Comixfan Forums - Comixfan Round Table Discussions

Comixfan Forums - Comixfan Round Table Discussions http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/ Listen in as Comixfan staff discuss various topics, and be sure to give your opinion. en Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:56:33 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/images/misc/rss.jpg Comixfan Forums - Comixfan Round Table Discussions http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/ Comixfan Round Table #5 Great Villains http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=48038&goto=newpost Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:34:37 GMT Green Goblin preview

How about the Green Goblin? *William Keogh*: He's been vastly overused as of late, what with Dark Reign and all... *David Branson*: Recently, he's been kind of a Luthor figure, I think, with the same sorts of control-freak stuff. *William Keogh*: Another character who's different depending on the writer. The early Goblin was insane, a split personality. He's obviously still on the edge of sanity, as we've seen in Dark Avengers, but he definitely has that Luthor kind of feel since his return from the dead. A malevolent businessman who definitely is something of a control freak. And Norman Osborn is a legacy character, what with both of his sons becoming Goblins, a couple of other Green Goblins along the way (with one being a hero, oddly) and the Hobgoblins and Jack O'Lanterns following in his footsteps. The JokerMoving on, how about the Red Skull? *William Keogh*: Pure evil. Very little in the way of shades of grey in the Skull. He's a racist, vicious, and arrogant man, with a temper, and he's manipulative, cunning, and utterly ruthless. *David Branson*: Actually, does he ever do anything other than try to kill Cap? I'm trying to think of his motives over the years, and it's usually Revenge Against Cap. Otherwise (in WWII) there's the whole "love of one's country and/or one's people" which the Nazis made into a ghastly sort of religion -- again, something otherwise good twisted into something bad. *Clay Olsen*: The Red Skull isn't just about killing Cap... he's about proving the Nazi ideals to Cap or that Cap's ideas are just as wrong as the Nazi ones. Often saving Cap's life by giving him blood or trying to take his body to subvert the symbolism that Cap is. The JokerHow about Loki, the very first Avengers foe? *David Branson*: Another one of those "symbolic" characters, but generally there's a whole sort of peevish "no one recognizes my qualities, Daddy always liked Thor best," etc. aspect to him. With the mischief, there's the whole "humor/play instinct" aspect -- again, the only problem with it is his willingness to cause harm for its sake. *William Keogh*: Loki's a fascinating paradox. On the one hand, he's the trickster, who will do anything he pleases to amuse himself or to manipulate his way into power. He's been an outright villain, driven often by jealousy, dislike, or envy of Thor. On the other, he's acted selflessly for Asgard too, from time to time. And as seen in the JMS run on Spider-Man, on behalf of his own child. We mentioned him earlier in passing: Magneto. *William Keogh*: Another case of depends on who writes him. He's capable of nobility and cruelty, he's got a richly built history and strong characterization. We can feel sympathetic about him, but at the same time, we're talking about a man who has committed atrocity of his own on a huge scale. The JokerIn keeping with the X-Men, how about Apocalypse? *David Branson*: Wanting one's people to be stronger and healthier is not a bad thing, but of course Ol' Paper Clips is willing to harm those who are weaker, etc. Again, going too far. *William Keogh*: Apocalypse and Sinister are both characters to whom the ends justifies the means, no matter what it takes. Agreed, David, each of these two go way too far.

We've seen X-Men who have been villains, such as Sabretooth and Mystique, both of whom have gone back the other way. *William Keogh*: Sabretooth is, from my point of view, a pure psychopath. He served as an X-Man only because it suited his needs at the time, but certainly not because he felt any heroic impulse. Mystique, on the other hand, is a richly complex, and profoundly flawed woman. She's often short on conscience, and has usually chosen the wrong path. Generally speaking, Mystique is highly interfering in the life of her foster daughter, Rogue, but she at least clearly loves her, which gives us a sense of her humanity. VenomThen there's the symbiotes, who've often been the bane of Spider-Man's existance. How about Venom? *David Branson*: Apart from being somewhat of a hungry animal thingy (desire to satisfy hunger good, eating people to satisfy it bad), there's the whole desire to be connected to another person or being (that desire good, the willingness to force it on others bad), as well as a very natural emotional response to perceived rejection (which taken too far, without a willingness to understand or forgive or just let go, leads to KILL SPIDER-MAN EAT HIS BRAINS GROWL SLOBBER etc.). *William Keogh*: I think Venom was overexposed, and that tended to kill the character for a very long time. I still think the first Venom, Eddie Brock, should still be dead. The current Venom (the former Scorpion) lacks the ethics too, but at the same time wasn't as over the edge crazy as Carnage's host. Though you'd wonder, from his time in Thunderbolts and Dark Avengers. CarnageWhich brings us to the other symbiote, Carnage. *David Branson*: I know almost nothing about this one, sorry. :blush: He's like Venom, only red and more drippy, and that's about all I know. *William Keogh*: Carnage is pretty much Venom version 2.0. without any sense of ethics. A symbiote bounded to a complete psychopath. At least until the Sentry ripped him in half for no reason. Doctor OctopusOne more Spider-villain to mention: Doctor Octopus. *William Keogh*: A really complicated character. Brilliant, arrogant, and suffering from self esteem issues. He's something of a megalomaniac, but he's also shown moments of humanity, mercy, and decency.

