Scared and powerless

[Ihe]

I heard somewhere that the main factor to make an antagonist scary is the difference in perceived power between MC and antagonist. Now, I don't know if this means the baddie being powerful or the MC being powerless, but this distinction seems important to the psychology of the conflict. Or is it?

I've been wondering since then if the difference in power is the most terrifying aspect of a baddie, or if there's another factor more deserving of the main spot, like mystery, unpredictability, gross-out, or cruelty. These are just some reflections I've had recently on the subject, as I'm "growing" a concept for a Scary Big Bad.

I'm aware there might be answers here along the lines of "it depends/it's contextual" or "all factors can pull their own weight in equal measures", etc, and they can be totally valid (but they're usually no fun at all! ), so I guess I'm veering more in the direction of: if you had to pick one terror-inducing factor as the most important, what would it be and why?

 

[Overread]

You're mostly right in that there isn't answer that covers it and that in general anything done well will work.

That said the general gist of the advice is that making an antagonist "scary" is partly related to having them be superior to your protagonist. Ergo that your protagonist has to overcome great odds, to struggle and suffer and push themselves, in order to overcome their antagonist.
Also note the key word "perceived". It's not enough that there is a power difference, the reader must see that power difference in action.

Eg if your antagonist has much bigger armies in a war, but always ends up losing to the protagonists then the perception of the power difference isn't being carried across.


As for one terror inducing factor that's impossible to pick "just one". It totally depends on what you want to write and often as not you won't have just one, instead you'll have several with some being stronger than others in terms of how their influence affects the protagonist. Furthermore those varied pressures might well change over the course of the story, indeed one would expect that, if the protagonist is to win, then change in character would come that would allow them to overcome one or more of the major factors in order to beat the protagonist.

I would say though that fear is a hard thing to make a reader feel. Revulsion, hate, loathing, anger, distrust, disgust etc... are much easier emotion to spark off in general. Actual fear is much much harder to carry off, although you can make them worried for characters (esp if you've several key characters and are not afraid to kill some off/injure/cripple/banish etc...)

 

[goldhawk]

I disagree. The greatest fear is fear of the unknown. Monsters live in the dark. Keep your antagonist in the shadows for as long as you can. They will always be perceived as more powerful as long as you do that.

 

[zmunkz]

You mostly talked about attributes of the baddie, but what really scares us are the stakes if we lose. Thus, the baddie can only ever be as terrifying as those stakes. From there, it is a matter of their competence and their advantage to establish how likely it is that they will succeed in bringing about the stakes. So I suppose I’d answer the question with this general formula:

[the perceived advantage of the antagonist over the protagonist] x [the severity of the stakes should the antagonist succeed in their antagonizing]

 

[Abernovo]

The greatest fear is fear of the unknown.

This. @Ihe, you listed unpredictability; that's possibly the closest. You don't know what will happen next. Even more scary, you don't know where they are, what they're doing, perhaps even who they* are.

*This could be the individual or it could be members of a group, or army, or agents working for them.

The other thing, which goes along with that is propaganda and suggestion. Genghis Khan supposedly took over vast swathes of land because he sent out riders saying 'Genghis Khan is coming this way - run for your lives!'. When he got there, the ones left were those who couldn't leave, to whom it didn't matter which regime they lived under, as they were always bottom of the pile. And, he tried to treat them justly, by many accounts. But his name spread fear, people ran, and his empire grew, taking control of the assets left.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I also think stakes are important - a clear understanding of what is to come.

In the Abendau books some people found how graphic I was in some scenes in book 1 hard - but once the stakes were so clearly outlined the agency through the rest of the trilogy was in place

 

[TitaniumTi]

I heard somewhere that the main factor to make an antagonist scary is the difference in perceived power between MC and antagonist. Now, I don't know if this means the baddie being powerful or the MC being powerless, but this distinction seems important to the psychology of the conflict. Or is it?

On the contrary, I think too great a disparity in power can reduce the protagonist’s agency, and thus the stakes. As a reader, I know this disparity means that the author will have to pull a rabbit out of the hat in order to balance the odds, and this reduces my immersion in the story.

