For Gina to get what she wants, she's going to make Mike not get what he wants...that kind of thing.
But really, I wanted to have an open conversation about antagonists and forces of antagonism - any thoughts or ponderings or questions or recommendations are welcome.
I also like misinformed bad guys. They are doing what seems right to them, but then it turns slowly bad and they are trapped, like Macbeth. Alternatively someone who is unable to face up to a mistake and the covering up spirals them out of control like Tom Ripley in The Talented Mr Ripley.
Antagonism is the root cause of opposition in story. It drives the vertical movement of plot. Antagonism is also a driving force in causation and tension. It's the five Ws that oppose the protagonist's goal, purpose, or desire. Who, what, when, where, how, and why. The antagonist might be the protagonist in first person stories. Actually, I think a first person story is the ideal voice for an internal antagonist-conflict. I'm disappointed when a first person story doesn't have an internal conflict.
I suppose inanimate objects as obstacles might pose antagonism; they do pose opposition. Do they change the protagonist?
Antagonism isn't necessarily negative causation. Antagonsim can have positive purposes and results, at least in story. An alcoholic who doesn't want help might feel that being committed to a detox unit is antagonism.
At the climax the forces of antagonism are in maximum opposition to progress, compelling the protagonist's change. Antagonism is what forces the protagonist to change to overcome obstacles and accomplish the goal in Greek comedy, in Greek tragedy to fail and change to accommodate the failure.
That way, you can go the tragedy route, where one side wins and then finds out, sadly, that the other side deserved to win as well; or you can go the happy ending route, where they figure out how to turn their cross purposes into compromise and both give up something in order to both gain something (aka the "non-zero sum" ending).
I've only read one fantasy series which has convincingly got around the distinction of good and evil, and Martin has achieved this by basically making everyone evil. Except the Lannisters, who are in a league of their own rottenness.
One of my aims in writing the novel I'm currently working on is to create characters who not only antagonise each other by getting in the way of each other's goals rather than having anything against them personally, but who it is still possible to sympathise with, or understand, or even like. As there's a religious element to the background I'm trying to do it by having some characters being fundamentally decent people, but being opposed by others because their religion tells them to burn all heretics.
So I guess one idea could be have 'baddies' who oppose the 'goodies' for religious or cultural reasons, rather than for the usual things: power, money etc.
Do one for your protagonist. Take a couple of days off. Come back to the story, and do one for your antagonist--as if he were your protagonist.
Guaranteed to give you a nice, round, compelling villain.
I've been playing with the idea of turning an entire society into the real antagonist, and using the (psychological) cycle of abuse on a culture-wide level. Sure, it was daddy who beat you, but daddy used to be locked out in the woodshed by grandpa, and grandpa was sold into slavery at the age of six because great-grandpa needed money... etc. On a cultural scale it might look something like, the protagonist is a woman who dresses up as a boy and goes to war, and her society expects women to stay at home, but the commander who discovers her and wants her hanged had his parents die of plague everyone said was caused by a witch's curse, and the villagers were unusually paranoid and looking for something to blame because kids had been disappearing into the forbidden forest which was said to be inhabited by magical demons....
I find my best antagonists are people who aren't necessarily "evil" but want something that is in conflict with what my MC wants. The hard thing about that is readers often want to see good v evil at the same time they say they don't want the cliches. In on of my WIPs, I had an agent say she wanted one antagonist to be more corrupt (thus being in danger of falling into the evil advisor catagory) and another being more inept (thus risking the bumbling ruler catagory). Although I suspect this is better than the last round of comments where they were "unrealistic." So, it's a tough line to walk. For me, each of them has a main goal they want. Everything they do is to obtain that goal which puts them at conflict with the MC and each other.
Even my "evil" antagonists have something sympathetic about them. It could be that they believed in something and thought they were doing right but in the process lost thier sanity and have became murderous fanatics. As JamieFord said, Pol Pot and even Hitler fall into this group. They both thought they were serving a greater good and could justify the murder of millions because of it.
The more truely "evil" are in someways more fun and harder to write because you have to constantly fight the urge to make them the stereotype.
The subtler the antagonist - i.e. an inner conflict or conflict between two "goods"- the more difficult it is to convey for me.
Martin didn't make everyone "evil," IMHO, he just made everyone with competing goals and willing to do "evil" things to achieve them.
Anyway. I think that the thing that makes the most interesting antagonist for me is - do I understand why they are doing what they're doing, and does it seem reasonable knowing what I know about them. I don't go for the magnificently evil supervillian anymore, just because the MC needs one to strive against. I want people I understand and who make sense to me, even if I don't like what they do. Just to use an example we're all probably familiar with, Calvin in the maker weries? OSC went to great lengths to make his actions plausible, by taking the time to look into his heart and let us see why he did the things he did.
In Hannibal Rising, the writer (I can't remember his name at the moment) spent a whole book on why Hannibal behaved he way he did. That was kind of interesting, too.
To bring up a book Kathleen herself has mentioned before, Guy Kay's Tigana is about a small peninsula that has been invaded by two opposing powerful nations. There are three groups in the book, one of which we are meant to side with (local people fighting for their independance), and two who are set-up as the antagonists (leaders of the opposing invading forces). By fleshing out the characters of the two antagonistic leaders and giving them reasons for the actions they are undertaking (one to make a legacy for his beloved younger son, the other as a political stepping stone to sieze power in his home country) the antagonists are that much more sympathetic. The book becomes more about shades of grey than simply white hat/black hat dynamics. I think it's the stronger for it.
