Hatrack River Writers Workshop   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Open Discussions About Writing » Characterizing the antagonist/forces of antagonism? (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Characterizing the antagonist/forces of antagonism?
KayTi
Member
Member # 5137

 - posted      Profile for KayTi           Edit/Delete Post 
Need some thoughts on how to characterize the antagonist in a story. I want to avoid the James Bond cliche of single-minded antagonists. In fact, in a particular story I'm working on the forces of antagonism might just be people with goals that are different than the MCs, not people who are intentionally trying to subvert him but rather the pursuit of their goals ends up subverting the MC in his pursuit of his goal. Does that make sense?

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.


Posts: 1911 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant John
Member
Member # 5993

 - posted      Profile for Grant John   Email Grant John         Edit/Delete Post 
I like to have my bad guys corrupted by power. They have too much power and want more so they become bad guys. However I always keep the power corrupting theme, so as my goodies become more powerful in order to win, they too become corrupt and make bad decisions, however the fact they are willing to say no to certain power saves them from becoming what they were fighting against. The margin of difference between my goodies and baddies corruption varies in different stories.

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.


Posts: 181 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
I have a WIP that has evolved slowly over the last 20 years. When I was 11 and first came up with it, there were good guys and bad guys, but as I got older that didn't work as well for me. I wanted to know why the bad guys did what they did and the more I thought about it, the more I realized they weren't really bad -- just different. So now I have grown the story into a trilogy that has POV chapters from both sides of the major conflict and I make no attempt to judge, except through the perceptions of the characters. In some chapters, party A is the protagonist and party B is the antagonist. In other chapters, it's the other way around.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
debhoag
Member
Member # 5493

 - posted      Profile for debhoag   Email debhoag         Edit/Delete Post 
give us a sample character there, love, so we can play with it for you. or the act you want the antagonist to accomplish.
Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KayTi
Member
Member # 5137

 - posted      Profile for KayTi           Edit/Delete Post 
Oh no you don't, deb. No sneaking out of the question by throwing it back to me. How do *you* characterize antagonists or the forces of antagonism in your stories, missy?
Posts: 1911 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JamieFord
Member
Member # 3112

 - posted      Profile for JamieFord   Email JamieFord         Edit/Delete Post 
I think the most dynamic antagonists tend to think they're the ones wearing the white hat. They don't see themselves as evil, despite their actions, and that's a lovely tragic flaw to possess. Pol Pot, for example, killed a million+ people, but thought he was doing his country a favor in the long run.
Posts: 603 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
extrinsic
Member
Member # 8019

 - posted      Profile for extrinsic   Email extrinsic         Edit/Delete Post 
My previous stories have been low in antagonism. I suspect that's been why they've experienced rejection. My current one is not.

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.


Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JeanneT
Member
Member # 5709

 - posted      Profile for JeanneT   Email JeanneT         Edit/Delete Post 
Like Jamie I like to make my antagonist someone who thinks he's wearing a white hate whatever he's doing. He's taking over the country and killing anyone who resists? Obviously, it's for the people's own good. His plan will make the country run better and be a better, safer place to live. *nod nod*
Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kathleen Dalton Woodbury
Administrator
Member # 59

 - posted      Profile for Kathleen Dalton Woodbury   Email Kathleen Dalton Woodbury         Edit/Delete Post 
In my opinion, the really gripping stories are the ones where the people in opposition to each other are both good guys and their goals are good, just at cross purposes.

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).


Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
marchpane
Member
Member # 8021

 - posted      Profile for marchpane   Email marchpane         Edit/Delete Post 
I have real problems with the concept of 'good guys' against 'bad guys'. There needs to be a compelling reason to explain the motivations behind a certain character's antagonism of another - as others have said, I prefer antagonism by conflict of interests to the single-minded 'I will personally hunt you down until the day when I can gleefully disembowel you with a fishknife' approach.

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.


