Jump to content

Books where protagonist is the most morally vile character


IFR

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, The_Lone_Wolf said:

Everything is subjective. But I agree. 

This is taking things on a bit of a tangent, but I don't think it's particularly useful to not acknowledge an objective world beyond the consciousness. It explains nothing and limits things to a vague philosophical exercise. Chemical interactions are not going to change based on what you believe.

I do think it's useful to acknowledge that morality is purely a fabrication of consciousness. It answers quite a few questions. For instance, why haven't we successfully come to any kind of consensus of right or wrong? Well, if there is no right or wrong and we are just making it up as we go along and letting our emotions direct us, with some moral structures serving a functional role in a given social situation, that explains quite a bit. If you have a patriarchal religious society, it's useful to believe that the moral thing is for a woman to be devoted to her husband and master in holy matrimony. If you have a more egalitarian society, it's useful to move far away from that unilateral dependency. You can't mathematically model which ideology is best. You just form an opinion based on what emotionally resonates with you.

I'm reading (and greatly enjoying) Lolita right now. Is Humbert Humbert a bad person? The cross-section of space and time from which you evaluate will heavily weight the answer you are likely to get. The opinion in this thread is that he's a bad person. Bonobo monkeys probably wouldn't care one way or another. I doubt brain eating amoeba would care either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 8/1/2021 at 10:04 PM, Werthead said:

That's a very hard one. Even things like Bakker's Second Apocalypse, Lawrence's Broken Empire and Abercrombie's books, where the main characters are reprehensible, have much worse threats waiting in the wings.

  Reveal hidden contents

Firstly, because the actual bad guy are far worse, and secondly because of the late-trilogy revelation that Jorg's darkness was a result of him being manipulated by outside forces.

 

Some of the threats are worse. But for the entirety of King of Thorns, for example, Jorg is pitted against a much kinder, nicer, more just opponent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh sure, that's the great part of King of Thorns, when you eventually realize you've been duped all along, and then you understand you didn't pay enough attention to fine written details.

Spoiler

Finally noticing that Jorg's opponent in that big battle has always been called "The Prince of Arrow", in the "current time chapters" instead of the prince's actual name, as opposed to all the flashback chapters, was a great "Holy shit" moment. Until then, Jorg appeared as a complete douche and asshole who deserved to lose that battle, because he really should've bowed down before the better ruler.

I find kind of silly detailing this, considering who, seemingly, I am replying to - but that's possibly my favorite moment of the whole Jorg trilogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe the protagonists of the stranger, notes from the underground, and steppenwolf.  most of bataille's protagonists.  wittkop's necrophile--the title is exact. mccarthy's child of god. the iliad. any revenge tragedy, including hamlet. emma. dangerous liaisons. most versions of faust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2021 at 11:21 PM, Jaxom 1974 said:

 

I'm not prepared to argue she loved Sulla the way she loved Caesar...but I have a hard time reading Sulla as the villain.  His actions are so proto-Caesar...McCullough seems to want us to understand the depths these men will go to. I always felt she wanted us to sympathize with Sulla to better accept the varnish of what Caesar will do. I mean, history hems exactly where the characters can end up, but Marius is clearly meant to take the villain role to help us accept the justifications of Sulla.

If that makes sense. 

 

I thought Marius was intended as more of a hero, until he lost his mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marius had strokes, it is suggested. His character and abilities changed through illness, so I believe it reads. Otherwise, he was a very talented man and successful leader compared to entitled generals of higher birth who had disastrous runs. This notion upset the aristocrats, so it seems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

I thought Marius was intended as more of a hero, until he lost his mind.

 

4 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

Marius had strokes, it is suggested. His character and abilities changed through illness, so I believe it reads. Otherwise, he was a very talented man and successful leader compared to entitled generals of higher birth who had disastrous runs. This notion upset the aristocrats, so it seems. 

I wouldn't argue Marius wasn't talented, and there is historical evidence to that. But I still think that both Sulla and Marius were the template of the two paths Caesar could ultimately take.  But in the end, McCullough sides with Sulla, as he's just as much an aristocratic as Caesar.  

Marius fought and scratched to get what he had, and in the end, it hped cause his sickness and turn to "evil" or the "dark side".  In opposing him, in how he opposed him, McCullough wanted the reader to see Sulla in a sympathetic light. A light that would make the actions Caesar took later seem that much more palatable. Perhaps even noble.

Just my opinion though. Just as likely wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

But in the end, McCullough sides with Sulla, as he's just as much an aristocratic as Caesar.  

Marius fought and scratched to get what he had, and in the end, it hped cause his sickness and turn to "evil" or the "dark side".  In opposing him, in how he opposed him, McCullough wanted the reader to see Sulla in a sympathetic light. A light that would make the actions Caesar took later seem that much more palatable. Perhaps even noble.

