And just to be clear, what we'll be doing in this thread is discussing whether themes of revenge ought to be handled positively or negatively (and are the exceptions to whatever the general rule may be?) in our fiction. And please, let's try to avoid making sweeping statements like "revenge is always wrong" because this strays away from the point of the discussion.

So.

I recently watched The Count of Monte Cristo (minus a couple scenes) and found the theme of revenge very interesting. This got me thinking about Inigo Montoya's revenge in The Princess Bride. There are some interesting differences.

In Monte Cristo, the quest for revenge is portrayed negatively, but one can't help but notice that everyone receives a fair amount of justice, even the chaps who get killed trying to kill the hero. Actually, the hero didn't plan to kill those chaps, either.

Whereas, in Princess Bride, Inigo's pursuit of revenge is portrayed positively.

I think that these are the differences.

1. In Monte Cristo, the hero is not motivated by a desire for justice, but rather by his hate. Inigo Montoya, on the other hand, is pursuing justice for a murder in a world that won't grant him justice. Inigo is not consumed by hate, but rather wrathful justice. Perhaps this motivates the difference in portrayal.

2. Edmond Dantes (Monte Cristo) is pursuing revenge for crimes committed against himself. So his quest might be seen as selfish. Inigo, on the other hand, seeks to avenge his father, an idea generally thought to be noble.

Are these portrayals fair? How would you handle these themes?

That's a very interesting question.

I am inclined to say that revenge can be portrayed positively if it is not so much revenge, but more so a seeking of justice, as you stated with Inigo Montoya. However, other kinds of revenge, I would not portray as so positive.

I would like to think of the Lord of the Rings with Faramir, where in the initial introduction of his character he states that he does not like killing, but if necessary and just, he will do it. I think that is a nicer sort of attitude if applied in such the way of revenge. However, writers also have this liberality in the the way they want their characters to feel about it.

As a primary note, just as Neil alluded to: we are talking about writing about revenge and how it should be portrayed, not whether we should do so.



For more, follow: http://www.openbible.info/topics/revenge

These are two Biblical quotes often dealing with revenge. They both seem to shut down any idea that revenge is ever a lawful reaction to provocation. Another excellent point is to consider Jesus' example, not taking vengeance on those who physically harmed him, and on the whole human race that attacked him by sinning.
And another point against revenge: Love your enemies. Can you love them when you send them to Hell the expressway (presuming that someone you would want vengeance on is unsaved)? You cheat them and God of any chance of redeeming them. And God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

That leaves vengeance in a pretty rough spot. It would seem to make it almost a lie to portray revenge positively. And yet...

There are arguments in favor of vengeance. We could consider the argument based in, though not dependent upon, dispensationalism (nobody sue me). Basically the idea is that after the Flood and until approximately the Exodus God had instituted "Human Government" as the way of working justice on earth. Many ancient governments allowed this sort of vengeance seeking (Inigo Montoya style).
Parallel with this thrust is the idea of cultural differentiation. In some cultures it is customary for vengeance to be pursued. (I can't remember which specific ones at the moment).
The best argument though, is that of justice, the root behind the first argument and in tandem with the second argument. How is justice to be served? Consider this scenario based in recent events:

Months ago Americans experienced the "Fort Hood Shootings" where some guy in our army shot a lot of other people in our army. Suppose then that he is at large and escaped justice. You or I find him, are 100% sure it's him, and know that he did it. Maybe he admits it to our face to help. Any way about it we have a handgun conveniently in reach. The decision: do we go Batman style and drag him into the courts (at risk of escape) or shoot him and be done with it?

Now I'm no gun slayer, I don't even play games of that nature, but I can tell you which I wish I would do. There'd be a terrible psychological block to killing someone, but I believe I'd do it.

Am I taking revenge? Yes. I am serving justice. By all Biblical standards he is to die, and if I don't kill him he might try it again, maybe even on me. Self-defense is in.

Slightly more close example to Inigo Montoya: A man has sworn to kill my whole family. Maybe he's already got my dad. Again, he isn't looking and I found a handgun that's pre-loaded. Whatta we do?
A little harder to choose, but choose we must. Who's it gonna be, him or me? Self-defense.

At the risk of being irreverent, God says "I will repay" and He might just choose to do it by having me find that gun in either of those cases.

Now let's consider our beloved comic hero Inigo Montoya. The six-fingered man killed his father. Justice will never reach him other than by the hand of our favorite Spaniard. Maybe justice must come by Inigo's hand.

What? All that talk for a maybe? For me it's a maybe, still clouded. But hopefully all my talking points have brought you far enough to decide. Is Inigo doing right? Then tell it that way. Is he not? Then he's doing wrong, and glorifying wrong cannot be right.

