|
|
Post by lou on Feb 16, 2016 14:17:17 GMT -5
While nature itself is often my antagonist, I try to create a bad guy, or irritant, or foil. I keep running into the same problem. The person starts off as really irksome, a jerk, someone I don't like. But as I draft, I grow to understand the poor schmuck. And it takes the edge off him or her. I cannot seem to stop myself.
Is this actually a problem? Or am I inventing problems where none exist? (Becca is reading my newest and mentioned my character Captain T, who I really meant to be a jerk, but darn it if I didn't come to think he was just filled with youthful enthusiasm and made him grow over the novel so he ended up okay.)
Do readers need someone to hate? Or can they--especially in this post-Breaking Bad, post-Justified world--sort of like everybody, even the interesting but difficult characters?
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Feb 16, 2016 15:27:38 GMT -5
Using Once Upon a Time as a guide, I'd say it's okay for antagonists to have depth and character. Regina, the evil queen, and Captain Hook both have redeeming character traits and sympathetic moments.
Sometimes, it's fun to love the bad guy, and a redemption theme can add a lot of dimension to a story. Darth Vader and Spike (from Buffy the Vampire Slayer) come to mind.
In the Vaetra Chronicles, I gave the head bad guy his own POV scenes in the second and third books. I wanted readers to understand his motivations and possibly even sympathize with them to a degree. They say that every villain is the hero of his own story.
As long as the antagonist fulfills his/her role as an obstacle for the protagonist, I think you're okay. Even people with the best intentions sometimes obstruct us from our goals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deano on Feb 17, 2016 3:47:30 GMT -5
While nature itself is often my antagonist, I try to create a bad guy, or irritant, or foil. I keep running into the same problem. The person starts off as really irksome, a jerk, someone I don't like. But as I draft, I grow to understand the poor schmuck. And it takes the edge off him or her. I cannot seem to stop myself. Is this actually a problem? Or am I inventing problems where none exist? (Becca is reading my newest and mentioned my character Captain T, who I really meant to be a jerk, but darn it if I didn't come to think he was just filled with youthful enthusiasm and made him grow over the novel so he ended up okay.) Do readers need someone to hate? Or can they--especially in this post- Breaking Bad, post- Justified world--sort of like everybody, even the interesting but difficult characters?
If you're writing an antagonist and you're starting to understand them, then you're probably doing a good job. Few people in the world are evil simply for the sake of being evil because we all have motivations, dreams, aspirations etc - if those attributes happen to involve world domination then so be it, but the character must have a reason for being the way that they are, whether hero or villain.
Sounds to me like you're writing a believable villain!
|
|
|
|
Post by lou on Feb 17, 2016 9:28:34 GMT -5
If you're writing an antagonist and you're starting to understand them, then you're probably doing a good job. Few people in the world are evil simply for the sake of being evil because we all have motivations, dreams, aspirations etc - if those attributes happen to involve world domination then so be it, but the character must have a reason for being the way that they are, whether hero or villain.
Sounds to me like you're writing a believable villain!
thanks. Now if I can just apply that level of understanding to real life, where I tend to say, "what an *******" and never get much beyond that.  thanks Daniel, too! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 3:02:56 GMT -5
In my traditionally published kids horror series, I came to empathise with the villain of book one so much that he came back and became one of the good guys in book four. I couldn't end his story with him just being a monstrous villain. Interestingly, his turnaround is one of readers' favourite things about the series.
So, totally agree with everyone else. If your villain is growing on you, that's as it should be. A villain people are drawn to is even more dangerous, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Feb 28, 2016 12:53:23 GMT -5
In my traditionally published kids horror series, I came to empathise with the villain of book one so much that he came back and became one of the good guys in book four. I couldn't end his story with him just being a monstrous villain. Interestingly, his turnaround is one of readers' favourite things about the series. That's pretty cool. I almost redeemed a bad guy in my trilogy, but his love for one of the protagonists was not enough to overcome his commitment to the idealism of his faction. I guess you could say he reached the point of no return and kept going. |
|
|
|
Post by vrabinec on Mar 29, 2016 12:26:44 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with it appearing to be evil for evil's sake until the very end when all is made clear. But the protag should be given some motive. I remember a movie with Kevin Cline called January Man. No motive given. Absolutely drove me bat-shit crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Mar 29, 2016 12:42:18 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with it appearing to be evil for evil's sake until the very end when all is made clear. But the protag should be given some motive. I remember a movie with Kevin Cline called January Man. No motive given. Absolutely drove me bat-shit crazy. Generally, I'd agree. At the same time, some of the greatest villains out there are motiveless. Coleridge famously wrote in the margins of his copy of Othello, "The motive-hunting of motiveless Malignity." He was reacting to the way Iago gives one explanation after another for the origins of his hatred for the title character, none convincing. The Joker, as presented in The Dark Knight, is the same way. He gives competing sob-story explanations for his villainy. They're clearly invented, and one has the feeling that what they cover up is just a void. If an author can pull that kind of character off, and if he/she is appropriate to the story, it's terrifyingly effective. |
|
|
|
Post by lindymoone on Mar 30, 2016 2:45:09 GMT -5
I liked the way Rowling handled this issue throughout the Potter books, for both Voldemort and Snape. Snape's motivation for being both bad and good are well explored -- but only gradually, and not at all in the first few books (I think), and that gives readers a chance to really hate the hell out of him. Then, when he is redeemed (although not totally -- he is, after all, Snape!) our emotions are already very much engaged and the pendulum swings from hate to understanding, almost to love... and then back to "Wait a minute, he was still a real bastard most of the time!" I see this as very important, especially in a children's book. It's good for them to learn that real human beings are neither all good nor all bad, that people have motivations (for bad OR good) that they may need to keep secret. We see Voldemort as irredeemable at the end (due to his unnurtured nature). This is the opposite of Harry, whose background is similar but who is neither a narcissist nor sociopathic, and whose first year of life was bathed in the light of love, though he doesn't remember it, except in flashes. It's a nature-versus-nurture argument that seems heavily weighted on the side of nurture. That was the main point of Frankenstein, to me, as well... But I agree with Becca that if an author can really pull off a "motiveless" bad guy, it's terrifyingly effective because his (or her) better nature doesn't exist and can't be appealed to. I have an apparently motiveless bad guy in Hyperlink from Hell, but if I ever get the rest of the series done, all will be revealed! |
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Mar 30, 2016 7:58:39 GMT -5
As a reader, I definitely like to understand the Big Bad's motives, even if it is something simple like, "He's a serial killer and can't stop himself from committing murder."
As a writer, defining the passions, motivations, and goals of the characters is a critical stage of my story development. Pretty much every character with a speaking role has answered the question, "If this were your story, what would it be about?" That includes the villains. If I don't understand what motivates my characters, I can't write scenes or dialog that includes them. Their motivations direct their reactions and their speech patterns. If I try to include a character who has not been fully realized from a passions & motivations standpoint, I tend to get stuck while writing any scene that includes him/her.
That said, I don't necessarily reveal character motivations to my readers right away. Motivations are often part of the mystery and must be revealed in their proper time. Revealing motivation can be an important a-ha moment for the reader.
|
|
