From the Jewish perspective, there is another strand: That evil is only due to our limited perspective below. From the perspective above, what we see as evil is good for us somehow, in the long range, etc. This is expressed in various ways: "This, too, is for good." "All that the merciful one does is for good." Another thought that springs from this is that Satan will be punished when what we perceive as evil is abolished - not for acting against the Almighty's will, but for having done too good a job of temptation. In reference to our work, it brings to mind that the villain must have their own worldview, their reason for what they are doing which makes perfect sense to them - ala Hannibal Lecter pursuing the cannibalistic death of his sister in a twisted form. Just as faith and doubt are two sides of a coin, hero and villain are best when they are two sides of a coin. If we pursue the symbolism (non-intentional, surely) of Raiders of the Lost Ark, the villain is only one side of the coin, but the hero is both - not one, not the other, but both. I'm sure greater minds will see more from this perspective.

I concur with both of your points, Yossi. Speaking psychologically, a Protagonist needs to 'fall' from their Ordinary World and confront 'evil' in the Special World in order to be 'saved' [move to wholeness / unity]. In Jung language, a person dealing with their Shadow, similar dynamic. Per the 2nd point, absolutely a Nemesis or any 'Bad Guy' must have a legitimate [in their eyes] world view. They're not just evil for evil's sake, but rather to them -- remember, they see themselves as the Protagonist of their world! -- their way is the right way. This is one of the values of working with character archetypes, where you can do an exercise and switch Protagonists, look at the story universe through the eyes of the Nemesis as the Protagonist [and any other character for that matter]. Thanks for those comments!

By the way, looking back on my own theological training, it was the very issue of theodicy which led me to reject the idea of systematic theology. There is no good explanation for the presence of evil, there very exercise of attempting to explain it is both irrational in my view and does nothing on the front lines of human experience, when you or I, as individuals, deal directly with evil, tragedy, so on. Per the latter, oftentimes the best thing to do is say nothing. Just. Be. There. [I'm speaking in terms of how we support someone who is suffering]. Sit with them. Acknowledge their pain. Share time with them. But don't try to explain it away. That is senseless and can minimize the feelings of the person who is suffering.

Also someone on Twitter said [paraphrase], "I think of evil as the absence of good." I don't find that helpful in terms of writing. In order to have genuine, visceral conflict, evil needs to be an animated force, has to have its own energy and dynamism. It can't be the lack of something, but rather the PRESENCE of something, and something powerful.

Yes. The easiest trap for a leader lacking common sense is to try to explain a tragedy and provide a reason for its occurrence. All a victim needs is empathy and presence. In Jewish law, a time of tragedy is mandated as a time for a community to do some soul searching and begin improving, without blaming the tragedy on any of those specific things to improve. Abstractly, it is primarily dealt with in mystical thought and teachings, in which there is thought coherence and tradition but not Western rationality.

Scott, I'm curious as to why you didn't include Satan as part of your explanations. He is a central character in Christian theology especially where the problem of evil is concerned. In Christian teaching (and I would assume Jewish tradition as well since all of the source material is in the old testament/Hebrew scriptures) Lucifer was created perfect by God before humans were created. However, he became proud and rebelled. He wanted to replace God, there was a war in heaven, and Lucifer was deposed along with one-third of the other angels. Thus Lucifer became Satan and the fallen angels became demons, none of whom have any hope of redemption. Fast forward to the creation of humans. Satan tempted Eve to rebel against God, Adam went along with it, and thus Satan is responsible for bringing sin into the human race. (Also, with this understanding "Original Sin" can be defined as "Pride" and "the oldest trick in the book" can be defined as "instigating doubt as to character" because Satan tricked Eve by expressing doubt about what God had told Adam.) These two explanations can be integrated if God permitted Satan to test humanity's free will with the ultimate goal of purifying and perfecting it. Again, I'm just curious why your explanation omits any reference to Satan.

I'm not certain you were referring to this verse since it's in the new testament, but I thought I'd share it. "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." - Romans 8:28 (NIV) Let me emphasize the context however: It is not a general claim for all humanity. In the context of this being Paul's letter to the Church in Rome, this claim is specifically meant for Christians.

I suppose my previous comment went more in a theological direction rather than a writing one so let me correct that and clarify my inference: Satan is the ultimate bad guy in Christianity. Near god-like powers, immortal, beautiful, driven, and in control of a vast army of invisible warriors. It's an epic concept that boggles the mind yet planet Earth is not overrun. What can we learn from such a character, such a dynamic between God and Satan? How can that knowledge influence our own villains, antagonists, heroes, and protagonists? Half the horror scripts out there reference Satan or demonic powers and I've already alluded to original sin being "Pride" since it's both Satan's primary motivating factor and simultaneously the source of his downfall. Stripping away all the god-talk there are surely major concepts here ripe for the picking. So, will there be a future post on this topic? I'm certainly interested in your thoughts. And thank your for this series.

Daniel, I was planning on doing another post on Satan down the road. Thought that deserved its own treatment. Thanks for these references.

Scott, we talked in one of your class conf calls about this. What's interesting to me is that as an Angel, Lucifer cannot have free-will, which is reserved for Man. Therefore, like Iscariot, Lucifer's fall is predestined so as to provide the evil that must happen. In the Islamic tradition, as I understand it, Iblis (Satan) still loves God and craves to be in his presence, and despite serving God's purpose, this is denied to him as punishment.

This gets into areas of consideration that are super interesting, specifically the narrative function of a Nemesis. Take for example "The Silence of the Lambs." Clarice will never be able to move beyond her Disunity self unless she (A) saves Catherine Martin and (B) slays Buffalo Bill. This is what Hannibal Lecter knows about Clarice, he tells her the former specifically and infers the latter in subtext. Therefore even though Buffalo Bill is evil, he is NECESSARY to the story on multiple levels: Provides 'opposition' to the Protagonist and creates a circumstance which enables the Protagonist to fulfill her psyche destiny, free her from her enslavement to the past and move toward wholeness. I just find all of this completely fascinating...

This is interesting, but I'd go further. I'm not religious but instead believe in humanity as a whole and that if we are, as a species, to take credit the great works of Gandhi we must also take credit for the horrific works of Hitler. Therefore I believe there is no person that is entirely good or entirely evil and that good and evil in varying degrees is alive within us all at all times. Only by recognizing this can we be free of evil bubbling up at inopportune moments. From this I like to apply it to different characters - Hannibal, James Bond Villains, Hans Gruber and Belloq and the like are aware of their evil natures and embrace the dark side, creating a particular type of enlightened evil. These guys laugh at others misfortune and tend to be the fun type of villain. Then there are the other type - the unenlightened ones that I find most frightening. These guys fail to recognize the evil within themselves and firmly believe they are doing right. These would be Nurse Ratchet, The Warden in Shawshank, Mrs Bates - I'd even argue that Buffalo Bill belongs with this group. These folks are blind to the evil that they do, perhaps because they cannot face their own true selves. Part of a protagonist journey is to come to terms with the evil they have done and recognize it as such. Indiana Jones also could belong to the unenlightened group as he begins his journey as a relic thief who slept with his colleagues 15 your old daughter. It isn't until Belloq points out how similar they are that Indie begins to wake to who he really is.

Did Hitler view himself as evil? Did the people that helped him? Did the people that Gandhi struggled against view him as evil? It seems that evil is highly relative, and really depends on who is telling the story or we collectively make that determination. Nothing is good or evil until some person makes that judgement.