Consistency or Humanity? What do you value more in protagonists?

[GetterDolphin]

I came upon this dilemma when I was working on a review of two shows. (Both mecha if you are curious) The protag of one was a dictionary definition of a sociopath, violent, impulsive, and had difficulty forming relationships with other people. But he was very consistently written and had quite a bit of growth.

The other, even though he theoretically should have had a more dynamic arc about becoming a leader and forming relationships with his teammates, bad pacing and a bizarre decision by the writers to separate him from the rest of the cast for seasons caused his development to stagnate or even be undone. Still, he had more endearing and "likable" qualities than the first. He never instigated fights but always acted in self-defense. Still, he was never able to win the respect of his teammates, who always call him "the weird emo" and the like.

Both of these characters are the same basic lone wolf "hero" archetype but are executed in such wildly different ways, it's fascinating. There is a bit of discrepancy in age rating, but the inconsistent one was for a much younger demographic. Strange, isn't it?

 

[Wayne Mack]

I'm not sure that there is a trade-off here. I suspect that consistency is mandatory and some positive traits are valuable in a villain character.

Though a character arc isn't necessary, if the character evolves over the story, then this must be set up and foreshadowed. Characters must act as expected by the reader. The one exception to this would be a betrayal arc. In this case, a character will act in an unexpected manner, but the justification absolutely must be provided afterwards (and even then there should be some light foreshadowing).

I find a villain who is bad merely for the sake of being bad to be boring. The character should have some positive, even though it may be horribly misguided, rationale for his or her actions. Showing a different side to a character in separate circumstance helps to build engagement. These circumstances must be unambiguously separate from the scenarios where the character acts badly. For example, a cold, calculating hitman might also be a loving father. This provides the reader with some level of relatability to the character despite the character acting in a manner quite alien to the reader.

Does this sort of answer you question?

 

[GetterDolphin]

I'm not sure that there is a trade-off here. I suspect that consistency is mandatory and some positive traits are valuable in a villain character.

Though a character arc isn't necessary, if the character evolves over the story, then this must be set up and foreshadowed. Characters must act as expected by the reader. The one exception to this would be a betrayal arc. In this case, a character will act in an unexpected manner, but the justification absolutely must be provided afterwards (and even then there should be some light foreshadowing).

I find a villain who is bad merely for the sake of being bad to be boring. The character should have some positive, even though it may be horribly misguided, rationale for his or her actions. Showing a different side to a character in separate circumstance helps to build engagement. These circumstances must be unambiguously separate from the scenarios where the character acts badly. For example, a cold, calculating hitman might also be a loving father. This provides the reader with some level of relatability to the character despite the character acting in a manner quite alien to the reader.

Does this sort of answer you question?

Yeah! On the topic of the villain being a bad guy just for being the bad guy, that sort of writing is pretty common, unfortunately. Even the sociopath had a moral code, even if it made no concessions for surrender or apologies. I just thought it was interesting because a lot of advice is on making your main character likable over making your main character have consistent behavior.

 

[msstice]

Did villains always have a sympathetic part or always have a back story? I think YA from my child hood (several decades ago now) just had evil villains. I'm trying to recall if adult literature always tried for more complexity. If we take LOTR as the standard fallback example, Sauron was always evil, I think? And people who we know had a past before becoming evil always became evil because they were weak and fell prey to greed. Ben Kenobi says that Darth Vader was "seduced by the dark side" which is the same theme.

 

[Wayne Mack]

Villains don't need to have a sympathetic justification or backstory; often it is sufficient for the villain to be competent (the same is true of the protagonist). Competence isn't even required if the villain is used for comedic effect.

 

[The Big Peat]

Did villains always have a sympathetic part or always have a back story? I think YA from my child hood (several decades ago now) just had evil villains. I'm trying to recall if adult literature always tried for more complexity. If we take LOTR as the standard fallback example, Sauron was always evil, I think? And people who we know had a past before becoming evil always became evil because they were weak and fell prey to greed. Ben Kenobi says that Darth Vader was "seduced by the dark side" which is the same theme.

