The Dichotomy of Good and Evil

We have all heard about it before: the classic battle between good and evil. The inhumanly strong superhero flies through the air to defeat a villainous alien invader. The knight in shining armor rides into battle astride a horse, valiantly engaging the dark magic wizard in combat. But what exactly makes the superhero and the knight “good”? What makes the alien and the wizard “evil”? According to Merriam-Webster, the adjective good can mean “virtuous, right, [and/or] commendable,” whereas evil can mean “morally reprehensible: sinful, wicked.”

Another area to consider is when we think about structure of stories—specifically, the different types of characters. There is the protagonist (the main character) and the antagonist (the character that opposes the protagonist). Is the protagonist inherently “good,” and is the antagonist inherently “evil,” or do authors simply have a tendency to write about virtuous people? Does the definition of a hero in a literary sense imply that the character must be well principled, or are we simply mixing up connotations and denotations?

When analyzing stories, should characters be judged by their actions collectively to determine the “net amount” of good or evil that they are, or should they be judged by what they end up being (such as a redemption arc)? The answers to all of these questions are debatable, but one thing is for sure when exploring their answers: Characters in stories across various platforms, such as books, musicals, and movies, do not always neatly fit into the dichotomy of good or evil.

The following may contain spoilers for:

**Six of Crows & Crooked Kingdom by Leigh Bardugo**
**Hamilton: An American Musical**
**Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi**

One of the best parts of Leigh Bardugo’s Six of Crows is the character development. Six of Crows features a cast of six main protagonists (as the title suggests) who are hired to kidnap a valuable prisoner from a fortress called the Ice Court, which is located in the country of Fjerda. The team is lead by a person named Kaz Brekker, and is made up of mostly criminals with questionable backgrounds. One of them, a Fjerdan by the name of Matthias Helvar, is no exception. Matthias used to be part of the drüskelle, who are self-described as “the holy order charged with protecting the sovereign nation of Fjerda by eradicating [the Grisha].” (Crows 169) In other words, the Fjerdans worship a water god named Djel, and they think that Grisha are demons, abominations, and not human. They believe that they are serving their country and their god (hence they describe it as a “holy” order) by killing all the Grisha in the world. On the other hand, the Grisha are a group of people who have special abilities, including the ability to control fire, wind, and water; the ability to heal themselves or others; or the ability to manipulate substances.

Matthias was taken in under the wing of a famous drüskelle leader named Jarl Brum after his entire village was burned to the ground by Grisha. That meant that for a significant chunk of his life, Matthias took part in genocide and essentially was a bigot, believing that Grisha were less than human. However, when he is recruited into Kaz’s crew, he realizes that his prejudice against Grisha is wrong with the help of his love interest, Nina Zenik, who is a Grisha. Bardugo writes, in Matthias’s point of view:

[Nina had] shown him in a thousand ways that she was honorable and strong and generous and very human, maybe more vividly human than anyone he’d ever known. And if she was, then Grisha weren’t inherently evil. They were like anyone else—full of the potential to do great good, and also great harm. To ignore that would make Matthias the monster.
Six of Crows, pg. 383

Later on, in the sequel to Six of Crows titled Crooked Kingdom, Matthias even urges a young Fjerdan boy who is currently in the drüskelle to let go of his hatred. Instead of judging the drüskelle harshly as Nina does, he seeks to find understanding instead, knowing how it felt to be one:

“I joined [the drüskelle] when I was younger than you. I know what it’s like there, the thoughts they put in your head. But you don’t have to do this. […] Do not be afraid. Fear is how they control you.” We’ll find a way to change their minds. The boy had only been with the order for six months. He could be reached. “There’s so much in the world you don’t have to be afraid of, if you would only open your eyes.”
Crooked Kingdom, pg. 486-487

Undoubtedly, while Matthias Helvar is one of the protagonists, he can also be considered an evil character, at least to the Grisha in the world of Six of Crows. In fact, Matthias tells Nina, “[The drüskelle] fear you as I once feared you. As you once feared me. We are all someone’s monster, Nina.” (Crows 427) However, for all the evil and ignorant causes he supported in his youth, Matthias was able to finally open his eyes to the truth with the help of Nina and became a more tolerant person, as Bardugo writes when Nina is contemplating taking revenge on the drüskelle. Matthias thinks of all of his friends in the order, and how they have the potential to be good:

Claas, who had drunk too much with him in Avfalle. Giert, who’d trained his wolf to eat from his hand. They were monsters, he knew it, but boys as well, boys like him—taught to hate, to fear.
“Nina,” he said […], “Nina, please.”
“You know [the drüskelle] would not offer you mercy, Matthias.”
“I know. I know. But let them live in shame instead.”
She hesitated.
“Nina, you taught me to be something better. They could be taught, too.”
Six of Crows, pg. 426-427