Interestingly though, we live in a post-Christ era. Do we believe that he really will mete out vengeance? He says he will. And if he will then I'm okay with leaving him to do that, if even selfishly because he'll get 'em ever worse than I could.

So I am Inigo. The six-fingered man is asleep and I have my hand-gun. I can take his life or leave it.

Sleep peacefully, villain. My name is Reiyen, you're the man that killed my father... and one day if you don't get it right my Father's gonna kill you and good. I don't need to bring that day any closer.


So where am I in regards to the question asked? I think that even Inigo falls under the negative portrayal section (although I love that movie and especially his role *is conflicted*). Really, it's comedy. It's not meant to be real. So I put it under the exceptions to the rule that Neil mentioned.
Other exceptions:
1. If you have restructured some of the morals of your world. (In my world, the deity figure is not quite omnipotent, which could change things).
2. All the self-defense type revenge actions I listed above.
3. As an act of war. Ehud assassinated the king of Moab. Samson pulled down the temple on the Philistines. And in my world, the race of men has it in for the demon lords because of the evil they has done. They're in perpetual war.
4. When it isn't really vengeance, but protecting others from real threats.
5. Others... enjoy finding and discussing them

(well, Airi, when you find this thread... this is my version of a monster post? How'd I do?)

This is a very good, thought-provoking subject.

*thinks*
In Prince of Yen the villain is driven by both justice and revenge and he tends to get the two mixed up. He sees his vengeance as justice, but it isn't really, and of course the guy he wants to kill is one of the main characters (good guy.) so it's portrayed in a negative manner.

I received some criticism for my novella "Trice" because of the theme of vengeance, but I thought it was one of those situations where it was warranted. The main character is a nobleman's daughter who is seduced and betrayed by a prince. No one can touch him since he's at the top of the law, and she spends her life dreaming of revenge. When she finally confides the story to an honorable young man (the other main character) he wants to take that burden out of her hand, and the turning point of the novel is when she lets him. So now we have another character whose plan is to take justice outside of the law because the law cannot help him, and he sticks to that path religiously. Hence the "theme" of vengeance.

I have a couple others where I think I have revenge portrayed in a negative light, but it's usually one of the bad guys (who are never completely bad guys, but whatever) so I won't get into that here.

I think that Revenge is a very good plot tool. It's a way to make your hero very flawed, it's a quest we can sympathize with but speak against. It's a way to justify bloodshed, and it can definitely set up interesting character arcs if it's portrayed negatively.

I am actually using revenge as a fueling theme for my MC in my trilogy. However, I agree with Andrew's post, and for that reason, I am showing him that his desires are not only flawed, but they also have negative consequences.

Now, Tierin thinks he is justified in his feelings. After all, his family has been killed, his friends put in jeopardy time and again. But he will learn by the end of the book that justice is never administered through revenge.

I look forward to more comments on this, as I am dealing with this in my current book.

*may/is-probably parroting what others have said *

Since I've never watched either of those movies (or read the books?) I can't give my opinion on this specific scenarios and feel that I gave an accurate assessment of the situation, but I can give my general opinion on the idea of revenge.

Personally, I think there's a difference between revenge and retribution, but the line is often blurred and confused therefore they are both thought of as revenge. The difference between the two, though, is often the difference between whether or not you should portray it as wrong.

The definition of revenge, according to my Pages app, is "inflict, hurt, or harm someone for an injury or wrong done to oneself.", of course, that's only half the definition. To me, Revenge is defined as hurting someone because of yours (or a friend of yours) pride or need to feel like they are "even" sort of that "you hurt me, I hurt you" rule.

A person seeking revenge is not seeking it to punish the person for what they did, but rather to make the person feel remorse for what they did to them. It is not that they have done wrong, but rather that the wrong influenced them and they don't like that. They want revenge.

The definition of retribution, according to my Pages app, is "punishment that is considered to be morally right and fully deserved."... I like that definition. A lot more... Morally based, don't you think? Which means that's pretty self-explanatory. A person that goes to a judge to press charges on a thief is oftentimes looking for retribution, not revenge, she (or he) just wants justice done. Not to get even...most of the time.

That means that revenge is a tricky thing to be justified, I don't even know if it's possible to justify such an action. Retribution on the other hand, is entirely different.

Take for an example, if you had a character (since we are talking about writing here. ) whose, say, brother was murdered.

Now this character is angry.

He is very angry.

In fact, he kind of wants to kill someone...

So he does. He searches for his brother's killer and he, well, to put it lightly, kills him... For revenge... Because he's so mad.

