Javert could use a cookie, too. Preferably on a plate that says 'lighten up.'
COOKIE PARTY! If Tim Burton and Joss Whedon sue you, it is not my fault. :)
Hmm... I suppose it's a more or less objective term, but to me anti-hero is someone more like Moist (er, Pratchett Moist), who doesn't have any noble aspirations or moral stamina. These guys, while protagonists of their own stories, um ... they kill people. They're obviously not the 'good guys.' Salieri's a protagonist villain, too. 'Villain' is more a judgment of character than assignation of a role in the plot as 'antagonist' is. To my perception, anyway.
Very true, and he;s the closest to being an anti-hero of any of them, but just because they're title characters and also 'bad' does not automatically make them anti-heroes.
Which raises another question: if your intentions are declared to be evil, does that make you a bad person, or is that based on evidence of character? I mean, Billy's not a bad guy, he's compassionate, has a code of ethics that is hardly any more evil than most people's, and seems to be in it out of concern for the world (albeit in a sort of sideways way) but yet he's set on being Dr Horrible and joining the blatantly named Evil League of Evil.
Oh, how we love the grey areas! Hooray for character development!
just because they're title characters and also 'bad' does not automatically make them anti-heroes.
True. Dr. Horrible's an interesting case, actually. Right up until the last scene I would have placed him solidly in the anti-hero camp. But that last scene muddied the Doctor's moral waters.
To me morality comes down to actions, and to the motivations behind those actions.
To me, you're evil if you are motivated to commit evil, in other words, if you deliberately choose to commit evil. But did Dr. Horrible deliberately choose, or was he so much in shock, so demotivated/depressed, that he was coasting along on the momentum of events set in motion long before (by his ambition toward a benign dictatorship: i.e., a rule not of evil but of a monarchy-determined-to-overcome-evil?)
Gah. I really need to stop overthinking a sendup of the superhero-villain tropes.
I really need to stop overthinking a sendup of the superhero-villain tropes.
No! Don't! It's been so long since there have been any new characters that I keep thinking about long after the story is over. This is not an opportunity to be wasted. Sure, it may be a send-up, but it's a story that has so much integrity of its own that that's only a secondary feature – like the difference between The Incredibles' relationship to superhero movies and Shrek's to fairytales. The fact that we're even having this conversation at all is a testament to the intrinsic (and rare!) quality of this story.
[moment of adoration for Joss Whedon]
OK, I completely agree with you on your definition of what it takes to be evil. And I agree that he's absolutely coasting on the momentum which propelled him in that direction from the beginning. I, personally, would never have classified him as evil until about two minutes from the end, and even then I'd rather not because it's obvious why he's reached that point. He's too disheartened and detached to put forth the effort necessary to change course. This is what he always said he wanted, so surely the more he has it the happier he should be, right? But that's obviously not the case (last shot love omg). Therein lies the moral of the story, more or less. BUT. My point is, why would someone who evidence suggests is fundamentally a good person want to identify themselves with a group that openly professes evil? Does he not recognize that his motivations are good? Why would he have even started the momentum in that direction at all? There's the possibility that he doesn't want to be associated with pompous dorks like Capt. Hammer and the stereotype of the superhero that is best voiced by Patrick Warburton, and the fact that he doesn't have any superpowers would make him more suited to the traditional villain role. In fact, if you take the associated Capt. Hammer comic into account, that could be one of the main themes of the story: superpowers (or at least strength) and working within the system are 'good,' brains and challenging the system are 'bad' – goodness knows this pattern has enough history to be instantly recognizable in the comic book universe.* If we take this to be true, the only possible team for him to belong to is the ELE – but why belong to a team at all? The conclusion that immediately presents itself to me is that they are the 'cool kids,' and he doesn't have enough confidence or whatever to be comfortable standing alone but craves their acceptance and approval. Based on what we know of him, their acceptance and approval would be worth a lot more to him than that of any 'good guys.' But I digress. What I'm aiming at here is whether someone who openly, eagerly pursues 'evil' while being an otherwise upstanding character can be one or the other. I've known plenty of thoroughly good people who believe themselves on 'the dark side,' just as there are lots of people who fervently believe they're doing good when they commit heinous acts. Is his identification with evil a self-fulfilling prophecy? Did it not matter how 'good' he started out, because by virtue of pursuing evil he became evil (or at least didn't try not to end up that way)? And is being evil contingent upon having enough self-hate that doing reprehensible things which would horrify a normal person doesn't make a difference to you?
