What about villains

[enthusiast]

Happy New Year,
I am an eager beginner. I love Dickens. I'd like to ask those of you out there that are well read if you would recommend great writing (post 1800) where motives, mind and character of villainous types are thoroughly explored.
Exceedingly grateful for any and all suggestions. If foreign language authors are recommended may I ask for info regarding quality translations. Nothing like a bad translation.
Much thanks and all the best,
enthusiast

[Virgil]

Oh, goodness, I'm sure there's lots. Here's a few off the top of my head:

Frankenstein - Mary Shelley
Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
David Copperfield - Charles Dickens
Tess of the D'Ubervilles - Thomas Hardy
Portrait of a Lady - Henry James
Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad

These are all very different novels with very different villains. In fact you may not consider some your typical villain.

[Lady19thC]

Well, Dickens is the biggest name in this category:

David Copperfield
Oliver Twist
Our Mutual Friend
Great Expectations
Old Curiosity Shop

then...
Tess of the D'Urbervilles
Lorna Doone
Jamaica Inn
Wuthering Heights
Dracula
Tenant of Wildfell Hall
Woman in White
The Moonstone
Daniel Deronda

And there are probably tons of them in the novels by Trollope!

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Add Dostoevsky's Crime & Punishment to the list - Possibly the best portrait of a man driven to madness by conscience ever written - and an excellent, wry detective to boot.

[Pensive]

A Tale Of Two Cities

Wuthering Heights

Pride and Prejudice

The Mill On The Floss

[MikeK]

I'd agree with "Crime and Punishment" and encourage almost anything by Dostoevsky. You're on the right track with your other post by wanting to start "The Brothers Karamazov". I'd also suggest "Notes From Underground". For all of those books I read the Peaver/Volokhonsky translations and thought they were very good.

[Jay T]

No need to repeat what's been said:

Gormenghast by Mervyn Peake
Wasp Factory by Ian Banks
Perfume by Patrick Suskind
Strange Evil by Jane Gaskel
Grendel by John Gardner
Les Chants de Maldoror by Comte de Lautréamont
American Psycho by Brett Easton Ellis
Priest, The : A Gothic Romance by Thomas Disch
The Secret History by Donna Tartt

[Virgil]

No need to repeat what's been said:

Gormenghast by Mervyn Peake
Wasp Factory by Ian Banks
Perfume by Patrick Suskind
Strange Evil by Jane Gaskel
Grendel by John Gardner
Les Chants de Maldoror by Comte de Lautréamont
American Psycho by Brett Easton Ellis
Priest, The : A Gothic Romance by Thomas Disch
The Secret History by Donna Tartt
Jay T- Have you read John Gardner's Grendel? I have John Gardner's books on writing and love them. I highly recommend, The Art of Fiction to anyone who wants to understand the craft of writing stories. A long time ago I started reading one of his novels, I forget the name (Nickelson's Ghost?), I think it was his last. But I didn't care for it too much, so I never finished it. Given that I had so much respect for him as someone who understood the craft of writing, I was surprised with my reaction. The work he is best known for is Grendel, and I wanted to get somebody's opinion on it. What did you think?

[Jay T]

Jay T- Have you read John Gardner's Grendel? I have John Gardner's books on writing and love them. I highly recommend, The Art of Fiction to anyone who wants to understand the craft of writing stories. A long time ago I started reading one of his novels, I forget the name (Nickelson's Ghost?), I think it was his last. But I didn't care for it too much, so I never finished it. Given that I had so much respect for him as someone who understood the craft of writing, I was surprised with my reaction. The work he is best known for is Grendel, and I wanted to get somebody's opinion on it. What did you think?

Yes, (for future reference I would never list a book I haven't read ;) and frankly it's the only Gardner book (fiction) that I think is highly recomendable. I think Grendel is a unique combination of literary/fabulist retelling, and while I think it serves regarding the specific question asked in the thread, I think it's only 1 part of a larger theme Gardner makes a study of perception itself, each character representings something detailed in less than 200 pages should allow, each battling with identiy and how that perception exerts on their surrondings.

That, said if you do read a Gardner novel, this is the one I would judge him on.

[mystic_beauty]

Hope am posting at the right forum :confused:

What according to you the best or i rather say the worst villain of all time in literature and why?Please be sure to provide the name of the book.plz do reply coz its needed in my project

[MissJaneEyre19]

i think the best/worst villain that i've come across is Arabella in the novel Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy. she's not a typical villain, but the way that she entraps Jude in marriage is, to me, unforgivable. she ruined his life, basically. there are probably other villains, though, that have done deeds far worse. Arabella is just the first that came to my mind. good luck with your project!

[Nightshade]

hummm what do you mean by best and worst?
as in most effective and least?
Well I cant really think about them in those terms at the moment but
Iago has got to be in the list. Hes affective thats true and what he does is unforgivable but you just have to love him as a charcter.
Mephestophilis from Marlowes Faustus is another very interesting charcter Hes he villian obviously hes the devil but hes such a reluctant one.
humm who elseMadame d-whatsit from Tale of 2 cities.
My problem Im useless at names.
humm The Master in Pamela or virtue rewarded although frankly since he s converted does hecount as a villian at all?

[Pensive]

In Harry Potter series, I found Lord Voldemort a good villain. And in A Mayor Of Casterbridge, FATE was the perfect villain, gave the novel a new turn. (I think that fate is not a person but still, I consider it to be a villain in TMOC)

[Stanislaw]

I think Moriarti was the perfect villian, and quite possibly the worst villian would be peditro the assasin (lamest villian ever)

The coolest villian...Macbeth.

