#and even then you want immorality to be condemned and for the character to apologise

[zeta-in-de-walls]

Hey guys, eh little ramble about C!Dream.

I sometimes see takes that are rather sympathetic to his character, suggesting that even if some of his actions were reprehensible, his descent was partly due to others failing to reach out and help him. That he has his own reasons and people painting him as the villain essentially forced him into the role. Dream’s suffered too. 

And yeah, you can look into these ideas as an effort to get a better understanding of Dream’s motivations but it’s very easy to fall into excusing Dream’s actions too much or blaming others too much for Dream’s actions.

It’s a tricky thing, but for any action, there’s gonna be some level of personal responsibility assuming you have at least that much power/agency. (There are cases where a character does not have that much power over their own actions. I would argue that Badboyhalo is being heavily influenced by the egg. And there are other times when a character is basically being forced to do something against their will. I don’t believe Dream has ever been in such a situation - his actions in prison might count as he’s absolutely trapped in there with no options. Regardless, this post is only about his actions prior to his prison sentence.) 

Dream is responsible for his own actions.

 -No one pressured him to build obsidian walls around L’Manburg to trap the citizens in forever if they did not do as he demanded.  -No one compelled him to destroy Tommy’s armour every day.  -Or to convince him that L’Manburg was better off without him and to deliberately sabotage his party to make him believe no one cared about him while knowing Tommy was already feeling terrible and contemplating suicide. -Nothing forced him to destroy L’Manberg. -No one made him decide to kill Tubbo and lock Tommy in prison forever. These actions aren’t mistakes made under pressure, these are premeditated plans.

Now, one might argue that Tommy provoked Dream, that he had an irrational hatred for Dream long before Dream actually did anything terrible to him. Dream only became a villain because Tommy and Wilbur villainised him first. Again, this is removing Dream’s own responsibility from his shoulders too much for me. 

For comparison, Quackity tried pressuring Tubbo into executing Ranboo post the festival because he was a traitor. He even said he’d leave L’Manburg if Tubbo didn’t. Tubbo ultimately refused though! Quackity may have been pressuring him, but Tubbo had agency and if he’d actually gone through with it, it would have been as much his own fault. 

Besides this, it also suggests that Tommy and Wilbur were way worse to Dream than canon really depicts? I would argue that Dream did far, far more to provoke Tommy than Tommy did Dream. Dream for instance, griefed a bunch of places and blamed it on Tommy when Tommy hadn’t even been doing anything. To suggest Tommy viewed Dream as an evil villain prior to his exile is also untrue. Post Nov 16th, after Dream had already betrayed Tommy to join Schlatt (plus also having helped Wilbur gather TNT), the two of them sat on the bench together and listened to Blocks while watching the sunset. Tommy didn’t even care that Dream blew up his house. A week later, Dream and Tommy were friendly when they streamed with Lani. Tommy viewed Dream as a friendly rival at this point, and had for some time (the day before the Nov16th war, Dream had helped Tommy when he was in conflict with Sapnap after he’d killed Tommy’s horse. Also after Dream had announced he’d be fighting against Tommy in the Pogtopia war.)

As for friends abandoning him, this again suggests people were way colder to Dream than canon depicts. George was supportive of Dream when he was exiling Tommy. While he didn’t see such an extreme response as necessary, he definitely let Dream do what he did on his behalf. Punz was loyal to Dream right up until the disc finale. Sam built the prison on Dream’s request and remained at least neutral to Dream until the disc finale. 

Sapnap’s an interesting one, he was hurt when Dream declared the only thing he cared about was Tommy’s discs and took offense to Dream’s dethroning George rather arbitrarily and fought on George’s behalf against this. That said, Sapnap was doing this still in the position as Dream’s friend. A good friend doesn’t merely enable them - it’s good when Sapnap condemns Dream’s worse behaviours. He SHOULD be angry when Dream says he cares about nothing but Tommy’s discs and look for an explanation. 

