Do the "Villains" need to be presented better in the TV show? Or can Mazrim Tain and other characters be used to make them sympathetic?

[Gypsum]

I think you can have interesting villains without giving everyone a "sympathetic backstory," but also without falling into psycho megalomaniac Bond villain tropes. Which is also the standard fantasy trope. For instance, in LOTR (and The Silmarillion, etc.), Sauron and Morgoth and their minions aren't actually interesting characters. They don't have much character at all. They are simply evil, which is quite self-referential. We know they are evil because the writer says they are. And they destroy things and kill the good guys, but the good guys kill a lot of Orcs and destroy their towers and fortresses, so it's all a bit tit-for-tat. Perhaps a pro-Orc narrator, instead of the pro-Elf/man narrator, would have a different story to tell. I digress. Because in Tolkien's fantasy, you're not mean to actually think about this stuff.

 

Feanor and his sons, who did some bad things, were far more multifaceted.

 

Moving onto 2022, you can have post-modernist evil, in fantasy or anywhere, because people can be douchebags or generally bad news, but they can be interesting, multi-dimensional douchebags. The Dark One was just this fantasy trope evil, but some of the Forsaken were actually interesting people. They were not good guys. You probably would not want to have a beer with one (I would have a beer with Asmodean, to be fair, and I was really bummed when he met his sudden and untimely demise). But some were bad guys with personality and character. I don't think the bad guys have to be sympathetic or likeable - but they can be realistic and human. These are not the same thing. Semirhage doesn't need a sordid, sad sob story explaining or justifying why she was a healer who broke bad. Maybe she was always a terrible person, deep down inside. But she can be still be human, written as a realistic psychopath.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Gypsum

[bringbackthomsmoustache]

1 hour ago, Gypsum said:

I would have a beer with Asmodean, to be fair, and I was really bummed when he met his sudden and untimely demise

It might be interesting if the TV series allowed a redemption arc for him - in the books he never met Thom but if he does in the TV series that might allow Thom to lead him to a realisation that his selfishness is what held him back from achieving his ambition of being a truly great composer.

[Gypsum]

15 hours ago, bringbackthomsmoustache said:

It might be interesting if the TV series allowed a redemption arc for him - in the books he never met Thom but if he does in the TV series that might allow Thom to lead him to a realisation that his selfishness is what held him back from achieving his ambition of being a truly great composer.

 

It would be! I'd hoped Jordan was going that way with his character, and then the guy walks into the wrong cupboard. I think it would have added some colour to develop one of the Forsaken into someone who's not a complete sociopath and who might even regret some of the poor life choices he made 3000 years ago.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Gypsum

[Sabio]

I think to reach Forsaken level, you've gone past a few bad life choices and into the a lot of folks have died because of you.  

[TheSociopath]

I would like to point to Demandred, his relationship with the commander of the ayyad, and Rand's reflections on Lews Therin's relations with him. 

[Scarloc99]

On 11/22/2022 at 3:51 PM, KakitaOCU said:

The only thing I'd really argue is against the idea that villains need a sympathetic backstory.  They don't all have one. 

For every character like an Anakin Skywalker or Killmonger who has reasons the reader can make the mistake of sliding in line with there are villains like Sauron or Anya.

Even the complete monster villains can still HAVE things that make them relatable.  I mentioned Anya from Recluce.  She is a fully bore Nihilistic Hedonist.  A woman cursed with forsight who walked away from knowing the future with the attitude that nothing matters so manipulate, take, kill and do whatever based purely on what YOU will enjoy.  She's irredeemable, she's a monster.  She still comes off interesting and human without any real tragedy or sympathy coming up.

Sauron is very much a sympathetic bad guy initially, he is not Evil for Evils sake. He is obsessed with order, believing that Order is the only way to bring about lasting peace. In this he is then corrupted by Morgoth but, he has a very clear and understandable motivation that drives his every action and, in his way, believes he is doing the right thing for the continued future of Middle Earth. 

Anya is also understandable, she has a real defined reason for how she is, it is not about all bad guys being redeemable, it is about them being understandable.

