Who is your favorite Shakespeare Villain?

[JBanks]

Shakespearean villains are some of the most complex and the most interesting in all of literature. My all time favorite villains are Lady MacBeth and Iago. What are yours?

[Admin]

Cassius, not that I like him, but he has some great lines.

[northorbitranger]

I'll have to agree with yon Cassius, but must also add Richard II. He was almost the perfect sociopath, and knew how to mimic compassion but was too impatient to sustain it. He also compares himself (favorably) with Christ and is full of loathesome self-pity.

[SirStefan32]

Macbeth

[Kassandra]

So many to choose from (though in another sense, there aren't any, because Shakespeare didn't do them--i.e. characters with no redeeming qualities at all).

Goneril and Regan. Edmund. Iachimo. Iago. Claudio. The King ("Claudius") in Hamlet. Angelo. Bertram.

Interesting that one of Shakespeare's favorite *types* of villain is the persecutor of women. Persecutor and above all mistruster, suspecter. Men who claim that women are whores put themselves in a very, very bad light in Shakespeare, whereas the exact opposite was true of all his contemporary rivals. You just couldn't go wrong, in the Elizabethan/Jacobean theatre, by accusing a woman of having sex with someone she wasn't supposed to--except if you were Shakespeare.

[rjarvis]

My current favorite is Iago--in the Verdi opera, he has a maagnificent aria inct II that shows him to be the epiotome of evil-- he does not have a signivicant reason to destroy others-only the joy of desctruciton--his danger is that he is believed to be trustworthy but has only destruction as a goal--with other villians they have a more clear motive for their villainy--to be the target of destruction for destrucitons saske is llike the fates in Oediupus--the fatal flaw didnt casue it to happen--it happened because it was going to happen--very scary

[Import]

Definetly Iago is my favourite Shakespearean villan, simply because his motive is nothing more than jealousy. We all at one time or another wanted to "overthrow" someone's successes or triumphs, haven't we?
Well, Iago was "man enough" or stupid to act upon his contempt. :evil:

[rjarvis]

Is Iago's motive onlyh jealousy--it seems that he embodies destruction-the enjoyment of the destruction of others not jujst for his jealous benefit-almost an incarnation of the devil-destructioin of others for the vlaue of destruction

[Vronaqueen]

Best Villian, definently Iago of Othello, but the worst, Don Jon (Pedro?) I can never remember which one or Much Ado About Nothing. But I think he was written to be ridiculous just to start the conflict off and running.

[nixnox]

My fav villain has to be Iago, but I don't think we can say he's all evil. Iago is the only character in the play that's truly honest with himself. He knows what he is doing and why. The others never seemed to confront thier problems; Cassio went to Desdemona to solve his problems; Othello flew off the bat and never tried to find the real truth; Desdemona never tried to find out why her husband was acting all strange. Iago doesn't hide the truth from himself in any way. Also, he didn't just destroy for the pleasure of it, he had a logical (to him) plan about what he hoped to gain and how he wanted to gain it. In that, I think he may be one of the greatest of Shakespeare's geniuses (though of course he got caught).

[Pequod]

Richard the Third, you know he's crooked from the moment he steps on stage. And picking up a woman at her husband's funeral, yeah that's villainy.

[J. Wellington Wells]

How about ol' Shylock? Sure, he lacks the wit of Iago and the demonic power of Richard III, but he's incredibly real. His problems are far from romantic - a juvenile delinquent of a daughter, and a business rival who humiliates him at every possible opportunity. Not that he's totally justified in his vengefulness - otherwise he wouldn't be a villain. But his only motive, when it comes down to it, is overwhelming frustration at the feeling that the whole world's against him. I think a lot of people can realate to that.

[Socrates]

How about the Duke of Cornwall?

''Out, vile jelly! Where is thy lustre now?''

[imthefoolonthehill]

Macbeth

I agree with Sir Stefan32. Macbeth and Brutus are two of my favorite... Cassius comes in as a close third... I like Macbeth because at the time when I first read the play, he reminded me of myself. I like Brutus because he reminds me of how often the person intending to backstab someone gets stabbed in the back himself. Cassius is just plain cool... I love the scene where Ceaser is talking about why he fears Cassius.

