posted
I can never figure where some people get the idea that everyone living under a monarchy "bends his knee" to the king. Nobles bend their knees to the king---the king is their liege lord and they owe him fealty. Commoners stand.
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"?)
posted
Frodo's quest is the overarching antagonism of the Lord of the Rings' story. Besides directing his minions to impose obstacles to Frodo's goal, Sauron's role in the story is both in opposition and parallel to Frodo's. They both desire to control the One Ring's destiny, Sauron to use it and Frodo to destroy it. As such, because their goals parallel, they're posed as competing nemeses rather than per se antagonists of each other's goals.
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.
posted
There is a difference in "lots of people die" and "you're a certain race so you must 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.
posted
On the contrary, it is referred to that orcs are routinely hunted down. Now they are portrayed as innately evil so that makes sense in the context of the story--but I am objecting to any race being portrayed as innately evil. (Edit: Well, not exactly objecting but pointing out that this isn't necessarily the most interesting way to write antagonsits.) It is, in my opinion, the basis of all human prejudice that any race or class, or gender is innately evil, weak, sinful, etc.
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).]
posted
This isn't a general discussion on writing anymore, it's a dissection of Tolkien's work.
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).]
posted
On another forum, I think I recall mentioning the Baron and his stereotypical bad guy characterization as one of the reasons I am not fond of Dune. 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. For that reason, I'm not sure that I agree that they wouldn't be published--but their works would no doubt come out differently. Whether better or worse would be open to debate too. *grins, munching popcorn while waiting for more argument*
Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing in Tolkien's world is innately evil. If the orcs are evil, its because they were made so. And again, their being hunted down isnt because they are of orc race, its because the orc race is a tool of Sauron, and almost always in the proccess of being use to destroy opress and pillage others.
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.
posted
I knew I'd picked a scab of yours when I mentioned Dune. So, are you telling me that Sauron is less of a "stereotypical" bad guy than Baron Harkonnen? Have you read enough to know exactly what Baron Harkonnen's ultimate motivations are? Because six books are a bit overkill to explain the motivation of a "sterotypical" antagonist.
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).]
posted
Can I cite anything? No, but I think I can have a personal theory that I can't support. I just suspect that they would be as capable of learning to meet the demands of publishers as we are. They mostly weren't dummies. (Edit: I most emphatically do NOT think they would be published as they were. That's not what I'm saying.)
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).]
posted
Just substitute "Saruman" for "Sauron" and you've still go the same effect. Saruman is much more a "character" in LOTR, but he's very much like Sauron (both were Maiar of Aule who get overinflated egos and decide to make the world what they think it should be.) And are therefore knowingly, conciously and unambigiously evil...but formerly good.
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.
posted
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.
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).]
posted
Yeah well like I said, for my part, that whole past/current thing is pretty much meaningless. A good story is a good story.
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.
posted
I don't know that was solely because he was dead, by which I mean I have some doubts he ever intended the material his son later published to see the light of day. But maybe he did. I can hardly speak for him.
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.
posted
Ohh I dont think we're really all that far apart. Me, I'm very broad. I enjoy most stories, and find great merit in them. There are just some things I see here some times that I feel a need to offer counterpoint too.
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 :-)
posted
JeanneT...I'm suggesting the tone and content of your comments, and your misspelling of "Gandalf," suggests you do dislike Lord of the Rings. Puts you on a par with the critic Edmund Wilson, who did both as well.
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.)
posted
Baron Harkonnen is not a homosexual. His sexual gender preferences are ambivalent at best, beyond his sado-masochistic, pedophiliac proclivities. He's posed not so much as an antagonist or a bad guy as a contrast to the noble Atriedes' honorable governance. He and the Harkonnen legacy are the personification of power corrupts absolutely, one of the threads of antagonism in the overarching storyline of the novel and the entire series of novels.
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.
posted
Yes, all sexual dominance oriented by sex and gender. Emotionally and physically dominate young men and boys through sadistic and masochistic sex, and influential women through rape: pretty, womanly boys and manly, powerful women. Repulsive, perverse corruption of the natural order. Again, at the root of one of the overarching antagonisms of the storyline.
[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).]
posted
Tolkien has a tendency to refer to orcs as 'it'; they're well and truly dehumanised (or de-elfified, perhaps). There are definite hints there that they were somehow warped, rather than being made 'evil' in the first place, but then Tolkien's inspiration was Christian rather than dualist. I tried doing that with the enemy in my book but it didn't feel right somehow. I have a dualistic religion with two peoples who each believe they were created to annihilate the other, but I refer to them as 'he' or 'they' and have some of the characters question the religion. Religious wars usually have other motives underlying the religious issue, so I have one character suggest that the real reason for war is the mineral wealth in the mountains.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
JeannneT...I'm providing commentary as opposed to a critique. Lord of the Rings is a book that pleased me when I first read it, pleased me more as I reread it and got into its extraordinary depth...and if I find one thing in it that displeases me, it'll be the first.
