How to write better bad guys

Indeed. Post-apocalypctic books assume we've failed, quite essentially, as a species. But there's usually a redeeming quality. We'll build from the ashes, do better the next time, blah blah. Then there's the disaster-averted novels where the world gets saved through some last-ditch efforts.

But to be perfectly honest, I don't think we've advanced to anywhere near the level of Star Trek ethical integrity to not try and colonize another inhabited planet if we found it. The Colonial Era isn't too far behind us...

Arguably ongoing if you consider some of China's land purchases in Africa.

Anyway, while I can't think of a book that fits, its very much the metaplot of Warhammer 40K and I'd imagine its in some of their books. That said, they do have an extremely nasty universe there and while the Imperium of Man are genocidal aggressors, there's plenty worse. Charming place. I'm sure someone more well versed on the subject can think of others.
 
@Parson have you read The Road by Cormac McCarthy? I feel like it would be a great book for you, if you haven't read it.

Its dark but the message is powerful.

v
 
@Parson have you read The Road by Cormac McCarthy? I feel like it would be a great book for you, if you haven't read it.

Its dark but the message is powerful.

I have not read it, but I will take a look at it.

edit: I went and looked at the plot summary and it sounds powerful but I have no desire to read such a dark tale. I'm not sure I could get past the suicides, murders, and cannibalism.
 
Ah, now worries. I just thought the powerful message and the relationship between father and son would appeal.

I've never read a book with such a strong message or theme.

If I'm remembering right there's only two 'dark" scenes, most of it is implied or happens off screen, but if its not for you no worries. :)

Apologies if I sound pushy! It's my favourite book (can you tell.) ;)

v
 
Ah, but for that we would have to be inherently good. And viruses do what viruses must to survive and expand. As individuals some of us might be good, but as a species we will doom ourselves. It's no surprise that people act differently among the masses than they do by themselves. When one looks at the big picture, human nature is irredeemable, IMO. Agent Smith's argument holds true for me, and will hold true as long as there isn't some sort of singularity that radically changes the game and the way we think. Just one bad apple can spoil the bunch, and sadly we will never be able to get rid of all bad apples, ergo, the bunch is destined to be spoiled, sooner or later. Dark, I know.:sick::devilish:

Some personal philosophy here... I believe we are neither good nor evil. But our genetics, environment, training, and upbringing coalesce to form something human - good, evil, neutral, or somewhere else even. From then on, we do things that either benefit society, ourselves, both, or neither. If we serve ourselves too much, it may not be a problem, but we're not likely to consider them "good," but also probably not "evil." If someone is both (a lot of people are), then they're good; if they're neither, they may just be a non person. One of those people who go to a desk job every day, never marry, and die without any relatives or even neighbors knowing. (That happens a lot. Would be a good topic for a literary fiction novel to explore, or even in fantasy/scifi!) If they're an active detriment to society, they tend to benefit themselves at least. These people can be anywhere from the annoying selfish businessman clear to a world domineering villain. If they are a detriment to both themselves and society, they're not likely to last long, and will probably be considered evil OR mentally ill.

Mentally ill and evil used to be synonymous. Interesting case in point - there is a running theory that regulations prohibiting lead in fuel led to a decrease in violent crime, because lead toxifies the brain and can promote violent behavior.
 
Writing bad guys is my raison d'être. Blurring the lines between good and evil, shoving protagonists into moral quandaries, exploring what it takes for a good person to do bad things... *cracks knuckles* Sign me the hell up! I hate money so much that I wrote an entire book in a series about one of that series' bad guys. I've had readers beg me not to write one about another of the bad guys because they don't ever want to empathise with someone who's done the things he's done.

That's key for me, I think. If your bad guy is sympathetic (as in: your reader has sympathy for him, not feels sorry for him) then you're onto a winner. Whether he's a love-to-hate guy, an understandable-but-omg-no guy, or any other kind of person who does bad things for reasons we can at least understand, you're a mile away from moustache-twirling pastiches.
 
