Introduction

Here's something new: The introduction has to be read last. It's more of an explanation, really. So, go ahead and turn the page, read the two poems and come back to this page when you're done.

Done? You should be, if you're reading this already.

Okay, let's see what we have here: Two poems that seemingly contradict each other (from their titles, to their moods, to their concepts) while complementing each other at the same time—one about a savior, another one about a hero eliminated, together with his high chances of becoming a villain. That is exactly what the difference between a hero and a savior is, as mentioned in the first poem. A savior's main goal is to save, without corrupting thoughts of fame or being liked. That's why they have clear minds—that's why they cannot be corrupted. Saviors cannot become villains. Heroes can. If they aren't careful, if they let fame, compliments, and money get to their heads, they will no longer be heroes, but villains. Heroes can be saviors, but saviors cannot be heroes.

People think that to be a "hero" you shouldn't have fear. This is wrong. Even Jesus had fear. He knew He was going to die. But He went through with it in the end. It's all about the duty—a trait absent in the definition (in the dictionary) of a hero. It's about the responsibility to do your duty and to be of service to society, when the time comes. Jesus was frightened—His sweat even became blood. But He died for us because He loves us, and because it was His duty as our Savior, our Redeemer, and our God. Heroes, according to the dictionary, have distinguished courage and ability, and are admired for brave deeds and noble qualities. Jesus wasn't admired by everyone...most wanted to kill him, even if he was trying to save them and all. He isn't even admired by everyone up to now. He died for us not for some show—not so that others can admire Him for his bravery and nobility. Christ is not a hero. He is a savior.

Saviors save. Heroes pose. God never posed. He was humble. Heroes tend to get egotistic. They have a weakness: they let others' words get to their heads, until they become the people they swore to destroy. Saviors are able to absorb blame in order to save. This is the defining line.

Heroes have proud nobility, proud courage, proud strength, and a bit of compassion.
Saviors have humble nobility, humble courage (which is one of the strongest courage) humble and quiet strength, and a loving compassion the size of the world. All the love in the world is a speck of dust, compared to Christ's love for us all. That's why He saves us. That's why He is the Ultimate Savior.

Now for the second poem. Here, the similarities and the differences between a hero and a villain should be seen by the readers. The differences are already obvious, so I won't dwell on that. The similarities, on the other hand, aren't. Villains are heroes gone insane…heroes gone egotistic…and eventually, heroes gone evil. Villains, like heroes, think about their fame. They think about how wide they are known by the whole world. That's why they leave puzzling hints and signs for investigators to be occupied with, that's why they leave dead bodies behind, and that's why they send the police messages, even if they know they COULD get caught. It's all an intellectual game for most. They want to strike fear into people's minds (and hearts), while heroes want to strike comfort into people's minds. They both strike, nonetheless. Speaking of striking, doesn't it baffle anyone that in order for heroes to save, they must hurt (and maybe even KILL) the villain? What if there weren't any villains? Would there still be heroes? Or is it because there are heroes that there are villains? Which came first? The hero or the villain?

The narrator in the second poem thought that she was being a hero by stopping the possible proliferation process of evil in a hero, mentioned in the first poem. She thought that by killing the police, she'd be able to stop him, a hero, from turning into a villain. She knew that heroes can become villains. She was cognizant of it. The thing is, she wasn't able to stop herself from becoming what she wanted to stop. Her intention was good, like that of a hero, but the effect of that intention was bad, for both her and others. It was a wrong and sick way of thinking. She just surpassed step one: Insanity. She became insane (in her thinking) when she became aware (Which raises another question: Does awareness of what is around you cause insanity? Is insanity good, in a way? CAN it be good?) that heroes could become villains. She maybe even questioned that if all the heroes that the world depended on one day became villains, then what would happen now? In the end, she was aware that she became the villain. But she still thought that what she did was good. She thought that she had saved the world by killing that police (just like how heroes think they save when they omit evil). This is where she surpasses step two: Egotism. If she continues to kill, then she'd pass step three: EVIL.

Now why is the title "A Villain Accepted"? Truth is, I'm not so sure. I think that the girl, being a villain, accepted the concept of her being a villain. Also, she accepted the fact that heroes can (and probably will) become villains, one day…someday. Everyone else accepted evil too when they accepted what had been done to that cop. Cops die everyday, that's why people (except the relatives and friends of cops) don't care anymore when one of them just dies. It becomes so ordinary, that people don't even question why a cop is killed. They just move on. They accept the fact that evil is around the world, which can be good, when they actually DO something about it. Which raises another question: Why do people accept evil, but shun the good? The world in itself is about to surpass step one in their way of thinking. It's very close.

As a conclusion, some of the questions the readers should be able to ask themselves are these: Do you consider yourself a hero? Would you ever want someone to consider you a savior? Which would you rather be for someone in need? Should villains be reconsidered? Do they have some sense and goodness in them? Why does the world need to have a hero (I did not say a savior.), and why does the world have villains?