Everyone loves a sadist?

[Keroin]

I had an interesting conversation with my editor yesterday regarding sadism in (non-erotic) fiction. A protagonist can never be a sadist, she told me. His actions can be cruel, his behavior can be cruel, but his thoughts and motivations cannot be based in cruelty or the reader cannot identify with him, (or her).

This idea is interesting to me because I see sadism very much as an aspect of person’s personality. Sadism, in and of itself, is not intrinsically a bad quality, in my opinion. It’s how the sadism is expressed that makes the difference between a “bad” guy and a “good” guy. We have lots of sadists right here that, from what I’ve read, seem like perfectly lovely people – much nicer than many non-sadists, in fact.

So is this fear or prejudice, or both? Many human characteristics can be repulsive under the right circumstances, or when taken to extremes, and yet they are not as reviled or feared as sadism.

Can you think of any fictional heroes that are either sadists or display sadistic behaviour? The only two I could think of were both from television but I’m sure there are more.

Anyway, I’m curious about this. Thoughts would be appreciated.

 

[Primalex]

I had an interesting conversation with my editor yesterday regarding sadism in (non-erotic) fiction. A protagonist can never be a sadist, she told me. His actions can be cruel, his behavior can be cruel, but his thoughts and motivations cannot be based in cruelty or the reader cannot identify with him, (or her).

This idea is interesting to me because I see sadism very much as an aspect of person’s personality. Sadism, in and of itself, is not intrinsically a bad quality, in my opinion. It’s how the sadism is expressed that makes the difference between a “bad” guy and a “good” guy. We have lots of sadists right here that, from what I’ve read, seem like perfectly lovely people – much nicer than many non-sadists, in fact.

So is this fear or prejudice, or both? Many human characteristics can be repulsive under the right circumstances, or when taken to extremes, and yet they are not as reviled or feared as sadism.

Can you think of any fictional heroes that are either sadists or display sadistic behaviour? The only two I could think of were both from television but I’m sure there are more.

Anyway, I’m curious about this. Thoughts would be appreciated.

Hm, some time ago I linked a great article about "villains" in stories. Maybe I find it again..
The editor is right, villains need motivations like heroes, they are not bad per se, they just view the world from a different point of view. I think the movie 'Watchmen' captures this perfectly.

Now for reality, I'm a hardliner. Sadism is thriving on dealing pain. It's not thriving on the knowledge that she likes pain. (insert Homburgs veto now). So a real sadist is always a bad guy, who won't get into trouble if he finds a masochist. The sadist doesn't differ between good and bad reasons for dealing pain, his view is whether he enjoys it right now or not.

 

[ImOnIt]

–noun
1.
Psychiatry. sexual gratification gained through causing pain or degradation to others.Compare masochism.
2.
any enjoyment in being cruel.
3.
extreme cruelty.

(1) That doesn't infer whether it is sadistic to derive pleasure from causing PLEASURE to masochists who like pain.

Shit. So this looks like another subjective thing.

 

[chy_girl]

JK Rowling's Severus Snape. Albus Dumbledore also had his own special brand of sadism. One could even make the argument that the Weasley twins also had a sadistic streak that was masked by their pranks.

Mel Gibson's character in Payback. The mom and the son in Nobel Son, although I'm not sure if they actually count as heroes... The main character in House. There's plenty more, I'll just be damned if I could think of them.

It would also depend on what kind of sadism you're talking about, too - physical or mental/emotional sadism. And where on the spectrum.

You were talking about non-sexual sadism, weren't you? As in the general characteristic as opposed to a sexual desire?

 

[Netzach]

I had an interesting conversation with my editor yesterday regarding sadism in (non-erotic) fiction. A protagonist can never be a sadist, she told me. His actions can be cruel, his behavior can be cruel, but his thoughts and motivations cannot be based in cruelty or the reader cannot identify with him, (or her).

This idea is interesting to me because I see sadism very much as an aspect of person’s personality. Sadism, in and of itself, is not intrinsically a bad quality, in my opinion. It’s how the sadism is expressed that makes the difference between a “bad” guy and a “good” guy. We have lots of sadists right here that, from what I’ve read, seem like perfectly lovely people – much nicer than many non-sadists, in fact.

