Mid-morning in the LJ of Good and Evil

[davywavy]

I was reminded the other day of the writing of a Frenchman, Georges Bernardos, who spoke of the crushing banality of evil. On the face of it, this is a pretty odd comment, and I suppose that most people reading it will have a similar initial reaction to mine: ”Evil? Crushingly banal? What nonsense! When was the last time a good person had just cause to cry ‘I’ll get you and your little dog too’, eh? Answer me that, Mr Frenchy clever-clogs”. That’s the immediate reaction in a nutshell, isn’t it? It’s only when you think about it that the true reality of what Bernardos is actually saying becomes clear.
It’s oddly true that the vast majority of human evil is staggeringly banal, but that’s due to the nature of evil in itself. Good, by definition, is proactive – good involves going out and doing goodly works, and righting wrongs. Evil is the opposite: evil is, in the main, not proactive, or even reactive – it’s apathetic. It is an unwillingness to defer personal gratification or stand out from the crowd. Evil, in its small, humdrum, everyday reality, is petty and crushingly banal – it’s eating another Coffee Crème whilst watching the starving in Darfur on TV. It’s shagging your best friend’s girlfriend when she offers. It’s walking past someone getting mugged. When the devil sits on your shoulder and whispers in your ear, the range of options he has are shockingly limited. Sex. Power. Gratification. Now. Always the one word: Now.
Proactive evil is rare, which is why it gets all the press. If there was more proactive evil we would hear less of it as we would be used to it, but true tales of horror still have the power to shock, due to their rarity and their immediacy. The great historical examples of evil have only been created by a very few proactive people, and succeeded only for however long because of the morass of petty, banal evil which by it’s very definition did not rise up to prevent it.
So why the immediate reaction to the initial quote? Why is evil seen as being more interesting and exciting than it is? At least part of that is due to fictional evil, which is anything but banal - and fictional good, which is not proactive but reactive in response.
When I was growing up we had a box of very old comics; 1940’s ones which had belonged to my father when he was my age – The Hotspur, the Champion, that sort of thing. One of these comics had tales of ‘Red Circle School’, which is my earliest conscious recollection of proactive fictional evil. The stories centred mainly around the villainous Greg Deakin and his plans to have the school closed down, and the valiant efforts of the other boys to stop him. Every single week, Greg would come up with another imaginative, well thought out, well executed plan which was only foiled (reactively) by the other boys. The appeal of Greg Deakin was obvious: he was smart, imaginative, proactive, and confident, whilst the other characters were ciphers against him. In the same way, other fictional villains fit much the same mold – Blofeld, Dick Dastardly, Draco Malfoy, you name them. Ever foiled, their confidence is undiminished, and their vitality and desire to press on against insurmountable odds and repeated defeat never falters.
Vitality, confidence, intelligence, and imagination (plus that all important air of power) are all highly attractive qualities, and couple these qualities with a charismatic lead (Alan Rickman, ladies?) and the attractiveness of fictionalized evil is demonstrated, whereas the reality of the same is tawdry and often rather pathetic.
Of course, this leads to the inevitable thought in my head that if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had owned a cowardly Great Dane, then Satan really would have been in trouble.

And he'd've gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling Apostles.

Comments

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

Alan Rickman, ladies?

Oh yeah, give me the Alan.

That's an excellent post. I've been recently contemplating the nature of evil for the next chronicle. I'd decided I want to play a true, contemptible bastard in female form. I find all too often that the feminine representations of evil aren't proactive and rely far too much on sexuality. Male evil tends to be aggressive, charming and charismatic. Women are almost always foiled by a handsome anti-hero sitting in the background, having been rescued from their evil wants and desires.

(You know ladies, it just takes a good man to sort you all out....)

So, this is really helpful :).

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Proactive evil is what it takes, and yes, female evil is most often sexualised. Playing an asexual female villain is a good idea - I'm not sure there are any fictional examples I can think of off the top of my head. Even Rosa Klebb has a comedic 'ugly woman' subtext. If you can do powerful, villainous female without sexualising it, I shall be impressed.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

I'm going to give it my best shot :D. The first thing is probably the cowboy deal, involving myself with a bunch of outlaw types not usually associated with women will probably do a lot to increase credibility. The second, like Linette's Setite, is a costume in white and cream (not usually associated with sexuality.)