I don't really agree with this assessment of any of the three characters or the writer.  But that's just my opinion though!  :cheers:  These are novels with very strong historical characters, just as they must have been very strong characters in reality -- and their contemporaries would also have seen them differently, depending upon whom they were.  I think what struck me most about Julius Caesar and Marius is how consciously Caesar the boy worked to learn as much as he could about generalship and commanding battles from this very successful leader, and how much that benefited him later in his conflicts with other Romans.

The characters McCullough seems to dislike because, no matter how wealthy, they are not of Roman aristo background, are the Pompeys.  Which means, of course, that I can't help but view anything non-fiction about those eras with Pompeys through that lens, unless I think about it.

Most of all though, it seems the author was very successful in providing a platform upon which then she successfully staged the complexity of these historical figures and all the contradictions within each of them and within their relationships with each other.  

The figure who is closer to us in time that fits into this contradictory perspective, still loathed and still admired, depending upon from which viewpoint one is looking at any time, is Napoleon, maybe?  Speaking only about mainstream European history, of course -- because there are many other larger-than-life historical figures about whom that applies equally, such as, say, Jenghiz Khan or Suleiman the Magnificent. Was Alexander that great or was he an imperial thug bringing war and devastation to lands that were doing just fine without even knowledge of his existence or even the existence of Greece or Egypt?

I do think of Charlemagne as Great -- but he was also a politician's politician -- while also without any hypocrisy about it, an entirely religious man who did believe the point of it all he was doing was creating a unity, which was that of Christianity.

We can discuss these matters life-long and we do, and we have, for millennia.  Happily discuss them! Ha!  The consolations of history!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zorral said:

I don't really agree with this assessment of any of the three characters or the writer.  But that's just my opinion though!  :cheers:  These are novels with very strong historical characters, just as they must have been very strong characters in reality -- and their contemporaries would also have seen them differently, depending upon whom they were.  I think what struck me most about Julius Caesar and Marius is how consciously Caesar the boy worked to learn as much as he could about generalship and commanding battles from this very successful leader, and how much that benefited him later in his conflicts with other Romans.

The characters McCullough seems to dislike because, no matter how wealthy, they are not of Roman aristo background, are the Pompeys.  Which means, of course, that I can't help but view anything non-fiction about those eras with Pompeys through that lens, unless I think about it.

Most of all though, it seems the author was very successful in providing a platform upon which then she successfully staged the complexity of these historical figures and all the contradictions within each of them and within their relationships with each other.  

The figure who is closer to us in time that fits into this contradictory perspective, still loathed and still admired, depending upon from which viewpoint one is looking at any time, is Napoleon, maybe?  Speaking only about mainstream European history, of course -- because there are many other larger-than-life historical figures about whom that applies equally, such as, say, Jenghiz Khan or Suleiman the Magnificent. Was Alexander that great or was he an imperial thug bringing war and devastation to lands that were doing just fine without even knowledge of his existence or even the existence of Greece or Egypt?

I do think of Charlemagne as Great -- but he was also a politician's politician -- while also without any hypocrisy about it, an entirely religious man who did believe the point of it all he was doing was creating a unity, which was that of Christianity.

We can discuss these matters life-long and we do, and we have, for millennia.  Happily discuss them! Ha!  The consolations of history!

 

In reality, Pompey must have been quite brilliant to come so far so fast, and to win so much territory for Rome.  My own view is that he was a bit more humane than Caesar.  After defeating the Mediterranean pirates he resettled them, apparently believing that Rome had done much to create this mess.   Caesar would have executed or enslaved them.

Pompey is overshadowed by his final defeat, but Caesar lost, too.  Yet Caesar’s writings helped to burnish his legend.  The real winner, Octavian, doesn’t quite have Caesar’s lustre.

Luck counts for so much.  People like Sertorius, Lucullus, Mark Antony might have finished on top, had the dice fallen differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Zorral said:

Most of all though, it seems the author was very successful in providing a platform upon which then she successfully staged the complexity of these historical figures and all the contradictions within each of them and within their relationships with each other.  

The most interesting thing for me about historical fiction is, that in my opinion the characters loose a lot of their human complexity. Which is interesting and may show us the limitations of fiction in itself, as any historian writing biographies tends to be cautious and leaving gaps, painting just in broad strokes. Which leaves the character just a sketch, making their contradictions even more interesting to the reader? Or is it just the historian speaking?

21 hours ago, Zorral said:

The figure who is closer to us in time that fits into this contradictory perspective, still loathed and still admired, depending upon from which viewpoint one is looking at any time, is Napoleon, maybe? 

Here I would recommend Patrice Gueniffey, Bonaparte. Although I must confess, I don't know if it was published in English. No, it's not a fictional book, but yes, the author is very much in love with his subject. ;)

21 hours ago, Zorral said:

Was Alexander that great or was he an imperial thug bringing war and devastation to lands that were doing just fine without even knowledge of his existence or even the existence of Greece or Egypt?