Jayson Merryfield
quote:
Martin didn't make everyone "evil," IMHO, he just made everyone with competing goals and willing to do "evil" things to achieve them.
quote:
Mercedes Lackey once said "Even evil magicians get up in the middle of the night for milk and cookies"
Edit: Only everyone else. LOL
And there are degrees of evil in his world. Cersei is I think his weakest character because she isn't very well motivated. She is the closest to a stock villain, but even in her case she loves her children. And the guy who tried to chew of Brienne's face. *shudder* He was definitely evil.
There are some who he did, in my opinion, make evil although always with some motivation and always with more to them than JUST stock evilness.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 18, 2008).]
quote:
Thomas Harris wrote Hannibal Rising.
He wrote Imperium, too.
quote:
He wrote Imperium, too.
On antagonists: I like J's idea of writing an outline/ synopsis in both the antag and protag's POV.
Books that have an antag wanting to create chaos or dominate people just so he/ she can enslave or make them suffer have always felt largely empty and superficial to me. Complex antags allow for a more enriching story, and create new possibilities for the plot.
Christine--eerily enough your book experience sounds a lot like mine. I started out with a simple good/ evil book, which has evolved into a trilogy with each side no longer good or evil, just simply at crossed purposes.
The most compelling antags are the ones who are so driven to a certain purpose, sacrificing for whatever they think is the greater good, who are misunderstood somehow, or a product of society in some way. Also, I like antags that tend to be hidden, maybe seeming as if to support the protag but actually subverting them. I like antags that are emotionally important to the protag, too; then the protag has to sift through all their own emotions in order to see the "truth".
Ultimately, it all comes down to motivation: For both the protag and antag, the motivation must be real and commensurate with the lengths each will go to get their goal.
[This message has been edited by annepin (edited June 18, 2008).]
Except for the genesis novel Casino Royale, Fleming's plot formula is fairly simplistic. A world-peace threatening villain enters the global scene. The gadget-assisted hero overcomes the omnipotent villain mostly through application of the hero's wits, training, and talents. The hero's outcome is rarely in doubt, though world peace is at stake. The opposing action reaches a fever pitch at the climax, but antagonism is limited. The hero gets the damsel of interest. End.
Comic book superheroes are mostly opposed by nemeses, too. One noteable exception is Peter Parker who partially resolves an internal conflict in each Spiderman episode.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited June 18, 2008).]
Of course, I primarily write short stories...and in a short story you often barely have room to fully flesh out your protaganist.
Not that I am against complicated or sympathetic villains/antagonists/whatevers. Many of my stories, also, dont really have a clear antagonistic element.
All that being said, I probably do need some work in the area of creating said evil villains but making them not quite so stock-character-ish
Or, like I said, those relatively rare people who truly enjoy hurting other people directly...the Ted Bundies etc
I rather believe that they did. That doesn't change in my mind that they were evil but I think it might change how I would write about them or about similar characters.
I'm currently working on a story in which a strong leader gradually becomes evil. She starts out wanting what really is the best for her country. However, as the story progresses the only way she can see to achieve her ends are through evil actions.
The Ted Bundy's (and no doubt there have been leaders of country with the same psychology) are I think a different case. I've never written about a character like that in any depth as a major character. I'm not quite sure how I'd do that.
I'm a firm believer that all arts are strongly connected. Having grown up around theater, I see writing a novel as the equivalent to being a director, an actor, a team of designers and an audience member. I think if you want a character that feels real, yet evil, you're going to have to think of things that symbolize evil to you. People such as a rapist, a vicious murderer, and a sadistic parent embody what we consider evil. Remember though...even though they may understand what they're doing is wrong, they're doing it for a reason.
Here are some more random examples of things that may contribute to somebody being considered "evil": ordering somebody to be killed because he looked at you; lying to everybody by saying a man is a sexual predator in a small town because he "stole" your girlfriend; killing small animals for fun; killing a baby because he wouldn't stop screaming.
I'm tired...so I don't know if any of these are very good. Just remember to keep in mind motivation when thinking of all of this. Evil can get very cliche very quickly.
I think perhaps the thing I most like to emphasis with this concept is this: Nothing is born evil. Evil is a choice. Which dovetails well with the fact that choice in general is a big theme of mine.
I'm kinda having recent second thoughts about it, though, at least as far as character development goes. "Evil" gets flung about in any number of circumstances---you've probably noticed the election campaign going on, for one area---and I've got to figure out how to incorporate this take on "evil" into my stories. (Nothing going on right now so I'll have to start on something else.)
Dead wrong. Everyone is born evil--and we all wage a hopeless, lifelong internal battle for decency and selflessness. That and the stark fact of death are the basis of literature.
Now yea, all people have desires and needs and want them fullfilled. But most of us never really have a desire to hurt others to get them. And very few people have a desire to simply hurt people...but some do.
Most concious beings do struggle with placing their desires over others, to a point. But most people win a lot of that struggle a lot of the time. Evil people ae the ones who dont even try...or quite the oposite, who embrace selfishness.
quote:
That and the stark fact of death are the basis of literature.
I dont think there is one single basis of literature. Also what your saying may be somewhat true of mainstream literature but less so when your talking about fantasy etc.
Now dont get me wrong...I like complex villains and antagonists who arent actually bad guys at all as much as the next person. I just also see no problem with straightforward evil villains.
You know Satan may have his own point of view too.
They started out good. But they got greedy. And they choose to let that greed become the definition of their existences. In other words, they were evil...and probably didnt go around specifically calling themselves such...but they knew what they were doing and didnt care.
