[Alive]

I don't really distinguish "high" vs. "low" literature; what is considered low in one era may be considered high in the next. I think that virtually all literary (i.e, fictional) media is more nuanced than mainstream opinion.

In the three pigs, theres the 'big bad wolf'. I don't think most children's versions of the story include the fact that the wolf needs to eat the pigs to live.

"Big bad wolf" is an interesting term, but let's look at the story itself. The wolf succeeds at eating two of the pigs. The moral of the story is not that wolves are evil and pigs are good, so much as that stupidity is gonna get you killed in the world. The whole story is one of actors taking advantage of other actors; in the end the smartest one eats the not-so-smart one (as opposed to, say, the most good eating the least good--what defineds pig 3 is not moral goodness but cleverness). Literature usually rewards the clever; poets (or folklore itself) seem to like smart people.

Motive is irrelevent to the story, method is what matters. Motive is predetermined.

In Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, theres the evil lady who says "mirror mirror on the wall who's the fairest of them all" who can't stand the idea that there's somebody prettier than her. She takes terrible actions against snow white, and doesn't have any respectible motive.

Do you disagree that vanity is a real motive for people acting evilly? Is it really such an unrealistic motive? This story too has nuance, but I'd like to have your answers to those two questions.

Many of your examples fall under this category. The evil actors are not evil because they are simply evil, but because of some particular vice, a vice that I think you would agree is a real vice and a real social problem to which the story perhaps contributes something of an attempted solution.

In genesis, theres the snake that tempts eve to take a bite of the apple, albeit its been awhile since I've read the story, but I don't recall the snake having any respectable reason for wanting to tempt eve.

And the snake is cursed, but so is all of mankind--which suggests that all people are evil, not some evil and some good, and thus goes directly against your thesis.

The TV and movies seen nowadays though, which are most of what the masses I'm refering to, see, I think are guilty of perpetuating this one-sided close-mindedness.

I disagree strongly. Maybe we just watch different movies, but I think even the most straightforward action movies have relatively nuanced views of human motivation which far surpass that of common society. Have any movies in mind?

In superhero movies the villian is often evil for the pursuit of science, for example, which is otherwise viewed as a worthy goal. Or they are evil out of too-strong love or attachment to someone. In fact, it's more the "high brow" movies themselves which make evil people evil for evil reasons, but often they make those people the protaganists, which ambiguates the evil in itself (see all gangster movies!) This is what I mean by going too far; the message sometimes veers to evil is good, not that evil is more ambiguous than might seem at first glance. Either way, though, it is far from firming up status quo conceptions of good and evil.