Villains

Everyone knows the villain don't they? The bad guy, that character in a narrative that provides the hero with a righteous cause to pursue.

But I've been thinking, something which, arguably I should not do, but which I did all the same. Name some villains and I can give you justifiable reasons why they're not as villainous as they may seem.
Think about it, don't they say "there are two sides to every story"? so why is the villains side always so pointlessly villainous. Take for example if you will the story of Cinderella. We're supposed to believe that this shrinking violet of a pretty young thing, Miss Cinders herself is viciously oppressed by her base, mean and needlessly cruel step sisters but, can any human being claim they have not bullied, picked on, or victimised an individual in the same way, whether it be in jest, or with malice? I know I have. I know I've treated some of my closest friends like dirt 'in jest' but, if I was to recant back some of the things I had done to others it would paint me as the bad guy! Those sisters were mean to her presumably because they were allowed to and they didn't like her all that much. Their motives for not liking her are entirely their own and, given that we know little of their backstory those reasons could be quite justifiable. Why then are we supposed to empathise more with Cinderella than her sisters, and root for her? Guilt? I don't think that is a strong enough motivator. I think most human beings are programmed with an inbuilt victim complex. We empathise with Cinderella because we all think we are her; whether you're a teenager being made to do chores, or a middle aged gent being leant on by the boss. The fact that, as complex characters, we display both the oppressed desire for better of Cinderella and the capacity for being mean of the so called 'ugly' sisters.

And that's another thing. These sisters have, for as long as I've known of this tale been known as the UGLY stepsisters...Could this constant reference to their physical appearance not provide justified attitude problems amongst them, especially when their daddy gets a new wife and she bears them a sister so beautiful she's apparently fit for a Prince (although, judging by Camilla...).

This also highlights the vagueness of the boundaries of what is heroic and what is villainous. During World War 2, the Allied troops the stormed the beaches of Normandy are almost always, without fail described as heroic. However, the young German individuals who fought both the weather and the stoic defence of the Russian army on the Eastern front are not generally mentioned as such. Neither side did anything braver than the other, it's just that the Allies won the war and it was discovered that Germany was committing gross atrocities against humanity. In the same way as we hear about the millions of Jews killed mercilessly by the Nazis, but surprisingly, post war less was heard of the communists also imprisoned, forced into labour camps and killed with the same merciless abandon. In the same way as the guys with the black caps and skulls are not considered heroic, so is it forgotten that communists were mindlessly persecuted along with Jews, arguably in not so high a number but certainly with the same gruesome methods and cold attitude.

Real life is far less black and white than fiction and yet politicians, press and others would usually have us believe it is. The current 'War on Terror' is based almost entirely on a Good vs Evil premise and yet, I am often left wondering who is truly Evil. When we revere the tale of David and Goliath; and yet our kevlar coated, armor plated, laser-guided, air-strike calling, cruise missiled troops are going against cloth wearing, AK-wielding mountain dwelling former farmhands, goat herders and regular joes, getting most of their high-tech equipment from the battlefield. We can claim, all we like that we're defending our way of life, but surely ze Germans said the same at some point between 1939 and 1945? They presumably thought that they were fighting for the right cause, as much as we do and, we have to ask ourself the question that Messers Mitchell and Webb theorised the Nazis asked...Are we the baddies? Yes, you could argue that the terrorist attacks on American and British shores were the childish 'you started it' factors, but surely that's the slingshot of David against our Goliath-like armed forces? Were they brutal and merciless attacks, yes, but could they retaliate with the same brute force that our comparatively rich nations could? no. Also, by letting the battlefield be on the enemies home turf, the collateral damage is almost all theirs (friendly fire incidents aside) which means that pound for pound our troops have probably ended more innocent lives than theirs did on our shores. If villains are the big guy going against the little guy then I hate to admit we are the baddies. But, again, life is not black and white like that.

