# My Protagonist is a horrible human being.



## NeoCaesar (May 18, 2013)

I am struggling to find something likable about my main protagonist; he is an arrogant bully who loves himself a little too much. There are various plot points where the audience are led to believe he is going to redeem himself but each time he actually gets worse. Towards the end his harmless arrogance turns into megalomaniacal God-like tenancies. The novel will end with him getting his comeuppance.

The problem I am having is trying to find something likable about him, is this necessary? Do I get the audience to root for another character -the down-trodden love interest and the long-suffering accomplice? I have them as the focus for many of the protagonist's actions and comic relief respectively. Maybe I should be getting the audience behind them achieving their goals...

I have been watching It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia as research in to making horrible characters. I can't figure it out -they are literally the worst people. I think it is okay to like them because they are so pathetic it is acceptable.

I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on likable bad-guys.


----------



## Robert_S (May 18, 2013)

NeoCaesar said:


> I am struggling to find something likable about my main protagonist; he is an arrogant bully who loves himself a little too much. There are various plot points where the audience are led to believe he is going to redeem himself but each time he actually gets worse. Towards the end his harmless arrogance turns into megalomaniacal God-like tenancies. The novel will end with him getting his comeuppance.  The problem I am having is trying to find something likable about him, is this necessary? Do I get the audience to root for another character -the down-trodden love interest and the long-suffering accomplice? I have them as the focus for many of the protagonist's actions and comic relief respectively. Maybe I should be getting the audience behind them achieving their goals...  I have been watching It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia as research in to making horrible characters. I can't figure it out -they are literally the worst people. I think it is okay to like them because they are so pathetic it is acceptable.  I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on likable bad-guys.


  I don't believe it's necessary to like the main character. Some people are just not likable, but there is almost always a reason they became such. If he's horrible for no reason, it may be hard to pull off, but if there is some background that gives reason behind it, sometimes, people will be able to empathize.


----------



## JosephB (May 18, 2013)

Give him a puppy.


----------



## popsprocket (May 18, 2013)

I'd let the readers root for his friends instead. It's a gradual thing, but they come to see that the protagonist is a bad guy and the people around him that get hurt are the ones they should be putting their interests in. Bonus points if the protag gets his comeuppance from one of them.

Double bonus points for giving the protag a chance to acknowledge that he's a bad person, regardless of whether he wants to change. Just a "You're a monster!" "I know." moment would be enough.


----------



## Jeko (May 19, 2013)

Give him a tone and likable - hence contrasting - friends. And make how horrible he is not accidental, but with purpose for plot and effect.


----------



## OLDSOUL (May 19, 2013)

You most certainly don't have to make the protagonist likeable. All you have to do is manage to get the readers to understand why he is the way he is. Then the reader will at least be able to appreciate where he's coming from and empathise with him in that way. Even better, have him being realistically narcissistic so an audience can sink their own arrogance into that character, then slowly slide him up the continuum to narcissistic personality disorder. I'd imagine then, having seen this character grow like a weed, his comeuppance will be all the more sweet.


----------



## NeoCaesar (May 19, 2013)

Okay, thank you. That certainly allays my fears -I was really struggling to make him likable. We will definitely see that there is a reason for why he is the way he is. And his flaws are very human at the start, climaxing at the 'Oh my good God, you have lost your mind!' reveal.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (May 20, 2013)

You only need to provoke an emotional response from your readers that doesn't result in them dropping the book.  They can be screaming at the character, but if it keeps them reading, you're doing just fine.


----------



## JosephB (May 20, 2013)

For those who watch, Don Draper on _Madmen_, is a great example of that. The only think that irks me a little are the flashbacks to his awful childhood they use to elicit sympathy -- so we're all supposed to think, no wonder he acts that way! Those scenes are still fairly interesting -- and overall, I enjoy the show enough to excuse them.


