How to write better bad guys

On the food and rights arguments (with no allergies in the equation) - I think if someone says "don't like x" that is their business. Depending on how they described why they didn't like it I might be saying "well to me that sounds like it was badly cooked or not fresh enough" - and make a suggestion as to how to better cook it. That is as far as I think it is reasonable to go, and I don't think that putting food in to trick someone to eat it is like a prank. There is no funny side to it that I can see - going ta da, you ate something you didn't like ha, ha, ha seems more like rubbing someone's nose in it. It could also be that if it was mixed in, like in a stew, they may have noticed the stuff and ate it so as not to make a fuss at a dinner party, but didn't enjoy the meal at what should have been a pleasant and relaxing occasion.
I objected to being made to eat food I didn't like when I was a kid and when I became an adult not having to do what I was told in terms of being made to eat something was one of the bonuses. I am careful to eat plenty of fruit and veg - but I don't include spinach or rocket in that! I would certainly be open to the "I think it was the way it was cooked, would you try a forkful of this" argument but if someone attempted to trick me into eating something I didn't want to I would regard it as being treated as a child. In terms of offensiveness I'd rank it with someone coming into your house and rearranging your kitchen cupboards because their way is much better.
Its another example of "The way to Hell is paved with good intentions." What one person feels as being a reasonable thing to do, which is for the benefit of the other person and for which they have good intentions, can be very different from the point of view of the person on the receiving end of the good intention. Then being told "I meant it for the best" in a hurt and offended tone of voice is profoundly irritating.
 
So in the instance of, say, my mum stuffing onions into a meal when I've brought a friend to dinner who has said they can't or won't eat onions (one of the earlier examples) we're looking at a gross violation of human rights, and perhaps even illness or death caused by someone's belief that they have more right over what someone puts in their mouth than they do.

Of course, but I did establish no health or cultural reasons are involved, and that's why you must know the guests beforehand. And in my example, my mother has only attempted such evil trickery on people we knew (and it's not like she's doing it every meal :D), so I was never arguing doing it to strangers, where the reasons to not like/want something might be of more weight.

going ta da, you ate something you didn't like ha, ha, ha seems more like rubbing someone's nose in it.
That's half of it, for sure. The other half are good intentions and the "momma knows best" attitude. Not defending it, but I won't be offended/horrified by it either, and most people I know won't either.

I think we simply won't see eye to eye on this. Maybe I just come from a different side of the world where relationships are more relaxed and they can withstand such objectively harmless things as this (health/cultural aspects aside, ofc).

Going back to writing bad guys, maybe one of them could be a grandmotherly type who secretly feeds picky people things they say they don't like, later discovering, to their dismay, the sneaky bit of rhubarb or spinach they've had, while Ol' Granny laughs enveloped in smoke and hellfire.:lol:
 
On the food and rights arguments (with no allergies in the equation) - I think if someone says "don't like x" that is their business. Depending on how they described why they didn't like it I might be saying "well to me that sounds like it was badly cooked or not fresh enough" - and make a suggestion as to how to better cook it. That is as far as I think it is reasonable to go, and I don't think that putting food in to trick someone to eat it is like a prank. There is no funny side to it that I can see - going ta da, you ate something you didn't like ha, ha, ha seems more like rubbing someone's nose in it. It could also be that if it was mixed in, like in a stew, they may have noticed the stuff and ate it so as not to make a fuss at a dinner party, but didn't enjoy the meal at what should have been a pleasant and relaxing occasion.
I objected to being made to eat food I didn't like when I was a kid and when I became an adult not having to do what I was told in terms of being made to eat something was one of the bonuses. I am careful to eat plenty of fruit and veg - but I don't include spinach or rocket in that! I would certainly be open to the "I think it was the way it was cooked, would you try a forkful of this" argument but if someone attempted to trick me into eating something I didn't want to I would regard it as being treated as a child. In terms of offensiveness I'd rank it with someone coming into your house and rearranging your kitchen cupboards because their way is much better.
Its another example of "The way to Hell is paved with good intentions." What one person feels as being a reasonable thing to do, which is for the benefit of the other person and for which they have good intentions, can be very different from the point of view of the person on the receiving end of the good intention. Then being told "I meant it for the best" in a hurt and offended tone of voice is profoundly irritating.

Yes, I think it terms of modern, democratic concepts of human rights, forcing someone to eat something "against their will" is quite unethical. Yet major food companies do this on a routine basis, most frequently under the catch-all of "natural and/or artificial flavors/color," which can include a massive list of food additives that people may or may not be allergic to. It can make shopping a total nightmare. Not only that, but coercion and causing someone to violate their own free will (quite possible, happens in churches constantly) is also unethical.

