Here there be Spoilers (serious ones)

You see the word pathos thrown around a lot when it comes to villains in popular culture. It is often used to distinguish an excellent three-dimensional villain from the more run of the mill James Bond, one-dimensional type.

That being said it can be difficult to understand what exactly the term Pathos means, as it is often applied with little on no forethought to any character who proves slightly less than one dimensional. It is actually a concept that Aristotle wrote on heavily in his work Rhetoric. Within this work he states that there are three modes of persuasion that one can use to sway an audience. One such mode is:

“awakening emotion (pathos) in the audience so as to induce them to make the judgement desired.”i

In relation to villains this would mean that in order for the audience to sympathise with the antagonist (thus making a far more intriguing and complex creation), the writers would have to give him similar experiences and drives to those of the audience, thus making him easy to relate to and difficult to root against. The finest example of this in modern television is Walter White of Breaking Bad. Walter White is first shown to the audience as a struggling husband and father with two jobs, who is constantly trodden on by life. Naturally many of those watching will instantly connect with his day to day grind. The result of this mutual experience is that as the show progresses and Walter strays from the white to the grey areas of morality, eventually coming to reside in the black, the audience find themselves struggling to simply condemn him as a ”bad man”.

It is easy to see then why pathos is so appreciated by audiences when it surfaces in their villains Simply put it makes the story they are watching more engaging, they are forced to engage. It becomes apparent why the term Pathos is so often thrown around with regards to the greatest villains.

What is often overlooked however is that Aristotle stated that one mode of persuasion without the other two is pointless:

“It is not enough to know one or even two of these points; unless we know all three, we shall be unable to arouse anger in anyone. The same is true of the other emotions.” ii

The two modes which are often forgotten with regards to villainy are Ethos and Logos.

Ethos is defined as ”persuasion through convincing listeners of one’s “moral character.”iii . This means that through a display of good moral character that an audience member comes to trust the speaker because they assume someone of solid moral fortitude would not engage in deception or ideas that lacked morality. This explains why so many of the great betrayals come as such a shock to audiences. Many characters have earned trust through acts of valour and comradeship only to turn on the protagonist. An excellent innovation of this breach of ethos can be found in the 1980’s sci-fi film Total Recall. In it Arnold Schwarzenegger plays Quaid a man working on infiltrating Mars’ resistance movement whilst suffering from amnesia. The huge twist here is that he is actually a spy for the establishment whose mind was wiped to bypass telepathic screening. This is all the more crushing as throughout the film audiences have come to respect Quaid as a man of justice and equality, only to find he holds none of these values.

Logos on the other hand is understood by Aristotle as:

” Something more refined than the capacity to make private feelings public: it enables the human being to perform as no other animal can; it makes it possible for him to perceive and make clear to others through reasoned discourse the difference between what is advantageous and what is harmful, between what is just and what is unjust, and between what is good and what is evil ”iv

Another way to look at this is as a perfect harmony of the first two modes comibne to produce a third. When a man/woman is shown with clear moral clarity and familiar experience their ability to persuade is then added to furthermore by intelligence and education. It can often be seen that a villain will use his intelligence and sophistication to confuse a protagonist on his true purpose, convincing him that his cause may not be as just as he thinks. Recently such a villain was Silva, embodied by Javier Bardem, in Skyfall. When Bond is tied to the chair on his island Silva makes him reflect on his life as an agent of MI6, all with aim of revealing that he is little more than a pawn.

Once each of these modes of persuasion are defined as opposed to simply being dropped into character description it is easy to see that rather than adapt one the best villains often exploit one. Pathos is an excellent mode of persuasion but to be truly effective it must be combined with the other two. However this combination of the three, Aristotle’s very own triple threat, is very rarely seen in any one villain. Enter the Sovereign .

I have long been a fan of The Venture Bros. It first came to my attention when I was about seventeen and I quickly grew to love the way it ruined my childhood cartoon favourites. With parodies of everything from Johnny Quest to G.I. Joe. I loved the ridiculous characterisations and ludicrous B movie plots. As the show progressed I came to love it for entirely new reasons. It is one of the most intricately written cartoons I have ever watched and it’s love of continuity as well as it’s love for it’s own characters is something that sets it well above other ”adult” cartoons (Archer also falls into this category.) With the recent airing of it’s season 6 special All This and Gargantua-2 fans got to see something truly amazing. The show often has throwaway jokes and plot lines that are not revisited until later seasons but finally they were given a near perfect culmination of all there favourite characters and in jokes. What resulted was a special that showcased the respect, passion and storytelling prowess that the creators and their team possessed for both their characters and their own childhoods. This included the conclusion to the saga of The Sovereign.