----------



## SophieBoyce (May 22, 2013)

I read through all seven Dark Tower books hating the character of Roland (MC). That said, he was an interesting character with lots of rich back story influencing his motivations so while I didn't like him, I could see why he was the way he was and why he did the things he did.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (May 24, 2013)

I read your post and I was like "Oh, he's describing my narrator, how odd"

I love unlikable main characters. I'm a sucker for the old "he's horrible, does something nice, builds your trust, then pulls the rug out from under you - repeat". I've been trying to make my character like that, but I'm afraid it's too easy to see past his cocky and elitist exterior and understand how insecure he his. I'm being cheesy with my story - he redeems himself about half-way through the book, and I do think the reader will cheer for him, in spite of his overuse of the word "fu*k" and tendency to judge people buy their looks and wallets. You sound much bolder, and I praise you for that. I don't think it's necessary for the main character to be likable, it's much more fun finding yourself rooting for someone who isn't and then feeling kind of guilty about it.


----------



## NeoCaesar (May 25, 2013)

TheYellowMustang said:


> I don't think it's necessary for the main character to be likable, it's much more fun finding yourself rooting for someone who isn't and then feeling kind of guilty about it.



That is the tricky part -I want the audience to at least identify with the jerk. The way I see of doing this is elaborating on the back story so people empathise with him and understand him a bit more. Or I go the other way and make him so bad you have to read on. Possible The Joker is a good example of this? Someone so compulsively charismatic or fascinating that a little bit of the reader says 'I hate him but I would invite him in my house, break bread and have a few drams to see what he has to say'.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (May 25, 2013)

NeoCaesar said:


> That is the tricky part -I want the audience to at least identify with the jerk. The way I see of doing this is elaborating on the back story so people empathise with him and understand him a bit more. Or I go the other way and make him so bad you have to read on. Possible The Joker is a good example of this? Someone so compulsively charismatic or fascinating that a little bit of the reader says 'I hate him but I would invite him in my house, break bread and have a few drams to see what he has to say'.




I think it all depends on what you're going for, really. From Voldemort to the Joker - nearly all villains I can think of had horrible childhoods. Maybe it is this way for a reason, maybe it's just such a good trick there's no use changing it. Charismatic and/or fascinating villains are my favorite, so that's what I went for myself, but nearly everything works. If you go with the idea you like the most, you'll probably write that better than the idea you like second.


----------



## Thinking Aloud (May 26, 2013)

As long as there is somebody likable in your story, it should be fine, but just take into consideration that your reader will be "stuck" with the main character for the entire novel.  To be stuck with a character that you hate for an entire novel would be kind of akin to being stuck with that jerk you always hated in elementary school inside of a really long elevator ride.  As it ascends, the two of you--being your reader and your protagonist--are going to need to have some sort of exchange at some point, after of which your reader will decide that either he can open up to that character and see him in a different, although maybe not completely positive, light, or if he just hates the dude and will put the book down.

Anyways, forced analogies aside, the point is that if you absolutely hate the main character, there's a much smaller chance that you'll enjoy the work.  Just think if Harry Potter was some macho douchebag, or if Spongebob just kicked Patrick in the junk every episode, sneering and jeering the entire time.  Even if the entire rest of the cast was a bunch of amazing, totally lovable individuals, there's not way you'd enjoy the work.  There needs to be some redeeming qualities to the main character, whether it be a sarcastic sense of humor or the fact that he can stand on his head for ten minutes, if you want your audience to enjoy your work.

Regards,
-Thinking Aloud


----------



## popsprocket (May 27, 2013)

NeoCaesar said:


> That is the tricky part -I want the audience to at least identify with the jerk. The way I see of doing this is elaborating on the back story so people empathise with him and understand him a bit more. Or I go the other way and make him so bad you have to read on. Possible The Joker is a good example of this? Someone so compulsively charismatic or fascinating that a little bit of the reader says 'I hate him but I would invite him in my house, break bread and have a few drams to see what he has to say'.



Can he be bad in a more subtle way? Something that isn't obvious at first, but becomes seriously apparent the more you see him.

I want to refer to my trusty friend Peter Pan here. Peter is this completely amoral being who lives on a whim. And that's charming and all. But then there's allusions to things like him killing the other lost boys if they begin to age and his conflict with Hook that he doesn't seem interested in ending. He just enjoys the fight for the sake of a fight.

The more you read into him the more you can be horrified by this immortal _child_ who doesn't value life, not even his own, and does things like kidnap girls from their homes.