Clearly, the case of Matthias Helvar is not black or white. He is certainly not “good” in a sense that he always does the right thing. But he is definitely not “evil” either, because in the end, he decides not to persecute the Grisha and to help change the drüskelle for the better. However, was Matthias ever really “evil” in the first place? If “good” is defined as being virtuous and having integrity, and integrity is defined as “adherence to moral or ethical principles,” what if your principles and morals are not aligned with the rest of what society deems is “good”? In Matthias’s case, it was socially acceptable for him to hold prejudices against Grisha since it was the common belief in Fjerda. Not only that, Matthias had a valid reason to hate Grisha—his entire village was destroyed by them. For years as a drüskelle, Matthias simply believed that he was doing his duty to his country and his god. Does this mean that if you believe you are doing the right thing, you are in fact doing the right thing? And by extension, would that mean that Matthias was never “evil” to begin with? Again, we are faced with questions with debatable answers. Regardless, it is obvious that Matthias Helvar walks the line between good and evil.

Matthias is not the only example in which a character may seem to lean towards both good and evil. The Tony award-winning Hamilton: An American Musical features songs written by Lin-Manuel Miranda and details the life and death of Alexander Hamilton, the United States’ first Treasury Secretary. It is based on a biography by Ron Chernow titled Alexander Hamilton. In Hamilton, the title character frequently has conflicts with the main antagonist, Aaron Burr mostly because of their differing perspectives on how to succeed in life (evident in the songs My Shot, Non-Stop, and Wait For It). While Hamilton believes that one should never miss an opportunity and should take chances, Burr* believes that biding one’s time and being cautious is the way to go. Historically speaking, Aaron Burr is best known for two things: being America’s third Vice President and fatally shooting Alexander Hamilton in a duel. The latter is described in the song called The World Was Wide Enough. In the two stanzas retrieved from http://www.genius.com (a lyrics website) that are below, the song illustrates how Burr felt wrongly villainized by killing Hamilton, but also regrets doing so:

History obliterates
In every picture that it paints
It paints me with all my mistakes

When Alexander aimed
At the sky
He may have been the first one to die

But I’m the one who paid for it
I survived, but I paid for it

Now I’m the villain in your history
I was too young and blind to see…
I should’ve known
I should’ve known
The world was wide enough for both Hamilton and me
Hamilton: An American Musical

In this case, as Burr states, he is a villain, since he was the one who ultimately killed the protagonist, Alexander Hamilton. While killing by itself is definitely a despicable act, many people consider soldiers to be patriotic. If that is true, that would mean that killing with a cause is socially acceptable, and is thus considered “good” in that sense. That would then lead to the conclusion though that Burr is not a villain. After all, his thoughts during the duel were of his own family:

They won’t teach you this in your classes
But look it up, Hamilton was wearing his glasses
Why? If not to take deadly aim?
It’s him or me, the world will never be the same
I had only one thought before the slaughter:
This man will not make an orphan of my daughter
Hamilton: An American Musical

Can you really blame Burr for fearing death, especially if it means that his daughter will be without a father? In the first act of the musical, Burr promises his daughter, Theodosia, that he will “do whatever it takes” to “be around” for her in the song, Dear Theodosia:

[BURR]
My father wasn’t around

[HAMILTON]

I swear that

I’ll be around for you.
[BURR]

I’ll be around for you.

[HAMILTON]
I’ll do whatever it takes
[BURR]
I’ll make a million mistakes
[BURR/HAMILTON]
I’ll make the world safe and sound for you…

Burr is not only a caring father, but he also has valid anger towards Hamilton for all of the conflicts they have been in. From losing military positions during the Revolutionary War to losing the presidency, Burr has just about had it with Hamilton, who had a hand in all of it, especially because they started out as friends (see the song Aaron Burr, Sir). This frustration is most apparent in the song Your Obedient Servant as Burr and Hamilton exchange letters that lead up to their fateful duel. In the following stanza, Burr is writing to Hamilton:

I look back at where I failed
And in every place I checked
The only common thread has been your disrespect
Hamilton: An American Musical

As you can see, Aaron Burr in Hamilton: An American Musical is another character who does not neatly fit into the dichotomy of good or evil. While he does oppose Hamilton, being the antagonist does not mean that he is evil, since he decides to duel Hamilton to settle their disagreements. This is again an issue of integrity and your beliefs. While it may seem barbaric to us now, back then, duels were a socially acceptable way to settle matters of honor. In addition, Burr does not want to simply surrender and throw away his shot, because he wants to be around to care for his daughter. Similar to Matthias Helvar, Aaron Burr is a prime example of how a character can be presented as both good and evil.