It's frustrating for me watching films and television shows, for so much of the focus to be on fucking. I watch Faith from Buffy, or even the little anti-hero chick from the Chronicles of Riddick demeaned with implied rape or beatings. That obviously made them that way, you know, women can't be self serving just because, Something Had To Have Happened.

Most of the literature I read, say Umberto Eco or Philip Roth, have these wonderfully sick male figures but the women are just footnotes in the story. *I* want to be a fucked up and crazy person, damn it and I want the role model as well.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

Draco Malfoy? IIRC about the totality of his proactive evil amounts to dressng up as a Dementor once.

And Alan Rickman became a the name for screen evil after Robin Hood and Die Hard. I recall Charles Dance being really pissed off when the script for the Last Action Hero had his character described as "an Alan Rickman character".

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

Did you see Love Actually? I kind of expected it to be more chick flicky but it was excellent. Alan Rickman's character was being seduced by this beautiful waif thing and he was playing a sort of tortured husband. It was worth it just for him, he did it so well.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

Alan was great in Love Actually. Check out Close My Eyes for Alan as a duped Husband, he's fantastic.

The best Alan as Evil B'stard movie is Closet Land, a hard to find movie commissioned by Amnesty International, in a weird torture chamber where he has to torture a confession out of Madeleine Stowe. Brilliant and disturbing movie.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

Oh! Damn it, I missed Closet Land when it was showing here at the indie cinema a few years ago. It received some raves and some 'I've watched too many horror films for this to disturb me but it does' type comments.

There seems to be a certain grouping of English male actors that are overwhelmed with talent, yet get put in the silliest positions. Mr. Me and I were contemplating the talents of Patrick Stewart whilst watching Season 1 of Next Generation the other day. He's done extraordinarily well with other more or less serious roles.

Have you noticed though, Alan Rickman and Patrick Stewart have PROJECTION in spades?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Patrick Stewart sometimes really shone in TNG - the "there are three lights!" episode was one of the finest peices of acting I've seen on TV.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

Oh he did, it was the connection I think between his more traditional theatre days and the history of Picard. He actually made some serious cheese into a moderately serious endeavor, which must have been challenging. I'm not sure the name of the episode but one of the ones we've watched recently was when the Picard from the future is on the enterprise and they're nearing a sort of time loop. The expression on his face, looking at what had to have been a dummy was heartbreaking.

Give it up for the Stewart!

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

As a side note, that icon makes me giggle uncontrollably every time I see it.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I do me best.

Laugh, wench! Laugh!

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

Indeed, they can project through things. Though the quality jump in acting is actually something that can be noted with a lot of British actors in US series. For Example Anthony Head in Buffy or Jason Carter in Babylon 5. Watch Jason Carter carefully, you'll see a whole level of subtlety to his acting compared to every other actor playing a human.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

Which one is Jason Carter? Is he Jakar? Most of the characters in Babylon 5 (especially Ms. Bonyhead) irritate the hell out of me. Jakar and little Mr. Bonyhead are so good.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

Jason Carter is Spanky Man! He's Marcus Cole, the Ranger.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

Ah! I think Mr. Me has pointed him out before as being quite good. I do like him, his character is hysterical, very good. And he deals with the unrequited lesbian love very well ;).

I have a running list at the moment of English/Irish actors that just impress the hell out of me. Rupert Everett being one of the top heap. I really want to see whatever the hell the name of that film is, when they lift the restrictions on female actors in 17th (?) century England? I think he'll make a wonderful Richard II.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

Rupert doesn't really float my boat. I was unimpressed with his Oberon, and some of his other roles have left me quite flat, though he was very good in An Ideal husband.

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

I loved 'Love Actually', I thought it really rocked, especially Mr Rickman. Thinking about it, I marginally preferred Colin Firth, mmmmm Colin Firth ;)

[the-mendicant.livejournal.com]

mmmmmmm Alan Rickman!!!

