Baddies and motivation

[Jo Zebedee]

Been musing this today.

A couple of particular books are in my mind: Mark Lawrence's Prince of Thorns portrays an unremittingly dark character, without apologising for him, or really making much of a tortured past (it is hinted at but without self pity by Jorg) as what shaped him. In fact, at the end of the book (and I haven't read the sequel, so this might get drawn out more), Jorg essentially says this is me, take me as I am or not at all.

In We Need to talk about Kevin, Lionel Shriver takes a truly horrifying character, and asks the question is it nature or nurture, and asks it well, even if the book is unsettling. (And never actually answers the unanswerable.)

Neither of these books are to everyone's taste, I accept that, but I enjoyed the questions raised by the central characters. A few others spring to mind: King's Apt Pupil doesn't really give us answers for his behaviour; Barlow the vampire doesn't get too caught up with the motivation for his evil; a few of Herbert's characters are pretty dark without giving too much background.

Do we always need a reason for a character to be less than nice? Does there have to be a turning point, or is it enough that we understand them enough to see that, for whatever reason, they're horrid?

Also, is it the case that in SFF genre we have the concept (the Star Wars concept, I guess) that we are all light and dark, that if we are a bad'un through and through we have embraced the dark side?

Non-genre fiction doesn't tend to go down that route, and we have some thoroughly non redeemed characters in it (Bill Sykes, Heathcliff, Rochester are all pretty dark, and whilst with the last two we do get some justification with them, particularly Heathcliff, their actions go beyond the justification given.) I'm sure I'm missing loads of other examples, too.

Also, (sorry this is going on a bit), if we are deep in point of view, do we reference back the things that affected us directly? EG. I am phobic of spiders, but I don't know where that phobia came from, nor do I examine it. It just is. So if I was writing my pov, I'd say eurggh! Spider! Run! Not, and there's a spider and I remember the time when my brothers chased me round the garden with one. (I bet they did, I bet that's where it comes from... )

So, when the baddy does something not nice, something that makes us uncomfortable do we need to know why, and if so how do we do this? Take episodes and write them, or reference it in flashbacks, or just go with it?

 

[Mouse]

Some people are just arses, I think.

No, I don't need to know why somebody's a sh*te, not unless I'm supposed to sympathise with them.

I'm going to reference Hollyoaks now... (go with it)... There's a character called Brendan Brady who's supposed to be the 'big bad' but unlike other soaps, this character is so complex he's brilliant. He's killed two people (one his own Nan), tortured someone, chopped a dead body into pieces, dealt drugs, beat people up, done lots of dodgy dealings... yet loves his family, is very insecure though this isn't shown to many people, and, as we found out in the late night episodes, was sexually abused by his father as a child. His dad's now come into the show, of course, and it's utterly heartbreaking. Oh, he's also gay so he's had the whole struggling with that aspect to deal with.

 

[HareBrain]

I think we tend to want to believe we can understand other people, and ourselves, so motivations and backstories are important in fiction, even though they might not apply in reality. Your spider phobia, for example, is probably genetic.

Most of the real baddies in this world are probably psychopaths and sociopaths. They just are. For whatever reason, they lack empathy, and this cannot be changed (as far as I know). In other cases, how someone views other people can be affected by upbringing or a bad experience. This can then be reversed and the person redeemed. This possibility makes the character interesting. A psychopath isn't really interesting except as a force of nature, a hungry animal. I think it would be very hard to empathise with a character who possesses no capacity for it himself.

 

[Juliana]

No, I don't need to know why somebody's a sh*te, not unless I'm supposed to sympathise with them.

I'll go with what Mouse said... If you need us to connect to the villains, then a bit of explanation/ back story is necessary. If you just want us to hate them, I think the less we know the better, perhaps. Judge them only by their actions.

 

[prizzley]

Do we always need a reason for a character to be less than nice? examples, too.

I'd say no, but I'm not into psychological theory and I'm sick of "X was abused as a child, so that's why he's cruel." Not everyone who suffered as a child is an abuser!

Also, if we are deep in point of view, do we reference back the things that affected us directly?

Maybe, if the character saw someone kill his child and that's the cause, you might want to mention it.

So, when the baddy does something not nice, something that makes us uncomfortable do we need to know why, and if so how do we do this? Take episodes and write them, or reference it in flashbacks, or just go with it?

