Heroes & Villains

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What makes good ones?

 

[SamScribble]

What makes good ones?

I think that villains are, in some ways, harder to create (and maintain) than heroes. Yes, villains have to be ‘bad guys’, but they also have to be bad guys with whom the reader can engage. If they are just cardboard cut outs, it doesn’t work. All too often on Lit, I come across villains who are just too one-dimensional.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hitler's an interesting villain.

He appealed to Germans because he was committed to improving their lives, and made constant improvements for many years once he took office. Generally speaking, Germans in Austria, Poland, Russia, and Czechoslovakia were treated badly by the ruling elites, and Hitler sought to liberate those ethnic Germans from their oppression. His intentions were noble, and his anger and impatience got the better of him. When you set out to conquer offer your opponent better than they got; Hitler never learned that lesson.

 

[sunandshadow]

It kinda depends on what you mean by villain. When I use the word villain, I usually mean in the comic book sense - a mad scientist or a dark mage or a skillful cat burgular. Not necessarily someone who is the antagonist of his or her story. They could in fact be the protagonist, opposed to an anti-hero asshole or a zealot paladin. I LOVE the movies Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog and Megamind because both have a lovable protagonist villain and a jerk antagonist hero. In a romance novel this kind of character might be called a "dark-horse hero" because at the start he has a bad reputation and everyone is suspicious of him and he seem like a bad "bet" for a guy the heroine could live happily ever after with. But then it turns out that his side is actually the moral side, and the ostensible "good guys" are a conspiracy or bigots or blindly following dogma to their own detriment (and everyone else's), etc.

Now antagonists, those are the guys people are supposed to "love to hate" and take joy in seeing him get punished at the end of the story, or sometimes he can get rehabilitated and the reader will forgive him if he's been humiliated or made to apologize enough.

 

[sunandshadow]

Hitler's an interesting villain.

He appealed to Germans because he was committed to improving their lives, and made constant improvements for many years once he took office. Generally speaking, Germans in Austria, Poland, Russia, and Czechoslovakia were treated badly by the ruling elites, and Hitler sought to liberate those ethnic Germans from their oppression. His intentions were noble, and his anger and impatience got the better of him. When you set out to conquer offer your opponent better than they got; Hitler never learned that lesson.

Hitler sort of stepped into a role that was already prominent in German folklore and folk-philosophy when he was a teenager, and that role partially molded him and limited what he could do. Racial supremacy, a warrior racial self-image, and a concept of the economy being perpetually ruined by foreigners was a core part of his platform from the beginning, and that would not have been compatible with treating conquered opponents as equals. People in occupied France, for example, could only coexist with the German forces by taking a role of "peasants" toward the German "upper caste".

I don't know if you are familiar with Skyrim, but it's got some interesting things going on relevant to this topic. Skyrim has two main factions, one modeled on the Roman empire and one modeled on a Scandanavian warrior culture parallel to the historical German one Hitler's contemporaries wanted to nostalgically reclaim. Both factions have their own kind of cultural superiority complex going on. The Imperial side has had to make some unpleasant compromises to avoid being slaughtered by the elves. The Scandanavian-inspired Stormcloak faction has been the victim of religious oppression (by the imperials who were pretty much forced to do it by the elves) but the Stormcloaks are racist and the Imperials are not, but the imperials are prejudiced against "uncivilized" people, while the Stormcloaks are not. So, both sides are kinda bad. The leader of the Stormcloaks is a charismatic brooding man who is vaguely parallel to Hitler. A war is brewing between these two factions, and you as the dragonborn can lead one side to conquer the other, or you can broker an uneasy treaty between the two. So while you can't actually be "Hitler" in the game, you can be his right-hand warrior and adopted relative solely responsible for him becoming High King of Skyrim. If that's what you want to do in the game.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hitler sort of stepped into a role that was already prominent in German folklore and folk-philosophy when he was a teenager, and that role partially molded him and limited what he could do. Racial supremacy, a warrior racial self-image, and a concept of the economy being perpetually ruined by foreigners was a core part of his platform from the beginning, and that would not have been compatible with treating conquered opponents as equals. People in occupied France, for example, could only coexist with the German forces by taking a role of "peasants" toward the German "upper caste".