So is this fear or prejudice, or both? Many human characteristics can be repulsive under the right circumstances, or when taken to extremes, and yet they are not as reviled or feared as sadism.

Can you think of any fictional heroes that are either sadists or display sadistic behaviour? The only two I could think of were both from television but I’m sure there are more.

Anyway, I’m curious about this. Thoughts would be appreciated.

V for vendetta. One of the most popular movies I can think of in eons had one of the most sadistic protagonists. I think you need a couple of ingredients: mainly that there's a justification and a reason that a regular reader can think of for their violence - a lot of people *still* don't buy in to the buddhist refinement of Evie's personality into a non-death-fearing monk-ette of whatever kind - in other words it felt too unjustified to a lot of people, but that's why it's interesting and what I consider actual sadism. It wasn't part of some grand revenge plot, it really was a "this will be good for you, darling" thing.

 

[00Syd]

*shrug* I'm not sure how much of an actual sadist he is, but I'm currently writing a script, and the protagonist is the abuser in an abusive relationship. Everyone who's read it so far seems to think he's the bees knees even though none of them can relate to him in the least, an actually all hate him with a passion. But despite that, they really enjoy reading him So, I dunno.

 

[talismania]

My editor also has problems with characters who enjoy being cruel. She draws the line very clearly between villains and heroes when it comes to that trait. A villain can enjoy causing others to suffer, because readers can identify *against* that. If they understand why the villain does it, that simply makes the villain more rounded.

However, if a protagonist--a character with whom the reader expects to identify and whose values are assumed to be held worthwhile--relishes causing pain, that can be uncomfortable for readers. All readers? No. Enough to damage sales of the author or book? Perhaps. That's why the concern. Romance publishers in particular expect a hero to be admirable.

Can it be done? Can a sadistic character be the hero. I think so. Some pretty brutal characters have served as protagonists in fiction. The hero of Arslan, by M.J. Engh comes to mind. Arslan is undoubtedly the hero, ultimately, but his actions are despicable. He knows he's considered a monster... and agrees. But he doesn't care. He believes in the "greater good" he's achieving. I don't like the character, to be honest. I'm not sure he's right about that goal, either. But it's a damn good novel.

However, Arslan is not a sadist. He doesn't commit atrocities TO cause pain. He commits atrocities EVEN THOUGH they cause pain. He seeks a goal and his goal is the atrocity, not the pain. Readers can identify with the kind of brutal will needed to commit atrocities, but not taking pleasure in the pain. It makes sense in a way.

I can think of a few secondary characters in novels who were sadists, but none who were heroes or heroines. Even if they were sympathetic to some degree, even great degree, those sadistic characters were antagonists.

 

[Keroin]

Thanks for the replies, thus far. Commentary to come later.

Netz, great example with V for Vendetta and one I hadn't considered. Again, it comes back to motive, doesn't it? Did he put her through all that because he enjoyed her suffering or because he thought it would benefit her?

Hm.

 

[00Syd]

I had an interesting conversation with my editor yesterday regarding sadism in (non-erotic) fiction. A protagonist can never be a sadist, she told me. His actions can be cruel, his behavior can be cruel, but his thoughts and motivations cannot be based in cruelty or the reader cannot identify with him, (or her).

Also, where does Dexter fit in here? He DEFINITELY enjoys killing people, and his true motives aren't exactly easy to relate to, but he does go about killing folks with a "code" that only allows him to kill people who have also killed people. Good guy, bad deeds.

 

[Keroin]

Also, where does Dexter fit in here? He DEFINITELY enjoys killing people, and his true motives aren't exactly easy to relate to, but he does go about killing folks with a "code" that only allows him to kill people who have also killed people. Good guy, bad deeds.

He was actually one of the TV characters I was thinking of. Again, the "code" saves him from being perceived as a typical sadist.

The other character that comes to mind is Al Swearengen from "Deadwood". Now, he's not presented, initially, as a good guy but more and more, as the story progressive, we see him in that light. In that case, however, I think it's more a scenario of him being the "nicest" of the bad guys.

 

[sb2009]

Susan R Matthew's Andrej Koscuisko is a protagonist who is a sadist the true sense of the word - he really likes hurting people, and his job as an "inquisitor" (or some other title like that) gives him the opportunity (it actually is how he discovers this part of his personality).

