So this has become a common sentiment on Yea Forums and reddit as of late

...but does anyone else here actually disagree? The "relatable villain with a worthy goal" trope that is becoming increasingly common in Hollywood productions is really just another consequence of postmodernism and the "subverting expectations" phenomenon...the good guys can never be wholly good anymore, and they want you to root for or at least feel sympathy for the bad guys...this can provably be traced back to that most insidious novel Paradise Lost, which asked the reader to empathize with Satan himself. It's all very demonic.

Attached: D767F17A-B572-4B61-84AF-773A709A8839.jpg (640x447, 173K)

Read some Aquinas. Pretty much nobody is good. We're all tainted by sin. We're all going to hell.

That is not what Aquinas says.
Read "Revolution and Counter-Revolution"

Shut up, nerd. Also, do you really think that someone who jams ellipses all over their post is going to read literally anything?
See above.

Paradise Lost doesn't ask you to emphazise with Satan just because it's written from his perspective you fucking brainlet

>Yo, you know what started this degeneracy? Paradise Lost

What is this, the fucking 18th century

>The good guys can never be wholly good
Just like real life. Retards like you who can only think in black and white need to be roped.

>It's all very demonic.
kek, back to /pol/

>kill anyone who aspires to moral virtue
Wow, how blatant can you be?

Fuck off Jew. Thus phenomenon is the very essence of postmodernism.

>read
whats that gay shit?

Are they talking about WW2

Read Blake on Paradise Lost. He destroys Milton with facts and logic.

>be stupid. don't listen to those who would tell you the truth. Turn off your brain and be stupid.
It's never too late to change

>fiction should only reflect the fallen state of man (jewish realism) instead of showing the heights to which man can reach (christian aspirationism)
fuck off kike

>can recognize the evil in postmodernism
>cannot recognize the evil inmodernism
>cannot recognize the evil in liberalism
The roots go deep. If you cannot see them, it is because you have become a part of them.

Protestantism is a cancer that goes back many centuries, yes.

It's movies where the film reel is a book, the frames are letters, your eyes are the projector and your brain is the screen

Sauron is the best villain ever and he's just the evil dark lord. Joker is completely evil and insane also one of the best villains ever. Best villains in real life: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, all straight up evil. Good versus bad is patrician. Grey vs grey is weak.

Even Sauron had a the goal of pleasing god by creating order. He wasnt evil for the sake of being evil

>one type of plot is better than the others
yikes

Fucking retard. I am a Catholic monarchist. I am criticizing the entire project of modernity. If you disagree with my OP post you are indisputably a leftist.

Where the fuck in any of my posts did I imply that I was a liberal. Fucking retard.

>fails to end sentence with punctuation
It's never too late to start acting like a real white person.

All villains have goals, yes. You start to stray into demonic territory when the villain's goal is presented as more worthy than the hero's.

its all relative anyway. Whos to say one is more worthy unless they have similar ends

Always be stretching the form

The author. A story is told by the author to his audience. If it's "all relative," "left up to the reader," or "ambiguous and open-ended," that's just Jewish storytelling.

>pretending your parent's raising you wrong is a good thing
Wigger cope.

Stories used to have beginnings, middle, and ends.
Now, under liquid capitalist postmodernity, there are never any endings. Only ambiguity and open-endedness. Because everything is "relative." There is no objective truth. It's only about world-building, creating opportunities for sequels and spinoffs and never-ending capitalist exploitation. No true endings.

People like sympathetic or somewhat noble villains, because it makes the villains interesting. There's only so many badass things a villain can do to make themselves impressionable.

If the villain is at least slightly grounded in reality, they can't be like Sauron and just whack a billion people with a mace. Mortal villains need to be interesting to mortal audiences.

Attached: kreia.png (669x678, 437K)

What'f your opinion on Faulkner and Joyce, oh exalted guardian of Westerne Civilisation?

Fuck what the people want. Art should never be democratic. Art needs to be prescriptive.