Of course I realize today its better thought of to have antagonists who arent even really bad guys at all...they are misguided, or misunderstood or simply working at cross purposes to the protganist. And all of that is fine...and something I would like to become better at.
I just feel that even though its not in, so to speak, right now theres still a place for straightforward villains that are simply people/things who have chosen to be evil and do terrible things in full knowledge of them
Now taking someone who has done truly terrible things, been truly evil...and redmeeming them...theres another interesting thought..
I have an evil character, who I havent used much, who may be redeemanle...or maybe not. I'm not sure what will happen down the road..
So...I dont see it, in that case, sorry.
If you want to get real abstract, or remove any value or meaning from most things then yea its in the eye of the beholder...and those who want to stop others from murdering, stealing, raping etc are just selfish and trying to get what they want as well...taking away the freedoms of others. But the thing is...the stuff most people care to do doesnt interfere much with the freedom of others. Its only an issue for those who either want everything for themselves, or those who simply enjoy doing things that are harmful to others.
Its like in Revenge of the Sith...Anakin says from his point of view the Jedi are "evil"...mostly because they dont want to just give him whatever he wants, what he's decided he deserves. But he's the one killing children and along with Palpatine, trying to make everyone adhere to their wishes.
1) I think that Dark God is probably the only way I can believe in a truly 'evil' bad guy. Though Sauron and Satan were 'fallen' unlike Jordan's Dark One who seemed to always be 'evil'. I in fact have my own version of the Devil in my books who my goodies ally with because if they didn't the baddy would.
2) It reminded me of a review by OSC I read for The History Boys where he discussed movies that 'normalise' paedophiles. You create a movie where they are the 'heroes' and their victims are unaffected by the acts, and you have manipulated your audience.
(Others have done it this way. Ever see John Wayne's version of "The Alamo"? General Santa Anna isn't onstage except once, at the very end...yet plays an extremely important role in the lives (and deaths) of the characters presented.)
Interesting studies in character regardless of your beliefs.
quote:
For a good example of a "leader gone bad," see King Saul in the Bible. He was still fighting the "bad" guys in the end. And even David had his moments.
Or a "bad guy gone good" see Saul of Tarsus cum Apostle Paul.
Although he was so long winded he once gave a four hour sermon that put an attendee to sleep. Not uncommon, you say? Well, if you take into count the sleeper was sitting in a two-story window (and that he slept so deeply that he fell out) it might change your opinion.
quote:
Aragorn wanted to claim his kingship, yes, but it was his by right of how things worked then and there...
But Sauron was a Dark God and that was also how things worked then and there... Why was Aragon's right to rule absolutely somehow more "holy" than Sauron's?
quote:
And Gandalf was there specifically to try and help insure the freedom of the races of Middle Earth.
Freedom as long as they bent a knee to Aragon which is questionable freedom. And Gandolph was willing to insure the freedom of the races he approved of. But as far as I know he was perfectly happy with genocide for the "evil" races. After all they were pure evil and should only be exterminated.
Sometimes black and white isn't really so black and white--even if you would like it to be.
Edit: But it really is just a discussion you know. There's no need to get all upset about it. No one is advocating murder or rape, you know. And if you want an enemy who is "absolute evil" in your novel that's your right.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 21, 2008).]
quote:
But Sauron was a Dark God and that was also how things worked then and there... Why was Aragon's right to rule absolutely somehow more "holy" than Sauron's?
Well first and foremost because Sauron's rule envolves complete and abject slavery, probably including using people for expertmentation/torture, and making the entire world and everyone and everything in it over into his vision of what it should be.
Aragorn's involves freedom. For instance, he didn't in any way try to rule the Hobbits and the Shire, and in fact tried to see to it that they be left alone, if that was what they wished (and he knew it was.)
If Aragorn were that much like Sauron, he would have taken the Ring.
quote:
Freedom as long as they bent a knee to Aragon which is questionable freedom
See above.
quote:
And Gandolph was willing to insure the freedom of the races he approved of. But as far as I know he was perfectly happy with genocide for the "evil" races. After all they were pure evil and should only be exterminated.
From what I've read, Tolkien himself wasnt entirely happy with how this issue came out, and how the Orcs etc fit into the cosmology and whatall.
Personally, my feeling is that the Orc were so twisted physically, and in so much pain, discomfort and unhappiness that death could be seen as a release for them
Also remember though, Gandalf was very much an advocate of trying to help Gollum, who was in much the same situation, but realized that a "cure" for a being so far gone was unlikely.
quote:
Sometimes black and white isn't really so black and white--even if you would like it to be.
Very true. But, some times it is. Both in fiction and in life. I think we've just become a little too fixated on "grey areas" and "moral ambiguity" both in real life and storytelling. It exists, to be sure, and plenty of it. But, there are also simple good/bad right/wrong stuations as well.
quote:
But it really is just a discussion you know. There's no need to get all upset about it. No one is advocating murder or rape, you know. And if you want an enemy who is "absolute evil" in your novel that's your right.
I'm not getting upset, at all. However, to say that the "good guys" of LOTR wanted to "rule the world" in much the same way as Sauron is just not correct within the context of that story. Most of them had no desire for that, in any sense, and even those that had remotely similar desires, like Aragorn, were coming from a totally different place than Sauron.
its like the comment that Gandalf makes to Treebeard at one point, that Treebeard never planned to spread his trees across the entire planet and choke out all other life...which is what Sauron wishes to do, with his stuff.