Posts: 91 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Unwritten
Member
Member # 7960

 - posted      Profile for Unwritten   Email Unwritten         Edit/Delete Post 
I have struggled with this issue too. I wrote my whole first novel, thinking I had a villain, and in the end, he informed me that he was really just an arrogant man who had fallen in with the wrong crowd. I'm excited to write the second book so that I can find out who that crowd is, and what havoc they are going to wreak--cause I honestly don't know, although a hazy image MIGHT be forming.
In some ways, I have felt like I was cheating by not having a more villainous villain, but this thread is making me feel better about it.

Posts: 938 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
J
Member
Member # 2197

 - posted      Profile for J   Email J         Edit/Delete Post 
Some great comments. One thing I've tried that's helped me is to write two of what I call "perspective outlines"--they're plot outlines, but focused on the POV of a character, on the information available to that character at a given point in the plot, the character's goals, and understanding of why things happen the way they happen.

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.


Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyraxis
Member
Member # 7990

 - posted      Profile for Pyraxis   Email Pyraxis         Edit/Delete Post 
I have a hard time writing antagonists. I keep fleshing them out and then developing sympathy for their point of view. Sure, they still do heinous things, but I can see the cultural forces that led them to believe such things were acceptable, or they have a point and such things work.

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....


Posts: 188 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kings_falcon
Member
Member # 3261

 - posted      Profile for kings_falcon   Email kings_falcon         Edit/Delete Post 
I try to make them human. Mercedes Lackey once said "Even evil magicians get up in the middle of the night for milk and cookies" or something reasonably close to that.

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.


Posts: 1210 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
debhoag
Member
Member # 5493

 - posted      Profile for debhoag   Email debhoag         Edit/Delete Post 
I've been thinking about this one. The kids put together a yard work crew yesterday, and then got in a huge argument last night because they made $100, and couldn't figure out how to split it up or whether to save/buy pizza/or invest in some other tools they needed. We ended up spending most of the night soothing ruffled feathers and talking about business plans.

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.


Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wolfe_boy
Member
Member # 5456

 - posted      Profile for Wolfe_boy   Email Wolfe_boy         Edit/Delete Post 
In my experience, the key to a sympathetic antagonist is one where we are made aware of his motivations, whatever they might be beyond the scope of the protagonist. Being aware of these motivations makes the antagonist a living breathing person, rather than just a malevolent force of evil.

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


Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kimberly
Member
Member # 8034

 - posted      Profile for Kimberly   Email Kimberly         Edit/Delete Post 
This is a fun website, it's funny, has some good tips in it, and generally points out what not to do when making villains, which I always find more useful than what to do.

http://evil-guide.tripod.com/


Posts: 13 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
marchpane
Member
Member # 8021

 - posted      Profile for marchpane   Email marchpane         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Martin didn't make everyone "evil," IMHO, he just made everyone with competing goals and willing to do "evil" things to achieve them.

Well, no, not 'evil' as such - bad choice of word given that I'm not even sure the concept exists - but as you say, they were willing to do 'evil' things. I guess what I was trying to say was that he successfully removed the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' characters, instead having a load of conflicting characters who are all out to bring each other down.

quote:
Mercedes Lackey once said "Even evil magicians get up in the middle of the night for milk and cookies"

I like that image...

Posts: 91 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JeanneT
Member
Member # 5709

 - posted      Profile for JeanneT   Email JeanneT         Edit/Delete Post 
No, no. Martin doesn't make everyone evil. The Starks are not evil. Although even the Starks have their bad days.

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).]


Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kathleen Dalton Woodbury
Administrator
Member # 59

 - posted      Profile for Kathleen Dalton Woodbury   Email Kathleen Dalton Woodbury         Edit/Delete Post 
Thomas Harris wrote Hannibal Rising.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
InarticulateBabbler
Member
Member # 4849

 - posted      Profile for InarticulateBabbler   Email InarticulateBabbler         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Thomas Harris wrote Hannibal Rising.

He wrote Imperium, too.


Posts: 3687 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
annepin
Member
Member # 5952

 - posted      Profile for annepin   Email annepin         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
He wrote Imperium, too.

Actually, that was Robert Harris.

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).]


