#Villainy & Evil

[cuddlytogas]

So I accidentally almost got into an argument on Twitter, and now I'm thinking about bad historical costuming tropes. Specifically, Action Hero Leather Pants.

See, I was light-heartedly pointing out the inaccuracies of the costumes in Black Sails, and someone came out of the woodwork to defend the show. The misunderstanding was that they thought I was dismissing the show just for its costumes, which I wasn't - I was simply pointing out that it can't entirely care about material history (meaning specifically physical objects/culture) if it treats its clothes like that.

But this person was slightly offended on behalf of their show - especially, quote, "And from a fan of OFMD, no less!" Which got me thinking - it's true! I can abide a lot more historical costuming inaccuracy from Our Flag than I can Black Sails or Vikings. And I don't think it's just because one has my blorbos in it. But really, when it comes down to it...

What is the difference between this and this?

Here's the thing. Leather pants in period dramas isn't new. You've got your Vikings, Tudors, Outlander, Pirates of the Caribbean, Once Upon a Time, Will, The Musketeers, even Shakespeare in Love - they love to shove people in leather and call it a day. But where does this come from?

Obviously we have the modern connotations. Modern leather clothes developed in a few subcultures: cowboys drew on Native American clothing. (Allegedly. This is a little beyond my purview, I haven't seen any solid evidence, and it sounds like the kind of fact that people repeat a lot but is based on an assumption. I wouldn't know, though.) Leather was used in some WWI and II uniforms.

But the big boom came in the mid-C20th in motorcycle, punk/goth, and gay subcultures, all intertwined with each other and the above. Motorcyclists wear leather as practical protective gear, and it gets picked up by rock and punk artists as a symbol of counterculture, and transferred to movie designs. It gets wrapped up in gay and kink communities, with even more countercultural and taboo meanings. By the late C20th, leather has entered mainstream fashion, but it still carries those references to goths, punks, BDSM, and motorbike gangs, to James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Mick Jagger. This is whence we get our Spikes and Dave Listers in 1980s/90s media, bad boys and working-class punks.

And some of the above "historical" design choices clearly build on these meanings. William Shakespeare is dressed in a black leather doublet to evoke the swaggering bad boy artist heartthrob, probably down on his luck. So is Kit Marlowe.

But the associations get a little fuzzier after that. Hook, with his eyeliner and jewellery, sure. King Henry, yeah, I see it. It's hideously ahistorical, but sure. But what about Jamie and Will and Ragnar, in their browns and shabby, battle-ready chic? Well, here we get the other strain of Bad Period Drama Leather.

See, designers like to point to history, but it's just not true. Leather armour, especially in the western/European world, is very, very rare, and not just because it decays faster than metal. (Yes, even in ancient Greece/Rome, despite many articles claiming that as the start of the leather armour trend!) It simply wasn't used a lot, because it's frankly useless at defending the body compared to metal. Leather was used as a backing for some splint armour pieces, and for belts, sheathes, and buckles, but it simply wasn't worn like the costumes above. It's heavy, uncomfortable, and hard to repair - it's simply not practical for a garment when you have perfectly comfortable, insulating, and widely available linen, wool, and cotton!

As far as I can see, the real influence on leather in period dramas is fantasy. Fantasy media has proliferated the idea of leather armour as the lightweight choice for rangers, elves, and rogues, a natural, quiet, flexible material, less flashy or restrictive than metal. And it is cheaper for a costume department to make, and easier for an actor to wear on set. It's in Dungeons and Dragons and Lord of the Rings, King Arthur, Runescape, and World of Warcraft.

And I think this is how we get to characters like Ragnar and Vane. This idea of leather as practical gear and light armour, it's fantasy, but it has this lineage, behind which sits cowboy chaps and bomber/flight jackets. It's usually brown compared to the punk bad boy's black, less shiny, and more often piecemeal or decorated. In fact, there's a great distinction between the two Period Leather Modes within the same piece of media: Robin Hood (2006)! Compare the brooding, fascist-coded villain Guy of Gisborne with the shabby, bow-wielding, forest-dwelling Robin:

So, back to the original question: What's the difference between Charles Vane in Black Sails, and Edward Teach in Our Flag Means Death?

