My first announcement here and this is quite the crucial one me, @Lucariobot and some other users have been discussing in-depth for sometime and we feel users in this community have been misunderstanding the "tragic" category and have some misconceptions on when a Freudian Excuse holds, and when it actually doesn't, such as a "Call Out = Fake Tragic", "If a person is too heinous they can't be tragic" and so on and so forth, and admittedly I have sometimes as well, so I am making this announcement on trying to clarify all of this and establish a more clearer understanding of who counts as tragic, and who doesn't, so brace yourselves, this is gonna be quite the long post.
Now first things first, let us clarify when a villain can be considered Fake Tragic. It is when a character with a seemingly tragic past aren't actually motivated by it in a way a usual tragic villain are affected, they are actually just dudes who simply use it as excuse to commit acts out of selfish motives. it is not because "they are too heinous to be sympathized with" and I have quite the load of examples to disprove no PE is fake tragic because they are far too heinous to be sympathized or be excused. TO begin debunking the mentality that "they are very heinous that it is what invalidates their Freudian Excuse" with the following example.
Drago Bludvist: He is not Fake Tragic because "dude is far too heinous to be sympathized with and for his tragedy to hold". The reason Drago's backstory doesn't hold is that he admits, he actually is motivated by power-lust to conquer the world than a raging desire to make dragon-kind pay for the deaths of his family and his village that he plays himself as. Now for the sweeter one.
Roman Bridger: Roman's FE doesn't hold not because "the vast amounts of murders he has and lives he ruined cannot be justified by it" but It is because Roan plays himself as "a dude who has to fend for himself on his own and abandoned by his mother" when he is just a petty egomaniac who is simply jealous of his half-sister and intends to ruin her life and the life of so many others just to frame her for his crimes and satisfy his envy even though the dude was more than well off in living on with his life.
Kilgrave: Oh... I've seen many people being concerned by his tragedy I'll just go on and clarify. The point of Kilgrave's character is he is a petty manchild who wants to make everyone eh finds his playthings and do unspeakable acts simply for the kicks, and will try his best to avoid taking responsibility for them. The point of Jessica's is to call him out when Kilgrave tries to bringing up "oh... I was experimented on by my parents" to flimsily avoid taking responsibility for all the acts he did.
Koba: Koba's FE doesn't hold not because "oh... he is just simply too heinous to be sympathized" as his page says but rather Koba is fake tragic (in a case of unintentionally unsympathetic though) because the dude paints himself as some WIE figure to exact vengeance against humanity for what all they did. Yeah... him targeting humans was understandable at first... but not only did apes live comfortably while under Caesar's rule, but when he goes on burning down the ape colony and targeting other apes simply for disagreeing with him, then we see the excuse doesn't hold and that he is just a power-hungry egotist that fights only for himself.
Lots-o'-Huggin' Bear: And the dude is not fake tragic just because of the incinerator scene, despite creator intentions that it was meant to destroy any lingering sympathy as this was just simply to reinforce the idea that was set up in the dumpster scene which I believe has bigger value on disproving Lotso's FE. The purpose of that scene shows Lotso is using his past as a flimsy excuse to demean others, force a classist system to have guys at the lowest suffer and spread a nihilistic philosophy he himself doesn't believe simply so he can enjoy being the guy at the top. The fact that the dude has to lie about details on his past furthers the point.
Acnologia: He... apparently has an excuse of his village being destroyed and him saving a girl in the past from that but why is it not mitigating you ask? He brings up his FE only briefly in an incredibly contradictory way as well and it is clear by the present he isn't motivated by it at all, just out of sadism and misanthropy.
So... I'll bring it up... what actually makes them all tragic? Is it because they are so incredibly heinous that they don't deserve sympathy, or their FE are invalidated because, by the end, they are playing up how affected by their past they actually are simply to avoid taking responsibility that they are simply selfish pricks motivated by their own ends and fight only for themselves. Fake Tragic are fake tragic because they are not motivated by the impact of their tragedy, they are motivated simply out of selfishness. Kilgrave & Acnologia are evil simply for the kicks, Lotso & Drago are evil simply to achieve power, Roman is evil simply to satisfy a petty grudge against a sister he never met, and are bad only because of themselves than their past.
Hell, Freudian Excuse isn't even supposed to justify someone's heinous actions anyway. That's quite literally a misconception in itself. I'll give the actual definition of what it means. "A reason in the backstory of a villain that doesn't excuse their actions, but does explain why they act the way they do and gives them motivation for their actions" so the "villains need to be justified" mentality needs to die. And let us disprove it even more with guys who actually count as tragic despite being very heinous to boot.
Darth Vader. Genocidal lunatic that kills god knows how many all across the galaxy, cuts off son's arm, literally murders children, and should we dismiss his tragedy for how vile the dude has become? No, a sit is clear his trauma never ended and is still suffering from everything that happened to him from his childhood as a slave, his mother and wife's death, the toll on the Clone Wars and having been trained by a cult of hypocrites like the Jedi who deprived him from having any emotional attachments.