You are telling someone to fuck off for saying you should read Aquinas. Also, it goes deeper than modernity. He erred in saying everyone goes to hell, but other than that, his comment was legitimate. You say you are Catholic, but your vulgarity, anger, and over-sensitive judgement suggest an overabundance of pride and a lack of charity. As much as the mechanisms of evil are contemptible, you cannot lose sight of Catholic morals in the fight. We cannot fight as they fight. We fight by righteousness not convenience.

Even your precious Jesus was evil. He got killed by jews on purpose because he knew that way our persecution would go on for millenia.

Based catholicposter

I told user to fuck off for completely misunderstanding Aquinas.
His comment was also not legitimate, because he misunderstands the role that fiction should play. He thinks fiction should merely reflect the world as it is. He wants docu-fiction and Jewish realism. Fiction should instead aspire to show man the moral virtue he is capable of.
Don't ascribe. Prescribe.

Also get off your high "muh civility" horse. Christ got violent when dealing with the Jews, or did you forget, Shlohmo?

He isn't Catholic, he's a modernist civility cuck like Bergoglio.

Nah, you're an usurper, someone who uses religion as an identity to validate yourself. You don't care about virtue at all. You only care about ego.

If there is a "hero" and a "villain" in a plot than its already bad

>virtue is being civil towards jews on taiwanese basket-weaving forum
Your catechesis was poor. I'm guessing you're a cradle Catholic Amerimutt who went to public school and only attends Mass at Easter and Christmas. And the NO mass at that.

I did not chastise you for a lack of civility. I chastised you for anger. For contempt. For the profane. For your self-righteousness. At the same time you are putting forward a (limited) vision of how language and the arts should be used, you use your letters to do the opposite. You are not calling people to a higher purpose, but instead are shouting obscenities at them, criticizing them without explanation, and more. You're larping, and I will ask you kindly to refrain. As a believer, fully aware of my faults, I ask you please, if you have any sincerity in you, to pray and contemplate if this is really what God is calling you to do.

t. post-modernist kike

I am the user who asked OP to read Revolution and Counter Revolution. When is the last time you went to confession?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Stop virtue signalling.

Once again, Christ showed us the proper response when dealing with kikes. He did not come to bring peace, but the sword.

Obviously have never read Paradise Lost. It literally says in the poem not emphasize with him

Again using the words of the Lord for personal goals and validation. Disgusting.

Read Blake.

You say you are against modernism. You say you are not liberal. But you cannot see the way liberalism has taken you. You are liberal in your thoughts, and you are liberal in your deeds. You think you are compelled toward tradition out of zeal, but it seems you have a false zeal incited by a obsession with the senses. Nowhere in this thread have you spoken of theology. Nowhere of truth. Your words have been ugly as you have called others to compel others towards "beauty". Abandon your pride.

>he picks and chooses what parts of the bible to take seriously or not
Spoken like a true protestant. Fuck off Satan-spawn.

>let he who is without sin cast the first stone
Precisely. All this thread you have been throwing vulgar stones and nothing else. Practice what you preach.

Begone demon. My ugly words are for Jews and their kin.

Matthew 5: 39 and 40

>yeah bro just read some Summa Theologica. It's only like 3000 pages long

And when did our Lord speak even to Satan in this way? You seem to only care about those portions of the Bible which excite your pride and vitriol.

contrarian bs. However it does make for good plot when you can actually empathize with the villain, so it generates a bit of internal conflict inside you whether you side with the hero or the bad guy.
Which doesn't mean it's necessarily better than a classic good-vs-evil story. It all comes down to pulling it off. Although good-vs-evil is easier to pull off.

The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.

You have done nothing ITT except self-righteusly virtue signal your own supposed piety.

There can be nothing ugly in righteousness. If it is righteous, it is not ugly. If it is ugly, it is not righteousness. This is the profound truth of Beauty. How do you speak of compelling artists when you cannot seem to grasp the divine simplicity? If you know you are doing something ugly, then you should know that you are sinning. If you know that you are sinning, and you do it anyway, how can you be with God?

