Arrogance = Stupidity, a problem in star wars lit?

In Star Wars literature arrogance seems to equal stupidity, especially with characters that are set as antagonists. This I feel leads to weak enemies, and weak enemies don?t make the heroes seem all that impressive dose it?

I mean if your big bad always make stupid mistakes, his defeat only a matter of common sense doesn?t it?

One of my favorite thing about the ?Kotor/tor? era the antagonist/villains behave like they are actually trying to win. Yes they do douchy things. They don?t shoot themselves in the foot just because it?s ?Eeeeeevil?.

They make decisions based on information they have, instead of ?just because?.


Is it just starwar?s ?Style? or is it a flaw that should be corrected?

 

I thought you were talking about the forum.

And you wouldn't have been wrong.

 

I thought the same, Ulicus


The problem with weak villains is:

A) They either create a new villain character that is evil: Warlord of the Month style
B) Or they craft an existing character into a villain showing his fall: JINO style

leading to:

A) leads to a series of villains that once defeated are gone and it gets repetitive classic good vs. evil cliché. Even if the villain lasts he has few to no connection to the heroes and thus it is not personal enough to be interesting.

B) Editors and authors fear fanwrath upon killing/ruining fanfavourite characters and thus either shrug back and use method A, or if they go on like with LOTF they try it right and get it wrong shrugging back in the middle of the story so that the antihero/villain does not last longer than the type A villain instead of evolving into a longtime threat that evades capture or destruction.


A successful type A villain was Thrawn who despite a quick end lived on in other material either about his potential return or his pre-demise days getting further development beyond the series he appeared in.

A good type B villain is Anakin Skywalker as Vader who was a hero once, has ties to the current heroes and is a longtime villain before his redemption/demise.

A bad type A villain would be Kueller who did not appear a lot except for reference material beyond his book.

A bad type B villain would be Jacen Solo, who despite his interesting story did not last long enough and lacked other things aside from very good trying. Though Jacen is close to not being a bad example, another would be A'sharad Hett as Krayt.

 

Del Rey hasn't been willing to invest in developing a proper villian in some time. Villains need some time to grow, just like the heroes do.

Look at Thracken Sal-Solo. Of course he was never a threat to the whole galaxy, yet I do think he was an effective villian.

I would have liked to see a villian like Alema Rar emerge from LOTF in order to continue being a thorn in the heroes side for years to come.

 

Arrogance does not equal stupidity, but by it's very definition limits a full scope of thought in taking in all variables and seeing things beyond themselves, not just as they want to see them. World history is full of intelligent, yet arrogant people and it was that arrogance that led directly to thier downfall. It's happened to Leaders, Emperors and Generals alike.

 

Eh, its the same problem that comes from SW seeming dealings in Absolutes.

Love = darkside
Arrogant = Stupid
Only a Sith Deals in Absolutes says the Jedi.

The problem comes from the matter that these are all very black and white ideas, whereas the EU likes to tread mostly in the gray. They don't seem to add up.

 

and thats the train of though that has alot of arrogance = stupidity in star wars.

Arrogance is Arrogance, stupidity is stupidity. You can be both, one dose not exclude you from the other. At the same time the two negative traits are not the same. Arrogance hase some basis in logic. You can't arrogantly think your the best Martial artist in the world if you repeatedly, lose Kumite's.

That is just insane.

 

I am heartened that you used the word kumitae. Thought I was last person on planet who digs that flick. But you have a good point.

 

Arrogance diminishes wisdom.

 

The interesting thing is, arrogance does lead to stupid decisions, not because the people making them are stupid, but because it clouds sound judgment. An arrogant person doesn't take all factors into account, because he/she dismisses some of them unjustifiably. This is the root of the stupid decisions that arrogant villains make (and in theory, arrogant protagonists make). It's realistic and definitely not a problem for Star Wars lit.

 

It's been the style for the past couple of years, yeah.

 

However, confidence isn't the same thing as arrogance. A lot of works that spout pseudo-Buddhist philosophy try to conflate the two, but they're not. That's part of the reason we have such cookie-cutter notions of humility in a lot of Star Wars works. Because saying "Yes, I'm capable of succeeding in my endeavors and I will succeed" mutates into "I've got this! YOU CANNOT STOP ME! HAHAHAHA!"

 

Some villains start from a position where their confidence is simply the confidence to do evil in the first place. That can lead to some easy victories against opponents that were either weaker than them or unsuspecting. Confidence in the abilities they did have then becomes over-confidence and the belief that they are more powerful/skillful/clever than they actually are. So if you have confidence then you have to have something to back it up with.