Posts: 2185 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
extrinsic
Member
Member # 8019

 - posted      Profile for extrinsic   Email extrinsic         Edit/Delete Post 
Conflicts are frequently driven by villains as nemeses rather than antagonists. In the Bond franchise, 007's opposition is mostly from nemeses. I suppose there's antagonism, but 007 isn't changed by it and doesn't have anything to accommodate; therefore, in order to have a satisfying resolution, Ian Fleming resorts to love scenes for endings.

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).]


Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Merlion-Emrys
Member
Member # 7912

 - posted      Profile for Merlion-Emrys   Email Merlion-Emrys         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm....I dont personally see anything wrong with simple good olf fashioned evil bad guys. At least now and then. Because yes, unpleasant as it is, there are people even in real life who are simply evil...they will do whatever to whoever to get what they want. And even some who simply ENJOY harming others.


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


Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
debhoag
Member
Member # 5493

 - posted      Profile for debhoag   Email debhoag         Edit/Delete Post 
Scott Peck wrote and interesting book called "People of the Lie". He's a psychiatrist, and better known for "the Road Less Traveled", but in People, he attempts to define evil. And while this is a vast oversimplifications of what he writes, the basic idea is that evil exists in people who are willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of others for their own.
Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Merlion-Emrys
Member
Member # 7912

 - posted      Profile for Merlion-Emrys   Email Merlion-Emrys         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah...thats pretty much what it is...that, taken to unreasonble extemes. I mean we all want what we want...and we all or most deserve what we want to an extent. But most of us want other people to have what they want too.

Or, like I said, those relatively rare people who truly enjoy hurting other people directly...the Ted Bundies etc


Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JeanneT
Member
Member # 5709

 - posted      Profile for JeanneT   Email JeanneT         Edit/Delete Post 
Sure, I agree that evil exists. But do evil people always think that they are evil? Didn't Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot (men I consider evil) think that they were doing people a favor by their actions--that killing millions was "for the public good?"

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.


Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Merlion-Emrys
Member
Member # 7912

 - posted      Profile for Merlion-Emrys   Email Merlion-Emrys         Edit/Delete Post 
I dont know that most of those men really believed what they were doing was right. Expedient, maybe...right not so much. I think those I'd consider truly bad/evil know what they are doing, and do it anyway. Thats why they are evil, not ambigious or misguided.
Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RobertB
Member
Member # 6722

 - posted      Profile for RobertB   Email RobertB         Edit/Delete Post 
I've known two bad guys who I found hard not to think of as 'evil'; one was a mental health client with a severe personality disorder who spent his life terrorising vulnerable people and extorting money or sex from them, the other was a Sierra Leonean soldier-cum-politician-cum-warlord called Solomon 'SAJ' Musa (you'll find numerous references out there if you google "SAJ Musa") who cared about nothing but stealing the country's diamond wealth, and never mind who he had to kill along the way. He was never diagnosed with anything that I know of, but his personality was very similar to the first guy's. Both were pretty scary to know, especially Musa. He quarreled violently with us, and my wife, who's Sierra Leonean, was worried that he might target her family during the illegal regime. He was that sort of person.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SchamMan89
Member
Member # 5562

 - posted      Profile for SchamMan89   Email SchamMan89         Edit/Delete Post 
There's a rule in acting. If you consider the character you playing as evil, there's a good chance that you will do a poor performance. Yes, the character may appear evil. There's a chance that the character really IS evil. However, performing the part of Iago in Shakespeare's Othello as an evil man will inevitably fall on its face.

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.


Posts: 105 | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Merlion-Emrys
Member
Member # 7912

 - posted      Profile for Merlion-Emrys   Email Merlion-Emrys         Edit/Delete Post 
I dont necessarily object to cliches. Cliches became cliches for a reason. Usually because they are true things, and/or resonate with the human mind.


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.


Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
I've generally followed the rule of "no man is evil in his own mind" in creating villains---or at least in creating those characters who oppose the hero.

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.)


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
J
Member
Member # 2197

 - posted      Profile for J   Email J         Edit/Delete Post 
"Nothing is born evil"

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.


Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Merlion-Emrys
Member
Member # 7912

 - posted      Profile for Merlion-Emrys   Email Merlion-Emrys         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry...no. evil is a choice and babies dont make choices. Even Demons were once Angels.