Likewise, in fiction in general, and in real life...some times it *is* black and white. Every villain/antagonist doesnt have to be a misguided anti hero or the like. Concious beings can and do choose to simply be evil...and that can be interesting too.
To me this issue like most others just depends on the type of story you want. I've used both types...for instance one of my stories includes an entirely evil wizard who enjoys reshaping other peoples bodies as an "artform"...of course, he justifies it to himself, but he still knows he's hurting people. Another involves a witch who's son was killed in an unfortanate accident...and now she's kidnapping children to try and use their lives to return his.
Theres lots of possibilities.
Tolkien's Orcs shared a number of traits with humanity (well, men and elves)...ability to fight well (if they'd been bad fighters would they have done so well for Sauron), willingness to believe the worst of their enemies ("typical elvish trick"), endurance (the march into Rohan). We don't see their home lives, but no doubt they have them.
Tolkien never came up with a satisfactory explanation of their origins, though. Were they creations of Morgoth? Or were they elves or humans that had been twisted by the enemy? And, either way, did they have souls?
(By the way, have you ever noticed that people who dislike Lord of the Rings nearly always misspell "Gandalf"?)
Sauron's minions, Gollum, the terrain, Frodo's helpers and allies, the Ring, Frodo himself all pose obstacles to Frodo's goal, but no single one or group poses the antagonism in the story. In a quest, the quest itself is the antagonist. It's what causes the protagonist to change through posing obstacles to overcome in order to achieve the goal. Encountering each obstacle and surmounting it are the scenes of rising action, increasing opposition, rising tension, and causal flow.
On a side note, my figurative interpretation of The Lord of the Rings is that it's an allegory for the decline of empire and the rise of democracy. "One ring to rule them all."
quote:
Tolkien never came up with a satisfactory explanation of their origins, though. Were they creations of Morgoth? Or were they elves or humans that had been twisted by the enemy? And, either way, did they have souls?
Its strongly hinted that Orcs are the result of Elves captured by Melkor/Morgoth very early after the Elves awoke, and corrupted into orcs.
However, I've read that Tolkien himself wasnt entirely happy with this notion, partially because of the soul issue. Not as much wether they had them or not, but what their fate was after an Orcs death.
Its true that they are often depicted as cannon fodder etc...but thats true for the basic soldiery in many epic stories. Like I said, I think those characters that understand the nature of orcs have pity for them and would see their lot improved...but its almost impossible to do so. And in wars, lots of people die.
quote:
(By the way, have you ever noticed that people who dislike Lord of the Rings nearly always misspell "Gandalf"?)
"Bending the knee" is an expression, Robert, implying being subject to someone which commoners CERTAINLY are to an absolute monarch which is exactly what was portrayed as desirable in LotR.
Yes, I frequently mis-spell Gandalf... but that doesn't mean I dislike LotR. Where did I say that, pray tell?
You are making a number of erroneous assumptions, I believe, just because I happen to think that there are other world views that are at least as valid to consider, discuss or write about as Tolkien's.
For instance, LotR is very anti-technology. Do you agree with that also?
And if you don't, does that mean you hate the triology? Or if you do does that mean you love LotR? LOL
Edit:
quote:
Concious beings can and do choose to simply be evil...and that can be interesting too.
Yes, I believe that was exactly my point. A conscious being choosing evil (which they may or may not themselves perceive as evil) is much more interesting that a character that is simply evil and thus must be destroyed.
I've read and enjoyed those too, but I prefer a more interesting villain/antagonist.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 21, 2008).]
quote:
There is a difference in "lots of people die" and "you're a certain race so you must die."
I dont believe it says anywhere that orcs must die by virtue of their being of the orc race. By virtue of being instruments of sauron who are generally trying to kill anyone who isnt an orc (and some times other orcs) yes.
quote:
"Bending the knee" is an expression, Robert, implying being subject to someone which commoners CERTAINLY are to an absolute monarch which is exactly what was portrayed as desirable in LotR.
It was protrayed as desirable to have a rightful and benevolent person in that position.
The Hobbits, however, had basically no system of government at all.
And Sauron was also essentially an absolute monarch...but undesirable by virtue of being...evil.
Also in the Silmarillion it is show how the later Numenorean kings, while rightfully kings fell into corruption. So its not like the work says monarchy=good regardless.
I must admit I consider this a dangerous world view. It doesn't mean (in spite of Robert's assuption) that I dislike LotR. I've probably read it a dozen times and love many parts of it. I do think there are weaknesses in it though. And I think that's one of them.
Edit: And don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming writers who say a race is innately evil for prejudice in the world. I think that's a reflection of it, rather than a cause.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 21, 2008).]
Psst. Tolkien wasn't the only one who used (recreated) archetypical figures. Frank Herbert did it in Dune--and Baron Harkonnen had motivations more apparent than Sauron's simple greed. In Serenity the antagonist believes he is "making a better world". Likewise, the antagonists in Ludlum's Bourne Identity, one is his own government--afraid that he's lost it and gone to the other side--and the other's an assassin (The Jackal) whose out to kill what-he-thinks-is his major cometition, whose undercutting the Jackal's contracts. Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian invariably is the antagonist (by definition) in most of his stories. In Robert McCammon's Boy's Life the antagonist is a former Nazi trying to escape Nazi-hunters, and killing to protect his secret.
