For me, good Bad Guys only happen when I'm convinced that the Bad Guy truly and utterly believes that what s/he is doing is morally and ethically Right.
I think what struck me most about TTGL was that, in the end, the alleged bad guy's actions were proven to be possibly the best choice of a bad situation -- and that the over-arching antagonist's reasons for being an obstacle were valid. In fact, when the antagonist finally says, "this will be the consequences of your actions," the protagonist acknowledges the statement as true. So do we cheer the underdog who cries against the storm and is willing to try despite knowing the most likely result is destruction? Or do we accept the obstacle who draws the line in the sand but at the same time prevents total destruction?
Or maybe the fact that I ask such questions is why -- under the trappings of fantasy and whatnot -- what I really enjoy are political thrillers. Then again, I'd give my eyeteeth to come up with the urban fantasy version of the Bourne Ultimatum... except that I think Gruber's already done it. Sigh.
no subject
Date: 1 Mar 2008 03:12 am (UTC)I think what struck me most about TTGL was that, in the end, the alleged bad guy's actions were proven to be possibly the best choice of a bad situation -- and that the over-arching antagonist's reasons for being an obstacle were valid. In fact, when the antagonist finally says, "this will be the consequences of your actions," the protagonist acknowledges the statement as true. So do we cheer the underdog who cries against the storm and is willing to try despite knowing the most likely result is destruction? Or do we accept the obstacle who draws the line in the sand but at the same time prevents total destruction?
Or maybe the fact that I ask such questions is why -- under the trappings of fantasy and whatnot -- what I really enjoy are political thrillers. Then again, I'd give my eyeteeth to come up with the urban fantasy version of the Bourne Ultimatum... except that I think Gruber's already done it. Sigh.