I agree with previous posters; unpredictability is the key to making the antagonist and the story scary. Not knowing what the antagonist will do, or how events will play out, is what builds suspense.

 

[goldhawk]

You mostly talked about attributes of the baddie, but what really scares us are the stakes if we lose. Thus, the baddie can only ever be as terrifying as those stakes. From there, it is a matter of their competence and their advantage to establish how likely it is that they will succeed in bringing about the stakes. So I suppose I’d answer the question with this general formula:

[the perceived advantage of the antagonist over the protagonist] x [the severity of the stakes should the antagonist succeed in their antagonizing]

Yes that sounds very logical but the thing about fear is that it is illogical. The fear you feel can be way out of proportion to the danger.

On the contrary, I think too great a disparity in power can reduce the protagonist’s agency, and thus the stakes. As a reader, I know this disparity means that the author will have to pull a rabbit out of the hat in order to balance the odds, and this reduces my immersion in the story.

I agree with previous posters; unpredictability is the key to making the antagonist and the story scary. Not knowing what the antagonist will do, or how events will play out, is what builds suspense.

As long as one does not confuse unpredictable with random.

 

[Ihe]

I would say though that fear is a hard thing to make a reader feel. Revulsion, hate, loathing, anger, distrust, disgust etc... are much easier emotion to spark off in general.

Yeah, that's the vibe I get. I'm not very experienced with the horror genre, but it seems that the other negative emotions like hate or disgust can many times be carried through with a good depiction of the character/situation alone. With fear, on the other hand, it feels like not only do you have to play with the written event, but with the mood, POV, pace, and the reader (feels like you need to guide the reader very closely in the telling and anticipate physiological reactions themselves) more so than with other emotions, in a very detailed and controlled manner.

The other thing, which goes along with that is propaganda and suggestion.

True. Sauron or Voldemort were scarier when they existed only in hushed superstitious hearsay .

I also think stakes are important - a clear understanding of what is to come.

Yup. What fascinates me is that many non-horror stories coincide with the horror genre's stakes (usually life or death situations). It's interesting to analyze how the context works to twist these similar stakes to induce fear, when these same stakes in another story, do not.

I think too great a disparity in power can reduce the protagonist’s agency, and thus the stakes.

I half-agree. The disparity in power does modify MC agency, but not the stakes IMO. Isn't the horror genre mostly this? MC's terrified reaction after terrified reaction to the baddie's actions, running away, hiding, trying to understand, etc. In the third act proactive behaviour comes into play, but not that much before then. I feel there's an inherent victimization of the characters in order to make the threat as big as possible, thus increasing the stakes.

To give a proper example on the issue, I've been looking back at one of my top 3 horror faves: the original Alien movie. I think it's an horror masterpiece, and although the sequel was more fun for me, it was not as scary. And this comes down to the victims. In the first movie, they had no idea (that's where fear of the unknown comes in) and they were wholly unprepared, with the crew being civilians (that's where the power disparity comes in, compared to an alien). In the second movie the crew members know about the aliens and their rough location (a diminished fear of the unknown) and they are trained soldiers armed to the teeth and with a plan (power disparity practically non-existent, but plenty of character agency--they believe they are in control. In the beginning it even looks like the aliens are the underdogs). The threat level does increase when they loose most of their resources, thus regressing to being powerless in relation to the antagonist. This makes me think that the power relation is more important than the unknown, basically because as a writer you cannot take back exposure and information, but you can take back power given. For the intentions of horror, I feel power ends up being more maneuverable, and thus of greater value (?) to the story.

In my mind, more agency=less perceived power disparity=less fear. And concerning fear of the unknown, now that I think about it: isn't it also an aspect of power disparity? Whoever knows most has the power. If the monster can see you but you can't see it, who has the power? The less information you have, the less power to control the situation you have, thus the less proactivity you can muster. Rather than power, maybe the main factor is the more specific sense of control?

Apologies for the near stream-of-consciousness just now. It's a fascinating subject!

