Can a bad guy be the hero?

[BigTexan]

I've been mulling this over in my mind for quite a while. Most stories are written with a "good guy" as the lead character. The story is written and the character developed so that the reader "knows" that the lead character is a "good" person and can identify with them in some way.

But does it have to be this way?

Are there any wildly accepted stories where the lead character is the bad guy and he/she ends up the "victor"?

Would readers read / enjoy a story written so that the lead character is "known" to be the bad guy and yet still wins? How "Bad" could the bad guy be and still be accepted as the lead character?

And I'm not talking strictly "erotica" here, but all genre's of fiction.

These are just some thoughts I was thinking.

BigTexan

 

[green_rook]

You're talking about an antihero; a protagonist who does not posess the qualities commonly associated with a hero. It's all a matter of perception.

Clint Eastwood's characters in the Dirty Harry movies and the Spaghetti Westerns would be considered villains if they were not the protagonist. They're redeemable because we see them in their totality; their qualities that make them villainous are tempered by their reasons for doing those types of things.

Consider Mel Gibson's character in Payback. Certainly he is just as horrible a person as the mobsters he takes on. He steals from innocent people, kills virtually at will, and even beats his wife (granted, merely a right cross to knock her out, but still spousal abuse). His enemies are certainly no better than him. Yet the presentation that we're given, that they are larger than him and that they have something that is his (that was taken by breaking the honor among thieves), is enough to get the audience to root for him.

Most of Tarantino movies have anitheros as their protagnonists.

Faulkner's novels rarely have any clear cut ideas about virtue; everyone is sadly, horribly human.

The Talented Mr. Ripley is a book (and not a bad movie) where the protagonist is not exactly right in the head, manages to do a number of bad things, and still has our sympathies towards the end. He wins at the end. Frankenstein places its most redeemable character, the monster, in the role of the villain; we're left to root for the horrible Dr. Frankenstein.

It's all a matter of presentation. Your protagonist can be as evil or as virtuous as you like as long as present him/her in a way for the audience to care about him/her. I suppose it goes without saying that the more despicable the character the more difficult that will be.

 

[Star of Penumbra]

If you've ever read Michael Moorcock's Elric Saga, then you'd know that an utterly evil person can still fight evil.

Elric was evil; that's something completely undeniable. Yet he did good things -saving a damsel in distress and fighting the lords of chaos, just as a couple examples. He didn't do either of these things because he wanted power; he did them because it would have been uncivilized and against his personal code to have let these events happen without at least trying to stop them.

As far as Elric being the 'victor'... well, he never really won. He defeated his enemies, but he was nearly always left in a situation that was at least as bad as the previous one.

It really is an excellent series, you should read it. It's considred a classic.

 

[BigTexan]

These are excellent examples. Thanks.

I haven't read the Elric series, shame on me , so it is possible that they are exactly what I mean.

But what I was really meaning was a book where the lead character was someone the reader really would WANT to root against.

Maybe something like making Hannible Lector the lead character instead of a supporting character and then ending the story with him walking free.

Would people read a story/book where they actively dislike the lead character, hoping that in the end he "gets his"? And would they really hate the ending if he was the victor?

As one person pointed out in a PM, Ray Dario's story "Preditor" was this way. Its lead character is nothing short of dispicable. In his story the lead character is murdered in the end, which is really wild considering it was written in first person, so it isn't exactly what I was thinking of. But it did get me thinking along these lines.

Hmm, still mulling it around. And I'm going to have to go check out some of the examples given by Green Rook and Star.

BigTexan

 

[Quasimodem]

There are also stories where the narrator is not the brightest light on the tree. Dr. James Watson is one of the most obvious examples, but there are many others where the first person POV character misunderstands the motives of the 'true hero' getting it all wrong.

The trick, for the writer, is to control when the reader understands the situation, and can see beyond the narrator's limited vision.

 

[green_rook]

Would people read a story/book where they actively dislike the lead character, hoping that in the end he "gets his"? And would they really hate the ending if he was the victor?

I'm uncertain as to what the purpose would be. Fex, in Will Self's My Idea of Fun we're presented with a truly despicable character without any real redeeming values who never "gets his," but Self manages to portray the character in such a way as to have the reader (hopefully) feel some empathy with the character, and thus not hate him. Were there not elements in the character that allowed the reader to empathize him, I doubt the book would be successful on any level.

Harris's Hannibal placed Hannibal Lector center stage; he was our protagonist and the lense through which we saw the world presented. He was not presented as a character whom it was easy to hate. He walked free and more.

My question would be: what effect would you be going for when making your protagonist completely unlikeable and never recieving punishment for his discretions? Would it merely be for an Andy Kaufman type joke? A meta-fictional dance with the audience? I'm curious as to what the point would be.