[Blackadder]

I like Iago and Richard III.

Iago because I think he's often malevolent for malevolence's sake, though it all started with jealousy I'll grant you. Also Richard, for his utter lack of scruples and because of the speeches he gets to give.

Shylock, too, is a 'good' villain--but I always felt sorry for the guy. I felt the same way about Caliban from The Tempest.

[Arteum]

Caliban certainly does not compare to Iago. Caliban is pitiable. He cannot do anything pernicious, although he has the intentions. Iago's plans are far more thought out, and he does carry them through.

[Blackadder]

Of course I find Caliban pitiable, I believe I said that in my post.

But, if you'll remember, the reason that Caliban is Prospero' slave is because he tried to rape Miranda, Prospero's daughter.

See: Act I, scene II.

Prospero: ...I have used thee,
Filth as thou art, with human care, and lodged thee
In mine own cell, till thou didst seek to violate
The honour of my child.

So, he is a villain, but one that you still kind of feel sorry for, especially after the speech he gives right before this above line.

But no, he's not on a level with Iago.

[everydayAngel]

Lady Macbeth, she was the brain behind Macbeth, and the fact that she went crazy and commited suicide made it even better, in the end she was weak, but to start with she was very powerful and she set a lot of evil things in motion.

[SirStefan32]

Caliban certainly does not compare to Iago. Caliban is pitiable. He cannot do anything pernicious, although he has the intentions. Iago's plans are far more thought out, and he does carry them through.

I am not sure if Iago's plans are "thought out." He seems to be improvizing all the time. I think Edmund's plan is "thought out" while Iago is the king of improvizing.

If I compare those two to musicians, Edmund reminds me of Mozart's music, while Iago is more of a jazz/ blues improvizer.

[Della~Moon]

I like Puck from AMND, he is the cause of all major problems in the play. (mind you he also solves them to) - hey that reminds me of a Simpson quote Homer: “to alcohol the cause of and solution to all of life’s problems” LOL’z

[Blackadder]

Puck??? He's not much of a badie, is he? He's just a prankster. No one died as a result of his 'machinations.' And he did no lasting damage. So, I'm wondering, does he qualify as a villain?

[Arteum]

Is Sir John Falstaff a villian or he's more a comical personage?

[Blackadder]

I don't think so. Look how he got rebuffed by Hal at the end of the last Henry IV play.

Perhaps Falstaff, like Puck, is there to move the plot along through comic plots. I don't remember him killing anyone...Puck isn't murderer either.

I think we need criteria for choosing villains. Here's my list for villainy:

1) Causing, either directly or through premeditated conspiracy, the death[s] of one or more characters.

2) Be a character in a tragedy or history. Not a comedy. (This is because in comedies, the villains are found out before lasting harm is caused. Hence, they never reach the heights of true villainhood.) I don't know about the Romances like The Tempest, because there are serious issues at state, but there is reconciliation at the end.

3) Motivations: Jealousy, greed, lust, hatred, etc. Not mischief.

4) Must be clearly the antagonist. For example, Iago is the master mind. Puck was following orders from Oberon.

That's all I can think of for now. Thoughts?

[Blade]

Caius Cassius

[sheikah777]

Iago is the obvious answer but my personal favorites are goneril and regan, although i have some good arguments for why i think Henry V (Hal) is a nasty nasty man.

[Luckdragon]

Brutus, Cassius and Shylock. Shylock steals the show, even Portia's dreary monologue on mercy cannot diminish his power. One of the most intriguing characters ever.

[Stanislaw]

My favourite is Polonius, he is such a fool.

[BSturdy]

....Hamlet

[Scheherazade]

....Hamlet

Would you consider Hamlet a villain?

[simon]

I'm with Admin on Macbeth. I liked the idea of Iago's evil jealousy taking over him, but I disliked the play and the overall literary outcome of Iago, he could have been a better evil villian. Or perahps I should say he had the potential to be a great villian, but the weaknesses of the play held him back.

[mono]

Tough question, but I may have to decide on either Marcus and Bassianus from Titus Andronicus, being the most chilling and gruesome of the Shakespeare plays, or Lady Macbeth from the obvious.

