That's like saying chocolate is overrated after only ever trying Hershey's, or that drugs are overrated after only smoking weed. You find yourself some power, some REAL power, and you'll understand how villains are made.
I am not a fan of villains simply because I don't get how they turn into one. That is the only thing about any villain is you never get to really explore the reasons behind the way they are. In any story or movie there is never a hint or even a background to why they are the way they are. I guess the same goes with the goodie. They are never fully fledged.
I always tend to explore both those aspects. I like a villain whom, although they aren't sympathetic, you can at least get to understand their motivations. People seldom do evil for the joy of doing evil.
Yes that was the only exception I can think of and it did spring to mind. I can't think of any others. Can you?
There is very, very often, plenty of information about this. Very often. Very. If it sprang to mind, then why did you say "never" in the quote above? "Never" means that there are no exceptions. You thought of an exception. So why did you make the incorrect statement? I realize I may be regarded as being pedantic, but this is a writing forum. Just abandoning all hope of expecting written words to mean what they appear to mean is something I can't manage to make myself do on a writing forum.
Oh well lets not take everything to heart then. The majority of time I don't get why a villain is a villain. That is how I feel about it. Most of the time it is about what a villain is going to do rather then why he/she is a villain. I mean I can think of James Bond I h ave no idea why he is a goodie but then he goes on a killing spree. He is surrounded by villains and I have no idea why they are the way they are. You and I are different. I think differently from you.
Saruman in Lord of the Rings is an example. In my view, he's more compelling than Sauron. We know what he wants, to order the world of men, to have reason and logic. Scientific progress, where he can invent gunpowder, and genetically engineer Uruk-hai who can wear edgy black uniforms and keep dirty Rohan peasants in their beds after 9pm curfew. People would be safe. Not free, nor happy, but safe. Sauron however, wants to dominate all of Middle-earth because ... reasons. However, he's not an unknowable evil, like C'thulu. He's from the same "order of angels" as Gandalf is, and we know Gandalf. Also, Pippin accidentally phones Sauron up on the palantir and he sounds like a regular guy. We just don't know anything about what he wants to do with the world, besides have it because ... why? Saruman is cool. He's steampunk wizard Hitler. Sauron sucks.
James Bond is exactly one series of books. One (1) is not sufficient to declare a "never". How many books have you read?
The Silmarillion gives some insight into Saurons motivations and backstory. Originally he was a servant of the first Dark Lord, Morgoth, who was kind of like the Tolkien version of Satan, who saw that the Earth was good and wanted a bit for himself. I can't remember why exactly Sauron was evil, but it's there somewhere. It's been a while and the Silmarillion is an absolute tome.
Mmm. I haven't read it in its entirety because as you say it's so massive, but I'm familiar with the lore. As far as I can remember Sauron was one of the "angels" who fell along with the "archangel" Melkor, who became Morgoth, who is - as you say - the Satan. He then seemed to take over the role of the big bad after Melkor was sealed away in some box for the Final Battle. Of course, the thing is, we don't know why that lot covet Arda (the world). And, maybe it's not a big deal, but in my view if we're not supposed to get their motivations, then just have them be unknowable entities who defy mortal comprehension, and don't have Pippin pocket-dial Sauron's mobile for a chat.
Power sustains itself. It is a tool. Control is not power, and is absolutely corruptable, in that it can never sustain itself. We see evidence of this throughout history.
I am not sure I would class him as a villain. He is on a different league from anyone else in fact I don't have a word for him. So he could not count. He is not within a range I can call anything. He is totally on his own. He is the odd one out.
Villain: a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel. a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot. He kills people and eats their faces ∴ Hannibal => villain
So dogmatic, and only in your opinion, and your view of Hannibal. I won't expand, I am preparing for a great victory.