 

[BigTexan]

Were there not elements in the character that allowed the reader to empathize him, I doubt the book would be successful on any level.

Thanks that is what I want to know.

Harris's Hannibal placed Hannibal Lector center stage; he was our protagonist and the lense through which we saw the world presented. He was not presented as a character whom it was easy to hate. He walked free and more.

I defer to you on this. I honestly can't remember the book well and I didn't see the movie.

My question would be: what effect would you be going for when making your protagonist completely unlikeable and never recieving punishment for his discretions? Would it merely be for an Andy Kaufman type joke? A meta-fictional dance with the audience? I'm curious as to what the point would be.

Not sure what the point would be or why I would do it. It is just something that started banging around in my head so I decided to see what people thought.

I guess, though, that I find my lead characters in many of my stories to be "dislikeable" people. They usually do something near the start of the story that I personally abhor and then either fate or their own ingenuity arranges for everything to work out. Perhaps I'm wrestling with that aspect of my own stories.

Anyways, thanks to all for the enlightening food for thought on this.

BigTexan

 

[TheEarl]

One of the reasons why Misery by Steven King was such a good book was that it showed you the world through the eyes of the villain. The villain is a deranged, paranoid, ex-nurse and she becomes all the more real because King shows you how everything she does is justifiable to her. Almost pre-emptive strikes against a world that is out to get her.

Tom Holt once wrote a book called Faust Amongst Equals, where I found myself cheering for the wrong character and was disappointed by the ending. The two protagonists weren't easily separated and I liked the person who was (apparently) the villain more than the hero.

Thinking of Tarantino movies, Jackie Brown is a good example. Jackie is a smuggler air-hostess and is on her last chance with a shit Mexican airline having been caught before. She's definitely in the wrong, she deserves everything she's got, but the viewer feels sympathy for her because of the way it's shot.

The Earl

 

[karmadog]

I didn't see 'Jackie Brown', but it's taken from a novel by Elmore Leonard which I did read. In nearly all of Leonard's novels the main character is a small-time criminal ,a low life, or a loser. However, they are not as bad as their enemies.

I don't think these apply to what Tex is talking about. Tex seems to be talking about a truly 'bad' lead character. It's been done. I remember a book where the narrator starts out telling that he's a murderer and goes on to explain how it all happened. I don't think he gets caught in the end, either. Can't remember the name, but it was pretty good.

There's another one with a peach on the cover where the lead character is a gourmand who is also a serial killer. That one was excellent but I also can't remember the name of that one.

I'm slipping, but hopefully, I'll remember the names later.

Anyhow, of course you can have a completely evil character as a lead. It's not so important to like the character as it is to understand the character and get us to. Alternatively, you could make us like him/her to begin with and then show us just how wrong we were about him/her.

Why do they have to get a comeuppance at the end? Life doesn't work that way, why should fiction?

 

[jon.hayworth]

I was passing by this debate until a point struck me.

Maybe at times the definition "good guy" and "bad guy" is dependent upon the perceptions of the reader.

Take the Master or Mistress character in a BDSM story. To an outsider - someone who is not into BDSM - this character may be totally repugnant. (Take a look at the character Milady in Chapter 3 of the latest chain story by Willowpuss - "It Happened One Night"). However to people who are into BDSM this character's behaviour is perfectly acceptable.

There are always mechanisms by which the writer can make the "bad guy" into the hero. I don't know how well you know British Literature, a famous late 1950's book made into a film (of the 60's New Wave genre) is Alan Silitoe's "Lonliness of the Long Distance Runner". The hero is a Borstal Boy (equate Reformitory for Borstal). It is a Stream of Consciousness story in which the hero rails against the evils - as he sees it - of the system. Concluding with his act of defiance. People identify with him not as the inmate against the penal system but as the little guy up against authority.

I don't know if these thoughts mean a lot - they are written as a sort of stream of consciousness - as they came into my head.

jon

 

[BigTexan]

It has just occured to me that WildSweetOne's story "Lifeless" is almost exactly what I'm talking about.

The only difference would be that we don't find out how bad the lead character is until the very end.

Still this was an excellent story and very powerful too.