Peter Pan is a perfectly likable character except for the fact that he's a horribly little human being.


----------



## NeoCaesar (May 27, 2013)

Thinking Aloud said:


> As long as there is somebody likable in your story, it should be fine, but just take into consideration that your reader will be "stuck" with the main character for the entire novel.  To be stuck with a character that you hate for an entire novel would be kind of akin to being stuck with that jerk you always hated in elementary school inside of a really long elevator ride.  As it ascends, the two of you--being your reader and your protagonist--are going to need to have some sort of exchange at some point, after of which your reader will decide that either he can open up to that character and see him in a different, although maybe not completely positive, light, or if he just hates the dude and will put the book down.
> 
> Anyways, forced analogies aside, the point is that if you absolutely hate the main character, there's a much smaller chance that you'll enjoy the work.  Just think if Harry Potter was some macho douchebag, or if Spongebob just kicked Patrick in the junk every episode, sneering and jeering the entire time.  Even if the entire rest of the cast was a bunch of amazing, totally lovable individuals, there's not way you'd enjoy the work.  There needs to be some redeeming qualities to the main character, whether it be a sarcastic sense of humor or the fact that he can stand on his head for ten minutes, if you want your audience to enjoy your work.
> 
> ...



The protagonist is ambitious -that's an admirable quality, right?

The story is in the third person so that may go some way to negating the 'elevator' effect...


----------



## NeoCaesar (May 27, 2013)

popsprocket said:


> Can he be bad in a more subtle way? Something that isn't obvious at first, but becomes seriously apparent the more you see him.



It's pretty hard to avoid his glaring flaws: he has the fate of the world in his hands (about halfway through) and he sells humanity out for a shot at personal glory. He then proceeds to try and rebuild humanity from his seed alone -severe godlike tendencies. I guess we want him to succeed for the first half then we want to see him get what's coming the second half. That is a story arc I can get behind.


----------



## TheWritingWriter (May 28, 2013)

I read a certain book, one I'm sure you may not have heard of before...**cough, cough** Twilight **cough, cough** I ABSOLUTELY hated the main character, but since I despised her so much, I just _had_ to know what happened to her. You know how rappers are all like, "My haters are my biggest fans!" It's true. Haters put a lot more energy into fans oftentimes. 

So your character not being super likeable isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can intrigue your readers, and it will possibly offer a new perspective for not only your readers but for you as a writer. To write about a character I hate would definitely challenge me and hopefully, help me better myself. I wouldn't stress too much about it, but if all else fails, and it's still bothering you, do what one of the other users said & give 'em a puppy.


----------



## Houston (May 28, 2013)

Ever seen Raging Bull? De Niro's character in that is despicable, same with Pesci's in Goodfellas. But you can't help but be drawn to and invested in what happens to them. 

I don't think your character has to be likable, just make them and their choices interesting. That's all people really care about.


----------



## mblank (May 29, 2013)

I tend to write main characters that are not at all likeable.  But I like them and I think that's important.  In order to have a well developed character, you need to really understand them as a human being.  And complete human beings have positive and negatives.  The best characters tend to be the ones we manage to like for their negatives and not just despite them.


----------



## Rustgold (May 29, 2013)

TheWritingWriter said:


> I read a certain book, one I'm sure you may not have heard of before...**cough, cough** Twilight **cough, cough** I ABSOLUTELY hated the main character, but since I despised her so much, I just _had_ to know what happened to her.


Hate's a strong term.  No doubt your reason for this is opposite to the problem OP was having.  Twilight has about a ditzy mother in an oppressive life environment writing down her fantasy.  The author loved her own character, dreaming it was her; and she made her character into a doll with big puppy-dog eyes.  The character was ditzy, not horrible; and it was this quality that mainly teenage girls were attracted to; because they loved her the same way.

I wonder, most examples of popular horrible protagonists come from movies.  Is it easier for people to accept an horrible main character on screen than in a book?


----------



## popsprocket (May 29, 2013)

> I wonder, most examples of popular horrible protagonists come from movies.  Is it easier for people to accept an horrible main character on screen than in a book?



That might be a fair enough thing to say. Characters in films rarely receive the depth that you get from a novel, so you get more time to fully understand how bad a character is when reading.