He is absolutely the protagonist, he just wrestles with his desires a lot. And he has a core group of servants, associates, etc who help him pull the plug when he can't stop himself.

I realized I was a bit, er, odd, when I got really turned on reading those books.

 

[rosco rathbone]

David Thewlis as "Johnny" in Mike Leigh's Naked.

Here's him fucking with poor Sophie.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzufbe3d8Ic

He's totally sadistic but also a real character.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-D7iKn-Kpk&feature=related

 

[Netzach]

Also, where does Dexter fit in here? He DEFINITELY enjoys killing people, and his true motives aren't exactly easy to relate to, but he does go about killing folks with a "code" that only allows him to kill people who have also killed people. Good guy, bad deeds.

Opposite effect, the antagonist in No Country for Old Men (read it, don't just see it) kills according to a code, but what exactly his code is is inscrutable awful random and inescapable, which makes him so motherfucking scary you stay up nights. See also - any other Cormac McCarthy item. He nails the question of evil.

Unrelated:

I am uncertain that sadism requires NO MOTIVE SAVE PLEASURE. I don't think "this is good for you" precludes a question of pleasure or willingness to inflict that's a little - off. It's a question of motives that aren't clearly saving the children or just jacking off that cause people to wonder what it would take for them to hurt someone else and possibly even enjoy it, and then it gets interesting.

 

[shewolf3003]

Also, where does Dexter fit in here? He DEFINITELY enjoys killing people, and his true motives aren't exactly easy to relate to, but he does go about killing folks with a "code" that only allows him to kill people who have also killed people. Good guy, bad deeds.

/NERD ALERT

Dexter is not clinically a sadist. He does not deliver pain for the sake of the pain and take pleasure from it, he is answering a psychopathic need to murder. His desire is not so much the torture, but the death that ends his cycle. Dexter actually lacks emotion as most humans know it. One of the points of the show is him attempting to create the facade of emotion and his desire to be able to mimic the emotions of those in situations around him. The attraction the viewing audience has for Dexter is created by his absence of malicious intent per se, and his almost naive attempts at social interaction. His code only allows him to channel the need caused by his "inner demon" to kill those that if they were here in the south the phrase "They needed killin!" would apply to. This further adds to his appeal to the viewing public casting him more as a noir hero type. A noir hero who rids the earth of those that eluded justice. If Dexter's psychopathic designs were not tightly reined to murder only those who had already in most cases committed acts against humanity, the viewer would have a much more difficult time accepting him as sympathetically as they do.

/end nerd alert..

 

[00Syd]

/NERD ALERT

Dexter is not clinically a sadist. He does not deliver pain for the sake of the pain and take pleasure from it, he is answering a psychopathic need to murder. His desire is not so much the torture, but the death that ends his cycle. Dexter actually lacks emotion as most humans know it. One of the points of the show is him attempting to create the facade of emotion and his desire to be able to mimic the emotions of those in situations around him. The attraction the viewing audience has for Dexter is created by his absence of malicious intent per se, and his almost naive attempts at social interaction. His code only allows him to channel the need caused by his "inner demon" to kill those that if they were here in the south the phrase "They needed killin!" would apply to. This further adds to his appeal to the viewing public casting him more as a noir hero type. A noir hero who rids the earth of those that eluded justice. If Dexter's psychopathic designs were not tightly reined to murder only those who had already in most cases committed acts against humanity, the viewer would have a much more difficult time accepting him as sympathetically as they do.

/end nerd alert..

Yeah, right, I know that.

The technicalities of Dexter's situation just don't seem especially relevant to the discussion at hand, though, because it's still a bad-guy-who's-a-good-guy question either way. No? Or does this actually significantly change the conversation in a way that I'm just not seeing?

 

[rida]

The way I see it is that most people associate the idea of a "sadist" with that of a mono-dimensional personality trait that her enjoy the suffering of others in and of itself. As such, it would be someone devoted of any empathy, a quality that seems to be considered the dividing line between a human and a monster.