[Scheherazade]

Tough question, but I may have to decide on either Marcus and Bassianus from Titus Andronicus, being the most chilling and gruesome of the Shakespeare plays, or Lady Macbeth from the obvious.

I might agree with Lady Macbeth too...

[BSturdy]

Not an out and out villian, I admit. But he does some villanous deeds: He kills his friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and then drives Ophelia mad. It has been suggested that he was incestous with his mother etc.. Ok, so his dad was killed by his usurping uncle.

Othello is also a villain by most people's real world standards.

Or maybe I just couldn't think of a good one (fully bad one) that hadn't been mentioned!

[Scheherazade]

Or maybe I just couldn't think of a good one (fully bad one) that hadn't been mentioned!

*grins*
That is a legitimate and acceptable reason...

[baddad]

Iago. He is the template for all bad guys that followed, including today's hollywood bad guys. Lying, cheating, stabbing, inciting hate and greed, inuendo and rivalry baitiing little frak that he was. But the reason he was the most evil in my opinoin is because he enjoyed the havoc he created, and he liked to watch the results of his misdeeds take fruit. He got his jollies creating anguish in others. He was a bad, bad, boy...........

[Rumble]

Hands down, Richard III. He reeks of plotting villany.

"I'll marry her, but not for long" :goof: (sorry if I misquoted)

[brshfr]

I think Iago is the best. He has soo many motives, pure jealousy for one, he thinks Othello is dumb, he is mad because he thinks his wife is a whore. I also find it strange the love he has for Othello and he only wants to harm him once he finds out Othello is married and he seems to get angrier everytime he sees Othello and Desdemona together... interesting. :brow:

[defygravity410]

I'd have to say I think Aaron and Tamora from Titus Andronicus are the best... except for perhaps Edmund from Lear, who I enjoy for... other... reasons.

[bardophile]

Aaron of Titus Andronicus certainly qualifies as a villain with "no redeeming qualities." I particularly like him because he does not make excuses for his conduct, and curses a day he has not done some notorious deed.

[The Unnamable]

Richard III


One of the Key factors in the widespread and continuing popularity of Richard III lies in Shakespeare's presentation of the character of Richard himself. Through the figure of Richard, Shakespeare gives us a fully developed character that he presents through a kind of psychological study.

On a superficial level there are clearly elements of the traditional 'Machiavellian Villain' about Richard but there is a good deal more to him than this. His character contains many facets and the overall effect that these produce can often provoke ambiguous, sometimes even sympathetic responses in the audience. It is this ambiguity that is at the heart of the fascination that has drawn the attention of so many audiences for so long.

As I have said, there can be little doubt that he has elements of the 'Machiavel' about him and he presents, at best, an amoral figure. He clearly believes that the ends justify the means and he is certainly prepared to stop at nothing in order to achieve his ends. Like the traditional 'Machiavel' he is, at the start of the play, an outsider to the order and structure of the state and relies on the power of his own wit and intelligence to bring about his advancement. He is self-centred, ruthless and vindictive and there is nothing that he would not do to gain power.

It offers little in the way of mitigation that, for the most part, his victims are in themselves guilty of various crimes. We can see Richard's determination to play the role of villain very early in the play. As he tells us himself –

"I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days ...
I am subtle, false and treacherous."
(Li. 30.32)

However, villain though he undoubtedly is, Richard is also a character of enormous vitality, intelligence and wit. His opening soliloquy, in addition to revealing his penchant for evil doing, also reveals his ability to use language in a witty and ironic way, as he mocks the idea of courtly love and focuses on his own 'deformity'. We can also see here a man who feels himself outside the normal social bounds of the world in which he operates.

Throughout the play the audience is frequently entertained to flashes of his sardonic wit and black humour which draws the audience to him almost against their will. His tendency to share his villainous acts and intentions with us, the audience, through his frequent soliloquies allows him to build up a kind of confidential relationship with us. As he cheerfully informs us of the next terrible step in his plan we are at once horrified but also strangely fascinated. Once in his confidence it is as though we become somehow implicated in the web of deceit and violence that he creates but we are powerless to do any other than watch his plans unfold.