We talked about reformation earlier. How about the Thunderbolts? *William Keogh*: The Thunderbolts are a bit of a paradox. It started out as an incarnation of Baron Zemos' Masters of Evil posing as heroes in order to attain real power. Some of the group felt the pull of heroism, and broke away to do the right thing. It hasn't been an easy road, and some have become true heroes, like MACH V and Songbird. Others have stumbled along the way, sometimes in small ways, sometimes in big ways, like Moonstone, Atlas, Blizzard, Joystick, Fixer, and even Zemo himself. Bullseye (http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/previews/marvel/2010oct/SHADWL004_col.jpg) And in more recent incarnations, members like Bullseye, Venom, Scourge, or Swordsman have been little different from the psychotics they really are, simply acting with the thin veil of legitimacy. Despite the many twists of the series, one of its themes have always been the possibility of redemption. And it's allowed certain characters to attain a rich depth, even if they don't take redemption, that they might have never otherwise shown. Zemo has gone from being a typical b-grade Captain America villain to a very complex character who's fascinating in his own right. *David Branson*: One thing that I find relevant to all this is something C.S. Lewis says in his book Miracles: "Everything is in character. Falstaff does not sin in the same way as Othello. Othello's fall bears a close relation to his virtues. If Perdita had fallen she would not have been bad in the same way as Lady Macbeth: if Lady Macbeth had remained good her goodness would have been quite different from that of Perdita." I've always loved the idea of what the villain would be like if he were a good guy (and its converse, what the hero would be like if he were a bad guy). The way their central characters would play out if their moral nature was changed. We mainly see this in What If/ Elseworlds/ parallel world stories, like "What if Doctor Doom were a hero?" or Earth-3. I was very annoyed when DC killed off the Jokester in Countdown; I thought he was a very cool character, the good version of the Joker. Back in Infinity Inc., in the Generations Saga, we saw the Earth-2 JSA affected by the "Stream of Ruthlessness," and I thought it very interesting to see how, along with Robin seeking vengeance (rather than justice) against the man who killed his parents and that sort of thing, Wonder Woman's corrupt self was still acting out of love- she wanted to make her husband, Steve Trevor, immortal- she was just willing to do anything to achieve it. The animated DC series has shown alternate-Earth versions of both heroes and villains that play with this -- the Owlman and Red Hood episodes of the current Batman show and also the Justice Lords story from Justice League Unlimited. I do like to see elements of humanity in some villains, especially if that leads to some of them becoming reformed in the end, but I prefer that reformation to actually stick once they go through with it. *William Keogh*: The fun aspect of alternate dimension stories (and we saw this with Exiles for example, is that we can see these very different takes on these familiar characters. A hero could be a villain, or the villain could be the hero, if just a moment in time might have gone differently. Let's start wrapping this up. Can we classify villains, or antagonists? *William Keogh*: Let's see here... we've got the true villains, like the Joker, Doom, Darkseid, Vandal Savage, Dormammu, Mephisto, Bullseye, Carnage, the Red Skull, the Green Goblin... who are either outright evil, or as close as you get.