 

11 hours ago, SeanF said:

In reality, Pompey must have been quite brilliant to come so far so fast, and to win so much territory for Rome.  My own view is that he was a bit more humane than Caesar.  After defeating the Mediterranean pirates he resettled them, apparently believing that Rome had done much to create this mess.   Caesar would have executed or enslaved them.

Pompey is overshadowed by his final defeat, but Caesar lost, too.  Yet Caesar’s writings helped to burnish his legend.  The real winner, Octavian, doesn’t quite have Caesar’s lustre.

A professor of mine once said, that there are two kinds of ancient historians (as in: historians dealing with ancient history, not Greek or Roman historians): Whose who like Caesar and Alexander, and whose who prefer Augustus. The latter tend to value Pompeius more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Morte said:

The most interesting thing for me about historical fiction is, that in my opinion the characters loose a lot of their human complexity. Which is interesting and may show us the limitations of fiction in itself, as any historian writing biographies tends to be cautious and leaving gaps, painting just in broad strokes. Which leaves the character just a sketch, making their contradictions even more interesting to the reader? Or is it just the historian speaking?

Here I would recommend Patrice Gueniffey, Bonaparte. Although I must confess, I don't know if it was published in English. No, it's not a fictional book, but yes, the author is very much in love with his subject. ;)

 

A professor of mine once said, that there are two kinds of ancient historians (as in: historians dealing with ancient history, not Greek or Roman historians): Whose who like Caesar and Alexander, and whose who prefer Augustus. The latter tend to value Pompeius more.

Augustus was not glamorous, like Caesar and Alexander, but he achieved a lot more.  No general himself, he had two fine generals, Agrippa and Tiberius, who were loyal to him, and willing to wait their turn to succeed him (in fact, Tiberius probably never wanted to be Princeps at all).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Morte said:

A professor of mine once said, that there are two kinds of ancient historians (as in: historians dealing with ancient history, not Greek or Roman historians): Whose who like Caesar and Alexander, and whose who prefer Augustus. The latter tend to value Pompeius more.

An interesting observation to kick around happily at the bar, the dinner table, class room, for sure.  

I'm not an historian of either, of course -- my specialty is US history and the slave trade, slavery and the Caribbean and Africa.  But when it comes to Old History, the figures who most interest me are those like Clovis and Charlemagne.  But then, they are all of vast interest, even figures of the Urarthu / Mitanni era.  Not to mention Egypt, whose influence is felt throughout for millennia, right upon so much of the Romans as military and ruling figures.

Sheesh, that curule stool, for commanders and the very fancy versions for Consuls!  And after that, as one sees in armies, particularly Napoleon's the Roman forms of uniform, and Napoleon himself attempting to model his hair according to busts of Julius Caesar -- and those going through armies throughout Europe, along with Napoleon's own characteristic pose of hand inside his coat.  I keep wondering about that! WHY?  Sheesh everybody even in the US who fought in the War of the Rebellion posed like that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Augustus was not glamorous, like Caesar and Alexander, but he achieved a lot more.

No, he seems more like a nerd, with - as little as we know - a fine sense of sardonic self-irony ...

34 minutes ago, SeanF said:

No general himself, he had two fine generals, Agrippa and Tiberius, who were loyal to him, and willing to wait their turn to succeed him (in fact, Tiberius probably never wanted to be Princeps at all).

I sometimes doubt anyone of that bunch really wanted the job, not even Augustus himself. Not like Alexander or Caesar or Marcus Antonius wanted to be at least something like a king. But there were no other options left, no quick and stable at least.

As for Tiberius: As I have already said a number of times (I think even here on the forums ;) ), he would have happily seen his brother Drusus become princeps, while working in his shade as general and administrator - and of course remaining married to his Vipsania.

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Sheesh, that curule stool, for commanders and the very fancy versions for Consuls!  And after that, as one sees in armies, particularly Napoleon's the Roman forms of uniform, and Napoleon himself attempting to model his hair according to busts of Julius Caesar -- and those going through armies throughout Europe, along with Napoleon's own characteristic pose of hand inside his coat.  I keep wondering about that! WHY?  Sheesh everybody even in the US who fought in the War of the Rebellion posed like that!

Many reasons for all this: the reminiscence of "the republic", so everybody who fought against the Ancien Régime or the English styled themselves after the res publica or the Athenian democracy (that's why we have so many noms de guerre of Roman or Ancient Greek origin - a friend of mine just wrote his thesis on the genesis of the US-American Constitution and the discussions accompanying it); and of course Napoleon himself did his own Octavian-like res-publica-restituta-stunt, and was quite fascinated by Caesar and Alexander in his youth.

