Wicked Nerdery

Where psychology, pop culture, and true crime collide


Pop Culture

The Most Dangerous Man In Westeros Did Not Deserve That Death

As many cheered and sang praises for the end of Petyr “Littlefinger” Baelish on Game of Thrones, I sat in forlorn silence. Yes, I liked him. He wasn’t a hero, he wasn’t a strapping lord fighting for honor, but he was interesting. A character who always kept those around him, those watching him, on their toes. He was conniving, manipulative and ambitious. He kicked off nearly every major event on the show and triggered the War of the Five Kings around which most seasons were based. That’s someone who should have lived to win the Iron Throne, not bled out on the cold floor of the Great Hall in Winterfell.

Lord Baelish may have deserved to die, but not as he did. A man who had been scheming since before the story began deserved a far better end.

Where Was The Shock?

Everyone saw Baelish’s death coming except him, and that’s a problem. For a show that’s predicated itself on the idea that anyone’s fair game and characters can die at any time, having a death easily predicted episodes beforehand isn’t a good thing. It makes a once-shocking show more of a standard, plodding one. The audience no longer watches to be surprised, but merely see how foregone conclusions will play out on screen. When even the unravelling of events stops being surprising, the show grows dull and disappointing, especially when it comes to events surrounding key characters whose arcs have always contained remarkable twists, like the Starks and Lord Baelish. Sure, people will still watch, but as hackers release spoilers early and plots become more basic, the fervor of the fandom diminishes.

Lord Baelish Was Too Clever For That Death

Dragons and the undead aside, Game of Thrones had been a political drama for most of its run. As a politician, Littlefinger was practically unmatched. He easily saw countless moves ahead and had little qualms in switching allegiances when it suited him. It’s why so many hated him, but it’s also why he should have earned that throne. In a series that still bases itself in reality, a man willing to do anything to get what he wanted (a man said to be the cleverest in the country!) should be able to work himself up the ranks to the top.

Someone with the mind of Lord Baelish should not have fallen for Sansa and Arya’s trap — someone with his level of cunning would have left the moment Bran parroted “chaos is a ladder” to him. Killing him then in such way, is more about giving the audience what they want than giving realism to the story.

Great Characters Deserve Greater Ends

Once, there was a small boy from an unimportant family who was fostered and raised by others. He played with their children, he fell in love with one of their daughters, and would fight for her hand after hearing she was betrothed to another. He believed in the stories where brave men challenged those twice their size and won because they had true love on their side. Because of those stories, the young man believed he would win. Instead, he was nearly killed before the girl he loved stepped in, then went on to choose his rival. He was ultimately banished from the only home he’d really known and left to his own defenses. Sounds like the origins story of a hero, of someone you’d root for, but it’s the one so many cheered the pitiful death of: Littlefinger.

He wasn’t born a sadist or someone without conscience like Joffrey and Ramsay. This doesn’t diminish the terrible things he did, but it does bring up key questions.

If Sansa can reach her goal of being a land-ruling Lady in a castle (with his help no less), then why is it so abhorrent a thought that Petyr reach his? Why, if minor players in the game of thrones get remarkable and shocking deaths, doesn’t someone who kicked off the entire series of events get the same respect?

Petyr’s Death Should Have Cut Deeper

It’d be foolish to argue that anyone should live until the end of show itself; winter is here and all men must die. I’m expecting the majority of characters to be wiped out before the end of the show, so Baelish’s death itself isn’t the issue, it’s the circumstances. It’s the fact that it was no surprise to audience, that it’s based on the premise of Littlefinger being so foolish that, despite an amazing performance by Aidan Gillen, it didn’t pack the punch it deserved.

Littlefinger Ought To Have Died By His Creation

It was poetic that Sansa turned on him in the end, but it’d have been more so if she did it alone. Having an omniscient brother and assassin sister do much of the work, including the actual killing, diminishes her triumph. It also diminishes the complexities of the relationship between her and Petyr. It’d have been a fascinating twist for her to have lured, baited, and killed Lord Baelish all on her own.

What a lovely shock it’d have been to see Lord Baelish get everything he wanted — the throne, the girl, everything in that pretty picture in his head — only to be cut down at the hands of the young woman he’d groomed to think like he does. That’s a death worthy of the most dangerous man in Westeros and the fans who’ve followed him for so many years.

What did you think of Littlefinger’s death? Comment down below!


