On dark characters and plots.

[MoominAhoy]

I'm just going to dive right in here and say I'm a sucker for a good villain. I enjoy writing them into my stories, I enjoy reading about them and seeing how they're portrayed in TV adaptations.

Over the years I've noticed a lot of controversy, particularly on social media platforms surrounding 'dark writing'. Can a darker character be taken too far? When do their actions become too much or unnecessary? Is writing these themes 'romanticising' violent/abusive characters?

I recieved a lot of criticism once for expressing my enjoyment of Iwan Rheon's portrayal of Ramsay Bolton in Game of Thrones. I hadn't read the books at that point in time and I was trying to explain that enjoying an evil character doesn't equate to condoning their actions but it was like talking to a brick wall.

I'm just interested in what your thoughts are. How much emphasis do you apply to your villains and evil characters?

 

[Lumens]

For me, it's simple. The character has to believe that what he/she does, is justified somehow. They could have a strong concept of right and wrong that may be based on a completely distorted view of reality, but you should at least get an insight into that view.

Having said that, well written characters that are alien to us are interesting too, where it's almost impossible to understand them, but that's hard to pull off.

In general I will say that I think great writing justifies making a villain likable, or at least someone I can relate to. Great stories can hit a nerve and touch upon subjects that are taboo - that's part of what makes them great. If it makes people nervous, so be it.

 

[-K2-]

I need to add this as a signature line... I am a novice writer, so, take my opinions with a grain of salt.

In any case, we cannot imagine (hopefully) the depths of true sadistic evil that occur around the world daily. That's actually a good thing, but, it also speaks to what 'I believe' most readers will tolerate. To be sure, there are some readers who will linger over every malicious word in perverse horror, yet most I suspect are just fine with brief implications of physical or psychological cruelty.

As for my dark characters, I've had a few that were so psychopathically sadistic/vicious/evil that no matter how vague my implications, they still bothered readers. I didn't have to spell out every gory detail. I simply needed to suggest and let the reader's mind take their guessing and imagination to 'their darkest place.' That is perhaps the short version of it. I don't know 'your worst thing,' and I certainly can't directly address every reader's 'worst thing' individually. But, I can lead them to a place where they infer 'their own' worst thing, and leave it at that... mission accomplished.

My darkest character to date was actually the protagonist. The entire story revolved around her life, all she suffered, endured, and then at the last in each case, turned it around on the numerous villains in the story winning the day. Feedback throughout found readers horrified with those villains... mostly in that they were accurate historical representations (truth is not just stranger than fiction), shame at our ancestry is a funny thing. Then after 211k words, they discovered the protagonist who they had all rooted for throughout was actually the villain that would seek out and instigate situations to justify her maniacal homicidal impulses.

As you might expect, that upset people most of all. They had invested themselves into supporting and cheering for that character to do exactly what she did. A friend of mine upon that revelation, even confessed to abruptly vomiting (although, Shiela is somewhat dramatic ). So, clearly I had accomplished my goal... But, the vast majority of readers, I suspect, would be upset enough that what throughout had been a story they enjoyed, would have found them rating it low (no one likes to be fooled).

For the most part, I try to keep my dark villains vague, their motivations shallow and their cruelties blunt. Naturally, they mostly reap their just rewards in short order, often at the hands or through actions of the hero of the story.

Instead, I'll tend to make my heroes less-perfect. A bit of their inner-light that overpowers their (own) dark. Some subconscious drive or something from their past which compels them to do the right thing and seek justice... often, forsaking their own conscious drive for survival. When they overcome their own fears and petty lack of character, that seems to help readers relate to the character and sometimes find inspiration.

That seems to yield a much stronger reaction with obviously a more positive response.

Again, you can't know each reader's darkest place. But you can lead them to infer it. In that way, your dark characters will be even darker to most people than you can ever portray and in the end not leave you reading like a villain at heart.

Just my opinion,

K2

 

[tinkerdan]

Dark doesn't exactly equal evil.
@Jo Zebedee novels have lots of darkness and much of it is in the hero's.
In fact, sometimes it's that darkness that helps define their humanity.

Evil doesn't have to look dark.

I've know several alcoholics and one person addicted to heroin-- that was their dark side--however they were not prone to be evil people.
Just self destructive.

I've known one person who all outward appearances they seemed happy and healthy and yet they ended up in prison several times for their strange personal moral code. They were evil deep down but kept that certain innocence as a veneer allowing them to get close to people: marks.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I sort of come at it from the point of view of empathy. No one sets out to be evil - they set out to do what their definition of right is. That can include killing others, eradicating races etc etc - so long as it’s justifiable to the character (and justifiable can include nasty reasoning including selfish ones).

