Probably, The First, The Man Who Engendered The Conditions For This Phrase (or Warning To Evers) To Be

Probably, the first, the man who engendered the conditions for this phrase (or warning to Evers) to be born: Fall Rhian, with the Pirate Captain, Hephaestus, and the Kingdom Council -> "Only the best Evil can disguise as Good."

I mean, when else have we seen the "appearance versus reality" theme predate the moment Rhian started stringing people along and mucking up Rafal's already filthy reputation via word of mouth (as early as Fall, not even the main series with Rafal's face)? "Rabid Bear Rex" and other tales from the prequel time didn't seem to involve the same level of trickery or disguise, I'm assuming?

And we don't know if "Finola the Fairy-Eater" (one of Lady Lesso's favorites, I think) came along later, during another generation, so the trickery and disguise there could've been inspired by Rhian (not that anyone knew the true outcome of the Great War, but the general notion may've been passed down, about Evil being subtle above all else).

EDIT: I misremembered/made a mistake. Some instances of Evil in disguise did predate Rhian and "Finola the Fairy-Eater" was mentioned in Rise. However, Rhian and the Great War did (of course) have had the most impact and most enduring consequences, compared to those smaller tales with lesser billing, which still leaves the possibility open that the Great War and the uncertain end result of who the victor was might've been the event to coin the phrase (if anyone shared August Sader's theory that the Evil brother won, contrary to popular belief).

Also, does anyone remember who first said that line on disguise? Was it Arthur's advice to first-year Tedros? And another question that remains was whether it was told to Arthur by someone else.

Ooo, this is all so PRETTY! Could we see a close-up of the keychain? Also, was the black fur a design choice? It reminds me of the Stymphs' fur/plumage!!

✨️Bottled souls of the twin School Masters✨️

I have no idea how to fix the camera quality, they never focus on the right thing 😭

On that note, some other things of the same topic

Bottled Wish Fish eggs

👇I dunno 😂

I wonder what other potions in SGE could be cool to make?

have you ever cried over something academic?

Yes.

Good versus Evil is a commonplace literary theme beyond the world of SGE, and could be likened to mirror-image symmetry, which is often seen in Soman’s juxtaposed images throughout the series. Yet, I was thinking: is there a literary equivalent for rotational symmetry and what would it look like? I think it would have to involve greater than two elements in play, each a few degrees removed from each other instead of a pair of direct opposites, but I don't have an example of this in practice.

In addition, one of the most prominent instances of juxtaposition in the series to me, by the way, is how the brothers treat their respective Deans, and how Rhian’s reaction is far more passive as he just lets Mayberry go:

And across the bay, there’s this laughable bit:

(I'm sure Rafal is not the only soul who finds it funny. Something about the timing and this being the last line to a section and the well-deserved comeuppance of the moment just read as funny.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think, jointly, prequel Rafal and main series "Rafal" are the only character who ever manages to rival the sheer volume of outfits Sophie has. Tedros and Agatha don't even come close.

Thus, I wanted to ask:

In the modern publishing landscape, these days, I think like we do not have many (if any) point-of-view characters with low social motivation for whatever reason.

Sure, there are lots of characters with social anxiety or other perceived or legitimate foibles to overcome, there are many YA villain origin stories, and there are many unpalatable, traditionally "unlikable" men in classics, but disregarding those, who else do we have?

Can the state of openly being alone (and content) rarely be presented as morally-neutral or as the end result of a narrative? Must it always be that either being alone is the starting point, so there's room for "personal growth," or that being alone is seen as "undesirable" and/or an indication that the person alone has a "problem" or something otherwise wrong with them, like a deficit or moral failing that in some kind of karmic way gives them "what they deserve," which is being alone and discontent with it?

Characters with society anxiety, any differences in communication, or other reasons that interfere with forging connections "don't count" because they may still be motivated. Traits such as these only stand in the way of gaining relationships, as plot obstacles. They aren't intrinsically tied to indifference or to low motivation. So, these characters clearly are not experiencing a lack of interest. And they are not the ones rejecting others. Thus, they "don't count" as far as the archetype that I'm looking for goes.

Characters who undergo villain arcs or otherwise negative arcs may want to maintain their relationships or gain them, so some examples are immediately disqualified (hence not having low social motivation), even if they are the type of character most likely to alienate themselves by a story's end, conflicting with what they wanted.

(Unfortunately, Coriolanus Snow, who is quite close to the type of protagonist I'm searching for "doesn't count" because he has some drive to keep people in his life.

Rafal Mistral partially "counts," and is satisfying as a character, but also doesn't count because he temporarily makes "friends" or allies, depending on how you look at his exploits. Yet, despite all this, not having friends isn't exactly framed as a morally-neutral state either, so he is also disqualified by the end. Basically, he does have low social motivation, but his narrative lacks the conditions that would make the natural consequences of that low motivation play out for themselves. He is always surrounded by people, even if he hates every last one of them.

And, generally speaking, the usual, moody-broody, "misunderstood" YA love-interests very easily "don't count" because they have a desire to get closer to their object of affection.

Even Katniss Everdeen, an overall good person, who usually views herself as "unlikable," befriends others, originally for pragmatic, survival purposes. However, she does start with low social motivation, so that's something in her favor.

And yes, I'm aware that we need other people in this world—I would just like to see someone prove that supposed truth wrong once. And perhaps succeed in their world, if that's not too much to ask for.)

Also, are there any instances of characters who progressively alienate themselves from others, in which that progression is not inherently seen as negative? Like, what about non-corrupt misanthropes? Are there few of those in literature? (Maybe—Eleanor Oliphant from literary fiction counts, but something about that book did not appeal me and I didn't finish it.)

Classics guys sort of "count," but I haven't really seen examples of any comparable protagonists today since many authors and readers write and look for "relatability" in blank slate everyman figures oftentimes.

(I'm not done with Crime and Punishment yet, but Raskolnikov is very tentatively looking like a safe bet for a character who may end up alone and who may not be completely malcontent over such a fate, even if I'm expecting tragedy. I'm that not far along, but I also wouldn't mind it too greatly if he died, I suppose.

And even Sherlock Holmes has Watson as his constant, even if he's notoriously asocial! So he "doesn't count" either.

Carol from Main Street also comes close, but still ultimately desires approval from others.

Maybe no one is truly immune to humanity and I should give up on this notion?)

How many pov characters out there are 1) apathetic toward the masses and 2a) either alienate themselves as the plot progresses or 2b) do not make any friends? (I will allow them making friends and consequently losing them though because that still ends in net zero!)

Indeed, this "gap" in protagonists I've been running into lately, especially with coming-of-age arcs and protagonists whose arc is some form of "getting out of their shell," is: why do we (almost?) never see protagonists who just flat-out don't progress in terms of connecting with fellow humans?

Wouldn't having even a handful of those types be reflective of reality? (We as a society are more disconnected than ever, to be fair, despite constantly having access to one another via technology.)

Or I would completely understand it, if it were narratively impractical to have a plot in which a protagonist makes zero friends. Maybe, it's a near-unwritable form for a story?

So, my question is: does anyone have book recommendations, which present a character whose end goal is not to make friends or forge connections (any other ambitions or motivations are fine) and whose state of being friendless both lasts and is regarded as morally-neutral or as not outright evil? Any genre is fine. High fantasy is preferable. I am stumped.

(I also wouldn't mind recommendations of books in which the protagonist is vilified due to being alone, even if that is not my primary query here.)