And this is the problem with villainy. I cannot find a way to define it. Back when I used to smoke a little pot, my friends and I had a theory about Sonic the Hedgehog that blew apart the boundaries of hero/villain relationships. Imagine if Dr. Robotnik (or Eggman if you prefer) were just a regular Joe trying to get to work on time; and time after time, this bloody hedgehog keeps ruining his ride to work, so he has to come up with more and more elaborate methods of transportation, all of them increasingly fortified; up until a massive, imposing sky fortress. Yet day after day this sodding blue supersonic hedgehog keeps smashing his transport to pieces. We assume this scenario to be untrue since a) we play as sonic and are supposed to relate to the heroic actions of this character and b) the thinly woven plot tells us Robotnik is bad...But what if the thinly woven plot has missed a backstory that has escalated from Robotnik on his way to work in a Prius that was subsequently destroyed by this hedgehog to the stage he is generally at towards the beginning of the game, with his flying contraption with a particular weapon? What if the constant terrorism of this man's daily commute has led to his hatred, and imprisonment of animals, and subsequent desire to control the world? Is Robotnik still, then, a villain?

And what is with this habit of describing villains, particularly Shakespearean ones, as Machiavellian. Niccolò Machiavelli could be accused of many things (and was, leading to a dramatic fall from grace for him, despite his excellent experience as a statesmen and wide knowledge of the classics; and his ability to combine those two disciplines) but villainy, nor the encouragement of it, was certainly not one of them. In King Lear, for example, the character to whom Machiavellian Villainous characteristics are most often associated is Edmund. The bastard son of the Earl of Gloucester, he attempts to scheme his way to power by manipulation of many around him. However, his status as a bastard is never allowed to be forgotten. His father introduces him under the premise that he is a bastard and his mother was a whore. His half-brother, so full of modesty, and honesty, and chivalrous characteristics is almost universally regarded as the 'good guy' in the tale; however scheming bastard Edmund wrongly accuses him (deliberately, to cover his own back) of having plotted to kill their father. Subsequently, Edgar goes into hiding and disguises himself as Tom O' Bedlam, a mad-man begging for food. Now...I'll be honest, Edmund is very scheming, but all his ire, anger and desire to improve his standing comes from the fact that it has been denied him by circumstance (Rocky to Edgar's Apollo Creed if you well) yet, sneakily, Edgar (Who always comes across as a bit naive and, if you will, clueless. Why are we supposed to put this character on a pedestal when he is clearly just young, dumb and privileged) is canny enough to disguise himself as a madman, knowing full well that no one would suspect him of vulgarising himself so, that, my friends, is a very fucking Machiavellian plot from the man who would be king! For all of Edmund's faults, he, if written in another way, is our perfect anti-hero, as I said, he is Rocky, he is the underdog, and with this narrative written with his life in perspective his is a character it is easy to be sympathetic to. Privileged, revered and oh so fantastic legitimate Edgar is given the world on a plate...is it any wonder Edmund is bitter and, maybe a little, twisted? and should he be described as Machiavellian when Edgar's ploy is far more Machiavellian than any of the flawed-character exploitation Edmund partakes in. And let us not forget that Edmund does make a last ditch attempt to foil his own plans and save the lives of Lear and Cordelia. This is a supposed 'villain' we are talking about here.

Seriously. Heroism and villainy are not black and white; and it is for this reason that tolerance, and indeed tolerance of intolerance must be preached. Recently, I have seen posters, and stickers, and various other environmentally harmful and probably expensive advertising materials from Stonewall, the gay rights group preaching that "Some people are gay! Get used to it!".

Now let me state that I am not homophobic. But what I do fucking hate is intolerance. Is a belief in black and white. That there is a charity (That people donate significant amounts of money to! rather than those fighting poverty, trying to provide clean drinking water or assisting after natural disasters) preaching intolerance in the name of tolerance is an exceptional, expensive and bullshit double standard. "Some people are gay! Get used to it!" could easily be countered with a poster that says "Some people don't like gays! Get used to it!". There are no heroes, or villains on either side. Just opposing ideologies that both sides adhere to. The same situation can be applied to the war on terror, World Wars 1 and 2, to the Los Angeles Riots, the Poll Tax riots, The Russian Revolution, The American War of Independence...Any human conflict. There are always two sides; and there is invariably never a truly right one; only one that is right in context. So the next time someone is arguing over an issue, by all means, pick your side. But do so only if you truly understand the other.

Remember, as Mark Twain once said "Every man is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody."

D'ya like dags?

You know, Dags. Those little bundles of fluff so many of us love to love. Well, D'ya like dags...Or, dogs as they are more commonly known.

It seems a rather disproportionate amount of people do, indeed like dags. So much so that across the board of people who have pets, dogs are probably top of the heap. And you always hear the same reasons.