I had a baddy organise a massacre but I couldn't come up with a reason, even a sick, twisted logic for it, so I took it out. Eventually, I gave him a POV outlet for his plans.

I think even a baddy's actions must make sense, even if we don't like his logic. (I hope that makes sense.)

 

[Hex]

In real life, people do appalling things because they won't take responsibility for themselves ("I was obeying orders"/ "If I hadn't done it, someone else would") and because they're scared. Evil, like all those clever people often say, is normally pretty banal.

However, I think being a proper baddie in fiction isn't really like real life. I'm not sure you need lots of explanation of how someone grew to be bad (after all -- the empress is only bad if you're Kare or associated with him in some way. Otherwise, she's held together a very stable and prosperous empire in which many people have done extremely well -- so she's turned herself into a demi-God and doesn't like criticism but you could see that as part of the stability. You can't make an omlette etc etc).

I think it's good to have an idea of backstory but I don't think you need much.

 

[Boneman]

Whilst not needing to know everything about the bad guy, they become very two-dimensional if they are all-bad, all-evil, with no 'interesting' facets to them. I was going to say 'redeeming' facets, but I don't mean that streak of good in them, I mean something we can, if not empathise, then at least, understand why. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, but the bad guy who kills without reason, who does every nasty under the sun without reason, becomes a cartoon character, if we're not careful.

I did mention on another thread, but Jardir in The Desert Spear by Peter Brett is an excellent example of this. [Spoiler alert] In The Painted Man you can understand why he wants to take the spear from Arlen, and why he betrays him, even if you don't agree with it. In The Desert Spear time is spent looking at his childhood and coming of age. But as soon as he becomes the leader of the tribes he turns into this incredible cardboard cut-out. He's forever grabbing his sons by the throat, threatening to kill them, indiscrimately killing any who 'fail him', disobey him, binding his people together only by fear. Why the heck his tribes haven't deserted him is beyond me.

So I feel there has to be some element of realism in our baddies, for the reader to relate to, even if it's tiny - look at Darth Vader, and compare him to the emperor. Which is more interesting? Even if you look at episodes I-III the emperor is just not realistic enough. Let's face it, Han Solo was always a more interesting Character than Luke, wasn't he? The 'pure' hero can be just as boring as the evil bad guy. We do love a likeable rogue, but too often I think writers fall into the trap of trying to have a hero, who's going to have to overcome the Bad Guy who's incredibly evil, just to show what a brilliant struggle, and what an epic triumph he has, when he wins. I blame Lord of The Rings...

So, evil? Yes. All-evil, all-bad, with no features that the reader can see? No.

 

[Abernovo]

I don't think every character needs a backstory, explaining why they became bad (or, conversely why they remained decent). If it's a 'journey of life' story, then yes, it's probably necessary, but otherwise, no.

Most people you meet, you only see for a few moments - think shop checkouts, bank tellers, people in the street, a random thug outside a nightclub. You make a snap judgement, knowing that's not the whole story, but it's all you need for that point. To a certain extent, stories are the same.

The only thing that I would say is necessary for a major character isn't backstory, but a rounded personality. Think of the most vicious dictators who were nice to animals and small children, but treated their victims inhumanely. That an evil character could be caring and affectionate to their inner circle, whilst heartless to others, both humanises them, and makes their acts of evil even more disturbing, because they're obviously capable of being nice.

EDIT: Crossed posts with Boneman! And, as he points out, this is equally true for 'Our Heroes'. Flawed is much more interesting.

 

[Mouse]

The 'pure' hero can be just as boring as the evil bad guy.

God yes. I hate 'perfect' heroes.

 

[Toby Frost]

Interesting question. I've always suspected that really evil people, apart from those who revel in the sense of naughtiness of being evil, would regard good and evil as irrelevant or childish ideas - if they were able to vocalise it.

A lot of villainy comes from having the opportunity to act out darker (not necessarily sexual) fantasies, as per a mad king or soldier in an occupying army. The knowledge that you will never be held responsible is pretty seductive to many people, especially those who lack the willpower to disagree with those around them (take the very end of Lord of the Flies, when the villains effectively wake from a shared dream of bloodlust). Also, the removal of moral limitation can create villains pretty quickly - if you do it in the name of God/the race/the state, it can't be bad and will probably be fun. All of these don't need much explanation, and make for depressingly convincing villains.

