Explain the whole "eternal sociopath who always gets away with it" deal

How it began, why it’s done, who likes it, and just how common it is, anyway. I don’t mean just the “karma houdini” entries at TvTropes, which, for the most part, about single incidents or relatively short periods of time. I’m talking about the characters who cause incredible amounts of crap, constantly, and almost never suffer any consequences.

In particular, I’m thinking of these cases:

Dolph, Jimbo, and Kearney in The Simpsons. They don’t have any purpose other than causing random pain and destruction, and no one is immune (not even Ned Flanders!) The movie was a landmark event mainly because it was the first time in history anyone at all stood up to them (Martin, of all people, although by this point Hans Moleman or C. Mongomery Burns would’ve been just as plausible).

Eric Cartman from South Park. Particularly telling in that, from some of the later episodes I’ve seen (okay, okay, episodes I heard about on TVTropes…hey, I like that site), this is practically the whole point of the show now (and even more so since Chef, Kenny, Mr. Mackey, Veronica Crabtree, Pip et al. have gone by the wayside). His bossiness and jerkishness has become so ingrained that the other characters barely even notice anymore. He always gets what he wants, and if there are any negative consequences, it’s because what he wanted turned out to be lousy for some reason.

Hobbes. Yeah, that Hobbes. I never thought he was a figment of Calvin’s imagination, because I could not imagine a more HORRIBLE companion. Eternally self-centered, gluttonous, greedy, contemptuous, and violent. Worst of all, there’s no way for anyone to punish him, because Calvin’s a helpless boy and no one else can even see the real him. Honorable mention, I suppose to Moe, although he seemed more like a cipher than an actual character to me.

“Black hat guy” from xkcd. What spurred me to start this thread. I don’t care what stupid portmanteau he made up, he causes incredible chaos, mayhem, misery, and bodily harm, he’s committed numerous criminal acts, and NOBODY EVER TRIES TO STOP HIM. I mean, xkcd isn’t exactly side-splittingly funny (though it does have it’s moments of weird greatness…that “mimic octopus” one had me laughing for reasons I can’t fully explain), but normally at its worst, it’s pointless. This guy makes it disgusting, and I don’t see any point or purpose or entertainment value at all.

I dunno…I guess I’m just used to the more oldschool media. Sitcoms are governed by the Rule of Funny (hey, I said I liked that site! :slight_smile: ), and it’s never funny when the same guy prevails all the time*. A great many video games have had truly despicable characters, but they’re expected to earn their successes; I’ve never played as single game where the villain romped all over evertyhing and could never be foiled. Heck, in the “Dong Zhuo in Luo Yang” scenario in Dynasty Warriors 5, it’s impossible for Dong Zhuo to not get killed! Traditional superhero comics now have numerous titles catering to the old bad guys, but that’s because they’ve become awesome characters in their own right, and even the term “bad guy” is becoming outdated as a lot of shades of gray have cropped up.

Never understood the appeal of eternally unpunished jerkishness. Never saw a purpose. You guys have been great enlightening me on these types of subjects before; I’d appreciate your help now.

And before anyone asks: No, I have not seen it in real life in Hawaii. Yeah, we have disgusting kids. Everywhere has disgusting kids. Once high school is over, that stops being sustainable. Everyone needs someone, whether it be a grocery bagger, a bus driver, a garbage collector, a doctor, or a politician. And if you regularly pull crap like creating pileups on escalators or stealing cars, you will, at some point, face the music. It’s an island; there isn’t very far to run. (Don’t find this out the hard way, a’ight?)

  • I do remember Eric’s sister from That 70’s Show, “Laurie” or something, who blew off college and made life miserable for Eric and lived a total lie, but she never was an important character and was inserted largely as a walking stereotype. Annoying, but not in the same galaxy as Black Hat Guy.

I actually like a lot of the xkcd strips with black hat guy (im only up to 942 or so). I don’t mind evil/amoral characters in literature.

The immorality is usually so over the top that we can’t process it, and thus don’t.

What about pretty much every comic book villain ever?