As an aside, it's a sad fact that Tolkien, Herbert, Lovecraft or Howard would likely be unpublished if they tried to get in the market today. Though brilliant (or insane), pacing, infodumps, flowery prose, lack of characterization or distant PoVs would do them in. Given the time, market, and state of their genres most of us could make it there, too.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited June 21, 2008).]
quote:
As an aside, it's a sad fact that Tolkien, Herbert, Lovecraft or Howard would likely be unpublished if they tried to get in the market today. Though brilliant (or insane), pacing, infodumps, flowery prose, lack of characterization or distant PoVs would do them in.
But thats only because of current tastes, trends and prejudices. Not because there is something objectively wrong, inferior or flawed about those things or how they write.
And I'm not convinced it would. Their works are published today, and for the most part quite popular among fans of the genre. LOTR has shown up in many polls as the most loved fictional story....ever.
quote:
Yes, I believe that was exactly my point. A conscious being choosing evil (which they may or may not themselves perceive as evil) is much more interesting that a character that is simply evil and thus must be destroyed.
First of on the perception thing...perception isnt the issue. Awareness is. If the being knows what they are doing is hurtful to others, and they do it anyway, just because they want to or to get what they want then it is evil or wrong, and they know it. They may choose to "percieve" (or rather, rationalize) it as something else (like my wizard I mentioned) but they still know what they are doing.
Next, I can think of very few villains that fit what you describe as far as simply being evil (without choice) and so must be destroyed. Monsters, maybe, but concious villains, not really. All the straightforward villains I've seen, its either explained or assumed that they choose that path, and became evil.
quote:
I've read and enjoyed those too, but I prefer a more interesting villain/antagonist.
You prefer a different villain/antagonist. Interesting is a matter of opinion. I consider Sauron a very interesting character. And I consider some of the villain types you mention interesting as well. However, I also feel the misunderstood, complex villain who isnt really evil, or who is doing bad things for good reasons or whatever is well on its way to becoming a "cliche" itself. Much like the tortured, dark or savage "anti hero."
Of course, thats not an inherent issue for me either as I dont believe cliche=bad.
However, I mentioned more than just Dune. This thread was about (I thought) characterizing antagonists/antagonist's motives.
quote:
I do think that those authors would have to do things differently to be published today, but I suspect they'd be quite capable of doing so.
Could you cite any examples that support this theory?
quote:
Their works are published today, and for the most part quite popular among fans of the genre. LOTR has shown up in many polls as the most loved fictional story....ever.
Yeah, that's easy to say...after the fact. I was referring to breaking in not just publishing. If they were not known--and studied--how many would turn the page, given the current state of writing?
Back it up. Show me one multi-national bestseller with all of those "flaws" that's broken into the market in the last two years?
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited June 21, 2008).]
The reason I dislike the Baron more than Sauron is that Sauron wasn't really a character. He was more a remote representation of all that was evil. The Baron was very much a stereotypical characterization--the fact that he was fat and homosexual proved that he had to be evil. You knew that without having to know anything else about him.
As for being a scab, that would imply that I have something to prove about it. I'm fine with other people loving Dune. I don't and don't understand the appeal. But I also know people who dislike LotR or SoIaF. But it makes for interesting discussion.
Edit:
quote:
I consider Sauron a very interesting character.
Where we differ here is that I don't consider Sauron to be in the true sense a character in LotR. He barely appears and then solely as a representative of evil.
As far as the misunderstood part, I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying. I think someone is quite capable of being evil while feeling that they are doing the right thing. I do think that (to use a real world example) Hitler probably thought he was right. That doesn't keep me from judging him to be evil. He wasn't "misunderstood." And I am mulling working on a plot that will have a somewhat similar character, who makes bad choices and she becomes evil. They were small choices that she felt she was pushed to for a greater good, except that she ends up destorying everything she valued. She isn't "misunderstood." She is wrong and at the end evil, but not (unlike Sauron) because was just plain evil. You can do a good story--even a great one-- using that old trope just as you can with almost any old trope, but rethinking it to bring something fresh might be a good idea.
Edit: IB, I could never get into Howard's work and haven't read enough of it to be able to discuss it.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 21, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 21, 2008).]
quote:
Back it up. Show me one multi-national bestseller with all of those "flaws" that's broken into the market in the last two years?
Fantasy is somewhat of a niche market anyway, and rarely shows up in big-time mainstream means of determining things.
And yet LOTR sells. Now. Lovecraft sells. Now.
And putting that aside...the simple fact that there style of writing isnt "in" with editors right now means no more or less than that...its not "in" with editors right now.
At least supposedly...and that was kind of my point. Editors know that Tolkien and Lovecraft etc still sell...so I'm not convinced that all editors are totally as against those styles as people here think.
Remember, my interest, at root, is in storytelling itself. Not who likes what or whats considered "acceptable" by who. Tolkien, Lovecraft and Howard were all gifted storytellers who created amazing worlds and characters and stories, and have brought a great deal of enjoyment and inspiration to people. Thats the relevent part, to me.
quote:
As far as the misunderstood part, I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying. I think someone is quite capable of being evil while feeling that they are doing the right thing. I do think that (to use a real world example) Hitler probably thought he was right. That doesn't keep me from judging him to be evil. He wasn't "misunderstood." And I am mulling working on a plot that will have a somewhat similar character, who makes bad choices and she becomes evil. They were small choices that she felt she was pushed to for a greater good, except that she ends up destorying everything she valued. She isn't "misunderstood." She is wrong and at the end evil, but not (unlike Sauron) because was just plain evil. You can do a good story--even a great one-- using that old trope just as you can with almost any old trope, but rethinking it to bring something fresh might be a good idea.
This is where it gets complicated.
