway there!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 07:10 pm (UTC)Aargh! You're right. I'd forgotten that. And he really believed he was saving Earth from a potential monster. I tend to agree with him. :-)
"...SV!Lex is one "villain" I don't have to come up with crazy redemption scenarios, because he's already halfway there!"
At least half-way.
"In the scene on the cliff in Avengers, I couldn't help but think of SV, and think that YES, THIS is how it's supposed to be!"
Yes! This is what I keep doing, too. I'm always comparing SV to some other TV show or movie, to the detriment of SV. I haven't come across one show or movie that gets it worse. :-)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 11:29 pm (UTC)And now I'm thinking... didn't he say 'I LOVE you like a brother'? :-)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-23 11:30 pm (UTC)And yeah...SV sent the benchmark for me for badly done superhero-supervillain stuff; I tend to compare most such to it, and it almost always loses XP
no subject
Date: 2012-05-30 09:26 pm (UTC)I think he's halfway there because Lex is more of an example of an anti-hero with priorities gone very amuck. He has reasons for what he's doing, and they generally aren't selfish ones, the way I interpret SV canon, anyway. He takes the needs of the many very seriously, sometimes at significant cost to himself, personally. (Not that I agree with his actions; from a practical standpoint, a lot of the defenses he tried to set up were really f'ing stupid -- really? you make an army of super-clones when you're fighting Phantoms that can possess bodies? really? *headdesk* -- and a lot of the bad/wrong/evil stuff he did could've been done better with less of the above, like Level 33.1 and such. ...Not that we get to see or hear much of what actually went on there. Clark was shocked by what Belle Reeve was like, too.)
At least Lex seems that way to me pre-S8. We're left completely guessing as to motives at S8 onwards, instead of only partially after the start of S5 or so. Kind of hard to make excuses for a 'woobie' when the bombs start going off.
And yes, I realize that this is all SV-relative morality. Neither of these guys would really get my vote in real life, thanks. (Not unless Lex cut out the stupid shit / acted more optimally, and maybe actually had an ends work out for once. Though I doubt he'd have either problem IRL, since he wouldn't be typecast as always having to fail and always being betrayed by everyone ever. *heh* ...Except for maybe the whole, "Hah! Your name is Lex Luthor and you're bald? Really? *snickers*" that he'd get from people, assuming he stayed out of an asylum.)
...And I thought MR said "love" too, FWIW :)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-30 11:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-31 01:56 am (UTC)I always thought he went batshit in s6 and s7 because of PTSD and guilt and such from being possessed by Zod. (Because there's no way he feels safe after that, plus, what Zod made him do and how guilty he was finding things out in the aftermath, and possible mind-rape &etc. ...)
I agree about Lex's grey morality (though he seems inclined to do white things when possible -- I remember some later-season stuff when he did things better after being more-or-less called on them through direct or tangential Clark-interference).
I definitely categorize myself as a Lex-apologist, and I don't hate or even dislike Clark (though there are a lot of things the character did or didn't do that I didn't like). That may be because I forget how much he tended to whine between episodes, though (oy).
I think Lex As Villain and Clark As Hero fall under the same heading as Lana As Perfection in Smallville writing. I tend to take all of those 'pushed as straightforward by the main show viewpoint' things with a saltshaker or two ;)
*lol* So the takeaway here is that you and greenlady feel this way about Lex, too? *yay, for I am not alone!* :)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-31 02:21 am (UTC)And yeah, Zod does seem to be likely motivation for a lot of Lex's crazy (and it drove me nuts that the show never really acknowledged that what he did as Zod was completely beyond his control - unlike Loki, where it's not clear how much freewill he has, Lex was possessed, and everyone knew it - but they never sympathized...)(I will be completely shameless and point out the fic I wrote based around this ^^;)
I think Lex As Villain and Clark As Hero fall under the same heading as Lana As Perfection in Smallville writing. I tend to take all of those 'pushed as straightforward by the main show viewpoint' things with a saltshaker or two ;)
Heh, yup, so true - the disconnect between Show and Tell in the show was pretty extreme (worsened, I think, by those writers and actors who worked contrary to it, at times! Such as MR's "I love you"...)
(And the essays probably read better oldest to newest, as it was an evolving theory so changed a bit as I went along...)
