A thought on writing evil

[Overread]

An observation I've made that I thought would be good to share in relation to evil characters and their portrayal in stories; which is that evil characters need time-outs/off from being evil.


In fact the more you focus purely on their evil actions and their generally being evil the more you can risk losing them as a character and the more they simply become an icon. Which can be risky if their position in the story isn't as the "god of evil" or such - ergo a symbol or a creature expected to behave abnormally. It has even more of a knock-on effect if they are leading a large body of people - a kingdom - a nation - an empire etc...


These can be very subtle elements to how you display a character, for example in the original three Starwars films we very rarely see Vader going much except interacting with rebels and generally commanding and being "evil" and menacing. However there's a scene where we see him in his "pod" with his helmet removed for a few moments. It's a very short scene, its a very short moment, but it's a moment in which we see behind the evil. Behind the posing and the commanding to see the person within the character. It's a good display of very small and subtle elements that detract nothing from the character, but which leave us to think that yes they do have a life outside of being evil. Furthermore from the very first time we see him we are clearly shown the divided leadership of the Empire - different generals and leaders and commanders. We are shown that there's room for Vader to do his own thing because he's got support staff and a command structure underneath him that keeps it going. We see those leaders own fear of Vader and even the hints of disagreement etc... This is important as it shows that there is a world outside of just our main evil agent.

In contrast I've been reading Warrior Witch of Hel by D.D. Andersson - in that story the evil character of the tale is always shown being evil. Every scene is them focusing on their obsession, on being evil and twisted and doing nasty things. All the things we expect of a great evil overlord. However each time we see him its always the same, him being evil, we are left with a view that he actually has very little to no time spent ruling his nation. We also get no real indications of his rulership being in question or having a second in command etc...; the kingdom just sort of "works" even though he's busy in a tower being all evil and twisted all the time. Not only do we never see him relax or perform any actions outside of his core plot advancing elements, but we also never see him ruling his nation either - save when issuing orders for the plot.

In the worst of cases the character can be reduced to purely a plot driving machine; efficient editing and writing style has removed the breadth and diversity of the character in a bid to keep things focused. The result is a character where we don't believe in them any more. They have become the weekend morning cartoon vilan.



An evil character is all the more evil and terrifying and fearsome when you see them not just performing evil, but also doing normal things within the setting that you'd expect of them. When you show the underlings and underlaying mechanics of how things work and run. The layers that permit the evil to function. Be it as a person leading a nation or as a loan character operating in the shadows.

 

[Land Under Wave]

Very true. I've read books before with scenes from the villain's (or antagonist's) perspective that I completely skip on my second reading because of this very problem. Since now I already know how they work against the main character and how horribly wicked they are--if that's all that's shown in the book, then there's no need to spend any more time reading about them. Give me a villain with a complex mind, however....

Even villains need a bath and a hot cup of tea occasionally.

 

[Overread]

Even villains need a bath and a hot cup of tea occasionally.

Exactly. We tend to see this less for heroes in stories because the story often follows them much closer and because they often start out steadier. We see them living their life before the books main events; we also see a lot of the building blocks of their life and the world around them in the early chapters. Information that in latter chapters might not be mentioned, but because we've seen it once we know its there in the background.

We see it a lot in "rags to riches" type stories where a no-name nobody steps up from a simple background to be the hero of the story. Heck often as not a good sub-plot is the established order of the world preventing/discouraging/blocking the hero's path. Those who have no evil will blocking due to due process and how things are meant to be. Which all reinforces how the world works and how the character relates and works within it.


Things that we often don't get with the villain of the story, normally for good reasons. But we do need those moments where they take a break from being evil. To work and operate within the world.

 

[sknox]

It sort of depends. When the evil character is not really intended to be a character--I'm thinking of Sauron here. In such stories, it's really just evil in the abstract, with a character being invented so evil has a malevolent intelligence behind it. Saruman has a tiny bit of depth, but it's mostly in the past. Most horror stories do the same thing. The evil or demonic character is almost like a natural force.

If the story has an antagonist, though, then of course the antagonist needs layers. I'm not much of one for sympathetic villains--most times I'm not persuaded--but I do like antagonists, whether steadfast or conflicted. I think that word "evil" sort of complicates things. For some it means an absolute moral position while for others it just means people doing bad things.