Hitler was evil. And he knew he was evil. He knew it was not ok to slaughter all the people he slaughtered, but he believed it should be done, so he did it (or had it done or whatever.)
I don't know the details of your character. I don't consider someone evil until 1) their intentions are evil or 2) their actions out of good intentions are clearly doing great harm and little to no good, and they realize that, but keep doing it anyway.
As for Sauron. I guess he seems that way in LOTR alone. I am coming from the perspective of all of Tolkien's work. Sauron is not just "plain evil." he didnt just spring out of a hole all nasty and evil. He was once as good as he now is evil, but choose evil over good. Like I said, look at Saruman, who is following exactly the same path. They become "plain evil" because they choose too.
The thing about Sauron is that sure if you read other works (ones that unless my memory is tricking me Tolkien did NOT himself publish) you get more. But within LotR itself judging it simply on its own, he is simply an almost anonymous representation of evil.
Hehe and we're back on LotR which IB objected to.
The thing is I am interested in what is publishable as a writer getting published today without a "name" going in. So I'll cater to the publisher's preferences. My opinion is that these are publisher preferences because they are, by and large, READER preferences. Being a reader of today, they also are my own preferences in current literature so I end up writing what I also prefer.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 21, 2008).]
And I dont know that editors are as in tune with reader preferences as they think they are. Or possibly they are, and are more likely to publish certain things than many here think.
quote:
nes that unless my memory is tricking me Tolkien did NOT himself publish
Yeah...mostly due to being dead and all. Of course publishing was never a primary goal of his anyway. His role as a professor and linguist was his main deal...he never really saught publication, it came after him.
quote:
As far as my character, she starts out doing things that don't do so much harm but each time she is willing for others to pay a higher and higher price. She knows that what she is doing is evil but believes that the goal is worth it. She's wrong and has become corrupted in the process.
Sounds interesting. I have a (rarely used) character who was driven slowly toward evil by the deaths of her parents, followed by the highly unpleasant death of her brother...after which she tries to bring him back, and her teacher winds up destroying the monstrosity that results. And so she blames him for "killing" her brother. I also recently realized she has unrequited romantic feelings for him...the combination of which causes her to decide she will simply persue power at all costs, and make others feel the anguish she has experienced.
I addressed the current vs. older in another thread. Let's not spread that discussion out. LOL
Interesting discussion though. It's always fascinating to trade opinions on these things even though we will never agree on them--or maybe because.
I disagree entirely with the notion that the protaganists of LOTR wished to "rule the world" in anything like the manner Sauron did. But I dont think you really think they did either.
I agree that within LOTR, Sauron is pretty much just an abstraction of evil. Really, Saruman and Gollum would be better example of different types of villainy and different effects of evil.
I enjoy villains/bad guys/antagonists of all types a great deal. I watch a lot of anime which tends to have a lot of villains who arent necessarily totally evil, or who are misguided or who you can really understand why they do some of what they do. I just dont think theres anything wrong with a good old fashioned black hat :-)
I was also talking about "absolute monarchies" when I spoke of "bending the knee." Commoners would still not kneel in the presence of the monarch.
*****
Saruman at least was on-stage, at least in one scene. (The greatest insight into his character comes in a lengthy flashback, with Gandalf telling of his previous encounter with him.)
But I've got to say that Saruman was a divine creature in human form, who came to believe he was carrying out the will of God (or that of Eru Iluvatar, Tolkien's equivalent in his subcreation). Saruman believed he knew the best way to accomplish this, and this pride led him into evil ways. A "fallen angel," if you will.
*****
I never much cared for Dune beyond the first book, and found that book problematic, too. (Later, once I'd begun writing and thinking more about what I read and how it was put together.) I agree with JeanneT's analysis of Baron Harkonnen here---he was too much "I am the bad guy" to actually come across as a bad guy.
Plus I found the motivations and backgrounds somewhat strange. (Why should Clan Atreides go to Arrakis in the first place? Why take the Bene Gesserit and their plans seriously at all? And why are there no friggin' computers?)
(Don't count on it being a tough market for Frank Herbert just today---he had a great deal of trouble selling Dune way back then, with its first hardcover editon put out by a company best known for its auto manuals.)
Mr. Norwall, as to the questions you've posed, they're addressed in the broad continuum of the Dune franchise. I've read all the novels. They all have weaknesses, for lack of a better term. Flawless stories are few and far between. However, I list a few flawless ones on my stories-to-emulate list.
quote:
But I've got to say that Saruman was a divine creature in human form, who came to believe he was carrying out the will of God (or that of Eru Iluvatar, Tolkien's equivalent in his subcreation). Saruman believed he knew the best way to accomplish this, and this pride led him into evil ways. A "fallen angel," if you will.
Yep...exactly like Sauron. Including the fact that both were originally Maia of Aule (hence they both have a penchant for machines, construction etc).
Saruman started with the idea he was doing Eru's will, but (just like Morgoth and Sauron before him) he was eventually overcome with desire for personal power and dominion of others.
I liked Dune, but mostly on a conceptual level. I found most of the characters rather hard to identify with...their weren't really any "good guys", they were all pretty messed up. I also rather objected to the aspect of the Baron where it did seem like gay=bad guy.
quote:
Baron Harkonnen is not a homosexual. His sexual gender preferences are ambivalent at best, beyond his sado-masochistic, pedophiliac proclivities.
Well I havent read them all, but from what my Dad told me it was made very clear that he only actually likes boys and young men, but has basically raped women on occasion for other reasons, but not out of any attraction or preference.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited June 22, 2008).]
quote:
JeanneT...I'm suggesting the tone and content of your comments, and your misspelling of "Gandalf," suggests you do dislike Lord of the Rings.
