Villains pt 2: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

[aeriedraconia.livejournal.com]

Villains: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

The villain is a very important character or force and can make or break a good story. What makes a good villain and what just doesn't work for you?

1. What makes a villain villainous?
2. As a writer, how would you show your villain is villainous? (Try to think beyond the typical and easy nutbar, rapist and or child molester).
3. What do think makes an interesting and believable villain and what are the things you like best in a villain?
4. What do you think makes a lame/crummy villain, what things drive you crazy in a villain and what are some of your most hated stereotype villain characteristics?
5. Why are so many villains surrounded by stupid henchmen/women? How can a villain operate successfully with stupid Henchmen/women?
6. Who are your favorite villains? What did you like about them?
7. Who are some of your least favorite villains? Why do they not work for you?

Comments

[captainblack.livejournal.com]

Questions 1-3:
my answer(s):

Evil occurs when a person decides to believe they are justified in hurting humans, animals, their world, etc., in order to satisfy their desires, achieve their goals, etc.

It makes the villain more believable when you show the reader how very much they want to be rich/famous/King/Queen/the greatest scientist ever, etc., and the bad things they will do to get there, --which they themselves believe are justified and balanced by the "greater good" that will occur when they are in charge, etc.


Question #4
my answer:

Lame villains, in my opinion, are ones that the author never gives us a chance to sympathize with. If the author can't show how the feelings of the villain drive them to do bad things, and consequently show us how we might be evil ourselves if we ever let our goals seem more important to us than the lives and feelings of others, the villain accumulates lameness points.

Beyond that, I don't really have any most hated characteristics, other than plain bad writing.

Q&A #5: It follows that only very misguided people would follow a villain. Maybe not stupid, but limited in compassion, awareness, or focus. Villains use them anyway because to the villain, any other person is a limited tool, only useful for a limited set of circumstances.

I don't really have any thoughts on 6 or 7 today. I've blathered on too long anyway.

Villain? or Antagonist?

[duke-flieg.livejournal.com]

Interesting set of questions, and the usual answers to them are why I have written only a couple of villains and a lot of antagonists. (An antagonist is someone who opposes the desire of the hero, or protagonist

1. Most "villains" are not villainous. Very few people set out to "be evil", and nutbars (as you put it so eloquently) are not villainous. They can be antagonists, but true villainy requires much more -- it requires an entire worldview on the part of that person that goes against all the ethical and moral boundaries of the world you are writing about. (I am writing fantasy, so it is necessary to specify which World is in question.)

2. Show the affects of the actions of the villain on people other than the Hero. The easy way is the "oppressed peasantry". The better way, imho, is to draw the people who are affected by the villains actions by accident or by negligence. That the Evil Overlord killed a hundred troops who tried to take him down is not villainy -- it is self-defense. That he does not care that the wife of his chief minion is dying and tells him "get over it" is far more evil (imho). The feelings of violation of a person who was controlled but rescued by the Hero show the evil more than many things might.

3. Villain or antagonist -- They should have a childhood and youth beyond a single traumatic incident -- some sequence of events that twisted their character. There should be a feeling that if *someone* had just taken proper care, just once, the villain would be helping the Hero, not fighting him. (Does not apply to psycophathic serial killers in detective novels.) Oh, yes, and they should NOT, EVER, be named "Foul", "Dark*****", "Dread" or anything of the like unless there is a *really* good reason for it (like "Darkwood" is the family surname). (Partial answer to 4.)

4. I'm mostly going to skip 4 and go to 5. What really frosts me are *stupid* villains.

5. See above. The best villains are surrounded by competent bureaucrats who know that if a bitchen' babe in tight leather shows up at the front door she should be terminated at once, not shown to the boss's sanctum sanctorum. The basic answer is that a villain cannot operate successfully with bad help, but good help is so hard to find.

skipping 6

7. Lord Foul (from Thomas Covenant series)

[cinnasugg.livejournal.com]

