Who Is The Most Tragic Supervillain?

[Iron Maiden]

You say the Doom is a Roma. But the Roma are dark-skinned and they originated from India. They were called gypsies which is a corruption of the word "Egyptian" because they were thought to be from Egypt. Doctor Doom is a white-skinned Caucasian and doesn't look like a Dark-skinned Roma at all.

But even in the RW not all the Roma are dark skinned.

My cousin's husband's family comes from Sicily. He skin tone is that of someone with a nice tan. Italians and Sicilians are considered white are they not?

But no matter....Doom's origin clearly states he is a Roma, he lived among the Roma and if Stan and Jack say he's a Roma then that's good enough for me. Who are you to say he is not?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If you really want to use the classical definition of tragic, then Doom would have to be destroyed by his hubris which never happens.

By this logic, no supervillain qualifies. The title of the OP is "most tragic supervillains" but if you are going to use serial-continuity rules to exclude Doom you have to exclude every single character in this thread, and nullify the entire post and thread itself.

Better luck next time with your Doom-hatred.

But this comics after all so there is rarely a final ending to these characters. It's not the same as the "classical" format of a novel.

Obviously people didn't get the hint from the OP and title "most tragic supervillains". The nature of this thread and post is an enquiry and it was assumed that people would account for differences between mediums, between serial fiction and fiction that has conclusion.

And even then...if we go to classical tragedy, Oedipus Rex ends with the exile and blinding of Oedipus. He doesn't die or meet his final end at the end of the play. That happens in the sequel Oedipus at Colonnus where's he an old man at the end of his life and most sympathetic and so on. So even classical tragedy had serialization. You look at Euripides, his tragedy Heracles ends with the hero driven mad by Hera killing his wife Megara and their children (yeah Disney told you lies about Herc and Meg) but Heracles still lives and he sets out on his 12 Labours at the end of that play. Euripides' tragedies since they often plucked episodes from myths are highly serialized.

You say the Doom is a Roma.

The comics said Doom is from Roma.

But the Roma are dark-skinned and they originated from India.

They originated in India centuries ago, obviously in the course of migration they have married and intermarried other people on the lower-classes of European society, while changes in climate, nutrition, and other factors also affected their ethnic pattern.

The greatest jazz guitarist of the 20th Century, Django Reinhart, was Romani and he looked like a normal French guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_Reinhardt

[Iron Maiden]

By this logic, no supervillain qualifies. The title of the OP is "most tragic supervillains" but if you are going to use serial-continuity rules to exclude Doom you have to exclude every single character in this thread, and nullify the entire post and thread itself.

Better luck next time with your Doom-hatred.



Obviously people didn't get the hint from the OP and title "most tragic supervillains". The nature of this thread and post is an enquiry and it was assumed that people would account for differences between mediums, between serial fiction and fiction that has conclusion.

And even then...if we go to classical tragedy, Oedipus Rex ends with the exile and blinding of Oedipus. He doesn't die or meet his final end at the end of the play. That happens in the sequel Oedipus at Colonnus where's he an old man at the end of his life and most sympathetic and so on. So even classical tragedy had serialization. You look at Euripides, his tragedy Heracles ends with the hero driven mad by Hera killing his wife Megara and their children (yeah Disney told you lies about Herc and Meg) but Heracles still lives and he sets out on his 12 Labours at the end of that play. Euripides' tragedies since they often plucked episodes from myths are highly serialized.



The comics said Doom is from Roma.



They originated in India centuries ago, obviously in the course of migration they have married and intermarried other people on the lower-classes of European society, while changes in climate, nutrition, and other factors also affected their ethnic pattern.

The greatest jazz guitarist of the 20th Century, Django Reinhart, was Romani and he looked like a normal French guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_Reinhardt

I think we have to attribute also the fact that the coloring techniques used in comic over the decades didn't have the capability to depict skin tones very well, esp in the Silver Age era of the Fantastic Four title's beginnings.