There are those who are deeply flawed, and yet at one point or another have shown some degree of humanity, like Venom, Doctor Octopus, the Vulture, Kraven, Mr. Freeze, Two Face, the Lizard, or even Thanos. Of course, there's the classification of villains who are in it for money, power, ambition, or ego: mob bosses like the Kingpin, the Owl, or the Penguin, and arrogant businessmen like Justin Hammer or Lex Luthor. And there are plenty who are what we would call professionals: mercenaries like Taskmaster, Batroc, or the Rhino, who are simply doing a job, albeit on the wrong side of the law. Black Cat (http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/previews/marvel/2010jun/ASMPRBLKC001_col.jpg)Finally, we've got characters like the Thunderbolts, Black Cat, or Catwoman, who have all in one degree or another reformed, and yet have that history to contend with, often becoming better characters in the process then if they had stayed in the sides of villainy. Final thoughts? *William Keogh*: Villains are essential for the genre of comics; without a villain, an antagonist to fight and contend with, a hero becomes dull. And who wants to see 22 pages a month of a costumed clown rescuing puppies from trees? Snidely Whiplash*David Branson*: To sum up, I see villains in comics the same way I see villains in other forms of literature -- which is to say, it varies according to the characters. But whether it's a redemptive story, or a hero triumphing over the villain story, or a tragic story, I think the depiction of evil does need some kind of point to it. Generally this does happen, but sometimes I think some writers just just show things happening without any rhyme or reason to it, and I prefer the more classic kind of story. Wet cat*Clay Olsen*: I like my villians like I like my heroes (and almost as much and sometimes more), with a hefty dose of character, motivation, complication and shades of gray and black. They need to offer some sort of serious challenge to the heroes (philosophically, physically or ethically) and they need to be relateable and unique on some level too, or they really cease to be anything but interchangable placeholders to me, akin to a locked door the heroes have to break down and nothing more. 100]]> [ISL=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/rt.jpg]200[/ISL]William Keogh - Welcome to the Comixfan Round Table, featuring discussion and dissection of comic book related topics. This time out, we're talking about the theme of villains in the comics. Along with myself, John H., Clay Olsen, David Branson, and Harold Sotomayer will be tackling the idea of the scoundrels, knaves, misunderstood antiheroes, and outright psychotics in this latest Round Table. And so without further ado, let us begin....

[HR=2]100[/HR]

[ITR=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/wickedwitch.jpg]Wicked Witch[/ITR]John H.: The Wizard of Oz gave us the memorable Wicked Witch of the West. The 1980 film Flash Gordon gave us Ming Merciless (Max von Sydow). Star Trek gave us Khan (Ricardo Montalbán) and the Borg Queen (Alice Krige). The ruthless creatures from the movie franchise Aliens. Predators. Freddie Kruger. Jason. Dracula. Darth Maul. Darth Vader. Doctor Doom. Lex Luthor. The Joker.

Let's start out with a proper definition of the term:

John H: vil•lain
Pronunciation: \ˈvi-lən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English vilain, vilein, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin villanus, from Latin villa
Date: 14th century

1 : villein
2 : an uncouth person : boor
3 : a deliberate scoundrel or criminal
4 : a character in a story or play who opposes the hero
5 : one blamed for a particular evil or difficulty

What makes a great villain?

William Keogh: My initial thought is that the villain must be unredeemable, but that's not nessecarily the case, as we see under that definition. Certainly while we've got comic book villains who fit the unredeemable category, such as the Red Skull, we have others who are infinitely more into the shades of grey category, like Magneto.

Harold Sotomayor: My definition of 'villain' differs somewhat in that I define a villain as a "bad guy". 'Villains' are not to be confused with 'antagonists', who are any characters that oppose the protagonist(s). A villain is a special kind of antagonist in that they cannot have our sympathies, otherwise they are not strictly villains.

[ITL=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/previews/marvel/2010feb/UNCX521_colt.jpg]Magneto[/ITL]To use the Magneto example you mention: he stopped being a true villain, turning instead into an antagonist (or rather, protagonist...) during the "I, Magneto" story in Uncanny X-Men.

Clay Olsen: What's a villain? that's usually a fairly simple question to answer.
Most often its the actor in the story who is acting against society for purely selfish reasons (most usually in comics for power, money, and revenge). Its all about actions and the motivations behind them.

David Branson: I agree with Harold about villains being "bad guys" and not merely opponents. I don't agree that the pre-1960s villains were more "true" villains -- they were just simplistic or two-dimensional villains. Very few human beings in the real world, no matter how corrupt or depraved, act in evil ways for the sake of "being evil." And I think the best ones in fiction are the same ways -- it doesn't make them less evil, just more realistic.

[ITR=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/mrsinister.jpg]Mr. Sinister[/ITR]Harold Sotomayer: Modern comics tend to shy away from having true villains as they are difficult to write effectively/believeable. Sticking with the X-Men, the only true villain that comes to mind (in Claremont's run) is Mr. Sinister. This brings to light that having true villains (as per my definition) are definitely not needed to tell engaging superhero stories.

