Baddies and motivation

[Toby Frost]

For me, as others have said, the 'pure evil' and 'pure good' characters fall flat.

But I don't think anyone should be writing these sorts of characters, ever. Maybe there's an exception for supernatural beings, but then we're getting into angels and demons, which I suspect would be very hard to write with personalities without descending into caricature.

My point is that if you follow almost any well-rounded character they will start to do things that don't fit the perfectly good or evil shape. Frodo is obviously a straight-up goodie, but he's not unfailingly strong. Jason Bourne is a heroic good guy, but also a rather sad wreck of a man. The villain from Marathon Man, who is one of the most evil people imaginable, is at least sophisticated enough to appreciate music and could probably carry on quite a refined conversation (when not murdering and torturing). Several of the nicest people I know have real flaws, and most of the people in history that I'd look up to had real weaknesses.

I suppose there's a blurring of personality quirks with weaknesses (is an interest in fishing a weakness in a shining paladin? It certainly would make him more interesting). I can imagine a character who is deeply heroic but also fundamentally obnoxious. To my mind, writing (human-like) characters without flaws is not just extremely difficult but highly unrealistic.

 

[Hex]

Just as part of this -- I had a problem in my first wip because I didn't have a bad enough baddie. My bad guy was perfectly justified in everything he did --- and even quite nice -- until close to the end when he got cross and did some rather unfortunate things.

The editor who looked at it felt it needed a stronger antagonist -- someone who was properly wicked rather than perfectly justified in his own head. In fact, he wanted the minor character who was totally evil (without explanation) to appear earlier and play a more significant role.

It worries me a little, thinking about that.

 

[RJM Corbet]

I like the idea that the more powerful a person becomes, the more useful he becomes to both the powers of light, and those of darkness. The more powerful a man becomes, the stronger he needs to be to resist the dark powers that wish to twist him to their own use.

So you get a Mao Tse Tung or a Hitler or a Stalin: perhaps originally genuine in their wish to do good, gone completely mad with power. Or, on the other side, a Nelson Mandela of uncompromising integrity, bringing peace to a troubled land, purely by the force of his own personality.

Even Sauron may have become a force for good in Middle Earth, if not corrupted by the power of the rings?

 

[Abernovo]

But I don't think anyone should be writing these sorts of characters, ever. Maybe there's an exception for supernatural beings, but then we're getting into angels and demons, which I suspect would be very hard to write with personalities without descending into caricature.

My point is that if you follow almost any well-rounded character they will start to do things that don't fit the perfectly good or evil shape.

I agree with this last sentence, but having read Richelle Mead's Succubus series (yes, I know I bang on about her writing sometimes ), I'd say it was possible to write such supernatural beings with personalities.

She has an angel who is goodness personified, but enjoys hard liquor, smoking, and the company of demons, to a certain extent because the conversation is better. Likewise, there is a senior demon, totally amoral, who is considerate, almost fatherly, to his subordinates. Admittedly, this is partly to prevent mutinies and protect his territory, but the personalities are well drawn.

The other thing I liked was that the pure denizens of heaven and hell were portrayed sympathetically, as only acting according to their 'nature'. The humans (and ex-humans now in the service of demons) made choices, from which there were consequences. Sometimes, they had gone too far down a road to make much of a choice, but it did create realistic and sympathetic characters, even those who turned out to be 'baddies'.

 

[HareBrain]

The editor who looked at it felt it needed a stronger antagonist -- someone who was properly wicked rather than perfectly justified in his own head.

I think this is slightly dubious advice. I think an antagonist only needs to be ruthless in pursuit of his aims (and thus utterly self-convinced), rather than properly wicked, to be scary -- as long as those aims conflict enough with those of the protagonist to bring the protagonist into real danger. I think the trick is to bring about a situation where he must do something horrible to the protagonist to achieve his aims.

Though, again, it might hinge on defining "wicked". Maybe wickedness just self-interestedness so profound that it completely disregards the effect on others. Beyond that, you get torturing puppies for kicks, which begins to seem cartoonish in a main antagonist, and just exists to wind readers up, as others have said, though this can be effective.

I like the idea that the more powerful a person becomes, the more useful he becomes to both the powers of light, and those of darkness. The more powerful a man becomes, the stronger he needs to be to resist the dark powers that wish to twist him to their own use.

That presupposes the existence of such powers, which these days I think is more difficult to make credible, though they can still be an attractive device if you manage it.

 

[Reivax26]

There can be several reasons for the villain to become that way. Abandonment, persecution and abuse are all good sources of hatred for living things around you. Some do it for power and others for riches. I have always admired the writers who could pull off the villain who was a madman. I will give kudos to GRRM on that account for his backstory behind the Mad King Aerys Targaryen. The stuff he did makes most villains seem lame and uninspired.

 

[Warren_Paul]

Just as part of this -- I had a problem in my first wip because I didn't have a bad enough baddie. My bad guy was perfectly justified in everything he did --- and even quite nice -- until close to the end when he got cross and did some rather unfortunate things.

The editor who looked at it felt it needed a stronger antagonist -- someone who was properly wicked rather than perfectly justified in his own head. In fact, he wanted the minor character who was totally evil (without explanation) to appear earlier and play a more significant role.

It worries me a little, thinking about that.

And the next editor may say the complete opposite.

