Markup View

Author: bitt3n

May 9th 2013 at 11:14:33 AM

I think the question concerns the appropriate level of granularity. My initial proposal is "villains who turned to villainy as a result of being spurned by the heroes." If I understand correctly, you are proposing this be expanded to "villains who are turned to villainy as a result of being spurned by those they admire."

The reason I limited the scope to the heroes is the fact that what I find interesting about such villains is how the story of their origin develops not only their own character, but the characters of the heroes as well.

By way of examples, what I find interesting about, say, Darth Vader's origin is the fact that the jedi sowed the seeds of their own destruction by spurning him, and thus arguably deserve some of the blame for the fallout. Likewise if Mr. Incredible hadn't blown off Buddy, he would have saved a lot of lives. If the rest of the gods hadn't spurned Eris, they could have prevented the Trojan War. If the king hadn't overlooked the wicked fairy, Sleeping Beauty never would have been cursed. If Leonidas hadn't scoffed at the hunchback, the 300 wouldn't have been surrounded. In each case, evildoer becomes an exaggerated reflection of some failing (however slight) in the hero.

The fact that the broader category does not necessarily inform on the reflection of a hero's flaw in the villain is why I would propose the narrower category receive particular attention. The broader category doubtless constitutes a trope in its own right, such as "villains turned to villainy on account of social ostracism and alienation." However I don't think the number of additional examples this encompasses justifies the loss of focus from development of the hero-villain relationship.