Well done, even with my brain in such a befuddled state this morning, I enjoyed the reasoning behind this post, and if I could think clearer, then I would write a well considered reply. But I overdid things last night on too many levels, so this is the best I can manage.

Keep up the good work

Stream of conciousness drivel

[blue-cat.livejournal.com]

The banality of evil.

"Evil isn't just the big stuff, the murder, the cruelty, the mass stuff - it is the coldness of uncaring, the walking away from good"

Lyall Watson tentatively defined Evil as that which is out of place - too much, too little, in the wrong place, at the wrong time - any of these can be 'evil', both in the small sense and the large (Dark Nature - a natural history of evil). Cane Toads are fine creatures within their natural habitat. Outside of that they are a menace, evil, wrong.

But also, reading too much Serial killer stuff etc, most crime & hence evil is based in desire - wanting something, which is perfectly natural - we all want things. But the point at which it is evil/wrong is when it fit's Lyall Watson's definition - out of proportion/place.

A desire for sex is natural, healthy and normal. But when fulfilling this desire is more important that either your internal inhibitions and the external inhibitors then the result is likely to be wrong.

You may end up in a state of cognitive disonance - the mental state where you listen and remember that which supports your point of view while ignoring that which doesnt. again, normal and very very common :) but remember that is how paedophiles think - evidence that children are interested in and desire sexual contact, that you are caring for them, that it is a loving relationship is promoted while the fact of the lies, pain and confusion, the deciet and threats are edited out, justified, explained away.

But again - that example is of 'proactive' evil - active.

Isn't there something in the legal system that states 'if by action or by inaction'... Abuse versus Neglect.

You can be evil by inaction, by neglecting good as much as by action and abuse.

meh.

Re: Stream of conciousness drivel

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Pretty much my point; evil is very often inactive - simply by ignoring the opportunity to 'do the right thing', or by declining the opportunity to avoid immediate personal gratification. I'd suggest that these two things are the single greatest causes of ongoing human woe that we know of.
Of course, people can't be actively good at all times in the Opus Dei sense - that's downright impossible.
I think what saddens me is how few people ever aspire, at all. I only aspire occasionally, so I can't claim perfection by any means :)

[zenmeisterin.livejournal.com]

The mental image of the Apostles Scooby Gang is just too much... I'm crying laughing into my Beechams hot lemon & honey at work (though the tears might just be due to streaming eyes ;-)

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Jinkies! The Holy Spirit was just Old Man Ezekiel with a sheet over his head, trying to scare people away from the oil reseves he'd found under Golgotha!

[ex-boog351.livejournal.com]

True what you say about pro-active evil - I always wanted the inventive and confident baddies to win once in a while.

I am interested in the idea of passive evil. To me, evil has always been about intentions as well as actions. I accept apathy on certain issues is wrong, but is it correct to define it as evil? I honestly don't know. In France, I understand that they have laws that prosecute people for failing to help a victim of a crime or who has been hurt.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting idea, though, isn't it? Apathy and inaction lead to a greater amount of suffering than actual action does in the main - so can inaction be defined as 'evil'. I was tinkering with the idea over the weekend and finally got it down on paper.

[ketchgirl.livejournal.com]

If you read me, please drop me a message to say hello.
Hello :)
I keep seeing you post on Cryx's LJ so thought I would come and see who you are ;) and now that I've read your very shiny post: May I add you to my Friends list, please?
In other news I liked your interest of Being British to Americans. I work in an American University in London - you would have a blast here (mwahaha!)

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

By all means you may add me, and I'm delighted! Huzzah for new chums!

And is that the US university in Regents Park, or the one out in the suburbs?

[ketchgirl.livejournal.com]

Out in the sticks - although they let me into Kensington once every two weeks for good behaviour ;)
Actually it's a complete cheat: it's the University of Richmond and I guess they think it sounds more impressive to call it The Richmond University in London.
Huzzah for new chums indeed!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I must warn you that my LJ is of highly variable quality :)