----------



## Staff Deployment (May 29, 2013)

popsprocket said:


> That might be a fair enough thing to say. Characters in films rarely receive the depth that you get from a novel, so you get more time to fully understand how bad a character is when reading.



I find this to be true, but there's no reason it has to be. Film is arguably a better medium for developing character than a book.

In film we show what the character looks like, how he reacts in subtle ways, how he dresses himself, how he talks, how he presents himself, and that can all be found in a single frame – when we start moving, we suddenly get a lot more based on the mise-en-scene, the set design, the way the camera angles on him or the way it moves around him, the music, the sound effects, literally every aspect of putting together a scene can be used to develop this character further, usually in ways that we don't even notice. In a book, all we have is words. Which have their own merit, but it's very difficult to achieve that same kind of immersion.

Yet film characters are still flat, and book characters are rotund. I think, because the former is so much easier, that nobody ever puts the same amount of thought into it as they would in a novel.

Anyway NeoCaesar your protagonist seems like a pretty swell guy to me. My own protagonist was happily willing to destroy the entire world, and she murdered people for fun. Maybe they'd get along.


----------



## Rustgold (May 29, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> Anyway NeoCaesar your protagonist seems like a pretty swell guy to me. My own protagonist was happily willing to destroy the entire world, and she murdered people for fun. Maybe they'd get along.


The protagonist in what I'm (supposed to be) writing killed her aunt and had her witch mentor bring her back to life 8 times before the corpse got too mangled to repeat.  Her mentor btw put her own son to death.  Oh, and they're the good guys.  What's the world to that?


----------



## alanmt (May 29, 2013)

Your dilemma reminded me of the main character in Eugene Burdick's The Ninth Wave.  Normal college surfer guy who becomes a political operative and is just too dangerously good at it, gradually becoming a more ruthless person toward the end while his friends remain nice and grounded.  It is definitely worth a read, if you haven't. An amazing book.


----------



## Staff Deployment (May 29, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> The protagonist in what I'm (supposed to be) writing killed her aunt and had her witch mentor bring her back to life 8 times before the corpse got too mangled to repeat.  Her mentor btw put her own son to death.  Oh, and they're the good guys.  What's the world to that?



About halfway through the story, a protagonist of mine met a guy at a party and started kissing him. She got bored after a while and left. Then she psychically roofied him and caused him to bash his head on the side of a table, and when he fled the party, she chased after him and stabbed him to death. She cradled his body and sang to him while he died. Then she brought him back to life as a monster and used him to call an army of more monsters, killing thousands.

She isn't a Bond Villain trying to destroy the world strictly – she's just sadistic and uncontrollable. The other heroes of the story aren't much better. Combined, they personally and directly murder something like 45 people over the course of three days. The antagonists? _Zero._ The antagonists kill no-one and constantly appeal to reason and compassion. All of them die.

So I'm pretty confident I have the most horrible protagonists in all the land. Any contenders?


----------



## Houston (May 29, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> So I'm pretty confident I have the most horrible protagonists in all the land.




Well she did bring him back to life...


----------



## SteelPalm (Jun 3, 2013)

No way of knowing whether an unlikable protagonist is a problem or not without reading the actual story.  

However, I think they turned out okay for Nabokov in both _Lolita_ and _Pale Fire_, two of the greatest classics of the 20th century...


----------



## GonneLights (Jun 5, 2013)

For a collaborative story, I had a character who was part of a group of opportunist muggers, who was a repeated rapist. Disgusting character, terrifying character. The people I wrote with were very disturbed by him, a few were reduced to tears by parts of the story line and one vomited. My girlfriend was horrified and couldn't read much of it. But, after the story, and the character, developed, he became our favourite, most loved character. Not because he was a good person, not because he was someone we'd like to meet, but he was perhaps the deepest and most romantic exploration I've made thus far. We ended up naming the story after him, and thought here wasn't really a main character he was very prominent. 

The problem you might be facing is not that he's a bad person, but because you haven't fleshed him out beyond a bad person. Nobody is _just _a narcissist, or _just _a rapist or whatever else. No matter how reprehensible or vile a character is, they are always a full and spectral character. There is more to your narcissist than narcissism. Try and develop him more, if that's the problem. Writing is very interesting because you get to see the side of people you could never bear to see in real life, whether its their vile side, or their beautiful side. 

