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 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.