[Boris239]

I personally like Richard III. He is such a great guy and so evil. Managing to marry a woman whose husband you killed being a hunchback requires great skill. "Frailty thy name is women". He has a extremely strong personality. When he is killed in the end by Richmond it seems so unbelievable, partially because we don't know much about the guy.

[emily655321]

The name that springs to mind is "Svidrigailov," from Crime & Punishment. Probably just because that's my favorite book, and tends to top all lists I make. :blush: But I like him because his character is analyzed—even in books that are pretty good about depth of character, the "villains" rarely get their fair share, when they tend to be the ones whose motives you most want to know about! But in C&P he actually gets some first-person perspective all to himself; we get to see inside his head. So he's a good—I mean, bad—one. :)

[higley]

Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. What an awful woman. Of all the characters I've ever seen, she sticks out in my mind as being the most villainous. Her psychological torment of her patients is unparalleled in cruelty--she destroys them from the inside out and suppresses any threat to her absolute control over the ward.

[byquist]

If you can go for a screenplay, look at "The Man (Jimmy Stewart) Who Shot Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin)." Liberty Valance is one mean dude.

[Charles Darnay]

I would definatly put Iago up there.
Macbeth not so much.
Javert (if you can call him a villain) only becasue of the great debate on whether he is or is not a villain.
vengence (from Mobey-Dick).... probably my number 1 pick

[PeterL]

Nurse Ratched was a pretty good villian, and Voldemar also fits the mold well, but I think that Rudi von Starnberg in "Royal Flash" is the best villian that I have encountered.

[Sami]

I suppose my “favourite” villain is Uriah Heap because he’s so slimy and resentful – he's disgusting because he's cunning. He's villainous as a result of weakness. I think Iago’s a good choice as well.

[davoarid]

Iago is the best, and this is from someone who's not that wild about Othello.
"The Professor" from Conrad's The Secret Agent is cool too.

[Bysshe]

It's debatable whether he's a villian - he's probably more of an anti-hero, but because he's so unpleasant, I'd have to say Heathcliff. :)


Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. What an awful woman. Of all the characters I've ever seen, she sticks out in my mind as being the most villainous. Her psychological torment of her patients is unparalleled in cruelty--she destroys them from the inside out and suppresses any threat to her absolute control over the ward.

I have to agree with that. I loved One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and Nurse Ratched was a fantastic villian.

[Truth Untold]

I also love Iago for this.
Also i think possibly Chauvelin from the Scarlet pimpernel books if onyl for his demmed unfashinable cravat sir! Tally ho! lol!

[Union Jack]

Clamence, from "The Fall" by Camus.

[mono]

Interesting question.
As Nightshade replied, I would probably have to choose Mephistopheles from Goethe's Faust and/or Marlowe's Dr. Faustus - witty, intelligent, and deceitful.
Others I would have to choose from: Uriah Heep from Dickens' David Copperfield, the multiple villains of Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, MANY characters of Shakespeare plays, particularly from Macbeth, Hamlet, and Titus Andronicus, and multiple characters from Homer's The Iliad.

[bhekti]

Smerdyakov in The Brothers KAramazov. I really want to meet him!

[slipperyyoke]

I always liked Satan and his retinue in The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov.

[mono]

I always liked Satan and his retinue in The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov.
Yes, that reminds me of two other fictional characters, through representing the same figure: Satan in both Paradise Lost by John Milton and The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri. :)

[rabid reader]

Devil- Paradise Lost by Milton

[Pendragon]

Sauron--Lord of the Rings Trilogy or Lord Foul Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever Trilogies I and II

[Idril]

Sauron--Lord of the Rings Trilogy

Oh, if you think Sauron is bad, you should see his "Master", Morgoth from The Silmarillion, he was even more badass than that wimp, Sauron. ;)

[Boris239]

Yes, Sauron is just a weak looser compared to Melkor(Morgoth). As far as I remember even Beren and Luthien(maybe with the help of Finrod Felegund and Huan) were able to kick his butt.

[IrishCanadian]

A lot of people said Iago. I disagree. This is an ongoing battle in my family (between myself and everyone) I don't think that he is a good villian at all. I was actually quite dissapointed with the play Othello. Othello is made out to be such a powerful and heroic wonderful figure in the beginning but it doesn't take much to wittle him down. If you really examine what Iago does to him ... just a little too much trust and a lie or two completely destroy the perfect hero. Some kind of perfect hero! Then Iago himself ... has no motive! well sure he is jealous etc, possibly racist etc, but but he hates the moor for no reason. I just don't get it.

[Idril]

Yes, Sauron is just a weak looser compared to Melkor(Morgoth). As far as I remember even Beren and Luthien(maybe with the help of Finrod Felegund and Huan) were able to kick his butt.

Well, Luthien kicked his butt, Beren just sat back and let his girlfriend do all the work, as usual. ;) ...and of course, Finrod and Huan did help a little as well, Beren was probably in a swoon somewhere, he seemed to do that a lot. :p

[Boris239]

Well, Luthien kicked his butt, Beren just sat back and let his girlfriend do all the work, as usual. ;) ...and of course, Finrod and Huan did help a little as well, Beren was probably in a swoon somewhere, he seemed to do that a lot. :p

I always liked Turin Turambar more than Beren- he is well more human and independent.

[Idril]

I always liked Turin Turambar more than Beren- he is well more human and independent.

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly! I never understood why Beren became such a hero...riding the coat tails of his girlfriend again. :p Turin didn't need anyone fighting his battles for him no matter how big the foe...of course he dies and Beren goes on to live a long happy life but still, at least he can feel good about himself. ;)

[Boris239]

Stupid elves didn't understand who the real heroes are! :p

[Idril]

Stupid elves didn't understand who the real heroes are! :p

The Elves are stupid, stupid and boring. ;) Except for the bad elves, Fëanor was awesome! Hey, and that brings us back to the topic of the thread, great villians, that was pretty slick. :lol:

[superunknown]

Iago is amazing. When you look at his interactions with all the other characters, he deceives everyone - and I mean EVERYONE. There isn't a single character in the play that Iago doesn't shamelessly and masterfully manipulate.

Falstaff is also great. When you look at him he's really as deceitful, as debased, and as evil as Edmund or Iago, except he's such a funny tub of lard that you can't help but like him. It's interesting how Shakespeare makes someone who is inherently evil one of his most popular and enduring characters.

[genghiskhan]

The Grinch, from How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

I think you all know why. :thumbs_up

[Ryduce]

In that case,the Once-ler from The Lorax.


He just didn't care about those Brown Bar-ba-loots
frisking about in their Bar-ba-loot suits. :bawling: :bawling: :bawling: :bawling: :bawling:

[Woland]

Probably Iago from Othello. Ill say nothing about my reasons. :D

[Pendragon]

Oh, if you think Sauron is bad, you should see his "Master", Morgoth from The Silmarillion, he was even more badass than that wimp, Sauron. ;)Yes. I've read the book. He was supposed to have created the Balrogs, no? But once defeated, he remained disposed of rather than return. Sauron was harder to handle. Defeat him once, then he returns as the Necromancer in Mirkwood, before reclaiming Mordor. And seduces a Wizard, Saurman, and one of Aragorn's kin in Gondor, Denathor, neither of which was easy to do. Subtility works where force of evil cannot.

[Idril]

Yes. I've read the book. He was supposed to have created the Balrogs, no? But once defeated, he remained disposed of rather than return. Sauron was harder to handle. Defeat him once, then he returns as the Necromancer in Mirkwood, before reclaiming Mordor. And seduces a Wizard, Saurman, and one of Aragorn's kin in Gondor, Denathor, neither of which was easy to do. Subtility works where force of evil cannot.

Those are good points but I think it's important to remember that Melkor and Saruon weren't fighting the same people. It took the Vala to dispose of Melkor/Morgoth, Sauron's enemies weren't quite so powerful. The Elves and Men tried to deal with Melkor/Morgoth on their own and they weren't able to defeat him so they called in the big guns and the resulting war completely destroyed the Middle Earth of that time, because of that war, the half of ME fell into the ocean Valinor was hidden, it was a fairly cataclysmic deal. Sauron, while very powerful and vile himself, didn't carry that kind of weight, the Vala stayed out of it and let the masses deal with him. I suppose you can say they intervened in that they sent the Wizards but that was a far as they were willing to go. So even though Morgoth was finally and permanently conquered, I still think he was the more powerful of the two, he was Vala after all and Sauron was only a Maia. :lol:

[Cristina]

Iago is amazing. When you look at his interactions with all the other characters, he deceives everyone - and I mean EVERYONE. There isn't a single character in the play that Iago doesn't shamelessly and masterfully manipulate.

Falstaff is also great. When you look at him he's really as deceitful, as debased, and as evil as Edmund or Iago, except he's such a funny tub of lard that you can't help but like him. It's interesting how Shakespeare makes someone who is inherently evil one of his most popular and enduring characters.

Yo I totally agree with Iago I accually thought Iago when I read villan on the thread title but Falstaff? He's no more a villan that Hal when you think about it. Hal betrays him after he risks everything to go see Hal assuming that Hal will help him out and he denies knowing him, calls him an old man, and wants him to become someone he's notafter Falstaff took Hal under his wing for the past few years. Granted Falstaff isn't honerable but so many of the honerable guys in that play are fools who die for honor when they could have taken a bit of shame and lived another day to do good. Falstaff's just true to himself and doesn't try to be like the other honorable baffoons who try to pretend to be good and are not true to themselves.

[Pendragon]

Those are good points but I think it's important to remember that Melkor and Saruon weren't fighting the same people. It took the Vala to dispose of Melkor/Morgoth, Sauron's enemies weren't quite so powerful. The Elves and Men tried to deal with Melkor/Morgoth on their own and they weren't able to defeat him so they called in the big guns and the resulting war completely destroyed the Middle Earth of that time, because of that war, the half of ME fell into the ocean Valinor was hidden, it was a fairly cataclysmic deal. Sauron, while very powerful and vile himself, didn't carry that kind of weight, the Vala stayed out of it and let the masses deal with him. I suppose you can say they intervened in that they sent the Wizards but that was a far as they were willing to go. So even though Morgoth was finally and permanently conquered, I still think he was the more powerful of the two, he was Vala after all and Sauron was only a Maia. :lol:
I concede the point. After all, when the Balrog comes in Moria, Gandalf tells them that since it was created by Morgoth it is beyond any of them. Defeating it kills Gandalf, who is sent back to help finish the war agaiinst Sauron, and when he returns he says none of them have a weapon that would hurt him now. So I must assume The Vala have been instrumental in his return. I think it's the cunning of Sauron, how he deceives and plans that makes him the foe I like. From the first forging of The Rings of Power to the Final Battle, his deception is what comes through the most.