Simply put, it's intention. There is nothing intentional about Vane's leather in Black Sails. It's not the only leather in the show, and it only says what all shabby period leather says, relying on the same tropes as fantasy armour: he's a bad boy and a fighter in workaday leather, poor, flexible, and practical. None of these connotations are based in reality or history, and they've been done countless times before. It's boring design, neither historically accurate nor particularly creative, but much the same as all the other shabby chic fighters on our screens. He has a broad lineage in Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean and such, but that's it.

In Our Flag, however, the lineage is much, much more intentional. Ed is a direct homage to Mad Max, the costuming in which is both practical (Max is an ex-cop and road warrior), and draws on punk and kink designs to evoke a counterculture gone mad to the point of social breakdown, exploiting the thrill of the taboo to frighten and titillate the audience.

In particular, Ed is styled after Max in the second movie, having lost his family, been badly injured, and watched the world turn into an apocalypse. He's a broken man, withdrawn, violent, and deliberately cutting himself off from others to avoid getting hurt again. The plot of Mad Max 2 is him learning to open up and help others, making himself vulnerable to more loss, but more human in the process.

This ties directly into the themes of Our Flag - it's a deliberate intertext. Ed's emotional journey is also one from isolation and pain to vulnerability, community, and love. Mad Max (intentionally and unintentionally) explores themes of masculinity, violence, and power, while Max has become simplified in the popular imagination as a stoic, badass action hero rather than the more complex character he is, struggling with loss and humanity. Similarly, Our Flag explores masculinity, both textually (Stede is trying to build a less abusive pirate culture) and metatextually (the show champions complex, banal, and tender masculinities, especially when we're used to only seeing pirates in either gritty action movies or childish comedies).

Our Flag also draws on the specific countercultures of motorcycles, rockers, and gay/BDSM culture in its design and themes. Naturally, in such a queer show, one can't help but make the connection between leather pirates and leather daddies, and the design certainly nods at this, with its vests and studs. I always think about this guy, with his flat cap so reminiscient of gay leather fashions.

More overtly, though, Blackbeard and his crew are styled as both violent gangsters and countercultural rockstars. They rove the seas like a bikie gang, free and violent, and are seen as icons, bad boys and celebrities. Other pirates revere Blackbeard and wish they could be on his crew, while civilians are awed by his reputation, desperate for juicy, gory details.

This isn't all of why I like the costuming in Our Flag Means Death (especially season 1). Stede's outfits are by no means accurate, but they're a lot more accurate than most pirate media, and they're bright and colourful, with accurate and delightful silks, lace, velvets, and brocades, and lovely, puffy skirts on his jackets. Many of the Revenge crew wear recognisable sailor's trousers, and practical but bright, varied gear that easily conveys personality and flair. There is a surprising dedication to little details, like changing Ed's trousers to fall-fronts for a historical feel, Izzy's puffy sleeves, the handmade fringe on Lucius's red jacket, or the increasing absurdity of navy uniform cuffs between Nigel and Chauncey.

A really big one is the fact that they don't shy away from historical footwear! In almost every example above, we see the period drama's obsession with putting men in skinny jeans and bucket-top boots, but not only does Stede wear his little red-heeled shoes with stockings, but most of his crew, and the ordinary people of Barbados, wear low boots or pumps, and even rough, masculine characters like Pete wear knee breeches and bright colours. It's inaccurate, but at least it's a new kind of inaccuracy, that builds much more on actual historical fashions, and eschews the shortcuts of other, grittier period dramas in favour of colour and personality.

But also. At least it fucking says something with its leather.

