Does anyone like reading stories where evil wins?

[twiia 1,842]

I think I like stories where evil wins, because the good guys wining is a bit... common.

[Ruthborn 55]

Aren't most horror movies like this? Specially zombie movies. Although in some of those, the "heroes" of the story are developed in such a way that they kind of deserve their fates. Or the "villain" is portrayed in such a way as being at least good enough for the audience to cheer for and support during the final fight.

 

The Dark Knight (Batman) kinda went that way, with the Joker ultimately dismantling all of the Bat's plans to cleanly save Gotham.

 

Then you have the "Grey Area" movies where there aren't really any good guys or bad guys as the story has made both sides relatible (eg. Watchmen).

 

Personally, I like the good guys winning in the end (doesn't mean they have to win immediately, give them a win at the end of the trilogy or something). I like stories of hope and the promise of reward in some shape or form at the end of your efforts for doing the right thing, instead of cheating and backstabbing to get your way in life like IRL.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Ruthborn

[Tarnation 142]

not me, there is too much evil in this world.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

Well the question isn't very specific and a lot of what the OP says is rooted in story 101. I mean Wolfenstein: the New Order starts with the Nazis "winning" WWII and taking over the planet, but the entire plot of the game is building the resistance against them into an organized and well equipped force to fight back against them. Star Wars begins with the Empire tightening its grip on the galaxy and the Rebel Alliance, while organized, is severely outmanned and outgunned.

 

People automatically root for the underdogs, of course some of us have read fanfiction where evil has "won" by the start of the story, we've read and seen official fiction with that same conceit! Of course we've seen stories where the bad guys have the upper hand and any hope of beating them is slim to none! It's not even an uncommon trope.

 

-Die Hard

 

-Indiana Jones

 

-James Bond

 

-Most Jackie Chan films

 

In fact there are far less stories where the good guy is significantly more powerful or has more resources than the villain. Even when the hero is more individually powerful or advantaged, the villain will have some angle or exploitation that makes the hero powerless before him. (Kryptonite with Superman, Directive 4 with Robocop, etc.)

 

Now the more interesting question is, do I like stories where the bad guys win at the end? In a word, no. In more words, no, I find such to make the previous time I spent investing in the story to be a complete waste of my time.

Well, I do enjoy reading history books.

 

Except history, if viewed as the story of humankind, hasn't "ended" yet. (Apologies to Francis Fukuyama.) Bad guys win some parts, good guys win others. That's reality, there is no meta-narrative saying cheaters never prosper nor good guys finish last.

[They call me Loyalty 1,941]

As long as "evil" is represented from an organic standpoint, from which is viable to understand the villian dysfunctional reasoning, and the conflictive experiences which caused such synapse within its logic processes. Then yes.

Being able to realize the vulneravility within that which is usually feared and rejected. Which is, by ways of distorted perception, asking for help.

A humane perspective for that which is seemingly a monster.

[KatonRyu 1,026]

Occasionally I do. It's refreshing to sometimes see the good guys lose. Preferably in such a way they won't be able to bounce back, either. Just a complete curb stomp battle.

[They call me Loyalty 1,941]

I don't read much, but I write quite often.


None of my characters are shown as evil, everything is a matter of perception. Organic, life-like. Isn't it?


It's not simple to create complex simplicity, as it'd  be with any life form. Once you set the paramaters, your creation takes over you. It's a beutiful dance of thoughts.


Debating philosophically. Fascinating to see them shape reality to their particular perception. None realize their creator. for I only watch.


Usually they have such consciousness of reality, they reach concensus without falling in the ignorance of fear. Well, sometimes they do, and so there's violence. Impractical, unnecessary.
Despite their complex perfection, which they foolishly perceive as imperfection. Every single one has a drop of conflict to make them unique. This is fear inside. Otherwise it'd be universal agreement which means no conflict, no evolution!


So no. Neither of both ever wins. Actually, to see something as evil, is to fail in understanding. And to judge something is to neglect our ignorance thereof.

Did I mention i like your hat? Hahahaha

[Choros Isorropai 409]

It's not simple to create complex simplicity, as it'd  be with any life form. Once you set the paramaters, your creation takes over you. It's a beutiful dance of thoughts.