You can think it suggests that all you like. Apparently you're of the opinion that one would only critique something one dislikes, which isn't the case in the least. But go on thinking that. *shrug*
Merlion, the debate over the protagonists of LotR is an interesting one but is a bit off the topic so I'll leave it alone. It's a subject I've become interested in over the past few years in how it shows Tolkien's world view.
Edit: The gender preference of the Baron for males seemed to be pretty strongly expressed as far as I could tell. I have no difficulty saying that I dislike the book. I don't discuss the series because I didn't punish myself beyond the first novel. I'm willing to believe there is more there than I could see--but I honestly couldn't see it.
extrinsic, I don't think there is anything such as a totally flawless story. There are some that are close. I think that some of Joyce's short stories come very close to being flawless, for example.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 22, 2008).]
*****
I thought Herbert was capable of more subtle work than Baron Harkonnen in Dune. I recall a book of his, Soul Catcher, that handled character much better. (I skimmed it shallowly way back when...I remember the setup, but I remember the description of the book in the biography of Herbert much better, enough to make it worth another, better look---if a copy ever turned up in my sight.)
*****
I was thinking of exploring The Brothers Karamazov again---comments on a couple of the characters in it in a book about Western Civilization piqued my interest. I read it in high school, for high school---but next to nothing remains of it in my mind. I may be mature enough to handle it now. At least I'm sure I can turn up a copy at just about any bookstore I go into.
I thought about Zimbabwe's Mugabe, in the news at the moment because of his profound misundertanding of how democracy works. He's an obscene, real exemplar of Bond's fictional antagonists, happy to use a private army, violence and torture to act on the absurd delusion that he alone knows what's good for his country and its people--even if it kills them.
Here's an excerpt from 'Dinner with Mugabe', by Heidi Holland, which seems to shed some light on his motivation. (My only question is, how'd she get the interview?)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/young-mugabe-the-making-of-a-despot-852789.html
Hope this helps,
Pat
quote:
On the notion of evil...some people are designated as "evil" because other people call them "evil." In the abovementioned Lord of the Rings, Dune, and Zimbabwe, not Sauron or Saruman, nor Baron Harkonnen, nor Mugabe, refer to themselves as "evil."
But that doesnt change the fact that they are. It also doesnt change the fact that in the case of Sauron and Baron Harkonen at least (not familiar with the other guy), they know they are whether they refer to themselves as such or not. They are concious and aware and know very well that the things they do are wrong, but they do them anyway, because they want to do them.
But its about intent. Sauron INTENDS to dominate and opress other beings, and not for their own good...simply because its what he wants.
None of those characters would want anyone to do to them the things they do to others. But they dont care.
If Sauron were able to exterminate all opposition, who would be left to argue that he wasn't entitled to do so? And, if he's entitled to do as he does, how can it be called evil?
If someone or thing (in the grand sci fi/fantasy) tradition is taking an action that is "evil" from a societal stand point, it might not be "evil" from thiers. Pol Pot and a host of other dictators who engaged in ethic cleansing probably didn't view themselves as "evil".
To put it in a Sci Fi context, in the new Battlestar Galactica, just before the Cylons wipe out the colonies, the 6 snaps the neck of a baby. I think most of us would agree that the actions were "evil," but the Cylons don't see it that way. The Cylons believe they are following God's will. For them its a holy crusade. They won't consider themselves evil regardless of what the surviving humans think.
For me at least, a villian that is fleshed out, that has reasons for doing the "evil" things s/he does is much more compelling to me than one who's painted in broad and thin strokes as "evil."
If you look at Good Omens the demon in that book isn't
really "evil" and is trying to stop the end of the world for reasons of his own. It makes for an interesting character and a great story.
[This message has been edited by kings_falcon (edited June 26, 2008).]
As for Hitler, and others like him, there's a book you might want to try to read: HITLER'S WILLING EXECUTIONERS. It talks about how the "ethnic cleansing" done at first involved taking people outside their towns and shooting them point blank (so their bodies fell into the pits they'd been forced to dig).
This got to be so psychologically hard on the "police" who were doing the shooting, that the leaders had to come up with a less "personal" way to kill lots of people, so they developed the gas chambers. With those, the executioners could herd people in, shut the doors, turn on the gas, and when they opened the doors, all they had to deal with were piles of skin and bone--much easier to objectify.
For the record, I don't believe that evil is situational or based on point of view. I believe evil is evil, and that people can deliberately choose evil. But I don't see the point of arguing about it, because it's something people have already made up their minds about one way or another.
For those of you who don't want to follow the link, here's the definition:
quote:
A major character whose values or behavior conflict with those of the protagonist, leading to a change in the protagonist. In certain stories, the antagonist is not a character per se, but is rather a force: the elements, society, etc.
So, anyone want to talk about "antagonist" according to this definition, and let "evil" alone?
quote:
So, anyone want to talk about "antagonist" according to this definition, and let "evil" alone?
In the Lexicon List thread I suggested Algidras Budrys' "The Stoker to the Stars" as a story for exploring the lexicon's definitions through examples. The reason why I suggested that story over others is because I don't think it's the standard default conflict resolution plot, or as it's traditionally known, the Aristotlean drama.
