Saturday, December 3, 2011

Creating the Villain: What we do every night Pinkie…



… try and take over the world!

Everyone loves a good villain and hates a bad one. So how do you make your villain interesting, dynamic and memorable?

The easiest way to avoid writing bad villains is to avoid villainy for villainy sake. What real reason is there to have the villain kill puppies or rape random women, other than to show he is evil? Any act of villainy needs a primary purpose, namely helping the villain reach his goals. Showing that he is evil should be a secondary function of the event. Furthermore, any evil acts committed are far more effective if they are against someone the audience already cares about.

Because I ragged a little on Harry Potter in my last post, I’m going to use the series to provide a good example this time. Let's look at Cedric’s death to see what I mean. His death serviced three different functions, one in-universe and two for the narrative.

In-universe it eliminated a few potential problems for Voldemort. Had Harry died as plan it would have eliminate the only other witness to his return. Killing Cedric also ensured that no one would come to help Harry. For JK it showed Voldemort as being ruthless and provided Harry with the proof he would need later to back up his claim that Voldemort returned. His death had later narrative consequences, but these are just the immediate ones.

Now for a bad example, let’s look at the Sword of Truth. In the first book, there is a villain that has a ‘taste’ for little boys. Why? Because he is evil, that’s why. I remember no plot related reason it needed to be in there, it had no other purpose.

Which villain do you remember? Which one has become iconic? Exactly my point.

So what’s the next important piece? The motivation. Why is the character acting evilly? What is the purpose the ultimate goal driving his/her actions? As I mention earlier, it could be ultimately good in the long run or it could be selfish (generally they are). It could even be noble or understandable. But we are talking classic villains here, so let's look at their classic goal: taking over the world.

But here’s the thing, taking over the whole, just to take over the world – it’s a tired and nonsensical motivation. How does one even go about doing it? And if you were to succeed it would collapse pretty quickly like every large empire in the history of the world. And man, would it be a TON of work. So not really doing much for me.

Well then, you might ask, how am I supposed to tell my epic story without an epic scale? Don’t worry it just requires some creative thinking. Here is a list of potential alternatives. Instead, consider the more reasonable desire to take over a specific country. But they do need a good reason as that one could be just as nonsensical. Maybe the younger brother got the throne they were supposed to have or they think the current king is a tyrant? Another option large in scale is an empire expanding into the hero’s home country. Or maybe the bad guy has already been ruling or just got to the throne. Keep in mind most tyrants still manage to have decent people working for them willing. Things can’t be bad for everyone otherwise the tyrant’s rule wouldn’t last long.

And you could always go bigger – gods as villains. They definitely bring the scale level up. But try to go with specific gods, with specific motivation. Percy Jackson’s the Titans want revenge and to rule again, is a far more interesting take then general god of evilness that wants to take over just cause.

Lastly try and avoid Mary Sue villains, you don’t need to be so in love with your creation that they don’t have any weaknesses (another problems with general god of evilness). The heroes can be largely losing to the villains, but it shouldn’t feel hopeless, as if the universe is actively trying to stop them from succeeding. That doesn’t mean your villain can’t be ridiculously power, but you need a reasonable powering up of the main characters (which they should have to work for, it shouldn’t given to them cougheragoncough.)

With those three elements, you have a solid villain. A memorable villain requires just a touch of style. One way is to make the villain someone the audience likes, understands, is familiar with. You can make them dark and mysterious intriguing the reader as to who exactly this person is. You can make them hammy or over the top as long as they don’t start monologuing. Just remember what I said primary functions needing to first work towards the character in-universe goals. Monologuing generally serves narrative functions first making it if not bad writing, then obvious writing (plus scary villains cut straight to the killing.) You can even make the villain funny and charming. Have fun with it.

Hopefully you feel better prepared to attack that epic battle of good and evil waiting to be written.

2 comments:

  1. I dispute your example of a bad villain. There are plenty of reasons not to go into great detail on why this man has an interest in little boys. For one, it's psychologically complicated, stemming usually from past abuse and the insecurity and self-loathing that result. As such, it would take quite a bit of time and effort to adequately explain this man's actions, time and effort that ought to be spent developing primary characters and moving the plot along. If the author had taken the time to do this, the reader would be left puzzled by the needless, dead-end tangent that does nothing to enhance the story. Additionally, it would make this villain seem more important than he is and would increase the reader's sympathy for him, perhaps making them want to see more focus on a character who has now escaped the bounds of his narrative purpose. That Goodkind made Darken Rahl's villainy complex, properly motivated, and ingenious is enough for the book in question.

    Since I've bashed your example, I feel compelled to offer one myself: I would say Tolkien's Sauron is a far worse villain according to the terms you suggest. Obviously, Tolkien's originals have spawned the hordes of copy-cat villains we see today, and what is now cliche was his invention, so it's difficult to accuse him of laziness. Still, Sauron was simply "corrupted by evil", and so becomes its unthinking embodiment. It's the way out of the dilemma "What will my heroes struggle against?" Nothing could be easier than generic evil. Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wasn't trying to say that having an abusive nature wasn't properly villainous and that it can never be used, it was more a comment on how people use those ideas as a lazy short cut to create a sense of evil. Justing throwing it on there to make a character evil is lazy writing. Even if you don't write out the explanation to the reader (and yes would likely be a tangent) it helps to understand the history as a writer. Something so traumatic as to create cyclical abuse would likely inform other attributes of a character. If your going to have such a notable feature (because child abuse REALLY calls attention to itself), its best that it feels a natural part of the character and not something tacked on just to make him villainous.

    I guess my more important point its that it serves no narrative purpose other then to show that character as evil. Nothing would have been lost by removing that element. And I know he is just a henchmen, but sometimes (most often historically anyway) henchmen are normal every day people. As such just normal every day cruelty works just as well, perhaps more so. But that's neither here nor there as this post is about making solid, interesting, memorable villains. That requires just as much thought and follow through as interesting heroes. Tacking on villainy you won't explore and don't integrate into a villains psychology doesn't belong. Maybe because he was a henchmen I shouldn't have used that example, it was just the first that came to mind and wasn't met as an overall comment about the book or the quality of writing involved.

    As for Sauron, I link him in with those generic evil gods I mention in my post. While he isn't portrayed as a god directly, he definitely holds more in common with them then he does any other archetypal villains.

    You also bring up a very good point with the idea of villains created as something for the characters to struggle against. It really plays into what I've written about goals and character motivations. It is a mistake to make a villain whose only goals are designed to oppose the hero. The world and characters feel less developed and evolved and real because of it. I probably add something about that to this post once I figure out my thoughts on it exactly.

    ReplyDelete