(ETA: Forget to say, but if anything in my previous posts moves you to comment, don't hesitate to do so even if they are years old - while right now Loki's my passion, I always have space in my fangirling for a good Clex rant ^^)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-31 01:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-31 06:33 am (UTC)I get up to some pretty wild and woolly theories, I must admit, but don't let them scare you too much. I'm really quite sane. Really. :-)))
no subject
Date: 2012-05-30 09:55 pm (UTC)For "Avengers", I shrug because we only see part of Loki's decision-making process. We have no clue if he could've gotten to Earth on his own without help, or anyplace else, or what shape he was in at the beginning when he got picked up by Thanos, what happened in the meantime while he was there, whether there was any mindcontrol or not, etc. etc. --I could easily see a parallel drawn to what happened to Stark in the desert, to what might have happened from the end of Thor onwards. (Which I see mirrored in other people's fics, so I feel like I'm not alone!) But we just don't know yet. And Loki seemed pretty damn relieved to lose at the end there, IMHO. The thing is, we don't actually know the details of his choice, or how much 'lewway' he might've had, and the consequences of not giving them the cube once on earth seemed pretty dire, if that one 'flashback' he had was any indication.
I guess I could say that he might not be a total villain, he might just be as weak as many people would have been (though strong enough to not curl up in a little ball and go quietly insane and die, obviously) and opted for survival and going along with things instead of 'saying no'. Expecting Loki to have said 'screw you' to Thanos and called up his brother the moment he was on Earth, throwing himself on Thor's (and Asgard's) mercy and help (and/or that of humans, given what Asgardans think of them) sounds to me about as realistic as a cow learning to fly, given how Thor ended (what Loki seemed to be thinking/believe at the time he fell). And not doing so seems reasonable/almost a wise decision, given that Thor made comment to knowing Loki had been with Thanos... if I remember the movie correctly? Though there is a difference between 'not calling Thor' and 'trying to take over the earth', of course *coughs* ^_^;;
I suppose it comes down to me as wanting to be able to cheer a 'villain' or villainous type on as they try to better themselves and become 'good'/redeemed and do penance and fix their mistakes (what they can fix). I also like the idea of redeemability for all, as well:)
...And I may need to write a fic about Lex Luthor adopting a kitten for a kitten-related world-dominating plan SV fic now. Or something. (I laughed so hard when I read that! Darn you and your sneaking plot bunnies in there like that :-P )
no subject
Date: 2012-05-30 11:23 pm (UTC)Yup, I also subscribe to the Loki-maybe-wasn't-in-his-right-mind theory (see the last post I've put up!) Especially the way he folds at the end - either he's honestly relieved to have lost (and maybe be bonked back to himself?), or he's got a master-plan, but whichever it is he really wasn't as upset about losing as one would expect...
(And Thor doesn't know Loki was with Thanos - he knows something happened to him, he asks "Who showed you this power? Who controls the would-be king?" - but Loki doesn't tell him, and Thor doesn't seem to have an actual guess who or what or how Loki's being influenced. That he keeps trying to get through to Loki anyway, even having less evidence than the audience that his brother's being manipulated - awww, Thor! Now yeah, that's a big double-standard - I like my heroes to never give up, and my villains to always, in the end...)
Comics!Loki is a lot more overtly and consciously evil (at least until the current storyline with kid!Loki, which is beyond amazing) - but even he's got some interesting motivations when it comes to fate and his role as a trickster god - he might not have a choice about being what he is, in-canon as well as the casting in fiction.
I suppose it comes down to me as wanting to be able to cheer a 'villain' or villainous type on as they try to better themselves and become 'good'/redeemed and do penance and fix their mistakes (what they can fix). I also like the idea of redeemability for all, as well:)
Yup, this! I find tremendous satisfaction and optimism in redemption stories, because their underlying theme is that anyone can change for the better, anyone has the capacity. There are some characters who for me are too far gone, who have never shown enough humanity for me to believe it's possible (some versions of comics!Lex can fall into this) but SV!Lex and movies!Loki are nowhere near that far gone, no matter what terrible things they've done...
no subject
Date: 2012-05-31 02:05 am (UTC)Ah, k. I couldn't remember if I'd read something in fanfic about knowing where Loki was, or if it had been only implied in the movie at one point that Odin/Thor/Heimdall knew a little more than they might have let on about what had happened to him. (Clearly I need to see Avengers a third time! *g*)
"even having less evidence than the audience that his brother's being manipulated"
Well, they supposedly have known each other for a thousand years or something, right? One would think Thor would know his brother better than the audience, BDA or not ;)
...Ok, saw you had a post on comics!Loki and I am worried that I may have to start reading Marvel soon if I read your post (I am a DC girl, you understand... even though my first comic book reading was technically huge black and white compendiums of X-Men comics, heh).
