Anti-Villainry Explored with Shylock

Hamilton321

Prince
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Messages
310
Location
In orbit of Io
If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by
Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction. -Shylock

An anti-villain is a category of antagonist who is evil but does what they do for a just reason, or who is forced to take the path of evil despite initially having good intentions. They may be more noble or heroic than an anti-hero, but the means to achieve their ends are often considered exploitative, immoral, unjust, or just evil. Anti-villains should not be confused with anti-heroes; protagonists who have moral flaws or who do not have pure intentions. Anti-villains are antagonists and often victims, they are plain evil and they cause harm to the protagonists of the story, yet they have not chosen their dark path, it has been thrust upon them by an earlier injustice. Anti-villains are the loneliest character type, being out of place in the society they reside in, they have no friends, no joy.

A famous example of an anti-villain is the character Shylock from the popular 16th century comedy; The Merchant of Venice. Shylock is an antagonist, a Jew who greatly complicates the plot and feels great antipathy for the play's protagonists. Shylock loans money to the play's protagonist; Antonio, but the contract has a horrific twist; if Antonio cannot repay the loan then he will have to give a pound of his flesh taken from whatever part of the body Shylock sees fit. Antonio is not worried at first, but a single storm literally sends his investments to the bottom of the sea. Shylock now ecstatically takes Antonio to court, seeking to convince the court to sanction his claim on one pound of Antonio's flesh which he desires to be taken from the heart.

As you can see, Shylock acts quite a lot like a villain. Shylock, however is a complicated character, he does wicked things because of the injustice which he has suffered at the hands of Christians throughout his life and the betrayal of his only daughter. Shylock feels, rightly, betrayed by the intolerant society he lives in and seeks to achieve justice by killing Antonio. This is an overreaction, but not one that is uncommon in human nature, in act III, scene I it is clearly articulated by Shylock in a 20 line monologue that his grudge against Antonio is rooted in a desire for social justice and this motive helps make the Merchant of Venice into one of the periods most progressive pieces of culture from the 16th century. Shylock's monologue could be repeated by any oppressed person who desires to take social justice into his own hands by taking recompense from his former oppressor.

Anti-villains are a character type which come in and out of style over the centuries, anti-villains are generally more popular in fantasy during confusing or moralistic times when people desire characters who are not shallow. Anti-villains are often used to add complexity and volume to short, simple plots or to tie disconnected plots together. Countercultural writers in particular use anti-villains to engage in veiled social critique during moralistic times when a direct challenge to the mainstream point of view would be ostracized. Anyways, if you are an author who desires to expand one's writing I would recommend considering the anti-villain character type, in my experience anti-villains are fun to write about, though one should be careful not to put too many in a single fantasy world.
 
I disagree with you about Shylock, I feel his motivations are around vengeance rather than justice. He's driven by hate and, and that's how he ends up being trapped by the play's heroine (Portia) He has indeed suffered religious oppression, however not personally by Antonio, and he isn't justified in any way exacting vengeance upon him. And I recall his daughter running off because she was also a victim of his hate?

I feel Shylock tragically shows how hate can consume you, even when you're a victim in society, and how you need to direct righteous anger where it's deserved. This I think is an important lesson for many people, including myself. Also a reminder for those in power to not forget how much harm you can cause others.

I think maybe a better example of an anti-villain would be Erik Killmonger from Black Panther? He's prepared to commit acts of heinous evil, but he's really driven to correct imbalances of racial oppression.
 
I've never seen The Merchant of Venice, so I can't comment on Shylock specifically, but the "anti-villain" isn't an archetype that gets mentioned a lot. I think we've seen the "redeemable villain" more often (e.g. Darth Vader, who's frequently named as an example of an "anti-villain", even though he's not). Killmonger was the first character I thought of, too. I'm trying to stay away from superhero movies (Ian McKellen's Magneto) to think of other examples. I think the "mad scientist" character is frequently an anti-villain, someone whose goal is benevolent, altruistic, rather than founded on greed or vengeance, but whose methods go 'round the bend. In classic fiction, Captain Nemo, Victor Frankenstein, and Professor Moreau I think would qualify.

What about Stringer and Omar in The Wire? Some people might call those guys anti-heroes rather than anti-villains, but I'm not so sure. Blurring those lines was part of The Wire's mission statement, anyway, so if it's hard to tell, that's by design. Jimmy and Kima and Bunk were clearly heroes, and Avon and Snoop were clearly villains, but it's harder to say with some of the characters in the 'grey zone.'

I'm also not sure about the "gripped by madness" type of villain. Captain Ahab, for instance.


EDIT: Thinking about Stringer Bell some more, there's the whole, "I gotta get out of this life" character, who's frequently a reluctant criminal. Those guys are usually anti-heroes, because they're usually the protagonists of their stories (e.g. Superfly; A Better Tomorrow; and The Long Good Friday). What about Alonzo in Training Day? Maybe he was just a villain-villain.
 
Last edited:
I'd say Captain Kennit from the Liveship Traders qualifies ... he's the antagonist, but his goal is to build a free nation and he's a liberator of slaves.
 
I'd say Captain Kennit from the Liveship Traders qualifies ... he's the antagonist, but his goal is to build a free nation and he's a liberator of slaves.
I've never even heard of that story. I'll have to Google it. What makes him the villain? There's a common trope in superhero stories* where two heroes come to blows, for one reason or another. A hero and an anti-hero, for example - Daredevil and The Punisher in season 2 of Daredevil - but the villain is always a third character.