[Idril]

I think it's the cunning of Sauron, how he deceives and plans that makes him the foe I like. From the first forging of The Rings of Power to the Final Battle, his deception is what comes through the most.

Oh, I certainly agree that Sauron was the sneakier of the two, Morgoth was fairly open in his defiance. I think maybe it was because Sauron knew he'd have to work a little harder, he didn't have quite the power of Morgoth so he had to go about it in different ways and in the end, he probably did do more damage, well, other than the cataclysmic destruction of Beleriand but you know what I mean. ;)

[rocktheworld]

My fav villians are Iago from Shakespeare's "Othello". I love the way Iago is just full of motiveless malignity. Well ok, not motiveless, but what he does doesnt justify his motives.
Javert from "Les Miserables", I dont know why. Maybe its because he seems so patriotic and patriotism makes me laugh.
Lestat from "Interview with a Vampire", because I love the way that there is not a speck of humanity in him, even at the end when there seems to be, there isnt. I just think hes so awesome.

[Boris239]

My fav villians are Iago from Shakespeare's "Othello". I love the way Iago is just full of motiveless malignity. Well ok, not motiveless, but what he does doesnt justify his motives.
Javert from "Les Miserables", I dont know why. Maybe its because he seems so patriotic and patriotism makes me laugh.
Lestat from "Interview with a Vampire", because I love the way that there is not a speck of humanity in him, even at the end when there seems to be, there isnt. I just think hes so awesome.
I would't call Javert exactly a villain. And if patriotism just makes you laugh, it's pretty sad. Yes, of course there is a fraze that "Patriotism is a last refuge of a scoundrel", but let's say reading about the people who were ready to die to save your country and only laughing at them doesn't work for me. For example when Russia celebrates victory in the Second World war, I who is antiStalin, anticommunist, etc., I who realize that the victory could be achieved much easier and without so many victims, I who doesn't understand how people were running into the battle shouting "for Stalin"- I would never laugh at Russian soldiers who gave their life for their country.

[water lily]

I think Captain Hook has to be my favourite villain (and I am most definitly referring to the book and not to the movie: disney slaughtered his true character. In the book youo get inside his head and it is a surprisingly delightful and funny experience. Good Form Hook!)

[angeltrick]

I was thinking of who id call a villian and remembering the film i have already mentioned i notion Hatsumomo (the vicious queen bee) of film,the actress played her very well as the bully to Ziyi Zhang (the innocent child heroin). The film shows Ziyi sold by her family to a Ochaya house. Here she learns how to becoma a Geisha(traditional japanease dancer) you watch her as she growns. Hatsumomo is the queen Geisha and sees a future rival in young Ziyi.She goes out of her way to throw touch challenges to sweet Ziyi.Compeling film.

[chaplin]

I know that this is a forgotten thread, a forgotten page. Yet I must yell even if that shout only dissipates and dissapears the moment it sounds through the emptiness of obscurity. But yell I must. Dostoevsky is not the writer or novelist that you think he is! Read Crime and Punishment twice and I think you will agree with me. Everything you thought you loved or did love in your first reading will immediately appear gray, vexingly one-dimensional, and not at all compelling. Is Dostoevsky a bad writer? No, he is not. Are his numerous lauds and blind worship deserved? No, they are not. I shall here quote a writer that is obscured in Dostoevsky's unwaranntedly lofty shadow: Chekhov. (And there are others he has pushed down on his unjustifed climbing of literature's ladder, e.g. Gogol, and even Tolstoy) Chekhov says of Dostoevsky, after first reading him as late as his thirties: Talented, but long and immodest. Too pretentious.
Yes, Anton Pavlovich, your words are true and are, as always, said with your modest, unpretentious bearing. I do not shout "Down with Dostoevsky!", rather proclaim "Make way for the rise of the better! The ascent of Chekhov, Tolstoy and Gogol has and will come!"

[JBI]

I know that this is a forgotten thread, a forgotten page. Yet I must yell even if that shout only dissipates and dissapears the moment it sounds through the emptiness of obscurity. But yell I must. Dostoevsky is not the writer or novelist that you think he is! Read Crime and Punishment twice and I think you will agree with me. Everything you thought you loved or did love in your first reading will immediately appear gray, vexingly one-dimensional, and not at all compelling. Is Dostoevsky a bad writer? No, he is not. Are his numerous lauds and blind worship deserved? No, they are not. I shall here quote a writer that is obscured in Dostoevsky's unwaranntedly lofty shadow: Chekhov. (And there are others he has pushed down on his unjustifed climbing of literature's ladder, e.g. Gogol, and even Tolstoy) Chekhov says of Dostoevsky, after first reading him as late as his thirties: Talented, but long and immodest. Too pretentious.
Yes, Anton Pavlovich, your words are true and are, as always, said with your modest, unpretentious bearing. I do not shout "Down with Dostoevsky!", rather proclaim "Make way for the rise of the better! The ascent of Chekhov, Tolstoy and Gogol has and will come!"

Tolstoy wrote to Chekhov saying "You know I hate Shakespeare's plays, but I hate yours even more." Voltaire as well highly criticized Shakespeare, does that mean Shakespeare was a bad writer? God no, it means that Voltaire, and Tolstoy, and 90% of kids who go through high school just didn't like Shakespeare. You saying you didn't like Crime and Punishment the second time around doesn't mean it's a bad book, it just means that you didn't like it as much, or that you don't like the book in general.