Image result for star wars return of the jedi

The newest installment to the blockbuster Star Wars saga, Star Wars: Episode VIII — The Last Jedi is being released on December 15, 2017. However, you don’t need to be able to time travel to the future in order to find a prominent Star Wars character who, like Matthias Helvar and Aaron Burr, can be considered not strictly good or evil. That character, Luke Skywalker, is the iconic protagonist of the original Star Wars trilogy (Episodes IV through VI). Essentially, the original trilogy follows the story of Luke, who is a poor farm boy living on the planet of Tatooine. Through a series of events, he ends up becoming a Jedi Knight in the Rebellion that is opposing the fascist Galactic Empire, which is headed by Emperor Palpatine, a Sith Lord, and his apprentice, Darth Vader, who is revealed to be Luke’s father in Star Wars: Episode V — The Empire Strikes Back. During the final film of the original trilogy, Star Wars: Episode VI — Return of the Jedi, Luke is faced with a difficult decision, since in order to defeat the Empire, he must kill his own father. Luke still believes that there is some good left in his father from when Darth Vader was a Jedi Knight (his real name was Anakin Skywalker), but his two main Jedi mentors, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda, tell him that there is no other way to end the conflict besides killing Vader.

During the final battle, the Emperor urges Luke to turn to the dark side of the Force and use its power to kill his father, according to the original screenplay for Return of the Jedi written by George Lucas and Lawrence Kasdan, retrieved from http://www.imsdb.com (The Internet Movie Script Database):

Luke ignites his lightsaber and screams in anger […] Sparks fly as Luke and Vader fight in the cramped area. Luke’s hatred forces Vader to retreat out of the low area and across a bridge overlooking a vast elevator shaft. Each stroke of Luke’s sword drives his father further toward defeat.
[…] Luke moves over Vader and holds the blade of his sword to the Dark Lord’s throat. The Emperor watches with uncontrollable, pleased agitation.
EMPEROR
Good! Your hate has made you powerful. Now, fulfill your destiny and take your father’s place at my side!
Internet Movie Script Database

This quote from the script shows that Luke is indeed using the dark side of the Force in this scene. The screenwriters used the words “anger” and “hatred,” and even the Emperor points out, “Your hate has made you powerful.” A defining characteristic of the dark side is that it involves the use of anger and hatred in order to harness the Force. One might argue that Luke does not fully turn, as he later rejects the Emperor and states that he would never turn to the dark side, but at the very least Luke was tempted. Thus, in that scene, Luke was definitely using the dark side, and is considered evil because of it. However, this anger comes from Vader and the Emperor threatening his friends and the Rebellion, so would this righteous anger still count towards the dark side? Assuming it does, Luke Skywalker has still proven on several occasions that he is not one hundred percent evil. After all, he is fighting to end the Empire, which suppresses free speech and rules the galaxy with an iron fist. Skywalker is also able to convince his father, Darth Vader, to turn back to the light side after the final battle, but only because he believed there was still good left in his father—breaking the dichotomous thinking of there being people who are either completely good or completely evil. Once again, we can conclude that Luke Skywalker, like Matthias Helvar and Aaron Burr in Six of Crows and Hamilton, respectively, is not simply good or evil.

While the concept of having a gray area may seem obvious at this point, dichotomous thinking about good and evil, right and wrong, or “us” versus “them” has dominated conflicts throughout history. Similar to Fjerdans’ prejudice against Grisha, some Americans’ prejudice in the Civil War era against people of color centered around dehumanization, treating them as less than human by enslaving them, instead of considering the fact that having a different skin color does not mean they are an entirely different species altogether or should be treated as such. More recently, this rigid mindset has contributed to the issue of political polarization, preventing bipartisan efforts that could lead to a better society. In addition, with intolerance growing with the rise in terrorist attacks, people are not taking the logical path and are letting the actions of a few determine their view on the entire group. Veronica Roth, author of Allegiant, once wrote, “…everyone has some evil inside them, and the first step to loving anyone is to recognize the same evil in ourselves, so we’re able to forgive them.” (277) Perhaps that is the key to understanding these characters, and understanding those around us—acknowledging that we are all human. We are people who make mistakes, but also great masterpieces. We are a sum of our experiences, our memories, our thoughts, our emotions. To deny someone any part of that sum is to be the truly ignorant one.

*It is important to note that the musical Hamilton is not necessarily factual. It is more of an artist’s interpretation of Ron Chernow’s biography of Alexander Hamilton. Thus, it is impossible to know whether Aaron Burr, the historical figure, actually believed these things. Rather, this essay discusses him as a character in a musical.