Part of the sense of being 'in on’ Richard's plans with him allows us to appreciate his abilities as an actor, for our 'inside knowledge' allows us to see his real skill and subtlety at work. For example, while planning his brother's death he woos the Lady Anne in order to pursue "another secret close intent." When he is successful here we can only look on with a kind of detached mixture of wonder and horror as he shares another 'secret' with us in telling us that –

"I'll have her, but I will not keep her long."
(I. ii. 229)

Again we see his skills as an actor come to the fore in the council scene (III. iv). He begins, ominously, we recognise, full of smiles and *bonhomie' as he greets Hastings, Buckingham and the other lords. We, the audience can see that there is no true friendship here, Richard is simply acting his part. Equally though, when a few lines later he returns to furiously accuse Hastings of conspiring against him, this is just as much a part of his act to enable him to achieve his goal - in this case, the rapid despatch of Hastings.

In addition to his skills as an actor, his wit, his intelligence and his ability to create a rapport with his audience, he also possesses other attractive qualities. He certainly shows courage and military prowess. He leads his army from the front and to the very last he is a fearless leader of his men, urging them on:

"Fight, gentlemen of England! Fight, bold yeomen!
Draw, archers, draw your arrows to the head!
Spur your proud horses hard, and ride in blood!"
(V. iii. 339-341)

He fights with tremendous courage against all the odds, refusing to withdraw from the field of battle even when it seems certain that all is lost:

"The King enacts more wonders than a man,
Daring an opposite to every danger.
His horse is slain, and all on foot he fights,
Seeking for Richmond in the throat of death."
(V. iv. 2-5)

In the end he dies true to the principles that have always governed his action and he shows no signs of repentance. His development throughout the play and his ultimate demise have many features in common with the 'tragic hero' figure. As the audience we can deplore his many evil actions but we cannot help admiring his attractive and entertaining features. It is this ambiguity in our response to him as both a villain and a hero that ultimately makes him such a fascinating character.

[Galatea]

Iago

Richard III

I know they've been mentioned, but really, who can argue? They're the greatest villans of all time.

[Virgil]

I haven't read the entire thread, but has anyone included Regan and Goneril from King Lear? Probably the best of the female villains.

[smilingtearz]

Iago... one of my really favourite characters

[Magmadona]

Mine has got to be Lady Macbeth or Tamora. Yeah, call me a feminist, but I think that they were some of the more substantial villians that shakespeare wrote.

[IrishCanadian]

Hello Magadona, welcome.
I havent read Richard III yet. But right now I'd say my favorite is Lady Macbeth.

[Magmadona]

Tough question, but I may have to decide on either Marcus and Bassianus from Titus Andronicus, being the most chilling and gruesome of the Shakespeare plays, or Lady Macbeth from the obvious.

Bassianus and Marcus were not villains. Marcus was Titus' brother and Bassianus was killed by Chiron and Demetrius, Tamora's sons.

[trinityshiva]

.Dear friends
It may sound strange for you initially but if you have the patience to read this message completely with an unbiased mind you would understand my argument if alone we divorce ourselves from the element of ego.

To begin with I consider Cassius as the Hero and Mark Anthony as the villain of the play Julius Caesar. Let us begin with a peep into the historical aspect at first. In 509 BC there was a sadist monarch Torquin the proud who had reduced the entire Roman community to the slave Dom. The ancestor of Marcus Brutus of the play by name Junius Lucius Brutus had plotted and killed him and had established a republican government in Roman territories. The main purpose of this shift from autocracy to republicanism was due to the strongly felt purpose to avoid the concentration of power in one hand and keep it and it began with Bi-virate and later toward the period of Caesar got more matured and leapt on to the trium-virate to keep the power further distributed. When this play opens in 46 BC Shakespeare shows us that Crusser is already dead having been killed by the Parthians in a battle and Pompey is killed at the behest of Julius Caesar probably in Egypt where to he had run away sensing a threat to his life through Caesar due to some ideological differences. Brutus, Cato the senior, Cicero, Cassius were all on the side of Pompey and fought against Caesar. After having got killed Pompey Caesar had requested Brutus to join his posse as he considered him a man of a strong character but accepted Cassius very reluctantly only under the behest of Brutus.

