logo

57 pages 1 hour read

M. L. Rio

If We Were Villains

Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 2017

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Themes

Fate Versus Free Will

The novel’s title is taken from a soliloquy from King Lear (Act I, Scene 2), in which Edmund debates whether destiny or choice drives actions. In the speech, Edmund insists that people are villains because of their choices and actions, and not because they were born under a particular star; James, who plays Edmund, quotes the entire soliloquy to Oliver. Ironically, Edmund’s resentment—and motivation for his actions—is born from the circumstances of his birth . As the illegitimate son of the Earl of Gloucester, Edmund is labelled a bastard and ignored by his father, who favors his legitimate son Edgar. Edmund, illustrates the fine line between destiny and free will, and James shares these struggles. It is difficult to say to what extent human actions are driven by pure choice. Individual circumstances beyond one’s control—such as poverty, class, gender, trauma, poor parenting, illnesses—do define and limit a person’s choices.

In the context of the play, destiny describes the individual circumstances of the students, as well as the roles into which they’ve been typecast. The environment at Dellecher fuels Richard’s grandiosity, forces Meredith to play the coquette, and makes Oliver doubt his own worth. Set in these molds, these characters unconsciously begin to embody their types. Their choices no longer remain wholly free; they act according to what people expect of them. This can be seen as a metaphor for the larger human condition, where absolute free will is an illusion.

Yet, this does not mean that people can absolve themselves of accountability on the pretext of destiny. While some characters in the novel are happy to live their preordained roles, others do try to overcome their assigned parts in real life. For instance, Oliver, tired of being a supporting character, takes center stage by acting on his desire for Meredith. He breaks out of his nonconfrontational side role as the novel progresses, barring the door against Richard and taking the fall for James. Oliver knows no choices are free, but people cannot just let things happen or absolve themselves of their faults by blaming destiny, like James suggests.

The Danger of Blurring Real Life and Drama

When detective Colborne asks a 31-year-old Oliver if he blames Shakespeare for any of the tragedies that befell his younger self, Oliver replies, “I blame him for all of it” (296). The Dellecher students have so immersed themselves in the world of Shakespeare, their very actions in real life have turned theatrical. However, like in Shakespeare’s tragedies, small omissions have large consequences. The cost of losing oneself in a text at the expense of the real world proves to be enormous.

Some of this is inevitable. As actors, their craft requires that the students not just say their lines but feel them. For instance, Gwendolyn tells the students to reveal their insecurities because “you can’t do good work if you’re hiding” (37). The rigor of their craft requires the students to be emotionally open, raw, and vulnerable. Coupled with their youth, this makes them susceptible to larger-than-life rage and passion. Further, Dellecher takes theatre very seriously. Productions are exquisite, as seen in the descriptions of the sets and props for Macbeth and King Lear; Shakespearean quotes are a part of everyday language; and great stage actors carry the aura of celebrities. It is inevitable that the fourth-years begin to embody their roles as the personae they project to the outside world. Gradually, these personae become self-fulfilling prophecies. Meredith the “temptress” becomes an actual femme fatale when she’s seen with Oliver days after her boyfriend’s death. Wren, whose persona is innocent and frail, suffers from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and faints during a performance. Alexander, the antagonist, nearly dies of a drug overdose. Because they cannot separate themselves from their roles and personae, they feel compelled to act in self-destructive ways.

The two characters who signify the greatest danger of life imitating art are Richard and James. Early in the play, Richard argues with his classmates that Caesar, not Brutus, is the true hero of Julius Caesar. Cast as Caesar in the production, Richard’s role immediately becomes personal. Richard’s physical mannerisms also resemble those of his characters. When introducing Richard, Oliver notes his regal, self-important posture, saying, “Three years of playing kings and conquerors had taught him to sit that way in every chair, onstage or off” (13). Richard begins to believe he is the king of his social and professional circle. When the balance of power threatens to shift, Richard reacts exactly like an ambitious ruler of a Shakespearean play—with rage and violence. For James, the extremes of method acting endanger him. In method acting, actors live as their characters even offscreen. James takes this approach so far that he loses his own self. He begins to act like Edmund in Lear, hurtling towards that character’s tragic fate (Edmund dies at the end of the play).

The Ambiguous Nature of Morality

The characters in If We Were Villains live in a world where the line between heroes and villains is thin. As Oliver says: “Which of us could say we were more sinned against than sinning? We were so easily manipulated - confusion made a masterpiece of us” (418). No major character in the book is entirely good or bad; in fact, most commit grave errors, some even crimes. Even Oliver, the most generous of the seven friends, stops James from saving Richard, treats his sister Caroline insensitively, and strings Meredith along. Noble-looking James murders his friend, roughs up Meredith, and lets Oliver take the fall for his crime. Many of Shakespeare’s plays, Julius Caesar, show that morality is never an absolute. In Caesar, the title character is vain and ambitious. When his ambitions seem to threaten Roman democracy, the patriotic Brutus leads many of Caesar’s friends in murdering him under the guise of saving Rome’s democratic institutions. Noble as Brutus’s motives may be, he does murder Caesar savagely along with other conspirators. Brutus’s actions remain ambiguous, and the question of whether his love for Rome justifies the murder of Caesar remains unanswered.

Richard grows increasingly vicious as the novel progresses. He is openly abusive towards Meredith, calling her names and assaulting her. He covers James in bruises and almost drowns him. When the friends let Richard die, they too are acting for the greater good of their group, like Brutus. Does that justify their passivity?

Another question that arises is the clash between ethics and aesthetics. Sometimes what is considered aesthetic may be ethically ambiguous. In other instances, ethically ambiguous actions are permitted because they are aesthetically pleasing.. The students of Dellecher often face the dilemma between propriety and poetry. Meredith flirts with men because it presents a pleasant, interesting dramatic arc; Richard rages in part because his grandiosity has dramatic worth. Alexander pursues poetic self-destruction. The text does not pass judgement on their actions. Like a Shakespearean tragedy, it presents human nature and actions as complex in their morality.

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text