Villainy has been with us always. The Sumerian hero Gilgamesh, the first James Bond, vanquished villains. Villainy. Like most familiar phenomena it is rarely thought about, just taken at face value but it's worth a look.
The category comes to us out of two linguistic traditions, Latin and Old English with two synonyms, fiend and inimicus, both meaning enemy, both being essential to a definition of villain.
A villain was in its original usage simply a boor but has evolved powerfully to mean a vile person, a public nuisance residing in the person. It is often used analytically as in, ‘the villain of the piece’, the malefactor in other words. In an original neologism I characterize all my bad guys in my stories as antisocial-ists. It helps define their psychological space. It is a synonym for villains.
That's the basis for any discussion of ‘villain’ as it has come to be used. It is a slippery word that lacks rigorous definition which is what I intend to supply.
First, a villain is adrift. They are not about anything connected with any concept of humans and the universe. They are contras, against, against the very fabric of social existence. They are an intolerable vacuum of values.
Secondly, a villain is nonreferent. The word, from linguistics, means that they are context-free. Their world is made up for the moment.
Thirdly, a villain is inimical. They are destructively against social existence.
Fourthly, they are affective, proselytizing bizarre constructs of value and behavior.
As so defined they cannot but be a vile nuisance residing in the person. An archetypal villain in a creative piece must fall firmly into these criteria.
Do Well and Be Well.
Comments
Post a Comment