posted
I was laying in bed last night re-watching an episode of my new favourite TV show (until Heroes comes back, or the Song of Ice and Fire series finally comes to be (I'm not even being silly, they are by all reports making a TV show of Song of Ice and Fire.)) Ok, back on track, the show was Dexter.
For those not familiar with it, Dexter is a psychopath. Whole works: no empathy, can't really understand normal people, kills people on a regular basis, etc. But here is a show about a character who is probably more evil than most modern villians, but here he is the main character and while knowing how twisted it is, I think the audience actually want him to win.
I also had this experience with The Talened Mr Ripley, where a character was killing for purely selfish means (mainly to cover up past murders), but I wanted him to get away with it.
Does anyone use a 'villian' as their MC without trying to make them 'the hero from a different point of view' (Godslayer/Wicked style)? As a reader what would you need for it to be pulled off?
posted
I don't think it would ever work for me. At any rate, it never has and I find it impossible to imagine. No, I don't think psychpathic killers should "win."
Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding is that Dexter started off as a novel, with journal-style entries. I haven't come across a copy.
Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've written a lot of anti-heroes, and "heroes on the other side of the fence," as it were.* I've seen Dexter, though, and I've experienced what you're talking about. The whole episode I was watching him methodically prepare to kill a couple, and the way it was set up made me root for him the whole way through.
However, with Dexter, he has some sympathy lined up for him. For example, he's a serial killer who only kills other serial killers. In the episode that I watched, he was killing a couple that took illegal aliens out on a fishing boat, cut them up, and used them for chum.
That's the trick, really: your character can do horribly depraved things so long as there's some kind of sympathy for them. The anti-heroes that I consistently write for are fugitives on the run, and though their original condemnation was unjust, they do kill a lot of people. But as much as they are stone-cold killers, there has to be sympathy.
-- * "Hero on the other side of the fence" - term relating to a character who, from the perspective of most people, would be a villain; but when seen from his own cultural context and perspective, his actions make sense and are sympathetic (i.e. a member of an alien race trying to destroy humanity.
My own MC right now in the whole post-apocalypse thing seems a bit crazy, but more capable than the rest. It is only deep into the book do you learn the horrible thing he did right before the world went postal. The reader then gets to decide if "before" matters to them after all they've read and know now.
I can’t recall where it seeped into my head, but a phrase many years ago always makes me think about heroes and villains. The line was something about it being more important if you were a step from hell, but facing heaven than a step from heaven facing hell. I think I prefer my “heroes” a step from hell facing heaven . . . and my villains a step from heaven facing hell.
I find Dexter unwatchable, but I appreciate the neat trick they have created with it and the moral questions it raises in the reader/watcher.
posted
The most brilliant hero on the other side of the fence or whatever you chose to call it, in my opinion, is Omar from the Wire, the most brilliant show on television. Ever. If no one's seen this t.v. show I highly recommend it.
Anyway, Omar is a predator on the drug lords. Sure, he's still a drug dealer himself, and he kills people, but he has an ethical code, somewhat twisted, but one that he keeps to no matter what. Thus, he become sympathetic, and you want him to win. You get scared for his life. He's a man with no rules except those he makes himself, and yet he's enthralling.
Hannibal Lecter falls in this category as well, I think. You like him, and by the end, I, at least, was rooting for his escape. Because you see how noble and sophisticated and intelligent he is, next to all these lumoxing prison guards.
Robert McKee has a section in his book Story devoted to this. Essentially he talks about reframing what is right. I think that's the key. If the character has his own code of ethics, and sticks to them somehow they become ethical enough for readers and viewers like me to like them.
[This message has been edited by annepin (edited July 14, 2008).]
posted
Annepin, and I would add that that code has to cost the 'hero' something. Folks forgive much if there was a personal price paid.
Posts: 47 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's the trick, really: your character can do horribly depraved things so long as there's some kind of sympathy for them.
I am not sure that sympathy is an accurate or doable thing to achieve for an evil character. It is easier to make the victims obnoxious or unsympathetic in some way. I've never watched Dexter (I think I saw previews and had no interest in the watching a serial killer) but from what Grant John wrote, his victims "deserve it". Once the victims arrive in the "deserve it" category, I don't care who finishes them off.
BTW - many times even a legitimate HERO runs afoul of society - they are often outsiders who are only accepted temporarily until they have solved the current problem / crisis.
quote:Annepin, and I would add that that code has to cost the 'hero' something. Folks forgive much if there was a personal price paid.
Interesting, Jericho. I'm trying to think about this in context with the Omar character I described. It _does_ cost him, I think. He's essentially an outcast because of it, and at some point--I don't want to give away too much here--he is wrongly accused of doing something. He's punished for it, but he remains adamant to his code of ethics, and pays the costs for it. But in a way this is just a story--a testing of the "hero".
I think there are certain commonalities to be learned here. One is that sympathy, or perhaps respect, is gained by remaining consistent to one's code, whatever that may be, and paying the cost for it, as you said.
I also think there are certain key qualities that might resonate more with the audience than others. Loyalty to one's peeps, for instance. Self sacrifice or taking on risk for an ideal. Boldness in the face of adversity. Being and underdog and facing the odds. These are hero-like qualities, and can be equally heroic even in the non-hero type.
posted
annepin, I think you could build just as sympathetic a 'hero' if circumstances forced him/her/it to bend or break or even abandon a 'code'. I think the same goes for 'villains' as well.
Again, can't recall where I recall it from, but choices have voices. It's the chosen voice that justifies the choice that interests me when I write and read.
posted
These are just some of random thoughts, so bear with me.
I was trained as a actress, and one thing I learned is that when playing a villain, the actor should always give the audience something to like about them. In theatre circles, it's called "playing opposites." There are always villains that are so darn likable we can't help ourselves.
