And, once in a rare while, an author creates a villain who may be evil through and through, but also has a sympathetic side. That's when the reading gets truly interesting and imagining myself in the action gets confusing - when I can't decide whether I'm angry about what the "bad guy" is doing or if I'm secretly rooting for him to get away with it!
As many of the posts have stated, the villain is very important to the action of a text. Without the villain, conflict does not exist. Without conflict, nothing is learned, nothing is gained, nothing really happens.
Life is full of conflicts- big ones and little ones.
Heroes cannot be defined without a villain. Therefore, a villian is absolutely necessary in any aspect of life- textual, situational, and in life.
Tolstoy says that all good marriages are alike but each bad marriage is unique. He...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
argues that this is what makes bad marriages more interesting. The same is true with any story. Heroes are nothing without their villains. They are simply all wonderful people who fight for the right, etc. What really makes them shine is their villains. These are the people who are "bad" in various that allow the characteristics of the good guys to really shine.
Agreed. Without conflict, there is no story; and it is the antagonist/villain who most often provides that conflict. In most literature, the antogonist is probably not best described as a villain but as something or someone who is in conflict with the protagonist--a kinder, gentler foe who simply gets in the way of the protagonist. A villain, it seems to me, is intent on the protagonist's downfall and fights actively against him with deliberation and malice. Most villains want something the protagonist has or is. In movies, almost every antagonist is made into a villain--larger-than-life and bent on destruction or seduction.
I guess it depends on how one defines villain, doesn't it? Grendel in Beowulf is certainly a villain, Abigail in The Crucible is probably a villain, Claudius in Hamlet is probably a villain, Bob Ewell in To Kill a Mockingbird is probably a villain; but who is the villain in A Raisin in the Sun, for example? Is Gene in A Separate Peace a villain? All depends on the definition. A very interesting topic for a seminar; I'm sure you'll do a great job!
As the previous post mentioned, every story needs some sort of antagonist to work against the protagonist. The antagonist need not always be a true villain, but all literary works need contrasting characters to help build the conflict of the story. Plus, it's fun to have a villain to hate.
I recommend that you make this a discussion question, as there will be a diverse range of opinion out there for you to access.
I would say that the villain in literature is usually the antagonist and gives us the perfect foil to the protagonist, main character or hero of the text.
One of Shakespeare's strategies in 'Macbeth' is to present the audience with a protagonist who becomes the villain - in the form of Macbeth. In this play, Shakespeare shows us that those who are great can be destroyed by focussing on their negative inner qualities. Even the bravest and most loyal of soldiers can be corrupted by evil.
In 'Othello', the villain, Iago, is probably the most memorable and evil of all villains in literature. We are fascinated as an audience with regard to the intricate planning with which he executes the destruction of those around him. Critics have argued over the motivations of Iago, and we continue to be repelled, intrigued and compelled by him as a character.