Should villains win more often in fiction?

[PsihoKekec]

I recall watching the movie Ransom and when the hero was writing the check to the villain I was actually rooting for the asshole to get away with it. He didn't.

Now I recalled the movie where villain did win. Chinatown. Boy did that one leave a bad taste, but it retrospect it did drive in the point that powerful, unscroupullus people can get away with anything. And probably the first popular media glimpse at the behind the curtains water fuckery in California.

 

[Deleted member]

Now I recalled the movie where villain did win. Chinatown. Boy did that one leave a bad taste, but it retrospect it did drive in the point that powerful, unscroupullus people can get away with anything. And probably the first popular media glimpse at the behind the curtains water fuckery in California.

A villain winning serving as a call to arms for action in real life is a valid reason for a villain to win, but that also means the movie is being written as propaganda, even if it's entertaining.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

Keep in mind, we don't just tell stories of epic deeds and heroism to entertain. We tell them to remind ourselves that we are capable of epic deeds and great heroism. We also tell stories to escape from a world where all too often the bad guys do win.

Villains winning really depends on how it fits into that framework. Are they a villain or an antihero? Does the audience emphasize with the 'bad guy,' the way they do in a heist story like The Great Train Robbery or The Italian Job? Is it a last stand like The Alamo or The Wild Bunch, where the heroes go down in a blaze of glory? Or The Usual Suspects, where the villain absolutely wins, but the audience gets some emotional satisfaction out of the con?

In short, does the audience get something out of the villain winning? Or is it just depressing?

 

[Navarro]

If you're going to use GOT as an example, contrast Roose and Ramsay Bolton. Roose was a conniving, ruthless git, but he had his limits, he generally had reasons for doing what he did, no matter how twisted it might seem to us.

Ramsay on the other hand was a petty minded, downright sadist. Even his father branded him as a 'mad dog'.

The real problem with show-Ramsay is that he was constantly handed victories by the writers, far above and beyond what he achieved in the books. Even after he lost his plot shields, his downfall was just as contrived as his rise to power.

 

[Deleted member]

The real problem with show-Ramsay is that he was constantly handed victories by the writers, far above and beyond what he achieved in the books. Even after he lost his plot shields, his downfall was just as contrived as his rise to power.

Exactly: His downfall was just as contrived as his rise, which made it all painful. There was no sense to any of it.

 

[Navarro]

Exactly: His downfall was just as contrived as his rise, which made it all painful. There was no sense to any of it.

What made it especially odd was that they seemed to imply the northern lords would betray him based on his tyrannical behaviour and cruel treatment of the Stark family, but it never paid off in any way.

 

[Deleted member]

What made it especially odd was that they seemed to imply the northern lords would betray him based on his tyrannical behaviour and cruel treatment of the Stark family, but it never paid off in any way.

Another dropped plot thread of GRRM’s, likely.

 

[Vargas Fan]

The real problem with show-Ramsay is that he was constantly handed victories by the writers, far above and beyond what he achieved in the books. Even after he lost his plot shields, his downfall was just as contrived as his rise to power.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make, it was more that Roose was evil, but he would do things with a reason. Ramsay was the type just to drown kittens for shits and giggles.

 

[Deleted member]

That wasn't the point I was trying to make, it was more that Roose was evil, but he would do things with a reason. Ramsay was the type just to drown kittens for shits and giggles.

In the books he is fairly clearly protrayed as a pathological serial killer and rapist of the classic type.

 

[Laskar]

Keep in mind, we don't just tell stories of epic deeds and heroism to entertain. We tell them to remind ourselves that we are capable of epic deeds and great heroism. We also tell stories to escape from a world where all too often the bad guys do win.

Villains winning really depends on how it fits into that framework. Are they a villain or an antihero? Does the audience emphasize with the 'bad guy,' the way they do in a heist story like The Great Train Robbery or The Italian Job? Is it a last stand like The Alamo or The Wild Bunch, where the heroes go down in a blaze of glory? Or The Usual Suspects, where the villain absolutely wins, but the audience gets some emotional satisfaction out of the con?

In short, does the audience get something out of the villain winning? Or is it just depressing?

Well, there's another kind of story we tell about heroes: the Tragedy. The hero falls and the villain wins because of a hero's fatal flaw. Where normal heroic stories exist to communicate our ideals, tragedies exist to warn us of the failures that can lead to our undoing.

Been a long time since I've read a good tragedy, though. I've seen Breaking Bad and House of Cards held up as modern tragedies, but those fall into the category of "Shitty people do shitty things to each other." A good, proper tragedy has a good character with a flaw. A tragic figure would be a caring, compassionate father who trusts the wrong person, or a brave soldier who will lie to cover up a superior's mistake. A single flaw should be the character's undoing, not the fact that he is amoral and self-serving at every turn.