 

[Toby Frost]

Personally, I think it's a double thing. You've got to have high stakes, which means something that you don't want to lose and a real possibility of losing it. So that means likeable characters and a chance of killing them off (or otherwise seriously damaging them).

Alien is an interesting example because, once it's made clear that the Alien is deadly, we don't get a very good idea of what it really is until it's silhouetted at the very end and is clearly a man in a suit. There isn't a clear sense of what the Alien can and cannot do, although it seems clear that it can't (yet?) operate machines the way the crew can, and has no interest in communicating with them, so won't try to trick them like that. In a more complex story, it might be useful to be clearer about the villain's powers, but as long as they're not outrageously surprising (the Emperor can shoot lightning but can't turn into a dragon, say), it's probably ok.

The crew of the Nostromo are interesting because, while they aren't hugely lovely people, they are just trying to get by and seem quite pleasant. Some of them are entertaining to watch, too, which counts for a lot. Early dialogue about bonuses and mechanical problems suggests that they have the same sort of worries as normal people (such as us). The other thing about the humans in Alien is that they are active. They try to figure out ways to defeat the Alien, although the things they do basically worsen the situation. As such, they're sympathetic and also entertaining, which are both important to get us to want them to survive.

 

[Ihe]

There isn't a clear sense of what the Alien can and cannot do,

I guess they do it like that on purpose. Keeping the mystery alive all they can, robbing the characters of as much information as possible.

 

[tinkerdan]

In some respects agency is having choices, making those choices, acting on the choice.
So even in the scariest and most desperate situations there are still choices.
Even if all they are is::
Run like mad and hope to live another day
or
Face death full square in the face.
However when a character paints themselves into a corner they might lose their agency and require Deus ex machina to get them out.
So I'm not sure how much agency helps answer the question.

Often the scary and the powerful antagonist don't have to have agency. They just forge ahead and squash.

When they do have agency then they might become a bit scarier.
When they appear to make choices and are consistent they become more real.

I'm not sure if the powerful aspect or even some imposing physicality that might make them seem scary are necessary for evil. Its more tied with works and agency of the character that makes them evil in relationship to how those works affect the protagonist.

Even so if they have better toys that only works if they cross paths a lot.

Having better toys and never crossing paths would hide the evil aspects.

Crossing swords often with equal toys might be worse.

Or having the evil with substandard toys and yet always one step ahead of the protagonist could be equally as challenging.

 

[Ihe]

In some respects agency is having choices, making those choices, acting on the choice.

I might be using the term agency wrong here. I mean it as proactivitity vs reactionary behaviour. Well caught.

I'm not sure if the powerful aspect or even some imposing physicality that might make them seem scary are necessary for evil.

The power disparity is not about being evil, it's about being scary. And I'm actually inclined to think that the victims being powerless is much more effective for horror than the antagonist being particularly powerful, as it diminishes the sense of control for the POV.

 

[The Big Peat]

I think that ultimately power is not all that scary. A villain needs power but, to get all Thulsa Doom about it, steel is nothing compared to the hand that wields it.

I think what makes villains scary is their mindset. Sometimes its their cruelty, sometimes it is their implacable nature, sometimes its their charm or the way they see other human. But all of that is mindset.

Look at Darth Vader. Looking cool and having cool powers certainly helps him. But being a cold, impersonal man who will threaten his own as readily as hie foe - if he even recognises that term - if it gets him what he wants? I think that's what makes him. That it survives him becoming conflicted rather than single minded is an example of very good storytelling.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

For me I think it actually comes down to a slightly different dynamic. How much do you care about the protagonist? I mean if you don't care about him, what does it matter if your hero is completely helpless and the baddie will do the most horrible thing in the world to him? It becomes a yawn fest. But if you do care - if you are invested - then OMG he's going to do horrible thing s to Lord Beautiful and he can't be stopped!!! Is Darth really so terrible because of his cool suit / voice and the mean things he does? Or is he a true villain because we like Luke and Leia?

To give another Star Wars example - Rogue One which I watched recently - it meant nothing to me. I didn't care about the heroic sacrifice etc because I simply didn't like the MC's. Hell I'd push half of them out the airlock myself just for a little peace and quiet!

