# Rogues in Fiction



## Ariel (Dec 20, 2012)

I have a question for everybody.  

What is it about the rogue style character that is so attractive in fiction and why do we make them heroes?

Han Solo in "Star Wars" is a smuggler and we all cheer for him.  The same goes for Malcolm Reynolds and the crew of the Serenity in "Firefly".  Batman, Superman, and all other superheroes are vigilantes at best and terrorists at worst.  V from "V for Vendetta" is recognized as a terrorist in his fiction.

So why do we root for these figures in our fiction when in our society we want them to be locked away? 

I think part of it is (American) culture's aversion towards "government forcing the people." There is a hatred and mistrust towards those in power displayed through our fiction.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 20, 2012)

I don't think it's "American culture". I think it's just that these characters do things which we would like to do but can't, for whatever reasons. They fight the bullies we couldn't. They fight City Hall and win. They take down the bad guys that get away with it in real life.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 20, 2012)

There's certainly a hatred and distrust for those in power in my fiction because, over tens of thousands of years of having people 'in power' they have shown, time and time again, that they deserve every single drop of it. It didn't just spring up in a vacuum or waft in through the crazy breeze window.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 20, 2012)

@amsawtell-  It's the fight against hypocracy we cheer. Sometimes the law is just wrong. It not just, it is blind, or worse; corrupt. Power corrupts. Everyone knows that.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Dec 20, 2012)

Nobody would be interested if Han Solo followed all the shipping rules of the Empire, or if Spiderman spent half his time testifying in a courtroom against bank robbers and Doctor Octopus. Fringe characters, rebels, and underdogs that operate under their own code are exciting. 

'V' from V For Vendetta fought against a truly oppressive government, more so in the book than in the film. If I remember correctly, he targeted only the tyrants and their corrupt toadies and establishments, sparing innocent people. He identified himself as a terrorist, but not in the sense we know them really.


----------



## Brock (Dec 20, 2012)

Sometimes when I watch a chase in COPS I catch myself rooting for the criminal to outrun the police.

Anyone else?


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 20, 2012)

Brock said:


> Sometimes when I watch a chase in COPS I catch myself rooting for the criminal to outrun the police.
> 
> Anyone else?



Oh yeah, especially if the cops involved are the "we're gonna git these scumbags" types. The more professional acting the cop, the more I root for them versus the criminal.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 20, 2012)

> So why do we root for these figures in our fiction when in our society we want them to be locked away?
> 
> I think part of it is (American) culture's aversion towards "government forcing the people." There is a hatred and mistrust towards those in power displayed through our fiction.


 It's not just American culture, think of Robin Hood or Harry Lime. On the other hand is the 'we' rooting for them the same 'we' as the one wanting them locked up, or is it the powerful want them restrained and the powerless urge them on?


----------



## Freakconformist (Dec 20, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> I don't think it's "American culture". I think it's just that these characters do things which we would like to do but can't, for whatever reasons. They fight the bullies we couldn't. They fight City Hall and win. They take down the bad guys that get away with it in real life.



I think there's truth to this. When I was in middle school I was really repressed and terrified of "breaking the rules". As a result I got teased a bullied a lot behind the scenes. I was being terrorized and I couldn't do anything about it (because in order to do something I would have to break the rules and draw attention to myself.) I started to feel angry at the system, because the bad kids could do whatever they wanted, but I "had" to follow the rules. 

I don't think it's any coincidence that I started reading X-Men around this time. I mean, this was a comic about people who had to control themselves under persecution because otherwise they could really hurt somebody. I related to them. I wanted to be a mutant, just so I could scare the bullies off a bit. (good thing I didn't relate to gun magazines, huh?)

I think that's another good reason people love these characters, they're relatable. Most people don't see themselves as saints, and a paragon of virtue who does everything by the book just seems too unreal. Even cop shows have a problem keeping their characters in line, and they're often bending the rules. I'm sure you could relate to the guy selling fries behind the counter too, and there have been stories based on an "ordinary Joe" being thrown into extraordinary circumstances. Those circumstances usually made the "Joe" a vigilante on the run, so we're back to that. 