The Sovereign has been one of the most interesting villains that I have encountered in popular culture. He is a character shrouded in mystery who is eventually revealed as the head of Guild of Calamitous Intent and a puppet master extrordinaire. In the early episodes he only ever shown to be an elongated red head. He is later revealed to be none other than David Bowie.

This is where his character becomes truly interesting, later again it is found that he is not David Bowie but rather a shapeshifter who merely prefers that form. The series slowly drops breadcrumbs on the origin of The Sovereign, each one is murky and covered in hearsay. In season 5 some more concrete facts are brought to light. In episode 5 of this season, O.S.I. Love You, Brock Samson interrogates the super-villain lawyer Monstroso. Who having made a deal with the sinister and ethereal Investors (who will feature in this essay later), is nearing the end of his contract and so his life. Due to his impending demise he begins to tell Samson everything he knows of the Guild, including the Sovereign:

” Monstroso: The man now known as the Sovereign was once a petty criminal, a talented but down on his luck shapeshifter.”

Prior to this Samson tells Monstroso that ‘you and I both know the Sovereign isn’t Bowie’. This episode begins to reveal the Pathos in the Sovereigns backstory the fact that he was nothing more than petty criminal and a ”down on his luck shapeshifter” makes him an automatic underdog for the audience to root for. This sympathetic angle is played for even stronger effect in All This and Gargantua-2, when the Sovereign kidnaps Dr. Mrs. The Monarch. He initially takes the form of Dr. Jonas Venture in another attempt to confuse and confound people. This does little more than aggravate his captive, who confronts him:

”You’re not Jonas or Bowie, you’re a shapeshifting nobody whose in over his head.”

She is referencing a fact that the Sovereign himself made a deal with the Investors and that he owes a due too. His only response to this is ‘that’s about it’. Again in a similar fashion to the Walter White example given previously the viewer automatically understands the notion of being in over ones head. Our greatest glimpse of the Sovereign’s vulnerability comes when he is escaping his own self-destruct sequence and Dr. Mrs. The Monarch asks him who he really is. His response is actually quite heartbreaking and ensures even the most stone-hearted viewers sympathy for him, his smug mask slips just for a moment as he says:

The Ethos elements of the Sovereigns psyche are even more interesting. He is clearly a fan of cloak and dagger tactics, who values anonymity above all else. The pathos evidence is enough to suggest that there are quite a few issues regarding identity and fractured personality, bubbling below the Sovereigns surface each one would suggest that he is a highly complex individual. I would argue that his flexible sense of morality or rather ever shifting sense of morality makes him an even more compelling villain. It is often difficult to discern where the Sovereign’s true allegiance lies. The hierarchy of The Guild of Calamitous Intent is also difficult to navigate. The Sovereign is clearly the kingpin of the entire system, except that later we find that he is a pawn of the Investors. The Investors reveal themselves to be something other than human, deities of some sort perhaps. This only really becomes clear in All This and Gargantua-2 where they refer to everyone else as ”mortal”. They roam the world of The Venture Bro’s, outside the laws of physics, granting Faustian pacts to anyone who would like to strike a deal. Though originally thought to be a trio, the aforementioned special, reveals that Dr. Henry Killinger is a brother of theirs. Upon meeting the three again he states ”You have forgotten your place, we were never meant to rule over these mortals”. In a somewhat comical manner the four then begin to duel with lightsabers (and an umbrella) as shown below:

The extravagant battle that follows turns out to be a telepathic battle. While the scene is obviously meant to be funny it also acts as a parallel to Prometheus stealing fire from the gods. Killinger has been granting Faustian pacts without the price of a soul, stating simply ”I love mein job”. He is shown to steal fire from the Gods, without the proper sacrifice. The Investors however claim souls as payment and therefore are the personification of true evil in the universe of The Venture Bros , becoming aligned with the likes of the Devil.

So what does this have to do with The Sovereign? Well he sold his soul to the Investors in return for his position as the head of the guild. In the special he has initiated a plan to eliminate the Investors whilst they are aboard the Gargantua-2. In doing so he will kill hundreds of innocent people, this goes against everything we know about the Sovereign from previous episodes. We understand that much of his double crossing as well as his complete change in personality (he becomes far more aggressive in the special, this is in sharp contrast to his usual level headed approach to situations) is because of the impending loss of his soul, but is this his sole reason for such morally reprehensible behaviour?