[Scarloc99]

On 11/23/2022 at 9:07 PM, A Memory Of Why said:

 

Pretty much, she was one of the greatest healers of the age with her crime being torturing her clients and thinking they should be greatfull. 

 

My point was it would be difficult to relate to her, well without changing the source.

 

I guess we could go with.. Girls just want to have fun 😘

I would like to know the why with her, what happened when she was younger, there is generally a reason (or she may have just been born with a psycopathic gene), I am intrigued how over so long she kept that cruelty hidden, and reached the hights she did while still being a psycopath. It would tell alot about the world at that time as well. A bit like Demolition man, if society no longer has serial killers and psychopaths then maybe they just didn't know how to identify and stop it. 

[Scarloc99]

On 11/24/2022 at 12:34 AM, Gypsum said:

I think you can have interesting villains without giving everyone a "sympathetic backstory," but also without falling into psycho megalomaniac Bond villain tropes. Which is also the standard fantasy trope. For instance, in LOTR (and The Silmarillion, etc.), Sauron and Morgoth and their minions aren't actually interesting characters. They don't have much character at all. They are simply evil, which is quite self-referential. We know they are evil because the writer says they are. And they destroy things and kill the good guys, but the good guys kill a lot of Orcs and destroy their towers and fortresses, so it's all a bit tit-for-tat. Perhaps a pro-Orc narrator, instead of the pro-Elf/man narrator, would have a different story to tell. I digress. Because in Tolkien's fantasy, you're not mean to actually think about this stuff.

 

Feanor and his sons, who did some bad things, were far more multifaceted.

 

Moving onto 2022, you can have post-modernist evil, in fantasy or anywhere, because people can be douchebags or generally bad news, but they can be interesting, multi-dimensional douchebags. The Dark One was just this fantasy trope evil, but some of the Forsaken were actually interesting people. They were not good guys. You probably would not want to have a beer with one (I would have a beer with Asmodean, to be fair, and I was really bummed when he met his sudden and untimely demise). But some were bad guys with personality and character. I don't think the bad guys have to be sympathetic or likeable - but they can be realistic and human. These are not the same thing. Semirhage doesn't need a sordid, sad sob story explaining or justifying why she was a healer who broke bad. Maybe she was always a terrible person, deep down inside. But she can be still be human, written as a realistic psychopath.

Morgoth is not just Evil because he was made that way, in fact as with all the Vala he was created to be pure good, he broke from his created purpose because of jealousy, he wanted the ability to be able to create life and so hated Ilúvatar for having that power over him. This then led him to break from the other Vala and attempt to take all power for himself. 

Sauron is more interesting, if Morgoth is the definition of Chaotic Evil (if he had won then he would have slowly destroyed middle earth killing all in his jealousy until eventually he destroyed himself leaving nothing). Sauron is Lawful Evil, he was obsessed with love for order and perfection and believed that if he could just control the will of all living things then the world would be reforged in his perfect image for the good of all living beings. Much like Thanos he started out with a noble goal but went about achieving it in the wrong way. Over time his own arrogance drove him deeper and deeper but neither of them where "just evil because".  

[KakitaOCU]

On 11/27/2022 at 3:18 PM, Sir_Charrid said:

Anya is also understandable, she has a real defined reason for how she is, it is not about all bad guys being redeemable, it is about them being understandable.

I think we're on different pages for what sympathetic means.  I don't mean well written or we can understand how they got there.  I mean we actually feel for them and wish things could have worked out.

I care about

Spoiler

Ingtar because I could see how much he just wanted to protect his people and felt there was no hope.  He threw away his honor to try and save lives.  

I don't care about Anya's Nihilism.  All it shows is that she fell into the trap so many people who quote Nietzsche incorrectly do.  That she feels the lack of any overt victory or reward means who cares, do what you want is the wrong solution and Cerryl very clearly says it at the end.  If nothing we do matters all that matters is what we do.

