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: 2012-05-22 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.