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Ihe]

Look at Darth Vader. Looking cool and having cool powers certainly helps him. But being a cold, impersonal man who will threaten his own as readily as hie foe - if heeven recognises that term - if it gets himwhat he wants? I think that's what makes him.

Good point, but i'm not focusing on what makes a good villain, but what makes him/her/it terrifying, as in the horror genre. Think Alien, Psycho, Leatherface, etc. As awesome as Vader is, he's not scary in that sense. I'm veering more towards inspiring fear in the reader, not in the story characters.

 

[Toby Frost]

In which case I'd reiterate what psychotick said above. The likeability of the characters is vital. The villain hardly has to appear if there's sufficient investment in the characters and the story. Take the cenobites, who appear in Hellraiser for less than 3 minutes of the film, or a drama about someone fighting an illness, where the illness isn't even visible. In a lot of ghost stories the ghost doesn't really do anything: its presence is enough to show that bad things are about to happen and that's enough. Of course, you've got to show that the villain's presence does cause disaster, but after that, they can be offstage for a long time provided that the sense of dread remains. And a lot of that sense comes from wanting the characters to stay alive, which means liking them.

On the other hand, take a bad horror film of the sort parodied by The Cabin in the Woods. The characters are crude stereotypes: one or two might be "hot", but none are developed or likeable. The overall feeling of such films is that we're laughing at these people, and the whole thing, however gory, starts to feel false and camp.

 

[The Big Peat]

Ah I see. Well afraid I can't help you there as horror fiction isn't my cup of tea and there's simply no literature villains I've been scared of. I think the point stands though - people with a limited power but no compunctions about hurting you are generally scarier than people with lots of power but who follow the rules. Obviously lots of power and no compunctions is scarier of all, but the mindset is the worst bit.

Hi,

For me I think it actually comes down to a slightly different dynamic. How much do you care about the protagonist? I mean if you don't care about him, what does it matter if your hero is completely helpless and the baddie will do the most horrible thing in the world to him? It becomes a yawn fest. But if you do care - if you are invested - then OMG he's going to do horrible thing s to Lord Beautiful and he can't be stopped!!! Is Darth really so terrible because of his cool suit / voice and the mean things he does? Or is he a true villain because we like Luke and Leia?

To give another Star Wars example - Rogue One which I watched recently - it meant nothing to me. I didn't care about the heroic sacrifice etc because I simply didn't like the MC's. Hell I'd push half of them out the airlock myself just for a little peace and quiet!

Cheers, Greg.

I always got the impression that a lot of people are far more invested in Vader than Luke and Leia. I know I am.

 

[Ihe]

The caring thing is a good observation. Maybe we're not afraid OF Pennywise, but we fear FOR the children. Emotional stakes for the reader can do more than plot stakes for the character on that front I guess.

And it's true that it's hard for the monster itself to generate fear in a reader. Rather, I see its sphere of influence as what can change the mood. It's the potentialities for mayhem outside of the protagonists' control that tenses us up, not so much the objective presentation of the monster.

 

[Cathbad]

"Horror" is psychological, to me. That's why blood and gore doesn't do it for me. I've seen enough of it in real life, that on screen, it's never... real.

Anthony Perkins, in Psycho, was frightening. As was Buffalo Bill, in Silence of the Lambs. Neither of these men were intimidating to look at, but once we knew what they were inside, their looks didn't matter. Pinhead (Healraiser) was weirdly awesome to look at, but it was what he was that frightened us. Darth Vader was actually pitiable looking, since it was obviously why he was trapped in that suit. He wasn't even that bad of a soul. And when we learn what he is capable, I don't think it was actually frightening. He was more intimidating to the other characters, but I think few were actually frightened by him (save the natural, "healthy" fear of death).

I found Pennywise to be frightening, perhaps because the mere thought of an evil clown is sooo... shudders

Of course, this is merely personal opinion. I have friends who swore the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre frightened them, while I laughed through most of it! For me, I guess, it takes a psychological aspect to be frightening - and I like to be frightened by a movie!