Caeser and Alexander had very good PR.* :D

 

*There's of course much more to what a portrait - especially, but not only an antique one - says by using specific gestures, hair-style, mimic, age and accessories, so when someone re-uses prominent parts of others portraits, they of course hope you will connect them with the original, but that would go much too far, so I will end with another book full of nuthead-, idiot- and even really vile protagonists, another non fiction, this time about the Great War, and it's even available in English: Jörn Leonhard, Pandora's Box (yes, imho the best book on the First World War, and if you only want to read one book about it, take the Leonhard).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Morte said:

No, he seems more like a nerd, with - as little as we know - a fine sense of sardonic self-irony ...

I sometimes doubt anyone of that bunch really wanted the job, not even Augustus himself. Not like Alexander or Caesar or Marcus Antonius wanted to be at least something like a king. But there were no other options left, no quick and stable at least.

As for Tiberius: As I have already said a number of times (I think even here on the forums ;) ), he would have happily seen his brother Drusus become princeps, while working in his shade as general and administrator - and of course remaining married to his Vipsania.

Many reasons for all this: the reminiscence of "the republic", so everybody who fought against the Ancien Régime or the English styled themselves after the res publica or the Athenian democracy (that's why we have so many noms de guerre of Roman or Ancient Greek origin - a friend of mine just wrote his thesis on the genesis of the US-American Constitution and the discussions accompanying it); and of course Napoleon himself did his own Octavian-like res-publica-restituta-stunt, and was quite fascinated by Caesar and Alexander in his youth.

Caeser and Alexander had very good PR.* :D

 

*There's of course much more to what a portrait - especially, but not only an antique one - says by using specific gestures, hair-style, mimic, age and accessories, so when someone re-uses prominent parts of others portraits, they of course hope you will connect them with the original, but that would go much too far, so I will end with another book full of nuthead-, idiot- and even really vile protagonists, another non fiction, this time about the Great War, and it's even available in English: Jörn Leonhard, Pandora's Box (yes, imho the best book on the First World War, and if you only want to read one book about it, take the Leonhard).

If only the Autobiography of Augustus had survived!

I think Tiberius wanted nothing more than to be the *Second* Man in Rome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Morte said:

Jörn Leonhard, Pandora's Box (yes, imho the best book on the First World War,

Have you read Bret Devereaux's Trench Warfare collection on his Unmitigated Pedantry?  It would go well with this history, it seems.

https://acoup.blog/2021/09/17/collections-no-mans-land-part-i-the-trench-stalemate/

 

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Many reasons for all this: the reminiscence of "the republic", so everybody who fought against the Ancien Régime or the English styled themselves after the res publica or the Athenian democracy

And most certainly the Figures of Independence in the Atlantic North American colonies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Morte said:

Whose who like Caesar and Alexander, and whose who prefer Augustus. The latter tend to value Pompeius more.

You can actually like both Alexander and Augustus.

 

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

Augustus was not glamorous, like Caesar and Alexander, but he achieved a lot more. 

Augustus reigning so long (longest rule of the entire Empire actually) is a key reason why the Roman Empire lasted so long. By the time he died, most people didn't see a point in going back to the Republic and its civil wars. Not that the Empire was enough to avoid future civil wars of course, but they didn't know it yet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, SeanF said:

If only the Autobiography of Augustus had survived!

Hm, don't really know, or better worded: yes, but because it seems like another of his literature-projects he was not overly found of, and therefore stopped working on.

Personally, if I had to choose, I would have liked Claudius' history of the Augustinian epoch to survive (all of his works, in fact).

20 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think Tiberius wanted nothing more than to be the *Second* Man in Rome.

I think he wasn't so much concerned with where on the hierarchy he stood (but please not princeps), but with being in a position of responsibility in a field he was good at and did not have to deal with too many people.

19 hours ago, Zorral said:

Have you read Bret Devereaux's Trench Warfare collection on his Unmitigated Pedantry?  It would go well with this history, it seems.

Yes, now I have. Good read, and funny (as much as World War I can be funny). He describes the trench-war quite well, essentially giving a very short version of that Olaf Jessen does for Verdun in his "Verdun 1916: Urschlacht des Jahrhunderts". This one is unfortunately not available in English (as far as I know), but it is a very good and dense read, with a focus on the military field, the soldiers and their commanders (so lots of dubious protagonists, but also some heroes or at least decent people).

By the by Jessen does not believe Falkenhayn, arguing (based on quite convincing source material) that Falkenhayn never intended Verdun to be a place to "bleed out" the French army, and just claimed this to defeat himself later, because he really was aiming for ending the static warfare and get the warline moving again, but failed.

18 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

You can actually like both Alexander and Augustus.

Of course you can, the quote is a bon mot. :)(but there is still some truth in it)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...