...Yeah, I'm gonna o read that, anyway *dies*
Oh, and complete agreement from me on your last paragraph there :) :)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-31 02:40 am (UTC)--Also haaaaw Thor is such BDA (gotta love the lunk! Especially when he is so loyal to his brother, even if he fails to express it in ways that actually reach Loki...)
If you're going to read any Marvel, Journey into Mystery is totally worth betraying DC for! (okay, I don't actually read DC comics regularly, but I didn't read Marvel either, and now...)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 09:30 am (UTC)Looking at stories from this perspective is one of the reasons I tend to be pretty unsympathetic to the bad guys. If the good guys are the good guys because they keep choosing to be then what does that say about the bad guys? Speaking in generalities (because Thor is the one marvel movie I haven't seen and my Smallville watching was sporadic) I feel that no matter how tragic the backstory beyond a certain point a bad guy is a bad guy by choice, at which point my sympathy runs right out.
Admittedly, if the writing is bad, you can end up with heroes who are presented as just default automatic good and they're harder to be sympathetic to.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-21 10:43 am (UTC)But putting that aside - when looking at the villain in a story, yes, sooner or later there comes a time where a choice is made for them to be evil. But it's the author's choice - the writer is ultimately the one who makes the good guys good and the bad guys bad. Especially in a superhero story, by its nature, someone has to be the villain; the conflict is nearly always going to be man vs man (or man vs god, or superman vs man, or - you get the idea!) For me, this makes a lot of fictional villains somewhat more sympathetic; it's not just they had a tough childhood or whatever, but that they've been cast in the role of villain; they didn't have a choice.
There's also an element, with redeemed villains, that you know how evil they could be, what they're turning away from, while as with actively good characters like Peter Burke and Steve Rogers, you don't have that comparison. They make being a hero look easy, perhaps you could say? And I agree those are compelling characters as well, the ones who do work at it and are the kind of people you wish there were more of in the world (Peter's my favorite in White Collar, over Neal!) But it's a completely different sort of draw from liking villains.
(Hmmm, thinking about it more, I wonder if the fundamental difference is that liking heroes puts you more in the free will camp - enjoying stories about people making decisions that lead to right or wrong; while as if you like stories where the characters are driven by circumstances or fate, you are more inclined to be sympathetic to the villains?)
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 04:43 am (UTC)To put it another way - if all the characters are just the writer/creator's puppets, why should I give a damn about them? And if I don't give a damn about the characters why am I reading the book/the comic/watching the TV show/the movie in the first place?
Also, the thing about redeemed villians cuts both ways. If we're gonna give them credit for what they turn away from don't the good guys deserve the same for dealing with them and never thinking 'it would be so much easier if I just . . .' ? I can't really conceive of what form an evil Captain America would take, but a Peter Burke who's a bad guy is honestly terrifying.
There's a great scene on this subject in a Star Wars book called 'I Jedi' where Luke chastises a jedi candidate for dismissing the dark side and the character (who used to work a cop) tears a strip off him, listing all the times in his career that he was tempted to cross one moral line or another and didn't. It's an awesome scene for a lot of reasons, but particularly because it points out that being one of the good guys isn't a choice you make once, early on, and never deviate from. It's a choice a person has to keep making every single day of their lives, over and over again.
Generally, when someone makes something look easy it's because they've been working hard at it for a long time.
>(Hmmm, thinking about it more, I wonder if the fundamental difference is that liking heroes puts you more in the free will camp - enjoying stories about people making decisions that lead to right or wrong; while as if you like stories where the characters are driven by circumstances or fate, you are more inclined to be sympathetic to the villains?)
This I agree with. I generally come at these questions from free will perspective. To paraphrase a great quote I can't remember properly: We can't control what life throws at us, but what we do with it is always our choice.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 06:50 am (UTC)The thing is, too, liking villains doesn't mean I don't like or respect heroes! I love heroic characters for being heroes, for being morally upstanding and making the right choices, and I do think they should be admired for it. But this doesn't mean I automatically have to hate the villains; I can regret that the villains *don't* make the right choices, but still like them for other qualities. The same way that I often like smart characters for their genius, but can also like dumb characters for other reasons (having a big heart, being hot, whatever). That I like the dumb ones doesn't mean I don't appreciate the brilliance of the smart ones; it's just that I'm admiring different things.
I generally come at these questions from free will perspective. To paraphrase a great quote I can't remember properly: We can't control what life throws at us, but what we do with it is always our choice.
