It's a function of stereotyping and shorthand. Either you have a tale "against evil" or you have a tale of "finding evil." Rarely is there time for both. if the former, the antagonist must be demonstrated early and often. If the latter, the "what is evil" question is the structure of the film. Consider THE USUAL SUSPECTS. The other thing is "evil" isn't exactly universal. In most stories, "evil" is "evil to YOU." Very few people aren't heroes in their own minds; that includes Pol Pot, Hitler, Genghis Khan, you name it. In order to understand the true power of righteousness one need only study the evolution of religion. I have encountered true, unadulterated evil exactly once, and I count among my high school acquaintances two murderers. By the time I knew how evil the guy was, he was out the door… and all I can point to as way as an indicator is a vaguely uncalibrated sense of right and wrong. We were sitting down to dinner with two friends. She went to school with my wife; he fell in love with her in the Navy. She had a drink or two and started bitching about psychiatry and how they knew nothing; after all, two different shrinks had accused her of "sociopathic tendencies" so what did they know and in our heads something went click and it all made sense. It's not that she didn't feel emotion. It's not that she didn't have empathy. It's just that it didn't affect her. Her emotions were primarily about her and her empathy was in terms of her. Stephen King described a sociopath in It in a very memorable way; there's a kid that just doesn't believe anyone else in the world is real. She was a lot like that. It's not that we were all there for her entertainment, it's that we just didn't count.I've always found it weird that in movies and even in cartoons, many people are presented with this bumbling, inept portrayal of evil, of people who wish to harm others, but somehow just don't quite cut it, while the "good" characters and heroes are always smarter than the bad guys, but never really that smart, even if they are supposed to be geniuses.
I don't know that I've ever encountered a truly evil person in my life, though I have run into people doing really, really ugly things, generally triggered by some kind of emotional event, but from what I've read about serial killers, they generally seem to be very charismatic and very intelligent people who are quite capable in a number of ways.
I know that sociopaths are often characterized as incapable of feeling emotion and yet, charisma functions largely on empathy.
In your mind, is this shorthand a function of audience expectation or something else? Also, under what circumstances would that shorthand change? When it's broken down like that, I see what you mean about the two kinds of evil tales. That makes sense in regard to this article. I've been wondering why the killer would bother to have a partner, since it seemed like his sexual needs were met and fed by his "activities" and being a known homosexual with a partner doesn't seem like it would throw people off of thinking he was out seducing marines, especially given the time period.It's a function of stereotyping and shorthand. Either you have a tale "against evil" or you have a tale of "finding evil." Rarely is there time for both. if the former, the antagonist must be demonstrated early and often. If the latter, the "what is evil" question is the structure of the film. Consider THE USUAL SUSPECTS.
It's not that she didn't feel emotion. It's not that she didn't have empathy. It's just that it didn't affect her. Her emotions were primarily about her and her empathy was in terms of her. Stephen King described a sociopath in It in a very memorable way; there's a kid that just doesn't believe anyone else in the world is real.
She was a lot like that. It's not that we were all there for her entertainment, it's that we just didn't count.
It's a function of psychological narrative. We want to know who the good guys and bad guys are in Syria. We want to know who the good guys and bad guys are in Congress. We want to know who the good guys and bad guys are on Wall Street. All of these narratives are necessarily self-serving; Alawites love their children, too. The narrative might change in non-fiction. It still boils down to two choices: 'this is the bad guy" or "who is the bad guy." "kink" isn't an either/or proposition. People with lovers often adore their spouses. I had a close encounter with a known NM serial killer - my mom picked him up hitch hiking and another friend - whom I met years later - almost went back to his trailer. I thought it was this guy but the MO is wrong. Either way - the guy my mom ran across had a girlfriend who helped him; the Toy Box killer was helped out by girlfriends and his daughter.In your mind, is this shorthand a function of audience expectation or something else? Also, under what circumstances would that shorthand change?
I've been wondering why the killer would bother to have a partner, since it seemed like his sexual needs were met and fed by his "activities" and being a known homosexual with a partner doesn't seem like it would throw people off of thinking he was out seducing marines, especially given the time period.
Oh, I'm not complaining, just remarking on it. I am incredibly glad that the world is so full of surprise, even if I do sometimes wish for more clarity in certain aspects of life. I will say that it bums me out that some people get so overwhelmed by it that they get locked into a way of living and perceiving, but on the whole, yeah I agree that it is better.