That brings us to a third reason people like the anti-hero. They do stuff. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't watch a show about a person who comes home from work and spends the rest of the night watching television. Not unless their house was about to blow up and they spent the next hour and a half chasing down the bad guys responsible for framing them for some terrible deed. Even "reality" TV is based off of people actually doing stuff, unless you regularly invite 50 women to come stay at your house so you can decide which one to marry. 

Either way, fictional vigilantes aren't really "bad guys". Would I want to jump on the boat with a guy who runs cocaine from San Juan to Miami? Would he stick around to help me defeat the evil overlord that claims to be my dad? Maybe, if I promised him a hot date with my sister, but I think it's more likely that I'll end up with a bullet between my eyes before I get to make the offer. 

The real bad guys are the ones who kill because they want to be famous and steal people's pensions and savings with pretty words and a flick of the wrist. I think we often feel like the "rules" are stacked against us and we can't fight back. It's good to imagine there might be a guy, who is just a little bad, who will break the rules and fight back for us.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 20, 2012)

Here's what I'm saying, (disregard episodes 1-3 for a minute) all those guys in Star Wars that the rebels were fighting were regular Joes that wanted to go home to his kids.  All the goods Han Solo stole or smuggled belonged to somebody else and were someone's "hard-earned" goods.  These guys are bad guys but because they are charismatic and "stand-up" to the guy painted as the bad guy in their stories we cheer for them--after all, history (and fiction) is written by the victors.

It might not be fun to watch but if you look at the "Empire" from the point of view of just a regular "Empire" citizen then those rebels are terrorists and they're blowing up your home.  (That said, I do get that the Empire really was the bad guy but I can also see how if we had seen things more from Darth's point of view in episodes 4-6 then we would ha e seem him as the good guy, right?)

Better example might be Riddick--he admits to being a killer--but he's also the savior and the hero, right?


----------



## Kevin (Dec 20, 2012)

First off smuggling is not stealing. Was Solo dealing in stolen goods? I, er..uh, someone I knew once 'smuggled'  fireworks, which were legal in one place, into another place where they were illegal. Nothing got stolen. Now it could be considered stealing, by some, if your smuggling in order not to pay the proper tax, but it's not piracy.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 20, 2012)

Well, was Han Solo really stealing from someone's hard-earned stash, or was he stealing from the Empire or other thieves? I can't remember if that was even talked about. Was he even stealing from anyone, or just smuggling stuff for other people? At any rate, I think things like that depend on who the 'victim' is, what's getting smuggled, and who ends up getting the stuff - and if it isn't brought up at all, it doesn't become an issue.


----------



## Foxee (Dec 20, 2012)

I think Riddick is more of an antihero. He's a guy who knows the right thing to do and does it but not out of finer feelings. He's the guy who you can admire but if you ever met in person you'd say he was a real jerk (or probably stronger words to that effect) and his bloody-mindedness, brute strength, and cunning are effective in dangerous situations. If he lived near you he'd probably play his music too loud, try to sleep with your wife (and possibly succeed) and cut you off in traffic.

Han Solo comes across as more of a wild card, like he'd just be a good guy if he didn't have issues with authority. Besides, he's funny.

Mal Reynolds is an interesting one because he's a man who's been beaten by the system and has lost faith and yet he clings to freedom as the only thing left worth living for. The payment for his freedom is a life that often requires doing the wrong thing (crime) in order to survive though he also, without truly realizing it, sticks to his own code of right and wrong. He delights in causing trouble for the Alliance and yet does his best to escape notice. He'll put himself in danger and do risky things for people who need it. No wonder that series is so beloved among people who've discovered it even though the TV execs managed to kill it.

