Chance Rector

English 146 Final Paper

Sarah Boyd

4/29/16

Why Stories Need A Bad Hero And A Good Villain

What is it that separates the good heroes and villains from the great ones? For novels and series, it is the distinct trait of not only having a great plot, but also having a deeper meaning to the audience. All good stories possess a climatic plot, but the connection the audience has with a good piece of work stops at that: a mere entertainment connection. Stereotypically, the science fiction genre is filled with nothing but fantasy plots with no significantly deeper connection to the audience. However, some of the deepest connections novels have made with audiences have been in the science fiction genres. The greatest science fiction stories are packed with symbolism, complex themes, and tons of food for thought. The authors of these stories have often used the same strategy to make them deep and compelling to audiences. They have perfected the art of making the protagonist flawed and complex, while making the antagonist somewhat likable and relatable. Alan Moore, David Lloyd, and George R. R. Martin are all great examples of authors who have taken this tactic to a beautiful perfection.

Moore and Lloyd constructed one of the most complex and controversial protagonists of all in V for Vendetta. Ones perception of V throughout the story is likely to change numerous times as they learn increasingly more about the main protagonist. In the beginning, the only thing that separates V from being a terrorist is the fact that he heroically saves Evey. He then begins to show great signs of a prototypical protagonist as the story unfolds, for he is the one trying to save the world from diabolical rule of the leader and faction in charge. Later, he tortures Evey solely to convince her as to why she should to join him on the same path. These actions explain V’s character in a nutshell.

George R. R. Martin constructs multiple evolving protagonists in Game of Thrones. Within the first season of the television show, one of—if not the only—main protagonists is killed due to an unfortunate decision. This, of course, is a trend that continues on throughout the series. Martin constructs a world and society so well off and so evolving that any protagonist may either turn to an antagonist or be killed just as easily. Often times, the main protagonists make many questionable decisions and take actions that are unlike those of the stereotypical “good guy”.

The plot constructions in V for Vendetta and Game of Thrones are similar in many ways. They both have characters that should be heroes, yet repeatedly show flaws and end up being nothing less than questionable. Not only does this trait provide for a compelling plot, but also makes the story’s hero more relatable. Fantasy writers commonly have protagonists that follow the “chosen one” theme and possess unrelatable qualities such as super powers. There are numerous cases of this commonality in the previously mentioned works. Yes, the characters are fantasized and exist in imaginative societies, but their humanly flaws and controversial decisions allow audience members to more easily relate to them. In turn, this ends up doing a lot for the themes and complexity of the stories. Adequate relatability of the characters allows the authors to almost directly present this question to readers: is the protagonist doing the right thing and what would you do in the same situation? This key aspect is what supplies the two stories with layers of meanings that others do not have.

One could analyze a few of V’s actions in order to understand their alikeness to him. Readers eventually learn that V’s motives not only include overthrowing the leader and the tyrannical faction that is in place, but also seeking revenge on the people that experimented on him. He kills every single character who ever tortured innocent people at Larkhill. He does this to benefit none other than himself. Heroes typically act for others; however, V’s character is very unique. The most compelling aspect of V’s actions is that the audience can debate whether or not the vendetta was taken as a cover scheme for the overthrow of the faction. Controversial actions are made every day in society, leaving many situations with no clear right or wrong answer. Similar situations constructed in the novel lead to a strong connection between the characters and the audience, making way for real debate over the morality of certain characters. Another example of “bad heroism” would be when V literally torments his pupil, Evey. The torture is not completely pointless; in V’s eyes, it is his way of helping her see the way he sees. The tormenting changes Evey’s perspective and she gradually molds into a person very similar to V. In fact, she takes over V’s role after his death in the end of the book. The question presented is: if Evey had truly been able to see the society for what it is in some other way, would V’s decision to torment and starve her, as he had been done to in the concentration camp, have been the right decision? The choice is debatable, but it is also intriguing because of the situation in which it was done. V was not forced to make a decision in difficult circumstances, but while the situation could have ultimately been avoided, he instead made the choice to. The thought process coming from the main protagonist is a dark one in the least. It raises the questions of whether or not the action was actually worth the reward. Audiences can inquire about this well past the ending of the book, and they are able to debate about and compare their own lives to the story itself.

