Morality Game for Viewers
I’ve been baffled by tumblr’s definition of “sympathetic villain” for a long time. I see all too often:
Character does bad things but they came from a bad childhood so everything they do is not their fault and they are SYMPATHETIC/JUSTIFIED (Loki et al.)
Character does bad things but they have good traits, which is dangerous for the audience because they will think they are SYMPATHETIC/JUSTIFIED (Thanos et al.)
Thank God for B99: “Cool motive, still murder” is the rallying cry of nuance.
So! Let’s play a game that will not clear this up but will, in fact, demonstrate how hard things like ethics and morality are:
Character A takes steps to kill half the universe and kicks puppies while doing it.
Character B takes steps to kill half the universe but has a puppy they love and cherish.
Character C takes steps to kill half the universe in order to save that puppy they love and cherish.
Character D takes steps to kill half the universe because they never got to have a puppy to love and cherish.
Easy question first: Which character is justified?
Answer? Character NONE OF THEM BECAUSE THEY ALL TAKE STEPS TO KILL HALF THE UNIVERSE.
The latest Thanos Discourse has it that Character A is the only way writers should present their villains or else they risk the audience becoming too sympathetic to the point of finding them JUSTIFIED.
I say if kicking puppies is the only thing that stands between you and agreeing to mass murder we have A MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM. “We know this character is eeeeevil because he laughs when he kills people” is lazy and unrealistic. We’ve moved on from Snidely Whiplash as the villain for a reason—we live in a complex world of morality.
Harder questions: Which character is sympathetic? You might say B, C, or D because, gosh darn it, you just love puppies so much! Your tender heart might soften for B, C, or D. You have sympathy for them!
But do you SYMPATHIZE with them to the point where you think they are JUSTIFIED and therefore would take steps to help them realize their plans or at least stand down and let them go on unopposed?
Audience Reaction 1: OF COURSE NOT. Example: I cried my eyes out for Killmonger, but that doesn’t mean I don’t realize Nakia is the true moral center of Black Panther.
Audience Reaction 2: I DON’T KNOW!!!! LIFE IS COMPLICATED. Okay, sit with that for a while. Grow as a person. Be uncomfortable and figure out why. But, at the end of the day, realize the Heroes oppose the Villain.
Audience Reaction 3: OF COURSE THEY ARE RIGHT YOU SMALL-MINDED FOOLS!!!! You’re a bad person. Put your arm down, “Hail Hydra” isn’t edgy you coward. You fool. Now watch the heroes take you and your ideology down.
A writer is not responsible for every audience member’s reaction.
Really harder questions: What if the hero kicks puppies and the villain doesn’t? What if the villain only hurts other villains? What if the villain is a millennial drowning in student loan debt and comes up with a plan that might break a few eggs but, in the end, there will be this great omelet...
You get the picture. Fiction should ask the hard questions. And guess what? Fiction might not come up with the answers you want to hear. Explore that. Develop and deepen and complexify your morality. Don’t just write it off.