*****
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.
posted
When this thread started I thought, "But some despots are single minded, plain evil. I dont' care if it's cliche, don't care if the motivation seems shallow, I like a story that takes on evil and good wins." Okay, I'm simple-minded, but you knew that.
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?)
posted
There are such people; I once had one for a neighbour. But using them in a story is some challenge! I think I could use my neighbour once in a lifetime, and I don't want to waste him. Keep doing it and he'll become a cliche.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mugabe is a poor example of simple evil though because, as Ms. Holland's book shows, there is very little simple about him. Evil, yes. Simple, no. I still think a book with a character like that is more interesting if it shows the complexity. Did he start life out evil? There is little or no evidence of that. Nothing in his past excuses the horrors he's brought to his nation in the least. But there is a complex and even tragic story there of what turned this man into a monster.
Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
From their point of view, those that place themselves actively in their way (Frodo/Gandalf, Paul Atreides, everybody who's opposed Mugabe) could be called evil by them. So it's not a term to be thrown about lightly. Do they really know they're doing wrong?
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course they do. Now thats not to say you cant have a villain who is confused or misguided and does evil, for some greater purpose, in a well meaning way.
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.
posted
That's no answer. God also intends to dominate all creatures simply because He wants to. But He's entitled to do so, so there is no evil in it--rather, it's evil to oppose His will.
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?
posted
Things are "evil" from the point of view of the speaker. As a society we agree that certain conduct is unacceptable and some goes beyond that to "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).]
posted
Well, I asked a prison psychologist about all of this once, because I'm interested in serial killers and such. He told me that the guys who are in prison for the really awful crimes do recognize what they did as evil. But because they can't face the thought of themselves as evil people, they dissociate from what they've done--they claim some other part of themselves (the evil part) did it instead of them, or made them do it. They refuse to "own" their own evil deeds. They also don't tend to have any real justifications for why they committed such deeds--"just because" or "it felt good" or "that wasn't really me."
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.
posted
Back to the original question about antagonist--which is NOT necessarily someone who is evil--extrinsic provided a link to an interesting definition of "antagonist" in the "Lexicon List" topic.
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?
Thanks for steering us straight, Kathleen. On that note, I think the key to designing an antagonist is to have his or her need equal in intensity to the protag. Both are going to have to have the same level of stakes. It seems as if you should be able to flip the story and write it in the antag's POV, and have just as compelling a story.
Posts: 2185 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my favorite novels introduces the antagonist, the protagonist, and the conflict in the title, Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea. A person opposed by a natural force. I've heard that one interpretation of the story is it's an allegory for a writer's experiences in the publishing trade. Publishers as antagonists. They're the ones who are changing me into a better writer, the sting of rejection drives me to greater efforts to overcome the obstacles. In Old Man and the Sea the marlin is the manuscript. Santiago is the writer. Who are the sharks? What is the boat?
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).]
posted
I own that short story--have read it a number of times as one of the one's I've studied in improving my own writing. I must admit I didn't find it particularly satisfying myself as a story. It's an interesting question what or who the antagonist in it is though. I really don't think it's the aliens. I'm not sure I could tell you.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 26, 2008).]
posted
I determined the antagonist is a force internal to the stoker. Wanderlust, in my opinion, is the force of antagonism. Not evil or good, but perhaps a masculine trend, and therefore might not speak as readily to feminine preferences. By masculine and feminine I don't mean male and female roles or expectations but how gender orientation affects reading preferences.
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.
posted
Wow, I go away for a few days and you guys have a 90-some-odd post discussion about evil, tolkein, god, dune, and who knows what else in the interim.
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?
posted
As a passionate reader, and I speak most often as a reader studying writing, I think globally characterizing the forces of antagonism from stories I've read, quantifying or qualifying them is near impossible. One source I found that helps me to answer that dilemma for writing is Norman Friedman's list of story plots and their characteristics. I found them posted at http://changingminds.org/disciplines/storytelling/plots/friedman_plots/friedman_plots.htm.
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.
posted
I think the antagonist, whatever or whoever it is, must be clear and well defined. Without it, the story isn't quite right since there isn't a real sense of what the MC is up against.
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.
posted
I prefer that my protagonist(s) are flawed to the point of moral ambiguity, or even evil. Their antagonists can be those "good guys" attempting to stop him/her/them.
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