On the opposite side, pretty much anything superhero related before the 1960's used true villains. They were "evil" for the sake of being evil.

Clay Olsen: I think that its very rare for any of the big modern villains (or any of the great lasting ones like Moriarty) to fall squarely in the unredeemable category of villainy.

Sure there are villains like King's Flagg or the Joker who do evil simply for the pleasure of it, but most of the biggies have some gray area in their motivations.

Harold Sotomayer: When writers spend too much time building up villains (look how EVIL they are!) over the protagonists themselves, stories tend to stagnate.

Clay Olsen: I see your point, but often long time villains (and rogues galleries) often grow along with the hero. Sometimes the villain's growth overshadows the hero's... especially when we get into the more complex villains... like Dr. Doom or Magneto.

So what types of villains are there? and if they're tools to advance the heroes, like Harold says, what lessons to the different types of heroes teach?

Good question. What do we look for in a villain anyway?

William Keogh: Traits like a well rounded personality and history. A plausible motivation for their actions. Some kind of a hook to them, if it's power, audacity, tactics and strategy... something that catches the readers' attention.

[ITL=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/darthvader.jpg]Darth Vader[/ITL]Clay Olsen: Villains make the hero.... and more often than not the story. Who would Luke Skywalker be without Darth Vader? A whiny desert farm boy. Where would the X-men be without Magneto and his Brotherhood to counterpoint them? Without the representation of the villain there's nothing to fight or stand against. And the arch-nemesis is even more important as it defines the hero by comparison and contrast. Joker and Batman, Dr. Doom and Mr. Fantastic, Holmes and Moriarty.

William Keogh: Reading comics about super heroes saving cats trapped at the top of trees or little old ladies would get pretty stale, pretty fast, after all. Villains make the hero.

Is it important to have a good rogues' gallery?

Clay Olsen: I think it can be. Fighting the same villain over and over can get boring. How many times and how many ways can Ming try to conquer the galaxy without it getting old... or the character getting to complex. Because without other villains, the heroes grow stale or the villains gain complexity or the audience looks for something new.

Harold Sotomayer: I used to believe that villains (and rogue galleries, etc.) were necessary but now I see that they are simply something for the protagonists to learn from. They are plot advancers, but not always in interesting ways. Stories are only interesting when the protagonists grow as characters (even if such growth is an illusion, such as with Archie and his Riverdale buddies - they never change).

Spider-man is not known because of his fights with whichever villain of the week, but because he is an easily relateable character.

William Keogh: I think a solid rogues' gallery is absolutely essential. A finely developed rogues' gallery is crucial for making characters like Spider-Man and Batman, who have such extensive rogues' galleries, with such depth to the villains, A-list characters. Not having a rogues' gallery turns a hero into, well, D-Man.

And that's a really, really bad thing.

William Keogh: Would you want to be the Homeless Avenger?

No, I wouldn't.

Can villains reform?

William Keogh: Yes, it's been done, and in some cases successfully, but it's all too easy for them to fall back into old habits.

[ITR=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/previews/dc/2010nov/GTCYS_Cv17t.jpg]Catwoman[/ITR]David Branson: I think the reasons villains reform and then waffle back and forth, though, is because a new writer or editor wants to change them around. Magneto is someone whose gradual move, under Chris Claremont, from villain to hero was excellent -- but then Marvel decided to make him a villain again. DC had had Catwoman reform and become Batman's ally back in the early 1980s, but after Crisis they decided to make her a villain again and "revillainized" her in a story involving the Joker doing weird things to her brain. And then later she'd reformed again, but that was retconned into being because of Zatanna doing something to her mind.

Clay Olsen: I'd say yes. I think by necessity a character (even a villain) has to evolve or become stale and sometimes that means reforming. But most only ever reach a shallow shade of grey. Magneto for instance or Doctor Doom on occasion... but most eventually fall back into the villain role.

[ITL=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/sandman.jpg]Sandman[/ITL]William Keogh: One of the Spider-villains who managed to reform was the Sandman. In fact, it almost seemed that he was a hero longer then he was a villain. They gave plausible reasons for him to reform, they built his character, and he even ended up for a time as an Avenger.

Then John Byrne came along, and all of that went out the window, just because Byrne wanted him as a villain for his ill-fated run on the Spider-titles. Granted, we saw it wasn't a willing turn back to evil, but it felt frustrating to me at the time, because he was a character whose past and present actually worked for him as a hero, and instead he ended up becoming a regression that didn't need to happen. And I'd say he's been poorly served to remain a villain ever since.

