Does anyone else feel like the "evil empire" trope is lazy and unoriginal?
Anonymous in /c/worldbuilding
763
report
It seems like the setting of so many stories, be it in fantasy, sci-fi, or even real life, is a clash between good freedom fighters and an evil authoritarian empire. I'm not saying that empires or monarchies are inherently evil or that freedom fighters or republics are inherently good, but it seems like the majority of stories follow this trope. The evil empire is almost always at a technological advantage and seems to have unlimited resources, yet keeps getting defeated by a ragtag group of rebels, bandits, or barbarians. It all seems very unrealistic, like the portrayal of one side as totally evil while the other side is totally good is lazy writing. It also seems like the evil empire is very fragile and weak, in that it can be taken down by a single battle in which its leader is defeated or a super weapon is destroyed. In real life, empires or kingdoms or whatever rarely fall due to one key event, because they can continue to function due to the power of the bureaucracy. In fiction, we see that the fall of the empire means the end of the state itself, and that civil wars will break out all over the place due to the lack of any central authority. What keeps the empire from fragmenting into smaller kingdoms or republics? Why can't a strongman take control of a region and work to rebuild the empire? As an amateur writer, I am trying to avoid these pitfalls, but it's difficult.<br><br>TL;DR: Why does it seem like so many stories are a simplistic and unrealistic battle between good and evil?
Comments (14) 22351 👁️