 

[Joshua Jones]

It sort of depends. When the evil character is not really intended to be a character--I'm thinking of Sauron here. In such stories, it's really just evil in the abstract, with a character being invented so evil has a malevolent intelligence behind it. Saruman has a tiny bit of depth, but it's mostly in the past. Most horror stories do the same thing. The evil or demonic character is almost like a natural force.

If the story has an antagonist, though, then of course the antagonist needs layers. I'm not much of one for sympathetic villains--most times I'm not persuaded--but I do like antagonists, whether steadfast or conflicted. I think that word "evil" sort of complicates things. For some it means an absolute moral position while for others it just means people doing bad things.

Excellent point of nuance there @sknox. The less personal the evil is, the less the OP principle applies. Where I think force of nature type evil characters become more compelling is in how effective they are, at least in the short term. If one never wins anything, even if it's short term, the audience anticipates the protagonist winning and the suspense is reduced. BTW this is true of characterized evil characters as well... going back to Vader, he lost twice (first Death Star and final lightsaber duel with Luke) in the three movies and won seven times by my count (the Tantive IV, the debate where he force chokes the guy in the board room, the duel with Obi-Wan, Hoth, capturing Han, first duel with Luke, killing Palpatine [and I'm leaving out the times where he executed people because there wasn't really an opportunity for him to lose there]). In other words, when he's onscreen, he's a genuine threat to anyone who stands against him.

That said, I think there may be another layer to this. The bigger problem I see with characters who are only evil continually is that they rarely have a compelling motivation for said evil, evidenced by the fact that their decisions seemed to be determined by whatever is the most evil thing they can do in that moment. If their motivation is something which the audience can identify with, even if the audience cannot approve of their actions, this has a thoroughly humanizing effect on the antagonist. In contrast, if they seem to do evil solely for evil lolz, it makes it harder to sympathize with the antagonist. Again, take Vader. He's motivated by ending the rebellion and "restoring order to the galaxy". Even if you think the Empire is effectively a galactic Nazi Germany (and they kinda are in some ways...), this is a motivation which can be understood and empathized with.

So the point I'm trying to make is the antagonist having downtime is more a means to an end than the end itself. The goal, at least it seems to me, is to have a relatable antagonist who is also a genuine threat, and having non-evil actions can be a good way of helping accomplish the former.

 

[-K2-]

Evil...hmm. One aspect to keep in mind, is that most antagonists/evil people--real life--don't see what they do as evil. Now, they may well have antisocial aspects that don't allow them to recognize their words and actions as such, but for the most part, they actually have a vision of a better life (for them), and will often feel that their vision serves everyone (not recognizing or appreciating the other person's desires) to some degree. Even the craziest of the lot imagines they're doing the right thing, and if it serves them in the process, all the better.

Point being, they shouldn't just be evil for evil's sake. Something formed their beliefs, lack of constraint, and most of all, their drive to accomplish their goals.

IMO...

K2

 

[Temperance]

Evil...hmm. One aspect to keep in mind, is that most antagonists/evil people--real life--don't see what they do as evil. Now, they may well have antisocial aspects that don't allow them to recognize their words and actions as such, but for the most part, they actually have a vision of a better life (for them), and will often feel that their vision serves everyone (not recognizing or appreciating the other person's desires) to some degree. Even the craziest of the lot imagines they're doing the right thing, and if it serves them in the process, all the better.

Point being, they shouldn't just be evil for evil's sake. Something formed their beliefs, lack of constraint, and most of all, their drive to accomplish their goals.

IMO...

K2

I've always gone with a comment made around the Eichmann trial - No one wakes up and says "today I will be evil", the true horrors are committed by those trying to make the world a better place.

 

[Joshua Jones]

I've always gone with a comment made around the Eichmann trial - No one wakes up and says "today I will be evil", the true horrors are committed by those trying to make the world a better place.

Yep, which is why I think antagonists having realistic motivations which can be identified with is so effective at humanizing them.

 

[Land Under Wave]

Reminds me of this one bit--out of numerous others--in one of Pratchett's books that beautifully lampshades this.

The Emperor was laughing. Once this was established, everyone else laughed too. No one can get a laugh like a man who can have you put to death more easily than he goes to the lavatory.

“What shall we do with…you?” he said. “Where is the…Grand…Vizier?”

The crowd parted.

Rincewind risked a sideways squint. Once you were in the hands of a Grand Vizier, you were dead. Grand Viziers were always scheming megalomaniacs. It was probably in the job description: “Are you a devious, plotting, unreliable madman? Ah, good, then you can be my most trusted minister.”