Harold Sotomayor: Trying to categorize villains might prove a bit too daunting a task for this discussion but perhaps two broad categories can be established: "Dynamic Villains" and "Static Villains".

Dynamic villains would be those that change as time goes on. They may always be EVIL but their motives and purpose change. This forces the protagonists to change with them.

Static villains remain virtually the same (think Reggie - at times - in Archie). By remaining relatively constant they help to show how the protagonists themselves have changed (for example, how Rose or Lucius react to Briar on different occasions).

Solid points, Harold. What do we think about the idea of static or dynamic in terms of villainy?

David Branson: I think I'd say that Doom and Luthor (apart from continuity changes) are more static but very effectively so.

[ITR=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/doctordoom.jpg]Doctor Doom[/ITR]William Keogh: I think Doom as a character is something of a static being, albeit a multi-faceted one with depth. His essence doesn't change, but there are rich layers to the character.

Clay Olsen: I would heavily disagree on Doom. While his basic desire for revenge on Reed and his desire to rule has remained, his motivations have grown over the years as his story has unfolded. In many ways Doom is just as noble as any hero, his methods though are all that makes him a villain. Look at what was done in Doom 2099, where all they changed was the setting. Doom more or less remained the same (minus the obsession with Reed). Only now in this setting, instead of the ruthless and villainous despot, he became the liberating hero of the corporation enslaved masses by dismantling the corporations (in Latveria first, then a few smaller nations, and finally the U.S.) and restoring law and order and quality of life. Once again it was not his methods or mind that changed, just the setting and viewpoint.

David Branson: In Doom 2099, he staked people out to die on the lawn, as I recall...

Ouch. Nice guy, huh?

Clay Olsen: I don't remember that myself... but it has been a few years since I re-read those issues. In any case like I said, his methods stayed the same, but he went from being viewed as a villain to something close to a hero, or anti-hero if you will. And there are numerous occasions where Doom has fought on the side of heroes and for the heroes, which is why i argue he's a far more dynamic villain now, even if he started out as a static one note villain way back when.

Lots of villains go through that though... from simple and static to the dynamic and far more complex. Thanos for example (especially as written by the likes of Starlin or Giffen).

William Keogh: I might have to reconsider my labelling Doom as static. What drives him? Ambition, I think, above all. He's ruthless and despotic, something of an "Uncle Joe" Stalin type of father figure to his people, whose loyalty he demands and yet will drive under his heel if he thinks they're turning on him. He's exceedingly brilliant, and yet instead of applying his intellect to doing what's truly right for his people, he's more interested in his vendetta against Reed and the Fantastic Four. That's one of his great flaws, of course: the obsessiveness.

Yet he's also been a protagonist, such as in the Counter-Earth miniseries he was part of. He's capable of doing the right thing, but he inevitably reverts to form as a villain.

Clay Olsen: Its the vendetta with Reed and his willingness to ignore certain ethics of choice that lead Doom into villain territory I think. Otherwise he's not that different from some "hero" or "anti-hero" characters, such as the Punisher for example.

[ITL=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/lexluthor.jpg]Lex Luthor[/ITL]And Lex Luthor?

William Keogh: I'm not as familiar with Luthor as I am with Doom. My exposure to him has been through a few trades and such, so it might be biased. He comes across to me as evil and selfish. This is a man who has such self esteem issues that he presents himself as a man of Metropolis, as their favourite son, and yet is immediately threatened by the attention paid to Superman. And so that's driven him to hate Superman. All the while, what's behind that public front he presents is a man who will do anything, stab anyone in the back, or sell his soul in the pursuit of more and more power. Yes, he might be capable of doing the right thing, but only for self preservation.

David Branson: Taking the current iteration, there is a desire at root to protect the human race from outside forces (this anti-alien xenophobia seems to be a relatively new development). But protecting one's people is, itself, a good thing. Wanting to be in control of some things is also a natural and not necessarily bad human desire, but Luthor of course is willing to go to extremes to do that. Wanting for others to acknowledge one's skills, intelligence or ability, is not a bad thing in itself, but, again, Luthor has often gone to monomaniacal lengths (in all incarnations) to attain it. If he had a sense of proportion and humanity, he could be a combination of Bill Gates and Steven Hawking, but of course his tragic flaw is his pride. Indeed, I would say that that is what makes him an effective villain. He could have been one of the greatest men in the DCU, but he won't be content with that.