Game of Thrones is a series with thousands of questionable decisions made by every character of importance. While the world and society are completely fantasized, the decisions the characters have to make often deal with trusting others. The series does a fantastic job of showing all angles of all of the characters involved. This, in turn, makes it harder for a decision to be straightforward. There are always winners and losers involved with each decision made, and because the series is so violent, the stakes are high on every decision. In this series, the first example presented to the audience deals with Eddard Stark. Stark was given the choice of returning to the kings landing to serve as the hand of the king or staying put with his family in the north, but the given circumstances made his decision a tricky one. First of all, the king who needed a hand was Stark’s friend. Also, the previous hand of the king was murdered. Stark was basically forced to decide between serving his nation by risking his life for his friend and serving his region and family by staying home. While there was no evidently correct decision, the decision to serve as the king’s hand resulted in Stark’s demise. Again, example after example of no clear right and wrong being presented occurs in this series. This is one reason why Game of Thrones has such a wide and devoted fan base. The show is much more than just dragons and war, and its character development allows audiences of all ages to relate and connect. After each episode, debates can be had about what should have been done, what could have been done, and what actually was done. Game of Thrones has done such a remarkable job with character development that the debates are recurrently about whether a specific character is a protagonist or antagonist. This uncertainty allows fans to have absolute favorites and take sides, which again relates to fantasy to reality.

While having both relatable and controversial heroes and protagonists is important in making connections with an audience, it is the construction of the antagonist that is often times overlooked. Stereotypical villains and antagonist are not supposed to be loved, admired, or even understood. However, in reality and in society, it is never clear who the villains truly are. Even if villainy is clear, it is very rare that someone is inherently and completely evil. This attribution of slight humanity to the villains of both V for Vendetta and Game of Thrones is what best assists in their construction of antagonists. While their antagonists are not hard to hate, they are also understandable. Even the leader in V for Vendetta is shown through a certain light that the audience can sympathize more easily in.

The antagonist in V for Vendetta is Adam Susan, who is referred to as “the Leader” along with the computer that he serves, “Fate”. The Leader is basically constructed as a dictator throughout the book and makes decisions in a manner akin to most dictators. With force, he restricts the rights and rules on prejudice. Throughout most of the story, he is seen as the most unappealing and unrelatable of antagonists. The computer, Fate, seems to be a tool of the Leaders that he uses to help force his will. It is not until later on in the novel that we see the true relationship between the Leader, Fate, and the people.

When V begins to sabotage Susan by hacking the computer system, Susan goes absolutely mad. Susan’s instability does not cause any greatly conflicted emotions due to the fact that the actions V is taking are supported. It is why Susan ultimately goes mad that causes very possible sympathy and connection with the audience. Susan is depicted feeling an emotional and sexual attachment to the computer, Fate. In its own weird way, Fate is more than just a computer to Susan; it is his life and he is truly committed to it and its cause. The audience may not agree with the cause and although the cause is wrong, the connection is definitely understandable. Adam had given his entire life to a cause and once it began to fall apart, so did he. The ultimate end to Adam as the Leader is when he is killed in the streets. Again, it is not the death itself that may draw sympathy with the audience, but it is the way in which Adam was killed. He was manipulated by one of his own men who wanted control. The structure of command takes a dramatic decline and falls to shambles once the leader is killed. By the end, the reader has a much more omniscient perspective, being able to see that Susan was not as bad as originally thought to be. Susan has an idea and a thought that he was committed to and was literally in love with. When it is taken away from him, he goes mentally insane, and people who should have been by his side betray him even further. As crazy and absurd as the Leader appears, it is more of the system in the end that people hate rather than Adam himself. After all, Adam was never linked with the nuclear apocalypse that initially left the society in ruins.