Tangential question... am I the only person who still likes the odd moustache-twirling pastiche?

I have to say, I have an odd relationship with reading morally dubious PoVs. I can read more or less anything as long as there's some degree of self-awareness. It's when you've got characters who are PoS and don't even realise why other people think they're a PoS I end up throwing the book across the room. But that's when they've got *some* PoVs. I haven't really read much with a straight up nasty main PoV. I've dodged Prince of Thorns because of this, despite really liking the prose in the kindle sample. I'm not totally sure why. I'll consume such stories in other mediums but not fantasy books.

One story I've read with a lot of bad mofos where I still sympathised with the characters is Watchmen. I think its the 800lb gorilla in the room when it comes to grey vs grey.
 
Writing bad guys is my raison d'être. Blurring the lines between good and evil, shoving protagonists into moral quandaries, exploring what it takes for a good person to do bad things...

I wouldn't go as far as raison d'être, but it is fun. I'm currently about 20k off the end of the first draft of a sequel to 'Hell Of A Deal' (Yay! New cover by @Gary Compton Hell of a Deal Cover...) and the whole point of the MC is that he is a self-confessed 'master of the dark arts' and makes his living doing bad(ish) things, only to find himself cruelly forced into saving the world by a chain of circumstances. It's fun, and slightly nuts, and if you take a step back, the 'hero' is a relatively minor character who selflessly helps people all the way to the end, whilst the MC is someone I would probably feel the urge to slap if I ever met him for real.
 
I assume (generally) that my villains are willing, able and feel justified doing things I sometimes would very much like to do, but don't because I am restrained by my own sense of morality and empathy or the fear of being arrested.
 
Ah, but for that we would have to be inherently good. And viruses do what viruses must to survive and expand. As individuals some of us might be good, but as a species we will doom ourselves. It's no surprise that people act differently among the masses than they do by themselves. When one looks at the big picture, human nature is irredeemable, IMO. Agent Smith's argument holds true for me, and will hold true as long as there isn't some sort of singularity that radically changes the game and the way we think. Just one bad apple can spoil the bunch, and sadly we will never be able to get rid of all bad apples, ergo, the bunch is destined to be spoiled, sooner or later. Dark, I know.:sick::devilish:

I've been off line for many hours but this post brings the Parson out in me. I absolutely agree humanity is NOT inherently good. I am a Calvinist and certainly believe what the Bible says when it says "There is none righteous, no not one." But I would not agree that "Human nature is irredeemable." That's the whole story of Jesus and his atoning death. So I believe that there is hope. I even think you can see it if you take a longish view of things. There is so much now that people a few hundred years ago felt as normal and now we see as totally unacceptable (i.e. slavery, bear baiting, cock fighting etc.) that if we can keep from pushing the nuclear button for a couple of centuries we might begin to see something like the Star Trek society in places.

----- We can't discuss religion on these forums. I am simply stating what I believe, as you did. If you want to discuss the religious part, we will have to go to Personal Messages
 
I assume (generally) that my villains are willing, able and feel justified doing things I sometimes would very much like to do, but don't because I am restrained by my own sense of morality and empathy or the fear of being arrested.

Soooo, what exactly do YOU think about over coffee? :eek:

Ha, just kidding. I know what you mean. We've all got an "inner demon," so to speak, and I think if we just explore that aspect of ourselves a little bit, we can get a pretty good idea of a pretty good villain.

(Good villain? Did I just write that?)
 
Tangential question... am I the only person who still likes the odd moustache-twirling pastiche?

I have to say, I have an odd relationship with reading morally dubious PoVs. I can read more or less anything as long as there's some degree of self-awareness. It's when you've got characters who are PoS and don't even realise why other people think they're a PoS I end up throwing the book across the room. But that's when they've got *some* PoVs. I haven't really read much with a straight up nasty main PoV. I've dodged Prince of Thorns because of this, despite really liking the prose in the kindle sample. I'm not totally sure why. I'll consume such stories in other mediums but not fantasy books.

