Villains are considered more interesting than heroes because materialism dominates modern thinking.
Under materialism, the only way to challenge a protagonist is to threaten his physical well-being, his personal desires, or his social standing.
Fantastical stories are full of superbeings; from a materialist standpoint, these supers have few problems, for they have enough power to sidestep most obstacles.
Additionally, the strongest heroes do not need to fear reputational damage because their powers let them ignore both elite and public opinion.
Seen from this perspective, heroes hold a golden ticket; moral problems don’t even register because they don’t threaten the hero’s life, reputation, or desires.
In truth, morality exists outside of human opinion, but materialism denies this, so modern storytellers replace morality with reputation.
Traditional heroes are not motivated by material gain or a good public image; instead, they focus on the greater good, which exists outside of all opinion, including the hero’s own.
However, under materialism, such concerns don’t matter; only physical and reputational ones do.
Villains risk both social and physical destruction when they pursue their dastardly ambitions; furthermore, they aren’t worried about morality, giving them the maximum freedom to do as they please.
Therefore, to the modern storyteller, the villain has the more compelling story (all of the above could be applied to the other favorite modern protagonist, the antihero.)
On the other hand, traditional heroes fight against moral evil, which cannot exist in the materialist worldview.
Traditional heroism cannot be written from a materialist perspective because merely holding on to a life of comfort is not compelling, and focusing solely on accumulating power and glory is not heroic.
This is why heroes are said to be boring; objective morality is ignored.
To be compelling, a heroic story must put the greater good above personal desire or reputational clout. Threats of moral decay must exceed threats to the self.
To write like that, one must reject materialism.
It is the only way to escape the muck of gray grimdark gruel.
ADDENDUM: Have a bonus thread.
You always give us something to think about in your posts. Thank you.
I’m so glad you found this valuable.
I’m old enough that my initial reaction to your title was “Of COURSE Heroes are better than Villains!” but I also know that your statements about materialism and heroes are the simple, bitter truth today. One of the obstacles I’ve encountered since I started writing is the fact that materialism stains the viewpoint of many such that they can’t even see the problems you point out in this post.
For example, I’ve known a number of people (editors and authors) who cannot answer either of the queries that you have posted in your Addendum because THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE QUESTIONS.
Their materialism drains so much of the color from their world that they miss half the picture. Grim gray gruel indeed.
For example, I’ve known a number of people (editors and authors) who cannot answer either of the queries that you have posted in your Addendum because THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE QUESTIONS.
It’s not really their fault. Materialism has been the dominant worldview in the First World for as long as I can remember, in fact if not in name. Even those of us who have a religious upbringing can’t help but see the world in such terms, since most of our authority figures didn’t emphasize this higher good, but instead used social acceptability as a substitute.
This materialism is not some pronouncement that “There is no God!” or anything like that. Instead, it manifests when a writer looks at how to write a conflict.
Here is how the three dimensions of conflict manifest under materialism:
MAN VS. SELF: How do I satisfy my deepest desires for the lowest cost? (It need not be carnal.)
MAN VS. NATURE: How best do I avoid physical deprivation or harm, or how best do I crush my enemies?
MAN VS. SOCIETY: How best do I maintain a high social standing, or how best do I raise my social standing? (This last one is important because materialism replaces morality with reputation.)
The above is all it takes to make a materialist story. Figuring that out felt like finding the missing piece of a puzzle.
Pingback: Reposted: Heroes are Better than Villains | A Song of Joy by Caroline Furlong
You have to believe in an objective standard of good and evil, otherwise you cannot write protagonists or antagonists with any moral conviction or power. The most you will see are mouthed platitudes and narrative tricks like subversion to cover for a clear glaring weakness in the story. Audiences are getting better at sniffing it out, too.
I suggest reading the review I wrote recently of The Keep, a supposed “classic” horror book. What utterly kills the work is that the author has no idea what true good or evil actually is. It makes the work lose any power and shows much of the issue with modern writing.