I think I know that Dostoevsky is the novelist I think he is; after all, I have read his books. Just because someone else doesn't like his literature, doesn't mean that I shouldn't. I respect your judgment of Dostoevsky, but the bold was not needed.

[Jane's Nemesis]

Les Miserables maybe?

I also would nominate Wuthering Heights and The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. As for Trollope, The Way We Live Now would be a good one to look at. Perfume is a good one as well.

[bazarov]

I know that this is a forgotten thread, a forgotten page. Yet I must yell even if that shout only dissipates and dissapears the moment it sounds through the emptiness of obscurity. But yell I must. Dostoevsky is not the writer or novelist that you think he is! Read Crime and Punishment twice and I think you will agree with me. Everything you thought you loved or did love in your first reading will immediately appear gray, vexingly one-dimensional, and not at all compelling. Is Dostoevsky a bad writer? No, he is not. Are his numerous lauds and blind worship deserved? No, they are not. I shall here quote a writer that is obscured in Dostoevsky's unwaranntedly lofty shadow: Chekhov. (And there are others he has pushed down on his unjustifed climbing of literature's ladder, e.g. Gogol, and even Tolstoy) Chekhov says of Dostoevsky, after first reading him as late as his thirties: Talented, but long and immodest. Too pretentious.
Yes, Anton Pavlovich, your words are true and are, as always, said with your modest, unpretentious bearing. I do not shout "Down with Dostoevsky!", rather proclaim "Make way for the rise of the better! The ascent of Chekhov, Tolstoy and Gogol has and will come!"

150 years was enough for readers to decide who is better. Obviously, it wasn't either Chekhov or Gogol...

[Quagmire]

I need help on finding examples of villains


For my final research paper I would greatly appreciate help on the subject.
I'm having a lot of difficulty finding out any specific information about villains in early literature

I have a list of characteristics of villains, but I have dont have solid evidence/examples of their characteristics


I'll add to my list shortly, but I need to go tutor



Thanks for your help =]
!! Please, add whatever is your favorite villain and why. Whats special about them?

[Mr Endon]

A very ambitious enterprise, good luck!

My favourite villains are probably MacCruiskeen and Pluck in The Third Policeman. Just as there are anti-heros, these are anti-villains. Described physically in a most menacing fashion, they are ridiculously polite, obsequious, helpful and generally very likable, and yet they manage to make that compatible with their cruelty and arbitrary judgement.

The villain in The Trial is also great, and scarier than most: it's a system, not an individual whom you can focus your hatred in. You might say it shouldn't count as a villain, and indeed it's the very lack of a conventional villain that makes reading it so frustrating.

[Wilde woman]

A lot of villains in medieval literature are either monsters (like Grendel and Grendel's mother in Beowulf or Satanic (sometimes Satan himself). Sometimes they'll have satanic qualities like being traitorous (Mordred in the King Arthur legends) or have dark powers (like witches). And often, you can recognize a villain from his/her physical appearance; they'll often be physically deformed to reflect their twisted morality.

[amarna]

In medieval literature sometimes members of "unclean" professions were portrayed as villains. In Canterbury Tales millers are really nasty guys stealing grain and molesting women.

[mtpspur]

I was thinking of Loki, God of Evil from the Norse myths if I may recommend one. Pretty much brought on the twilight of the gods.

[librarius_qui]

I vaguely remember a Charmides person, out of a play by a Roman author called Maccius Plautus, the play's title is "Rudens", in Latin. if you google it, you'll find it easy translated versions to English.

This made me think that probably Shakespeare has villains? (I don't recollect, cause I haven't read much of Shakespeare yet. There will be the day. Someone might help, and give an idea?)

There's Gollum (The Hobbit/The Lord of the Rings) as one sort of villain. Gollum is one sort of villain that is quite interesting, because it's a villain "with reason" (or with a story). He isn't simply evil. He's corrupted by many a circumstance.

(Which is what George Lucas tried to make with Darth Vader. In movies, there are Darth Vader, the best villain ever!, and there's Cap. Barbossa, and Davy Jones, in Pirates of the Caribbean, but it isn't common literature ... It's cinema.)

There's -- what is common in literature -- the "unknown villain", that is, the villain in mystery books, which are only discovered in the end. (That is the case of common detective novels, but of U. Eco's The Name of the Rose, as well ...)

I hope you can have some ideas from this, as well as other people share what come to their minds instantly, as well

Good luck!~

[amarna]

Raskolnikov in Dostoyewsky's "Crime and Punishment" and Stavrogin in "The Possessed", misled by nihilism and arbitrarily killing people.

[kelby_lake]

Read Othello

[PoeticPassions]

Yes, Othello is great.

Iago is one of the best villains... his motivations are always unclear, or ambiguous. I used to despise Iago in every way (after reading Othello several times and all that) until I saw a play done by a Shakespeare company called "Othello: An Erotic Thriller." The actor who played Iago stole the show... he was sooooo terriffic that in the end I discovered something new about Iago. Everything seemed to make sense. His motivations became more clear, and he seemed so much more human.

I also love Milton's Satan. I see him more as the hero (or anti-hero if you will), but he is definitely one of the most eloquent and poetic of villains.

[BienvenuJDC]

Javert (of Les Miserables by Hugo) is an excellent antagonist...but since he is a part of the system, he is the symbol of legalistic "virtue". He is against grace and compassion, but the "law" which is to bring about justice...therefore, Justice becomes villainous.