Jason Isaacs is an actor that does this BRILLIANTLY. His Captain Hook (in the recent live-action "Peter Pan.") makes you understand why on earth Wendy could ever consider joining the pirates.
Straight-forward bad-guys do not make interesting characters. Even in melodramas the "dastardly villain" plays to the audience. (While we're booing on the outside, inside we're cheering!)
I feel the reader should grow to have some empathy for the bad-guy. Readers can even feel sympathy for totally-evil guys like Voldemort, Sir Brian Dubois Gilbert (Ivanhoe) and Gollum, because of the depth of character their creators gave them.
I once saw a professional touring production of Les Miserables, and was really surprised that the Thenardiers-- just about the vilest couple in all of literature-- received the BIGGEST applause during curtain calls. Of course, everyone wanted the main characters to live happily ever after, but the audience showed their appreciation for multi-dimensional characterization.
Personally, I'm not into "anti-heroes," but I love it when a villain with "layers" makes me love to hate him!
Okay, my rambling is done. Now back to the thought-provoking discussion...
posted
Haven't read it...not my cup of tea, though I gather the writer lives somewhere near where I live right now...
But certainly the Hero as Psychopath has been done. Does anybody doubt that Hannibal Lechter is the hero of those books and movies? And besides, what about Annakin "Darth Vader" Skywalker?
posted
RFW2nd, the villains do win. They just write the story from their perspective.
Lullaby Lady, great reference to Les Miserables. Javert never sees himself as anything other than the hero. The ‘boys’ at the barricade playing at some heroic ideal meet a less than ideal fate. The Thenardiers would laugh at such a simple dichotomy. And St. Jean Valjean only got there through a series of sins that never were meant to be sins, but he scarified for them regardless.
The whole ‘hero’/’villain’ thing just makes it all so dualistic and deterministic and . . . well . . . dull.
Robert Nowall, not sure the point was hero as psychopath, but just not as perfectly good . . . or the villains perfectly bad. It was funny cause I was thinking Star Wars as well. Han Solo wasn’t a ‘hero’ when we met him, but he became one, but . . . he did shoot first!
I agree with you about Omar, one of the most unique and captivating characters I've come across in a long time.
He did pay a price when his sidekick (maybe lover too, I cant remembered) was caught by one of the gangs they preyed on and tortured/killed in a grisly fashion. This was several years back. Unfortunately the series always seemed to air irregularly, so after the first two or three seasons, it was hard for me to keep up.
posted
I am probliy bot going to rememeber this for I ahe had too many and just got in trubble fpr kicking some ones ass who dose not desirve something.
But any way I haven’t read “not my cup of tea” nore heard of it.
Right now I am reading 2 books
The Sight by Dsvid Clement Davis
And
Dauntless by Jack Cambell
And am working too much to read any thing elts, but will look it up.
posted
The example that comes to mind - for me at least - is Steerpike from Gormenghast. An ambitious little creep who spends his days murdering his way to greatness, yet you can't help siding with him (or at least, I couldn't!). I think a lot of this has to do with the way the character is introduced - after what happens to him, you develop an interest in his well-being very early on and by the time it becomes apparent how unpleasant he is, it's difficult to stop caring. First impressions are vital. He may be entirely heartless, but because of those first few chapters - before his real nature is exposed - I think it's impossible not to like him, even a bit.
I don't think I've ever written an 'anti-hero' on this sort of level. I like to discuss things from both sides of the story in my writing, but even my anti-social loner heroes are still, well, heroes. It can be done, though. As others have said, the main thing is establishing sympathy, and for this they need to have likeable - or at least admirable - qualities, just as convincing heroes need faults.
[This message has been edited by marchpane (edited July 14, 2008).]
posted
This isn't really on the same level, but the graphic novel Death Note is based around the cat and mouse of a killer who kills criminals (with a notebook that he just writes their name in) and the detective character that tries to track him. A lot of people I know hate the MC here, but I enjoy him and how he falls into the insanity of what he's doing. He isn't exactly sympathetic, but he has his reasons and they do boil down to to being for good. Eventually he just loses control and goes mad with power. I think a lot of the MC hate comes from the love of the detective character though.
Personally, I like the idea of someone that might normally fit the bill as a villain being used as the MC and being a good sympathetic character. I'd love to do it in one of my stories!
posted
I think for a villain or anti-hero to work well, the end goal has to be something of great enough value to the reader. Dexter, Omar, Lecter, et al work for me because there is a "greater good" to be accomplished that becomes more valuable to me than the actions taken to achieve it.
Posts: 47 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noele, you're absolutely right. people hate Light Yagami (I know I do) in part because of the atrocious evil he represents (he's willing to kill innocent people with the false justification that the ends justify the means) but also in part because--for whatever reason--L is an extremely, extremely likeable character.
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The example that comes to mind - for me at least - is Steerpike from Gormenghast. An ambitious little creep who spends his days murdering his way to greatness, yet you can't help siding with him (or at least, I couldn't!). I think a lot of this has to do with the way the character is introduced - after what happens to him, you develop an interest in his well-being very early on and by the time it becomes apparent how unpleasant he is, it's difficult to stop caring.
I reacted quote differently. I was thoroughly pissed at Peake as an author. I felt that he'd been dishonest with his reader and never read another thing he wrote.
There is a big risk if you lie to your reader or if your reader feels that you did.
Edit: I can't say anything about the tv examples. I didn't like the Lector series much while obviously a lot of people did. An anti-hero can work. He (rarely she--women aren't generally forgiven) has to pay a lot most of the time. Look at some of Martin's anti-hero characters. The Imp murders his father and no one even blinks. (Sorry for the spoiler but it's hard to discuss these things without plot specifics.)
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 23, 2008).]