Another one, MCU Thanos. The dude goes across to every planet he finds, slaughters half the population, has children he picked be adopted into rigorous training and torture, especially Nebula who he mutilated and turned into a cyborg for every loss she had, but we still can't dismiss his tragedy it is clear, the very destruction of Titan took a massive toll on his mind and is sincerely trying to prevent another planet from suffering the same fate. Even when becoming a not-so-well-intentioned-extremist attempting to destroy the universe to stroke his own ego, it is clear the dude's mind never left Titan and the extinction of his species still took a toll till this day.
Another MCU bad guy I will bring up, Killmonger. Yeah, dude has very nasty crimes, he cold-bloodedly murders his own girlfriend, disrespects Wakandan culture and intends to launch genocidal attacks on various nations all around the world and cause a devastating war, and for all his claims is a not-so-well-intentioned extremist that just wants the world burn and for him to be top, the film goes out of its way, and T'Challa as well, Killmonger is unjustified in his actions and became as bad as the people he fight against, but he also calls out the Wakandan council for never taking the boy in as he knew the dude wouldn't have been as vile as he was had h not been left to fend for himself in poverty and racism after his father's death.
And of course, there is Grant Ward. Dude's a traitorous bastard that crashed an entire plane with innocents down, is called out by his brother on becoming worse than his parents, and honestly... would've been Fake Tragic as well because of how the dude deflects blame to others if not for the thing with the Framework, in which the due would've been a far better person had he not only been abused emotionally and physically by his parents and older brother but especially if on top of that he wasn't groomed to be a weapon by a sociopath like John Garrett. With the Framework, Grant's FE really can't be claimed to be invalid as it shows, his past isn't just an empty excuse he uses to justify himself, he was actually affected by all of this.
(Disclaimer for any Chainsaw Man fans that only follow the anime) Makima has earned quite the understandable hate for the millions of deaths she orchestrated all across part 1 and the suffering she caused to ruin Denji's life and make him give up the will to live and then control all of humanity. The story wants to point out that Makima's actions are inexcusable, but the story also points out she would've been much different had she been raised with love than as a weapon by the government, it's why Nayuta exists and she was given to Denji to raise her with love and ensure she doesn't end up being like her past life.
With how many talking about his PE potential, need to bring this up. I know how vile Dabi's actions are, but his PE chances are very slim. "Abusive father" seems like a very small and unjustifiable excuse, but the very point of a Freudian Excuse and the tragic category isn't to justify the villain's actions, it's to explain them. Tragedy prevention isn't just about sympathy or how excusable a villain is, someone can be tragic just by being far too affected by it. It is very clear that Dabi's mind is very warped from being raised by an abusive parent like Endeavor. Doesn't really matter if Endeavor is trying to be a better person or not, Dabi is just far too damaged by it to see or so or change, and its why I highly doubt his PE potential or that he can even subvert the excuse unless he sincerely forgives Endeavor and moves on, and continues being a sadistic prick, properly subverting his excuse.
Another one who I feel should be under tragic and I especially need to mention him due to everything about the drama on him, the Tortured One from Bikini Bottom Horror. Patrick may call him out for how weak it is to attack the citizens of Bikini Bottom, but that alone isn't enough for me to go on and dismiss the fact that the dude's mind is far too warped from the hellish torture he had to endure on Mr. Krabs' hands and be Fake Tragic. it isn't excusable at all but with him still clearly being affected by the bad events of his lives, I just can't see him as Fake Tragic at all.
Overall, Tragic villains aren't Tragic because their pasts excuse them. hell, osme may not actually be sympathetic due to how vile their actions could be. They are tragic because they are still influenced by what all bad events that happened to them and it is why they are the way they are. Fake Tragics play up how affected by the tragedy they are simply to provide themselves to excuse to commit evil acts out of mere selfishness. Heinousness really has nothing to actually do with it.
And now the next mentality we really needed to get it out, simply the hero calling out how weak someone's excuse is doesn't negate it. Let's a take many of the aforementioned examples.
Hiccup calls Drago's excuse out. How is his FE negated? Because Hiccup can clearly see it is an obvious lie and calling out Drago for shamelessly using the deaths of his own family as an empty rhetoric for his own power-hungry goals. It isn't Hiccup calling out Drago's excuse as weak for his actions that invalidated it, it's the fact that Drago isn't even motivated by it in the first place.
Sidney calling out Roman. It wouldn't have mattered if it was 1 kill, Sidney knows Roman is just a raving egomaniac simply jealous of his half-sister and is just trying to dodge responsibility for his crimes and that he truly has nobody but himself to blame himself for his crimes.
Kilgrave is a manchild who will never admit fault to any one of his crimes. it is his key character traits. The very point of Jessica calling him out is not "oh my parents died so it doesn't matter", it's calling out Kilgrave for being such a childish villain who would use "oh my parents experimented on me" to desperately avoid responsibility for him just doing everything he did for the kicks. It is Kiglrave actually motivated by kicks and using his past to escape blame is what invalidates his tragedy, the calling out just hammers the point down.
Now, our boy Lotso, Lotso's FE is invalidated by Woody because he calls him out for literally lying about his details just so he could simply make everyone else's lives miserable as well and place himself at the top as a result.
