# How Bad does a Bad Guy Need to be?



## The Fantastical (Nov 28, 2016)

This is partly from wanting to know for my own book but also out of interest as I haven't read a lot about writing bad guys.... How bad does a bad guy need to be?


----------



## Ptolemy (Nov 28, 2016)

He obviously needs to be evil, but not all bad guys are "evil per say" they just have opposite goals of the protagonist. So getting that out of the way here's some specifics on what I do with my bad guys. 

1. He needs to have a redeemable quality to him/her. What I mean is that he needs to be relateable yo the reader that they can understand his motives without fully backing them. A fine example of this is the Joker for them batman series. Through teach reboot of his backstory you can feel bad for him; losing his pregnant wife, getting is face turmed into a clown's, losing his sanity in the process etc. However, his morals and lack of empathy make us appalled at the actions he uses to achieve his goals. It's a very complicated process, but when pulled off readers can get emotionally attached to the villain, which makes it all the better.

2. They need not be evil for them to be the "bad guy". As I've said, opposite goals gets you labeled as the bad guy: I can't think of an example of this in passing, but in many medias, the "bad guy" may do nothing evil at all, but they actively work against our hero. This allows authors to place a little ambiguity on who is truly the "bad guy" was it really the antagonist? Or perhaps it was the antagonist?

3. If they are "evil" (I.e killing for gain, extortion, moral redness, just plain evil) then they need a sold evil track record to actually be able to threaten the protagonist. You cannot have a flimsy villain. There is always an antagonist in a story, but that doesn't mean there are always well written antagonists in a story. You need to layer your villain so that they are actually a threat in some way to the protagonist, if they are not then your story has no basis. 

I hoped these helped a bit, if at all.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 28, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> How bad does a bad guy need to be?



I try not to think in terms of "good" versus "bad"—to me, that kind of dichotomy can lead to flat, stereotypical, or even cheesy antagonists.

Villains can have their own motivations, goals, insecurities, hopes . . . Get into the head of yours. Find out what makes them tick.

See _Looper_ (such a cool film!) for a great example: we get into the POV of three characters, each serving as antagonists for the others. One is trying to protect her son. The other is trying to save his wife. The third is trying to fix his mistake before everything gets worse.

Who's the "hero"? Who's the "villain"? It's, mostly, a matter of which perspective you choose to write from.

My advice: Even if you do decide that your "bad guy" will truly be malicious and evil, at the very least, take some time to figure out _why_. What is it they hope to accomplish? Why?

Keep asking _why_ until you hit something significant and unique to your villain, something that goes beyond the knee-jerk "Because they're a bad guy!" response. :encouragement:


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 28, 2016)

If the hero kills the bad guy, you probably don't want your readers being sympathetic or empathic to the bad guy.

Right, the all-bad character tends to be flat, but subtle "shows" for that can be fun to write.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 28, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> This is partly from wanting to know for my own book but also out of interest as I haven't read a lot about writing bad guys.... How bad does a bad guy need to be?


Depends on the following...

1 - What is "bad" to you?  A psychopath is bad, not because they're inherently evil imo, but because their sense of right and wrong is broken.  So you need to define what bad means and how that looks to you.  I believe nothing is as bad as apathy, and I mean true apathy for all life.  That's a worst possible villain to me.

2 - How bad does your antagonist have to be in the story to force your protagonist to rise?  It all rests on your MC.  If you main character is lazy and disinterested, you'll need a pretty significant bad guy to force the MC into action.

3 - How bad your bad guy is will effect their ability to have henchmen.  If they're charismatic, they'll be able to garner follows with their words.  If the bad guy is insane, you'll have to justify why people are following that character.  Money is not enough if the actions are too big and extreme.

Just to add, I think the most dangerous villain are true believers.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 28, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> If the hero kills the bad guy, you probably don't want your readers being sympathetic or empathic to the bad guy.



