Good and Evil, or shades of gray?

[Fig]

I've been doing some thinking about writing, and there is a question that keeps annoying me : should writing rely as much as it does on the traditionaly clear distinction between "good" and "bad" people, ie Good and Evil, Vilains and Heroes, Criminals and Victims, etc?

Most book have a very clear definition between the good guys, who are portrayed as generally noble (spiritually speaking, as in "The noble thing to do", not as in "My Lord"), intelligent (often they have less-intelligent sidekicks going along with them) et al whereas villains tend to be portrayed as cunning backstabbers, "bastards" so to speak. If they have any personal emotions, it's almost always blind revenge..., close-minded racism, in other words, things our modern society tend to find abhorent.

Is there really such a need for a distinction between good and evil, heroes and villains, or would literature benefits from having more "shaded" characters, villainous characters with honorable goals, and heroic, noble figures with questionable aims? (such as in the three musketeers - the original book, not the completly messed up movies made from it -, where Richelieu, the apparent villain seeks nothing more than the ultimate good of his country, whereas the three muskeeters fight to hide their queen's affair with the head of state of one of France's greatest ennemy...).

 

[Togepretty]

Is it right that your post made me think of Riku from Kingdom Hearts? ^^;;;

Anyway, I don't think there is always the perfect hero, and the perfect villain present in everything. I mean, in my opinion, it's great when there is a pure hearted hero, but a hero, that's not so perfect, isn't bad either. In fact, there are anti-heros in plenty of books. Holden from the Catcher In the Rye comes to mind as an anti-hero.

And a lot of the villains are shown to be acting out of love. There's usually a girl involved. And I can understand their anger and jealousy if the girl is more interested in the hero of the story. Love does make people do crazy/stupid things.

Most of the books I've read don't really have a clear hero or villain(but that might be because they are more recent). Plenty of the characters have their own agenda. But of course, in a book like Lord Of the Rings most of the characters are pretty clear-cut. Either they are evil, or they are not.

Personally, I think it gives a character more depth if they are not all bad, or all good. In reality, not everybody is either one or the other, and several books do a good job of showing that.

So yeah, I think that literature has already benefited from some shaded characters.

 

[Blackjack Gabbiani]

Damian has convinced me to submit for your approval the example of my personal favorite, Jirarudan the Collector.

He's seen as a villian for his callous capture of the Legendary Birds in his narrow view to own Lugia...but let's examine that for a minute...

What did he really do wrong? Captured wild Pokémon? Perfectly legal. Didn't use Poke-Balls? Then Delia would be in deeeep trouble, she didn't use them either. Besides, those bizarre capture devices seem a lot more fair than a Master Ball...

aah, this isn't sounding as good as I want.

http://collector.washuslab.com/theories.html for more coherent thoughts on him...

 

[Transfinite]

I usually prefer it if the villain has some reason other than "s/he's evil" for being a villain. One of my favourite examples is the villain from "Saber Marionette J" (FAUST NOT HESS!).

Sure, he tries to take over the world. Sure, he's a God-playing bastard. Sure, he mentally tortures a ten-year-old. But he does it all because he thinks that he knows better than the rulers of the other five countries. Does he? No. But he sincerely believes he does.

The other main villains in this series - Tiger, Luchs, and Panther - do everything they do because they love Faust. Yeah, and he created them, and all. But I wouldn't really call them villains because dude, they're androids and were simply following the orders of their creator. ^_^ It's SO hilarious to see them acting like good guys in the OAV series, living with the heroes and learning to lead normal, non-Nazi-assassin lives...

 

[Barb]

Well, the classic 'Robin Hood' is about a man who robs people and gives the money to benefit the poor. He's clearly the hero, yet he is doing something that most people consider to be wrong, which is stealing.

I prefer reading novels or stories with shaded characters as Damian mentioned, but only if the author explains clearly what the motivation behind the character's actions are. And it would also depend on the type of novel or story you're writing. Epic stories or novels generally have good/evil characters, and there is no doubt as to who is who.

 

[tyger]

well it's all based on the idea of what is considered to be good or evil.

I mean no matter what, whether Good or evil. Most protaganists/antaganists often find themselves to be in the right, or at least feel they are right.

So there is no distinguishing between teh two of them. But if you have a conflicting character say such as Dr. Jekkly and Mr. Hyde *grins at teh absent ginger* well, there you blur away from that concept. but that is confusing. seeing in figurative terms. they are but one and the same. But in literary terms, it's a conflicting emotion that plays itself out.

Is jekkyl the one I am or is it Hyde. the good or the bad. Or am I just a mixture of both, the combination of both taht makes me tainted, the ugly? (yeah. i'm a western fanatic)

Then you havesuch stories as the trilogy by Robert ludlum, the Bourne Identity, BOurne Supremacy, and Bourne Ultimatum. is he the mild mannered professor David WEbb who wants no part of his schizophrenic trained killer Jason Bourne, who is good as well but sees the world in a different light. He is suspicious and does not hesitate to kill. He speaks many different languages and he can go with an hour of sleep. Yet he kills for his country.

David Webb, an innocent professor who teaches. or Jason Bourne, an unrelenting killer for his country, but a killer nonetheless.

Is there a good there? Is there a bad? Is there an ugly

None of the three.

it's a muddled color. neither black, white, nor grey.

you get a somber yet bright color there. So, it all depends on the perspective.