Harold Sotomayor: There has been a dramatic change in "villainy" over the past twenty years or so. Nowadays, antagonists have just as deep and reasonable a motive as the protagonists. We no longer have strictly "heros" and "villains" so much as various characters with opposing view points.

William Keogh: A lot of room for shades of grey then?

Harold Sotomayer: And yet, there is always room for genuine villains. When they are used sparingly, they can be shocking and truely memorable. A true villain has no motivation, s/he is just plain EVIL! (or "wrong")

David Branson: Actually, I disagree that a true villain has no motivation, and is "just evil." I wholeheartedly agree with C.S. Lewis when he says that the notion that even devils are "engaged in the disinterested pursuit of something called Evil (the capital is essential)" is an "absurd fancy"; if anything, I think that evil is always ruthlessly practical -- it's often shown in the impulse which is willing to sacrifice things that ought not be sacrificed to attain one's ends (which are not usually in and of themselves bad things, but can be taken to inappropriate extremes).

Two different points of view. Is there such a thing, then, as pure evil in the comics? Something where the issue is black and white, no shades of grey?

[ITR=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/uncannyxmen166.jpg]The Brood[/ITR]Harold Sotomayer: A good example would be The Brood from X-Men. With The Brood there is no conflict of idealogies; they are to be killed on sight because of how horrid they are.

William Keogh: Though there was a Brood who acted as a hero to protect the innocent as one of the Hulks' Warbound during the Planet Hulk and World War Hulk[/i] arcs.

David Branson: Essentially the only real issues with the Brood are ... well, they're motivated to survive (good), breed (good), eat (good), but of course when they're willing to do ghastly things in order to accomplish those things, that's when it's a problem.

Harold Sotomayer: Going with the idea of "Great Villains", which then should be considered the Greatest Villain in Comics?

There's a loaded question.

William Keogh: From DC? You'd be talking about Lex Luthor, Darkseid, or the Joker.

From Marvel, it would be the Green Goblin, the Red Skull, Loki, Apocalypse, Venom, Carnage, Thanos...

[ITL=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/thanos.jpg]Thanos[/ITL]Let's take some of the heavy hitters on one by one. Start with Thanos.

William Keogh: With early Thanos, it's all about the obsession with death. He's ruthless, very powerful, very smart, and probably one of the most dangerous beings ever. And he's inevitably undone by his own devices as he seeks power.

David Branson: Essentially with Thanos, I think, you have either the romantic (with Death) or the religious (ditto) aspects; not bad in themselves, but of course, he's willing to kill loads of folks to do it.

William Keogh: A couple of my favourite Thanos appearances: his battles with Thor as written by Jurgens, and his battle against Ka-Zar from the Mark Waid run of that series. Though both may or may not have been Thanos clones.

Clay Olsen: The Jurgens Thor one was retconned explicitly as a clone, but the one in Waid's Ka-Zar run was supposedly the real deal.

William Keogh: Thanos is still capable of doing the right thing though. In the Infinity Abyss series, the Marvel Universe The End miniseries, and his own series. Thanos ultimately acts for the right cause there (with some stumbles along the way...) He's become a very multifaceted character, and we're not sure now that he's in the Thanos Imperative series where he'll end up by the end. Which, in this case, is a good thing...

Clay Olsen: As far as a being good guy... he's acted in defense of the universe many times even in the old days. His first battle against the Magus for example and saving and raising Gamora. While he did have ulterior motivations for doing both he did act for the greater good.

[ITR=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/darkseid.jpg]Darkseid[/ITR]Moving over to perhaps the DC version of Thanos, how about Darkseid?

David Branson: With Darkseid... well, with classic Darkseid, we do have some sort of decent motivation to look at, mainly a desire for order. Of course he goes too far in trying to force it in his own way... a desire for order need not be a bad thing, but he refuses to allow it to be balanced with freedom. In more recent approaches to Darkseid, he's almost more of a symbolic figure than a character in any human sense. For all practical purposes, especially in stories like Final Crisis, he's been the DCU's Satan-figure, a sort of embodiment of corruption.

[ITL=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/joker.jpg]The Joker[/ITL]And of course we can't talk about villains without bringing up the most twisted of the lot: the Joker.