I don't know if you are familiar with Skyrim, but it's got some interesting things going on relevant to this topic. Skyrim has two main factions, one modeled on the Roman empire and one modeled on a Scandanavian warrior culture parallel to the historical German one Hitler's contemporaries wanted to nostalgically reclaim. Both factions have their own kind of cultural superiority complex going on. The Imperial side has had to make some unpleasant compromises to avoid being slaughtered by the elves. The Scandanavian-inspired Stormcloak faction has been the victim of religious oppression (by the imperials who were pretty much forced to do it by the elves) but the Stormcloaks are racist and the Imperials are not, but the imperials are prejudiced against "uncivilized" people, while the Stormcloaks are not. So, both sides are kinda bad. The leader of the Stormcloaks is a charismatic brooding man who is vaguely parallel to Hitler. A war is brewing between these two factions, and you as the dragonborn can lead one side to conquer the other, or you can broker an uneasy treaty between the two. So while you can't actually be "Hitler" in the game, you can be his right-hand warrior and adopted relative solely responsible for him becoming High King of Skyrim. If that's what you want to do in the game.

I know that most of us act-out roles, but I'm sure if the roles are pre-ordained. Jung called it the collective conscious, tho I wonder if we're not genetically predisposed to be one thing or another. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly.

Major conflicts and struggles lie ahead of us. I expect America and Europe to experience major ethnic convulsions as people choose the team they wanna play for.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It kinda depends on what you mean by villain. When I use the word villain, I usually mean in the comic book sense - a mad scientist or a dark mage or a skillful cat burgular. Not necessarily someone who is the antagonist of his or her story. They could in fact be the protagonist, opposed to an anti-hero asshole or a zealot paladin. I LOVE the movies Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog and Megamind because both have a lovable protagonist villain and a jerk antagonist hero. In a romance novel this kind of character might be called a "dark-horse hero" because at the start he has a bad reputation and everyone is suspicious of him and he seem like a bad "bet" for a guy the heroine could live happily ever after with. But then it turns out that his side is actually the moral side, and the ostensible "good guys" are a conspiracy or bigots or blindly following dogma to their own detriment (and everyone else's), etc.

Now antagonists, those are the guys people are supposed to "love to hate" and take joy in seeing him get punished at the end of the story, or sometimes he can get rehabilitated and the reader will forgive him if he's been humiliated or made to apologize enough.

I define the hero as one who offers you better, and the villain as one who offers you worse.

 

[lovecraft68]

The best characters are the ones you can't tell which one they are.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The best characters are the ones you can't tell which one they are.

Very true.

 

[sunandshadow]

I know that most of us act-out roles, but I'm sure if the roles are pre-ordained. Jung called it the collective conscious, tho I wonder if we're not genetically predisposed to be one thing or another. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly.

Major conflicts and struggles lie ahead of us. I expect America and Europe to experience major ethnic convulsions as people choose the team they wanna play for.

I didn't mean pre-ordained. I meant like, social supply and demand. You can only sell yourself as a political leader if you sell what people want to buy.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I didn't mean pre-ordained. I meant like, social supply and demand. You can only sell yourself as a political leader if you sell what people want to buy.

And you cant sell yourself as the Love Queen if you look like dog food. A dwarf aint gonna pass for Marshal Dillon. People see six foot five and a Stetson and no one thinks Mini Me.

 

[Macdaddy23]

What about Stalin? Extremely paranoid, ruthless, evil, thought everyone was against him until finally his own people had had enough of him. So would Stalin be worse than Hitler?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What about Stalin? Extremely paranoid, ruthless, evil, thought everyone was against him until finally his own people had had enough of him. So would Stalin be worse than Hitler?

Russians loved Uncle Joe till the end, tho he murdered millions of them. Its the Russian character to do such craziness.

Considering that Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler, and killed more people than anyone, I think he was worse than Hitler. The Russians liked Hitler till he showed his ass by abusing them for no real cause.

 

[SecondCircle]

I think what's confusing about heroes and villains is most times it seems obvious which is which, but from the outside looking in, it really isn't.

Often times, the one we perceive as a hero makes more sense to us, simply because it is sold to us that way. Those that go against that, or have opposite views, are perceived as a villain. The thing is, usually if you ask both sides, the other guy is always the villain and they are the heroes.