BigTexan

 

[wildsweetone]

i cannot believe it... i sat here reading through the entire thread... i was thinking along these lines...


a bad guy being the main character in a story. wow, people would get really worked up about it. when we read a story we like we prefer to know the good guys from the bad guys, it's how we're brought up, right? a them and us kind of mentality. we always like to see the bad guys get their butts kicked, especially when they're the dregs of the earth. nobody likes the bad guy to win.

my reading is sadly lacking i know... i refuse to read horror stories, they give me nightmares and i have enough of them to deal with already without adding more. but even in a romance, the bad guy always changes, always finds out something, always becomes good.

a story does not end with the bad guy winning.

when it does though, we are left with a feeling of incompleteness. not many of us are competent to deal with being incomplete, being unfulfilled. a couple of feedbacks i've received recently have outlined this very behaviour.


and then i was thinking... i'm sure i must have read a story along these similar lines. after all, when you think about it, many movies end up with the bad guys having the biggest affect on you. at least, they tend to make me feel like i'm the one they're directing their nastiness at... i have a tendency to get right into fiction that way lol

then it suddenly clicked, hey these guys are talking about a nasty dude kinda like the guy in 'Lifeless'... you should have seen my face when your last posting mentioned it Big Texan. i nearly fell right off my damn chair! lol

thanks for that, i'm still laughing eh


seriously though... i'm so intrigued at the thought of the bad guy actually staying bad. not changing, not accepting that he's one nasty piece of work. i have a feeling that if the other characters around the bad protag. do the changing, then it's quite a logical way to write.

as one of my feedback authors said... it's too much like real life

how right he is.

 

[TaffyJ]

Why? To not follow the formula.

I think it would be a rousing challenge to write a "bad guy" story. I think all of us have a bit pf bad guy in us. It could be a personal challenge to explore your inner villian.
Maybe refreshing for the reader, too. Not that the reader would like it. But who likes having their teeth cleaned? All the happy ending stories pile up in my mind like so much plaque. Don't get me wrong, I like the happy endings. But it would do my brain good to wrap itself around a different scenario.
I get tired of: Here's the hero, here's his challenge; see how the hero overcomes adversity. Hell, why not be the asshole? More fun.
Oh, the delicate line you'd have to balance to not lose the reader halfway through the story when they realize it's not going to follow the standard formula.
If you write it, let me know personally. I wanna read it.

 

[Diane Marie]

The bad guy as the lead character is not unheard of. But no one is all bad, for your readers to take interest they have to in some way feel empathy for him.

Another approach is counter balance him with a character the reader can have compassion for, then have them in conflict, how you resolve that conflict is up to you.

 

[NoJo]

If ANYONE's character is well-written with enough depth so you care about them, then they can become main characters. One of my favorites is Humbert Humbert from Lolta. I also like American Psycho -- we care about them because we understand them (and recognize them, often as part of ourselves).
And what about Nosferatu? A big turn-on for a lot of people. We have an attraction to evil. Some of us, some of the time...

 

[Sabledrake]

I love villains. Always have, always will. They're by far the most fun (besides, having been a gamer for 21 years, and the GM for most of that time, I kinda got used to playing the bad guys).

My most recent book's central character could easily be considered am anti-hero. She's a Dark Elf, a holy knight of the warrior god, and in her first appearance, she was presented as one of the band of baddies. I had a great time turning it around to delve into her culture and personality.

She's a religious fanatic and xenocidal maniac who believes all humans should be exterminated or enslaved. And yet, when stacked up against some of the other characters -- the traitorous hero-general, the abmitious and conniving Archmage -- she shines.

Sabledrake

 

[Quasimodem]

There is the 'Flashman' series by George MacDonald Fraser?

They're a hoot!

 

[NoJo]

There is the 'Flashman' series by George MacDonald Fraser?

They're a hoot!

I was goiung to mention Flashman too, but I thought it might be a bit British.
One of the best Cad/bounder fictional characters is Alan B'Stard, an outrageously unscrupulous MP whose behaviour was totally eclipsed by the excesses of the members of the previous British government.

 

[Eldridge]

But what I was really meaning was a book where the lead character was someone the reader really would WANT to root against.

This is a dangerous thing to do. In my opinion, you have to be aware of reader satisfaction. People don't read a book because they are ordered to, or because they have really nothing better to do.

They read a book because they want to be entertained.

Now, despite the fact that we lived in a rather bad world, and mankind is inherently(sic?) evil, most people have a quite decent moral standard.

Therefore, if you inflict nothing but evil on them, courtesy of the main character, you will find that most people will throw the book away in disgust.

A VERY good example of this (even though it is Fantasy) is George RR Martin's "A song of ice and fire" saga.

There is some EVIL, and I mean sickeningly evil, stuff happening in those books, and largely the good guys are stupid idiots who can't win a salad fight, much less any major battle, and they get slaughtered by the truckload.

While it is undoubtedly one of the finest fantasy series ever written, it left me with a distinctly rancid taste in my mouth, and I seriously doubt I'll ever reread the series again (even though I WILL read it to the end, just to see if...I won't tell ).


On the other side, you have the evil doing hero whom you are still rooting for.

Ender Wiggin, from Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game" is such a character.
I just LOVE Ender, even though he really is a mean little bastard.

