|
I think Form raises an important point - one may enjoy, relish even, a good villain. One does not have to agree with, let alone support what they do, but one may enjoy it. The villains often get the best lines, perform the most entertaining acts & in a way most significant, get the most spectacular endings.
So, one may side with the 'villains' & not see then as 'wrong' in any way. Or one may see them as wrong but enjoy what they get up to - Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham was the only good thing about Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves in many people's opinion. Darth Vader was the dark heart of the Star Wars movies & let's face it Han Solo was vastly more attractive than that 'goody-goody' Luke - because Han was a bit dangerous, & much more of a 'rebel' than most of the 'worthies' in the Rebel Alliance. Ask any actor whether they would rather play a villain or a hero & they would choose the villain.
Or in a more literary vein - who is the most charismatic figure, the tragic 'hero' of Paradise Lost - Satan. Which leads us on to the question of why writers like to write such attractive, charismatic villains & why readers like to read about them & enjoy being around them?
My theory? Not because in most cases they feel a psychological, let alone a spiritual, affinity with them - but more often than not because they don't. The villain is so 'different' to the reader/viewer that they are attractive for that very reason - opposites attract.
And, yet, as I've been arguing, some readers may actually like the villain, & feel fine about what he's up to. But again, that tells us nothing about the reader's psychological state. It may simply be that they find the 'good' side so bland & uninteresting that they side with anyone who is out to give them a good kicking. Which is why, again one cannot judge a reader's relationship with the primary world by the choices he or she makes regarding the secondary world - the 'good' guys in the secondary world may bore them silly.
|