For me, what's more interesting than backstory is individual characterisation. Although O'Brien in 1984 is a sadist and a mouthpiece for the Party, he is a character in his own right: his preachiness and self-righteousness are his alone. I don't really care why he likes his own voice so much - he clearly gets a big kick out of winning the discussions with Winston Smith, even though the contest is ludicrously one-sided - but the fact that he does makes him all the more human and somehow all the more unpleasant.

I suppose a dark lord of the Sauron type is ok, although they tend to be rather flat since they exist only to be opposed (and often lack the squalid quality that real evil has). What I think doesn't work, unless the writer is extremely good, is to try to retcon an explanation for effectively writing "he's evil because he's evil" at some later point. (This probably counts double where the villain in question has a large female following who'd really like a go at turning him good again, at which point it starts to look a little bit dubious...)

 

[cybermike]

Dont you think that Thomas Covenant is the ultimate Anti-Hero Hero?

 

[allmywires]

I'm going to reference Hollyoaks now... (go with it)... There's a character called Brendan Brady who's supposed to be the 'big bad' but unlike other soaps, this character is so complex he's brilliant. He's killed two people (one his own Nan), tortured someone, chopped a dead body into pieces, dealt drugs, beat people up, done lots of dodgy dealings... yet loves his family, is very insecure though this isn't shown to many people, and, as we found out in the late night episodes, was sexually abused by his father as a child. His dad's now come into the show, of course, and it's utterly heartbreaking. Oh, he's also gay so he's had the whole struggling with that aspect to deal with.

Oh Mouse

I really, really struggle with motivation for bad guys because I for one don't understand what would make someone want total dominion (ie Sauron, what would he do if Middle Earth was overrun and the orcs were the total population? What would be the point?) I think for the most part bad guys in fiction will have a reason to be bad. Either they're weak and greedy so being in power makes them bad, or they've been abused/had something in their past that made them that way. I for one believe that we are products of our childhood and you can always pin back the reason for what you are today with what happened to you as a child.

The question is, and I know you've asked yourself this many times springs, but simple why? Why is she like the way she is? Until you can answer that she will continue to be a weak link. You don't necessarily need to give her a 'good' side for us to hold on to though.

 

[Mouse]

Oh Mouse

Ha! You know it's true!

I think this is why I prefer writing 'real-world' fantasy, you know, because I don't have to write 'good' and 'evil.' I can just write people.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Oh, dear, I kind of didn't mean this to end up about my nemesis, but more a general thing, although it's in gwd as opposed to gbd, because obviously my musing emanated from work I'm doing on her.

See, the thing is there are certain baddies out there who we don't really know why they are bad (the Sheriff of Nottingham's motivation is rarely explored, Servalan in Blake's seven just enjoyed being mean, as far as I could see,) and I really hate it when I read that someone had a hard childhood and that's why they turned bad, cos actually the majority of people who have a hard childhood don't go like that.

So I'm not sure there has to be a single motivator for being that way. I think it's more to do with what we believe is right, and in my case she believes her empire was stolen from her, that it's a birthright, and is determined to hold it at any cost. That's it. Not puppies drowned in front of her, or excessive abuse, just an overwhelming sense of her own importance, combined with a sense of disappointment and a ritualistic approach to life learned as a teen.

So, why show it at all? She is who she is, her thoughts should reflect that as opposed to finding ways to show us that background? That's what I'm struggling with. In the absence of a single motivator for her nastiness - I do have the motivation for what tips her over the edge if you like from self important to sadistic, but the roots are all in the above - she just isn't someone you'd want to spend Christmas with. (Well most of us wouldn't.)

@Cybermike, I have yet to read Thomas Covenant, and lots of people have raised in in threads I start, so I must keep an eye out for it.

 

[Abernovo]

See, I'm not sure I agree with you on Servalan. She wanted to bring order out of chaos, or at least, that seemed to be how she justified herself, after the governmental collapse in Blake's 7.

However, she's an example of an evil character with 'good' in her. She seemed to have genuine affection for Avon, more than just the sexual attraction. Not quite the same thing, but she could also act graciously, and turn on the charm. Admittedly, that was probably when she was at her most dangerous, but it still made her multi-faceted and even likeable as a character.