I think Shadowwalker had it right, these guys do the things we wish we could do...sometime bad and good. And they're interesting.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 21, 2012)

I get what you're all saying but I think perspective plays into it too.

Take the American Revolutionay war: for us Americans the war was justified because we were being denied rights as citizens of the British Empire.  To the British we were being childish and selfish because of taxes.

Also, I'm only asking because I love these stories and characters too.  Is this societal or inherent?  Is this because they are the good guys or is it because of the view we're given? Could the empire have been the good guys in Star Wars if they were the winners in the end?  Could Darth Vader have been the hero who suffered an untimely death at the hands of his traitorous son and daughter?


----------



## Foxee (Dec 21, 2012)

I think that if you're building a Death Star you're probably not playing the moral relativism angle.


----------



## Freakconformist (Dec 21, 2012)

amsawtell said:


> I get what you're all saying but I think perspective plays into it too.
> 
> Take the American Revolutionay war: for us Americans the war was justified because we were being denied rights as citizens of the British Empire.  To the British we were being childish and selfish because of taxes.
> 
> Also, I'm only asking because I love these stories and characters too.  Is this societal or inherent?  Is this because they are the good guys or is it because of the view we're given? Could the empire have been the good guys in Star Wars if they were the winners in the end?  Could Darth Vader have been the hero who suffered an untimely death at the hands of his traitorous son and daughter?



"History is written by the victors" - Winston Churchill


----------



## Ariel (Dec 21, 2012)

True, Foxee, true.  But would the Empire have written about their Death Star if they had won?  Eventually they would have probably found it shameful they'd ever had it and tried to sweep it under the rug along with all of the "pain and suffering" lawsuits brought against them by former employees.  Cause, you know, getting planet shrapnel in your eye must really suck and the whole radiation from the laser beam thing too.


----------



## moderan (Dec 21, 2012)

Radiation from a laser beam? Do tell. temporary blindness, yes. Radiation, no. Lasers don't work like that.


----------



## Foxee (Dec 21, 2012)

amsawtell said:


> True, Foxee, true.  But would the Empire have written about their Death Star if they had won?  Eventually they would have probably found it shameful they'd ever had it and tried to sweep it under the rug along with all of the "pain and suffering" lawsuits brought against them by former employees.  Cause, you know, getting planet shrapnel in your eye must really suck and the whole radiation from the laser beam thing too.


Yeah, I dunno, Sith Lords didn't seem to have a real good grasp on PR. Also, don't forget high decibel levels from those engines and weaponry not to mention workplace violence with Vader throttling people from afar. It's a PR and OSHA nightmare for years to come. I'm sure there's a story there and it could be written by John Grisham.


moderan said:


> Radiation from a laser beam? Do tell. temporary blindness, yes. Radiation, no. Lasers don't work like that.


Have a one-page paper on how lasers work on my desk by next week.


----------



## moderan (Dec 21, 2012)

How Lasers Work


----------



## Ariel (Dec 21, 2012)

The emperor always confused me with his motives.  He really scared me as a kid.

Not to mention the complete disregard for a person's ability to fall into the trash compactor.  There wasn't even a panic button in there.  Not to mention the incredibly poor planning of the Death Star.  You'd think they'd guard that ventilation shaft better.

They really should have been toppled.  Just some amazingly poor planners in the Empire.

Mod: I know there isn't radiation off of lasers--I was making a joke.


----------



## moderan (Dec 21, 2012)

Of course you were. The whole "planet shrapnel" thing was a dead giveaway. But I have my perfesser hat on today, so there, you.
I've never seen those movies. I fell asleep midway through the Empire Strikes Back and saw no need to continue. I've read all of the source material anyway. A lovable rogue to me means Baudelaire or Voltaire's Candide.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 21, 2012)

Foxee said:


> I think that if you're building a Death Star you're probably not playing the moral relativism angle.



Ha!


