Recently, I started thinking about the actions and psychology of a villain.
The villains are, or coincidentally happen to be, the most practical characters off all the other characters in any story. Their thoughts always seem to be much ahead of their time, where they can bend or mould their conscience to suit their interests. They have no set ideologies, and are extremely open-minded. You see, every classic villain has some justification for his actions, it's not like “I know that the hero is always right but I am doing this because I am a bad and cruel guy”. No, that's not how things go in the mind of a villain. At least I think so. Even when they try to take over the world, they want to change the world order, for the better, by being the change they want. They do not sit ideally waiting for change to occur by some divine intervention, or through some "Knight in shining armour". They are their own means.
Everyone has some or other justification for each and every action of their's. It’s just that the villain's idea of good/bad and right/wrong does not coincide with the sentiment of the majority and the general psyche of the society. These are path breaking people who in spite of knowing that the society doesn't approve of their actions, think the other way, somehow justify it to their mind (excellent arguing skills), and do it (the guts!!!). A villain doesn't worry about the afterlife, about other people's thoughts over his actions; about morality and ethics in general; he just lives in the moment and makes the most of it.
Think of Galileo for example. Had science not evolved the way it has, if in the minds of people like us, earth was still in the centre of the universe. What, then, would have been our impression of Galileo? He would have been documented, if at all, as a traitor, a mad man of sorts, who propagated false beliefs and questioned the divine authority. Very close to a bad man, who challenges the heroes -- the God people, the Church. In short, a villain.
Which brings us to the question of good/bad and right/wrong. What may be treated as right/ good in one context may become wrong/bad for the other. Nothing in this world can be said to be truly good/right. For us maybe, but there is always a villain out there to challenge our view.
How would you define "good"? I believe it is a moral belief or action that is subscribed to by the majority (at least 95%) of the society. The people who go against this are thought to be immoral, when they have only set another set of standards for their idea of morality that is different from ours.
Heroes on the other hand, seem always to be prudish in their thoughts and approach towards life. They would always do or think the same way as the society, will never think out of its domain. They will go down in history for their ultimate closeness to a society's highest moral standard, but, will they ever question their actions? Will they ever look at things from the villain’s point of view or confront their own morals, the way a villain has to do every now and then? The hero, thus, will never be able to think out of the box. He will never discover something new. If by thinking out of the box, a villain finds a new idea, a new, may be better concept of life for the future, that either instinctively becomes good in the eyes of society, or even blurs the difference between good and bad, then this villain will become a far greater hero. He will become the greatest of his age. Like Columbus, who is more famous and has far more reputation than the lesser Vasco De Gama. So, to become the greatest of the heroes, you first have to question the existing, become a villain.
The classical example, in case, can be Ravana, the ultimate bad man. But on a closer look, visualize him in the following way:
A Brahmin, the son of a sage who went on to rule a large country on his own (in the story, they say, he conquered even the planets), took on the dominance of the powerful Aryans. It was only after he became a hero towards the cause of his race, that he made some foolish decisions.
Compare this with Ram, son of a king with a vast empire in Ayodhya, so he already had some power and influence and didn't have to start from scratch as Ravana. If you subtract the menacing moustache, and the maniacal laugh as has been carved in our minds by the TV serials, Ravana was a learned man.
At last, I found out something much more important than all this. Trying to justify a villain is the best way of approaching impartiality, which I have always believed is the greatest virtue, above good or bad. After all, rejecting and being critical of long held beliefs, drives people to inventions and discoveries. And that's what drives a civilization out of stagnation.
The villains are, or coincidentally happen to be, the most practical characters off all the other characters in any story. Their thoughts always seem to be much ahead of their time, where they can bend or mould their conscience to suit their interests. They have no set ideologies, and are extremely open-minded. You see, every classic villain has some justification for his actions, it's not like “I know that the hero is always right but I am doing this because I am a bad and cruel guy”. No, that's not how things go in the mind of a villain. At least I think so. Even when they try to take over the world, they want to change the world order, for the better, by being the change they want. They do not sit ideally waiting for change to occur by some divine intervention, or through some "Knight in shining armour". They are their own means.
Everyone has some or other justification for each and every action of their's. It’s just that the villain's idea of good/bad and right/wrong does not coincide with the sentiment of the majority and the general psyche of the society. These are path breaking people who in spite of knowing that the society doesn't approve of their actions, think the other way, somehow justify it to their mind (excellent arguing skills), and do it (the guts!!!). A villain doesn't worry about the afterlife, about other people's thoughts over his actions; about morality and ethics in general; he just lives in the moment and makes the most of it.
Think of Galileo for example. Had science not evolved the way it has, if in the minds of people like us, earth was still in the centre of the universe. What, then, would have been our impression of Galileo? He would have been documented, if at all, as a traitor, a mad man of sorts, who propagated false beliefs and questioned the divine authority. Very close to a bad man, who challenges the heroes -- the God people, the Church. In short, a villain.
Which brings us to the question of good/bad and right/wrong. What may be treated as right/ good in one context may become wrong/bad for the other. Nothing in this world can be said to be truly good/right. For us maybe, but there is always a villain out there to challenge our view.
How would you define "good"? I believe it is a moral belief or action that is subscribed to by the majority (at least 95%) of the society. The people who go against this are thought to be immoral, when they have only set another set of standards for their idea of morality that is different from ours.
Heroes on the other hand, seem always to be prudish in their thoughts and approach towards life. They would always do or think the same way as the society, will never think out of its domain. They will go down in history for their ultimate closeness to a society's highest moral standard, but, will they ever question their actions? Will they ever look at things from the villain’s point of view or confront their own morals, the way a villain has to do every now and then? The hero, thus, will never be able to think out of the box. He will never discover something new. If by thinking out of the box, a villain finds a new idea, a new, may be better concept of life for the future, that either instinctively becomes good in the eyes of society, or even blurs the difference between good and bad, then this villain will become a far greater hero. He will become the greatest of his age. Like Columbus, who is more famous and has far more reputation than the lesser Vasco De Gama. So, to become the greatest of the heroes, you first have to question the existing, become a villain.
The classical example, in case, can be Ravana, the ultimate bad man. But on a closer look, visualize him in the following way:
A Brahmin, the son of a sage who went on to rule a large country on his own (in the story, they say, he conquered even the planets), took on the dominance of the powerful Aryans. It was only after he became a hero towards the cause of his race, that he made some foolish decisions.
Compare this with Ram, son of a king with a vast empire in Ayodhya, so he already had some power and influence and didn't have to start from scratch as Ravana. If you subtract the menacing moustache, and the maniacal laugh as has been carved in our minds by the TV serials, Ravana was a learned man.
At last, I found out something much more important than all this. Trying to justify a villain is the best way of approaching impartiality, which I have always believed is the greatest virtue, above good or bad. After all, rejecting and being critical of long held beliefs, drives people to inventions and discoveries. And that's what drives a civilization out of stagnation.
No comments:
Post a Comment