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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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...

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.

I agree with you about Omar, one of the most unique and captivating characters I've come across in a long time.

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.

Peace

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.

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.)