Why not? What could be more engrossing for a reader -- more emotionally investing -- than making the reader care about the antagonist as much as they do the protagonist? I'd love to write a book where the reader cries for the antagonist even as they are cheering for the protagonist.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 28, 2016)

Terry D said:


> Why not? What could be more engrossing for a reader -- more emotionally investing -- than making the reader care about the antagonist as much as they do the protagonist? I'd love to write a book where the reader cries for the antagonist even as they are cheering for the protagonist.



There's nothing wrong with the reader crying for the antagonist -- except if the protagonist kills him in the end. Then the reader is going to have bad thoughts about the protagonist. Did you want to deal with that? It would be mature and interesting and awesome if you did that successfully, I am just saying that authors normally avoid it. Dorothy doesn't intentionally kill the Wicked Witch, she does it to save the scarecrow, and the witch is portrayed at 100% bad. So no one gets upset at Dorothy for murdering someone.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 28, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> There's nothing wrong with the reader crying for the antagonist -- except if the protagonist kills him in the end. Then the reader is going to have bad thoughts about the protagonist. Did you want to deal with that? It would be mature and interesting and awesome if you did that successfully, I am just saying that authors normally avoid it. Dorothy doesn't intentionally kill the Wicked Witch, she does it to save the scarecrow, and the witch is portrayed at 100% bad. So no one gets upset at Dorothy for murdering someone.



I think that's a very narrow and simplistic way of looking at character development. You are right, it's not done very often, but doesn't mean it is a bad thing to do. The reader will accept such a resolution if the author shows it to be the only reasonable solution available.


----------



## The Fantastical (Nov 28, 2016)

Ptolemy said:


> He obviously needs to be evil, but not all bad guys are "evil per say" they just have opposite goals of the protagonist. So getting that out of the way here's some specifics on what I do with my bad guys.
> 
> 1. He needs to have a redeemable quality to him/her. What I mean is that he needs to be relateable yo the reader that they can understand his motives without fully backing them. A fine example of this is the Joker for them batman series. Through teach reboot of his backstory you can feel bad for him; losing his pregnant wife, getting is face turmed into a clown's, losing his sanity in the process etc. However, his morals and lack of empathy make us appalled at the actions he uses to achieve his goals. It's a very complicated process, but when pulled off readers can get emotionally attached to the villain, which makes it all the better.
> 
> ...



1. But isn't having a relatable bad guy just as clique as having a one dimensional bad guy? I mean with the boom in conflicted characters on the Grimdark Fantasy genre, we have a flood of "Anti-Heros" and "Lesser Bad Guys Who Are Now Portrayed as 'Good Guys'". Wouldn't it just blend in with the confused, don't know what I am crowd?  



Kyle R said:


> I try not to think in terms of "good" versus "bad"—to me, that kind of dichotomy can lead to flat, stereotypical, or even cheesy antagonists.
> 
> Villains can have their own motivations, goals, insecurities, hopes . . . Get into the head of yours. Find out what makes them tick.
> 
> ...



Looper could have been better, it didn't really have a point beyond the characters story. With a movie that plays with what it edged around, you sort of expect some kind of thought provoking idea to come from it. You should see X-Men Days of Future Past... now thats a time travel movie! Or maybe The One. A brilliant movie with Jet Li. 

I think the angle I am going to go is "Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely" As well as "There is always a choice and freewill." Simple sounding but I want to explore it a bit better than most do.  



Tettsuo said:


> Depends on the following...
> 
> 1 - What is "bad" to you?  A psychopath is bad, not because they're inherently evil imo, but because their sense of right and wrong is broken.  So you need to define what bad means and how that looks to you.  I believe nothing is as bad as apathy, and I mean true apathy for all life.  That's a worst possible villain to me.
> 
> ...



I think it is more his actions rather than how bad he is that is the motivation in the story... He steals all the magic in the world in order to find and control the main source of magic.... It is a rather dire situation for those races that live because of that magic, which my main MC is soooo... That brings my to the question of how bad? Power hungry yes...but...  