It is why the heroes calling out the villains invalidate the freudian excuse of these villains. Because it alone isn't what invalidates it, it only hammers down the point on what actually does instead, that they aren't actually what they are motivated by and are simply past experiences they use to excuse themselves. Dude's like Thanos, Killmonger, Dabi, Ward, and we are still gonna be bringing up the Tortured One btw, they both have been called out by the heroes' on their excuse but are we sure this simple calling out is going to simply disprove them? Not really. Why? Because it is made more than clear enough unlike them, who in reality don't actually care about their past as much as they claim and are use it as empty excuses to commit crimes out of simply selfish intent, these dudes are actually affected by their pasts and had their past experiences be different, they would've been much better people, in which in the case of Ward, it is made even clearer. with this all in mind, simply using "heroes called out excuse = Fake Tragic" is a big misconception and simply being called out isn't enough to render a Freudian Excuse invalid.
And "always were bad people = Fake Tragic" is also a mentality we also we would want to clarify, although it thankfully isn't the most persistent. So, to spice it up, let's bring up a dude who definitely belongs under tragic despite already being a villain beforehand below.
SpiderVerse Kingpin. Yeah, the dude already was a ruthless mob boss but we can really see how much his family meant to him that losing him only left him a broken husk of a man who doesn't even focus on money and goods, all of his actions within the present were all only focused on finally bringing his family back, and we can see how badly he still misses them in the end when his horrified son and wife from an alternate dimension left him like how they did in the original. Yeah, it was out of horror on him being a crime boss but the fact that it was a redeeming quality that meant so much for him is what still doesn't render the FE moot.
So... when does it actually work? When said villains really didn't have much redeeming qualities beforehand or had abandoned them most of the time. Like:
Griffith: Of course we would get to him. why is he arguably the best case of this? Because the dude beforehand was already a massive & selfish asshole and jerk even when friends with the heroes, his time as a "hero, was heavily indicated to manipulation beforehand, the tortures and horrid experiences the dude suffered only being just him getting desserts for his selfishness like him simply lusting for Princess Charlotte, and then by the present, remains ever selfish asshole that he always was, willing to toss away any close comrade simply to be a petty, spiteful and shallow egomaniac that simply wants to "achieve his dream" of building his own kingdom. Had he had been a much nicer fellow it is more believable he would've been a genuinely nice man who had been utterly snapped by all his past experiences, although admittedly, with how selfish and egotistical he actually is, it may have not made much of a difference eitherway but with the knowledge he was always a selfish jerk, then it's clear rather than being a tragic figure he is just some selfish egomaniac clinging onto an excuse to be an egomaniac.
Had this one brought up to me but I heard King Boo would be an example of when this actually helps render an FE moot, in which eh was already a dude that was stuck on a painting for all of eternity while he was aware of everything on his surroundings, which is invalidated because the reason he was on the painting as it was him getting his desserts for trying to do so for several other guys even beforehand. Essentially, his Freudian excuse amounts to "wanting revenge for getting a taste of his own medicine" which is definitely not a valid one at all.
A similar case can happen on the basis of Oz who was sold out to the police and Columbians by his partner, a corrupt Senator, but considering he was a notorious drug lord beforehand, his excuse amounts to wanting revenge for getting deserts for his crimes, and uses this as a cheap excuse simply to be a sadistic prick to dozens of innocents who have nothing to do with this and needlessly attempting to kill his daughter just cause he wants blood.
Zant's claims of excuse of his people having been banished to the Twilight zone and were regressing to the point where they couldn't know hate or the faintest bloom of desire and when he was he was rejected to have the throne for "helping them" and turning them to Shadow Beasts, is invalidated when Midna tells him the reason no one wanted him to be king is because they knew he didn't actually care about the suffering of their people, just his power-lust.
Another one I feel I should bring up, especially when he was actually intended to be a "tragic victim of abuse", is Starscream. Personally, I would've bought all his Freudian Excuse as a man who snapped after the years of horrific abuse he got from Megatron's hand had he been a genuinely nice guy before the war and even as a villainous Decepticon was a genuinely affable soldier like that. But when add on even before the war he was nothing but a selfish & egotistical bully and he remained an egotistical prick even beforehand who cared for nobody but himself, it is clear Starscream is not a victim of abuse, he is just a megalomaniac who wants to lash out against the universe for his ego being bruised, completely invalidating his FE (and ends up unintentional unsympathetic).
So, even being a bad person before the tragedy can't invalidate it. In Kingpin's case, the tragedy involves around his redeeming quality and people he genuinely cares about, that's why his FE still held up as his goals wee focused on bringing his deceased loved ones back and him having been a crime lord beforehand doesn't change anything. The FEs of all the PEs we mentioned just now are invalidated due to them being selfish guys even beforehand and this is what highlights the fact that after the "tragedy" they were all only motivated by their own selfish gain by the present rather than focusing on a redeeming quality.
Yeah, this was quite the big post, but we feel it was necessary to provide a better understanding about how the tragic category actually works due to the many misconceptions we find, and it isn't just simply on how much sympathy is elicited.