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 21, 2013)

> Take the American Revolutionay war: for us Americans the war was justified because we were being denied rights as citizens of the British Empire. To the British we were being childish and selfish because of taxes


This strikes me as being both a naive and modern view of an historical event, the concept of 'Rights' has changed considerably since then, partly because of the American and French revolutions, as has that of duty. One of Nelson's captains in a letter to another refers to the damned French heresy of 'Liberty, equality, and brotherhood' which denies an Englishman his right to pursue preferment, power and position. You were not perceived as childish and selfish, but as damned rebels who were denying their duty to their liege lord and King, a treason that deserved death at best. It was only the Americans who thought they had rights, and they saw them as the rights of all humans, there were no rights for citizens of the British Empire, they were subjects.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Apr 23, 2013)

American history is boring. I like Han Solo. Buckle! Swash!

Now as a concept, is a rogue not merely an antihero with hasty justification?


----------



## JosephB (Apr 23, 2013)

Brock said:


> Sometimes when I watch a chase in COPS I catch myself rooting for the criminal to outrun the police.
> 
> Anyone else?



Yes. I always root for the shirtless drunk guy who's hiding under the overturned plastic kid's pool. Because haven't we all been there?


----------



## Leyline (Apr 23, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Yes. I always root for the shirtless drunk who's hiding under the overturned plastic kid's pool. Because haven't we all been there?



Generally, I am there. I'm just better at under-swimming-pool-hiding. It's a talent.


----------



## Robert_S (Apr 23, 2013)

I'm with Shadowwalker. They do the things we would like to do, but are either afraid or too law abiding to do. Laws are setup to deter crimes of opportunity, even if the law is unjust. Rogues will skirt them without remorse. However, only a sociopath would root for someone breaking just laws, but the majority will root for someone breaking unjust ones, such as economic sanctions against a population that did nothing more than to criticize a govt/corp. The rogues we root for harm few or no people, but the organizations they oppose, govt/corp, tend to harm everybody. We are victims to govt/corp actions, but a rogue made the decision to stop being a victim.


----------



## Cran (Apr 23, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> Here's what I'm saying, (disregard episodes 1-3 for a minute) all those guys in Star Wars that the rebels were fighting were regular Joes that wanted to go home to his kids.


 Perhaps, but the ones in plastic armour were also professional soldiers, not cops; that implies a martial law regime - the sort of thing we, who do enjoy relative freedom and civil law enforcement, tend to rail against socially and politically. The ones not in plastic armour were elements and agents of organised crime, and without a civil police force on hand, regime control under organised crime ranks just below military rule in the likeability stakes. 



> All the goods Han Solo stole or smuggled belonged to somebody else and were someone's "hard-earned" goods.  These guys are bad guys but because they are charismatic and "stand-up" to the guy painted as the bad guy in their stories we cheer for them--after all, history (and fiction) is written by the victors.


World of difference between smuggling and stealing, but that's already been covered. 



> Better example might be Riddick--he admits to being a killer--but he's also the savior and the hero, right?


Yes. Another might be Robert E Howard's Conan. Howard's Solomon Kane was more the lone vigilante - more like an earlier generation Shadow (Lamont Cranston - no, I don't think my mother thought of that when she named me), who in turn was an inspiration for the Batman. 

We do have a long history of admiring those who break the law when the enforcers of the law are being used inappropriately to maintain a repressive rule. Common to those rogues or rebels we make into heroes is their capacity to distinguish between innocents and the enemy regime, so that even if the fight is not one of overthrowing the regime to bring freedom and democracy to the masses, acting to protect or save individual innocents is a part of their public profile. 

When that aspect is not there, when innocents are considered "collatoral damage" or "object lessons" or "human shields", our perception of the aggressors tend towards criminals, terrorists, people who should be brought down or to justice.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 23, 2013)

> We do have a long history of admiring those who break the law when the enforcers of the law are being used inappropriately to maintain a repressive rule.


