Villains... what makes a good one.

[JamesSavik]

There are your stereotypical mustache twirling charactertures of villains but what makes a really good villain that instills fear and loathing in the reader?

I ran across one some time ago that stuck out in my mind. What I remember about the guy was that he was an ordinary guy. Everybody trusted him. He told the truth as far as anyone could tell. He didn't wear black or twirl his mustache.

What he did do was wait until the most critical moment, betrayed everyone and walked away with all the diamonds and left his teammates to face the music.

So tell me- what makes a good villain?

What makes him tick?

Do you chose evil are are you born that way?

Is a villain just an ordinary guy that choses the worst possible moment fail, to screw over everybody or get drunk and slaughter a car/bus/train full of people.

Or is a villain a guy named Snake that kills people for kicks and sells crack to middle schoolers just to watch them hurt for it?

[vwl]

Hannah Arendt's great book Eichmann in Jerusalem is subtitled On the Banality of Evil. In real life, it is the functionary who makes no protest to the evil that is occurring. It is the person who allows homophobia to go unchecked rather than the homophobe himself. Given the population of the world, there will always be people who commit bad and even evil deeds.

There will always be Hitlers; there will always be attempts at "final solutions." But the evil ones who banally carry out the awful orders from above.

In literature, however, banal adherence to evil from above is not literarilly sexy, so the evil-doer must also be the evil-instigator. I suspect that Saddam Hussein's sons were as close in real life as evil-doers in fiction life would be.

[DesDownunder]

For an in-depth study and understanding of the reasons behind acts of evil, I recommend Erich Fromm's book, Anatomy of Human Destructiveness in which he uses Stalin and Hitler as case studies.

Erich Fromm was ( Quote Wiki:)

...departing from traditional religious orthodoxy, Fromm extolled the virtues of humans taking independent action and using reason to establish moral values rather than adhering to authoritarian moral values.

Fromm wrote many books in an easy to read style which made him unpopular with some academic intellectual theorists, however his insight into the human condition is astounding and well argued. Therefore I recommend setting aside criticism of him by others until you have at least read some of his books. His book, The Art of Loving was most popular during the 1960's peace movement and is an easier read than the Anatomy.

I am so convinced of the relevancy of Fromm's book to the subject of this thread that I offer a couple of quotes from Amazon reviewers on the Anatomy of Human Destructiveness:

In my mind this book has put to rest the myth that the destruction and violence done by civilized man is instinctual. It takes a culture like ours to condition us into hating ourselves and the rest of life around us.

Fromm explores non-violent cultures to show us that humans haven't always been so hell bent on destruction and death. That there actually was life affirmative cultures. Fromm's final final chapter has really stuck with me. One of his suggestions for our survival is that the biophiliacs(life loving)people have to have their voices heard and object to the sadistic tendencies of this culture. A must read for anybody who is trying to imagine a better way.

Fromm begins this book by exploring many of the theories, such as the notion that we are biologically overdetermined to be so violent. But he conclusively shows that cannot be the case. He then gives examples of nonviolent cultures, and explores why these cultures are the way they are. He then concludes with a powerful and detailed exploration of Hitler, showing how Hitler manifests the essence of this awful civilization that is killing the planet.

Of course you may find other reviewers who found the book dry, so I suggest you look at the Erich Fromm home page to judge whether this man's ideas appeal to you as much as they do to me, before buying his books.

I am happy to list his other book titles with brief comments, if members so desire.

[Richard Norway]

Thanks Des. I read Erich Fromm when I was in high school on my own (not a recommended reading at the time). One of my favorite quotes is, "There can be no real freedom without the freedom to fail." It's one that has kept me going, because, Lord knows, I've had my share. But that quote keeps coming back to me.

I think that if you read his works, you'll find that you will agree with 95% of what he had to say, and not just agree, but believe it...intrinsically. The man was insightful, no disagreement there.

And I go back to his debate between instinctivism of Konrad Lorenz and behaviorist B.F. Skinner. (Sorry, I started with a conjunction...get over it) He put the paradox (at that time) into perspective for me and how it is a mix.

Thanks Des for bringing back the memory of a man that greatly contributed to who I am today.

[Sparrow]

Humanity. Give me a villian who I can empathize with, one who isn't just evil, one who goes home at night and watches TV and forgets to buy milk. Give him a backstory that makes me understand where he's coming from, that makes me wish (just a little) that things work out for him. You don't have to make him likable, just human.

[Camy]

what makes a really good villain that instills fear and loathing in the reader?

A really, really evil laugh. Oft written as 'Bwahahaha ....' Including a wry quirk of an eyebrow also adds to the chill factor.

[DesDownunder]

A really, really evil laugh. Oft written as 'Bwahahaha ....' Including a wry quirk of an eyebrow also adds to the chill factor.