Matthew 21:12

Any unrelatable character is uninteresting character.
You don't want main villain to be uninteresting. Snoke is what you get when villain is unrelatable.

underrated high-quality post

I have claimed nothing of my own virtue, but only stated what is true about our faith and our God. Further, I have given OP a book that should help him greatly in understanding what he is now noticing by himself. And I have given it to you as well.

The only proper response to demons like you is hatred and derision.

There should be place for both of them in the market.

1 Peter 3: 8 and 9

>saying "fuck" and "retard" is a sin
>speaking harshly with demons is a sin
You are a Protestant demon, no more, no less. We're done here.

Yes, all Christians shall be brothers.
Again, see Matthew 21:12 for the proper way to deal with Jews.

Not any other verses to justify your claim, I see. My point is made. Good day to you.

So you claim Jesus' words when they agree with you, but not when they disagree with you. And when you think someone is lost, instead of trying to save them, you condemn them. Have you actually spoken with anyone in person, any priest or any knowledgeable friend, about these things? How do you know you have not erred? How do you know you are so righteous?What makes you think you can face Satan alone? What experience do you have in these matters? By whose authority do you speak this way?

That's wrong, the best villains are ones with depth and doesn't break character. It just happens that making a virtuous villain requires a level of depth and coherency in character to accomplish that it doesn't allow it to be complete dogshit.

So you completely ignore a verse because it isn't reiterated elsewhere? Holy shit you really are a demon.
Half of the apostles are only mentioned by name once. Does that mean they didn't exist?

Vulgar language, especially to demoralize and to insult, is certainly a sin. To believe you are speaking to demons, and to think you can defeat them without invoking Jesus, is certainly sin. You have been warned of these things by learned masters, by popes and by saints, and by the Lord himself. You are commanded by God to love your neighbor as you love yourself, to treat others as you would be treated. This God commanded. You do not obey. What righteousness can you believe this to be? Humble yourself before the Lord. Humble yourself in the service of Jesus Christ. Humble yourself in the service of your neighbors.

This
There are tons of moments of ironic wordplay that gets you to empathise with him, while also making it clear by paying closer attention that he is entirely selfish

>So you claim Jesus' words when they agree with you, but not when they disagree with you
No, that's what you're doing.

Good and evil ARE complex and intertwined within the individual. However much religious and mythological literature works by extracting these forces from the human heart and representing them symbolically as people, heroes, gods, and so on. This is the level on which people like Tolkien are operating- the good and evil are more pure and self-justifying because that is how they exist in the soul of man; as primal archetypal forces. So some fiction is closer to mythology and religious stories in this sense. Less realistic, but more REAL, if you get me, and this allows for a more complex treatment of how good and evil do interact with each other, how they are affected by each other, how they WOULD enact their single-minded prerogative IF sentient and embodied. It is a journey into the unconscious to get deep into the roots of what compels us as individuals. Fairy tales and folk stories matter, it's not just silly nonsense we made up to pass the time.

Attached: 1556960401578.gif (300x240, 2.81M)

>H*ly Sh**
How can you say this and think you are virtuous? You defile and diminish the glory of God.

114693635
Yeah, this is an actual demon. For the sake of my soul, you aren't getting any more (you)s. I would advise everyone else in the thread to follow suit and no longer respond to this user.

No u.

That user wants to disregard the Cleansing of the Temple, pretend it never happened. He's a demon.

This is a good post.

That's some kike bullshit. Plots with compelling villains are great, yes. But that picrelated is fucking sinister in its assertion of making a villain appealing and minimizing the hero for muh moral relativism. Pure evil exists and you need stories that show that too.

>the Bruenigs are shitpostin on Yea Forums

;)

>Snoke is what you get when villain is unrelatable.
Also Palpatine. But Palpatine is great so you're wrong.

We don't need stories that show pure evil. We need stories that show pure grace. When you show evil, you may get people to flee that particular image of evil, but they will not necessarily flock to what's good. What's more, because the image does not have the power of evil itself, it is more than common for old depictions of evil to be seen as quaint, which in fact hurts peoples realization and fear of true evil. Art should not be the rod that spurs men forward, but should be a righteous pleasure that refreshes the soul, which reminds of God's love, and gives us hope in his grace.