[Quagmire]

Great villains guys, I have most of those on my list to try to include into my paper.
Heres one that I'm surprised no one has said yet, Hannibal Lecter. One thing though, I havent read the book so I cant say too much about him =[

[Mr Endon]

Many of the villains that have been mentioned here are actually anti-heros, which I think it's quite different.
You should probably address that issue in your paper as well.

[PeterL]

If you will be mentioning Hannibal Lector, you might also want to mention Rudy von Sternberg.

[Quagmire]

evil villain

[Dark Muse]

There has been a lot of talk about Heroes around here lately, but one of the things which makes heroes so interesting is their adversaries, so what about showing some villain love?

Who are your favorite villains from either mythology, or a work of literature of any type (epic, novel, play etc..) or any time period?

By "favorite" I am breaking this up into two different categories.

Category A is for those villains whom even though you know they are supposed to be the bad guy, you can't help liking them anyway, and perhaps being sympathetic towards them.

Category B is for villains who are just so brilliantly evil and loathsome they make your skin crawl.

Though not necessary a brief explanation for your choice would be appreciated, also it would be appreciated if you do include the name of the work they came from.

[lichtrausch]

I'm gonna go with Darth Vader, from the modern myth called Star Wars.

[clguerra]

From Category A the monster from Watchers by Dean Koontz because of how you perceive its feelings

from Category B it would be President Snow from the Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins.

[Dark Muse]

For me Category A might prove to be quite extensive, yes it is true I do have a tendency towards villains, but I will keep it, to those which first and foremost come to mind. Though I may add to it as I proceed.

First and foremost for me is Medusa from Greek Mythology. She is supposed to be this terrifying horrible monster, but I feel she was unjustly treated and I have always sympathized with her and felt there was no just cause for her slaying which was done purely for Peruses' own self-serving desires.

Next is Clytemnestra from Orestes, though classically she is meant to be the villain of the story, I personally see her as more of a tragic hero figure. I could not help but to find her an extremely powerful woman and living in such a patriarchal age, in spite of the questionable morals of killing her husband, I admired her strength and making a stand for herself against the social norms which oppressed her, and recognizing the double standards.

And of course Dracula from Bram Stoker's Dracula, though of course I knew that the good guys would win in the end, I admit that I found it a bit sad when Dracula was eventually killed. Yeah I just have a thing for vampires.

Ahh, I almost forget, Rebecca, from du Maurier's Rebecca, though we only see her though the eyes of others, and perhaps because of the fact that we only see her though the eyes of others, as well perhaps because I found the narrator of the story to be quite annoying, I began to feel a certain sympathy for her. I think part of the reason I am drawn to her is because in the fact that she is already dead, and cannot speak for herself, she does become a sort of underdog and we only see her though the eyes of those biased against her.

For Category B:

The first name which jumped into my head was Milady from The Three Musketeers. Through the whole story I just wanted her to die, I thought she was completely horrid and I could not withstand her. She was truly a vile woman. And of course going along with that, is her son from Twenty Years After.

[sixsmith]

Category A:

Iago: Othello - Bill Shakespeare
Aaron: Titus Andronicus - Bill Shakespeare
The Judge: Blood Meridian - Cormac McCarthy
Steerpike: Titus Groan - Mervyn Peake

Category B:

O'Brien: 1984 - George Orwell
Bill Sikes: Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens
Lee Harvey Oswald: Libra - Don De Lillo
Kurtz: Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad
Marlowe Stanfield: The Wire

[Dark Muse]

Oh yeah, how could I not think of the judge, I just finished that book LOL, though for me he would be a Catagory B.

[kelby_lake]

Next is Clytemnestra from Orestes, though classically she is meant to be the villain of the story, I personally see her as more of a tragic hero figure. I could not help but to find her an extremely powerful woman and living in such a patriarchal age, in spite of the questionable morals of killing her husband, I admired her strength and making a stand for herself against the social norms which oppressed her, and recognizing the double standards.


Love Clytemnestra. Girl power!

[Lokasenna]

Category A:

Well, Ahab from Moby Dick leaps immediately to mind - the sheer foce of his personality makes him as compelling to the reader as he is to the sailors.
Miss Havisham from Great Expectations is also wonderfully characterised - though she does a great deal of harm, you can understand her motivations. The Phantom of the Opera has a similar gig going.

Category B:

Now for my favourite: the complete monsters. As she is one of my favourite characters ever, and I always want to promote her, there is the perennial villain of the Icelandic sagas: Queen Gunnhildr konungamóðir ('mother-of-kings'). Appearing in more sagas than any other single human character, she is a beautiful, ruthless man-hunter with a very casual approach to homicide; she's also a powerful enchantress, an adept politician, and a seducer par excellence.
In a similar vein, you have the equally delectable Milady de Winter from The Three Musketeers. Finally, to add some male figures to the great pantheon of evil, I'll have to go for Shakespeare's Iago and Richard III.

[papayahed]

Catergory A: Hannibal Lecter - He's so suave and debonair, who wouldn't want to spend an evening with him?

[kelby_lake]

Category B- Humbert Humbert

[Wilde woman]

Category A:
Bertha Mason from Jane Eyre (and no, not because of Wide Sargasso Sea)
Lord Henry from Dorian Gray
Oedipus
Leontes from Winter's Tale (though he's arguably not a villain?)
Grendel

Category B:
Moriarty
Abigail Williams from the Crucible. I really really hate her.
Lorenzo from the Spanish Tragedy


Hmmm, I can't decide where Heathcliff goes. A year ago, I would've put him in Category A, but more recently I've had less and less sympathy for him.

