Heroes and Villains I: Resentful Mediocrities

Some of the most dangerous people in human history have been those who nurse terrible grudges and have the power to inflict their own psychological pain onto the world at large. Us writers and fans of fiction like to discuss whether villains in a given work are “realistic” or not. The bulk of this assessment has to do with a given villain’s motivation: if the reason for evil actions is not believable, then audiences won’t take the story as seriously as the writer intended.

There is a common cliché stating that a villain does not think of himself as the bad guy. This is, generally, an accurate assessment that is true to life. Did Adolf Hitler think of himself as “the bad guy”? Did Josef Stalin? Mao Zedong? Osama bin Laden? Napoleon Bonaparte? Saladin? You get the idea.

Some actors throughout history—and fiction—are pure evil, and revel in the acts of destruction and death. Jeffrey Dahmer knew how screwed up and evil he was, but he still couldn’t stop eating his gay lovers.

This sort of evil, the reveling in bad for bad’s sake, might be described as “cartoon evil” versus some of the subtler kinds we see in everyday life. For the sake of fiction, cartoon evil works very well because writers and audiences like the drama heightened and exaggerated—it gives us a rush and can often be very fun. Further, when a villain is so evil, it makes their comeuppance all the sweeter.

What if, as a writer, you’re looking for a different angle? What if the proverbial mustache-twirling, tying-a-lovely-young-damsel-to-the-train-tracks type of antagonist just isn’t working out for you?

Glad you asked! Perhaps, if you’re looking for additional motivating factors for your villains, you could just take a look around these United States.

The State, which manufactures by dint of textbooks all these persons possessing diplomas, can only utilise a small number of them, and is forced to leave the others without employment. It is obliged in consequence to resign itself to feeding the first mentioned and to having the others as its enemies. From the top to the bottom of the social pyramid, from the humblest clerk to the professor and the prefect, the immense mass of persons boasting diplomas besiege the professions. While a business man has the greatest difficulty in finding an agent to represent him in the colonies, thousands of candidates solicit the most modest official posts. There are 20,000 schoolmasters and mistresses without employment in teh deparment of the Seine alone, all of them persons who, disdainign teh fields or the workshops, look to the State for their livelihood. The number of the chosen being restricted, that of the discontented is perforce immense. The latter are ready for any reovlution, whoever be its chiefs and whatever the goal they aim at. The acquisition of knowledge for which no use can be found is a sure method of driving a man to revolt.

Gustave le Bon, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind”

We have a glut of the overeducated with elite ambitions. They are not always elite material, but they sure are elitist.

You know the type: went to a “good” university; majored in something like political science or journalism; likely moved to Washington, D.C., or maybe New York City, with dreams of getting involved in media, electoral politics, or both; got a low-paying job at a “prestigious” think tank, or works for peanuts in some Congressman’s office; and has nothing but sneering contempt for the sort of people they ostensibly serve.

Furthermore, this type of individual always thinks that they are entitled to far more than they are given. Why? Because in all actuality, they got involved in government/politics/media because they, quite literally, weren’t good enough to do anything else.

Sure, this person might be bright. They might even have an objectively high IQ. However, their ambition exceeds their skills, and their work ethic may leave something to be desired. Further, for a multiplicity of reasons, be they family connections and wealth or favorable demographic trends, this person deep down might know that they really don’t deserve their position and didn’t actually earn it.

And it eats them up inside.

They have the “right” degree, but it’s useless. They know the stuff all “good” people are supposed to know, but nobody cares. Recognition and money aren’t coming their way, and it hurts. So this sort of person loves nothing more than to wield what power they do have over those they see as lesser. Or those who are actually excellent at a thing. And woe to them if it’s a thing the mediocrity has pretensions of excellence in.

This leads to all sorts of nasty outcomes.

It doesn’t take a stretch of imagination to graft this sort of person into a work of fiction; even fantasy or sci-fi would only take a small amount of tweaking. The resentful mediocrity is universal and eternal, and in the absence of places to channel their energy, they decide to take out their insecurities and neuroses on regular people.

Some call this “biological Leninism,” the idea that genetic losers, so to speak, want to restructure society so that they are actually the most attractive. Whatever you call it, the idea that resentful mediocrities attempt to bring society down to their level, or normalize whatever weird and deviant things they are into, instead of improving themselves, results in much villainy.

And this villainy can hit very close to home.

Enough about bad guys! How about next time we talk about heroes?

– Alexander

5 3 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Xavier Basora
Xavier Basora(@xavierbasora)
1 month ago

Alexander,

You’ve made an astute assessment about villains. If you look at it theologically: Sloth is just as important an element for villainy as the more obvious ones of anger, pride envy.
Why sloth? The villain refuses to put in the work to succeed. It takes hard work and lots of failures to succeed.

And it’s deeply frustrating to put in so much effort with minimal success while others breeze by. Worse, he squanders his talents in destroying than building. Precisely because of the frustration becoming resentment. Destroying isn’t just burning and looting, it also takes the form of acedia: a profound indifference to everything from life to traditions. So you can destroy by breaking the transmission of cultural capital.

So villains are the poor, misunderstood guys who never caught a break. No, they chose to be bad. They didn’t have the faith to persist or humility to ask for forgiveness when they fell. Each of the 7 capital sins played a role for them to go bad, and the bad guys willingly picked their path.

And happily.

Call it the Judas choice or the Lucifer path.

As you easily deduce, heroes are the opposite, but I’ll explain how in the next post.

xavier

Xavier Basora
Xavier Basora(@xavierbasora)
1 month ago

Alexander,

This is where DnD’s character alignment system can be very helpful in creating book characters. Imagine combining the 7 capital sins with that alignment system, you can generate different kinds of villains.

Sure, wrath and pride are always there, but they need not dominate. For example, you can use gluttony+pride+envy as the animating principles or lust+sloth+avarice and so on.

These unique combination would make for interesting villains.

xavier

Take a look at my books

Indie Aversion

Meet a new person and spend more than five minutes with them, and if they’re a musician—much like with vegans, crossfitters, atheists, and homosexuals—they’ll find

Read More »

Writing Advice

“All right, men: we’re down by 5 with ninety seconds left. You know what to do.” Power forward Reginald Perkins, number 11, raises two fingers.

Read More »

Point B

A wave of early evening tiredness overcame me, and I began to dream. . . * * * Squid Game. The Hunger Games. The Most

Read More »