Touchy subject, but Muslim extremists are an example. They have a completely different set of morals and beliefs, and because of the extreme things they do, which aren't in tune with our beliefs, they become the villain to us.

But when they attacked the trade centers that day (and all other attacks since) they certainly didn't think of themselves as villains. To them, they were mighty heroes and martyrs, striking a blow upon the evil superpower of big fat and rich America. Their fellows back home cheered for their success.

This of course was appalling to us. They murdered thousands of people. They are the villains. If you asked Hitler, Stalin, Bush, any roman emperor, any bleeding heart terrorist in Bruce Willis movies... none of these guys think they are villains. They think they are battling injustice and evil.

This obscurity helps generate drama in stories however, and often times makes for a good read. It will leave a reader FEELING something, whether its emotionally conflicted or choosing sides of opposing forces.

 

[sr71plt]

It's largely in the PR they get. How they are packaged.

 

[SecondCircle]

It's largely in the PR they get. How they are packaged.

That's true. But from the actual person's standpoint a villain usually doesn't consider himself the villain.

What I can't stand is when people fail to realize this. They think the world only works the way they've lived it. People are pretty narrow minded when it comes to those who are considered "villains".

Villains can be very complex and interesting characters to read about. (See game of thrones/song of ice and fire thread). I particularly enjoy characters that people hate, but are so drawn to because of the positive traits the character has, whether they be used for evil or good.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

With James Gandolfino's dying, his Tony Soprano has to be seen as one of the great villains of our age, and that's because Tony's evil is so complex and understandable, and often motivated by a desire to do good. And at the same time, we can all relate to and even envy the easiness and readiness of his violence. He's a great villain because he's so understandable.

On the other hand, the most popular villains today seem to be the caricatures, amoral monsters like Jason and Freddy, Hannibal Lechter and Anton whatever-his-name-was in "No Country for Old Men" (the Javier Bardem character). They fascinate us for their sheer lack of humanness. They embody how we view evil these days: random, implacable, senseless, and utterly inhuman.

But I'm going to say what makes a great villain is that he takes some trait that we all have, maybe even a laudable or beneficent trait, and lets it run to the point of excess, where it becomes not only evil, but a mockery of what we need to believe. He's a perversion of our ideals, and he shows us how hollow they really are. He destroys us from within and leaves us facing the void.

And it doesn't hurt if his female sidekick wears latex and a push-up bra either.

 

[sr71plt]

Dexter?

 

[slyc_willie]

That's true. But from the actual person's standpoint a villain usually doesn't consider himself the villain.

What I can't stand is when people fail to realize this. They think the world only works the way they've lived it. People are pretty narrow minded when it comes to those who are considered "villains".

Villains can be very complex and interesting characters to read about. (See game of thrones/song of ice and fire thread). I particularly enjoy characters that people hate, but are so drawn to because of the positive traits the character has, whether they be used for evil or good.

With James Gandolfino's dying, his Tony Soprano has to be seen as one of the great villains of our age, and that's because Tony's evil is so complex and understandable, and often motivated by a desire to do good. And at the same time, we can all relate to and even envy the easiness and readiness of his violence. He's a great villain because he's so understandable.

On the other hand, the most popular villains today seem to be the caricatures, amoral monsters like Jason and Freddy, Hannibal Lechter and Anton whatever-his-name-was in "No Country for Old Men" (the Javier Bardem character). They fascinate us for their sheer lack of humanness. They embody how we view evil these days: random, implacable, senseless, and utterly inhuman.

But I'm going to say what makes a great villain is that he takes some trait that we all have, maybe even a laudable or beneficent trait, and lets it run to the point of excess, where it becomes not only evil, but a mockery of what we need to believe. He's a perversion of our ideals, and he shows us how hollow they really are. He destroys us from within and leaves us facing the void.

And it doesn't hurt if his female sidekick wears latex and a push-up bra either.

You've both repeated what I've often heard and believed: "great" villains don't see themselves as doing anything wrong. As far as they are concerned, they're right, or righteous, and uphold a moral or ethical or religious standard they think others should follow. Jim Jones is an excellent example.