1) When, as a reader, you find yourself agreeing with the villian's logic and psychology. No, maybe those puppy's heads didn't need to be stomped, but the puppy's death were inevitable and really it was just better to get it out of the way. Any psycopath can harm someone, but a true villian can make it seem justified, even if it isn't.
2) There is usually a disassociation with compassion. For example, reacting calmly to the news of the death of a comrade, or, talking casually about something that happened over drinks the previous week while rigging up a bomb to a governmental building. Nothing, in my opinion, says "evil" more than talking about how Person Y is sleeping with thier ex (again!) and how horrible an idea it is while rigging up C4.
3) I sort of answered this in one I guess. A truely believable villian never does anything randomly, and has taken the time to consider his opponent's psychology and motives before acting. A good villian also knows about misdirection. Blowing up the building is just a cover for the kidnapping of an ambassador's son. The best thing I like about the villan is that s/he usually has the same goals as the hero, but is going about it in a completely different way, and wants to do it first. It's perfectly possible for the hero and the villan to both want to save the world, but they go about it in opposite ways.
4) A lame villain is one that has no redeeming values at all. They are not brilliant, they do not have tech that actually could help the world, they have only the desire to sit on the throne, whatever way you want to go. That is juvenile and works for Disney, but does not work for a good villain.
5) FOrgive the step into personal philosophy on this one: because without that major handicap, the villain would easily win in most stories. The hero is often alone, or very Johnny come lately, and without the help of the inept guard would never triumph. It was a device put into a plot at one point and has been blown out of proportion. It needs to stop.
6) (in no particular order) Queen Maab from NBC's Merlin, Abe no Seme (yeah, spelled that wrong I'm sure) from otogi zoshi, Cesare Borgia from Canterella, King Hagard from the Last Unicorn, and Islington from Neverwhere. All of them were evil, and all of them had their goals set around selfishness, but they also had a cool logic to their whys and hows.
7) Pretty much anything from Disney, though they manage to get a good villain in there once in a while (Hades from Hercules comes screaming to mind, followed by Meleficant.) usually you have no idea why the villain is acting against the hero, or it's flimsy at best (Hello Jafar) and you are given no real reason to LIKE the villain.

[shayna611.livejournal.com]

1. Pretty much what everyone else said. Their ambitions have negative reprecussions on decent society.

2. The best, most truly evil villains aren't cackling madly as they stir up trouble for the poor heroes (*cough* Disney) they're more apathetic, especially to their own loses. What I love most is when a villain is seriously torn. He's actually rather fond of puppies, but stomping them is the only way he can accomplish what he needs to. I'm also especially fond of the larger-than-life villains of anime who find the hero to be an annoying pest barely worth dealing with or an interesting challenge to their might

3. see above

4. The worst thing is a villian who actually realizes he is a villain. No one chooses to be evil. I'm not terribly fond of villains who just want to take over the world, or more absurdly - destroy it - without reason. Underdeveloped henchmen are, by far, the most offensive villains.

5. Stupid henchmen are non-threatening. For some villians this means they can manipulate them more easily. For some writers this means avoiding developing the power struggle between multiple strong and ambitious characters with potentially differing aims. I always appreciate some good intrigue among the adversaries over the stereotypical throng of thugs around one supposedly competent master. Henchmen are also generally used for roadblocks and filler - to stretch the story out before getting to the big bad boss.

6. I always like those characters that fall in the middle. As a teenager I was a big Weis/Hickman fan - I loved Raistlin. Jowy Atreides of Suikoden was a perfect example of "I don't want to do these bad things, but what's it matter if I kill a few to save the many?" As far as nutbars, I love Sephiroth. (can you tell I play too many video games) Even nutbars need some explaination - and he had good reason for going mad and was entirely believable. The whole evil cast of Xenogears - definitely the best convoluted story I've seen in game form, especially the villains and their politicking. The best example of pure evil I have encountered is Bleach's Mayuri Kurotsuchi - the mad scientist captain. Absolutely, blood-chillingly heartless, to the point that it amazed me the creators had the guts to put him on the screen. It seriously made me want to go throw a lot more development into the villains of my current story.

7. Voldemort - and I am a big Harry Potter fan, but Voldemort was so unimpressive, weak, and stereotypical - complete with dimwit henchmen.
I have to agree with disliking anything Disney - they always seem contrived.

On a side note, duke flieg, just based on your crits and comments, I am seriously dying to read whatever it is you've got.