-- Interesting Times, by Terry Pratchett

Trust Pratchett to make use of a trope and thumb his nose at it!

 

[The Big Peat]

Feel like this is a case of making sure your villain fits the story. After all, someone's writing that weekend morning cartoon, right? And what type of villain you want. Maybe we needed to see Darth Vader wielding power, but how often do you see the Emperor being ought other than evil?

This said - I think the bigger the part you want for the villain, the more that needs to be there, and if it's all the same thing it gets wearing.

 

[sknox]

>I think the bigger the part you want for the villain, the more that needs to be there
Pretty reliable, imo. To go back to Sauron, although he is invoked frequently, he's not actually on-screen much.

Then again, the Nine are purely evil. Oh, sure, we get told the One Ring corrupted them, but that's not much depth. And they get considerably more screen time and no one (at least among those who like the novel) thinks they need more depth. They, too, are there simply as a natural force against which our heroes contend. Almost a Man Against Nature thing.

It's there in most of the old-style adventure fantasies like John Carter of Mars or Conan (where even Civilization gets cast as a villain). But we rarely see much of the bad guy in comparison with how much attention the hero gets.

I dunno. The more I think about it, the more I think there's room for a whole range of evil villain types. For myself, I banish the word evil (unless I have a character say it). There are simply contending powers.

One of the interesting contrasts in creating a fully developed antagonist is that we see both hero and villain wanting the same thing, and the point becomes where does each draw their moral boundaries? How far will they go to achieve their goal? Although it isn't fantasy, I think Comey's The Expanse series does a good job of exploring this.

 

[-K2-]

So, is Moby Dick the villain, or is he simply the persecuted victim of Ahab's obsession? I tend to think the latter and much like the Devil, Ahab entices the crew to willingly embrace his rage, surrendering their moral conscience, leading to their damnation. Though simply a victim of his past, Ahab's developed motivations and seductive manipulation of the crew is the stuff of villainy. But how can you fault his bitterness and failings in seeking revenge?

That twisted logic blurs the lines, but the outcome is the same. The depth, however, makes our judgement not so easy. And so, just in my opinion, that makes the best antagonist. One where you can empathize with their stance, even though you know it's wrong. Blatant, he's a bad guy--just a-cuz--types, leave me flat.

Though it's late enough (tired) I can't supply an example, I do like where the character you root for turns out to be the bad guy or vice versa more than glaring examples. My own initial support or condemnation once it turns makes me question my rush to judgement and myself.

K2

 

[Artoriarius]

I've always been of the opinion that a villain who's supposed to be an actual person, rather than a comic figure* or cosmic figure like Sauron, really need to be just as developed as the heroes—with the caveat that whereas with the protagonist, the temptation to avoid is "all virtues, no flaws", with the antagonist, it's the opposite: A good villain needs to have a few virtues to round out their flaws, or else they risk not being taken seriously—and, if you're trying to make a point with the villain, it just falls flat. Compare Silas, from The Da Vinci Code: He's an ex-criminal albino monk who works for a semi-nefarious order within the Catholic Church, and I daresay nobody's thought of him since the movie came out. The Master** is just this guy*** in a nice suit and a tries-to-be-cool-but-is-just-another-poser title, and people love talking about him, even years after he's last been seen, wondering how he escaped his inevitable demise this time, writing tons of fanfiction about his relationship with his archenemy and former friend The Doctor. The difference between them is that Silas doesn't have that human side, that substance, which makes people interested in the character. He's all flash**** and no substance. The Master has flash, sure, but the reason people enjoy talking about him is simply that there's stuff to talk about. He has a history, but we only know tantalising details. He had friends, but now they're all mutual enemies. In his initial appearances, he isn't even crazy or unreasonable, really—he's much more like a time-travelling Alexander or Napoleon than anything else, and he's fairly sympathetic.***** There's a lot of room for discussion in the character, and that is what truly makes for a memorable villain.

* You know, the ties-damsels-to-railroads type like Snidely Whiplash or Dick Dastardly. I'd hold that villains like them are exempt from the usual rules of characterisation because they were never meant to be taken seriously—if the audience laughs at them, or wonders throughout the entire episode how their ludicrous scheme's going to fail this time, then it's mission accomplished for the writers.
** The one from Doctor Who, not one of the umpteen-bajillion other characters by the same name.
*** Or gal, depending on what era we're talking about; but for the sake of consistency with the past fifty years, I shall continue to use the masculine for the character as a whole.
**** And the actual villain of The Da Vinci Code, Sir Wossname the Knight Templar Wannabe, doesn't even have that. At least I actually remember Silas' name without looking it up.
***** Who among us, after all, hasn't thought to themself, "The world could be so much better than it is, if only I was the one to run it"?