[Silas Thorne]

Category A: Hannibal Lecter, Frankenstein's Monster, Grendel, Smeagol, nearly all the pirates from Treasure Island (they don't really know any other way to live), many others I can't remember, Lucifer 'Paradise Lost', Cao Cao 'Three Kingdoms Romance', Yang Kang 'Legend of the Condor Heroes' by Louis Cha, Ouyang Feng 'Legend of the Condor Heroes', most of the gangsters in 'The Godfather'

Category B: Milady 'Three Musketeers'. I'm sure there are many others which don't immediately come to mind.

[JBI]

Category A: Hannibal Lecter, Frankenstein's Monster, Grendel, Smeagol, nearly all the pirates from Treasure Island (they don't really know any other way to live), many others I can't remember, Lucifer 'Paradise Lost', Cao Cao 'Three Kingdoms Romance', Yang Kang 'Legend of the Condor Heroes' by Louis Cha, Ouyang Feng 'Legend of the Condor Heroes', most of the gangsters in 'The Godfather'

Category B: Milady 'Three Musketeers'. I'm sure there are many others which don't immediately come to mind.

Hmm, I do not know if you assessment of Ouyang Feng or Yang Kang as dynamic or tragic-heroic. Perhaps in the third edition they were given more colour as characters, but the early Yang Kang, right through the second edition is rather one-dimensionally evil. In television he seems to be treated a little better because of his rather weak characterization in the novel, but the original conception I find of Yang Kang is in keeping with Jin Yong's early Sinocentrism - that is, you take two characters from essentially the same background, and you raise them in different spots, one with a "Confucian" mother, and simple nomads, and one raised by a "barbarian" father, and you end up with two different trajectories - one upon entrance into his "Chinese heritage" absorbs it, and accepts it, thereby forgoing his upbringing in keeping with his birthright, whereas the other rejects it. Nothing in the novel ever suggests to me any non-selfish act by the character, down to his last breath.

As for Ouyang Feng, to me that character reads as a comical ploy rather than much of a character. Here is there to balance off the righteous with the foil of the selfish - conveniently, he also is a "western barbarian." But on the whole he seems more dynamic than the rather minimal Yang Kang, whose role in the novel is quite minimal compared the television adaptations (They seem to make him an actual character, but in truth, Mu Nianci appears more than he does, and Ouyang Ke is more a central character than the two of them).

The only real dynamic hero, this is, up until the second edition of the text, in my eyes would be Genghis Kahn who seems to struggle with his sense of honor, value, and identity as "barbarian" within an ethnically biased novel.

Then again, Jin Yong at this point in his career wasn't much into complex characterization, so I would wager very few characters ever make it past card-board cut-out swordsmen. It really isn't until his next novel where he actually begins to cloud the distinction between good and bad on a level that effects the main characters in my eyes.

Sorry to go off on a tangent though, since I realize you were just naming names, but it is so rare that Jin Yong is mentioned on these boards, that perhaps a discussion would be interesting, despite 射雕英雄传 still being unavailable in English translation (though I read somewhere that one is pending).

[bluelight2]

wow:) (http://www.squidoo.com/liposuction-tummy-tuck-plastic-surgery-piittsburgh-)
:) (http://www.zimbio.com/Plastic+Surgery/articles/7tkx7RZ_mRj/Tummy+tuck+Lipostion+Pittsburgh+area)

like it:) (http://johnbzu5ke.livejournal.com/838.html)
:) (http://pete7hxwha.insanejournal.com/)
:) (http://markyxovan.blog.com/)
:) (http://plasticsurgeries-pitt.blogspot.com/)

[Silas Thorne]

JBI, you are probably right. Here's where I admit that I haven't read these Chinese books in their entirety, and am largely basing my opinions on the TV series depiction of them and the parts that I have read. ;) But Mei Chaofeng in this 'Legend of the Condor Heroes' is a villain we can feel sympathy for, isn't she?

[JBI]

JBI, you are probably right. Here's where I admit that I haven't read these Chinese books in their entirety, and am largely basing my opinions on the TV series depiction of them and the parts that I have read. ;) But Mei Chaofeng in this 'Legend of the Condor Heroes' is a villain we can feel sympathy for, isn't she?

She is supposed to be. In the first edition she is a "redeemed" villain, but not exactly so interesting, whereas she is given much more backstory in the second edition, and then even more so (supposedly) in the third edition.

She however isn't so cut and paste - definitely more dynamic than the main hero, Guo Jing, but even so, she starts off as a horrific villain, and only moves toward forgiveness toward the end of her life.

As a character she seems to function as the darker aspect of her associative compliment, Huang Yaoshi, in that she represents the evil most people would see in him - embodied in his disciple, the crazy murdering witch.

He on the other hand is far more complex, and seems by the end to be shown in a rather favorable light (perhaps a change of heart within the serialization?)
whereas she dies off, but is ultimately forgiven.

For a more interesting villain in the text, I think, one must turn to the villains outside of the martial world, and into the political world - Wanyan Honglie, and Genghis Kahn, who both offer interesting insights into the real idea of heroic, and right and wrong.