We see that the Sovereign is capable of heroic acts as well as exceptionally loyal actions. His more admirable traits are showcased in Season 2 episodes 12-13 Showdown at Cremation Creek. In these episodes the Sovereign is revealed to be David Bowie ( or rather faux-Bowie) who is at the Monarchs wedding to walk Dr. Girlfriend down the aisle. A double cross takes place involving Phantom Limb and eventually faux-Bowie actually saves the day transforming into an eagle and leaving. He is frequently shown to enforce the code of honour of the Guild of Calamitous Intent with precision and passion. Why then does he suddenly abandon his own code? Is it purely to save his soul or does he recognise that the evil of the Investors must be stopped no matter the cost?

Again I refer to his conversation with Dr. Mrs. The Monarch, which highlights his own dilemma. He seems to switch between suffering saviour and maniacally self obsessed villain:

”The Sovereign: So I guess I’ll just move on with my clichés… Self-destruct button. Soon all this goes boom, you, the O.S.I., Who’ll be here any second. That about cover all the villain clichés?”

This small amount of dialogue reveals how self-aware the Sovereign actually is, none of this is megalomania but rather the practical plan of a rational man. He understands what is expected of him and how it will be viewed but he will execute it anyway. When Dr. Mrs. The Monarch asks that he not blow up Gargantua-2 to spare her husband, he replies:

” Touching but no…too late for that. The Investors have to go, so Gargantua-2 has to go.”

His line ”too late for that” shows the finality of his thinking, this plan must go ahead. He resumes his callous villain facade as he leaves Dr. Mrs. The Monarch to die. These actions whilst played like a stereotypical villain clash with his previous moral code and leave the viewer wondering what exactly is driving the Sovereign, further embroiling them in his character.

As I stated earlier Logos is often found when Pathos and Ethos are already present. The Sovereign is no different. He is frequently shown to be a man of eloquence and intelligence. He rules the guild with an iron fist and is often seen to solve problems through none-violent means, with threats rather than actually physical punishment. He occasionally crafts catch 22 style situations that can only be resolved through surrender. The plan for Gargantua-2 is in itself an excellent example of Logos in action. It has been carefully plotted over what can only be assumed to be quite a significant period of time. It utilises both double and triple crosses as evidenced by the fact the Phantom Limb is shown to still be in the service of the Sovereign in the special, despite that fact that they seemed to have a bitter three season rivalry. This means that the Sovereign has kept played many angles for a long time in order to bring his plan to fruition. This proves that rather than being a plan born of desperation to save ones soul, it is one born of calculation and necessity.

The function of Logos, to discern ‘ the difference between what is advantageous and what is harmful, between what is just and what is unjust, and between what is good and what is evil’ is exhibited by the Sovereign as well, albeit in a slightly warped form. He is shown to understand the difference between what is advantageous and what is harmful and what is good and what is evil. The fact that he is willing to sacrifice Dr. Mrs. The Monarch, a person that he had previously shown a great deal of affection for (walking her down the aisle) even choosing her for the Council of Thirteen proves that he will do what is necessary for the greater good. He will eliminate the Investors, no matter the cost.

Admittedly none of this may be true, it may simply be that he wishes to spare his own soul, but the possibility that there may be a nobler motive makes him a far better villain than the average one.

Finally these three modes of persuasion come full circle and we witness the death of the Sovereign at the end of the special. His death is tragic and allows Pathos to resurface. He is killed by a random act of chance. The O.S.I. Sniper, Headshot, is startled and misfires into the sky hitting the Sovereign in his eagle form sending him plummeting into the water.

This death perfectly exemplifies the duality of the Sovereign. On the one hand his death in insignificant and unknown. He has ended in the exact way that he began; as a nobody. This is a universal justice of sorts. His selfish actions to save his own soul condemn him to obscurity. On the other hand his death has not been registered and the search for the Sovereign will continue for years. His noble attempt, whilst a failure, has guaranteed his infamy as one of the greatest super-villains of all time, evading capture. In death he has gone from a nobody to a somebody.

I prefer the latter reading of his death. Overall however I like that the character of the Sovereign had me constantly questioning whether he was truly good or evil? Wgether he was an average man doing his best or a sinister Machiavellian puppet master who deserved death. Either reading proves that The Venture Bros. Is a show with excellent writing and characterisation and furthermore that the Sovereign was a villain of true substance.

i Aristotle, and George Alexander Kennedy. Aristotle On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. New York: Oxford UP, 1991. Print. p.119

ii Aristotle, and Johnathan Barnes. Aristotle: The Complete Works:Vol Two. Sussex: Princeton UP, 1984. Print. p.2195