One story I've read with a lot of bad mofos where I still sympathised with the characters is Watchmen. I think its the 800lb gorilla in the room when it comes to grey vs grey.

I think there's a place for moustache-twirling villains. Star Wars, for instance is very much a story about good versus evil, so it makes very little sense for the bad guys to be sympathetic unless it's a redemption arc for them. We want to see Darth Vader choke his way around the galaxy before he finally becomes human again. But we also don't want to see Palpatine get redeemed, because he's the evil that drove Darth Vader to be the man he became. Vader's redemption makes us hate Palpatine more.

With Jack of Thorns Laurence starts out as someone who believes he is irredeemable, unsalvageable, and worthless. That's the start of his hero's journey, not the end of it. He's so convinced he's a PoS (because that's the message we send to addicts) that it takes an external force for him to realise that he isn't. Meanwhile Quentin isn't convinced he's very much of anything, despite bearing a courtesy title and being heir apparent to the peerage and an awful lot of money and power. He has some mental health issues, has been forcibly kept at arm's length from the real world, and his hero's journey requires external force to make him take a good, hard look at reality and start to deal with it.

With Reeve of Veils we have almost the opposite: Freddy is driven by his need for justice, but he will use underhanded methods to get it. He ends up accidentally saving people's lives, but by and large he really is only out for his own interests and woe betide anyone who messes with his stuff. He openly identifies as a sociopath, has no interest in people with rigid and inflexible morals, and will do nasty sh*t to get what he wants. He's no hero, he is every inch the Magnificent B*stard, and he relishes it.
 
To add: That's not to say "read it even if it doesn't appeal to you," because that'd be like saying, "I know you hate coffee, but just try this coffee!" :D
 
"I know you hate coffee, but just try this coffee!"
Ha, my mother still does this. She's a very accomplished cook, and will ignore people's tastes because she believes the way she does it will change their minds. You know, things like adding onions when people expressly said "I hate onions with a passion"...She adds it in secret, and when they say it was delicious, she confesses what's in it.:confused: Such a violation of personal freedoms huh.
 
Yeah, tell me about it! The amount of times I've been slipped some cake or sweetie with coffee in it, and when I nearly throw it up and run away to rinse they go, "Well there's not that much coffee in it!"

"NONE. NONE IS THE ACCEPTABLE AMOUNT!"
 
Yeah, tell me about it! The amount of times I've been slipped some cake or sweetie with coffee in it, and when I nearly throw it up and run away to rinse they go, "Well there's not that much coffee in it!"

"NONE. NONE IS THE ACCEPTABLE AMOUNT!"

Just tell people you're a recovering caffeine addict and can't touch any for fear of a backslide
 
"recovering"!?

~shakes uncontrollably at the mere thought~

*is currently drinking large vat of cappuccino* I know, right? Who doesn't love coffee? That's just criminal.

Ha, my mother still does this. She's a very accomplished cook, and will ignore people's tastes because she believes the way she does it will change their minds. You know, things like adding onions when people expressly said "I hate onions with a passion"...She adds it in secret, and when they say it was delicious, she confesses what's in it.:confused: Such a violation of personal freedoms huh.

Haha... I used to do that to people with goat milk and lamb meat. We raised a special variety of sheep called Katahdins. They don't have wool and so taste much better than regular sheep. So if anyone came over who professed to hate lamb, we'd serve them something amazing, like lamb lasagna, and lie about it (by omission) until they complimented it, then admit it was lamb.

I pulled the goat milk stunt several times and even convinced someone to buy a herd of dairy goats because my goat's milk tasted so good. It's all in the management.

So, while we're on the topic of good vs evil, how ethical is it to force people to eat something they don't want to? :D
 

Back
Top