In fact, it's done again in

Spoiler

the character of Moridin and then with Rand specifically on Dragonmount.  Moridin sees the wheel repeated forever and decided there is no meaningful choice to be made ever save for ending it.  Where as Rand specifically comes to the realization that it becomes more valuable, more important, worth more because it's just us struggling and trying to do better.  Not because of a reward or punishment, but because we choose to.

Similar to Sauron, wanting the heat death of the universe so that things won't be chaotic is hardly sympathetic

PS: sorry for a very late reply, but forums are a bit slow and this has been a fun discussion.  🙂

Edit: Sorry, just realized we're in TV forum, not Book, covered potential spoilers.

Edited December 16, 2022 by KakitaOCU

[Cipher]

On 11/15/2022 at 5:54 AM, Sir_Charrid said:

the Red Ajah, there is not really a single sympathetic member of the Red in the books, 

Tbe Red Ajah, as written by RJ, seemed to represent the radical anti-male wing of the feminist movement.

To me Rafe of Time is a retelling of Rand's journey through the eyes of a member of the Red Ajah.  It would explain the POV of Gurl Power.

 

But the Red Ajah's mission seems important and having some reasonable, honorable Red's would be cool imo.

Edited March 24, 2023 by Cipher

[mogi68]

Quote

I think you can have interesting villains without giving everyone a "sympathetic backstory," but also without falling into psycho megalomaniac Bond villain tropes

But Ba'alzamon in TEOTW-TDR is so much fun

[Samt]

The book series already has a wide array of different types of villains.  There's the sociopath maniacs, the regular crazy maniacs, the petty, vain or greedy villains, the intellectual nihilists, the trapped villains who regret their villainy but are committed, the villains who legitimately think they are good but are some combination of deluded, misled, and crazy, and the regular straight up megalomaniacs.  There is also the dark one himself, who I don't think is intended to even really be a character.  He's more just the actual force of evil and corruption in the world.  

 

It's just demonstrably false that there aren't good and sympathetic members of the white cloaks, the red ajah, or the Seanchan (none of these organizations is painted as being completely evil).  It's actually rather important to the development of the forces of light.  It's also an important point that although their hierarchy and core government system is cruel and oppressive, the Seanchan actually have very well run cities that are quite prosperous and fair to the common people.  

 

And there are various examples of people that do evil things but aren't portrayed as being inherently evil or without redeeming qualities.  

 

In short, I think the premise that the books don't have interesting villains is not supported.  If anything, the show will have to simplify the complexity and number of villains since there is really too much to cover.  It's true that some of the forsaken that don't get much page time come off as basically cartoon villains, but that's arguably just because they aren't explored.  Those that do get page time have variety and nuance.  We admittedly don't see their descent into evil.  They are presented as fully formed villains who have already made their choice long ago.  But it would be odd if it were otherwise.  

[Pandemonium]

Evil and different degrees of evil would be a fun theme to explore in this show.

 

Hopefully they explore some of this with characters like Lanfear, Asmodean, Sheriam, Ingtar, and Verin. Verin and Ingtar are especially good examples so hopefully they don't screw those up.  And for every Verin and Ingtar there are other characters who cannot be redeemed, or will not allow themselves to go down the path of redemption such as Ishamael, Sheriam. Lanfear.

 

Even more interesting is those such as Demandred who already had a great deal of power but are willing to destroy the world to be the absolute ruler.  

 

None of these villains have to be as cartoonish as RJ flashed them out.  But it is fun to have some completely cartoonish villains in there too.  Insanity doesn't always need an explanation 

[Sabio]

Not to derail the topic but even Verin says it would take something special to redeem her.  It would be nice if we had more info on things Verin or Ingtar had done to earn Black Ajah/DF status.  Verin most likely has a few murders on her hands and she did join the BA to save her own skin.

[nsmallw]

Re: Semirage, was she one of the statues in ep 6 of wot tv show ?

[WhiteVeils]

1 hour ago, nsmallw said:

Re: Semirage, was she one of the statues in ep 6 of wot tv show ?

I believe she was the one with the many necklaces along an elongated neck.