On Tommy’s first full day of exile, Sapnap joins Dream in essentially bullying Tommy, enough so that Tommy actually challenges Sapnap on this. At the festival, Sapnap actually declines joining Tommy, stating that Dream is his friend and he’s not going against him. The next day, Dream never bothers to talk to Sapnap, while Tommy goes out of his way to apologise to him and invites him to be his friend. Only then does Sapnap give up on Dream. I believe if Dream had reached out, he would have had Sapnap’s loyalty. But he did not. 

Perhaps they could have done more for Dream, but it’s very hard to help someone who is burning bridges. Dream was elusive, he let his friendship die as he came to believe that attachment was a weakness. It’s a tragedy, yes, but Dream is also responsible for the breaking down of his friendships. 

Dream was not forced to be a villain, to be abusive. He had friends, he had power. Like every character, he had a choice. And he chose poorly. 

[langernameohnebedeutung]

I’m probably parrotting to the wrong choir here, but at least part of the truth about liking villains vs. condemning villains is...I don’t consume villain content in order to find healthy coping strategies and genuine life advice. I don’t look for healthy coping strategies in sci-fi films and fantasy books or on ao3 in the first place, because 99% of all that input is not produced by people that a) intent or b) are qualified to give meaningful life advice.

 Sometimes things we read or watch can be detrimental to our mental health or can make us happier or mean a lot to us. And that is also why it is important to tag, warn, and summarise content: So that people can avoid things that are bad for them and find things that comfort them. But what popular fiction never is, is a clear, intentional, professional, and universal guide.

 We already talked about how even the most horrible people will read novels where they resemble the bad guys and identify with the good guys instead rather than reflecting their own behaviour. That is, because narratives need stakes. The hero needs to be David, not Goliath. And we too see ourselves as Goliath, in our lives. Because there are always things that are bigger than us. And because we know that David will win.

 But sometimes...sometimes it is quite nice to feel like the giant. Especially when we’re used to feeling small.

 Sure “I like this villain because villains get to do things we want to but can’t” might seem like a tiny brained answer, but if you expand a little, there is truth to it: Sometimes I want to see someone go bloody ape-shit in response to trauma, injustice, being underestimated or forgotten. Sometimes I want to see someone just care about themselves and burn the whole place down and look fabulous doing it, because I know, that in real-life, very often it is sympathy and empathy holding me back for even insisting on minor and very rational things, simply because I don’t want to be a burden on others and because I prioritise other people very highly. There is catharsis in that; in seeing someone getting it out of their system in the most violent way possible just like there is catharsis in going for a run or punching the hell out of a punching bag when you’re frustrated even though you would never chase down and beat up a person.

Because even when see characters standing up for themselves - think of the infamous internet rage over Captain Marvel stealing that bike from the dude that harassed her – their actions are usually centred around punishing the culprit, not the emotions of the party that was wronged. But people got angry. Not because she stole a car, or because she stole it from a men even – but because her acting in response to sexual harassment connected the scene with deep roots of social context and political opinions and expectations.

And, despite hundreds, maybe thousands of films in existence where a white male protagonist steals a car or bike or anything else to save the day, she is read as a villain here simply for doing the rational thing. Much less could she have killed him and burnt down his house, because she is a hero and it doesn’t serve the plot and that would not be the thing a hero does.

A villain burning the whole joint down because someone looked at them funny is acting selfishly, self-centred. But what are you going to do, call them a villain? Duh. Complain about how what they’re doing is wrong? Well, yes.

 The lane of their actions is not narrowed by the actions of the culprit on the one side (heroes have to react appropriately and proportionally) and the expectations of the good-guy on the other (they have to act in accordance with forwarding the plot). Which means putting up with an asshole sidekick or apologising if they undergo character development that makes them a ‘better’ person and requires them to forgive someone). You might have your odd Logan who will throw a punch when he’s pissed – but here we already venture into the territory of an anti-hero.