For me most darkness in my characters - as Tinker says it’s not in any way reserved by the antagonists - comes from their inner reasoning. Nail the understanding of why your character would do the things they do (I always struggled most with the Empress - I think because I am a mum and her actions are so counter my comprehension) and the behaviour becomes logical - and all the more chilling for it. And if that occurs in a character we are rooting for, and like - well, that makes us question our own understandings and beliefs even more.

 

[The Big Peat]

Hmph.

First off... everything attracts controversy on social media these days. Pay that at least little heed.

Of course, there are characters and stories too dark for popular consumption. I think it'd take a genius to make a popular piece of storytelling these days where the main character was routinely abusive to animals and small children. A lot of people seem to draw the line there. But that's a pretty polarising example. So what about the darkness before that point?

I think "too dark" functions in two ways.

The first is some people have a limit to how much they enjoy this sort of stuff. I'd say that these days my interest in unrepentant douchecanoes is waning and my list of what constitutes such is growing. And Robin Hobb snapped my patience for nice characters who are nevertheless too stupid to be anything other than fate's punching bag. I'm never say never and my tastes change frequently, but there is a level of bleakness I'm just not that into.

The second is in terms of contrast to the story and tone itself. Acts of nastiness or cruelty I'd not think twice about in Song of Ice and Fire might completely snap me out of more cheerful books. And conversely, a lot of fantasy books have plenty of darkness when you stare hard at them, but you've got to stare hard as its not put centre stage, or because of who its directed at. Wheel of Time is full of pain, but its mainly put on the main cast, and so it becomes trauma rather than darkness.

As for how I approach my villains/evil characters... honestly, so far, I've just not really had them. I tend to go for tales of self-discovery and man vs self, with the villain existing more to force the characters to grow. Few of my villains are that evil. Maybe I'm going wrong there. But then my main work to be date was a mythic noir - murky characters, yes, but outright villains and evil? Nah.

 

[Steve Harrison]

I think all humans possess a capability for evil and a well-drawn villain can tap into that and provide a kind of guilty pleasure for readers. While 'civilisation' generally keeps a check on terrible behaviour, you only have to look at nazi Germany - and the many examples since - to see what ordinary people can do, and there is no reason to believe dictators these days have any problem at all in finding a large number of people ready and willing to do their dirty work once given permission.

I have only written one serious villain, in my first novel, and he was a dour man who didn't flinch from inflicting pain and murdering people at will. On the other hand, he was first subjected to a serious injustice that resulted in the loss of his family and his freedom, and his quest for revenge took over his personality and he became more obsessive as the story unfolded. My goal was to make readers sympathise with and relate to this violent man until they discovered how far he would actually go before they stepped back and said 'whoa!' I'm not sure how successful I was, but he is certainly my favourite written character so far.

 

[MoominAhoy]

Thanks to everyone who have responded, you have all made some really interesting points and it's certainly opened my eyes to some ideas that hadn't occurred to me. This is just another reason I am glad to have registered here since it's far too easy to get caught up in mainstream social media and not everyone there looks at subjects like this with an open mind.

I think from a personal point of view, I would avoid having a character commit heinous acts just for the sake of it. It would either have to support development of the story or the character themselves or as someone mentioned above, justified to an extent. It's a difficult one because sometimes I like certain character backgrounds being open to interpretation.

I hope this is coherent since I'm sick and fuelled on coffee alone - yikes. Take a shot every time I type 'character' ha.

 

[Karn's Return]

Ultimately, what people want in characters is relatability. Even in sci fi and fantasy, where non-human characters are more likely to be presented, the most successful ones are still set up with humanoid conflicts/emotions/traits. Even the Vulcans of Star Trek, who decided as a species to suppress emotions as much as possible, still are relatable not only by being very similar physically to humans, but also to have some very human problems, not the least of which was the destruction of their homeworld by the Romulans.

This isn't just for protagonists/heroes/antiheroes but also for villains. Like Jo said, even if society would see the actions of a villain to be morally wrong, they need justification on some level for their actions, even if it's some form of mental illness or insanity. That said, however, as was also said, I think most people forget just what humanity is ultimately capable of, even without a position of power. Those who have positions of power and influence can wind up being ultimately responsible for acts like genocide, but even on the smaller scale, there's people like Charles Manson, who use their natural charisma in very dark ways, or even those who are outright psychopathic or otherwise dangerously insane, such as the Son of Sam and various other serial killers over the course of human history. Many of them are even quite clever in many ways, such as H.H. Holmes, considered widely to be one of the United States' first serial killers, who set up the Murder Hotel in Chicago by having numerous, revolving crews of workmen build up trap and torture rooms within his building.