Like i said, back to Robin Hood, but it doesn't  seem to be a necessary precondition,look at the way the numbers are going in the 'Heroes and villains' thread, villany is simply more fun, bully for 'Stalky and co.', down with the masters, who is interested in the goodie goodies?


----------



## Cran (Apr 23, 2013)

Olly Buckle said:


> Like i said, back to Robin Hood, but it doesn't  seem to be a necessary precondition,look at the way the numbers are going in the 'Heroes and villains' thread, villany is simply more fun, bully for 'Stalky and co.', down with the masters, who is interested in the goodie goodies?


I don't know the reference, but of course there are stories like the Godfather, where sympathies rest with the Corleone family - in such cases, I would argue that the choice of who to support is based on relative values but otherwise much the same. And yes, villainy is often more fun when it's safely pursued in fiction; less so when it happens in your real neighbourhood.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 23, 2013)

Robin Hood, sherwood forest, wore green, men in tights, Kevin Costner

'Stalky and co' Rudyard Kipling, probably based on his own boyhood, school boys of study five take on masters over percieved injustices.


----------



## Cran (Apr 23, 2013)

Olly Buckle said:


> Robin Hood, sherwood forest, wore green, men in tights, Kevin Costner


Among others; yes, this one I know. 



> 'Stalky and co' Rudyard Kipling, probably based on his own boyhood, school boys of study five take on masters over percieved injustices.


But isn't this is the same argument: lovable rogues dish it out to the repressive regime; the true villains are the masters with the law on their side and in their control?


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 24, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> What is it about the rogue style character that is so attractive in fiction and why do we make them heroes?
> 
> Han Solo in "Star Wars" is a smuggler and we all cheer for him.  The same goes for Malcolm Reynolds and the crew of the Serenity in "Firefly".  Batman, Superman, and all other superheroes are vigilantes at best and terrorists at worst.  V from "V for Vendetta" is recognized as a terrorist in his fiction.
> 
> ...



It could be that the movies don't show them doing anything bad against actual people.
In reality, criminals typically hurt real everyday people.  If Han Solo was shown doing what criminals do in real life, would be have the same 'attraction' factor?

Mind you, sometimes myth hits real historical figures too.  Take Ned Kelly.  In reality, he was nothing but a good for nothing 4th rate common yob thief who stole from everyday families struggling to survive on their 5 acres of land.  Yet, because he built a metal personal cage for himself, everybody sees his armour and believes the myth that he was some type of anti-oppressive-government hero.  He simply wasn't.
But these types of delusional mythical fantasies are rare in real life.  Generally, it's where the reality of such characters aren't presented; hence why these types of movie characters are 'attractive'.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 24, 2013)

Independent men of action--or in rare anomaly, women--who are above the law, have been a staple of literature since the beginning. El Cid, Rama and Sinbad. For the last half millennium they have been a particular feature of the European frontier in the new world and now--carried practically beyond reason--are almost the entirety of western genre literature not to mention cinema and TV. Only the post-modern anti-hero stands for reason against this tide, and then usually only in dusty high-brow material. Fantasizing about unlikely heroes smacks a little of a desire for shirking, in the arena of cooperative civic responsibility and reminds me a bit of Freud's basic hypothesis, about the adverse psychic effect of trying to civilize humans.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 24, 2013)

> Mind you, sometimes myth hits real historical figures too.


Quite commonly it seems to me, Rustgold. Dillinger seen as the hero ripping off the banks that ripped off the ordinary man, the Barrow gang in 'Bonnie and Clyde' "Is that your dollar or the bank's dollar?", even out and out thugs like the Kray twins who were feted by well known show business people and have started a whole industry of memoirs and biography.



> Fantasizing about unlikely heroes smacks a little of a desire for shirking, in the arena of cooperative civic responsibility


 Very true, pp. One of my ideas I am trying to develop is "Mr Watkins", a retired government agent who gets involved in the small village politics where he lives. People seem to love the vigilante side of it, and that he is a little old man you would not expect to say boo to a goose, but I am trying to give him a conscience to wrestle with as well so I can discuss the morality of the vigilante; nothing like a dichotomy.