Terry D said:


> Why not? What could be more engrossing for a reader -- more emotionally investing -- than making the reader care about the antagonist as much as they do the protagonist? I'd love to write a book where the reader cries for the antagonist even as they are cheering for the protagonist.





Terry D said:


> I think that's a very narrow and simplistic way of looking at character development. You are right, it's not done very often, but doesn't mean it is a bad thing to do. The reader will accept such a resolution if the author shows it to be the only reasonable solution available.



I don't see why it would be narrow.. rather more interesting. Conflicted villains are far to overrated. How do you react to them? Do you like them? Do you route for them over the MC? Do you route for the MC anyway? What happens when the MC saves the day? Are your supposed to be happy? Sad?  

Also they are irritating, just like weepy MC'S that go about questioning their chosen-ess and or their goodness. Just make up your mind! 

Ok... small rant over.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 28, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> I think it is more his actions rather than how bad he is that is the motivation in the story... He steals all the magic in the world in order to find and control the main source of magic.... It is a rather dire situation for those races that live because of that magic, which my main MC is soooo... That brings my to the question of how bad? Power hungry yes...but...


So the antagonist is like a Dr Doom type?  In comics, Dr Doom believe he's the most fit to rule to world.  So in a rather perverse way, he believes he doing it for the right reason.

If this is the direction your taking, you'll have to work on making the person pretty arrogant.  If not, you'll have to explain to the reads why he's willing to commit genocide for the sake of power alone.


----------



## Ptolemy (Nov 28, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> 1. But isn't having a relatable bad guy just as clique as having a one dimensional bad guy? I mean with the boom in conflicted characters on the Grimdark Fantasy genre, we have a flood of "Anti-Heros" and "Lesser Bad Guys Who Are Now Portrayed as 'Good Guys'". Wouldn't it just blend in with the confused, don't know what I am crowd?


Uh not really? Every bad guy has a quality or motive that makes us realize as readers that we can understand what he's doing. To me if I can't understand why the villain is doing what he is doing I close the book. He needs to have a reason. You can parlay the nonsensical violence or evil acts for sometime but the villain needs a real reason (trauma, protecting loved ones, revenge etc.) to do what he does. Without a reason readers have no choice but to think that he is a mindless evil man, and shocker! Readers don't like that. 

Having a villain in with no character makes him shallow and forces the reader to like the protagonist. You need to have an interesting antagonist for the book to make sense it's basic character building.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 28, 2016)

Ptolemy said:


> Uh not really? Every bad guy has a quality or motive that makes us realize as readers that we can understand what he's doing. To me if I can't understand why the villain is doing what he is doing I close the book. He needs to have a reason. You can parlay the nonsensical violence or evil acts for sometime but the villain needs a real reason (trauma, protecting loved ones, revenge etc.) to do what he does. Without a reason readers have no choice but to think that he is a mindless evil man, and shocker! Readers don't like that.
> 
> Having a villain in with no character makes him shallow and forces the reader to like the protagonist. You need to have an interesting antagonist for the book to make sense it's basic character building.


The evil for evil's sake only works if the character is a psychopath.  But, even then, if you research psychopaths, you'll learn that they are often chained to specific things (Blondes, women, gay men, prostitutes, etc.).  There's also a host of other characteristics you're tied to if you're going to write about an actual psychopath.  It's very interesting to research people with that disorder.


----------



## The Fantastical (Nov 28, 2016)

Tettsuo said:


> So the antagonist is like a Dr Doom type?  In comics, Dr Doom believe he's the most fit to rule to world.  So in a rather perverse way, he believes he doing it for the right reason.
> 
> If this is the direction your taking, you'll have to work on making the person pretty arrogant.  If not, you'll have to explain to the reads why he's willing to commit genocide for the sake of power alone.



