Cassius, not that I like him, but he has some great lines.
Printable View
Cassius, not that I like him, but he has some great lines.
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.
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?
Macbeth
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.
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
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:
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
How about the Duke of Cornwall?
''Out, vile jelly! Where is thy lustre now?''
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SirStefan32
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arteum
If I compare those two to musicians, Edmund reminds me of Mozart's music, while Iago is more of a jazz/ blues improvizer.
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
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?
Is Sir John Falstaff a villian or he's more a comical personage?
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?
Caius Cassius
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.
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.
My favourite is Polonius, he is such a fool.
....Hamlet
Would you consider Hamlet a villain?Quote:
Originally Posted by BSturdy
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by mono
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!
*grins*Quote:
Originally Posted by BSturdy
That is a legitimate and acceptable reason...
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...........
Hands down, Richard III. He reeks of plotting villany.
"I'll marry her, but not for long" :goof: (sorry if I misquoted)
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:
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.
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.
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.