[corviiids]

tbh au where L just doesn't seem to zero in on light as kira at all and light is smug at first but then starts to get increasingly frustrated as L keeps taking swings and missing completely. gets kinda close and then announces the biggest suspect is sayu yagami. don't worry about the older one, he's just an ordinary boy. L never even makes contact. light's dropping signs and L is picking them up but completely misinterpreting them. light's like this guy's a fucking idiot lmfao?? i could get away with this forever. but then he gets bored with no one to play with and he's irritated that L keeps giving credit to every random idiot for being kira. light starts dropping more and more brazen clues trying to see if this stupid detective can take a hint and then L arrests him off the massive trail of evidence he's been leaving for months

[stillness-in-green]

The thing that doesn't make sense to me if Izuku resolved to kill is how it doesn't let them prove AFO wrong? AFO did his big reveal which only makes it clearer how deep the grooming went and it should've been time for Izuku to understand Tenko and Tenko to understand the abuse then reject the mindset forced onto him. But Izuku killing Tenko doesn't do that. Tenko just dies. It feels very wrong.

I guess Izuku just wasn't very interested in proving AFO wrong! Honestly, the only thing I immediately remember Izuku disputing the guy on was the same thing he disputed Shigaraki on: that he was anything more than a human being. AFO isn't a Demon King, but just a lonely man. Shigaraki hasn't transcended humanity; there's still a human somewhere deep inside of him. Izuku won't correct his allies' use of dehumanizing language for Villains, of course, but he's quick to push back when the Villains themselves self-aggrandize.

Sorry, I really only have withering disdain for Deku at this point. And I guess I don't really see any evidence that Deku was ever particularly driven by "proving AFO wrong." He wants to stop AFO, certainly, but that's because AFO is a monster who takes advantage of vulnerable people to maneuver them into doing Bad Things that advance AFO's Bad Plans and sets them onto Bad Paths that are difficult to walk back, not because he expressly opposes AFO on this or that ideological point about the nature of humanity and society.

(Hit the jump for the rest of a somewhat rambly reply.)

If anything, current evidence is that neither Deku nor the manga itself really do disagree with AFO about the frailty of humans, as expressed by Tsukauchi answering Deku's question about how to prevent future tragedies by shrugging and saying, "You don't, because life fucking sucks sometimes and that's just how it is. Our hands are completely tied on improving the system as we have it, so all we can do is punch out the Villains that appear in front of us to stop them from causing more harm."

That's also me being a bit harsh, of course. The fact that Deku is even still asking that question in the epilogue suggests that the manga hasn't reached its final answer yet, and maybe it will yet come up with something better! It doesn't have much time left, but it's still possible!

All the same, Deku is still having to ask that question in the epilogue because he never truly faced it over the course of the story. Never thinking about what Shigaraki as a person said in favor of fetishizing the Crying Child, never coming up with any kind of non-violent plan of attack or conversational approach, I have to ask what exactly about Shigaraki did Deku ever disagree with AFO on?

AFO, in the end, characterized Shigaraki as a puppet he molded exactly as he desired, a doll who he sculpted and programmed to act as he wished, a feeble child who has never made a single decision that AFO didn't cultivate him to make. So far as I can tell, Deku never really contested that framing. He didn't know the extent of it until the full reveal, of course, but Deku, like AFO, insisted on approaching Shigaraki solely through that "Crying Child" lens. He seemed to believe that nothing Shigaraki said or did on the surface really mattered (save as a reason that Shigaraki had to be stopped and potentially killed), that the "truth" of Shigaraki was that feeble little weeping boy who never grew up.

How could Deku possibly "prove AFO wrong" in that context? He doesn't even disagree with him! I mean, he's got some nice talk about how people deserve a second chance, sure; he says that people doing wrong doesn't make them Villains for the rest of their lives. What does do that, however - insofar as I can tell from how opaque the series keeps Deku throughout the final war - is refusing the hand out of the darkness. You stop being a victim and become a Villain for the rest of your life by choosing to remain a Villain even when offered an alternative (no matter how patently awful that alternative is).

Shigaraki chooses to remain a Villain and Deku doesn't have a counter for that because Deku never really got past the false binary represented by Villains and Victims to begin with. And I think the same goes for people who expected Shigaraki to just fold when he realized the extent of the grooming he'd undergone. Disallowing Shigaraki any agency in who he is and what he's done is defining him the same way AFO and Deku both did; when Shigaraki refuses to accept that framing, refuses to be a passive victim, the only thing left for him to be is a Villain. And when a Villain refuses to stop...