In film, gypsies were frequently portrayed by Europeans or "white" actors. Maureen O'Hara plays Esmeralda in the 1939 version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. In the same year Laurence Olivier plays Heathcliffe, who is described in the novel as a "gipsey" in "Wuthering Heights" . I've always put a little of Heathcliffe in the different aspects of Victor von Doom. And as you point out it is highly likely that over the centuries that there were intermarriages. We have the "von Doom", a German custom (von meaning "from so from the Doom lineage) surname that could indicated that.

Aren't the Irish Travelers frequently thought to be from the Roma?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I think we have to attribute also the fact that the coloring techniques used in comic over the decades didn't have the capability to depict skin tones very well, esp in the Silver Age era of the Fantastic Four title's beginnings.

Perhaps.

In film, gypsies were frequently portrayed by Europeans or "white" actors.

As were Jews. Or you had Jewish actors (like Kirk Douglas and Lauren Bacall) who changed their names and played WASPs. Which also extended to Hispanic actress like Rita Hayworth.

Maureen O'Hara plays Esmeralda in the 1939 version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

Yeah.

In the same year Laurence Olivier plays Heathcliffe, who is described in the novel as a "gipsey" in "Wuthering Heights" .

In the novel, Heathcliff is described multiple times from different backgrounds. Sometimes he's called Irish, other times he's called lascar (which refered to South-East Indian sailors from lower castes who often found work on shipping crews, think Fedallah from Moby-Dick). So he's not specifically supposed to be Romani so much as somewhat other. A recent film adaptation cast an African-Britain in that role.

Aren't the Irish Travelers frequently thought to be from the Roma?

They are. The Romani migrated across Europe, and in America (there are 1 million Americans of Roma descent) and not all of them are exclusively or essentially white. The Latverian Romani are obviously a fictional community and the history of Latveria in context of European history has never been clarified (like what was Latveria like during the time of Napoleon, was it part of the Holy Roman Empire, and so on) so you can assume whatever one wishes.

[Iron Maiden]

I know there is a somewhat large community of Romani here in the Midwest, mostly in the Chicago area.

[DrNewGod]

Magus. No one else comes close. A good man who knows what he will become and constantly struggles against it his entire life, yet ends up fighting his own evil self, coming face to face with his own physical, intellectual, emotional, and moral failing in ways that cannot be denied.

Seriously?
The Leader? A Janitor that gets gammaed into Uber Genius, surfacing all the worst parts of himself?
The Lizard? A guy who just wants his arm back?
Two-Face? A relentless prosecutor whose mental illness overwhelmed him when he's disfigured?
Sinestro? The Greatest Green Lantern who decides Only He can do what's rightafter a lifetime of fighting evil?

I think you're confusing My Favorite with Greatest (even if your favorite is great).

[foxley]

By this logic, no supervillain qualifies. The title of the OP is "most tragic supervillains" but if you are going to use serial-continuity rules to exclude Doom you have to exclude every single character in this thread, and nullify the entire post and thread itself.

Better luck next time with your Doom-hatred.



Obviously people didn't get the hint from the OP and title "most tragic supervillains". The nature of this thread and post is an enquiry and it was assumed that people would account for differences between mediums, between serial fiction and fiction that has conclusion.

But I was not the one who was claiming that 'tragic' could only mean 'conforming to the conventions of classical Greek tragedy', you were. You claimed that the backstories of Harvey Dent and Victor Fries were mere 'sob stories' because they did not conform to Greek tragedy.

Yet, when I point out neither does Dr. Doom, suddenly I am being unfair by expecting comics to conform to Greek plays: the exact opposite of your opinion a few posts earlier.

So now the definition of 'tragic' is 'conforming to the conventions of classical Greek tragedy, except for those bits that don't apply to Dr. Doom'? Humpty-Dumpty would be proud.

(And, although a minor villain, Humpty Dumpty (originally from the Arkham Asylum: Hell on Earth mini-series) is another very tragic character.)

[Revolutionary_Jack]

You claimed ...

I did not.

I never said anything against Mr. Freeze or Two-Face, both of whom are indeed tragic villains.