Sauron - and I am fairly sure that this in Lord of the Rings - was once of the Maiar, one of the lesser powers of good serving the creator. He fell and followed Melkor/Morgoth in his rebellion - I forget whether that's in LotR, but it's certainly Silmarillion. I'm not sure we were ever told why in the books, but Tolkien's letters state he started with good intentions but was corrupted by power.

I think most of the villains of my teenage years - reading predominantly 80s/90s fiction - were "evil, got it" but there were a significant minority of villains with reasons. I think envy was the one I saw most.

edit: Nm, I just read the Simarillion is where we hear Sauron's origins.

 

[GetterDolphin]

Did villains always have a sympathetic part or always have a back story? I think YA from my child hood (several decades ago now) just had evil villains. I'm trying to recall if adult literature always tried for more complexity. If we take LOTR as the standard fallback example, Sauron was always evil, I think? And people who we know had a past before becoming evil always became evil because they were weak and fell prey to greed. Ben Kenobi says that Darth Vader was "seduced by the dark side" which is the same theme.

I was more so talking about protagonists, but pure evil bad guys are a rarity nowadays. I kind of miss them.

 

[therapist]

I just thought it was interesting because a lot of advice is on making your main character likable over making your main character have consistent behavior.

Like Wayne said, I think consistency is mandatory. If a character acts in seemingly random ways, with no rhyme or reason, then they aren't going to feel like a real character.
As for likability... There are plenty of likable characters that I don't care for. And plenty of unlikable characters that I could read a million words about. I feel like a more important metric is whether or not a character is interesting. If a character is interesting, does it really matter if they have any humanity, or any redeeming qualities at all?

 

[hitmouse]

It is a bit of a cliche to say it, but a well-written villain is interesting, often more than the rather anodyne lead. There is freedom to develop the baddie. Some coherent ethos is helpful. Neither redeeming features nor a complex backstory are obligatory for an engaging character, but there is an opportunity to have fun, maybe with some restrained scenery-chewing.
Consider:
Goldfinger
Blofeld
Terry-Thomas
Hannibal Lecter
the Sheriff of Nottingham
Voldemort
Severus Snape
The Red Queen
Villanelle
Baron Harkonnen

 

[Toby Frost]

I remember someone here once saying that heroic characters just weren't interesting, and I'd agree about the kind of square-jawed dullard that you might find being rugged and wooden in a 1950s film. But, just to take one war and one country, Douglas Bader, Nancy Wake, Ursula Graham-Bower and Orde Wingate were all on the "heroic" side in WW2, and they were all very odd people indeed. I'm not sure I would have wanted to know any of them very well, but they'd make interesting characters in a novel!

 

[paranoid marvin]

It is a bit of a cliche to say it, but a well-written villain is interesting, often more than the rather anodyne lead. There is freedom to develop the baddie. Some coherent ethos is helpful. Neither redeeming features nor a complex backstory are obligatory for an engaging character, but there is an opportunity to have fun, maybe with some restrained scenery-chewing.
Consider:
Goldfinger
Blofeld
Terry-Thomas
Hannibal Lecter
the Sheriff of Nottingham
Voldemort
Severus Snape
The Red Queen
Villanelle
Baron Harkonnen

I agree. There's also freedom for the 'baddie' to do what they want; magnanimously generous one minute, then outright evil in the next. Whilst 'goodies' will usually be constrained by what they can do.

Sheriff of Nottingham is a good one; we don't need to know his back story or his reason for doing what he does. Money, titles, petty spitefulness - or a combination of different driving forces behind his determination to catch Robin. Kevin Costner's 'Prince of Thieves' was completely eclipsed by Rickman's Sheriff, and Nickolas Grace almost stole the show from Michael Praed/Jason Connery. Both were over-the-top evil-to-the-core villains, with no moral scruples, no back story, and no real reason for doing what they did. But great acting and scripting made them highly effective characters.