Flipism: Of Villains & Their Love of the Coin Toss

The latest season of House of Cards had a cold open in which Frank Underwood briefly explained the concept of flipism: the belief that all decisions can, and should, be made with the simple flip of a coin. Frank discussed the birth of the ideology and suggested it be used to clear up the chaos he created in the latest presidential election. He’s not the first villain to speak in favor of flipping a coin, of using chance, as a way to make a final decision…in fact there’s a history of antagonists both promoting and using such tactics throughout pop culture.

Flipping The Bird


Frank discussed the concept of flipism as it relates to the Disney comic from 1953 involving Donald Duck called “Flip Decision”. In the comic the duck comes across a con artist, Professor Batty, who pushes the idea that the flip of a coin can aid Donald in making all the decisions in his life.

Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!

For a dollar Batty offers up a book on the ideology and lifetime membership in “the great society of flippists”. After Batty’s own coin flip decides Donald must make the purchase the duck reads the book, takes it to heart, and quickly begins making every decision, big and small, with a flip of a coin.

Unsurprisingly this leads Donald to a great number of misfortunes that include getting stuck in mud, lost on highways, and court proceedings that result in a fifty dollar fine by a judge for letting a dime do his thinking. Towards the comic’s end Donald has been thoroughly put off flipism and goes in search of the man who’d sold him a bill of rotten goods, but of course Batty has disappeared. After tracking the charlatan down to one of two apartments Donald tosses the coin one last time to decide which to check and, as if to underline his foolishness in leaving his life to chance, it leads him to being accused of two-timing by Daisy. Donald Duck found flipism caused more problems, more chaos, than it ever could have solved and gave it up both to his own relief and that of everyone around him.

Two Sides Of The Same Coin


The first true character to introduce flipism to the world is none other than its most famous user…Batman’s Harvey “Two-Face” Dent. Even in his initial appearance in August 1942’s Detective Comics #66 Harvey (whose initial last name was Kent) is flipping his coin to decide the fate of Batman and numerous others.

After the mobster, Moretti, throws acid in his face during a trial Kent is left with disfiguring scars and the key evidence in the case – a two-headed coin favored by the mobster. Slipping into a crisis of both identity and conscience Harvey questions who is he, if not the remarkably handsome district attorney he once was, and why such a terrible thing had to happen to him. His ultimate conclusion is that it is all because of Moretti’s coin and, after gashing one side, it will be this coin that decides the fate of both himself and everyone around him. With the flip of a coin Harvey goes from victim to perpetrator, from keeper of the peace to causer of chaos.

Fate And The Coin


No Country for Old Men antagonist, Anton Chigurh, is almost the personification of Fate: cold, indifferent, with a chaotic randomness to him. While much of the time Anton kills using his own twisted sense of morality, when he grows conflicted he leaves it to a coin toss. While the basic concept is the same – a flip of the coin makes the decision – Anton’s method seems to deviate slightly from the other two discussed.

Both Donald and Harvey designate the meaning of the two sides, both of them make the call, while Chigurh is more removed. In true Fate form, the meaning of the two sides is known only to him, but the call is made by those it will affect most. He forces others to choose their fate, sometimes without hint of what it could be, and follows the decision of the coin without further deliberation.

Chaos Beyond The Coin


In 1971 The Dice Man was published in which the main character, a psychiatrist named Luke Rhinehart, grows bored and disenchanted with his life and begins to allow chance make all his decisions…this time in the form of a roll of the dice with each number designating an action to take. What starts as an experiment, a search for freedom and excitement, quickly turn into a chaotic life of sex, murder, rape, and a seeming cult following in Rhinehart’s dice-wielding footsteps. A man who starts off an academic everyman becomes a manipulative criminal by letting chance bring utter chaos into his life and the lives of those around him.

While the other antagonistic characters discussed spread their chaos throughout their own world, Rhinehart was able to carry it into ours. Over the years since its publishing The Dice Man has inspired more than a few real world people to use dice in their decision-making. Mogul Richard Branson confessed to using the book’s “teachings” when selecting bands to sign to Virgin Records, entrepreneur Jeremy King opened a series of restaurants due to his use of dice, and a number of other writers (including Danny Wallace, whose memoir, Yes Man, became a film by the same title starring Jim Carrey) recorded their ordeals in letting the roll of the dice decide their fates after reading this book.


Given many villains are agents of chaos it makes sense they might gravitate towards flipism and similar forms of decision making – rolls of the dice, spins of the wheel, spins of a gun chamber. These methods are all, in their ideology, based on fate, on chance, on nothing more than luck and, more often than not, their results cause more harm and havoc than they solve.