 

[HareBrain]

Now, they may well have antisocial aspects that don't allow them to recognize their words and actions as such, but for the most part, they actually have a vision of a better life (for them), and will often feel that their vision serves everyone (not recognizing or appreciating the other person's desires) to some degree.

I think most "evil" in the real world is committed for selfish motives, often by sociopaths, but I agree that the interesting evil involves a wider vision of supposed benefit to others, especially if it's credible and not just mad. Mad visions (e.g. everyone would be better off with their eyes removed so they can't witness suffering) might be viscerally effective from a horror or fear perspective, but doesn't lead to much dramatic complexity.

I think the most interesting large-scale villainy comes from aims that you can identify with up to a certain point, but which then become twisted out of shape. The villain then becomes a kind of fallen hero.

 

[Biskit]

Writing villains is as challenging as anything else, and there's even a whole web site out there for talking about villains (https://darklordjournal.com) which is an interesting read. (I had a guest post there last year on writing grubby little villains As Bad As It Gets-Guest Post - The Dark Lord Journal)

For me, @Land Under Wave hits the victim nail on the head - Even villains need a bath and a hot cup of tea occasionally. If the villain doesn't have a life, and a story to go with it, they come across as uninteresting, and when I'm writing a villain I have to be cheering him/her/it along. A villain that ends with the writer jumping up and down on its grave and cheering probably isn't a very good villain. The writer has to be the villain's champion, helping it back on its feet/claws/tentacles during any setback, and gutted when it all goes wrong at the end in the face of the protagonist's triumph.

Amongst other things, I am a Babylon 5 fan, and there is a lovely quote from Andreas Katsulas about his roles:

People often ask me why I always play villains. I tell them, 'G'Kar's not a villain, he's a patriot!'

G'Kar - villain or not? It depends on which episode and who you ask, and I think that ought to be true of any good villain.

(For the record, on balance, no G'Kar is not a villain, so far as I'm concerned.)

 

[Toby Frost]

Well, I think different stories need different kinds of villains. Obviously, you've got the kind of supernatural villain who's just evil because they are, like Satan or Sauron or the Overlook Hotel (although all three of them have their own backstories). The trouble is that they can become a kind of supernatural "natural disaster", like an earthquake that produces orcs.

Then there are villains who see themselves as heroes, or as the guy who'll get the job done where nobody else has the stomach to do so. They seem quite popular at the moment: perhaps because there are people like that and they have a lot of range as characters. I suppose this would also include the character who is decent enough within his own ambit but ultimately ignores the fact that he works for evil.

And then there are the villains who see all morality as meaningless, and exist only to gratify or strengthen themselves. People like that probably can't be "reached" by reasonable argument, because the part of the brain that can be reasoned with doesn't exist. Such people probably make the most satisfying human villains in terms of being despicable (Sauron may produce lots of orcs, but he's neither squalid nor despicable, like King Joffrey) but, as Harebrain says, they're not very interesting because they have no interesting thoughts. However, they do seem to be very popular with the public, which gives them daunting power, but also leads me dangerously close to politics, so I'll stop there!

 

[Land Under Wave]

Lol--and the drawback to writing a villain who's that interesting is when it comes time to kill them off.... I've done this a few times already--where you can't bear to get rid of them once and for all, not after all that time you spent bringing them to life!

A bit like this, really:

“In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it’s impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves. And then, in that very moment when I love them.... I destroy them.”

― Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game

Just replace 'enemy' with 'villain', though!

I've done this before--there nearly always comes a point when I've done a fair bit of plotting on a villain I intend to kill off in the same book, and I sit back and think, "Oh, do I have to? Maybe I can somehow make it so that everyone just thinks they're dead, but they're really not and they've escaped, and--ooh, that means I can put them in the next book, as well!"

Fortunately, so far, I believe I've been able to make that work for me...? At least I'd like to think so. I started plotting a book recently with a villain (antagonist, technically) that I'm determined to kill off. Even though I love their character, and they would be so fun to write into a future book in the series, my instincts tell me it would make for the most satisfying closure for them to die in this book....

No, I mean it this time! Really, I do!