 

[slyc_willie]

There are also the villains who know that there is "something wrong" with them, or that what they do is considered evil by society, and they either just don't care, or feel some powerful compulsion, a belief system, or driving force to continue. Hannibal Lecter and Dexter were mentioned above, and I think they would fall into this description.

 

[sr71plt]

I think we have a new type of "hero" building in the United States who begs the villain role. I've just passed a book edit back where I saw it and said the publisher wouldn't take it without better balance (the author seemed surprised. Someone accidentally killed someone else during a crime and the hero fried him alive in a funeral parlor oven as vigilante vengeance) and I see it everywhere, including on these forums. It's the "hero" who supports overkill of other villains--an arm and leg and head and genitals in exchange for an eye, and make it as painful as possible. "Yay, let's do it, and can I watch?"

 

[slyc_willie]

I think we have a new type of "hero" building in the United States who begs the villain role. I've just passed a book edit back where I saw it and said the publisher wouldn't take it without better balance (the author seemed surprised. Someone accidentally killed someone else during a crime and the hero fried him alive in a funeral parlor oven as vigilante vengeance) and I see it everywhere, including on these forums. It's the "hero" who supports overkill of other villains--an arm and leg and head and genitals in exchange for an eye, and make it as painful as possible. "Yay, let's do it, and can I watch?"

I personally put that into the anti-hero category, which, for me, has grown to include more than just the classic "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons" description.

People used to like the paladin. Now they like the tarnished blackguard who's worse than the villain. I don't even think a lot of people who like that kind of protagonist would consider them heroes at all. It's almost as if "hero" equals "wimpy good guy."

 

[lovecraft68]

I think we have a new type of "hero" building in the United States who begs the villain role. I've just passed a book edit back where I saw it and said the publisher wouldn't take it without better balance (the author seemed surprised. Someone accidentally killed someone else during a crime and the hero fried him alive in a funeral parlor oven as vigilante vengeance) and I see it everywhere, including on these forums. It's the "hero" who supports overkill of other villains--an arm and leg and head and genitals in exchange for an eye, and make it as painful as possible. "Yay, let's do it, and can I watch?"

Two things come to mind here.

The 11th Satanic Principle and I'll paraphrase. "When walking through a field bother no one. If they bother you ask them to stop. If they do not stop DESTROY THEM.

They got their warning now you make it so they never come back at you again.

The second is the immortal words of my first karate instructor (who lost his certificate to teach for being pretty much a maniac) "If someone fucks with you, you fuck them back so hard no one will ever fuck with you again."

Whether that's right or wrong depends on the situation, but fact is the world we live in is getting harsher and people are looking for things like what you described.

they are so fed up with the BS that goes on in this world (such as Muslim's sawing off people's heads) that it is getting to the point they want to see the "hero" be as brutal if not more brutal than the animals he is facing.

It's a product of the times and a reflection of the frustration of the average person tired of reading about the daily atrocities that are shoved down on throats.

 

[sr71plt]

Yeah, well, I think you're crazier than hell. (And, as far as I can determined from your wife's visitations to this forum, pussy whipped and overcompensating. )

 

[slyc_willie]

Two things come to mind here.

The 11th Satanic Principle and I'll paraphrase. "When walking through a field bother no one. If they bother you ask them to stop. If they do not stop DESTROY THEM.

They got their warning now you make it so they never come back at you again.

The second is the immortal words of my first karate instructor (who lost his certificate to teach for being pretty much a maniac) "If someone fucks with you, you fuck them back so hard no one will ever fuck with you again."

Whether that's right or wrong depends on the situation, but fact is the world we live in is getting harsher and people are looking for things like what you described.

they are so fed up with the BS that goes on in this world (such as Muslim's sawing off people's heads) that it is getting to the point they want to see the "hero" be as brutal if not more brutal than the animals he is facing.

It's a product of the times and a reflection of the frustration of the average person tired of reading about the daily atrocities that are shoved down on throats.

That philosophy is pretty much the mantra of most urban gangs. It's a very extremist, black-and-white view of things. Unfortunately, all it does is provoke more violence.

It works as a good motivator for the street-level villain of a story, though, to the point that a murderous gang thug's motives wouldn't have to be spelled out to most readers.