Sorry, I was holding a lovely cohesive argument in my mind but it all fell to pieces and went critically abstract when that divergent thought came along. Make of it what you will.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-07-25 04:13 am (UTC)COOKIE PARTY! If Tim Burton and Joss Whedon sue you, it is not my fault. :)
Hmm... I suppose it's a more or less objective term, but to me anti-hero is someone more like Moist (er, Pratchett Moist), who doesn't have any noble aspirations or moral stamina. These guys, while protagonists of their own stories, um ... they kill people. They're obviously not the 'good guys.' Salieri's a protagonist villain, too. 'Villain' is more a judgment of character than assignation of a role in the plot as 'antagonist' is. To my perception, anyway.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-25 11:53 pm (UTC)I'm afraid if word got back to Bad Horse, he'd be out of the Evil League Of Evil before you could say "mare".
P.S. ALL sorts of squeeful over the continuation of the cookie joke.
HairCookie Club ForMenVillains? :Dno subject
Date: 2008-07-26 12:00 am (UTC)Which raises another question: if your intentions are declared to be evil, does that make you a bad person, or is that based on evidence of character? I mean, Billy's not a bad guy, he's compassionate, has a code of ethics that is hardly any more evil than most people's, and seems to be in it out of concern for the world (albeit in a sort of sideways way) but yet he's set on being Dr Horrible and joining the blatantly named Evil League of Evil.
Oh, how we love the grey areas! Hooray for character development!
no subject
Date: 2008-07-26 01:16 am (UTC)True. Dr. Horrible's an interesting case, actually. Right up until the last scene I would have placed him solidly in the anti-hero camp. But that last scene muddied the Doctor's moral waters.
To me morality comes down to actions, and to the motivations behind those actions.
To me, you're evil if you are motivated to commit evil, in other words, if you deliberately choose to commit evil. But did Dr. Horrible deliberately choose, or was he so much in shock, so demotivated/depressed, that he was coasting along on the momentum of events set in motion long before (by his ambition toward a benign dictatorship: i.e., a rule not of evil but of a monarchy-determined-to-overcome-evil?)
Gah. I really need to stop overthinking a sendup of the superhero-villain tropes.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-26 05:27 am (UTC)No! Don't! It's been so long since there have been any new characters that I keep thinking about long after the story is over. This is not an opportunity to be wasted. Sure, it may be a send-up, but it's a story that has so much integrity of its own that that's only a secondary feature – like the difference between The Incredibles' relationship to superhero movies and Shrek's to fairytales. The fact that we're even having this conversation at all is a testament to the intrinsic (and rare!) quality of this story.
[moment of adoration for Joss Whedon]
OK, I completely agree with you on your definition of what it takes to be evil. And I agree that he's absolutely coasting on the momentum which propelled him in that direction from the beginning. I, personally, would never have classified him as evil until about two minutes from the end, and even then I'd rather not because it's obvious why he's reached that point. He's too disheartened and detached to put forth the effort necessary to change course. This is what he always said he wanted, so surely the more he has it the happier he should be, right? But that's obviously not the case (last shot love omg). Therein lies the moral of the story, more or less. BUT. My point is, why would someone who evidence suggests is fundamentally a good person want to identify themselves with a group that openly professes evil? Does he not recognize that his motivations are good? Why would he have even started the momentum in that direction at all? There's the possibility that he doesn't want to be associated with pompous dorks like Capt. Hammer and the stereotype of the superhero that is best voiced by Patrick Warburton, and the fact that he doesn't have any superpowers would make him more suited to the traditional villain role. In fact, if you take the associated Capt. Hammer comic into account, that could be one of the main themes of the story: superpowers (or at least strength) and working within the system are 'good,' brains and challenging the system are 'bad' – goodness knows this pattern has enough history to be instantly recognizable in the comic book universe.* If we take this to be true, the only possible team for him to belong to is the ELE – but why belong to a team at all? The conclusion that immediately presents itself to me is that they are the 'cool kids,' and he doesn't have enough confidence or whatever to be comfortable standing alone but craves their acceptance and approval. Based on what we know of him, their acceptance and approval would be worth a lot more to him than that of any 'good guys.' But I digress. What I'm aiming at here is whether someone who openly, eagerly pursues 'evil' while being an otherwise upstanding character can be one or the other. I've known plenty of thoroughly good people who believe themselves on 'the dark side,' just as there are lots of people who fervently believe they're doing good when they commit heinous acts. Is his identification with evil a self-fulfilling prophecy? Did it not matter how 'good' he started out, because by virtue of pursuing evil he became evil (or at least didn't try not to end up that way)? And is being evil contingent upon having enough self-hate that doing reprehensible things which would horrify a normal person doesn't make a difference to you?
Sorry, I was holding a lovely cohesive argument in my mind but it all fell to pieces and went critically abstract when that divergent thought came along. Make of it what you will.