But when it comes to writing, there's going to be some kind of event ultimately in a world's lore that will corrupt those who might have otherwise been a beacon of light or good, and all of it winds back up to human nature. Mythology, modern religious texts, and numerous worlds of lore like Middle Earth are based quite heavily off of what humans ourselves are weak to-essentially, the seven deadly sins, which despite not being a religious person, I feel does have some sense to them.

Now, think on this very carefully. What would you rather continue reading-a story with a villain who lost his entire family due to government corruption through genocide or other forms of societal mistreatment, and therefore using that pain and anger and hatred to eliminate those responsible, no matter the cost, or a story with a villain who is just walking down the street and stabbing people in the ribs simply because it's possible to do so?

 

[Mouse]

I have a character who's a demon who I've had beta readers get squirmy about because they like him but he's horrific and does vile things, but he's a demon so... I have actually toned him down a teensy bit because of beta feedback but it makes me a bit sad (well not sad exactly, as I don't mind doing it, but you know) that I had to do that. For example, this is a comment I've just copied from an email from a beta: "oh Max. What do I think of you. He’s vile but also I liked him. (It’s not fair, you gave him all the best dialogue!!). He is horrible, though. I’d be interested to know what other people think of him. I’m still not sure I’ve made up my mind."

So, yeah, it's a difficult one. I think maybe it's more difficult if you make them both evil and likable because people find it harder to deal with?

 

[Karn's Return]

Personally, Mouse, I don't think demons can actually hold a candle to what humans could dream up...I mean, we've dreamed up the beasts anyway...

 

[Overread]

For years people were arguing that violent games made for violent people. This is despite the fact that many of those making those arguments grew up in the "Westerns" era of Hollywood. Where most films would have had gunslingers slinging bullets at each other and indians and where cowboys and indians might have been a favoured childhood game.


Mostly I think that social media can be a bit of an echochamber for certain groups and viewpoints and sometimes the whole hounding of "dark characters" can become very overblown within such a chamber of views. This can result in a group think that turns to some extreme viewpoints. However its important to realise that much of this is often overblown internet stuff - people cool off after a day or two away from it. And often its a very vocal minority.


Just look at how popular things such as Game of Thrones are. Or the entire Hollywood Horror/gore market.

Personally I think that dark is good in a story. Just like racism, abuse, narcissism, evil, etc.... Depending on the style of story that you are telling all these things can be good for the story. Why, because they are parts of the fantasy world you are creating. Creating a monster for your hero; creating personal demons of their character to overcome. Or perhaps even creating an anti-hero - one who has value different from our own as a contrast and yet still has t obe the story hero.

I think the key is for an author to be true to their own work and balance how they display things based on the style and nature of a story they want to tell. Remembering that much of it can also be in the style of delivery. "Vikings rape and pillage" is a term many consider quite casual even though both are horrific things.


Be true to your story and your vision and see where it lands.

Personally I've loved characters like Glotka from Joe Abercronne's (sp) book series (I've totally forgotten the name); or The Baron from the computer game Witcher 3. A character who embodies many things that we should hate and yet you can see that the character wars with his own nature, a nature he's more learned and set in his ways. You even see the brutal punishments that result from his actions and can even sympathise with him at the same time as feeling that he got just what he deserved through his earlier actions.

Readers don't have to like every character, even if the character is a key leader and hero. What they have to like is your style of writing, the story, the adventure, the journey that you the author take them on .

 

[Toby Frost]

I'm not a huge fan, really: not out of any particular squeamishness, but because "dark" has come to be seen by many as a replacement for "complex" or "deep". I find that while it can feel childish to have a world where nothing goes wrong, it is adolescent to have a world where everything goes wrong - and if I have to choose between the two, the childish option is often more entertaining to read.

That doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be done, though. Crime fiction has been doing it ever since the concept of noir was invented, so fantasy has come to this idea pretty late. And there have been older fantasy novels that, while not covered in gore, have had moral ambiguity or touched on darker themes: Mythago Wood, Steinbeck's Acts of King Arthur and Michael Moorcock's fantasy novels, for example.

Ultimately, it depends on what the book needs. If the story needs a relatable villain, fine, but if the villain is just a force of evil, so be it. After all, sometimes there's nothing worth seeing in a person's head.

 

[tinkerdan]

I'm not sure I'd want an honest deep look into anyone's head.