The downside is that this character has to live with the guilt of having killed this guy for the rest of his life and so... He ends up dying old and alone. The end. (cruel story, I know, I know. )

Now let's take the same character and rewind his life. Well his brother is murdered.

And he's angry.

Very-well, you get the idea. So he's angry and he's sad his brother is dead, but he knows that the law system in his town is terrible and that, if they found the killer, the wouldn't do anything. So he goes and he finds the killer and, well, put lightly, he kills him again (*gasp* This character is violent. ), BUT!!! Yes, there is but, always a but. My insanity has a plan here... Somewhere... actually, I may have lost my train of though. Oh! Found it!

All right, but, this character (the second time around) didn't kill the character for revenge. He killed him for the unjust act he committed, the crime of taking another human's life. Not just his brother's. But, of course, he still has to live with having killed the man for the rest. Of. His. Life.

Now, one is revenge the other is retribution, but it can be quickly turned to revenge if the character's heart motive isn't correct. Are both of these wrong? No. Will both of these cause bad consequences? Yes. Did I answer your question? Probably not...

Summed up, the point is that, when it comes to taking justice into your own hands no matter the reason, it's hard not to portray it as wrong, because, odds are, it will end up as revenge. It's a blurry line between justice and vengeance and very easy for characters to cross that line. So more times than not, revenge has to be portrayed as bad so as to make that line very clear and not so blurry to your reader.

And now... I'm gonna go eat dinner, after having written a pretty pointless ramble.

Bethany Faith

I suppose I feel that retribution should still be portrayed as wrong, though. I understand the motive, but going back to Andrew's point, God is our judge. We should trust in His grace and His justice. Even though I could empathize with a retribution case, I still think there should be consequences and as a writer, I think we should show this is not what should be done.

But, one (Jay or myself, for instance) could attempt to make an argument that upholding justice (meaning law governing the individual rights of life, liberty, and property) is a moral duty (one might call it an institution) required of each individual, and the human collective, by God.

Then, one could argue that justice includes the concept of retribution-that those who violate the rights of others must receive punishment. (In just measure, of course).

Therefore, one could conclude that retribution is a moral duty of each individual and the human collective.

But, of course, there are always consequences for seeking justice. Justice is impartial and must be conducted with gravity... and those who do not uphold the impartiality and gravity of justice violate justice and incur punishment on themselves.

This is, of course, a purely hypothetical argument, since no one has actually made it. I merely bring it up in order to continue the discussion by presenting options. However, I may choose to present the argument in detail if the contrast and comparison of revenge and retribution becomes a significant point in the discussion.

Justice does not involve one person making a decision about a person's actions. Justice involves the counsel of others, and ensures that personal emotion does not fuel your actions. There is accountability. Justice is the duty of every person; retribution, an act by a single person based off of their emotions and ideas, is not the same thing.

I haven't posted on this thread, dearest sister.

I'll be back with some thoughts to re-topicify this thread.

eru

*hits head * I meant Reiyen.

You all are yellow now! Stop confusing me.

That's why I stay out of theology discussions.

What is, Varon?

Y'all get confusing.

Okay... *rerails topic *

Now that I managed to stop by at my mental archives, I can add something discussable.

I have two characters (Currently, who aren't superheroes) who are driven by revenge. Both are are related. Go figure.

Formerly-Gwaeron Romero seeks revenge/retribution/justice for the murder and sacking of his town by evil pirate Wilhelm Blodrayne. He succeeds, but then that's it. It doesn't ease the pain; probably brought about a lot more, and to be honest, was probably just a reason for me to write the story.

His Great (Many times)-Grandson, Aidan Romero also seeks revenge/retribution/justice. I'd have to say Aidan's quest falls more along the negative, personal aid, type of revenge. He's very dark, angry, and violent. His quest repeatedly leads him into trouble with the world, the Knights Templar (Who he works for), and others. It eventually leads him to achieve a last stand to help an older Lance Juno and characters whose name I forget to bring help from the US government in exile. He doesn't achieve his quest it helps nothing.

I suppose there's a difference between the two if you look hard enough. Formerly-Gwaeron starts out for the same reason Aidan does, but accomplishes it and finds it pointless. Aidan never finishes and never realizes it won't help him.

Did that make any sense?

Bethany is right. I agree with Bethany. Bethany is also a brilliant writer. I love you, Bethany. You make me laugh.

My dad's idea of an ideal justice system is based off the old testament method. The Cities of Refuge. Retribution wasn't the right of the government (there was no government! The people were governed by Judges.) it was the right of the family. They could choose or not choose to exact payment for the wrong done to them. They could pursue the killer until they caught up with, and killed him, and all he could do was go hide in a city. At which point there would be a trial, but the end result of the trial was still that the vengeance-seeker got to kill his quarry.