For similar characters who are incredibly reprehensible... Think about the charisma of Jack the Ripper, who was a serial rapist and murderer. I mean, oh my _god, _what a _brutal _man. But what a character, and what mystery he's inspired, for hundreds of years. Or... Mack the Knife! From the Threepenny Opera. A pedophile, child molester and pimp! Good _lord! _But the song portrayed him so well, as the slickster, as the smooth guy. And that's what everyone picked up on, Louis Armstrong and the like covered the song, taking out all the vile parts and picturing him only as the Cool Guy. That's the mark of a full character - you can ignore the major part of his existence and still make a character out of him. Or... Christopher Columbus, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler - there have been some great films about Hitler, my god. So, there are plenty of characters who are good characters who are terrible people.


----------



## Monster (Jun 7, 2013)

It's not always best to love the main character. Like Iron Man. If you read the comics, Tony Stark is kind of a jerk. Dr. House is a huge jerk, but in some weird way, he's loveable. A lot of people really do tend to side with the "badness" of the good guy, as it makes him more connectable. We all do things that we think makes us bad people sometimes. It's okay to use the bad guy motto, here.


----------



## Rustgold (Jun 7, 2013)

SteelPalm said:


> No way of knowing whether an unlikable protagonist is a problem or not without reading the actual story.
> 
> However, I think they turned out okay for Nabokov in both _Lolita_ and _Pale Fire_, two of the greatest classics of the 20th century...


Don't know about Pale Face, but Lolita was 100% people going for if because of the scandalous factor.  It's hardly the type of book to be making any such evaluation with.


----------



## SteelPalm (Jun 7, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> Don't know about Pale Face,


 
Pale Fire.  



			
				Rustgold said:
			
		

> but Lolita was 100% people going for if because of the scandalous factor.  It's hardly the type of book to be making any such evaluation with.



What does this even mean?  And what does it have to do with the protagonist of the novel being a horrible human being?


----------



## Rustgold (Jun 7, 2013)

SteelPalm said:


> What does this even mean?  And what does it have to do with the protagonist of the novel being a horrible human being?


What it means is Lolita isn't a decent example for the purpose of showing that having a horrible protagonist isn't likely to be a problem, because those who sought it weren't after it for the story; well they were in a way, but not the story relating to good authormanship/literacy standards.


----------



## SteelPalm (Jun 7, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> What it means is Lolita isn't a decent example for the purpose of showing that having a horrible protagonist isn't likely to be a problem, because those who sought it weren't after it for the story; well they were in a way, but not the story relating to good authormanship/literacy standards.



Lolita is not a decent example of "good authormanship/literacy standards"?  _Seriously_?  

And wait...are you seriously suggesting that the _only reason Lolita is a popular book because of its supposedly "scandalous" subject matter_?  (Nevermind that far more scandalous books had been written both before and after, and not achieved a tenth of the fame?)  Have you even _read_ it?


----------



## JosephB (Jun 7, 2013)

I’m sure some people read the book in the 50’s thinking it was going to be titillating -- but Lolita achieved almost instant status as a classic based on it's literary merit. That’s why it's stayed in  print and why people are still reading it.


----------



## SteelPalm (Jun 7, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I’m sure some people read the book in the 50’s thinking it was going to be titillating -- but Lolita achieved almost instant status as a classic based on it's literary merit. That’s why it’s stayed in  print and why it’s still popular.



My mind is seriously blown after reading that post.  I don't know if the guy is just pulling our collective leg, meant something else entirely and conveyed it very poorly, but if he was seriously suggesting that Lolita was poorly written and owed its success solely due to the subject matter...wow.  Just wow.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 7, 2013)

I can tell you're new around here.


----------



## SteelPalm (Jun 7, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I can tell you're new around here.



Why, do many of the people on this forum feel Nabokov is a lousy writer or something?


----------



## Rustgold (Jun 8, 2013)

SteelPalm said:


> Why, do many of the people on this forum feel Nabokov is a lousy writer or something?
> 
> And again, I don't mind unorthodox opinions, but this isn't an example of one.  Saying that Lolita is trash is an opinion.  Saying that Lolita's appeal and literary status is solely due to a pedophilia theme is factually wrong and seriously ignorant.