Well, Hawks already told us what the Heroes' answer to that is. "Someone has to die." As no one ever stepped up to prove him wrong, as far as the story is concerned, he isn't.

AFO always knew that victims can be turned into Villains with the right nudges; that's the whole reason for him cultivating "warped seeds" whenever and wherever he found them. Hero Society is - and always has been - much too rigid in its enforcement of the Hero/Villain/Victim narrative to effectively combat him. Crucially, Deku - the boy who wants to bring everything back just the way it was - doesn't disagree with him. He thinks AFO is an asshole for setting people up to fail, but he doesn't disagree about what failure means. So if AFO, Deku, and the story itself are all in agreement, what's even there for Deku to disprove?

Now, there is something that would prove AFO wrong, but it isn't something you can do while insisting on drawing lines to separate sad manipulated woobie victims who just need to be saved from awful unrepentant villains who just need to rot. It isn't something you can do while infantilizing Shigaraki Tomura.

The way to prove AFO wrong is to make room in society to help all Villains. Even if they aren't asking for it, even if they never ask for it, and even if they're jolly bastards who don't really deserve it! As long as there's a point at which it becomes okay to give up on trying to save Villains, Shigaraki will remain unsavable. He will insist on being unsavable. He could no more let that go than All Might could step aside and let AFO's attack kill an innocent at Kamino.

That's what it means to be a Hero for Villains.

Ultimately, what makes AFO right is that he knows that Hero Society makes it difficult if not impossible to uncross the victim-to-Villain bridge, and so anyone who does cross that bridge (with or without his influence) is that much more susceptible to him. Deku, in turn, thinks the only Villains he can save are those who drop everything and come sprinting as fast as they can back to the Hero side, so anyone who won't do that is someone he can't help.

Shigaraki refused to stop trying to create a better world for Villains. Toga refused to live in a world that would imprison her. Twice refused to give up on the friends no Hero would help. It's the same with every other Villain who refused to quietly endure their status quo: in a society that refuses to change how it treats Villains, anyone who won't submit to suffering in silence cannot be saved.

That's the paradigm AFO exploits, and Deku will never prove him wrong without resolving to change the paradigm first. We'll see if the last two chapters get him there.

[redhotarsenic]

THE STORM IS ABOUT TO RAGE!!

(for the lovely @nowfallc)

[starflungwaddledee]

they're not like other waddle dees (for @gemapples)

[mammalsofaction]

The fact that the Doof had been paired and proved most compatible with Perry, canonically and repeatedly proclaimed to be one of OWCA's best agents in the field, is curious to me.

Some fics have a throwaway line or two talking referring to his compatibility with other agents. I think, also, about the canonical fact that he remains as third most dangerous evil scientist in OWCA's ledger.

I also like thinking about the fact that we have been proven, multiple times, in VARIOUS dimensions and fluctuations to the time space continuem, that were he not continuously thwarted throughout his career, he would not only have achieved tyrannical rule, he would have EXCELLED in it, and perfectly undefeated, EVEN BY HIS EVIL PEERS that people loved to pretend were always more competent than him.

Like. I think about that. Why? What makes Heinz so dangerous? What made everyone else incompatible to a point OWCA realized they needed to send their best, and he needed to be on call ALL THE TIME?

Curious

[nickpeppermint]

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

"Villain" was originally French for farm-hand, and "henchmen" refers to one's horse tender, so the forces of evil must really be into animal husbandry

[we-prance-at-dawn]

I’m looking forward to Ming using his evil for Joe’s behalf rather than to his detriment.

[silverthelovebug]

Guys, can we make Blood Type Evil Blondie a thing? Can someone draw this? Please? :3

[nym-wibbly]

Was Cas evil in s6?