Sources: The GuardianRichard BransonThe Evening StandardThe Guardian (biography)

How Your Fear Can Actually Be Really Sexy

Certain villainous characters make you love them by connecting on an empathetic level, some train you to enjoy them, and we seek out others for more primal experiences — like our own arousal. More accurately, this arousal is actually the fear we experience while watching slasher-horror films featuring villains like Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, and Michael Myers. Continue reading “How Your Fear Can Actually Be Really Sexy”

How We Are Classically Conditioned To Love Monsters

Certain villains are all too human. They are flawed and empathetic. They are beings we can recognize ourselves in and grow from. Other villains are just monsters — vampires, aliens, werewolves and countless strange creatures that spring from the creative mind. There’s little to empathize with; little for the audience to connect to. So why are these monstrous villains still so popular? Perhaps because we’ve been conditioned to enjoy them — not unlike Pavlov’s Dog.

Continue reading “How We Are Classically Conditioned To Love Monsters”

How Villains Force Us To Look At Our Inner Darkness…

From Marvel’s supervillains and Darth Vader to the (slightly) more realistic Walter White in Breaking Bad, villains are fascinating; you can’t take your eyes off them. But why? What is it about those so clearly, classically wicked that makes them so compelling to an audience? One possibility is that, in experiencing these villains on-screen, we can face our own inner dark side.

Psychiatrist Carl Jung believed everyone has a darker side, a shadow-self, within their personality. This shadow consists of everything the person considers unacceptable to express: envy, rage, selfishness, the desire for power and baser animal instincts. It’s not something that the person is consciously aware of but something they must acknowledge and face in order to grow as a person.

This is where villains come in as archetypes, representing the clearest forms of those negative aspects of one’s personality. With their bad traits on the forefront, villainous characters allow for easy access to the audience’s shadow self.

Continue reading “How Villains Force Us To Look At Our Inner Darkness…”

Adorable & Deadly: 4 Reasons Why We Love Powerful Little Girls

From more recent shows like Stranger Things and the Logan film to cartoons like The Powerpuff Girls there is something hugely appealing about little girls having the power to destroy everyone and everything in their paths.  The question is, why?  What is it about these petite powerhouses that draws audiences across gender lines and generations?

Continue reading “Adorable & Deadly: 4 Reasons Why We Love Powerful Little Girls”

Magneto Could Be a Magnet God…Why Isn’t He?

Those are some pretty amazing powers…so why doesn’t Magento use them?  Why not control others, move at insane speeds, build a magnetic-goo army, or destroy modern society with a giant solar flare?  Using any of these additional powers would certainly make it easier for Max Eisenhardt (a.k.a. Erik Lehnsherr) to achieve his goals, but thus far he’s stuck mainly to moving metallic objects and levitation.  Is it out of the writers’ concern for the story (whether in a single storyline or the overall X-Men universe) or the character?  Do they hold Magneto back for reasons such as tension and excitement or to keep the beloved Magneto as complex a character as he ever was?

Continue reading “Magneto Could Be a Magnet God…Why Isn’t He?”

Is ‘Westworld’ Hero, Maeve, Actually A Villain?

It would be easy to define Westworld’s wonderfully strong madame, Maeve Millay, as a hero, but could she actually be a villain? In his book, I Wear the Black Hat, Chuck Klosterman defines a villain as someone who “knows the most, but cares the least.” Makes sense. The hero often knows only a fraction of what the villain does and one already assumes the hero cares the most while the villain cares little, if at all.

As a story progresses the hero may learn more, but that usually only pushes him or her to care all the more. What if, by the end, the hero is the one that knows the most, but cares the least though? This appears to be what occurs with Maeve so, is she still a hero or has she now become a villain?

Continue reading “Is ‘Westworld’ Hero, Maeve, Actually A Villain?”

5 Ways “The Walking Dead” Premiere Broke You

(Warning: There are going to be a lot of major spoilers in this article!)

There’s little argument that The Walking Dead season seven premiere, “The Day Will Come When You Won’t Be”, was a brutal one. Throughout the episode the audience is taken on a hellish journey in which Negan makes a goal of breaking the proud, fearless, Rick Grimes. As Rick breaks under the techniques used by Negan, so does the viewer, sharing the experience on a unsettlingly visceral level. The dominance of Negan, the feeling of instability, the isolation, the powerlessness, all ultimately leading to the sensation of dependence on Negan.

Continue reading “5 Ways “The Walking Dead” Premiere Broke You”

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