David Branson: The Joker is ... well, he's one of those characters whose motivation seems to change from writer to writer. (If the character is insane, you can pretty much make them do whatever you want, though that's simply not the way mental illness really works in real life.) He's a little like Darkseid in some ways in that in recent times, he's often almost more of a symbol than a character per se. (In Alan Moore's Killing Joke, of course, he's actually got a personality, etc., and in the Animated Series as well.) Sometimes he's focused on wanting people to acknowledge his comic genius (and he totally freaks out with lethal results if someone appears to be trying to upstage him), sometimes it's a sort of game with Batman, sometimes he's trying to prove a nihilistic philosophical point, but again, wanting others to see one's merits, playing games, and wanting to convince others of something one thinks to be true are all decent or even laudable things -- except, of course, when taken out of healthy human context and proportion, and in the Joker's case, that usually involves someone dying...

William Keogh: I'm in agreement with the sentiment from the Dark Knight: the Joker is a force of nature who just wants to see the world burn. From film to animated series to comics themselves, trying to attach a motive to the Joker might well be impossible.

How about the Green Goblin?

William Keogh: He's been vastly overused as of late, what with Dark Reign and all...

David Branson: Recently, he's been kind of a Luthor figure, I think, with the same sorts of control-freak stuff.

William Keogh: Another character who's different depending on the writer. The early Goblin was insane, a split personality. He's obviously still on the edge of sanity, as we've seen in Dark Avengers, but he definitely has that Luthor kind of feel since his return from the dead. A malevolent businessman who definitely is something of a control freak.

And Norman Osborn is a legacy character, what with both of his sons becoming Goblins, a couple of other Green Goblins along the way (with one being a hero, oddly) and the Hobgoblins and Jack O'Lanterns following in his footsteps.

[ITL=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/redskull.jpg]The Joker[/ITL]Moving on, how about the Red Skull?

William Keogh: Pure evil. Very little in the way of shades of grey in the Skull. He's a racist, vicious, and arrogant man, with a temper, and he's manipulative, cunning, and utterly ruthless.

David Branson: Actually, does he ever do anything other than try to kill Cap? I'm trying to think of his motives over the years, and it's usually Revenge Against Cap. Otherwise (in WWII) there's the whole "love of one's country and/or one's people" which the Nazis made into a ghastly sort of religion -- again, something otherwise good twisted into something bad.

Clay Olsen: The Red Skull isn't just about killing Cap... he's about proving the Nazi ideals to Cap or that Cap's ideas are just as wrong as the Nazi ones. Often saving Cap's life by giving him blood or trying to take his body to subvert the symbolism that Cap is.

[ITR=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/loki.jpg]The Joker[/ITR]How about Loki, the very first Avengers foe?

David Branson: Another one of those "symbolic" characters, but generally there's a whole sort of peevish "no one recognizes my qualities, Daddy always liked Thor best," etc. aspect to him. With the mischief, there's the whole "humor/play instinct" aspect -- again, the only problem with it is his willingness to cause harm for its sake.

William Keogh: Loki's a fascinating paradox. On the one hand, he's the trickster, who will do anything he pleases to amuse himself or to manipulate his way into power. He's been an outright villain, driven often by jealousy, dislike, or envy of Thor. On the other, he's acted selflessly for Asgard too, from time to time. And as seen in the JMS run on Spider-Man, on behalf of his own child.

We mentioned him earlier in passing: Magneto.

William Keogh: Another case of depends on who writes him. He's capable of nobility and cruelty, he's got a richly built history and strong characterization. We can feel sympathetic about him, but at the same time, we're talking about a man who has committed atrocity of his own on a huge scale.

[ITL=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/apocalypse.jpg]The Joker[/ITL]In keeping with the X-Men, how about Apocalypse?

David Branson: Wanting one's people to be stronger and healthier is not a bad thing, but of course Ol' Paper Clips is willing to harm those who are weaker, etc. Again, going too far.

William Keogh: Apocalypse and Sinister are both characters to whom the ends justifies the means, no matter what it takes. Agreed, David, each of these two go way too far.

We've seen X-Men who have been villains, such as Sabretooth and Mystique, both of whom have gone back the other way.

William Keogh: Sabretooth is, from my point of view, a pure psychopath. He served as an X-Man only because it suited his needs at the time, but certainly not because he felt any heroic impulse.

Mystique, on the other hand, is a richly complex, and profoundly flawed woman. She's often short on conscience, and has usually chosen the wrong path. Generally speaking, Mystique is highly interfering in the life of her foster daughter, Rogue, but she at least clearly loves her, which gives us a sense of her humanity.

[ITL=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/venom.jpg]Venom[/ITL]Then there's the symbiotes, who've often been the bane of Spider-Man's existance. How about Venom?