Yeah, I think there's merit to this philosophy, but I also think there's merit in considering all the influences on us that sway our choices, or that can close some options off, or that can make us forget what choices we do have. But this is entirely a matter of taste, which kind of story you prefer!
no subject
Date: 2012-05-22 07:31 pm (UTC)ITA. However, I think that sometimes an author can manipulate the story in a way that ends up manipulating our trust as well. This happens more often in movies and TV than in books, because factors such as lighting and music can affect the audience in emotional ways that are hard to fight off. What these effects can do is skew our reactions to the story, and get us more involved in it so that our ability to judge can be negatively affected, like in propaganda films.
I think all the characters are the writer's puppets, but it depends on what use the writer makes of those puppets. Is the writer telling a story that is 'true' in its essentials, or is he/she lying to you in some way? Just in my own opinion, if a reader/viewer simply gives in and believes everything they read/see, then they're allowing themselves to be manipulated, not just entertained.
I want to stress that this is just my own POV, however.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-10 01:20 pm (UTC)I'm really glad I found this essay of yours because I've been thinking on a variation of it all day. And, like most of my fannish musings that aren't Kieron Gillen's fault, this lot belongs to Legend of Korra.
I don't know if you watch this or not but episode 9 came out about 24 hours ago and I found myself in the bizzare position of well and truly cheering on every single character in this show simultaneously. Minor Villain, Hero, Big Bad, Big Bad's Lieutenant, Hero's 5 man band of epic, characters that are long dead, the bloody works.
I honestly didn't know I could contain that many emotions at once. (FYKorra!)
It's like every single character has had a very raw deal shoved in their faces in the 23 minute time frame and every single one of them handles it LIKE A BOSS in their own special way that is just so perfect for them. Even if they screw up they screw up in a magnificent manner.
What I am actually trying to say is that I agree with what you just said about holding characters to the standards of their own morality and judging them based on that (And Siege!Loki? Brilliant!) and somehow turned an example into gushing.
So..sorry. And thank you! ^-^
no subject
Date: 2012-06-10 10:44 pm (UTC)And Korra is following in those footsteps (am sooooo curious what exactly Amon's deal is!) People doing the wrong things for the right reasons, and for the wrong reasons, but they're all entertaining characters...
no subject
Date: 2012-06-11 12:06 am (UTC)I have to say, Amon in episode 9? Knowing he's the bad guy and this is the Avatar!Verse so he's not going to suddenly be the good guy (although I was kind of slightly expecting a Only-I-Can-Defeat-You and that is still a possibility) and yet...I kind of wanted him to get her. Just...that whole walk? Everything he has done so far? The very definition of bad ass.
It's almost amusing how disappointed I was with the Avengers movie, all that throwing away any sort of character development or emotional depth for one-off humour and then there's Korra, which I was so tensed to watch because...well...A:TLA. And it's just begetting childish wonder in me like all the best stories should.
The awesomeness of characters in morally ambiguous situations
Date: 2012-08-15 07:40 am (UTC)Personally, I think that for me when I read stories where things seem contrived, the plot stereotypical and the divisions between good and evil drawn starkly clear I get frustrated and start to feel apathy for the black and white characters within. There is nothing wrong with liking moral clarity in stories, but for me, this causes the greatest unforgivable trait to emerge in fictional characters: boringness.
Recently I have seen the Avengers and also have been rewatching some anime movies by Hayao Miyazaki like Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke. I know that comparing a superhero movie to fantasy anime movie is perhaps similar to comparing apples and oranges, but its still valuable to compare why you like one form of fiction more than another.
I realized a big reason why I liked Princess Mononoke more than say the Avengers was the presence of moral ambiguity in Mononoke that is not present in most superhero fair. For me, this helps me get into the narrative, feel the joy of being immersed in a story that I can't get from black and white hero vs villain stories.
When there are multiply sides in a conflict and no clearly stated villain or hero it can allow the writing in a story to be less predictable and therefore the characters have more of an illusion of free will. the author is forced to take less shortcuts in character development and narrative pace and make my empathy, sympathy, and disgust for characters who have varying morals much deeper.
Kid Loki sounds great cause he has the humor, the moral ambiguity, and difficult choices to make that could draw me into a comic. I just hope the other characters are interesting too.. Thor sounds good in this series because he acts super cute with his little bro and has to deal with the fact he brought an evil dude back to life for what can be interpreted as selfish reasons, but I just hate to be bored by flat characters ._.
Re: The awesomeness of characters in morally ambiguous situations
Date: 2012-08-15 11:12 pm (UTC)The Journey into Mystery series with Kid!Loki is definitely worth checking out, it's very much dancing on the edge of good and evil, with most of the main characters being more anti-heroes than superheroes, and Kid!Loki himself does a lot of things that are technically evil-ish but for good reasons, leaving you always questioning what the right choice was...