Ultimately, it depends on what the book needs. If the story needs a relatable villain, fine, but if the villain is just a force of evil, so be it. After all, sometimes there's nothing worth seeing in a person's head.

...this might come of knowing some of the strange things that cross through my own mind: on occasion.
Not sure I'd want to write on paper everything going through my head.

Still:
A lot of good writing is where the author takes themselves out of the comfort zone and in doing so draws the reader out of theirs. Not quite so bad when the reader starts wondering why they like this despicable character so much. Though it might eventually leave a bad tasted in the mind.

@Mouse I've at least once made a huge mistake following that type of cautionary advice and throttling the natural creation. Consider strongly before you alter things--you made that character that way for a reason.

 

[Mouse]

@Mouse I've at least once made a huge mistake following that type of cautionary advice and throttling the natural creation. Consider strongly before you alter things--you made that character that way for a reason.

Thank you, yeah, I only altered a tiny bit as he is that way for a reason. The trouble I'm having at the moment is in reading agents wanted/not wanted lists and his character traits feature on the vast majority of "won't even look at" which is infuriating.

 

[tinkerdan]

Rather than dark this might be referring more to evil.
I think that this hits on something that applies to a multitude of things in fiction.

I think from a personal point of view, I would avoid having a character commit heinous acts just for the sake of it. It would either have to support development of the story or the character themselves or as someone mentioned above, justified to an extent. It's a difficult one because sometimes I like certain character backgrounds being open to interpretation.

...anytime you write something that can be interpreted as gratuitous, you need to be aware and go back and make a value judgment.
It can be violence it can be sex it can be inane interaction between characters and even down to that hideous making the character seem overly immature.

If it doesn't really add any value to the story then it needs to be cut. Even so, if it is vital, that doesn't mean it has to be graphically described in every detail.

In the same token you might consider how realistic you want or need to be. Evil doesn't care about political correctness unless it serves its purposes.

Of course, there are characters and stories too dark for popular consumption. I think it'd take a genius to make a popular piece of storytelling these days where the main character was routinely abusive to animals and small children. A lot of people seem to draw the line there. But that's a pretty polarising example. So what about the darkness before that point?

And you should consider if you really want evil that gives children encouragement and lollipops, saves the cat, contributes to campaigns to fight global warming, and always puts the toilet seat cover down.


And finally I can't really speak to this...

Thank you, yeah, I only altered a tiny bit as he is that way for a reason. The trouble I'm having at the moment is in reading agents wanted/not wanted lists and his character traits feature on the vast majority of "won't even look at" which is infuriating.

Because I can't get into the head of real agents and what is out there for consumption is often suspect in that it is how that agent feels, perhaps not representative of all agents.

 

[HareBrain]

The trouble I'm having at the moment is in reading agents wanted/not wanted lists and his character traits feature on the vast majority of "won't even look at" which is infuriating.

I expect many agents are scared of social media responses to anything that might be considered challenging. If you look at Goodreads reviews for books that contain certain unlikable behaviours, especially in YA, you tend to get some furiously worded low-starred reviews, which are a small percentage of the total number but seem to have more likes than the positive ones, suggesting a SM user who can rouse up a wider reaction. So I guess the agents make a blanket ban on such things, because it's just not worth their time considering even the more nuanced examples.

Somewhat OT, I've noticed that none of the people I've talked to about their agents have had a very positive result from having one. And that's not even considering the huge amount of wasted effort by those who fail to attract one at all. Life's too short.

 

[Mouse]

Somewhat OT, I've noticed that none of the people I've talked to about their agents have had a very positive result from having one. And that's not even considering the huge amount of wasted effort by those who fail to attract one at all. Life's too short.

And unfortunately most publishers won't even look at you unless you have an agent. Rock and hard place, innit.

 

[Karn's Return]

And yet everybody still just goes gaga over social media sites. :| There's plenty of reasons why I absolutely despise and will refuse to use Twitter, Facebook, and all their ilk. :|


It might be next to impossible going it alone but I wouldn't be sacrificing my self integrity just to placate those whiners. They've ruined enough already as it is.

 

[Overread]

Like it or not if you want some wool you gotta go where the sheep are.



In other news don't forget that some "not accepted" lists might be more guidelines than actual rules. With writing a lot of elements are yes/no based not on the concept but on the execution of it. We see this all the time in writing with different styles and prose; the same is also true of subjects and content. Of course there are hard limits in both, furthermore if the editor/agent is aiming at a specific market certain themes are always going to be out.

I suspect some of the lists are more where people revel in the darkness far too much or its purely focused on it with no real plot just what one might consider a "moody teenager" production.