Of course, but I did establish no health or cultural reasons are involved, and that's why you must know the guests beforehand. And in my example, my mother has only attempted such evil trickery on people we knew (and it's not like she's doing it every meal :D), so I was never arguing doing it to strangers, where the reasons to not like/want something might be of more weight.


That's half of it, for sure. The other half are good intentions and the "momma knows best" attitude. Not defending it, but I won't be offended/horrified by it either, and most people I know won't either.

I think we simply won't see eye to eye on this. Maybe I just come from a different side of the world where relationships are more relaxed and they can withstand such objectively harmless things as this (health/cultural aspects aside, ofc).

Going back to writing bad guys, maybe one of them could be a grandmotherly type who secretly feeds picky people things they say they don't like, later discovering, to their dismay, the sneaky bit of rhubarb or spinach they've had, while Ol' Granny laughs enveloped in smoke and hellfire.:lol:

LOL... love that, someone should totally do that. :D
 
Remember the Plasmavore in one of the Tennant Dr Who episodes?
An old lady with a drinking straw...... did scary and evil superbly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ihe
Going back to writing bad guys, maybe one of them could be a grandmotherly type who secretly feeds picky people things they say they don't like, later discovering, to their dismay, the sneaky bit of rhubarb or spinach they've had, while Ol' Granny laughs enveloped in smoke and hellfire.:lol:

You know I'm totally having that, don't you?! :D
 
Don't eat the green portion!!

I found some (obviously demonic) dragonfruit at my local Safeway the other day. I was very intrigued. Tasted like kiwi crossed with cantaloupe and maybe a pear.

pitaya_cross_section.png
 
It seems the convo has moved on from the original topic somewhat, however:

I wrote a short story, as an exercise for my own benefit and boredom, in which the heroine was taken in by the anti-hero of the story. He runs an underground (literal) syndicate that breaks the law in various ways, but his goal is to dismantle the monarchy and the corrupt system it governs. The heroine's goals are the same, but she's trying to work honestly within the system. She has to level the playing field and play by the bad guys' rules or she's never going to win. You grok fairly quickly that the people who are supposed to be upholding the law and protecting citizens are doing no such thing, and profiting off of it in the process.

Who the bad guy is depends on your perspective. If you're the king, and your people are plotting a revolution, you think they are traitors. I mean, you're the king. You rule how you see fit, and the people don't have to like it. If you're the people plotting the revolution against a corrupt king, you think he's the devil. So on and so forth. It's reminiscent of Robin Hood, who technically is breaking the law, but he's the less amoral character when it comes out in the wash.

Lots and lots of YA readers understand moral relativity very well :LOL:. Good and bad are rarely black and white, so play in the gray area.
 
It seems the convo has moved on from the original topic somewhat, however:

I wrote a short story, as an exercise for my own benefit and boredom, in which the heroine was taken in by the anti-hero of the story. He runs an underground (literal) syndicate that breaks the law in various ways, but his goal is to dismantle the monarchy and the corrupt system it governs. The heroine's goals are the same, but she's trying to work honestly within the system. She has to level the playing field and play by the bad guys' rules or she's never going to win. You grok fairly quickly that the people who are supposed to be upholding the law and protecting citizens are doing no such thing, and profiting off of it in the process.

Who the bad guy is depends on your perspective. If you're the king, and your people are plotting a revolution, you think they are traitors. I mean, you're the king. You rule how you see fit, and the people don't have to like it. If you're the people plotting the revolution against a corrupt king, you think he's the devil. So on and so forth. It's reminiscent of Robin Hood, who technically is breaking the law, but he's the less amoral character when it comes out in the wash.

Lots and lots of YA readers understand moral relativity very well :LOL:. Good and bad are rarely black and white, so play in the gray area.

I have a favorite saying of mine - "That is which legal isn't necessarily moral, and that which is moral isn't necessarily legal."
 
This is something I'm dealing with right now in my post apoc story. Where the MC was a bad guy. I don't mean he reformed, went to church,atoned for his sins, yada yada.

No the world ends. That's it. he's still the same person. But his illegal skill set is what makes him a good guy in the wastes, but there's a reason why his car is bullet proof and he has a loaded TT-33 pistol in his glovebox and wears long sleeve shirts with collars on them.

Now he's doing good things but he still has no quarrels about doing what he did for five years.

But the society has changed. Which leaves him wondering what is he?
 

Back
Top