What I said specifically was,

Again that's what tragedy means. In the classical sense and in the Shakespearan sense.

Tragedy isn't simply about who has the best sob story. It's about characters whose strong personality coupled with their surroundings and backgrounds leads them to a dark, inevitable fate. A fate brought about in part by circumstances but in part as a result of their own choices and conviction.

When I said "tragedy isn't simply about who has the best sob story" I was obviously not denying that having a "sob story" was a part of it. The use of the modifier "isn't simply about" connotes that.

You are the one who decided to make this thread attacking a character that other posters obviously like and are invested in.

[foxley]

You are the one who decided to make this thread attacking a character that other posters obviously like and are invested in.

Saying I do not consider a character to be tragic is not an 'attack'; it is an expression of an opinion. If one person disagrees with your interpretation of a character, does that character somehow lose all value for you?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Saying I do not consider a character to be tragic is not an 'attack';

You didn't give technical opinions and reasons as to why a character doesn't qualify, you supplied your personal judgment on the character:

Thirded!

I don't get how you can see Dr. Doom as tragic. Everything single problem in his life was caused by his own hubris, and yet he just constantly blames others. Certainly nothing as heart-wrenching as Victor Fries and his lost love.

No. That's a definition being unable to learn from your mistakes.

I can feel sorry for Victor Fries or Harvey Dent or the Preston Payne version of Clayface. I cannot feel sympathy for a character whose overwhelming character trait is arrogance.

I didn't mention the Batman villains as sock puppets in my responses since that was neither here nor there. But you repeatedly use your obvious dislike for the character and mask that under vague claims of tragedy.

By making it about definitions of tragedy, I was more than justified in bringing in classical and literary examples to prove my point.

[ERON]

Seriously?
The Leader? A Janitor that gets gammaed into Uber Genius, surfacing all the worst parts of himself?
The Lizard? A guy who just wants his arm back?
Two-Face? A relentless prosecutor whose mental illness overwhelmed him when he's disfigured?
Sinestro? The Greatest Green Lantern who decides Only He can do what's rightafter a lifetime of fighting evil?

I think you're confusing My Favorite with Greatest (even if your favorite is great).

Or maybe people just have different ideas about what is tragic to them personally. This is a thread on a comic book forum, not a scholarly debate. There's nothing that says we have to strictly adhere to the academic definition of tragedy here. I said the Lizard was the most tragic to me because he just wants to have a normal life, but transforms against his will into a murderous monster. To me, that's a scenario that stands out to me personally as being particularly tragic. The Lizard is far from my favorite villain. If we were listing favorite villains, he probably wouldn't even make my top 20. But he is the most tragic to me.

[foxley]

Very well then. A major aspect of tragedy (in the modern, not the classical Greek, sense) is that a character's decent in darkness is frequently triggered by circumstances beyond their control and leads them into a fate that they did not (at least initially) deserve.

Harvey Dent was permanently disfigured for doing his job, and trying to uphold law and order in Gotham City. Victor Fries had the only person her ever loved stolen away from by the immoral, illegal and heartless actions of his employer. Here you have two good men, doing important work to improve the lot of humanity, turned into villains. There is a feeling (moreso in the case of Two-Face than Mr. Freeze i will grant you) that maybe the character could be brought back to the light again. However, any time that almost happens, it is snatched away again.

I do not see any of that in Doom. As far as I can tell, Victor von Doom was never a 'good man'. His overwhelming character trait has -- again as far as I can tell -- always been arrogance. He ignores the advice of someone who is supposed to be his friend, and causes an accident that is entirely his fault, which he then blames his friend for. He receives a small scar on his cheek (a far cry from Harvey Dent's hideous disfigurement or Preston Payne's liquefying flesh) and is so vain that this causes him to swear vengeance upon the world. He then compounds his folly by deciding to slap a red hot iron mask straight from the forge on to his face (an act with perfectly foreseeable outcomes to a scientific genius like Doom I would have thought). None of this says tragic to me. It says self-inflicted. Obviously others disagree with me.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Very well then. A major aspect of tragedy (in the modern, not the classical Greek, sense) is that a character's decent in darkness is frequently triggered by circumstances beyond their control and leads them into a fate that they did not (at least initially) deserve.

