Writing villains

[Aminar]

Why ever not?   

Because we are only human.  Some actions have obvious consequences.  Most don't.  Today I wound up watching X-men 3 with a client because in 2006 I went to a specific showing of X-men 3 that got me a job that showed me where I wanted to take my life.(Quite literally kicked off the chain of events that led me to who I am today.)  That is an entirely unforeseeable chain of events.   That isn't a blank responsability check, but doing the right thing as often as possible is better than the path of doing nothing that worrying about consequences too much leads to.

Basically speaking, intent is the only thing worth judging people on.  Otherwise you hold people up to an impossible standard.  If you hold yourself to that standard you will destroy yourself with self-recrimination.  It isn't a healthy approach to life.

Now I will say that people should always think about the consequences of their actions and try to minimize the bad but to judge somebody based on the potential or unforeseen consequences of their actions is awful.

As to the character thing.  it isn't judging the characters so much as hating that a writer would choose to do that to their readers.  There are reasons to read.  TO watch something that feels like a horrible car accident for hours on end isn't a very good one.  It's why i don't like game of thrones.  The whole time I feel sick knowing that bad things are going to happen to these people.  I don't want to see that happen.  But I'm too far into the series to stop.  The further I read though, the sicker I feel.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

How is that selfish?  Reasons behind helping people don't matter.

If you're neither arguing for intent nor for results here, that seems to me to leave an interestingly narrow window for actually analysing, or justifying the morality your stories explore.

On the topic of actions being right with bad consequences.  We cannot foresee the consequences of our actions.

Not unto the end of the universe, no.  But, to take an example that should be familiar to all of us, if your protagonist has a choice between saving his girlfriend and starting a war, and he picks starting a war knowing full well it will happen, that's a consequence he can foresee and be held responsible for.

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.

You think every possible hero is by definition capable of compromising with every other possible hero ?

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,

How about, due to genuine, deep, intractable and real philosophical differences ?

[superpsycho]

There is a large range between due diligence and criminal negligence in decision making as well as motivation. There are those who have no problem doing others harm if they gain from it. And there are those who actually enjoy hurting others for a range of reasons. An author can choose from any of them and give any level of caring they please.

But an author has to decide who their audience is. Knowing what their audience expects and wants in their villains and heroes should be central in an author’s thinking, unless of course they’re writing just to have something to do. An author also has to decide, how much explanation and justification their audience can deal with before they’re bored silly.

[gatordave96]

I think the latest version of the Joker worked so well because we were never really sure what motivated the guy.  He told several stories about how he got his "smile," and each one of them pretty grim.  But he gave a different story seemingly at the drop of the hat.

I think we can all relate to someone who has gone "bad" because of unusual or tragic circumstances in their life, but the Joker kept us guessing as to what that might be.  That was unique.

Also, I think some of the greatest villains aren't necessarily ones who think they're right, but know that they're wrong and relish in believing that they're above or beyond the normal morals.  For example, Hannibal Lechter worked as a villain because he knew he was a killer, but thought himself beyond the rules of society -- "I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti."  The same was true of the Joker.

Other villains are memorable simply because they are a complete badass -- like Darth Vader in the "A New Hope."  Or Agent Smith in "The Matrix."  Definitely not people to mess with.

[Aminar]

If you're neither arguing for intent nor for results here, that seems to me to leave an interestingly narrow window for actually analysing, or justifying the morality your stories explore.

Not unto the end of the universe, no.  But, to take an example that should be familiar to all of us, if your protagonist has a choice between saving his girlfriend and starting a war, and he picks starting a war knowing full well it will happen, that's a consequence he can foresee and be held responsible for.

You think every possible hero is by definition capable of compromising with every other possible hero ?

How about, due to genuine, deep, intractable and real philosophical differences ?

There aren't logical philosophical differences too deep to compromise in an altruistic morality.  Compromise can always be made if everyone works towards the concept of compromise.  There are cultural ones, but not cultural ones based in rationality.  Nobody should be so ingrained in a tradition so deeply they cannot bypass it.  (Now, most people are, but I find irredeemable cultural differences to be an obnoxious plot device.  It encourages closed mindedness.  Shouldn't stories be about making things better, not stagnating and giving in to the same problems we deal with every day?  Shouldn't they be a pathway to making people think past and through problems?

And you will never see me defending Harry's actions in Grave Peril.  He should have been much much sneakier.  She deserved to die, but the blame should have been pinned on somebody else.  Perhaps Mavra.  Or whoever the real villain of the story is.  I can however forgive him for doing it because I understand the anger he felt.  That doesn't mean he did the right thing.(I'd rather not go into the morality of lying here, but I will say that lying is appropriate to manipulate outcomes for the best.  Don't tell the kids I work with that I said that though.)