In the case of Dexter, the fact that he shows ethic by only killing other murdered is what makes us, the viewer, feel more comfortable in liking the character. But at the same time, the fact that liking him makes most viewer feel uncomfortable, is what actually fuel the show, by dangling pieces and bits of his past and of his inner working, in an attempt to "humanize" him. The viewer might not be able to identify with him when it comes to his pathological need to kill, but they can sympathize with his needs to blend in by "acting" normal. And because he only kills "rotten guys", the viewer can feel reassured that no real arm is done.

But I don't think that Dexter fits the description of a sadist.

For the definition of a Sadist, I go with Primalex:

Sadism is thriving on dealing pain.
*snip* The sadist doesn't differ between good and bad reasons for dealing pain, his view is whether he enjoys it right now or not.

As such it is hard to make a lovable character out of it. Unless we add layer of "redeeming circumstances" that justify his sadism to our collective conscience, hence our liking of him makes us fear to be "monsters" ourselves.

 

[00Syd]

Does "love to hate" count as "love?"

 

[Soumis]

I think a good example of the general public's comfort level with sadist is reflected in the popularity of vampire lit these days.

The vampire characters have to inflict pain, most enjoy it, and the readers love them all the more. I think it's easier for people to relate when it's necessary to survive or has a healthy dose of sex thrown in.

There's always the Jacqueline Carey books, full of characters that love pain every which way. I'd say that Imriel fits the bill as a hero/sadist.

 

[BiBunny]

"Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you."

Sorry. That's just what I keep thinking of every time I see the title of this thread.

 

[where]

V for vendetta. One of the most popular movies I can think of in eons had one of the most sadistic protagonists. I think you need a couple of ingredients: mainly that there's a justification and a reason that a regular reader can think of for their violence - a lot of people *still* don't buy in to the buddhist refinement of Evie's personality into a non-death-fearing monk-ette of whatever kind - in other words it felt too unjustified to a lot of people, but that's why it's interesting and what I consider actual sadism. It wasn't part of some grand revenge plot, it really was a "this will be good for you, darling" thing.

I haven't seen the film but the comic book.... no, I don't see V as being sadistic towards Evie.

He was actually one of the TV characters I was thinking of. Again, the "code" saves him from being perceived as a typical sadist.

The other character that comes to mind is Al Swearengen from "Deadwood". Now, he's not presented, initially, as a good guy but more and more, as the story progressive, we see him in that light. In that case, however, I think it's more a scenario of him being the "nicest" of the bad guys.

again, Al uses violence as a means to an end most of the time, though he does beat up women. I saw it as more out of release and habit than sexual gratification though.

"Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you."

Sorry. That's just what I keep thinking of every time I see the title of this thread.

haha! me too!

I think Sylvia was wrong though.

 

[eastern sun]

How about the lead character in "The Killer In Me"? He was a sadist, and very difficult to like. I didn't read the book, but the whole movie was driving relentlessly towards his annihilation at the end. And I was glad to see him burn.

 

[Cattypuss]

Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights (the book, I mean -cos the films are very watered down)

 

[00Syd]

How about the lead character in "The Killer In Me"? He was a sadist, and very difficult to like. I didn't read the book, but the whole movie was driving relentlessly towards his annihilation at the end. And I was glad to see him burn.

Oh right, yeah, I completely forgot about that movie. I don't remember liking him or disliking him, but I was having a good time seeing how well he was evading capture (not very), and was disappointed when he got caught.

 

[Netzach]

Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights (the book, I mean -cos the films are very watered down)

This is a perfect example. He's problematic even by the standards of the day, the kind of guy who kills animals for gratification but he has the sympathy vote and turns on all the girls. Good call.

 

[YourCaptor]

Revenge. Someone whos been hurt, who now wants to dish out the hurt. People often cheer for them, you know, like that dude from the crank films. But then even he, at most times, had more of a motive than to just make pain.

I’d say mob movies come close. Whats his name, “how am I funny” guy… you know from “all I ever wanted to be was a gangster”. Or are those different? I’m not good with names and titles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iELKMNjZx9o

Oh, the joker from batman!!! He’s pure sadist. And Him from the powerpuff girls, he’s the most evil of all. For those who don’t know, Hims master plan was to steal the smiles of all children. That’s some fucked up shit right there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2ZfFB8GHic