Game of Thrones uses a much more complex and evolving form of antagonism to connect with the audience than typical shows. Characters who start out as hated and despised have the ability to become huge fan favorites and even protagonists within a few episodes. Tyrion Lannister is a great example of this easily overlooked conversion. In the beginning of the series, Tyrion is a hateful drunk whom most people do not feel any connection with. It is not until more about his life is discovered that people start to have sympathy for him. Tyrion was ridiculed throughout most of his life for being a midget. He was raised in a harsh family where he was thought to be a failure and a disgrace because of the fact that his birth killed his mother. Tyrion’s history, along with the fact that he starts making decisions for others and not himself, leads to his transformation into one of the most beloved characters in the series. The emotional attachment that the audience develops to Tyrion is unlike any other and especially unlike any attachment that people would have to an antagonist.

As great of an example as Tyrion is, he is not the only one who undergoes an emotional transformation. Jaime Lannister was perceived to be an antagonist for a much longer duration of the series than Tyrion and was arguably more hated than him as well. Jaime is viewed as a traitor not only for killing the mad king in the beginning of the series, but also for having an illegitimate relationship with his sister, Cersei. Cersei is married to the king in the beginning of the storyline, making the relationship with her brother highly dangerous. This is also the root cause of one of Jaime’s most devastating decisions in the series. Bran, a ten-year-old kid, climbs a building and accidentally sees Jaime and Cersei having intercourse. Jaime reacts to this by pushing the kid off of the high building and subsequently paralyzes him. Jaime continues to make many decisions like this throughout the first two seasons and becomes one of the easiest characters to despise in the series due to a combination of these decisions with his arrogant nature.

The feelings for Jaime do begin to change though, in small and sudden ways. Jaime is known for being a great swordsman, but he unexpectedly gets his dominant hand cut off. This is the first of many things that begin to change the way people feel towards Jaime as well as the way Jaime feels towards himself. He starts making decisions based on reasons other than his own well being, and he even develops understandable relationships with other people that the audience itself can become attached to. For example, the audience can feel sorry for Jaime when he gets his hand taken away. This event essentially takes Jaime’s pride away from him, for he was a solider and prided himself in being one. Without his hand, he loses respect from other characters in the show and morphs from a character that is all-powerful into one who sits at the bottom of the totem pole. This trial of an underdog and fall from grace is what draws in the audience of Game of Thrones.

Martin establishes a protagonist through the evolution of an antagonist in order to create the connections and fan passion that Game of Thrones is so widely known for. This strategy of showing the antagonist in a different light and showing a different side of the villain is very comparable to the strategy with which the Leader is brought into a different light in V for Vendetta. Although Martin’s actions collectively make the villain more relatable and understandable, there are other available strategies that could result in the same outcome. George R. R. Martin also used the technique of constructing a purely hatable antagonist in order to let people both sympathize and hate simultaneously. While this may sound like a paradox and is extremely hard to understand, it is just one of those occurrences that happen unexplainably.

Cersei is the best example of how this paradoxical strategy is implemented. Cersei does not have any traits of a protagonist at any point in time, and she makes decisions entirely based on what she will benefit from the most. She is ruthless in her treatment of people and manipulates others time and time again to better her standing. Jaime shows compassion and love for his family, where as Cersei does not. In the beginning, Cersei seems to care about Jaime and the affair, but she seems to only be using him, displaying no true feelings. The only people she even remotely cares about are her children, but this affection comes across to the audience in an unrelatable way. She is not portrayed as a mother whose desire is to make her children happy, but instead is portrayed as a mother who is controlling of every step of her children’s lives. She is murderous and greedy, but yet Martin somehow depicts an angle of her that the audience can connect with. He does so by having the antagonist suffer tremendous loss, her fortune changing rather than her being changed herself. She begins to witness the death of her children, whom, as previously noted, are the only things she cares about. Ordinarily, it is a good thing when the antagonist suffers a loss, but in this case, Martin makes the loss severe and heartbreaking to his audience members. He does this to an extent to which people and fans agree that Cersei deserves some loss as well as to be punished; however, the deaths of her children strike home with so many emotions of the fans that people actually feel sympathy for the woman. Cersei also gets publicly mortified when she is forced to walk nude through the town and have protestors spit and throw things at her. Once again, most would agree that she had this misfortune coming for her since she, ironically, was the one who gave the church the power in the first place. She did this in order to gain more power and destroy Margery Tyrell and their family because she saw them as threats to her control of her son who was king. With this said, it wasn’t the action that people felt sympathy for, but rather the explicit scene and emotion that was shown. It is easy for people to hate a character, but it is not as easy to visibly understand and experience the punishment a character may experience. George R. R. Martin has Cersei go through such emotional punishment during his series that sympathy is the natural reaction from the audience. Of course, though, this kind of relationship with the villain is not maintained past her punishment, unlike the case in which Martin’s antagonist evolves into a protagonist.