[Nickeris86]

i never put my villains in a situation where I would have to write them harming a child, teenagers (16 and over) are fair game. I am ok with giving vague descriptions of the aftermath of something like that to build up how purely evil the particular son of a bitch is.

For my villains,  unless they are completely alien (insane or otherworldly) in their thinking, they always have a reason. Now that reason may not make much sense or could simply be to cold and calculating for most people but its still a reason.

It also depends on how i want the audience to react to the character. If I want them to despise this guy and cheer when he gets whats coming to him then he is going to do somethings that are going to make you hate him. If i want them to sympathies with them then i work that in somehow. Then their are the ones who i want the reader to love to hate, like the Joker. No one roots for him, well no one that i would want on my Christmas card list anyway, but we love him all the same.

[OZ]

Actually I can't stand the Joker but that's beside the point. I know what you are talking about. For me a villain is a villain. What he would do or how far he would go to do it would depend on his or her motivation. If he is a serial killer, he might do things that he wouldn't if he were an enemy soldier. Someone like Fidelias (codex Alera) might do horrible things because he feels it is necessary for the greater good. Another villain (antagonist is probably a better word here )might be a ruthless business man that would never physically hurt someone but has absolutely no problem leaving them and their family destitute. Like good heroes, good villains need to be more than two dimensional cardboard cutouts. They need to have reasons, whether simple or complex, for doing the things that they do. One of my gripes with the most recent movie Joker was that it was never clear to me what his motivation was (crazy may be part of the motivation but by itself it is not enough for me. )

As far as violence against women, children, the elderly, etc. it would again depend on the villains motivation. One thing that I will not do is spend a long time describing the violence being done. I, for instance, understand a book where the plot is driven by a man wanting revenge because the bad guys raped, killed and tortured his family. I don't need the author to spend 100 pages describing the brutality in glowing detail. That's one reason that I avoid a lot of horror movies. 

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

One of my gripes with the most recent movie Joker was that it was never clear to me what his motivation was (crazy may be part of the motivation but by itself it is not enough for me. )

I never bought that he was crazy, fwiw, at least not in the whole avatar of chaos sense he loudly proclaims; what success he achieves is tied to repeatedly out-thinking and out-organising everyone else on screen.  As far as motivations go, watching what he does and ignoring what he says leads me to believe he's a) convinced humanity are irredeemably horrible and b) primarily motivated by a desire to rub their noses in it, which the movie refutes when the Plain People of Gotham in the boats refuse to go along with the Joker's scheme; the one place his plans falter is with people in general being morally better than he relies on.  (And a large part of what I found unsatisfying about Dark Knight Rises is the total undercutting of that.)

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

There aren't logical philosophical differences too deep to compromise in an altruistic morality.  Compromise can always be made if everyone works towards the concept of compromise.

Consider this, then.  Group A get hold of time-travel technology.  Group A see this as an opportunity to prevent historical atrocities, and set about doing so.  Group B note that the changes group A make to prevent atrocities will have other, butterfly-effect-type knock-on consequences, such that if they change events a few centuries back in time, it's likely that everyone now alive in the world will be replaced by someone different. Group B are therefore implacably opposed to group A, despite that each of them are motivated entirely altruistically.

I pick this example because it's been done more than once in genre, and with either group as the heroes.

There are cultural ones, but not cultural ones based in rationality.  Nobody should be so ingrained in a tradition so deeply they cannot bypass it.  (Now, most people are, but I find irredeemable cultural differences to be an obnoxious plot device.  It encourages closed mindedness.

And what if a character were to perceive your position on rationality and altruism as itself a culture-specific position of yours, and one you are being closed-minded about asserting must take precedence over other people's ? Could you buy such a character as a hero ?

Shouldn't stories be about making things better, not stagnating and giving in to the same problems we deal with every day?  Shouldn't they be a pathway to making people think past and through problems?

That's a different and knottier set of questions, but even granting for the sake of argument that it would be preferable for stories to have a positive impact in the world, I am not at all seeing how you go from your avowed perspectives in the above paragraphs to the answers you seem to be implying in this one.  (Please do correct me if I misread you.)

I can however forgive him for doing it because I understand the anger he felt.

I'd note that you're clearly operating from a different moral perspective to me, here.  On the other hand, most of my characters operate from different moral perspectives than I do, too; it would be very boring to only be able to write sympathetic characters if you agreed with them, or unsympathetic characters if you didn't.

