User blog comment:MaMcMu/PE Proposal: Archibald Snatcher/@comment-39032584-20200108030605

This proposal could use some work, such as a section about a lack of redeeming qualities and a valid excuse, as well as one about heinous he is by the standards of the work. It would go a long way towards helping those who aren't as familiar with the work give an informed vote.

That stated, I am personally familiar enough with this work to the point I expected him to be proposed for official approval sooner or later, so it does. And obviously, I vote yes; he turns out to be quite a dark and depraved villain for an otherwise light-hearted work; trying to frame the Boxtrolls, a completely innocent race, as monsters and subsequently exterminate them all just so he can join the "White Hats" and be able to eat cheese, which he's allergic to to begin with? That, alone, probably makes him heinous enough to qualify. Keeping Egg's father imprisoned and hung upside down for years to drive him insane so he could use his mind to create the machine we was using in the later part of the film, a willingness to kill children in cold blood (to the point of trying to burn Eggs alive) if they interfere with his plans in any way, and recklessly endangering the citizens when trying to take Lord Portley Rind's hat by force just add to that and make him even more heinous than necessary. And yeah, while he does start off as pretty over the top and funny, once it's shown just how depraved he is by doing what he did to Egg's father and framing the Boxtrolls as monsters when they actually saved Eggs as a baby from him, he starts being treated much more seriously.