And personally, our anger, our disappointment, all that will always be much more contained than any fictional space - by our financial situation, the people we depend on, our job, our studies, or family, our social circle. We live in a web of social expectations that we depend on every moment of our life.

Fiction itself also exists in a web of social context: What influence does it have on the audience? Will it sell? What implications does it have? How does it present its characters? Who is the author and what do they stand for? - but the fictional space, aka the world constructed in a novel, is wholly separate:

If I write a novel where I state that every Canadian person likes the colour blue and wears funny hats, then this is true in the universe of that novel, no matter what any Canadian reader might feel about it. This means two things:

1.       As writers, producers, and even as producers of fan-content, we have to be critical about what we put into the world, because by creating a fictional space, we create characters who cannot stand up against the things we say about them or make them do. Just like the superheroine in the skimpy outfit who gets her powers through the sun shining down on her nipples cannot have an authentic discussion about her body. And when young girls read our comic and see that all the male heroes are clothed and the heroine isn’t, then we are the one that came up with the sunshine-nipples.

2.       Our very own, personal interpretation of the novel – even our own - and the way we relate to it is our own. The feelings we project on the characters are individual, personal, and shaped by us.

And yes, villains usually see their comeuppance. And the thing is, many people argue here: “Well, it’s okay if the villain does x, as long as they’re punished for it.” But...that’s a difficult subject. A piece of fiction can condemn the actions of the villain without seeing them lose – the challenge to the writer is to still form a satisfying narrative, because the villain winning is the ‘likely’-seeming thing that every narrative subverts when the hero levels up and returns with her new friends to kick the villain’s ass. But even if you sympathise with the villain, seeing them win would still be an unsatisfying narrative, most of the time.

Because the whole point of an actual evil villain - and sympathising with an actual villain - is that what they’re doing is unjust. Malicious. Selfish. And projecting your desire to strike back or stand up on a villain and seeking catharsis through seeing them go wild and tear down the city needs the pushback. For them burning down the house to be satisfying, you need to see the house burn. For them to blow up the house of parliament to be satisfying – you must see the explosion.

And watching them lose provides the ultimate, necessary gravitas. Watching Team Rocket fly off with Pikachu and live happily ever after on Team Rocket money would not be satisfying. Watching our super-villain burn the world to a crisp with their death-laser would not be satisfying if they just end up getting their rocket and flying off while drinking space-mojitos.

Whether they end up being redeemed or not: The initial moment that someone fights back and defeats them at the height of their immorality and prevents the suffering of innocents is the moment that their willingness and readiness to commit violence is put to the test.

 We know the hero goes through a journey of their own - one that requires sacrifice and steels their commitment until they are ready to take on the villain. And knowing that someone is willing to make sacrifices to be able to take the villain down is the ultimate acknowledgement of the transgressive act the villain committed. Without it, it would be empty. Like watching someone punch the air.

But the truth is also that when you recreate the fictional space in another, secondary space – fanfiction, fan content, fanart – you decide what to focus on. Like, we all enjoy hurt/comfort stories, but they have a different intention than something focussed on action or the growth of the hero – because that requires for us to see the villain go down. The focus is no longer the transgressive acts of the villain – but to lay bare the pain that caused them. It is no longer about beating them down for the sake of justice.

Like, when I make a post about Frankenstein’s monster living happily ever after and people tell me that hey, the monster killed a lot of people - then we have a different premise. Because me not adding a line about the evil things the monster did to my post was based on the premise that you knew that random tumblr user langernameohnebedeutung does not condone the crime of murder because she posts about a 200-year-old book. And the #fact that my point doesn’t construct an ending where the monster stands in front of a judge and is sentenced to a certain time in jail or punished by a more heroic person is because I have daddy issues and seeing a giant creature go on a rampage through Europe to get back at its asshole Dad in a way I never could makes me quite happy the novel focussing on its acts of violence already did this and my post clearly had a different intention.