As to motivators, no, I don't think the things that happen to us automatically determine how we become. People who've experienced terrible things can turn bad, or remain good. Of course, they may have been bad to begin with, so the terrible thing may simply be something else they can blame/use as self-justification. Maybe that's part of it, their perception of things going wrong.

 

[HareBrain]

I really hate it when I read that someone had a hard childhood and that's why they turned bad, cos actually the majority of people who have a hard childhood don't go like that.

I struggle with your logic there. Isn't that like saying you really hate it when you read that someone's car crashed and that's why they died, because actually the majority of people in car accidents survive?

If the author implies that an abused child necessarily becomes an evil adult, or unimaginatively turns to it as an easy explanation, then that's an issue. But I think it's realistic**, and that most "badness" can be traced to illness or childhood, even if no two people would be affected by the same things exactly the same way.

**(though that doesn't mean it should be brought out in the story, as it can seem a cliche whether realistic or not).

 

[Hex]

I believe there's a genetic influence (although I'm out of date on this so I could be talking total rubbish) that determines how much effect your upbringing has. So some people are heavily influenced by their childhood/ by abuse whereas others who have the same experiences are not changed. It comes down to luck (or genetic inheritance) whether you're one of the people who is strongly influenced by experiences or not.

I think most people who do bad things do them because they think they're serving the ultimate good. There's a lot to be said for stability and most tyrannies provide that. Being at war with a dreadful enemy means all sorts of oppression may be necessary to ensure that the enemy doesn't win.

Plus, most of being evil is about who's looking at you, not about what you do (unless you eat puppies for breakfast -- that's just mean).

One of the things that always bothered me about the revolutionary regimes in Eastern Europe was what if they were right? What if by killing a million people who are the wrong sort you can create a perfect environment and happiness for everyone else forever. Shouldn't you do it?

(and that's where evil stuff comes from)

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I struggle with your logic there. Isn't that like saying you really hate it when you read that someone's car crashed and that's why they died, because actually the majority of people in car accidents survive?

If the author implies that an abused child necessarily becomes an evil adult, or unimaginatively turns to it as an easy explanation, then that's an issue. But I think it's realistic, and that most "badness" can be traced to illness or childhood, even if no two people would be affected by the same things exactly the same way.

Sorry, yes, struggling to make myself clear here. (Caffeine might be needed.) Yes, the second, where it's used as an easy explanation, or a one size fits all approach: so here we have someone bad, therefore their childhood must have been horrendous.

In terms of whether "badness" can be traced, I think that's the nature vs nurture argument, and I have to be honest, I've never been entirely convinced that we can only bring our past into play in terms of its impact on us. I do think that, for example, some people are naturally more optimistic than others.

We can argue that some of that is learned behaviour, which I'm sure it is, but (bear with me, I think I'm making a muck of this) there are optimists who come from drearily bad backgrounds and pessimists who've had nothing but the best of luck all their life. Or, like a hypochrondriac who generally has good health, but still seems to have a propensity to get anxious about illness. Which makes me believe that some - possibly much - of the way we behave is in our make up, not our learned behaviour.


Hex, don't tell them about the puppies! That was a secret.

 

[HareBrain]

Yes, the second, where it's used as an easy explanation, or a one size fits all approach: so here we have someone bad, therefore their childhood must have been horrendous.

But I think statistically, that's probably largely true. However, I agree with the rest of what you say. The number of "bad" people is a lot less than the number who have suffered neglect or abuse in childhood, and there are many other factors that can come into play, such as genes or genetic switches, the influence of other people or culture in general.

If you don't socialise dogs well when they're puppies, you can have problems for life. It's much the same with humans.

I guess all we can say is that someone who commits what we (society) would describe as evil acts has been badly socialised, i.e. they haven't been trained to have the same values as the rest of us (or have lost them, which is perhaps more interesting). But that's pretty much a tautology.

 

[Hex]

Yet I think we'd all do evil things (or the vast majority of us would) if we were in the right circumstances.

It takes a special (and rare) kind of courage to stand against the group, for example. And I bet I'm not the only one who has ended up thinking: "How on earth did I get into this situation?" -- I haven't found myself eating puppy souffle yet but, you know, I can see how it would happen.