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.



Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JeanneT
Member
Member # 5709

 - posted      Profile for JeanneT   Email JeanneT         Edit/Delete Post 
For an interesting take on this subject, I recommend The Sundering, a duology by Jacqueline Carey (quite different from her Kushiel series). It is basically a retelling of LotR from Sauron's PoV in which they all had a perfectly good reason for what they did.
Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Merlion-Emrys
Member
Member # 7912

 - posted      Profile for Merlion-Emrys   Email Merlion-Emrys         Edit/Delete Post 
Thats pretty bizzare. Given that Sauron and especially Morgoth before him are Tolkien's versions of the Miltonian Satan...and they did what they did solely out of abject selfishness.


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.


Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JeanneT
Member
Member # 5709

 - posted      Profile for JeanneT   Email JeanneT         Edit/Delete Post 
Try reading it.

You know Satan may have his own point of view too.


Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Merlion-Emrys
Member
Member # 7912

 - posted      Profile for Merlion-Emrys   Email Merlion-Emrys         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah I know. I'm just saying...in Tolkien's work we get the point of view of both Dark Lords...and it is that they want everything that is entirely for themselves, and if they cant have that, they'll spoil it for everyone else.


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.


Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JeanneT
Member
Member # 5709

 - posted      Profile for JeanneT   Email JeanneT         Edit/Delete Post 
To the best of my memory, in LotR there is never a scene from Sauron's PoV. History is written by the winners.
Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Merlion-Emrys
Member
Member # 7912

 - posted      Profile for Merlion-Emrys   Email Merlion-Emrys         Edit/Delete Post 
In LOTR there isnt...although the things I mention are still made clear...but in the Silmarillion the origins and nature of Sauron and Morgoth are covered
Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JeanneT
Member
Member # 5709

 - posted      Profile for JeanneT   Email JeanneT         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, there are more ways that Tolkien's to look at the world. In fact, he meant Sauron to be pure evil. Other people have other world views.
Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Merlion-Emrys
Member
Member # 7912

 - posted      Profile for Merlion-Emrys   Email Merlion-Emrys         Edit/Delete Post 
Pure evil by choice...thats the part thats important to me. A villain that is simply evil just because isnt much of one, unless its a mindless monster kind of thing.


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..


Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JeanneT
Member
Member # 5709

 - posted      Profile for JeanneT   Email JeanneT         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm afraid I still am fascinated with the view that evilness may be in the eye of the beholder. Sure Sauron wanted to rule the world. But so did his enemies when you think of it.
Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Merlion-Emrys
Member
Member # 7912

 - posted      Profile for Merlion-Emrys   Email Merlion-Emrys         Edit/Delete Post 
Not really. The Hobbits wanted to be left alone. Aragorn wanted to claim his kingship, yes, but it was his by right of how things worked then and there...and he mostly wanted it because it was a condition of his being able to be with Arwen. And Gandalf was there specifically to try and help insure the freedom of the races of Middle Earth.


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.


Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant John
Member
Member # 5993

 - posted      Profile for Grant John   Email Grant John         Edit/Delete Post 
Your discussion on eye of the beholder intrigued me for two reasons.

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.


Posts: 181 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, in "Lord of the Rings," the book, at least, Sauron is less a character than a force the protagonists throw themselves against. There's only one short scene where he speaks, and that's a flashback so he's not actually on stage with the other characters.

(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.)


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jdt
Member
Member # 3889

 - posted      Profile for jdt   Email jdt         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Interesting studies in character regardless of your beliefs.


Posts: 57 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
InarticulateBabbler
Member
Member # 4849

 - posted      Profile for InarticulateBabbler   Email InarticulateBabbler         Edit/Delete Post 
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.


Posts: 3687 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JeanneT
Member
Member # 5709

 - posted      Profile for JeanneT   Email JeanneT         Edit/Delete Post 
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).]


Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Merlion-Emrys
Member
Member # 7912

 - posted      Profile for Merlion-Emrys   Email Merlion-Emrys         Edit/Delete Post 
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.



Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2