I think I may be straying offtopic a little now, though.

Eldridge.

Edited because I used uncouth language

 

[Pookie]

... People don't read a book because they are ordered to, or because they have really nothing better to do.

They read a book because they want to be entertained. ...

Obviously you are not still working on a degree in college. But seriously, the "hero" or protagonist can be a "bad guy". It really depends on the theme of the story. Jon is right about many BDSM stories where there is a tremendous amount of domination/humiliation going on. Some may enjoy it ... some may hate it. It depends on whether you enjoy that theme or not. The reader has to be able to identify in some way with the protagonist for the story to work ... good or bad guy.

You can "like" a bad guy ... you can also "hate" a good guy. It all depends on how the author presents the characters and plot. But if I can't identify with the protagonist, especially in a 1st person story, I doubt I will make it very far into the story ... unless I am "ordered" to by someone.

 

[BigTexan]

Ender Wiggin, from Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game" is such a character.
I just LOVE Ender, even though he really is a mean little bastard.

And see, I would have placed Ender Wiggin as a good guy. He never did anything overtly evil that I can recall. Okay he was not a "nice" person, but he wasn't really a "bad" person either.

I'm thinking of someone who'd scare the crap out of Damion from the "Omen" series. Someone Hanible Lector would admire. Make them the main character, telling the story (in third person) from their point of view and letting them win in the end.

I don't know if I could do it and I don't know if anyone would read it. My sense from this thread is that it has been tried before, but without much success.

It is something I'm toying with. I still may try it or I may just let it drop.

BigTexan

 

[wildsweetone]

WRITE WRITE WRITE IT!!!

yes, i have a feeling you could do it. how will you know differently if you don't try?

the challenge was thus presented...

 

[Eldridge]

Obviously you are not still working on a degree in college.

Heavens no...

Alright, perhaps I should have said that in general people read books because they want to be entertained.

School / college makes you do all kinds of stuff you don't WANT to be doing. I literally had hours of discussion with my old highschool teacher about how the idea by schools of 'forcing' kids to read books was actually turning them off from reading.

He didn't see it that way, ofcourse, but they were good discussions nonetheless.

So, outside of college, in general, people read books because they want to be entertained

Originally posted by BigTexan
And see, I would have placed Ender Wiggin as a good guy. He never did anything overtly evil that I can recall. Okay he was not a "nice" person, but he wasn't really a "bad" person either.

Well, obviously this would be a subjective feeling anyways, what is good for you may be bad for me and otherwise.
However, I did think Ender did quite a few things that he really didn't have to, he just chose to do them to save himself a lot of grief later. Kicking that bully into the hospital is, I think, a good example of that.

A character SO vile that Hannibal Lecter would admire him? I don't know. I think that unless there is some "good" satisfaction in there for your readers, you would turn a lot of people away from your story after awhile.

Still, what's it going to cost you in the end except some time, right?

Eldridge.

Edited I because am not so good being at the quote thing yes.

 

[wildsweetone]

had a thought on this over the last couple of days. hummed and haaed about whether to voice it or not...

euthanasia is defined in my dictionary as 'gentle and easy death; bringing about of this.'

there are differing viewpoints on the word 'bad', and if there are mitigating circumstances, then can the protagonist really be bad?

 

[BigTexan]

I guess that's why I didn't think of Ender as a "bad" guy. I mean, when you grow up as he did, you are going to be pretty rough, period and nothing he did was without a reasonable cause. Yeah, in polite society he didn't fit in real well, but then he didn't come from polite society. He came from hell on earth and lived according to a different set of rules.

My bad guy would be a normal, middle class, run of the mill guy who just happens to love torturing people, children, and small animals just cause it's fun, or someone with similar decidedly "evil" traits. I wouldn't want to put him on the gray line between good and bad. No, he would be clean in the black. The reader would see the thrill he gets, feel the rush of adreniline and power that being "bad" gives him. They would be looking through his eyes seeing that he knows he is evil and enjoys it.

Like any good story, he would experience setbacks and challenges to overcome and in the end he would be victorious.

Would anyone enjoy reading a story like that? I don't know. I'm still making up my mind whether or not I want to go there.

In one of my "serious" novels, I have a hero who is a pretty bad dude, but nothing he does is without reason and he doesn't enjoy it per se. He only kills in self defense, even though he certainly doesn't back away from situations that make him defend himself and his "self defense" is almost always lethal. But he does good things. He rescues innocent people who are threatened by the real "bad guys" of the story. He prevents all out war between nations. He saves kittens from trees when no one else will help. So overall he is a hero, just not someone you would want to have supper with. This isn't what I'm talking about. That can work, does work.

But here I'm talking about "Pure Evil" as the main character and I wonder, just wonder, if it would work?

BigTexan