For something supposedly seriously ignorant, you've managed to state exactly why without me saying it.  Interesting that.

I suggest you reread.  I've never stated that Nabokov is a lousy writer, or that Lolita is trash (which I haven't read btw).  All I've stated is that it isn't a good example for building a case for a horrible protagonist not being likely to be detrimental to a book's popularity, exactly for the reason you're jumped up and down about.  Lolita is known almost exclusively for its alleged paedophilia, and is popular almost exclusively for this.  The typical average reader of Lolita was after the subject matter, not a high quality product; and it's for this reason it's not a decent example for proving whether a horrible protagonist is likely to be detrimental to a book's appeal.


----------



## SteelPalm (Jun 8, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> I suggest you reread.  I've never stated that Nabokov is a lousy writer, or that Lolita is trash *(which I haven't read btw).*



Oh, so you decided to call out my example and argue the hell out of a book _you haven't even read_?  Since I'm new to the forum, perhaps other members can inform me; is Rustgold simply an argumentative troll I should ignore?  



			
				Rustgold said:
			
		

> Lolita is known almost exclusively for its alleged paedophilia, and is popular almost exclusively for this. The typical average reader of Lolita was after the subject matter, not a high quality product



As we keep telling you, this is utterly wrong.  Lolita doesn't feature any explicit sexual content (not that you would know) in it, as opposed to hundreds of books around that time which did.  It's also far from the first or only book to feature pedophilia.  

Honestly, I don't know why I'm even taking your inane statement seriously.  You know about as much about the reasons for Lolita being a bestseller and renowned classic as you do anything else about the book.


----------



## Sam (Jun 8, 2013)

Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The next one will be met with an infraction. Get back on topic now.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 8, 2013)

Not only is _Lolita_ wonderfully written, it's one of the best examples of the "unreliable narrator" -- which I think is a more complex and subtle kind of character than one who's simple a "horrible human being" -- even one that we can relate to on some level -- or who's actions can be seen as justified or mitigated by circumstances.


----------



## Sam (Jun 8, 2013)

This is NOT a discussion about 'Lolita'. How many times do people have to be told to get back on topic? Last chance before this is closed for 24 hours.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 8, 2013)

Sorry -- it's just one of the best examples the "topic" ever. Oh well.

PS -- I've edited my comment to remove references to previous posts. I hope that's satisfactory.


----------



## Pennywise (Jun 8, 2013)

I actually find it interesting, sometimes the anti hero makes a novel interesting, because as a reader, u hate him so much that u want to see him suffer eventually. As a reader sometimes, I end up appreciating the Drive, Ambition or the sheer calculated risks that such a character might be taking. So, if the negatives can be pitched as his strength of character it may just appeal to some people...like me.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 8, 2013)

The narrator can only be horrible in comparison to other characters in the story. Giving the story _truly _evil characters can help the reader to connect with a narrator that is to some extent horrible.


----------



## Robert_S (Jun 8, 2013)

Ok, trying to keep the topic, but tying it into Lolita, the protagonist, Humbert Humbert is what some people would consider a horrible human being for his sexual interest in a 13 yr old. At the end of the book, even he recognizes himself as a terrible person for what he did.

However, the book is still a solid piece of literature, so it's not necessary for the reader to agree with the prot's thinking, behaviors or philosophy for the writing to be good and engaging. 

I recommend you keep your prot as is. Once you're done with the first draft, throw it aside for a month or two, maybe even a year and then go back, read it and determine for yourself if that is what you want to present.


----------



## NeoCaesar (Jun 10, 2013)

[video]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4i32l7dQR1r1b9aso1_400.gif[/video]


----------



## NeoCaesar (Jun 10, 2013)

Robert_S said:


> I recommend you keep your prot as is. Once you're done with the first draft, throw it aside for a month or two, maybe even a year and then go back, read it and determine for yourself if that is what you want to present.



Thanks. Let him ride, warts and all and see where it goes. He may end up being worse than any villain I could imagine or his humanity may shine through.


----------