I don't think so...? I don't think he's evil there - just horribly, destructively and self-destructively wrong, combined with stubborn and prideful and self-righteous. He has plenty of flaws, but he's not evil while he's still Cas. He retains the brainwashed-angel-soldier mindset of, "Some harm is perfectly acceptable for the greater good", while being emotional enough by now to have a slippery grasp on the difference between his own will/needs and the greater good. He hates deceiving Dean but justifies it as 'protecting him'. He knows perfectly well that talking to Dean right back at the start would've put him on a different path, but he can't join the dots on his own and decide that what he's done and plans to do is morally wrong. I'm not sure Cas is capable of that at this point in his evolution.

After he soaks up the souls of Purgatory, it's hard to tell what's the basic messed-up Castiel, what's power-corrupted Cas, and what's Leviathan-influenced. None of Supernatural's antagonists are simple, and most of them are tragic in the "This could all have been avoided, if only—" way.

[girl4music]

“Xena can’t have been that bad if she’s now the hero.”

Well… she wasn’t that bad… in Hercules.

In her own show… a much different story.

They knew they had to go all out if her story of redemption was to really hit the audience. She needed to be indisputably evil. No sugarcoating. EVIL Xena.

Hercules only shows you the Xena we started off with. Just a local female warlord trying to protect her own homeland and all the violence corrupts her to be her own worst enemy. Xena shows you the Xena that makes you really understand why she refuses to forgive herself and is constantly struggling with the condition of suicidal ideation. And because it does that, Gabrielle hits, Callisto hits, Solan hits, Livia/Eve hits. All the characters hit because Xena hits. If they had just continued to do the villain of the week for Xena in her own show, the show would be rubbish.

We needed Evil Xena so Good Xena and everyone else would be extremely dynamic, compelling and realistic.

Because the Light can’t exist without all the Darkness.

[fake-married-my-dead-fiance]

I don't know how I feel about the latest developments in Doctor Slump. And it's not that I mind having some plot, every episode can't be pure fluff, but I feel like they are losing the recovering from mental health plot and becoming something else.

At first I was a little disappointed that the medical error was actually a murder, but I thought the idea that sometimes your life gets destroyed through no fault of your own was a good one. But now we're moving from "no fault of your own" to "one evil dude actually destroyed your whole lives" and that's just not very relatable!

Ha-neul having her life destroyed because people took advantage of her hard work was relatable. Jeong-woo having a huge fall because he had been so popular was also sympathetic. But why does it need to be premeditated? For me it changes the whole feel...

Kyung-min better have a good reason or it's going to ruin the whole show for me 😬

(Also, as a freaking fellow woman, I would NEVER get in a car with a guy I didn't trust. EVER. What were you doing woman? And with your cell phone off? And you know he roofied someone????!!!!)

[sirlordevil]

I want to be the cruel evil villain that can dangle your whole world right before your finger tips and then crush it before your eyes but I'd feel kinda bad. If I ever did it to my future nemesis and like they broke down crying I couldn't just laugh it off or something. I'd probably say something really stupid like "Oh shit, my bad I didn't think you'd be affected like that. Do you wanna go home? I can get you some coffee or something." I mean I have my goals and I really want to achieve them but I don't want to ruin my nemesis's life. I just want to end their life in a very dramatic way! There's a difference between extreme cruelty and just the average queer villain amount. I personally don't think I could be friends with a guy that kills their nemesis's cat or something. Even I have enough morality to not destroy someones life before their eyes.

[wazzi2ya]

Thinking about how the second Lucifer set foot in the hotel, Alastor immediately was filled to the brim with contempt towards him. We know it's because he can't tolerate not being the most powerful being in the room and just had to find a way to antagonize him, but you know what else is there? Everyone in the hotel knows at that point that Lucifer has been an absent father for some time.

Now what is the most common theory about Alastor's own father?

[kazz-brekker]

i think i will be okay with the change to luke’s death if aemond full on bursts into tears over it at some point in season 2. now that they’ve gone the “it was an accident” route i need them to wring every drop of drama and despair out of this that’s possible while also giving him an all-time villain spiral. when you spent years training to be the best possible warrior riding the most feared dragon in the world and the first blood on your hands was a total accident, leads to the downfall of your family, and you’ve committed a sin so terrible you’re permanently damned in the eyes of gods and men alike, what else can you do but hate yourself and where else can you go but further down?