With the members of the trium virate Pompey and Crusser having been dead now the Rome had got reverted to a state of 509 BC and a Dictatorship was in the offing and Caesar was behaving in an autocratic way which Shakespeare brings to our note in the Act I Scene II of the play through the dialogues of Cassius. Later he brings to our notice that the Tribunes who vehemently criticize Caesar in Act I scene and Scene I are put to death. So the autocracy is established and it is convincing that anybody who rose against the dictates of Caesar would be put to death. If the spirit of republicanism weren’t to be dead there should have been a trial if the tribunes were considered offenders, don’t you agree with me? To strengthen the possible inset of dictator ship and imperialism Shakespeare introduces the element of discussion that Caesar was offered a crown but he had refused it thrice each time more reluctantly. It was also brought to our notice that senate had decided to crown him on the following day in the scene under reference by Casca. If Casca was aware of this then Mark Anthony also must be aware of this.

Now let us shift our debate to Brutus and Cassius. Brutus was a man of strong character and the most respected in the Roman corridors but his love for Caesar had blinded him and he was not paying any attention to suffering of the people around him with growing ambitiousness of Caesar. Cassius is the eye opener to Brutus and the most committed republican and the one who plays pivotal role in getting rid of the prospects of autocracy in Rome. Thus he steers the entire Play. Though he projects Brutus as the leader he is the actual leader and the leader of the play is the Hero is my argument whether this world accepts it or not. Don’t forget about that dialogue which keeps me obsessed, the dialogue which Shakespeare wrote for Cassius in the Act V Scene III that it was his birthday and he would end his life on the day when he came on to this earth. Now how to explain Shakespeare keeping this world informed that he is going to die on his very birthday through the dialogue of Cassius? Why he did not assign this dialogue to any other character? Was he living in the character of Cassius while writing this play? Are the million dollar questions which keep buzzing my brain?

Now let me put forth my arguments for calling Mark Anthony as a villain of this play. Forget about the personal characters of this play and come to the theme of this play. If you maintain an unbiased view the theme revolves around the Roman sentiment with regards to Republicanism versus imperialism. If you agree with me then the people who support the republicanism are the good lot and those who promote imperialism are the bad lot and if that be so on which side do you consider Mark Antony to be, on dictatorial side or the republican side? How do you explain the lies of Antony in his speech? Why did he project the issue that Caesar was against accepting the crown while he knows that Caesar was to be crowned on that day? When Decius Brutus tells Caesar informs Caesar that the senate had decided to crown him on that day and if he stays back at home they may change their minds, why he had not shown his reluctance? Why did he immediately call for his cloak in a hurry to proceed to the senate house? 400 years ago this world had started on a wrong foot and the dreadful lurch in the translations still continues. If some men like me come forward this world buckling under ego never encourages.
However you be the better judge.
Shiva.

[trinityshiva]

Dear friends
It may sound strange for you initially but if you have the patience to read this message completely with an unbiased mind you would understand my argument if alone we divorce ourselves from the element of ego.

To begin with I consider Cassius as the Hero and Mark Anthony as the villain of the play Julius Caesar. Let us begin with a peep into the historical aspect at first. In 509 BC there was a sadist monarch Torquin the proud who had reduced the entire Roman community to the slave Dom. The ancestor of Marcus Brutus of the play by name Junius Lucius Brutus had plotted and killed him and had established a republican government in Roman territories. The main purpose of this shift from autocracy to republicanism was due to the strongly felt purpose to avoid the concentration of power in one hand and keep it and it began with Bi-virate and later toward the period of Caesar got more matured and leapt on to the trium-virate to keep the power further distributed. When this play opens in 46 BC Shakespeare shows us that Crusser is already dead having been killed by the Parthians in a battle and Pompey is killed at the behest of Julius Caesar probably in Egypt where to he had run away sensing a threat to his life through Caesar due to some ideological differences. Brutus, Cato the senior, Cicero, Cassius were all on the side of Pompey and fought against Caesar. After having got killed Pompey Caesar had requested Brutus to join his posse as he considered him a man of a strong character but accepted Cassius very reluctantly only under the behest of Brutus.

