Great question and commentary here. I have always gravitated towards “evil”characters, mostly because I find them much more complex and satisfying than “good”characters. The commentary you’ve posted here only serves to consolidate that and I think we see it explored to varying degrees in tv and film as well as in stories.

If you remember, Regina said that she didn’t care about anyone’s happiness but her own. That in itself sets her up as a “selfish” character who will do anything and everything to achieve her goals. “Good” characters tend to get diverted from their goals because they take the time to care their attachments to others and that is often what stops them from following their path, and enables the “evil” characters to thwart them. The notion of being “selfless” is often seen as the caveat that prevents heroes from getting what they want. Good is suffering. Evil is selfishness and attainment. But we’re meant to see this as being wrong, especially for a woman.

But I think there’s a greater spread of ideas here when it comes to women and evil, specifically. We often find that evil female characters have a fluid sexuality – they are often represented as women for whom sexuality is a tool in and of itself, to be used and abused in order to enhance their power over others. It’s a fascinating commentary on femininity that an evil woman will generally be portrayed as someone who is at one with her sexuality. Compare that with the “good”characters who are, to all intents and purposes, generally virgins who only give themselves sexually once there’s the promise of marriage and children on the way: what society approves of and intends to be an “end goal” for these women.

So does evil indicate sexual freedom? And is that what we’re supposed to take from fairytales and stories like them who depict evil as a woman who cares little for the traditional trappings of womanhood?

The quote you posted seems to tell us that “evil” is interesting. Certainly in a show like OUaT, Regina is far more complex and fascinating a character than Emma Swan. Heroes have it hard, you know? Because being good can equate to being boring; toeing the line is what we’re all supposed to do and in life, most of us do that – we adhere to the law and it keeps us on the right path, so to speak. But don’t most of us want to be “bad”? When we see Regina, the Evil Queen, Maleficent or any number of “bad” people, don’t we secretly want to be like them? They exist beyond and above the law; they make their OWN laws and that’s what probably appeals to us. It speaks of an independence that we all secretly long for and, as women, we crave that notion of equality in the world that has only recently been available to us.

Ugh. I’m writing a dissertation here and I apologise for rambling, but I love how, even in stories as old as fairytales, the depiction of “female” as a strong, driven woman is quite often demeaned as “bad” in order to go along with societal norms. For me, a character like Regina lives outside that norm and the things she wants tend towards the darker side of life because that’s how we can rationalise it down for ourselves and for what society tells us a woman should be.

I like the notion of authentic power. For me, evil women DO wield authentic power because what they have done is excused themselves from societal pressures and strictures and have acted independently. Yet they are designed to be seen as selfish because that’s the only way society can accommodate them. Even today, women in positions of power are demeaned and vilified because that’s the only way society can “keep them in their place”.

It’s fascinating to me how, even in stories as old as fairytales, the “woman as villain” trope still has validity today. Does my love of villainesses make me evil? No, heh. Not at all. But I’ll always be on their side because they are the women I hold as role models for breaking the mould of what society has always told me I should be.