Writers work on their stories from above looking down, something like a Guardian Angel. We can’t force the characters to do what is wrong or right, but they inherently know there is a difference, and we have to follow them through the story accordingly. They believe in bigger things, just as we do as human beings. That’s what audiences want to see, so that’s what we should give them.
I suggest reading the review I wrote recently of The Keep, a supposed “classic” horror book.
Already read that review, and you make excellent points there. It’s too easy for a story to sink into a conflict that has no more weight than a “red team vs. blue team” soccer game in a park. The problem of materialism runs deep.
Amazing video that I’m bookmarking for future use/sharing. And good insights in your piece too. Thanks!
Together, they sum up and address most of my thoughts on the subject. The video does a good job of going further and finding more evidence from both sides than I could have come up with.
I’m sick of the modern trend to glamorize antiheroes or sympathize with someone’s bad decisions merely because he had a tragic past. That’s enabling, not loving. (Many authors don’t seem to be able to conceive of how to write someone without major flaws, which is a tragedy for their writing. It generally leaves me fuming at the protagonist instead of enjoying the story. Less excuses, more moral growth, please!)
Amazing video that I’m bookmarking for future use/sharing.
It really is. Literature Devil smashed it out of the park.
I’m sick of the modern trend to glamorize antiheroes or sympathize with someone’s bad decisions merely because he had a tragic past.
Under materialism, a traditional hero is merely holding on to his great power and high status, so there’s no drama. By contrast, the villain with the tragic past has to struggle to acquire power and status, and said tragic past emphasizes that the villain came from nothing. It’s inherently more dramatic to see someone struggle to gain power than to see someone merely hold on to it.
This is why writing traditional heroism requires the abandonment of materialism. If the only “goods” are money, power, and respect, there’s no room for the objective morality that the hero requires.
Yes, materialism destroys pretty much everything. I don’t know if villains often gain “status” (Some do, to be sure) but they certainly get the power and pleasure they want in a materialistic outlook. Nietzsche is, I believe, accurate in his assessment of what materialism really means: there is only the will to power, and holding onto traditional morality while jettisoning religion is idolatrous.
A traditional hero can still come from nothing and I think even the slightly less far gone modern writers like the idea of a hero coming from nothing, but due to materialistic leanings they tend to give their characters too much leeway to indulge their flaws. Or, paraphrasing the Literature Devil, they can’t imagine someone without massive flaws similar to their own.
It may usually be more dramatic to see someone struggle to gain power vs. hold onto it but there are some very good mystery or intrigue stories (even the Prisoner of Zenda counts) where someone important needs to be protected from those scheming to gain power. It more depends on the skill of the author, I think (many moderns come up short!).
What I was also referring to was authors trying to write a decent protagonist who’s doing the right thing, but making the reasons for supporting the protagonist more due to what happened to him than who he is. His personality is kind of blank, but he was bullied in the past is one example. Or writing a “flawed, realistic” character with massive issues that are just swept under the rug for the story, likely because it’s what the author has seen in real life. (Like partway through finding out that the protagonist doesn’t get along with her parents at all.)
I’m sure you saw Adam Lane Smith’s “Heroes, Dark Heroes, and Antiheroes.” I was to some extent thinking about it when I made the comment about being tired of glamorizing flaws and authors not knowing how to write well. And also the Literature Devil’s comment that modern comic book authors’ reasons for liking villains sounded like excuses rather than reasons.
https://adamlanesmith.com/2020/05/16/heroes-dark-heroes-and-antiheroes-how-audience-preferences-have-changed-through-the-generations-and-what-comes-next/
I did read that blog post.
As for heroic motivations, a materialistic mindset says that a hero’s only motivations can be personal, physical, or social. It’s “unrealistic” to write a character who cares about the greater good; he must have some underlying social or psychological issue.
And you make an excellent point about the reasons for liking villains sounding like excuses — to paraphrase the Literature Devil, heroism takes effort that the critics can’t measure up to, so they want heroes dragged down to their own level.