David Branson: Apart from being somewhat of a hungry animal thingy (desire to satisfy hunger good, eating people to satisfy it bad), there's the whole desire to be connected to another person or being (that desire good, the willingness to force it on others bad), as well as a very natural emotional response to perceived rejection (which taken too far, without a willingness to understand or forgive or just let go, leads to KILL SPIDER-MAN EAT HIS BRAINS GROWL SLOBBER etc.).

William Keogh: I think Venom was overexposed, and that tended to kill the character for a very long time. I still think the first Venom, Eddie Brock, should still be dead. The current Venom (the former Scorpion) lacks the ethics too, but at the same time wasn't as over the edge crazy as Carnage's host. Though you'd wonder, from his time in Thunderbolts and Dark Avengers.

[ITR=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/carnage.jpg]Carnage[/ITR]Which brings us to the other symbiote, Carnage.

David Branson: I know almost nothing about this one, sorry. :blush: He's like Venom, only red and more drippy, and that's about all I know.

William Keogh: Carnage is pretty much Venom version 2.0. without any sense of ethics. A symbiote bounded to a complete psychopath. At least until the Sentry ripped him in half for no reason.

[ITL=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/roundtable/doctoroctopus.jpg]Doctor Octopus[/ITL]One more Spider-villain to mention: Doctor Octopus.

William Keogh: A really complicated character. Brilliant, arrogant, and suffering from self esteem issues. He's something of a megalomaniac, but he's also shown moments of humanity, mercy, and decency.

We talked about reformation earlier. How about the Thunderbolts?

William Keogh: The Thunderbolts are a bit of a paradox. It started out as an incarnation of Baron Zemos' Masters of Evil posing as heroes in order to attain real power. Some of the group felt the pull of heroism, and broke away to do the right thing. It hasn't been an easy road, and some have become true heroes, like MACH V and Songbird. Others have stumbled along the way, sometimes in small ways, sometimes in big ways, like Moonstone, Atlas, Blizzard, Joystick, Fixer, and even Zemo himself. [ITL=http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/previews/marvel/2010oct/SHADWL004_colt.jpg]Bullseye[/ITL] And in more recent incarnations, members like Bullseye, Venom, Scourge, or Swordsman have been little different from the psychotics they really are, simply acting with the thin veil of legitimacy.

Despite the many twists of the series, one of its themes have always been the possibility of redemption. And it's allowed certain characters to attain a rich depth, even if they don't take redemption, that they might have never otherwise shown. Zemo has gone from being a typical b-grade Captain America villain to a very complex character who's fascinating in his own right.

David Branson: One thing that I find relevant to all this is something C.S. Lewis says in his book Miracles:

"Everything is in character. Falstaff does not sin in the same way as Othello. Othello's fall bears a close relation to his virtues. If Perdita had fallen she would not have been bad in the same way as Lady Macbeth: if Lady Macbeth had remained good her goodness would have been quite different from that of Perdita."

I've always loved the idea of what the villain would be like if he were a good guy (and its converse, what the hero would be like if he were a bad guy). The way their central characters would play out if their moral nature was changed. We mainly see this in What If/ Elseworlds/ parallel world stories, like "What if Doctor Doom were a hero?" or Earth-3. I was very annoyed when DC killed off the Jokester in Countdown; I thought he was a very cool character, the good version of the Joker. Back in Infinity Inc., in the Generations Saga, we saw the Earth-2 JSA affected by the "Stream of Ruthlessness," and I thought it very interesting to see how, along with Robin seeking vengeance (rather than justice) against the man who killed his parents and that sort of thing, Wonder Woman's corrupt self was still acting out of love- she wanted to make her husband, Steve Trevor, immortal- she was just willing to do anything to achieve it.

The animated DC series has shown alternate-Earth versions of both heroes and villains that play with this -- the Owlman and Red Hood episodes of the current Batman show and also the Justice Lords story from Justice League Unlimited.

I do like to see elements of humanity in some villains, especially if that leads to some of them becoming reformed in the end, but I prefer that reformation to actually stick once they go through with it.

William Keogh: The fun aspect of alternate dimension stories (and we saw this with Exiles for example, is that we can see these very different takes on these familiar characters. A hero could be a villain, or the villain could be the hero, if just a moment in time might have gone differently.

Let's start wrapping this up. Can we classify villains, or antagonists?

William Keogh: Let's see here... we've got the true villains, like the Joker, Doom, Darkseid, Vandal Savage, Dormammu, Mephisto, Bullseye, Carnage, the Red Skull, the Green Goblin... who are either outright evil, or as close as you get.