With the members of the trium virate Pompey and Crusser having been dead now the Rome had got reverted to a state of 509 BC and a Dictatorship was in the offing and Caesar was behaving in an autocratic way which Shakespeare brings to our note in the Act I Scene II of the play through the dialogues of Cassius.

[Night Stalker]

My favourite villians are Lady Macbeth, Iago and Tybalt (purely because he stabbed Mercutio who was cool)

[Medea86]

Has to be Aaron, and Tamora (who endured a death which was most fitting for her character)

[Aurelian]

It's been said...but mine has to be Iago. He's just so...pure ebil! At first, his actions and plans have motives behind them...but then he kills his own wife pretty much because he could! He got pissed at her and then...stabby stabby for Emilia. >.< Plus he's misgynous...which I fundamentally disagree with. :nod: And...and...he's so EBIL!

[cRaZy]

Chan!!or Should I Say Aurelian!hell Yeah Iago Is Misogynous! But You Gotz Ta Love Him Cus He's So Evil!!!people What About Shylock From The Merchant Of Venice? You Gotz Ta Love Him Too!. Ohh Yeah And Roderigo Is A Frikken Stalker!good Phrase Defi Write It Down!

[Cassius614]

Here's my top ten list of Shakespeare villains. It's not perfect since I haven't read every play, but I like these as the most evil characters ever. They're in backwards order.

10. Don Jon from Much Ado About Nothing. I know that comedies don't have really good villains, but I had to include him. He beat out Leontes from The Winter's Tale for this bottom spot, because Leontes doesn't actively think about his villainy (I think you're more evil if you actively ponder your own nature). Don Jon is an Iago wannabe, and his motives are just low. He knows this, and enjoys the destruction he causes. This play, while it ends happily, does go pretty dark as a result of Don Jon's work.

9. Angelo from Measure for Measure. Another comedy villain, I know. Again, he has a wonderful monologue rationalizing and condemning his own behavior, showing that he knows what he is doing is wrong. Yet he does it anyway! Deliciously evil, and again his actions have near tragic consequences. This play goes fairly dark too.

8. Regan and Goneril from King Lear. I like them as villains, they aren't so much active thinkers though, which keeps them from being higher on the list. R and G tend towards inflexibility and harshness, and their actions toward their father make them "unnatural". Good villains.

7. Cassius from Julius Caesar. I LOVE Cassius, hence the sn. Cassius, while he has a good cause, knows that Brutus won't agree with him. So he uses ethically repugnant manipulation to get his way. He is Machiavellian - his goals may be great, but his methods are horrific, and personal. He ruins Brutus, a wonderfully chivalrous man, with his villainy.

6. The Macbeths! They're a tagteam as far as I'm concerned, each pulling equal weight. Together they're a great villain - alone, completely impotent. Lady Macbeth is the brains, Macbeth the brawn. However, I still firmly believe that without the witches, even Lady Macbeth wouldn't have been inspired to evil. They're opportunistic. However, as Polonius would say "once in, [they] bear it!"

5. Tamora/Aaron from Titus Andronicus. I haven't read this play, but I'm familiar, plus I've heard of the "I've done a thousand evil things" monologue. I was sold. That's pretty evil. The revenge, the evil, it's all there.

4. Claudius from Hamlet. Again, a thinker. Knows what he did was wrong, yet doesn't repent (can't). Claudius also uses poison, a cruel and sneaky (womanly) way to kill. His political manipulations make him a good king and a great murderer. The familial nature of his crimes make them more unnatural.

3. Edmund. The familial evil shows in him just like Claudius and R&G. He actively sabotages his father and brother for little provocation. He easily uses R & G to his advantage.

2. Richard III! This guy rocks! He's a no-brainer for me, since his murderous nature seems revenge against the world for making him deformed. He admits his wrongs instead of denying them like other villains would. He'll say, "Yes, I did Deed X, but I did it for a good reason!" His rationalizations and rampant murdering of seemingly everyone he meets place him so high up on the list.

1. The big winner - Iago. He has "motiveless malevolence", as a critical essay once said. He thinks about his own evil perhaps more than anyone else, with a staggering number of soliloquies (more than Hamlet!). He just enjoys controlling people and spreading his own jealousy to others.