Okay, not a bad definition. Doom still qualifies. As do the Batman villains you mention I will add.

Harvey Dent was permanently disfigured for doing his job, and trying to uphold law and order in Gotham City.

If we go by Batman the Animated Series, Dent's problem was that he had mental illness issues before the accident and he repressed and hid it because he felt his career was important/valuable and that he can't appear looking weak because it would compromise his electability. If we go by The Long Halloween and The Dark Knight, Harvey Dent's belief in law and supporting it is compromised because he supports a vigilante to clean up crime, and is again so caught up in his work that he ignores important things in his personal life (like in TLH, his own wife Gilda's issues, or in TDK, his resentment towards Gordon and the fact that at least once he tried to torture a gangster until Batman stopped him).

So I don't think it's a case that Harvey was entirely guiltless or blameless for his downfall. He had some agency in his actions. It's tragic because you understand why Harvey makes those choices he does, and that he's fighting for something good and positive.

Victor Fries had the only person her ever loved stolen away from by the immoral, illegal and heartless actions of his employer.

Well even there, Victor Fries's issues at least stem in part from his inability to let go. Nora was the love of his life and we imagine that she was the most important person in his life and yet when she gets a disease that would kill her, the fact is Victor doesn't have a cure and all he can do is delay her death by cryostasis. Is it understandable, would we given the chance and our belief in our intelligence not go far in our love for others? Sure. But at the same time, there's a kind of denial of death, a belief in one's intelligence that they can conquer and defeat death, which admittedly many scientists and researchers working in medicine do need to have since it motivates the creation of new diseases, but at the same time you have to accept that some thing is beyond your control. And in the case of Victor, you see an inability for him to accept humanity outside Nora which is obvious in stories which show what happens when Nora Fries is cured but Victor is still Mr. Freeze either because of his accident or because he can't grow or change or accept humanity.

Your idea of tragedy is that of victimhood. I am not debating or arguing that here, but even in that conception, both Harvey and Victor Fries did have and exercise agency that led to their fate. In the case of one, a conviction that their public service will compensate and make up for their personal flaws, and in the case of another, an inability to truly let go and accept that they can't save everyone.

I do not see any of that in Doom.

A poor Romani child persecuted by an evil monarchy, whose parents were sacrificed and damned for their attempts to resist that oppression, doesn't meet that criteria? Doom's descent into darkness is triggered by circumstances beyond his control, and I don't think a person trying to save his mother's soul deserves his fate of being scarred for life and deported from America. Doom isn't a victim of oppression and persecution? One who ultimately becomes an oppressor and persecutor himself, which can happen.

As far as I can tell, Victor von Doom was never a 'good man'.

He was a happy child, raised by loving parents in a supportive community who was friendly and helpful to his fellow Romani. I don't see how you can argue that Victor wasn't born a good person unless you think poor people and Romani (neither of whom are Victor and Harvey Dent I might add) are inherently evil.

He ignores the advice of someone who is supposed to be his friend,

Reed Richards and Victor were never friends. Doom disliked Reed instinctively on meeting him at university. Class obviously being a factor, he's poor brilliant and struggling and then he meets someone who was pampered and middle-class and as smart as he, so there's the resentment that someone got this knowledge without having to suffer or undergo oppression. Which happens all the time.

I have to say, I don't think you have read Doctor Doom stories, or enough Doctor Doom stories to qualify having an opinion. It sounds like you skimmed wikipedia articles or based it on seeing some cartoon adaptations of him.

[DrNewGod]

Okay, not a bad definition. Doom still qualifies...

Yes, I agree Doom is tragic, but I have a few quibbles and questions.