Even so though, Chinese fiction traditionally blurs right and wrong more than Western fiction. The whole idea of what is right, and what is wrong, is what is discussed, given that there is no divine framework or code by which to follow - the heroes themselves must decide what is right and wrong, and ultimately that is the climax of the book. The final chapters basically are didactic in their preaching, something which Jin Yong sought to undermine in his later novels, where he reversed his own didactic message in favor of a new, less jingoist, and more skeptical and cynical politics.

[Seasider]

@Dark Muse
There is a splendid poem about Medusa by Carol Ann Duffy in her collection The World's Wife. She clearly feels as you do.
I was going to post it but c&p doesn't work on this board. You can Google it though.
Category A
Satan Paradise Lost
Category B.Iago from Othello
Uriah Heep from David Copperfield

[YesNo]

For category B villains, there is the driver in Quentin Tarentino's Deathproof who delightfully gets his head kicked in in the end. Also the South African embassy workers in Leathal Weapon II, especially the one who gets his head slammed repeatedly by Mel Gibson in the car door after Gibson finds his girlfriend drowned, would be another. And there is that general or sergeant in James Cameron's Avatar who wants to destroy home tree so he can get back in time to enjoy his supper.

For category A, most of the villains that I'm aware of in the Bhagavatam stories would qualify. They all seem to be reincarnations of devotees of Vishnu, which is the point, I suspect. But I've only read the ones translated by Amal Bhakta. It makes me wonder about my choices for category B.

[Dark Muse]

@Dark Muse
There is a splendid poem about Medusa by Carol Ann Duffy in her collection The World's Wife. She clearly feels as you do.
I was going to post it but c&p doesn't work on this board. You can Google it though.
Category A
Satan Paradise Lost
Category B.Iago from Othello
Uriah Heep from David Copperfield

That sounds interesting I will have to look it up!

[kelby_lake]

Category A:
Bertha Mason from Jane Eyre (and no, not because of Wide Sargasso Sea)
Lord Henry from Dorian Gray
Oedipus
Leontes from Winter's Tale (though he's arguably not a villain?)
Grendel


I wouldn't call Leontes a villain. He does genuinely seem to be jealous, even if there is no reason for it.

[Wilde woman]

I wouldn't call Leontes a villain. He does genuinely seem to be jealous, even if there is no reason for it.

I would argue he's a villain figure in the first half. Or, at least, his madness is driving him into an antagonistic position. He's put into opposition against his entire court, Bohemia, even Apollo's oracle at Delphi.

Also, for Category B: Javert from Les Miserables. How could I forget him?

[JBI]

To be honest, in Shakespeare I do not think there are villains. Each character seems justifiable in their own understanding of their emotions, to the point where such categorizations really fail. Even Don John in Much Ado About Nothing, or Edmund in King Lear - all justifiable within their own conceptualization of the world in regard to them.

[Lokasenna]

To be honest, in Shakespeare I do not think there are villains. Each character seems justifiable in their own understanding of their emotions, to the point where such categorizations really fail. Even Don John in Much Ado About Nothing, or Edmund in King Lear - all justifiable within their own conceptualization of the world in regard to them.

I think that's a hard case to make for the likes of Aaron, Iago and Richard III...

[JBI]

I think that's a hard case to make for the likes of Aaron, Iago and Richard III...

Iago is the only difficult one, but at the same time, he doesn't strike me as a Villain, just because we are reading his point of view, he is in the hero position, it has been argued. That is the problem with the play - he is victorious in his endeavor - the play is about his feat, not Othello's - his quest for destruction is the centre of the play, we are awaiting to see him succeed.

Same with Macbeth, he is not a villain, though vile. That is a problem I guess for such categorization.

[kelby_lake]

Richard III has his reasons, doesn't he?

[JBI]

Richard III has his reasons, doesn't he?

The disturbed quality of being brilliant but deformed.

[inbetween]

catigory A (and I not only sympasise with them .... )
first of all Count Dracular (don't really wanto to know what Freud would say concerning my exitement when thinking of beeing bitten... and bite myself whatsoever)
then the one I coul fall for Heathcliff (I'd cast Jonny Depp if I was asked...)
furthermore Sweeney Todd (no matte what version)
there are probably more ... all those vampire like men...

category B
Judje Turpin (Allan Rickman made him come to life in such a disgusting way... real good job)
who else... well perhaps there'll be some more coming to my minde later on...

[JuniperWoolf]

I love villains, a lot more than heroes. My favorite is Crake, but I also like Hannibal Lecter, Iago (if one classifies him as villian), Medea...

OH!!! Satan from Paradise Lost is actually my favorite favorite.

[inbetween]

yeah.. villians are well.. dunno I feel the same about them.. as long as I can remember I've always bin on their side... always bin on the side of the dragons as well ... perhaps because the bad once are appear stronger or because someone entirely good is too surreal because however hard you try to escape by reading you actually always search the mechanisms of reality just in other worlds and stories... the rules remain the same... and the bad once are those who do what we don't dare to do but always wish... perhaps adoring the bad once keeps us from doing those things ourselves and so indulge to the imp of pervers (as poe puts it) .
dunno, I'm afraid I'm not really making a point here ... I'm rather raving or something, sorry for being so vague but perhaps you can make something of it....

[Seasider]

Isn't one of the problems how to make good people interesting? The only way is to pit them against a villain and hope they come out on top. Heroism needs Villainy if it is to be noticed.

[Pensive]

Madame Defarge.
Not sure which category to put her into though....

[cacian]

your favourite and why?

[kelby_lake]

This is an interesting thread :)