* I know a lot of people dislike superhero stories, but right now I actually can't think of any examples of the hero-vs-hero trope in other types of fiction. Meanwhile, this trope is near-constant in superhero stories; I can think of a few examples, just while I'm sitting here. Questions of responsibility, self-control, the corrupting influence of power, the utility of violence, and whether the ends justify the means, are embedded in superhero stories' DNA.
 
He crosses paths with the protagonist and he does something unforgivable.

I'd really recommend reading it, book one is Ship of Magic.
 
* I know a lot of people dislike superhero stories, but right now I actually can't think of any examples of the hero-vs-hero trope in other types of fiction.

Perhaps the movie Annihilation? It's more of a sci-fi/horror film. If you've never seen it, a group of scientists, doctors, and military types go to investigate an unexplained phenomenon. Other groups have gone to investigate this phenomenon as well but have disappeared for unknown reasons. So the entire group consists of protagonists whose ultimate goal is scientific discovery and to help the others who disappeared. However the group is in a high stress situation working with limited information and when this phenomenon starts to affect their minds and bodies, the self-preservation instinct kicks in and one of the group turns on the others thinking that they are keeping information away from her.

Perhaps Lord of the Flies is another example? It has been forever since I read it but I think it follows the same basic outline. A group of ordinary kids gets marooned on an island and end up turning on one another.
 
I read something about how ET's sort of an example ... those government guys are doing their jobs. Elliott found a strange lifeform who could affect things and people with his mind, and even though ET had to be rescued, I don't feel the government's intentions were sinister at all.
 
Perhaps Lord of the Flies is another example? It has been forever since I read it but I think it follows the same basic outline. A group of ordinary kids gets marooned on an island and end up turning on one another.
No-one's forced onto the path of villainy by circumstance in LotF, though — not really. The book's not at all subtle in its allegorisation, or its characterisation.

The 'bad' kid(s) — well, Jack mainly — make a deliberate choice to abandon the basic survival rules that everyone had originally agreed to (to look after the 'littl'uns', and try and get themselves rescued) in favour of do-as-you-please and might-makes-right. Eventually most of the 'good' kids get sucked into Jack's little empire as well, for the sake of self-preservation if nothing else.

The lone voice of 'reason' (Piggy) ends up being silenced by death, and Simon (the voice of morality) only narrowly avoids being murdered himself — and only because Jack and the others set fire to the entire island in order to flush him out of hiding, and the smoke attracted the attention of the crew of a passing ship.
I read something about how ET's sort of an example ... those government guys are doing their jobs. Elliott found a strange lifeform who could affect things and people with his mind, and even though ET had to be rescued, I don't feel the government's intentions were sinister at all.
We caught ET on (German) TV the other week, and I was struck by almost exactly that thought.

For most of the movie, Peter Coyote's character (I remember the book-of-the-movie just called him 'Keys') is deliberately depicted as kind of dangerous and sinister (e.g. you never see his face), and it's only near the end — after ET dies — that he's finally humanised, and we find out that he's basically just like Elliott: he's dreamed about meeting a space-alien, ever since he was a kid. And he's not even angry with Elliott for trying to hide him: he understands, and he sympathises.

I missed that the first time I saw this movie (not surprisingly: I was 7!), but it really resonated this time round (as a crusty 44 y.o. with 2 boys of my own).
 
however not personally by Antonio
I think that these passages show how Shylock feels that he has indeed been personally wronged by Antonio. Also I do admit that it is kind of a stretch to count Shylock as an anti-villain however by a loose definition this is an accurate description, and Shylock is definitely a villain who convinced himself that he was fighting for justice.

"He hath disgraced me, and
hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses,
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my
bargains, cooled my friends"

"But more for that in low simplicity
He lends out money gratis and brings down
The rate of usance here with us in Venice.
If I can catch him once upon the hip,
I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him.
He hates our sacred nation, and he rails,
Even there where merchants most do congregate,
On me, my bargains and my well-won thrift,
Which he calls interest. Cursed be my tribe,
If I forgive him!"
 
Anti-villains are actually quite a lot more common with pieces of culture that are popular with late millennials/ early Generation Z. Hit cartoon series that are popular with young people feature anti-villains such as Pink Diamond and Itachi Uchiha.
 
The thing about the Merchant of Venice is, Shylock was basically 100% right and should have been allowed to butcher Antonio right there in the court room. Read historically, his speech is less "here is the motivation for my tragic turn towards evil" than "here's why this guy totally has it coming".

Like, anti-Semitism wasn't just an unpleasant disposition carried by Antonio personally. It was a whole apparatus of oppression and disenfranchisement. Jews couldn't own land, couldn't hold public office, couldn't practice their religion freely. They were frequently subject to kangaroo courts if not simply lynched, they could only bring legal suit against Christians under certain unfavourable conditions- and as the play illustrates, even even when found to be indisputably in the right, might have the case found against them just because. Shylock isn't revenging his wounded pride, he's revenging a thousand years of tyranny. A pound of flesh is, frankly, a pretty good bargain, from the Christian perspective. And it's more than we ever gave them, in the end.

The only reason this isn't clear from the play is because ol' Billy Shakespeare was a provincial English nitwit who never saw a Jew in his life on account of them being legally barred from entering the country, because, again, apparatus of oppression and et cetera.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom