posted
Someone recently told me that new writers today are afraid to make their villians evil enough. What do you think? What makes a good villian? I'd never even thought about it, being the moron I am--I was like, "Oh, I probably should have some sort of antagonist in my stuff, huh?" Yeah, well, the villian, in whatever form he takes, drives the story. So how should I go about making one?
Posts: 814 | Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted
What seems to work for me is to make them selfless. In other words, they are not evil because they hope to gain. Nor are they misguided. They are evil for its own sake, and if their path leads to damnation, so be it, for they are serving evil. As an example, imagine that your villain has come to life, and is about to murder a small innocent child.
Self interest
"Why are you going to do this? It is evil." "I will be paid $20 for it." "I'll pay you $30 to let him live." "OK."
Misguided
"Why are you going to do this? It is evil." "The child is actually an evil alien that will kill us all if I don't kill him." "No he's not. The child has already sent the alien away." "Oh, sorry. Let's all be friends."
True Evil
"Why are you going to do this? It is evil." "Because it is an act of evil." "Uhh... why is that good?" "It isn't, it's evil." (Child dies.) "Murderer, I shall slay you where you stand!" (He does.) "I die in the service of evil! May my soul be damned for all eternity to wither in the blackest pit of hell!"
posted
You know something? Reading this post make an alert go off in my head, and I realized something...
I have never thought about the role of villians in my story, and I have never written a story with a villian in it.
That's right, none of my protagonists ever have really a human antigonist to content with, certainly not at the level of villian. MY character's main enemies tend to be either themselves or greater forces at work (such as a virus, or a nuclear holocaust)
I think this is because I don't really believe in villians. I believe there are bad people, who are only interested in themselves, but I tend to think of an antagonist in a story as simply a person who wants something diffrent from what the hero wants...
posted
For what it's worth, the villains I like the most are truly twisted souls. People who don't necessarily serve evil, but are twisted into psychopaths. I'm not into the whole selfish villain who's just power hungry, or even the villain who simply wants revenge on the entire human race.
A popular villain who epitomizes this "twisted soul" motif is Callisto from Xena. (no jokes!) Here, you have a girl (12 yrs old) who watches her entire family and village be slaughtered by a vicious demon from hell (Xena). The girl grows up, never grieving, never learning how to trust... devotes her entire life to learning how to destroy the b**** that killed her family. Only to discover in the process that she's killed her own soul. There is no peace, no redemption. Just bitter emptiness and an aching quest to fill that void with more violence. She's become the very thing she set out to destroy. It's incredible to watch. Some part of you feels for the girl that was, but the rest of you is shocked by what the woman has done.
posted
Thing is, when you try to catagorize what makes a "villain" compares to what makes a "hero", you can open a big can of confusion. For instance, is Hannibal a villain or a hero? It's all a matter of perspective involving a culture belief system. Back to the 1st reply to the original post; if the culture you are depicting is evil, would the saving of the child not make the one saving it the villain?
So here I propose this: A villain is an intelligence creating a conflict whereas the hero/main character is the intelligence resolving the conflict.
Food for thought.
Will.
[This message has been edited by WillC (edited March 02, 2001).]
posted
Similar to Ubi (sorry, TUML, I couldn't resist that just one time), I haven't given much thought to a major villian in my recent stories. The two stories I'm working on now don't have a major antagonist, one character working against the protagonist to thwart his every move (or whatever). The tension I create with my protagonists is more from greater forces (twists of fate, for example) at which I explore the internal or external conflicts that arise from it, and how my "hero" deals with them; or through societal forces that get thrown at my hero, that he must deal with at various stages of his journey. I guess the antagonist would be the world around him, the unscrupulous owner of the pool hall, the gangs that travel around the world wreaking havoc, the drug dealers at the techno-rave, the corrupt cops. But as for one arch-villian, lately I haven't had one. And I don't think it's necessary.
Like TUML, I have to think more on this. The previous posts have stirred some thoughts I haven't quite pinned down...something to do with the "villian" you choose being based on what it is you're exploring...a commentary on society (gangs, et al), on a character type (the psychopath), on a particular situation (nuclear holocaust). Hmmmm.... All of which, of course, will be told through how your hero deals with each situation.
I'm glad I stumbled onto this site. <grin>
[This message has been edited by JP Carney (edited March 02, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by JP Carney (edited March 02, 2001).]
posted
WillC- Hannibal is an interesting choice for debate, isn't he? Certainly in Silence of the Lambs, I think we would all agree that he's a villain. But in the sequel, Hannibal, when you read the book... You discover that as villainous as he might be, there's a touch of humanity there. He's really like that Twisted Soul I described who suffered beyond the ability to bear. I won't ruin it for anyone who hasn't read the book, but you discover there is method and rationale behind the villain. Like you said, it's a matter of perspective. AND I think that the really good villain, the one that is riveting and memorable, will be one that is complex in this way. Cookie cutter villains are boring.
Posts: 306 | Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted
I remember being told, or reading somewhere, that the role of an antagonist is vital and that having your hero stuggle against fate or the elements or the external forces of the world are not even: you need a person for him/her to content with.
But then I remember reading that many times the forces characters face can be more subtle like for example.. a hurricane, a holocaust, being stranded somewhere.... And i think that's correct.. Think of the Illiad, Romeo and Juliet, or more recently (but prehaps not as good) Cast Away.... All these stories were execellent, but can you name the evil villian in it?
I'm no where near coming to a conclusion on this.. I know that my novel I'm working on will definately have at least two major antagonist working against my main character, and maybe one of them might actually rise to the level of villian, but then again, maybe not.... i can't get away from the idea that a villian is nothing more than a person who wants a different outcome from that of the protagonist, and so they must content with each other for their desired outcomes...
posted
There is no sense into forcing a (personified) villian into a story, unless of course your story is lacking something. If indeed it is, then put in the villian; but please, make him seem realistic.
There have been way too many bad guys who act in ways that might seem rediculous, only because there were things that had not been properly explained. Since Hannibal is a subject in here, I'll use him. He was excellent in the first movie when he figured his way out of things. He was morbid and interesting. In the second movie, the great mind seemed replaced by mysticism (disappearing acts) which took away from his original grandeur.
I'm always disappointed with villians whose thoughts I can't see at least once in some point of the story because I can't really appreciate his magnificence. I especially enjoy parts where the wonderful, intelligent hero believes a certain way of the villian, but is corrected by the villian later on as to his aims. Not by way of the villian revealing his evil plot to the hero (who isn't sick of that), but by the villian's actions.
Anyway, if you need a villian, make sure you work on him/her deeply because he/she will most likely become the most important part of the story.
posted
The villan(s) in my novel just sort of occured naturally, and I didn't consiously think about them. Now after reading this series of posts, I have considered what I actually did in creating/selecting them, and found that I subconsiously used a method that seems to have worked, at least according to the critics in my group. In my story the villans are the government and the individuals that make it up, who have been corrupted absolutely - by having absolute power.
Real life examples/models of power lusting appear in the news almost every day, and with a few deft cosmetic changes, can give you a very realistic bad guy/gal.
posted
But, let's keep in mind that it doesn't always have to be about power. Ultimately, the villain wants-- perhaps desperately craves/needs-- something in direct opposition to what the hero wants. But as a question of perspective, it doesn't have to be power and it doesn't have to be evil per se. The villain can be humanized... still the bad guy not necessarily for what he wants, but for how he goes about it. Good example from a bad movie: Snow White with Sigourney Weaver. The evil witch wasn't always an evil witch... she miscarried, and loss the child she desperately wanted indirectly because of what Snow WHite did. SHe wanted her baby back. The loss, the grief, and the unbearable need to have her baby back drove her over the edge to commit evil. It drove her insane. Even Hannibal in the last book exemplifies this (gosh, it's hard to talk about it not being sure you haven't read the book, because it's a spoiler!). After thinking about it, I'm actually torn between which villain I like more: the one whose goal may not be evil, but whose methods certainly are... and the completely twisted soul, psychopath who would just as soon eat your liver than to look at you. (Guess that's more than you need to know about my psyche!)
Posts: 306 | Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted
Speaking of wonderful villians, Has anyone played the "Legacy of Kain" games for the Playstation, "Blood Omen" and "Soul Reaver?"
To me, these to games are the hallmark of excellent story telling and great dialog, and Kain has to be the greatest villian/antihero I've ever come across.
If you have, you have to agree with me that Kain take the role of villian to a whole another level. It's hard to describe if you haven't play it, but i recommend it just on story alone...
"Conscience? You speak to me of conscience? You know nothing of the doubt and remorse I have borne since Mortanieous first turned me from the light!" -Kain to Raziel, upon Raziel's return to Nosgoth
posted
"My kingdom was wiped away like excrement from a boot." -Raziel
I did love the dialogue from that game. The only thing that bothered me about Soul Reaver was the disappointing ending. That had to have been the worst I have ever seen in any game I have played.
posted
Yeah, the cliffhanger ending made me pull my hair out. But it makes sense, because R. still had no clue as to what K.'s true motives in all of the unfolding plot is. Well, the final chapter in the trilogy is going to be out sometime this year I think, on PS2.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted
I once created a hierarchy of antagonists in which I placed at the top the good guy who is pursuing an objective in direct conflict to the one the protagonist is pursuing.
This is the stuff of tragedy if the story ends with the protagonist winning and finding out that the antagonist's objective was a worthy one, too.
If the characters can find a way to help both of their causes, I think that is a valid resolution to a story as well.
Whatever you do, make the antagonist as complicated as the protagonist (not more complicated--if the protagonist isn't as complicated as the antagonist, the story won't be as satisfying. The protagonist has to be interesting and worth identifying with, too.)
Speaking of HANNIBAL, I heard they changed the ending in the movie so it isn't quite the same as in the book. I've read the book, but not seen the movie, and I'd like to know what they did. Anyone interested in emailing me and telling me what is different? I'd appreciate it.
posted
If you want an example of a great villan, you need to check out some old Spider-Man comic books that feature the Green Goblin.
I know some of you are frowning at me saying this but I think he is the best villan of all time. He is just pure evil!
Like, the goblins alter ego is Norman Osborn who is a power business man in his own right, he has no need for money or position, He already has all of those things, all the things he does to Peter Parker he does because he wants Parker to suffer. So many times he could easily kill off Peter Parker he never does, he always lets parker live so he can suffer more later on.
posted
Kathleen... You're just going to have to see the movie! I've not read the book, but my husband did. He said that the movie perfectly, and exactly followed the book all the way up to the end. The "revised" ending was equally good, and had me on the edge of my seat (in equal parts nausea and terror).
The ending was changed because Jodi Foster did not like what became of Clarice. The ending was revised, but she still chose not to reprise her role. Julianne Moore did a fabulous job as Clarice and (I think) was even better. The movie is definitely worth seeing!! (Although, fans of the book will undoubtedly wish the movie had ended as the book did.)
Now you have hit my trip wire! I firmly believe that the evil persona that we are discussing, your total Evil One, is actually something that we humans have created in our own minds - to let us ignore and overide the real source of all evil in our world!
This source is us... The banality with which we allowed the Holocoust to happen, or to ignore the killing fields of the Kimer Rouge, or gloss over the slaughter of the Tatars by Gengus Khan, or to smilingly justify the bloody execution of prisoners by the Incas is inexcuesable, except by us - to us...
So, all evil is us, and as writers we must confront this truth...
posted
I'm not sure I understand your post, Ber. Sure if you look at humanity as a whole, you will find the entire spectrum of evil (just as you will the entire spectrum of good). We as a species have done and overlooked and condoned some abhorrent things, but we've also done amazing good as well.
As writers, we explore possibilities, what-ifs. We take a piece of what we know and try to look at it differently; or take what we don't know and speculate. The characters we choose for our stories are our tools for moving the story, for conveying the exploration of life (evil and good).
We choose a villian (or simply antagonist)and give him traits we think are interesting to explore, or are great foils to our hero. We draw on what we know of society, culture, people, etc - from past, present, and future. Our villians are constructs of these traits, that we pull together in order to tell the story.
You say that as writers we must confront the truth that all evil is us. While this can lead to quite the philosophical discussion of the "source" of evil (I'll refrain from an opinion for now), taking the comment at its basic, I think we do that quite well. I think it's the very understanding that humans have evil in them (to varrying degrees) and the desire to confront it and explore it that makes some (all?) of us writers. It's probably what prompted this thread (if not overtly, then at some core level).
To talk about what makes a good villian, or to create good villians, is in no way hiding from anything. I don't think (as you attest) that we create villians to "ignore and override the real source of all evil in our world". Quite the contrary, good villians (good stories) confront evil, disect it, put it back together and explore it. It's what we do as writers.
posted
And Ber, if you re-read some of these posts that the question wasn't so much about The Source of evil, but what makes a villain interesting. In fact, I suggested that one of the most interesting villains for me is not someone whose agenda was evil, but whose methods were. Most of these posts did not look outside humanity for their Evil... most looked into the deepest, darkest, shadowy realm of the human soul.
posted
There are two types of excellent villian, in my humble opinion. The first is the one that is, in a strange way, perhaps easier to write about. The villian who has what he/she thinks is a noble motive. Hitler, for example, believed he was doing a great service to humanity by wiping out the imperfect Jews. He thought he was right, but nearly everyone paints him as a villain. The second can be more fun, but perhaps less interesting in the long-run. That villian that lives for nothing but chaos, carnage, ruining someone's life just to see how they react to so much suffering. Much like this Green Goblin of yours, Evil. I don't think villains need to have an agenda that completely opposes that of the main character. Some of the best villains have the same goal, but are shooting for it in a way that is wrong. And personally, I think that everyone has evil in them, it's just that some are better at resisting their evil impulses than others. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
quote:, if you re-read some of these posts that the question wasn't so much about The Source of evil, but what makes a villain interesting.
For me, a really great villain must have a couple of key characteristics:
1) They must be amoral in some sense. In other words, they do things you absolutely wouldn't consider under ordinary circumstances. They don't necessarily have to be evil, but they usually must be "out of bounds" in some way. Oh, and a lack of remorse helps here, too.
2) They must be generally successful. I always have a hard time believing in a villain that never succeeds at anything. A villain that actually carries out his threats once or twice is much more fearsome than one that bluffs all the time.
3) They must be intelligent. Stupid villains bore me to death. Villains that actually think things through are far more fascinating to watch.
For me, one of the greatest movie villains I've ever seen was Archibald Cunningham.
"Who?" you're saying.
Archibald Cunningham. He's the main villain in the movie Rob Roy, starring Liam Neeson in the title role and Tim Roth as the villain. Cunningham fulfills all of these characteristics in spades, and he's one of the most memorable villains I've ever seen. I really hated the guy while watching this movie, and that's a rare experience for me, having my emotions come up so viscerally like that.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
