From: sdh5@po.CWRU.Edu (Scott D. Hurley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Characters I Hate to Love
Date: 7 Oct 1992 14:41:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


All right, let's get things straight Mr. Carriene, I have at
no point deleted what you said, I merely did not feel like 
going through the motions of typing it back into the computer.
That's right, I don't have an editor service so whenever I want
to directly quote someone I have to *type the whole thing back
into the system*, and shifting back and forth between article
cited and the one being written is *quite* tiresome.

To answer you're question about who's doing the *supposing*, I
believe one could rightly infer that it is the modern Occidental
cultural system as derived from the general European cultures of
the past four+ thousand years, but more specifically that one
that has emerged since the introduction of Christianity in the
last fifteen hundred or so years (at least in Europe, the 
Babylonian Mythos upon which it is based goes back far longer,
and since this is *not* an anthrohistorical news group I shall
avoid any such indulgence).  This is specifically accurate
because other ancient cultures that I know of, Mycenea and
the Hellene civlization to name but two, had a different 
concept of what 'evil' was, and that version was not particularly
tempting, from  my perspective.

To define the 'evil' that we are using in this context, consider
using the following *TYPE* of 'evil', which is commonly used:
The self-aggrandizement and indulgence of one's ego, regardless
of the price that others may suffer for one's acctions, wherein
the primary motivation for one's deeds are self-satisfaction
and enjoyment *without* or in *spite* of the consideration of
said deeds' effects upon others.

It may sound repetitive, but it is not.  Both the action *and*
the motivation must be present.

Note though, that of the classical Seven Deadly Sins (Pride,
Anger, Sloth, Gluttony, Lust, Greed, and Jealousy), the form 
most commonly taken by those adversaries that we can see as
at least partially, if not entirely, protagonistic is Pride.
A possible explanation of this is that Pride is the only one
of the Deadly Sins to also be considered a virtue, and in fact
is also the *highest* of virtues AS WELL AS the *dealiest* sin.
From our general cultural perspective the other six of the
Deadly Sins do not forge villains worthy of appreciation:
Anger is to destructive, although it is often present in both
villian *and* hero; Sloth is the least interesting and least
deadly of the sins, and therefore provides the smallest amount
of successful villains; Gluttony is another one that we 
consider boring, if not distasteful in our modern health-
conscious society; Lust, while a strong motivator, tends to
produce rather single-minded foes whor *really* have nothing
to offer others; Greed is the iffy sin, one that we sometimes
embrace, but one which we have a hard time seeing in a 
compelling villain as a reason to root for them, although it
often exists as a lesser facet of those we *do* side with;
and Jealousy also leaves something to be desired, if only
because the adversaries worth liking ususally have no *need*
to be jealous of others--it's more often than not the other
way around.

This leaves Pride--a drive to be second to none, to never show
weakness, to never kneel to another, and to rise as high as 
one dare . . . if not *beyond* where one dares.  This ever-
burning spark of ambition, although oft dangerous, has a
certain appeal to our *own* respective egos, giving us a
sense of recognition for the adversary's accomplishments, for
said  'villain' that we root for almost invariably has
dared to reach where no one should (or more likely, could,
prior to this achievement--but that's a different argument 
altogether)--and succeeded, even if only in part. To use
your own examples, McBeth siezed the throne of a kingdom
and Faust learned that which had been forbidden to be known.

I hope that this serves to satisfy any questions about the
*nature* of the 'evil' of which I speak, and will quell any
future distractions from the main theme with questioning the
definition of *evil*.  If you want to continue this debate
with me . . . fine--just do it over e-mail.   Now does 
everyone know what I mean when I say, to quote myself,
"Remember, Evil is *supposed* to be more tempting than good."
The temptation lies in doing what no one dare--and the
glory and fruits of succeeding, regardless of what the costs
might be.

Now, back to the discussion . . .

This tangental explaination has been brought to you by this
topic's originator--Scott D. Hurley, who is solely
responsible for it's content.  This article does not 
necessarily represent the views and opinions of CWRU, its
faculty, its alumni, or its students.  Any all complaints
should be forwarded to the author, to avoid unnecessary
build-up of articles in this newsgroup not relevant to its
primary, secondary, or tertiary functions.  Your compliance
is appreciated . . .

Scott D. Hurley

P.S. *NEVER* ask for a philosophical definition of 'Evil'
     from a History/English dual-major that has spent the
     night preparing for an English Mid-Term by rereading
     _Paradise_Lost_ while running solely on caffeine . . .
    you have been warned.
-- 
"What is it to die? . . . All these *memories* will be lost in
 time--like tears in the rain . . ." Roy in _Blade_Runner_
"A single spark will illuminate the darkness, no matter how great
 or vast the darkness be . . . or how feeble the light."--Scott