----------



## Lewdog (Apr 24, 2013)

There is all kinds of real life people that society has cheered on.  Bonnie and Clyde, Jessie James, Ned Kelly, Billy the Kid, Dillinger, the list goes on and on.


----------



## moderan (Apr 24, 2013)

Rogues generally stop being lovable when their self-interest stops coinciding with the audiences self-interest. If one doesn't have an immediate personal connection, they get really romanticized. If D.B. Cooper had your money, it's unlikely that you'd champion his cause.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 24, 2013)

Sure. People have mentioned Dillinger and Bonny and Clyde etc. The times were somewhat unique -- with the depression etc. and folks were feeling generally screwed. Plus, there was prohibition, so people were benefiting from all that crime. I'm betting the media had some something to do with romanticizing them too -- perhaps they downplayed the ruthlessness. Spinning stories to sell newspapers is not a modern thing. But it's interesting that when Hoover's FBI came along and they could put a face to the good guys -- people started to root for them. (Good PR and spin again.) And maybe people eventually caught on that the gangsters where really bad people and ruthless killers.

I find myself again recalling the wisdom of that very accurate mirror of our society and attitudes -- the _Brady Bunch._ (Except that their lawn was made of AstroTurf.) Who could forget Bobby's hero worship of Jesse James? Until he met the old man who said -- "Jesse James shot my father." One of the most memorable and poignant moments in the history of television.


----------



## Rustgold (Apr 24, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> There is all kinds of real life people that society has cheered on.  Bonnie and Clyde, Jessie James, Ned Kelly, Billy the Kid, Dillinger, the list goes on and on.



Billy the Kid was largely a fictional story.  Ned Kelly most certainly wasn't liked in his lifetime, and if it wasn't for the 'suit of tin', he would have faded into nothing.  Bonnie & Clyde is essentially a brand name image, and most people (including me) don't even know what they did (besides die).  I don't know about Dillinger.


----------



## Ariel (Apr 24, 2013)

All of this is what I'm questioning.  Do we love them because of the spin given to them or because they're a reflection of what we would want to do?

I've been reading on Bonnie and Clyde lately.  The Barrow gang were ruthless thieves and murderers.  Bonnie and Clyde were fairly attractive lovers that made sure they were impeccably dressed even while living in cars and camping out.  Bonnie seemed playful, sexy, and dangerous in the photos she had taken of them.  In their case, I think they were beloved (by later generations) because of the PR spin.  Especially after their image boost given by the movie.

Clyde was trigger-happy and their spree actually killed a lot of people.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 24, 2013)

I just Googled them to see what they looked like -- and I saw an image for a movie -- Bonnie and Clyde vs. Dracula. That's probably going to go to the top of my "must watch" list.


----------



## Ariel (Apr 24, 2013)

I wonder if that's on Netflix.  Sounds amazingly horrendous.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 24, 2013)

Doesn't look like it. 

I'd love to know how the Netflix search engine  works -- the titles that came up for "Bonnie and Clyde" included "Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue." Was it the word "and?"


----------



## Ariel (Apr 24, 2013)

Quite possibly.  Of course, it may have been the "B" in Bonnie.  I find some really interesting things on Netflix, sometimes.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 24, 2013)

I watch a lot of documentaries on Netflix -- if I'm working at home and doing something sort of repetitive or less taxing -- I'll watch one on my other monitor. And they have wi-fi where I work out, so I'll watch them on the phone when I'm on the bike etc. Really helps kill the time.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 24, 2013)

> I watch a lot of documentaries on Netflix


 The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia
Lovable (dancing) Rogues


----------



## JosephB (Apr 24, 2013)

That looks great. I'll definitely check that out. Thank you, sir.


----------