Camy, that sounds like my second boyfriend, you know the one who disappeared into the woodshed with a girl while I and the girl's mother yelled at them to stop whatever they were doing and come out, (of the woodshed).

He was just evil! Evil, I tell you. He had a wry quirky eyebrow, that's how I know he was evil.

[Cole Parker]

The villains in movies, on TV and in books who most upset me are the ones who seem perfectly normal, but then do horrendous acts on the spur of the moment with no apparent motivation. The guy who'll smile at you and engage you in conversation, then, while making a point about, say, the immigration problem in Germany, take out a knife and calmly slit the throat of a woman walking by.

Someone who is entirely amoral and doesn't conform to the mores of other humans, who is entirely unpredictable and wanton in his evilness, scares the bejesus out of me.

C

[DesDownunder]

The villains in movies, on TV and in books who most upset me are the ones who seem perfectly normal, but then do horrendous acts on the spur of the moment with no apparent motivation. The guy who'll smile at you and engage you in conversation, then, while making a point about, say, the immigration problem in Germany, take out a knife and calmly slit the throat of a woman walking by.

Someone who is entirely amoral and doesn't conform to the mores of other humans, who is entirely unpredictable and wanton in his evilness, scares the bejesus out of me.

C

Me too Cole. If the motivation is lacking then I lose interest very quickly.

But it's just not the amoral nature for me, it's the whole lack of redeeming qualities in a character that I find disturbing. If that extends to the underlying reason for the plot, then I stop reading or watching it. I already know about these people and I want a way to combat these problems not sit and be dragged into a pit of depression.

About 35 years ago there were a number of lecturers, getting around the place, who stated it was the evil in characters that made them interesting to the spectator and the plot was dependent on them to create the conflict, which was necessary for the drama (or comedy) to work.

They reinforced their dissertation with examples of Macbeth and other Shakespearean characters as well as citing other literary examples of not so nice people. While this is all well and good, they spawned a number of authors of films, plays and books in which not only is the character drawn as pure evil but ones, who also escape any reckoning, which is something Shakespeare avoided doing. (Though sometimes the innocent suffered too.)

What's wrong with that I hear someone ask, after all, you might say, life is like that, people do get away with murder and they do so for all the wrong reasons. (There are right reasons?) Well what is the point of writing about evil people if all you end up doing is provide a handbook on how to be evil? There is already way too much assumption that human nature is intrinsically evil.

Look at the film "Downfall" about Hitler's last days and suicide. The film was almost universally praised, but also condemned because it showed Hitler as a human being. The point here is, yes, he was human, and without care that is what we can become. We are human and capable of being inhuman.

I would mention, even though most likely, it will make me unpopular, I have walked out on most of Quentin Tarrantino's movies. They are full of nasty people doing nasty things and for the life of me I didn't give a hoot about any of them. They were welcome to each other, and yes, I know they aren't supposed to be taken all that seriously, I just don't find them entertaining because there is no balance to their evil. (Unless you consider stupidity is a balance to being nasty; that might make for an interesting plot.)

Getting back to evil without balance, think of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde without Dr Jekyll (or without Mr. Hyde), it makes no sense does it?

And that brings me back to those lecturers. They forgot, didn't care, didn't know to point out that while there has to be conflict in a drama, and that we find the evil character of great interest, just being evil isn't enough. There has to be a motivation and a balance or we end up boring people or worse, giving people the wrong idea. A generation or two of writers have been under the delusion that one dimensional characters (either good or evil) are all that is needed for a story.

It is the duality of human nature that creates tension, drama, conflict and interest. That duality can be in one character or shared among many, or appear as it often does, in varying degrees, but it does need to be there as the balancing influence, whether it is a tragedy or a comedy.

My opinion only, feel free to discuss further.

[Cole Parker]

There's no question that multidimensional characters are far more interesting and involving than unidimensional ones. Of course, they're much more difficult to write as their personalities and psychologies are more complex. I for one care that the core psychology of a character remains constant; otherwise, the character doesn't seem real and readers have difficulty identifying with them.

I agree that evil, violent characters without redeeming qualities are not something I want to watch. Movies like In Cold Blood and Boys Don't Cry are the sort that I want nothing to do with. I often wonder if age affects our sensibilities, as I wasn't as antagonistic to this sort of fare when I was young as I am now.

Des: "It is the duality of human nature that creates tension, drama, conflict and interest. That duality can be in one character or shared among many, or appear as it often does, in varying degrees, but it does need to be there as the balancing influence, whether it is a tragedy or a comedy."

I know what you mean by this statement, but think you're capsulizing too much. Evil characters can be unidimensional, can be void of redeeming characteristics, and the drama and conflict can still be very strong. Simply the fact that we know a character is capable of any atrocity at any moment for no valid reason other than he's being himself is enough to keep our heart racing with fear for those in the story we care about. A story can be built around this uncertainty, this fear in the hearts of the readers. And it can be very effective.

