What about villains

[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.

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.