Arrogance is a subjective filter through which you perceive things. Lacking objectivity leads to an incomplete or warped picture of reality. That is when mistakes can be made. Villains aren't honest, especially to themselves. They often need to present an inflated image of themselves to others in order to maintain dominance. So they may start to believe their own hype.

Many villains are also in it for the villainy itself - ie they enjoy it. If they had a clearly defined purpose - ie to seize power - then they should just go about it clinically - they know their own abilities and have confidence in them and just do what is necessary to achieve their objective. It's like the cliche of the evil supervillain who captures the hero and then explains his evil plan before executing the hero in a fiendish trap from which he will inevitably escape. If they were focused on their goal then they would just kill their enemies straight away. They bother with all that because it excites them and they want it to be acknowledged that they have defeated the hero ? otherwise it?s no fun.

So if a villain is like that then they act out of personal desire and gratification which means they act from a wholly self-centred place. That then becomes inflated and therefore arrogant, which is ?stupid? because it is a unnecessary deviation rather than being focused on a specific goal. So they may be fine and never make any stupid mistakes, but it is always likely ? especially since fictional villains often have to be defeated in the end. They can?t always be overcome by a superior hero because that is not always possible. A hero has to exploit the failings of the villain to overcome them.

The original point was whether should there be less arrogant villains. Maybe there should but I think that often the villains have to be arrogant because they embody the concept of nemesis and therefore have to be the opposite of the heroes in some respects. Their arrogance is a personality trait and it makes them seem more outwardly evil in a recognisable way ? ie they revel in it. If they simply know their own abilities and have confidence in them then that may be good for their career in villainly ? they may make less mistakes ? but it may make them less obviously interesting as characters.

So it is somewhat the style of SW to have such villains because that is ?classic? villainy. It doesn?t have to be the only style on offer though. Maybe less arrogant villains are more for the long term ? so you can get to know them in other more subtle ways whereas the traditional arrogant villains are used to make an immediate impact.

 

the problems for anyone wanting smart villains in SW is that they generally have to be overly cocky - even Thrawn qualifies in that respect - because that's how they are in the films, even in the PT. To offset this they are often more visibly powerful than the heroes, get the cool bad-ass tech like Star Destroyers and Death Star, but ultimately, due to being the villains they have to lose.

Like it or not, the EU takes its templates from the films and arrogant, cocky villains is part of that, you only have to look at Tarkin in ANH to see it.

And yes there is a strain of fandom that says SW should change, alter and create 'better' ie. smarter villains but would such characters be SW villains? I'm really not sure. Yes there's KOTOR but JJM makes something damn hard look very easy and he'll likely do the same thing on Knight Errant so it's not that it can't be done, though I think it'll rarely be done well - despite the examples of JJM and Ostrander.

What I do know is there will be another space opera that's been written that will pursue this line of thought, without any of the restrictions the SW EU has to contend with and so do it much, much better.

 

Star Wars should change. You can't have the same carbon copy card carrying villains and idiot heroes over and over again without it getting stale.

I want a villain that's absolutely ruthless but not drunk of power or the Dark Side. One who can't be bought, swayed, seduced, or intimidated. One who puts nothing - love, family, wealth, and friendship - above his singular transformative goal. A cunning strategist as well as a warrior. And don't give him an obviously evil appearance! No evil laughs!

And then give me a hero who's not an idiot. Who values knowledge and logic, and seeks to learn from his foe, understand his motives and his strategies. Who has strong convictions, but is not bound to them to the point of self-destructive zealotry. But even then, one willing to go to the farthest reaches to see the villain brought to justice. If you're going to give him a love interest, don't make it a princess classic type. Make him have a deeper personality than someone who just wants to screw the hottest women in the land, or better yet, develop him into this. Give him believable flaws, but write about him overcoming them or coming to terms with them, rather than them being inescapable barriers. Because in real life, there's no fate but one you make.

 

I agree with Falor, something diffrent would be appreciated, I liked alot Jacen before he became a carbon-copy sith, A still like Cade Skywalker, I even like the "Hopless Failure" Zayne, precisely because they were so diffrent.

 

Cade is such an unrepentant jerkass that when he does something unambiguously good (like rejecting Krayt's offer to join him in darkness simply because the power doesn't interest him) it is AWESOME.

 

You have read my mind.

 

Outside of the laugh and the dark side corroded appearance I think Palpatine fit what you're asking for. I never saw him as drunk with the power of the dark side up until his face melted. He was a hidden enemy but an unseen one for decades.

And some bad guys have a reason to be arrogant. Of course in the American 3 act structure all arrogant bad guys lose really really badly. Note ever single Die Hard ever.

