Writing villains

[o_O]

I am the opposite there - making me read about unrelieved triumph of good is like making me eat a pound of rock candy - cloying, nauseating, intellectually fattening.    Even in small doses it is like cheap sweets - a quick rush followed by a low more depressing than before the start.    More depressing because there is also the same self hatred after cheap indulgence that a trying-to-quit smoker gets after a cheat cigarette.

Triumph of good is also logically suspect - 'good' and 'evil' labels are more properly applied when consequences are known (or when the victors write history) -  so during-the-fact  cheering of a 'good' hero to me smells of bureaucratic artifice and causality violation both.

[Aminar]

Right and wrong aren't that hard to see in a narrative.  And the point of fiction is to escape like the point of candy is to taste good.  If those things make you feel guilty you might want to look at why.  Neither of those things is wrong when it doesn't hinder your ability to manage life.  If indulging for short amounts of time makes you feel guilty you likely stress yourself out overmuch.  If so, don't worry so much.  Enjoy life.  It isn't incredibly long and most of it isn't fun.(I apologize if this offends.  Like I said.  My empathy gene is overactive and the comments worried me.)

Besides which, everybody could use some good old fashioned heroic altruism beat into their brains.  If everyone were aimed at helping people the world would be a much better place. 

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

I see it this way -- evil has a goal and will do anything to acheive that goal, Need to seige a city and kill everyone inside? Evil does it. Need a super weapon and the only person who can create the weapons don't want to have anything to do with you? Grab his daughter and give him the orders. A little old lady between you and a fortune? A shove down the stairs.

In short, Evil will do anything it can to do its thing. Most heroes have some sort of line they won't step over.

I can't really go with this one; it works for a sort of chaotic take of evil, but it leaves out a whole range of plausible options for characters who have solidly defined moral compasses, and clear lines as to what they will and won't do, which lead them to evil acts.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

I would have to agree with this at least for the most part. Specifically I tire of reading horrific stories with disgusting endings that are defended by people saying, "That's how real life works."

Thing is, that particular defence of a nihilist story doesn't work for me because real life also has wonderful stuff in; anyone who claims it does not will lose me.

Having said that I would partially agree with Neurovore. There has to be plausibility. There also has to be tension. Evil has to be successful enough, at least for a while, that I can feel some fear that the hero will die or at least be permanently scarred.

I don't think dying is the relevant scale for me; there has to be a real possibility that the hero will fail at whatever their goal is; and for a hero in a long series, that possibility is not going to feel real unless the hero actually does fail some of the time.

[OZ]

I don't think dying is the relevant scale for me; there has to be a real possibility that the hero will fail at whatever their goal is; and for a hero in a long series, that possibility is not going to feel real unless the hero actually does fail some of the time.

I oversimplified. You put it in much better terms. I agree completely.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Right and wrong aren't that hard to see in a narrative.

If you mean that the moral polarity of good and evil espoused by a work of fiction is usually pretty straightforward to derive from the text, fair enough in many cases; if you want to argue good and evil as being self-evident, I'll part ways with you there.  (Harry Dresden and Mr. Spock are both generally taken to be heroes, but they have radically different positions on the notion of the greatest good of the greatest number, for example.)  It may well be a consequence of growing up in an environment where both my perceived politics/ethnicity and my perceived sexuality were things which some people around me were willing to be very negative on based on their zealously held takes on good and evil, up to and including risk of serious violence, but if you give me a text that suggests good and evil are obvious to all right-thinking people, I will find it untrustworthy and repellent.

And the point of fiction is to escape like the point of candy is to taste good.  If those things make you feel guilty you might want to look at why.  Neither of those things is wrong when it doesn't hinder your ability to manage life.

I'm with Professor Tolkien when he said that the word for people who object to escapism is jailers, but I'm rejecting the notion of a black-and-white setting where good and evil are clearly laid out as one there's any appeal for me in escaping to; in that kind of setting, I always feel I'd be one of the people hanging from a lamp-post for not buying into the relevant notion of good.

I'd much rather escape to a rich and complicated banquet with lots of different and interesting food than to a heaped pile of refined sugar.

Enjoy life.  It isn't incredibly long and most of it isn't fun.

If that's the case for you, you have my sympathies.  I've been able to get to a point where rather a lot of mine is, and not by doing anything that seems impossibly difficult for many other people to do.

Besides which, everybody could use some good old fashioned heroic altruism beat into their brains.

Applying a statement like that to people who have no self-confidence already and who are full of self-loathing because of constantly being held to impossible standards, for example, is a fairly straightforward way for a simple take on good to generate suffering as a byproduct in ways that work for me as evil.  That's not one I intend to write much about myself, because I'm rather too close to it personally, but it's a useful source of conflict in a story somewhat more sophisticated than merely light versus dark.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

I oversimplified. You put it in much better terms. I agree completely.

Thank you.

Thinking about it, there are any number of stories in which a heroic day-saving victory though self-sacrifice counts as a win; and I can buy that as an element, but a world where every single death is glorious self-sacrifice than wins something worthwhile isn't going to be one I can believe in enough to take any comfort in.