The Joker’s a perfect example. He causes mass chaos, destruction, and mayhem, causes millions (if not billions) of dollars in damage, takes and destroys lives, &c., &c. He knows that the most Batman (or anyone) can do to him is cart him off back to Arkham Asylum since he’ll always get off on the insanity defense.

Any show with repeating character (that is, with roughly the same cast from week to week) is going to have particular shows where people get their come-uppance in some form or other, but anything else will destroy the gestalt of the show.

E.g., Cartman’s friends all say, “We’ve had enough of your arrogance and bad manners, we’re not going to associate with you anymore.” That could be the plot of one episode, but if they really cut off all contact, that character is gone from the show.

If Calvin’s parents throw him into a mental institution for rehab, so that he won’t imagine the tiger, that would be the end of the comic.

Batman has had many, many archvillians to face. The writers can’t think of new ones for every comic; so, the Joker gets recycled… as does Riddler, Penguin, Catwoman, etc. A one-shot deal (like a movie) can be more final: I’m thinking of the 1989 BATMAN movie with Jack Nicholson as the Joker, who is killed at the end.

It’s true that South Park has shifted towards a rather lopsided role for Cartman, who frequently serves as an over-the-top-evil antagonist. But I’d demur with regard to him being the entire point of the show or as always getting what he wants; all of the principal characters have had fairly recent episodes centered on them (including Randy and Butters). And Cartman has definitely been thwarted.

That said, the writers have allowed him to do quite a lot of great evil with minimal consequences, so your point might still stand.

Well, I mean, xkcd isn’t a narrative, it’s a sequence of one-off jokes. There’s only “black hat guy” because Randall Munroe can’t draw well enough to make a wide array of characters with differentiating features. You might be expecting too much to wish that the character get his comeuppance — I’m not sure it would fit.

For at least a few of your examples, there isn’t a point beyond “the writers think it’s funny”. Cartman (say) is so utterly disgusting because hyperbole is one path to humor and probably the easiest. Besides, if he were murdered, dragged off to jail, or taught compassion, then the other characters would lose their antagonist and another would have to be built up.

See: Calvin and Hobbes - Now with Ritalin! - The Adventures of Accordion Guy in the 21st Century

Storytelling doesn’t have to be realistic, and frequently isn’t. To take your Simpsons example, pretty much everything is reset at the end of each episode. If it wasn’t, Bart would be in his 30s by now.

Wait a sec, you think Hobbes was the negative side of that dynamic?

If anything, Hobbes is usually the voice of reason and moderation.

Hey, I know somebody in real life like that. And it sucks.

Agree. Hobbes usually noted Calvin’s craziness. He didn’t stop him, but as an imaginary character from Calvin’s imagination, he wouldn’t be able to. But you could tell he was bemused by Calvin’s excesses.

As for an explanation, given the examples you’ve quoted, the answer boils down to two words: It’s funny.

The bullies have been thwarted on multiple occasions. So I’m not sure this one fits. That said, they’re bullies, and the almost psychotic bully is a common trope in children’s television/books/movies. While The Simpsons isn’t “for kids,” the scenes with the bullies almost always occur in that kind of setting.

How about Garfield, then?

What “bad behavior” does Garfield get away with other than being lazy and not funny? :stuck_out_tongue:

Eating birds and pet fish, and killing spiders for no particular reason. Stealing food from Jon and others.

Amazing, isn’t it? The one I know is far too intelligent and useful to ever get busted for his evil shenanigans. It’s like knowing a real-life Lex Luthor. All you can do is hope that his reptilian gaze never falls on you.

If I were a bookie, I’d give him a 10% chance of being shot to death and a 90% chance of dying old, wealthy, and beloved by his children.

The first thing I thought of when I saw the title was the various incarnations of Tom Ripley. Basically, if he took an interest in you, you were fucked.

He’s a cat. Eternal sociopath is kind of the gig.

Even better - he’s a real eternal character. He’s died, but he just gets better, as do all the great villains. I suppose the people of Gotham just shrug and accept that some things can’t be fixed. The Joker is the price they pay for having Batman (literally, since no Batman = no Joker).