[Behemoth]

Yeah, it has to be Iago. I think he's a brilliant character, although critics have suggested that he's just a plot device and not a fully developed character. Evil for evil's sake; "I shall turn her virtue into pitch and out of her own goodness make the net that shall enmesh them all."
Richard III comes a close second, followed by Claudius from Hamlet, Tamora from Titus Andronicus and Edmund from King Lear. Nasty, nasty people but GREAT to read lol!!!! :nod:

[myself]

hi everyone, my best Shakespeare villain is Don john coz he has some gr8 lines like: "i am not of many words but i will thank you" and he says: "i am a plain dealing villain"
i dont no the words excatly but something like that and when u literatly look at the book and analyse it the whole main purpose of appearance come from him. (i did a course work on that!!!)

[raptor]

Something completely original: Iago

I love Othello (the play) mostly because of how he manipulates the entire plot.

Iago's probably also my favourite character.

[musikykah]

Im gonna say LADY Macbeth, c'mon just coz shes a woman, she was behind it all, i tell u it was a conspiracy, however a tradgedy i mean she couldnt live with herself could she?

[Gwenhwyfar2828]

Richard III definately! ;)

[optimisticnad]

Surely its Iago!!!!!!!!! Come on! who else is so manipulative and cunning but above all else, refuses to speak at the end!! so ur just never fully satisfied about his motives are you? whereas shakes. other villlains like going into soliloquys and monologues about what they did and why etc. etc. but Iago....u know, i just cant suss him out at all! hes one of the most mind blowing characters ever. i dont knw why the play is called Othello, it should be Iago.

[omegaxx]

So many votes for Iago, wow, I really gotta read "Othello" this summer. But come on, no one nominated "Little Iago" -- Iachimo of "Cymbeline"? I just finished the play and it was a wicked read. Iachimo absolutely stole the spotlight!

[Janine]

Iago, most definitely...Hands down! He is a pure villain from start to finish. It is the way in which he plans and does it all and has no remorse at the end. He is pure villain and knows the consequences could be either to his advantage or not. He knows he will win but may lose his life. His actions are put into motion and he follows through without hesitation. He is so darn sure of himself he is arrogant and yet the most villainous part of him is his apparent charm and goodness, everyone referring to him as "Good Iago". If I could love a villain, it would be Iago. The reasons have all been stated so eloquently in the last 5 or more posts about him.
Yes, "Othello" is one of my favorite plays, I know it is because of Iago....He mesmerizes me with his scheming. Maybe this play should be named "Iago" and not "Othello". He is more than a plot device. He is the play!

[Debrasue]

Richard III !!!! Don't ya just hate to love him? LOL!

"And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With odd ends stol'n of holy writ,
And seem a saint,
When most I play the devil."

Therefore, since I cannot prove a lover...
I am determined to prove a villain......

But he'll give it all up to be the hero....
"A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!

Debrasue

[Debrasue]

"2. Richard III! This guy rocks! He's a no-brainer for me, since his murderous nature seems revenge against the world for making him deformed. He admits his wrongs instead of denying them like other villains would. He'll say, "Yes, I did Deed X, but I did it for a good reason!" His rationalizations and rampant murdering of seemingly everyone he meets place him so high up on the list."
Well said Cassius614 (5-29-06)! ROFLMAO!!! Sorry....had to quote!!!

Debrasue

[KittyFowl]

Easy! Iago by far! In my opinion, he's most certainly the greatest villain ever created!

[Abdiel]

I also love Iago but there's some others I have to give respect to.

Aaron from Titus Andronicus is very devious, and so is Queen Tamora. Their evil deeds make you sick just thinking about them: they execute a plan where they have the main character's daughter, Lavinia, raped, then have her tongue cut out.

They have her tongue cut out so she can't speak the names of her rapists (the Queen's own sons), but, for good measure, they also cut off her hands so she can't write the names of her offenders, or sew them into a tapestry (as according to another Roman myth).

But Titus's revenge on the Queen and her sons is just as gruesome. If you haven't read the play, you need to.

Oh, and Cloten from Cymbeline is the biggest idiot in the Shakespearean cannon and also one heck of a funny guy.

[tealcrackle]

I would have to say that Iago is my favorite by far, but Richard the III is also among my favorite villainous Shakespearian characters.