[OZ]

(click to show/hide)

Triumph of good is also logically suspect - 'good' and 'evil' labels are more properly applied when consequences are known (or when the victors write history) -  so during-the-fact  cheering of a 'good' hero to me smells of bureaucratic artifice and causality violation both.

First of all I would say again that some of this is just about personal taste. I don't expect everyone to like or dislike the same things that I do. Having said that, I do have somewhat specific tastes. I have to like the hero and I have to buy into the hero's value system at least for the duration of the story. That does not always mean that they have to have the same value system that I do. I loved the TV series Dexter (at least the early seasons) and like the hero. I can buy into his value system in the show even though it is very far from mine. On the other hand there was a book that was highly recommended by some of the people on this site. (I'm not going to say the name or author because I'm not trying to be insulting or cast stones.) The book was well written with a good magical system and a fast paced story. The hero, however, was whining and ineffective and showed mercy to the most vile people while killing innocent people without a second thought. I hated the book. Most who read it apparently loved it. I just couldn't like the hero and for me that ruins the book.
  I should add that the same is not always true for short stories. I have read masterfully done short stories where I didn't like the main character and didn't agree with his or her value system. I guess I can only handle that sort of thing in small doses.   

Oops. Used the spoiler instead of the quote function

[Aminar]

If you mean that the moral polarity of good and evil espoused by a work of fiction is usually pretty straightforward to derive from the text, fair enough in many cases; if you want to argue good and evil as being self-evident, I'll part ways with you there.  (Harry Dresden and Mr. Spock are both generally taken to be heroes, but they have radically different positions on the notion of the greatest good of the greatest number, for example.)  It may well be a consequence of growing up in an environment where both my perceived politics/ethnicity and my perceived sexuality were things which some people around me were willing to be very negative on based on their zealously held takes on good and evil, up to and including risk of serious violence, but if you give me a text that suggests good and evil are obvious to all right-thinking people, I will find it untrustworthy and repellent.

I'm with Professor Tolkien when he said that the word for people who object to escapism is jailers, but I'm rejecting the notion of a black-and-white setting where good and evil are clearly laid out as one there's any appeal for me in escaping to; in that kind of setting, I always feel I'd be one of the people hanging from a lamp-post for not buying into the relevant notion of good.

I'd much rather escape to a rich and complicated banquet with lots of different and interesting food than to a heaped pile of refined sugar.

If that's the case for you, you have my sympathies.  I've been able to get to a point where rather a lot of mine is, and not by doing anything that seems impossibly difficult for many other people to do.

Applying a statement like that to people who have no self-confidence already and who are full of self-loathing because of constantly being held to impossible standards, for example, is a fairly straightforward way for a simple take on good to generate suffering as a byproduct in ways that work for me as evil.  That's not one I intend to write much about myself, because I'm rather too close to it personally, but it's a useful source of conflict in a story somewhat more sophisticated than merely light versus dark.

No, I'm saying that right and wrong are different from good and evil.  RIght and wrong are self evident in literature.  Good and evil are totally different.
I would say they exist on an axis based on the effect of an action.

Take action A.  Save a mans life.  It's the right thing.

Later on you find out that by saving his life you allowed him to go on and continue being a serial killer.  The result of your action was evil despite it being the right thing. The axis is pretty self evident from there(and I'm using an extreme example to highlight how I see things.)

Heroes typically do the right thing.  Villains can too.

Now-My definition of a hero vs a villain.

Hero:  Someone who foregoes, to an extent, their personal desires to help others lives improve(or maintain).

Villain:  Somebody that purposefully puts their personal desires before the good of others frequently and without care.

Insanity throws a few wrenches in here, ones I am exploring via my current project. 

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

No, I'm saying that right and wrong are different from good and evil.  RIght and wrong are self evident in literature.  Good and evil are totally different.
I would say they exist on an axis based on the effect of an action.
Take action A.  Save a mans life.  It's the right thing.
Later on you find out that by saving his life you allowed him to go on and continue being a serial killer.  The result of your action was evil despite it being the right thing. The axis is pretty self evident from there(and I'm using an extreme example to highlight how I see things.)

OK.  From my perspective that kind of objective use of right and wrong as terminology is every bit as uncomfortable as good and evil, and to save the life of a serial killer such that he continues killing is not by any means defensible as doing the right thing; some of my writing is exploring that, because I am tired of characters who make judgements based on what appears immediately right and wrong before their noses without considering the longer-term consequences.

Hero:  Someone who foregoes, to an extent, their personal desires to help others lives improve(or maintain).
Villain:  Somebody that purposefully puts their personal desires before the good of others frequently and without care.

Would depend a lot to me on what the personal desires are, and how accurately the good of others is seen.  I mean, where would you count a character whose personal primary motivation is To Be A Good Person, and who goes around helping other people out of the purely selfish desire to count as someone good ?  (Not hypocritically or to be perceived as good in the community, but to be able to honestly see themselves as sincerely and genuinely good ?)