Well, I'm here to tell people, quite controversially...I do not like dogs. No, I will not provide you with an address to send me hate mail, I will, however, provide an excellent argument as to why, beginning with the reasons people love dogs.

1) They're so loyal!

Aww...how sweet your dog is hopelessly devoted to you huh!? But, due to their pack nature your dog would be limitlessly friendly and hopelessly loyal to anyone who beats it, feeds it, pays it attention or fucks it. They're pack animals, dogs will always follow the leader and if you happen to be the purveyor of fine foods and drinks then you are, without a doubt, the leader. Your dog doesn't love you, you just feed it. But, oh, you say, there have been cases of dogs helping their owners out in selfless acts of love! But you look me in the eye and tell me honestly if you had a man or woman who went out, did your grocery shopping, paid for it for you and prepared every meal for you and you found out they needed a fucking kidney or they would die, you honestly look me in the eye and tell me the first thing that would pop into your head wouldn't be "shit I'd better give em me kidney, who'll feed me otherwise!" Dogs are dumb pack animals. You don't believe me, I could prove it. Any of you give me your dog and I guarantee within a day of beatings it will be at my mercy, staring at me with hopeful glassy eyes and collecting my fucking mail.

2) They're so cute.

Wow, you must have incredibly bad eyesight because most breeds of dog are not cute. An Alsatian is not cute, it's fucking scary, and Dobermans just look like weapons. Besides which, breeds of dog are so twisted it is sick. What has happened is that so much sick breeding and inbreeding over thousands of years have rendered one species (YES, domestic dogs are all one species, Canis familiaris) to have multiple forms, most of which are not pretty. Sharpei dogs just look like someone has put googly eyes on a furry scrotum with legs, they're all wrinkle skinned and ugly, what the hell is wrong with those chihuahua rat things. Vainglorious society girls really dig those dogs, but there is something sinister and extraterrestrial about their appearance. And what the fuck is up with a pekingese! That is what happens when you take Dougal from The Magic Roundabout and smash his fucking face in. I mean, seriously people, what is up with you, as if our own British Royal Family was not a bad enough advert for inbreeding, you take an already ugly mutt and breed it with similar looking ugly mutts, possibly from the same litter until you have something with an appearance akin to the love child of Anne Widdicombe and Winston Churchill with it's faced pushed up against glass, that sounds like a pair of bellows farting when it breathes and suffers from so many underlying disorders that essentially what you have bred is a barely functioning handicapped inbred child that if it was the result of a human brother and sister, would have been aborted. And that example just happens to be our own Great British bulldog. Seriously, they're not cute.

and
3) It's better than a cat.

Oh...Oh oh no. You did not just say that did you...The Egyptians held cats in deified esteem for a reason, because cats just are superior. The same reasons I hate dogs is the same reasons I adore cats. For one thing, when a cat is loyal there is usually a reason. I have a cat and, to be fair I just took it in. I didn't go to a store to buy it, it turned up at my place skinny as a rake scrounging kebab. It looked a young cat, it was definitely underweight and it took a lot for me to gain it's trust. Number one reason why cats are great. A dog would take one snack and be licking peanut butter off your balls the next second. Cats take time. The other thing is that a properly trained cat doesn't need you. You know that when that cat comes around and jumps on your lap, it isn't there because it needs you, it is there because it wants to be. Back to the example of my cat, after gaining it's trust the first thing I did was play with it a lot, it was so skinny when it turned up at my house that it couldn't have been hunting and, probably wasn't all too good at it. A bit of playing later and boom, you've got rats on your doorstep. But this ultimately meant the cat was independent. It didn't need me to feed it, or look after it. It just liked the easy food and the attentive company. Cats are selfish and superior like that. In much the same way that a rich woman will have a housekeeper rather than do the chores herself. Cats are superior because they don't need humans, they just find us convenient. It is admirably selfish behaviour and a lot better than the doe eyed 'love' and 'loyalty' shown by man's supposed best friend the crotch-sniffing superbeing that is Canis familiaris.

This is not an off the cuff opinion. I have hated dogs for a long time. They smell, even when you've just bathed them. They drool, because, well, they're stupid, and the fact that human beings are so quick to attach emotion to beasts when actually thousands of years of evolved behaviour explain the position so much better, well, it just annoys the hell out of me.

In the words of that cold hearted miser from The Simpsons, Mr. Burns "If I came into your house and started sniffing at your crotch and slobbering all over you, what would you say?"