Whether in V for Vendetta or in Game of Thrones, the use of bad heroes and good villains is explicit and noticeable. This strategy also does countless things for the story that would not be possible with the static heroes and villains found in other series and genres of writing. By giving the audience something relatable and realistic, but also completely fantasized, these two pieces of work form a connection with the audience that is unparalleled. The decisions and actions of these characters can be debated and discussed without ever having a conspicuously correct answer to the question of what is right and wrong or good and evil. In many ways, the same can be true for our own society.

The other day in class, it occurred to me that I was missing out on something very important. So I did what any good college student would do.  I followed the crowd. I literally just finished the new Superman vs Batman movie!!! Although this may be a total knee jerk reaction, I finally get to give my opinion on the movie.

I will start with the movie did, with the remaking of Batman. I loved the dark knight series of Batman with Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, etc. I will go to my grave saying the cast of the dark knight series is totally superior to the one in this movie. That being said, I did think that Ben Affleck did a good job with the movie. I was also a fan of the dark, serious Batman role. It was mentioned in class that he was very un-Batman like with the killing and using guns but I actually liked it. I know that there is reasons in the story line for him to have this character but I also think it helps break this Batman from the one in the dark knight. It helps to separate the two and I did not find myself thinking about the other Batman during the movie which I think is beneficial to the making of this movie.

While Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, and Amy Adams all did well with their parts, it was Jesse Eisenberg that played the best role. Yes, he is creepy/freaky/weird and that is what makes it so great. I am a firm believer that a lot of times a good, strong villain is more critical to a good movie than the protagonist. The character was played perfectly and the character was perfect for the movie. I loved every scene he was in, especially the creepy ending scene.

Yes, I liked the movie….a lot. However, I will admit that there were somethings that Warner Brothers could have done differently. For one, I think it is unanimous that they tried way to hard to stuff too much into this movie. They needed to relax on trying to introduce so many super heroes in one movie. I understand that this movie sets the tone and sets a lot of things in motion for the future of the series but I think if the series is going anywhere at all then there is going to need to be a good many spin-offs. I think there at least needs to be one, if not two, movies on Batman and his past that was so frequently referred to. I think aqua man and wonder woman could also use a movie alone. The flash is one I am kinda confused about because there is already a T.V. series for Flash but they did not seem to be using the same one? I am not sure what that is about but either way I think Marvel did the right thing by having background movies for each avenger. I think this helps create stronger characters obviously, as well as adding more depth to the story. I do not like the excuse that the super hero movie is going to fade out in a couple of years because if the movies are not good originally, then it does not matter how many are made in whatever time frame.

In all, I thought the movie was really good and caught some really harsh criticisms from the class that it does not deserve. I would give it an 8.5 out of 10. I thought it set up the series well going forward and the ending was fabulous. The fact that I am still wondering if Superman is alive or not is great and really has me ready for the next movie. Marvel may have gotten the jump and they may have produced better movies thus far but do not be surprised if DC really makes it a close competition in the years to come. My only regret in watching the movie is that I didn’t watch it sooner.

After watching the white bear episode of black mirror it was safe to say that it took a solid ten minutes for my nerves to settle down. Before I even begin to get into the deep, philosophical messages that were in the episode I would like to just say how great it was. The suspense and mystery started from the very beginning and only climbed to the very end of the episode, which was great. It had twist and turns, a huge plot twist ending, and had me on the seat of my chair for multiple moments through out. To be a series that doesn’t link episodes together, I think it was very well done and almost gave me the feel of a movie.