[o_O]

Right and wrong aren't that hard to see in a narrative. 

In some narratives, that is true.   I don't like narratives where that is true.   

And that brings us full circle to the start of the thread - do you want  your villain to be perceptible as being wrong?  Or do you want to be able to see him as a second hero with differing goals?   I find that the latter is very much something I prefer.

And the point of fiction is to escape like the point of candy is to taste good.

Well, I would also argue that the primary point of some fiction is very much not to escape but rather at least a dozen other things (to satirize? to provide enabling emotional language to a reader in analogous situations? to make political points? to examine hypothetical notions for their own sake?)    Escapism is then secondary.

  If those things make you feel guilty you might want to look at why.  Neither of those things is wrong when it doesn't hinder your ability to manage life.  If indulging for short amounts of time makes you feel guilty you likely stress yourself out overmuch.  If so, don't worry so much.  Enjoy life.  It isn't incredibly long and most of it isn't fun.(I apologize if this offends.  Like I said.  My empathy gene is overactive and the comments worried me.)

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be understood that way - it was meant to be understood more like the way Jacquy Pfeiffer talks about the French concept of food in Kings of Pastry.  (my synopsis follows) If you're only going to have a small amount, then have the best.   That way you will not feel that you have missed something when it is finished.

It is exactly to avoid that feeling of missing something at the end (and to thereby avoid stress), that I don't prefer fiction whose primary point is to escape.   (Unless it's the best, of course, and my 'best' includes 'rich with second, third, fourth flavors and as many textures as can possibly work together.').

[OZ]

From my perspective that kind of objective use of right and wrong as terminology is every bit as uncomfortable as good and evil, and to save the life of a serial killer such that he continues killing is not by any means defensible as doing the right thing;

I am stretching this a bit but this is why I got to the point that I can hardly stand Batman. His continued failure to kill the Joker has led to the slaughter of thousands with the accompanying despair of those left behind. He has allowed this not because of any greater good but only for his personal satifaction of not taking a life. Rather than any nobility, I find him selfish and unbalanced.

When writing, I like to try to see things from the antagonist's point of view. For one thing it helps to keep me from "cheating" by having the protagonist succeed only because of the antagonist's stupidity.

[o_O]

When writing, I like to try to see things from the antagonist's point of view. For one thing it helps to keep me from "cheating" by having the protagonist succeed only because of the antagonist's stupidity.

I completely support your efforts in this arena.

[Aminar]

OK.  From my perspective that kind of objective use of right and wrong as terminology is every bit as uncomfortable as good and evil, and to save the life of a serial killer such that he continues killing is not by any means defensible as doing the right thing; some of my writing is exploring that, because I am tired of characters who make judgements based on what appears immediately right and wrong before their noses without considering the longer-term consequences.

Would depend a lot to me on what the personal desires are, and how accurately the good of others is seen.  I mean, where would you count a character whose personal primary motivation is To Be A Good Person, and who goes around helping other people out of the purely selfish desire to count as someone good ?  (Not hypocritically or to be perceived as good in the community, but to be able to honestly see themselves as sincerely and genuinely good ?)

How is that selfish?  Reasons behind helping people don't matter.  I get payed to mentor at risk teens.  I go to work to get payed.  I picked the job because I like helping people.  Is it selfish that I wouldn't do so without getting paid?  No.

On the topic of actions being right with bad consequences.  We cannot foresee the consequences of our actions.  We should not be judged for consequences that cannot be foreseen.  All we, as fallible humans, can do is what is right in the moment.

On the subject of do I want the villain to be a second hero with a different philosophy than the hero?  Hell no, possibly an antagonist for a while, but not a villain.  That's whats called a hero.  In the end they compromise with the other hero and figure things out in such a way as to stop the people that are honestly the villains. Because there are honestly people worth being cast as villains and I loathe stories where a bunch of sides that are all trying to do the right thing end up butchering each other due to lack of communication, closed minded characters, and the author trying to be gritty and shocking.  They make me feel sick to my stomach and hate the characters for being idiots.  But I like my heroes rational enough to try to avoid senseless violence. 

[o_O]

On the topic of actions being right with bad consequences.  We cannot foresee the consequences of our actions.  We should not be judged for consequences that cannot be foreseen. 

Why ever not?   

Why should the future hand us a blank responsibility check, to do anything we want so long as we have an "I didn't know!" excuse?

and I loathe stories where a bunch of sides that are all trying to do the right thing end up butchering each other due to lack of communication,

I have to say I very much like storyshapes such as Lem's Fiasco and Brust's To Reign in Hell.

They make me feel sick to my stomach and hate the characters for being idiots.

Well, but wouldn't this be rather close to judging those same characters for unforeseen consequences to their actions?   

  The reader can foresee  the consequence of communicating in a particular way to clear a minor problem, but if the character cannot have the same vision and does something else instead, wouldn't  the principle of 'doing what seems right in the moment'  excuse the character?