 

Debating philosophically. Fascinating to see them shape reality to their particular perception. None realize their creator. for I only watch.

 

Despite their complex perfection, which they foolishly perceive as imperfection. Every single one has a drop of conflict to make them unique. This is fear inside. Otherwise it'd be universal agreement which means no conflict, no evolution!

 

Did I mention i like your hat? Hahahaha

 

I do agree with this, but in my "fanfictions", I usually have an alter ego to the main character, one that exists as long as the main character exists... a permanent duality if you would. thus to represent the continual learning proses that is life, and reflect how we all have to face trials, though different, still the same life. the same world. and so you know, I am always that main character.

 

and no you haven't yet, unless you just did...lol

[Egnis 164]

Stories where "evil" wins tend to make more sense than stories when it doesn't. 

[Untitled Goose Q 5,136]

Yes, but too many of them is bad- its nice wen it is unexpected.

[silvadel 1,393]

The good guys lose -- then the next episode is done from the perspective of the bad guys...

[Guest]

Of course, the good side winning most of the times kind of gets boring. For the simplest example, I would have loved to see Light win in death note, by far the better ending, cause the evil was the right side in that story in my opinion. Though yes, overall, seeing the evil side win is more different and feels more original, so I find it better.

[Scootaloo9074090 500]

On 2013-09-23 at 2:59 PM, Antismurf9001 said:

I don't really read much (at all) in terms of fanfiction but I certainly don't mind the bad guys winning from time to time, especially if they're interesting characters.

 

 

Are you familiar with Stephen King?  While evil doesn't necessarily win in his stories, it's very often a bittersweet ending.  If you're into short stories, he has a pretty good collection of them called Night Shift (and several others, but I only read this one) where a number of stories end in obvious victory for evil.

 

There's also Game of Thrones (haven't read or seen them yet, but I have a sibling who's an avid fan) which I've heard the characters described as, "every character is a despicable human being; it's just that some are less despicable than others," so 'good' doesn't really have a chance there.

The Batman Who Laughs was once much like Prime Earth's Batman except that he ended up killing his version of the Joker. After doing this, Bruce was exposed to a nano-toxin that slowly transformed him. It rewired his mind not only to think more like Joker but also twisted his moral core into something evil. However, despite these changes, Bruce still managed to retain the orderly and logical aspects of his mind as well as his highly keen and calculating intellect. Thus he became someone with Batman's tactical genius and combat training and Joker's lack of morality. He also has the latter's desire for chaos, and insanity.

The Batman Who Laughs seems to have a fixation on winning and believes that he can always do so against his opponents because he had shed the self-imposed rules that restrained him from using more cruel and lethal methods in the past. Indeed, without his code holding him back, The Batman Who Laughs has been able to adapt to various situations and triumph against all sorts of remarkable odds. Laughs can also be quite arrogant, having already destroyed his own world and gaining knowledge from many others. He is also highly sadistic, with this aspect of him showing when he prevents the Grim Knight from killing Jim Gordon so he can experience a far crueler fate and comes to the Court of Owls with no intention but to "hear them all die screaming".

While he still is one of the most evil characters in the DC universe, it is assumed Bruce did not become a villain of his own free will. By this logic, it would appear Laughs may be more tragic than the Joker despite his evil surpassing his. When it comes to his actions, the idea of a version of Batman having the Joker's twisted morality would mean that it is possible The Batman Who Laughs might disregard the concepts of good and evil aside to do what he thinks is best, which in this case means winning, since he thinks it is the only meaningful act. However, considering he managed to retain some of his previous mindset when it comes to his genius, Laughs may still have some sense of right and wrong as well, although it would be very distorted. Since he has gained cosmic awareness, however, this is no longer the case, as Laughs now knows that what he did was wrong but still wants to create chaos and destruction without any remorse. Thus, Laughs isn't tragic anymore and any Freudian Excuse he once had is gone, becoming far worse than Joker ever was.

[Monsoon 1,648]

I enjoy those stories a lot because It can lead to some interesting stories rather then the same old "heroes don't lose" narrative.