C

[DesDownunder]

There's no question that multidimensional characters are far more interesting and involving than unidimensional ones. Of course, they're much more difficult to write as their personalities and psychologies are more complex. I for one care that the core psychology of a character remains constant; otherwise, the character doesn't seem real and readers have difficulty identifying with them.

I agree that evil, violent characters without redeeming qualities are not something I want to watch. Movies like In Cold Blood and Boys Don't Cry are the sort that I want nothing to do with. I often wonder if age affects our sensibilities, as I wasn't as antagonistic to this sort of fare when I was young as I am now.

Des: "It is the duality of human nature that creates tension, drama, conflict and interest. That duality can be in one character or shared among many, or appear as it often does, in varying degrees, but it does need to be there as the balancing influence, whether it is a tragedy or a comedy."

I know what you mean by this statement, but think you're capsulizing too much. Evil characters can be unidimensional, can be void of redeeming characteristics, and the drama and conflict can still be very strong. Simply the fact that we know a character is capable of any atrocity at any moment for no valid reason other than he's being himself is enough to keep our heart racing with fear for those in the story we care about. A story can be built around this uncertainty, this fear in the hearts of the readers. And it can be very effective.

C

I wasn't trying to encapsulate, as much as I was trying to draw attention to the underlying duality of human nature. If a character has no redeeming characteristics and let's face it, Hitler wasn't overstocked with them, we still can find a measure of the duality of human nature in him. So I am not disposed to thinking in terms of the undimensional character as you describe, because I think they still do have a dimension even if we are uncertain about what it is. The author may choose to share it with us or not, but the psyche of the character will still have a dimension, hidden though it may be, but if as you say the character acts for no other reason than he's being himself, then that is the character's manifestation in and of itself; and it will be related to its internal human conflict. That's how an actor would approach portrayal of such a character.

Not knowing how that internal conflict resolves, or what action it causes, is the suspense that is so effective for the audience.

I wasn't meaning to discuss the nature of dimensionless characters as much as I was trying to point out that characters who are villains for the sake of the plot still need to have their psyche related to the duality of human nature, otherwise we as audience cannot be surprised by them, or even empathise with them.

I think we are on the same path Cole, but we may be seeing this from different places though. It's a fascinating subject and about as difficult to discuss as it is to create a complex character... for me anyway.

I didn't like those movies much either. I'm sure age affects our sensibilities, I'm just not certain whether for the better or not.

An example of totally unredeemable characters in a movie is Funny Games, directed by Michael Haneke. I have no qualms in ruining this film with a spoiler. Two friendly and ordinary looking young blokes dressed in white neat clothes turn out to be a pair of sick and perverted psychopaths and the sadistic molestation, tormenting, harassment and torturing of a perfectly innocent family gets started without even a tiny warning., I would have to say I found it boringly unwatchable, manipulative and extreme in its gratuitous violence that is implied rather than actual. Maybe I didn't feel like I needed to watch it having suffered a home invasion myself back in 1998. Recommended viewing for psychiatrists with a strong stomach only. Considered by some reviewers to be a masterpiece. You can't help but wonder what they do for fun.

When asked in my video store by customers, "What this like?" I tell them they have asked the wrong person. They still hire it. It is not uncommon for the customer to return it and say to me, "I should have listened to you, it's "sh*t".

You're surprised I have the movie available in the store? I am not a censor. I just make sure the customer is under no delusion that it is not a comedy.

[Fun Tails]

-Good villains are unpredictable.

-They usually have a good idea of what they want. (That's not the same as saying they have a plan. Some of the best villains have no plan, but they KNOW what they would like to achieve)

-Good villains have intensity. Not the same as zaniness or manic behaviour. Intensity means they give that feeling of action about to spring at you.

-Quirks can help a villain, but they are not necessary and can damage him/ her. For instance, in 'Once upon a time in Mexico' one villain kills any chef who cooks a certain pork dish well. It's a very WTF? moment and never clicks as natural to the character. On the other hand, Blofeld always stroking his cat in the Bond movies is a big part of why he's a memorable villain.

-Villains know what to say and when to shut up. Some villains benefit from good monologues, like Magneto or a raging diatribe like Pacino in Devil's Advocate. Some are best when they shut up. Some are best when they can engage the hero in wordplay.

-MOST IMPORTANT of all, your villain must be formidable. I remember watching the Sam Jackson 'Shaft' and waiting for the real villain to show up and being ultimately disappointed that some cowardly, spoiled brat was the focus of the movie.

Nazgul or Captain Hook, on the other hand... (fuck, I swear that pun was accidental.) They make you believe that they can end you very easily.