A poor Romani child persecuted by an evil monarchy, whose parents were sacrificed and damned for their attempts to resist that oppression, doesn't meet that criteria? Doom's descent into darkness is triggered by circumstances beyond his control, and I don't think a person trying to save his mother's soul deserves his fate of being scarred for life and deported from America. Doom isn't a victim of oppression and persecution? One who ultimately becomes an oppressor and persecutor himself, which can happen.

I just reread FF Annual 2, which gave Doom's origin story. It had his mother "slain" by the Latverian aristocrats, but didn't say anything about why (they mention she was a witch, but don't make any connections). Doom's father fell mortally ill while being chased by soldiers for failing to save the Baron's sick wife. Has there been something published that casts them as revolutionaries or resistants? Doom wasn't deported, but he was expelled from the University because his experiments were unsanctioned, and dangerous (as evidenced by the disfiguring explosion). His foreign wanderings were his own choice.

He was a happy child, raised by loving parents in a supportive community who was friendly and helpful to his fellow Romani. I don't see how you can argue that Victor wasn't born a good person unless you think poor people and Romani (neither of whom are Victor and Harvey Dent I might add) are inherently evil.

His mother died while he was an infant. Has there been stuff on his happy childhood I missed? Everything I've seen picks up after he was already embittered by his father's death. I will agree that he became vengeful, but there's nothing I've seen suggesting that he was a bad seed from the get-go.

Reed Richards and Victor were never friends. Doom disliked Reed instinctively on meeting him at university. Class obviously being a factor, he's poor brilliant and struggling and then he meets someone who was pampered and middle-class and as smart as he, so there's the resentment that someone got this knowledge without having to suffer or undergo oppression. Which happens all the time...

Agreed, except for the middle class part. Not only was Richards not poor, like Doom, but Nathaniel Richards was actually quite rich. Probably made it worse.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Yes, I agree Doom is tragic, but I have a few quibbles and questions.

Certainly.

I just reread FF Annual 2, which gave Doom's origin story.

That's a great issue and mostly still the origin. But later writers have built on that, they established (in ASTONISHING TALES #8, by Gerry Conway) that his mother Cynthia von Doom was a sorceress who made a deal with Mephisto for power to overthrow the corrupt Baron, but instead the townsfolk burned her as a witch and Mephisto got her soul, and Doom has spent much of his life trying to save her soul, which was the reason for the accident that scarred him. It wasn't until TRIUMPH AND TORMENT that he had some bit of success there.

Has there been something published that casts them as revolutionaries or resistants?

I never said they were revolutionaries but they were obviously Romani as an ethnic minority persecuted by the state struggling against a corrupt racist government.

Doom wasn't deported, but he was expelled from the University because his experiments were unsanctioned, and dangerous (as evidenced by the disfiguring explosion). His foreign wanderings were his own choice.

I think Brubaker's Books of Doom suggested that to me, but you are right. Maybe deported was wrong but the fact is that essentially that accident cast him out of paradise, so-to-speak. Doom lost out on the American Dream to the extent that he ever wanted to be part of that, (and I'd argue a part of him did).

Has there been stuff on his happy childhood I missed?

He had loving parents and a supportive community. His teenage years were spent helping his people stay one step ahead of the government and using his inventions to give them an edge.

I will agree that he became vengeful, but there's nothing I've seen suggesting that he was a bad seed from the get-go.

Agreed.

Agreed, except for the middle class part. Not only was Richards not poor, like Doom, but Nathaniel Richards was actually quite rich. Probably made it worse.

Reed Richards wasn't Tony Stark rich, so I used the word "middle-class" as a shorthand because saying suburban upper-middle class sounds like a mouthful. But mostly Reed is the guy who has it all, and he's smart and brilliant as Doom on top of it all, so that explains the obvious and immediate, and subconscious resentment Doom would have with Reed on meeting him. I'm not saying it's right but it's natural, many of us have had that experience meeting someone from privilege. If Doom listened to Pulp, undoubtedly this would be the song playing in his mind (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7HNUVCv_X0).

That's why comics readers relate to Doom far more than Reed. Doom reflects, despite the fantasy the armor and mask, a more universal experience, a more tragic shared reality than Reed does.