MANILA, Philippines - If our body of literature, in all its multifarious forms and shapes, reflects us as a people, then our villains must reflect what we loathe and what we fear. A cursory survey shows an evolution of sorts, from the more obvious moralistic standards to an anguished self-examination.

Respected critic and popular culture expert Soledad Reyes explains the primal role of the villain in any body of work: ?As is the case in popular texts, even in the West, the villain is utilized to highlight the traits of the hero. The purpose is to present a world where life?s various complexities are reduced to formulas easily understood by the average reader. Without the villain, where would the excitement be which their constant struggle provides??

Reyes notes how two different kinds of villains have emerged from our collective consciousness. ?In general, works written in the non-realistic mode?a lot of Tagalog novels, short stories, komiks?have used kontrabidas as a foil to the bida,? she explains. ?The view of the world presented is simplistic; there are only two types of characters: good or evil. This thrust was shaped by earlier readings with which the audience had been familiar?the awit at korido, the pasyon, the lives of saints where didacticism was the basic framework.? This is why the treacherous Adolfo is clearly the ruthless and malicious villain in Balagtas? ?Florante at Laura? and rightfully gets his comeuppance in the end.

Those earlier works are in effect cautionary tales, where good triumphs over evil, fodder for fairytales, folklore and popular stories. But Reyes notes how ?works in the realistic mode tended to have a more complex view of the world.? This is evident, she says, in the major works in Philippine literature in English, such as those by Nick Joaquin, NVM Gonzalez Wilfrido Nolledo, Gregorio Brillantes and others. Reyes says this is also evident in ?the more modern works of the Agos sa Disyerto writers in the l960s,? referring to fictionists such as Efren Abueg, Rogelio Ordoñez, Edgardo M. Reyes, Dominador Mirasol and Rogelio Sicat. ?In these texts, the world is difficult to comprehend because it is full of moral ambiguities,? she says.

One need only to witness the path of thorns strewn by Connie Escobar of Joaquin?s ?The Woman Who Had Two Navels? to see just how treacherous the path is for protagonists who are their own nemesis. It can be argued that Don Leo?s own kin are the antagonists in Joaquin?s ?The Portrait of the Artist as Filipino.? While outsiders are often cast as villains, such as the greedy Chinaman Ah-Tek in Edgardo M. Reyes? ?Maynila sa Kuko ng Liwanag,? Filipinos are their own worst enemies. Bullies make for prime villains, such as Ogor in Sicat?s ?Impeng Negro.?

If one were to look closely at the required reading that are the novels of Jose Rizal, history and allegory come into play. Thus, says historian Ambeth Ocampo, ?Noli me Tangere? and ?El Filibusterismo? deserve a second look if you are seeking villainy, because sometimes, even the vilified frailes play tricks on you.

?Who are in your list of kontrabidas?,? Ocampo asks. ?Damaso always wins hand down if you ask people who didn?t actually read the book, because the real villain is Salvi. The same with Victorina, when the real villain is Consolacion. Read it again you will find that what we have in our heads?what we think is in those novels--aren?t there at all.?

Indeed, while the fake doctor, fake Spaniard Doña Victorina affects airs and peacocks about absurdly, it is the ugly Doña Consolacion, she who carries a bullwhip around with her, who actually orders that a fellow Indio, the tulisanes, be tortured. Being a fraud is laughable; being a traitor is unforgivable.

The complexity of ?Fili? in particular allows Rizal to make an interesting case for what it is that is really evil in the world. It is not men themselves but what corrupts them.

?Simoun isn?t a villain?the real villains are the treasure of jewels that feed greed and incite evil,? Ocampo explains. ?That?s why Florentino throws the chest into the sea. The treasure can be used for good so it is human nature that can be the villain.? Wealth is not the provenance of evil; greed and oppression are.

There is also the question of what drives a man. ?Simoun is driven by revenge,? Ocampo clarifies. ?Rizal calls for purity of intention and says of revolution and reform that if you have the right intention, God will provide the weapon.? Ocampo concludes by saying that students familiar with the idea of liberation theology ?will recognize in the novels that the villains are not people; rather it is an unjust system and evil intention.?

Perhaps in the end, in any form of created work, what Filipinos imagine as villains, what they hate and fear the most is indeed what they are most afraid they will become.