Now that the praise is over and once my first initial nerve shock began to calm I could see a lot of deep messages in the show. Obviously it is all centered on capital punishment and the “should the punishment fit the crime” dilemma. But unlike a lot of media, this one-hour show managed to show the perspectives of almost everyone involved which really allowed for the true complexity of the situation to be seen.

The argument over criminal punishment isn’t something new. From the earliest recording of civilization we know that humans and society have handled criminal punishment differently and sometimes drastically. It is common knowledge that a simple, petty crime such as theft of a loaf of bread could once be punished by the criminal losing a hand or figure in some societies. It is also common knowledge that hangings and electrocutions use to be common, public practice in the United States (not too long ago). What is not common and agreed upon is the correct and most appropriate way to approach punishment for serve crimes.

White bear took the “the punishment should fit the crime” to the most extreme possible option. However drastic it may seem it still poses a lot of eye opening questions about who we should be as a society. It is easy for people to say that a serial killer should be put to death and they typically would not be judged. But what does it say about someone’s character when they go to watch an execution? White bear brings the question into play when it shows all the video and spectators that are involved. Again, it can be argued that this was an extreme situation but how different are those spectators from those they would willing watch an execution. I also thought white bear did an excellent job of showing just how cruel some punishment can be. It is highly implausible to me to argue that all punishment should fit the crime and I feel as if white bear showed this. If a serious punishment is going to given then death should be the limit, not torture, we should be above that as a society. Again, even though these are my opinions and not everyone has the same opinion, white bear did a great job of questioning and showing just how crazy some thoughts could be. Yes everyone agreed that the lady should be punished and after hearing about what happened to the girl everyone loses some sympathy for the criminal but do they lose that much? Do they truly start to see the logic behind the torture?

In the end, white bear might not be an hour segment of media that will change the strong “off with his head!” attitude of some people but it will at least cause most to slow down and think. It isn’t often that a science fiction thriller can do that on a large scale but I truly believe that white bear can and did for me personally because of its complexion of the story.

All most all of the books we have read so far have involved a society in which the political landscapes were drastically changed. This times up well with the fact that this year is an election year but it also correlates on a much deeper basis then that. This election is one that is sure to change the political landscape of America. For one, we will be replacing a two term president and two, the three front running candidates are all considered to be somewhat extreme in a sense. This got me thinking about what is exactly going on with the politics in these book.

I am not going to mention Kindred because it is more of a historical fiction and plays role with Americas actual political system and the Left Hand of Darkness takes places with a different species so I am not even going to attempt to tackle that issue. However the political systems in Handmaids Tale, Children of Men, and V for Vendetta are all very interesting.

In Handmaids Tale we see a system of “what could happen” with the political system. A civil war has taken place and a radical religious group has taken power. All of the society is completely restricted and only a few group of men hold power. While some people wish to over throw the government and we learn about one small group, there really is not a real movement to change the political system which is almost a very restrictive form of oligarchy. This is a drastically different system compared to Children of Men.  In Children of Men a single ruler is governing what remains of a dying society. The government clearly has more power than before the fertility crisis and even though Xan is mentioned like a king the book gives the feel that it is almost a dictatorship. It is also interesting that in the Children of Men other people wish to hold the power rather than over throw the government which is V’s plan. In V for Vendetta, a nuclear war has set up a complete dictatorship-like society. It has a leader that controls everything but the role of “Fate” (the computer) is huge so I am not really sure what to call this political system exactly. However it most resembles a dictatorship with the complete restrictions, concentration camps, etc. There is however finally a movement in this book to overthrow the tyrannic people in power and the plot is about finally about doing something to directly change the politics.

It is very interesting to think about these political structures and how they shape the actions of the characters and the plot of the book. While all of these systems are clearly very extreme and bad it does still correlate with this election in reminding us of just how lucky we are to be able to vote and have the system (however flawed) we do.

