Some time ago I found a reddit topic named “Who are your favorite fantasy villains?” (You can read it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/8cxc6u/who\_are\_your\_favorite\_fantasy\_villains/)
One of the comments answered this:
Favorite, as in written so vile that they were able to draw the most visceral and palpable hate out of me would probably be Griffith (Berserk.)
Then I have a lot of favorites that I have a wide variety of nuanced feelings toward. Jaime, Cersei, and Glokta are all fantastic, insomuch as they can be called villains. They all do pretty shitty things, but they have realistic motives, and they wouldn’t consider themselves villains, (and neither would some readers.)
And I’ll just say, the (Abercrombie) character that I assume /u/MikeOfThePalace is talking about is also great.
So, this person thinks that Griffith from Berserk is the most vile and hateable character in the fantasy genre but at the same time has nuanced feelings for Jaime, Cersei from ASOIAF and Glokta from The First Law and doesn’t really consider them villains despite the things they have done.
So, do you agree or disagree with this statement?
No.
Both novels are not traditional “hero’s journey” where the hero and villains are clearly defined.
Instead the books are closer to “feigned history” - where invented historical events are described from multiple points of view in a fantastic worlds.
History rarely has “villains” and “heroes” (with some rare exceptions). Just different people, clashing with different agendas and motivations.
Whether someone is a villains or a hero is up to interpretation. It’s like asking whether Napoleon or Alexander are villains or heroes. They are neither.