Evil: Sauron or Cersei?

[ProfessorBrainfever]

Which is your preference? The overwhelming, unrepentant personification of all that is dark and destructive and terrible? Or a character with clear motivation that, while they do horrible things, their justifications make them feel as if they aren't the villain of the piece?

The former is easier to write, but the latter feels so much more satisfying to me.

Thoughts?

[Jabrosky]

Definitely the latter, and I predict most of the other posters will vote that way too.

[T.Allen.Smith]

Cersei for certain. She has so many flaws, an unquenchable lust for power, but she she loves her children fiercely.

She combines elements we loathe with qualities we empathize with. For my money that's always a more intriguing villain.

However, in comparing the 2 stories I'd place Sauron more on par with The Others.

[ProfessorBrainfever]

I imagine they will...but there's something viscerally satisfying about the Sauron-style evil all the same.

Maybe because its more satisfying to destroy a personification of evil than a 'real' person?

[Devor]

Or a character with clear motivation that, while they do horrible things, their justifications make them feel as if they aren't the villain of the piece?

How can you not think of Cersei as a villain? That she uses her children to justify herself is only another evil that she's committing. After all, the betrayals started happening before there were children.

[Xenodeus Blade]

How can you not think of Cersei as a villain? That she uses her children to justify herself is only another evil that she's committing.

Thank you. That is one of the many problems I have with A Song of Ice and Fire. Despite George RR Martin saying that there are no good or evil characters, many of his characters ARE good and evil. Cersei is an example. She follows after her father. Both Tywin and Cersei never truly loved their children, but saw them as their property. Also in many ways, Cersei is more evil than Sauron. Her actions have inadvertantly destroyed the unity on an empire(the Seven Kingdoms are an empire in my mind), costed the lives of hundred of thousands of innocent people, left the entire empire bankrupt, and because of that, Westeros is ill prepared to handle Aegon, Dany, and the Others coming through the Wall. All because her husband called her the wrong name.

Sauron however wasn't like his master Morgoth, who wanted to destroy every thing. Sauron wanted to conquer Middle Earth. His evil was focused.

But that was my too cents.

[ProfessorBrainfever]

How can you not think of Cersei as a villain?

She's definitely a villain. But Cersei probably doesn't view herself as a villain. Whereas Sauron (or the Devil, for example) might view himself that way.

"The villain is the hero of their own story", as someone once said.

[coolstoneman]

I agree, I prefer the latter. Maybe because we can understand them easier. The ultimate villain who is completely evil in every way is hard for most people to relate to. Just like when we see in the news about someone killing innocent people or children, or other horrific crimes; we look at it and say how can that person do those things?

But when we see a villain that has clear motivation for their evil or misguided ways, we can at least see their reasoning behind their "bad guy" ways, why they do what they do.

But I think mainly they are just more interesting characters when they are complicated, and not 1-dimensional evil villains.

[Devor]

She's definitely a villain. But Cersei probably doesn't view herself as a villain. Whereas Sauron (or the Devil, for example) might view himself that way.

I don't . . . I don't understand what kind of difference self-perception makes. Is Cersei somehow more real? I've had people tell me, pretty frankly, that they were bad people, that they'd done things which were unacceptable by their own standards, that they'd still do them again. What kind of difference does denial make?

[ProfessorBrainfever]

I don't . . . I don't understand what kind of difference self-perception makes. Is Cersei somehow more real? I've had people tell me, pretty frankly, that they were bad people, that they'd done things which were unacceptable by their own standards, that they'd still do them again. What kind of difference does denial make?

I don't think it's necessarily denial. It's a difference in morality and what actions you view as acceptable or unacceptable.

If you've done something you view as unacceptable and would do it again, that speaks to me more of a cognitive dissonance. If the action really wasn't acceptable, they wouldn't have done it.