[Dresdenus Prime]

Here's a question about writing a villian that doesn't add to this discussion, but rather than create a new topic I figure I would just post it in this one -

Is it plausible to write your first book of a series and introduce one of the primary series villains in Book 1? The end of the story would basically be a, "I'll get you next time Gadget!" moment. But I wasn't sure if this would be a bad choice - if I should concentrate on a lower level antagonist.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Is it plausible to write your first book of a series and introduce one of the primary series villains in Book 1? The end of the story would basically be a, "I'll get you next time Gadget!" moment. But I wasn't sure if this would be a bad choice - if I should concentrate on a lower level antagonist.

I think so.  I mean, it depends on how compelling your lower-level antagonist is; whatever your concerns about selling the series, it won't get anywhere if the first book doesn't sell in and of itself, so whatever makes it strongest. (How long are you envisioning your series ?)

[Dresdenus Prime]

This would definately be one of those, "As long as I can think up good stories then I'll keep writing about this character," much like Dresden or Atticus of the Iron Druid Chronicles.

But sometimes in books, sort of like in The Dresden Files, there are enemies or enemy groups waiting in the shadows for their time to shine, for example the Black Council. This Villian I've been cooking up has a lot of history with the hero and would almost be like a, "look in the mirror and see your dark side," kind of character(Still tinkering with that), but I don't want to throw too much oomph into Book 1 and then have this villian be less interesting to readers down the road when he returns.

On the other hand like you say Neuro I want to make my book strong, and I think this antagonist and his history with my character would be a great addition to the story

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

This would definately be one of those, "As long as I can think up good stories then I'll keep writing about this character," much like Dresden or Atticus of the Iron Druid Chronicles.

I've not read the Iron Druid books and can't speak to their pacing, but Jim's said a fair bit to indicate that the large-scale story structure of the DF has been to some extent defined since before they saw print; there's new cool stuff coming in to them as he thinks of it, iirc Changes was around book ten on the original plan, and there was the DB/PG swap, but I do get the impression Jim knows where he's going in the BAT and the major beats that will hit between now and then, so I don't think of the DF as "will keep writing more about this character as ideas arrive" rather than following a larger plot that will ultimately have a defined resolution.

But sometimes in books, sort of like in The Dresden Files, there are enemies or enemy groups waiting in the shadows for their time to shine, for example the Black Council.

I'd note, looking at the DF, that both SF and FM are fairly standalone; had the series not done well, I don't think only having those two of books, or just SF would have felt like a drastic lack of closure, and it's only in GP that the larger-arc elements get foregrounded.  (I'd also argue that there's a notable change after DB in terms of how standalone the books are, and how much they feel like chapters of a larger ongoing arc, but I read that as having got from the beginning to the middle of the overall story.)

Indeed, thinking of the DF as a whole as a detective story, the Black Council were introduced in book 8, or a third of the way through, so I'm inclined to think we could be fairly close to a big reveal that Harry's totally wrong about there being a Black Council behind everything, and that their purpose in the series-scale mystery-plot is "initially plausible wrong hypothesis that the detective chases for a while and gets into deeper trouble thereby".

This Villian I've been cooking up has a lot of history with the hero and would almost be like a, "look in the mirror and see your dark side," kind of character(Still tinkering with that), but I don't want to throw too much oomph into Book 1 and then have this villian be less interesting to readers down the road when he returns.

How much of that history would you want to get into book 1, then, and how much could legitimately be saved for later volumes ?

[Dresdenus Prime]

How much of that history would you want to get into book 1, then, and how much could legitimately be saved for later volumes ?

There is the million dollar question. If this guy is the villian of book 1, I obviously need to reveal some history between him and the hero, for example the villian ran over the hero's dog, and now they are bitter enemies, but I can't just give everything away, because then what's the point of writing more.......of course this is just with one villian, whereas there are usually many.

But like I said my current plan is to make this guy one of the primary series villains, so I have to leave some of the mystery for later. Maybe instead of the primary villian I should cast him in more of a supportive role or cameo, where he's in charge of the villian going after the hero. I'm not sure. Stuff to figure out! That's why I'm here! 

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

But like I said my current plan is to make this guy one of the primary series villains, so I have to leave some of the mystery for later. Maybe instead of the primary villian I should cast him in more of a supportive role or cameo, where he's in charge of the villian going after the hero. I'm not sure. Stuff to figure out! That's why I'm here! 

A larger-scale series villain for whom the initial villains you see are catspaws could certainly be done, yes.

This may be just me, but I am rather drawn to the notion of relatively small-scale villains who, when defeated, plausibly fake evidence for a larger-scale villain, or traitor on the hero's side, who does not really exist, so that the hero then becomes somewhat paranoid and wastes time and energy looking for that traitor or villain.