Strictly speaking one could say they're the same thing. Character B hunts down and kills Character A. So the entire differentiation hinges on the motive. If Character B hunts down Character A in order for revenge (See Bethy's definition, she does it much better than me) than he's not very much a better character than Character A. After all, A probably was hurt in his childhood, or felt slighted by the person he killed, which is why he was driven to murder Character D(ead) in the first place. But if Character B is motivated by justice then not only is it right, by some codes of moral law it's required. Mercy always has a place. But what use is Mercy without Justice? And Retribution is an embodiment of Justice.

* hopes she didn't muddle up a perfectly clear explanation *

Thank'ee, Katie. * bows *

I liked your explanation. * nods * Very well put.

Our God is a resourceful God. I could propose that it'd be rather difficult to prevent Him from anything He intends to do, and also mention that He saw the scope of all of human history before He first gave Adam breath, but that would likely open the doors to a discussion involving Reformed Theology, which is a topic with which I am not entirely comfortable. ~_^



Now I find that to be a very interesting perspective. Not certain it's one I'd be able to act on, but very interesting indeed.



And herein lies the rub. We're to trust the one who loves us more than we love ourselves to take care of our best interests, and to mete out justice on our behalf.

Except we also know that He's in the grace and mercy business as well. And that if the person who has tormented us or killed our loved ones realizes that they've sinned against God and God's children, and repents, and wants to be forgiven... they will be. I have a feeling that I will end up seeing people in heaven who have caused me pain, and against whom I might have expected God to work justice on my behalf... but then there will likely be people who would have expected that same justice worked against me. And I will thank God for giving me the grace to accept both scenarios.

As far as vengeance is concerned in fiction, I don't think it can be portrayed positively except to the detriment of the messages of Grace and Mercy. A hero can certainly put an end to a villain who has wronged him, but it would be better if the hero had a more noble motivation such as stopping the villain from hurting even more people (or even from hurting the hero again).


I like Bethany's distinction of revenge vs. retribution, by the bye.

Seems apropos to the old story about the judge, the baker and the poor man. The poor man stole a loaf of bread because he could not afford to feed his family, and the baker sought retribution for the theft. The judge fined the poor man for stealing the bread, then fined everyone else in the courtroom - the baker included - for living in a town where no-one paid enough attention to their neighbors' wellbeing to offer the man some work so that he could afford to buy bread. He gave that money to the poor man so that the poor man could pay his fine and buy food for his family.

I think mercy came out a bit ahead of both justice and retribution in that story.

I think herein lies the key to how Edmond Dantes acted in retribution rather than revenge when he killed Fernand Mondego. By the end of the confrontation in the ruins, Edmond said to Fernand, "Just go. Call it mercy." Edmond was willing to let Fernand go free, and by saying this he was putting his desire for revenge aside. However when Fernand came back and challenged him, Edmond had no choice but to fight. Edmond ended up delivering death by way of retribution in protecting those he loved, rather than hate and revenge. I may have interpreted the scene differently to others, but I think that when one has the chance to show grace and mercy taken away from them, this is when retribution is meted out.

We no longer are bound/live by the old testement. There are many things done then that we do not do now.



I totally agree.

I think we need to remember we are writing fiction. We have to be careful how we portray things, because the written word is different than real life actions.

The OT did have a system of government. God's three Institutions of Government, the Family, the Covenant (Church in the NT), and Justice. We must remember two things. 1. Israel was not a theocracy, it only appears to be to modern people because Family, Covenant, and Justice all adhere to God's laws. However, Justice and Family problems were not dealt with by the Covenant or Priesthood. 2. Government was at work. While human government was not present, God's three Divinely Instituted Government's were all present and operating.

That said, Christ's coming has completed changed how Family, Church, and Justice operate. But they still operate, and Justice still demand's its due.

Just as the Family is a moral requirement placed on people, and the New Covenant is our moral obligations to God, Justice is still the moral obligation of mankind to each other. And when Justice is violated, it is our moral obligation to see that retribution is meted out in full measure, no less or more than is due.


As for Edmond Dantes:

I do not believe Edmond was pursuing justice. If he were pursuing justice, he would merely have sought a just legal penalty for Fernand. But, like Inigo Montoya, he goes beyond earthly Justice and (referring metaphorically to Inigo's vendetta) strives to leave his own marks on Fernand's checks. Rather than pursuing justice as his moral imperative, he wants to hate and do the deeds of hate.