In our last post, we addressed the topic of heroes. Today, we talk about villains.
Growing up, I loved movies and TV shows with clear good guys and clear bad guys. I loved reruns of classic westerns as well as classic war movies (most of which were centered around World War II). I also enjoyed the classic James Bond movie series (even though I understood some of the content was in the “guilty pleasure” category). I liked the classic Bond series because you knew that Bond (despite being a womanizing playboy) was a good guy who wanted to serve queen and country while taking out the bad guys of the world. And I liked ’80s private eye and cop shows like Magnum P.I., Simon & Simon, and T.J. Hooker. In the ’90s, TV began to change but you still had great shows like JAG and Walker, Texas Ranger.
The latter was iconic. There were good guys. There were bad guys. And Chuck Norris was going to kick the snot out of the bad guys — and all would be right with the world. Until the next episode anyway. 🙂
Well, then came postmodernism, progressivism, narcissism, and cynicism. Kind of a messy, ugly stew of -isms that have overtaken our culture, including our entertainment culture. Beginning in the 1960s and continuing through the 21st century (and really picking up steam after 9/11/01), we saw Hollywood systematically aid and abet the deconstruction of all the classic meta-narratives that affirm traditionalism, patriotism, and Judeo-Christian morality.
I don’t want to use the word “conspiracy,” but it was nothing short of a cultural purge. Try being a Christian conservative or even a moderate traditionalist today in Hollywood – and see what happens to your career.
Are there still echoes of some classic values and good-guys-and-bad-guys storylines in modern entertainment? Of course. Hollywood wants to make money, after all. But…
That’s not where the energy is today in Hollywood. Today, the shows that get the acclaim and the awards are shows like Game of Thrones, based on the book series by George R.R. Martin.
Now, I like fantasy. You may not, but the fantasy genre serves as a great microcosm of what’s happened in society over the last few decades. C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien gave us stories that held up strong moral values. The good guys upheld those values. The bad guys worked against them. The lines were clear.
By contrast, George R.R. Martin is probably the most famous of the new kind of fantasy – the more postmodern fantasy that blurs any such distinctions between good and bad. Martin’s fantasy series embraces moral ambiguity and complex characters known for both virtue and vice. His work is also characterized by explicit content, including graphic violence, intense sexuality (including rape and incest), and other dark themes.
I’m a Tolkien/Lewis guy. Not a Martin guy.
And I completely reject the postmodernist perspective represented in Martin’s work – and in so many novels, TV shows, and movies today.
I will, however, grant this…
In the real world, there are no perfect guys. As Jesus told the rich young ruler, the only one who deserves to be called “good” is God (see Mark 10:18-21).
Many of the key figures in American history fall into the middle. Andrew Jackson, for example, was heroic when it came to saving the city of New Orleans from the British. But he was the villain of the Trail of Tears story. Looking at the Bible, King Saul was heroic when he saved Jabesh-Gilead but a villain when he ordered the murdering of priests.
Lewis and Tolkien weren’t oblivious to this. On the contrary, they understood the realities of human nature. Lewis, in fact, wrote about it. See his nonfiction works. And, even in their fiction, you have examples of tragic characters who succumbed to their flaws and temptations rather than staying true to more noble values. You also have characters who saw the error of their ways and who repented of their evil misdeeds. Lewis and Tolkien were more complex and nuanced than they are given credit for.
Why all this talk about literature and entertainment?
Well, the reason is simply this…
Our stories often define our aspirations and our observations.
You can tell a lot about how a person sees the reality around him or her by the kind of entertainment he or she consumes. You can also tell a lot about whether that person has dreams and aspirations — or whether that person has surrendered to cynicism.
To have a story with heroes is to craft a story that is aspirational in nature. That’s at the heart of The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings. These stories point to a greater good. They are pointing to noble virtues that all people should appreciate, respect, and strive for.
This is, incidentally, how I feel about the United States and American history. We are an aspirational nation. We are founded on ideals and principles. But we can easily lose sight of this and get buried in guilt, grievance, and shame by focusing primarily or exclusively on all our faults, sins, and shortcomings rather than on the good in our history — rather than on the values and principles upon which we were founded and the heroes (yes, heroes) who helped us live up to those values and principles.
We are a work in progress. That’s how history should be taught. That’s how America’s story should be written and understood. We are aspiring, progressing, moving forward.
The good guys are those men and women who help us move forward and live up to our noble principles. The bad guys are those men and women who want us to regress and who oppose those principles.
The same is true in any story. You have the protagonist and the antagonist. The former has a goal. If they are a noble protagonist, they have a noble goal. The antagonist opposes them.
I say all that to say this…
In my last article, I talked about how heroes are imperfect and flawed, but we can still honor them (even more than we should honor people in general) if there is (on balance) more good than bad and if they (overall) contributed to the worthy success of our nation. I stand by that.
But…
I can anticipate some of you thinking…
Well, wait a minute! If everyone’s got some sins and shortcomings but we’re not supposed to focus on those and only on the good….
What about Hitler? or Mao? or Stalin?
As a citizen of the United States, I can answer that question by saying this…
Did Hitler, Mao, or Stalin uphold and support values and principles that are consistent with what our nation is founded upon? Or any universal values or principles that any society can based itself on?
The answer is a clear no.
Also, when it comes to their conduct, do their good deeds outweigh their bad?
Uhhh…no. That’s a clear no.
And are there any qualities or virtues that these men were known for that we can encourage young people to emulate or be inspired by?
Again…no!
So, they are not heroes. They are villains.
Hopefully, that is clear to you.
I also like to look at these biblical passages when it comes to assessing heroes…
In the Old Testament, when it comes to the kings, the chroniclers frequently introduce a king and tell us whether this person did “good” or “evil” in the sight of the Lord. Obviously, this is an overall assessment. Every human being sins. So, therefore, every one of those kings — even the ones who did good — did some evil. But, overall, what was their record before God?
That’s how I consider whether a person is worthy of being honored as a hero.
I also like this passage…
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Philippians 4:8, KJV
When I look at a person (past or present) and contemplate that person’s legacy, can I characterize that person (overall) and what they did (overall) as “true,” “honest,” “just,” “pure,” “lovely,” “of good report,” virtuous, etc., etc.? If so, that person is probably a good guy. Probably a hero.
If that person represents the opposite of Philippians 4:8, that person is a bad guy, a villain.
Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
James 3:13-18, KJV
When I look at a person (again, past or present) do I see “fruit of righteousness” and evidence of divine influence OR do I see evidence that they are following “wisdom” that is “earthly, sensual, devilish”?
Then, there’s the fruit of the Spirit (see Galatians 5:22-23).
I could keep going.
The more you know the Bible, the more you’ll recognize the “good guys” and “bad guys” by the “fruit” of their lives and legacy.
With that in mind, some people are worthy of our respect, honor, and attention. And some people are not — at least not beyond the basic levels of courtesy and respect that we are commanded to extend to everyone.
It’s important we know who we can look up to and trust — and who we shouldn’t.
For more of my writing, check out…