I'm with HB on this. The advice you were given makes me frown. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I suspect it is more the personal taste of the editor coming through. Some people like the stories with evil characters like Sauron, or many fairy tale antagonists. So that when the white knight hero defeats them they can cheer and get all excited over their victory. When the character isn't so evil, the reader doesn't get that sense of achievement at the hero's victory.

I dunno. Not having read more than the first few chapters of your book, I can't say for sure about the quality of the antagonist.

I think Once Upon a Time does a really good job of making believable antagonists.

 

[HareBrain]

I keep forgetting to mention that Ursula le Guin's Earthsea books have no real "bad guys", but still have plenty of tension. In the first two at least, the antagonism is provided either by aspects of the main characters themselves, or friction between them and other not-particularly-bad people going about their own lives.

 

[Hex]

I was thinking about the Tombs of Atuan yesterday -- one of my favourite ever books -- and trying to identify a bad guy. I can't remember if there is anyone or if it's the tombs themselves. I must go and read it again

 

[David Evil Overlord]

In my current WIP I have:

One villain who genuinely believes the world would be a better place if he ruled the world.
One hero who is trying with all her heart not to believe the same thing about herself.
One villain who likes to burn people alive (with a backstory explaining why she is like that).
One villain who likes to eat people alive, currently no explanation, but the character is still a work in progress.

And a side effect of someone's illicit time travel is...some of these characters keep changing...

 

[HareBrain]

I was thinking about the Tombs of Atuan yesterday -- one of my favourite ever books -- and trying to identify a bad guy. I can't remember if there is anyone or if it's the tombs themselves.

There are three antagonists, I think, but as I said, I don't think any qualify as "bad guys". The main one is Kossil, who acts as the focus of the forces of tradition against which Arha begins to rebel, but who isn't "evil", merely hidebound and willing to go a long way to protect what she holds to be important. Then there is Ged, who is a perceived antagonist only because he acts against what Arha believes to be her interests (but who does nothing against her). Finally the tombs themselves and the power that resides there, but, though potentially dangerous, they're no more an antagonist than a dangerous cliff would be.

Somehow, from what might seem to be three "weak" antagonists, le Guin constructs a very real sense of threat and danger. Cleverly, part of this threat comes from the danger to Ged from the protagonist Arha, which works because we know from the first book who he is. It really is a superb book.

 

[Mouse]

I think this is slightly dubious advice.

Agreed! Except change the 'slightly' to 'completely' and the 'dubious' to 'weird.'

Baffling.

 

[Abernovo]

If we're talking about books without any real bad guys, I'd suggest The Book of Skulls, by Robert Silverberg, one of my favourite books. I first read it as a teenager.

All the characters are flawed, and there's quite a bit of tension. All of them are capable of good and bad.

 

[Hex]

Agreed! Except change the 'slightly' to 'completely' and the 'dubious' to 'weird.'

Baffling.

Well that makes me happy since I've just outlined a new story with NO REAL BAD GUYS. It was worrying me that I didn't have anyone bad enough and I was about to add a smoking mountain. And orcs. And perhaps a ring of destiny... but now I won't.

Anyway, maybe the advice he gave me was only relevant to Dark Circles and not to everything in the whole world like I'd thought.

And Tombs of Atuan is probably one of the scariest books I've read. Ever.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Just as part of this -- I had a problem in my first wip because I didn't have a bad enough baddie. My bad guy was perfectly justified in everything he did --- and even quite nice -- until close to the end when he got cross and did some rather unfortunate things.

The editor who looked at it felt it needed a stronger antagonist -- someone who was properly wicked rather than perfectly justified in his own head. In fact, he wanted the minor character who was totally evil (without explanation) to appear earlier and play a more significant role.

It worries me a little, thinking about that.

It is a worrying suggestion, taken literally - however, my second take on it is that perhaps the antagonist was not seen as antagonistic enough, therefore did not present difficult enough problems for the protagonist to solve, and therefore resulted in a muted sense of drama and conflict - certainly in the view of the editor.

 

[Warren_Paul]

Isn't everybody an antagonist in some way in Joe Abercrombie's books? Kind of feels that way sometimes. Which makes picking out the 'bad guy' of the bunch quite hard.

 

[James Coote]

This thread touches on a theme that I've spent a lot of time thinking about, both with logic and reasoning, and through exploration with my characters

Many years ago I read a feature in New Scientist about Abu Ghraib. It basically rubbished the idea of "a few bad apples" and rounded up the comprehensive collection of studies that point to this idea of anyone being capable of bad/evil under the right circumstances.

Explaining how/why that is the case... if I could do that satisfactorily in prose, I wouldn't need to write a novel

 

[The Ace]

I always thought the baddies wanted the same thing you did and were willing to fight you for it.

 

[TheTomG]

I think it is odd advice too, unless it is just as I, Brian mentioned and there needed to be more conflict and tension (in which case, it isn't really that the bad guy needs to be "badder" just that their needs to be more conflict from their aims against the main character's aims.)

 

[RJM Corbet]

... I see the challenge more to get the reader to feel fear ...

I think you have nailed the main issue. Good and evil may be completely relative, as in war.

Lions think zebras looks best on a plate
Zebras thinks lions looks best in a cage

... to imitate your own dint for the poetic wrap-up.

This is becoming a valuable thread, with many thoughts to keep, for future application.