Stoker is the story that set me on my quest to understand antagonism/antagonist. It has the conventions of conflict resolution and antagonism-protagonism, but I think it's a revelation plot with a sublime reversal into a trick ending plot, although it's a different kind of trick ending than all the others I've read. Effective, I didn't feel cheated by the ending. It's also a crossover between fiction and creative nonfiction conventions, notably memoir and biography.
What struck me most in Stoker is how antagonism moves the story forward but isn't central to the plot.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited June 26, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 26, 2008).]
Stoker has a leisurely pace, which is an age-related reading orientation. It's a product of a time when the sense of awe and wonder were more of a priority in science fiction than action and adventure. I think if it were workshopped today it would trigger all sorts of constructive comments. One of the main reasons why I nominated it is for all that and because it's representative of many of the conventions, techniques, and a few subjective foibles I listed in the lexicon. If anyone has another example I'm open. I just can't come up with another short, universally accessible story that defies contemporary conventions and expectations so effectively.
Thanks, Kathleen, for doing what I was going to do - which is to again ask the antagonist/forces of antagonism question. One sub-question I have is how much characterization of the antagonist (or forces) is needed? How vague can this be left? Is this one of those "story keys" that I need to unlock the secrets to excellent stories? That an excellent story will have a well-characterized antagonist (or a well-understood force of antagonism as in the case of weather/acts of nature kinds of things)? Think that's the case?
Friedman lists fourteen distinct plot types and qualifies the nature of the protagonist and the countering forces of antagonism. Of course, like anything else with writing, they might be too simplistic or too complex in diverse estimations. Some plot types might ask for detailed characterization of the antagonist; others, vague and uncertain antagonism. Some internal, some external, some blended. Some in one recognizable force or individual, others a multitude of individuals and forces, though my preference as a reader and a writer is to have all the antagonisms correlate.
It becomes real tricky to write when the antagonist is something intangible - i.e. an internal struggle of some type.
The Old Man and the Sea is a great example. The Sea provided a tangible antagonist and was a foil for the internal struggles.
If you can't tell who or what the antagonist is, the story's in trouble.
For instance, the protagonist of the entire Star Wars saga is arguably Anakin Skywalker. The saga begins with his discovery by the Jedi, and it ends with his death. The entire Star Wars universe (in movie form) revolves around him. When we first meet him, he is evil, and his antagonist is Luke Skywalker. I think
that if a viewer were introduced to the movies in order, there would be a moral confusion when Darth Vader (who would be remembered as the annoying little kid from Episode 1) is shown for the evil that he becomes, and relief when he is redeemed at the end.
The real trick is to make the reader root for the "bad guy" protagonist, even though he would prefer that, were this real life, the antagonist would prevail.
Tom
[This message has been edited by tommose (edited June 27, 2008).]
quote:
One sub-question I have is how much characterization of the antagonist (or forces) is needed?
The answer of course is, it depends.
I think it depends on the nature of the story you want to write.
Thrillers are basically puzzles. Who dunnit? Will Bond save the world? They're simple metaphors for our daily struggles. We can identify with the good guys and enjoy winning, revenge even. Since we're all too familiar with the bads and evils of the world, our everyday antagonists, they don't need much characterisation and cliche works--as long as it's got a twist of some kind to make it appear new. That's why Bond's antagonists always have a weird attribute or character defect.
I thought DVC was basically a thriller, but with a historical slant. I found the characterisation of the bad priest (the one with the leather spiky strap who kept bumping people off) through the flashback to how the Cardinal found him and looked after him annoying, because it was clearly trying to set him up as the bad guy. I skip-read a lot of it. I didn't care what had made him the way he was, because it didn't matter to the story, which was, would they discover the secret before he killed them?
The movie "Twister" is a good example of the main antagonist being the weather. It characterises tornadoes with flashbacks and visits with smaller tornadoes, before we meet the big one, so we have some knowledge (I think I learned something about them from the movie) of what to expect and how terrifyingly beautiful they can be. That helps us understand the fearless fascination of the Helen Hunt character and her motivation to win understanding of them.
"Carter Beats the Devil" by Glen David Gold is an excellent example, I think, of a story that characterises both pro- and an-tagonist. From the blurb (no spoilers, if you haven't read it, recommended), "At the birth of the jazz age in San Francisco, Carter walks onto the stage for the most daring performance of his life. Two hours later, President Harding is dead. So begins a mystery, a love story, and a fight against loneliness, set during a period of enormous change."
Gold explores the characters and motivations of both his protagonist and antagonist in ways that are relevant to a story rich in twists and turns of plot, and which give us an affectionate portrait of San Franciso in an age of vaudeville, trams, jazz--and illusionists. Even Houdini gets a bit part. Total magic. Not only a masterful portrayal of character and milieu, but the plot itself is dazzling. I think Gold wanted to do more than a thriller, he's interested in the world of theatrical illusion and what it was like to live in San Francisco at the birth of the jazz age.
Hope this helps,
Pat
[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited June 27, 2008).]
The principle of antagonism: A protagonist and his story can only be as intellectually fascinating and emotionally compelling as the forces of antagonism make them.
quote:
the protagonist of the entire Star Wars saga is arguably Anakin Skywalker
I agree with that interpretation. Anakin is the overarching protagonist of the saga. He continues as a co-protagonist in episodes IV, V, and VI, but he's also a reciprocal antagonist of Luke who is the primary protagonist in the those episodes.
My sense of the force of antagonism for the entire saga is that it's ambition. From Jar Jar Binks to Palpatine, every major characters' ambition sets them in opposition to each other. Ben Kenobi's training of Luke forces him to greater efforts, even Ben's death forces Luke to greater efforts.