We have came to the point in class where we just completed our third book. While none of them have been my personal favorites or have made me tremendously excited, none of them have been awful either. I was reflecting on the book choice and comparing the science fiction methods of writings of each book and trying to make connection between the three when one glaring thing stuck out to me. How much of a role gender has played so far in every book! Gender has not just been some underlying theme, it has been arguably the central and most important aspect of every book we have read. Which is impressive considering all of the books have been science fiction/Utopian/Dystopian and how different each three have truly been from the other.

In left hand of darkness it is obvious what complex role gender is going to play from the very beginning of the story. In a gender neutral society Genry Ai tells an account through a male perspective. The whole story is his gendered perspective on things which really falls short of describing events on Gethen. Even if he could describe the event through a gender-less perspective it would be hard for us to comprehend it because we are tailored into a gender based society. So even though the role of gender is obvious in The Left Hand of Darkness it has the most complex role of the three novels.

In Kindred we took a step back from the glaring role of gender but I would still argue its relevance and that it is one of the central themes. While race determined Dana’s role in the antebellum south more than anything, her gender influenced her role in the past and present. The passage that specifically talked about her and Kevin’s fight hinted around this. Kevin is proven to have no racial tensions throughout the book but the fight scene is one in which they argue about a power struggle. Kevin is telling Dana to do his work because he feels he should  be able to tell her these things being the one in power, which I really viewed as the typically man vs woman power struggle we see in marriage. We also see gender play a huge role in the way Dana is treated by Rufus because if it wasn’t for his sexual preference for her then her situation would have been much different. It is obvious the feelings he has for her until the very end when he forces his self on her. The whole plot of the story would be changed if Dana was a man or if her ancestor, Rufus, was a woman.

The gender role in Handmaids Tale is another obvious one but it has a few layers. The obvious fact is that woman have been completely destroyed in this new society. They have basically no powers and no rights unless they have a relationship with one of the commanders and even then they are far less from than they are in todays society. I think that was obvious but also I think the book was trying to tell us something more about gender with the entire plot of the story. I think the whole idea that this could one day happen or that “the only fictional thing about the story is the time and place” concepts are hinting around the way society viewed gender in 1986. I think that today as a society the idea is a little far fetched and it probably was then too but just form historical knowledge we know that women have not always been viewed as equals like they are today. Even 40 years ago we know that women were more restricted in society and I think Margaret Atwood was calling society out on this inequality. It is her way of saying listen, we need to open our eyes and realize somethings before something seriously bad happens.

In all, no matter how different the authors present gender in the books, it is still the central theme. I think this says a lot about how, even though these books are highly fictional, they are still sending a message and ideas. It really is eye opening and interesting to think about the message the author is trying to get through in a science fiction book because after reading these three novels, I truly believe the authors were trying to do more than sell books.

In one of the previous class periods, the question on whether the planet of Gethen was a model Utopia or Dystopia society was presented. After finishing the book and collecting some final thoughts I think it is very safe to say that Gethen is neither and of its own category.

Gethen, in the beginning, had many factors that would be expected of a Utopian society.  The fact that gender does not exist has to be included in this. The fact that Gethenians can only mate during the Kemmer cycle does a lot of progressive things for the society. There is no constant drive for sex or any other sexual interaction that may distract one from daily work. There is also not as much of emphasis put on relationships of that sort so domestic violence and tension does not exist. Also the fact that war does not exist is a huge indicator of a possible Utopia. There are stories of murders and individual crimes but not full fledged war.

However at the same time nothing is ever as it seems in any situation. Gethen people are naturally mistrusting and put on false fronts, regardless of the country. Also even though there has not been war we can see that one day this could occur based on the interactions of the people throughout the story.

In the end while Gethen has traits of both, it falls into its own unique category. It faces many issues that our Earth faces and many we do not. Its issue with politics is evident throughout the entire story even though politics on Gethen is very different and hard to understand compared to us. At the same time, if an Alien like Genry was to land on Earth I highly doubt that he would be treated as fair as he was on Gethen. Gethen is neither like Earth nor an Utopia or Dystopia it is simply put, its own world.