Heroes vs. Villains

Heroes vs. Villains

As just about every sentient being in the universe knows, stories have power. In fact, some go so far to say that stories are power. Having your name recorded in song or legend gives you immortality, in a sense. It ensures that you will never be forgotten. Some beings fear that.

So, what stories do my captors cell-mates neighbors tell? A lot of the same ones, over and over. Names are changed, settings differ, but the story is the same. And because of that, their heroes are the same, over and over.

The thing that startles me is that their heroes are brutes. Take, for instance, this character Super-man. Aside from the fact that he's not even one of them, he's essentially impervious to any sort of physical harm, is stronger than any being has a right to be, and, oh yeah, he can fly. Fly! Seriously... anyway, I digress. This super-man is held up as the ideal, the epitome of what humans should aspire to be. Never mind that even in his own story, no human can possibly do the things he can do.

The same archetype shows up again and again. Heroes are such because they have destructive power that exceeds that of their, for lack of a better word, peers. Some can't be hit, others can't be hurt. Some could inadvertently end you just by not pulling a punch. All have some great reserve of physical power. Even in wholly fabricated settings (fantasy, whatever that word may mean), heroes have respect pretty much only because they end lives.

So where does that leave the thinkers, the builders, the architects of society? Villains, of course. The foil to muscle-bound brutes is of course, someone who can out-think them. Often, this is just an ordinary person, who simply opens his mind and is not afraid to think. Resources and ambition also show up in a startling number of villains, but I think that's just storytelling. The true unifying factor is that the person a hero has to stop is the one who thinks for himself. And all too often, "stop" means "kill".

My "neighbors" have a couple words they like to throw around: goodand evil. As near as I can tell, these words are semantically null. Their meanings are beyond fluid. The only constant here is that good is desirable and evil is to be shunned, if not eradicated. No one can tell me the difference, or who makes the distinction.

I might conclude that the reason my integration efforts have failed is that I generally abhor violence. Since this society venerates violence, I fall into their category of "villain". This would lead me to question why a hero hasn't risen up to do such glorious holy violence upon me. I can only conjecture that the thin veneer of civilization they are so proud of demands that violence be in the service of a cause. Strange concept, and completely alien to me. Violence and reason? One would think the two are mutually exclusive.