 

Nah, Palpatine just seems that way because he is surrounded by idiots. Any character with an ounce of political acumen (this is where Amidala drops the ball, hard) or common observational skills would have sniffed him out at least a year or two into his premiership for what he was. I mean, look at some of the bills passed under his auspices! This guy is supposed to be subtle? I just think the overall lack of genre-savvy characters hurts the series more than helps it. When you need fifty billion retcons making a character's machinations seem coherent, but in the process make them overly-laden with deus ex machina or everyone involved in his schemes stupid to the point of gross incompetence, it becomes very frustrating. The villain's worth as a villain is cheapened because you're left wondering how this guy would fair against savvier folk, and you're left incoherent with frustration at how utterly idiotic the heroes are.

 

Padme is the least of those that should have figured out what was going on (cough-entirejediorder-cough). Course by going into the stupidity of those surrounded by Palps I'd have to tear down all the dumb things about the prequels. And that would be one long diatribe.

Thing is it wouldn't be Star Wars if the bad guy wasn't a hyperbole in some respect. At least if said bad guy is going to be a Force user. There was Ysanne Isard who to me was a fantastic villain if not a bit over the top herself. I haven't read Stackpole's books in a while. Was Isard overly arrogant or just facing Rogue Squadron therefore doomed to lose?

 

In some ways arrogance has a legitimate link to 'stupidity' or making poor decisions generally.

This is the concept of hubris, positioning excessive faith in one's own abilities, and it is a Big part of Star Wars and has been from the start, in a very legitimate way. Hubris is the chief flaw of Palpatine the individual and the Empire he created as an institution, and was what brought both down. From "The Empire doesn't consider a small fighter a threat" all the way up to "Everything is as I have foreseen it."

Hubris is of particular significance in Star Wars because the Force, and particularly the Dark Side, amplifies its effects. Being able to see visions wherein you always triumph is massively self-reinforcing, but it blinds you to the possibilities and changes that you don't see, so you don't prepare for them, and thereby give you opponents an opportunity that you could have easily prevented with available resources. The Dark Side also leads to insatiable hungers and drives users to divert efforts matters that would provide benefits, but are addressing things that are already working fine. Palpatine tries to turn Luke, even though he has a serviceable Dark Lord and plenty of minions already, because he wants the power offered by a Skywalker who isn't hindered by massive cybernetics. The Dark Side colors his emotions so that he must observe the destruction of the Rebellion in person (had Palpatine not been at Endor it would have been a setback, but the rebel alliance would probably still be fighting the Empire).

I feel hubris is a very legitimate character flaw for villains, whether it is a central (Palpatine) or lesser (Thrawn) component of their character. Power corrupts and power also draws the corrupt to it. You generally don't strive to become Emperor of the galaxy unless you've think you can do it, and you don't succeed without being pretty darn awesome at the vodoo that you do.

Now, I think there has been a problem, especially in more recent material, with the replacement of genuine mistakes and wrong assessments due to excessive belief in one's own capabilities, by simple outright stupidity. Jacen Solo and Admiral Daala are the obvious antagonistic examples, but members of the Jedi Council can also fit the bill going the other way. Outside of the novels this can also be seen in General Grievous to some degree (though his character is very inconsistent in general).

Ultimately, villains are very difficult and in epic storytelling success can often be measured by the true potency of the villains. Darth Vader and the Empire have a lot more to do with the initial success of Star Wars than anything Luke or Leia did. However, it's been tough to top Palpatine, the ultimate schemer, manipulator, and symbol of total political corruption. Still the EU has had good villains: Thrawn the ice-cold master general, Zsinj the casually cruel amoral militarist, Ysanna Isard the unhinged paranoid control freak, Darth Malak the power mad zealot. These are all legitimate archetypes and have worked well. Even Darth Krayt is, I believe, effective. He's not great, but he's a man devoted to a twisted vision and his conflicts with the different visions of everyone else broadens his darkness into a more collective effort.

I think part of the problem lies in creating villains who are both big enough to challenge the galaxy as a whole, and yet beatable (a problem that was ridiculously exaggerated by the Yuuzhan Vong, the nigh-invincible super fleet that exists just cause it does). Daala is the most obvious example. As the antagonist to the Jedi she has the ability to crush them pretty much utterly and look good while doing it (imagine Palpatine in her position for about five minutes), so to give the Jedi a chance, we have to make her do stupid, unnecessary things. This was true of Jacen Solo as well. Many of these sorts of stupid, unnecessary actions were also made to serve the literary purpose of making the chosen villains appear evil (thus freezing Jedi in carbonite when there are Ysalamiri available or pointles