Well that is the fun bit... no-one dies... just cast to sleep.


----------



## The Fantastical (Nov 28, 2016)

Ptolemy said:


> Uh not really? Every bad guy has a quality or motive that makes us realize as readers that we can understand what he's doing. To me if I can't understand why the villain is doing what he is doing I close the book. He needs to have a reason. You can parlay the nonsensical violence or evil acts for sometime but the villain needs a real reason (trauma, protecting loved ones, revenge etc.) to do what he does. Without a reason readers have no choice but to think that he is a mindless evil man, and shocker! Readers don't like that.
> 
> Having a villain in with no character makes him shallow and forces the reader to like the protagonist. You need to have an interesting antagonist for the book to make sense it's basic character building.





Tettsuo said:


> The evil for evil's sake only works if the character is a psychopath.  But, even then, if you research psychopaths, you'll learn that they are often chained to specific things (Blondes, women, gay men, prostitutes, etc.).  There's also a host of other characteristics you're tied to if you're going to write about an actual psychopath.  It's very interesting to research people with that disorder.



That just isn't my type villains. I personally hate it when authors try and make a bad guy relatable and likable and all bleeding heart. They are the BAD GUY! I don't care about them short of them having a none stupid plan...

Which might explain why I haven't read anything about writing bad guys... :/


----------



## Ptolemy (Nov 28, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> That just isn't my type villains. I personally hate it when authors try and make a bad guy relatable and likable and all bleeding heart. They are the BAD GUY! I don't care about them short of them having a none stupid plan...
> 
> Which might explain why I haven't read anything about writing bad guys... :/


I mean this in the best way but:

Have fun with an underveloped, melodramatic, unlikeable, hack who calls himself a villain then. 

Because, if you don't develop his character he can't be a villain plain and simple.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 28, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> I don't see why it would be narrow.. rather more interesting. Conflicted villains are far to overrated. How do you react to them? Do you like them? Do you route for them over the MC? Do you route for the MC anyway? What happens when the MC saves the day? Are your supposed to be happy? Sad?
> 
> Also they are irritating, just like weepy MC'S that go about questioning their chosen-ess and or their goodness. Just make up your mind!
> 
> Ok... small rant over.



Who said anything about conflicted? An antagonist can be very self-confident, very purposeful and yet still be realatable, can he not? Every man is the hero of his own story, even if he's the "bad guy". A well written antagonist will come across as human (relateable even if non-human, depending on your genre) and doesn't need to have the reader rooting against him when he dies for the story to be satisfying. To say that the reader must be against the antagonist by the end is rather childish, in my opinion. Real life doesn't have such clean demarcations between good and bad. Our fiction doesn't have to either.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 28, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> That just isn't my type villains. I personally hate it when authors try and make a bad guy relatable and likable and all bleeding heart. They are the BAD GUY! I don't care about them short of them having a none stupid plan...
> 
> Which might explain why I haven't read anything about writing bad guys... :/


Jeffrey Dahmer isn't relatable, but he is human and he has a story to tell where HE is the hero.  Once you understand this, you'll understand how to write believable villains.

Heck, even the monsters in Alien had a story that was hinted at in the movies.  What I mean is that we understood why they were attacking people.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Nov 28, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> This is partly from wanting to know for my own book but also out of interest as I haven't read a lot about writing bad guys.... How bad does a bad guy need to be?


There is no "bad guy." There is the protagonist and the antagonist. The antagonist might be out to conquer the world or be the one competing for a date for the prom with the same person. In a romance it could be the person who doesn't want our protagonist and must be convinced to fall in love. It's the problem that matters. It must be big enough to keep the protagonist focused. It must be growing, constantly. And, it must be something that cannot be ignored or run from.

The late Robert Heinlein used to day that he didn't plot his books. He just took two people who had mutually exclusive needs that were strong enough that they couldn't back down, then locked them in a room to see what happened.

He lied, but only a little. And the idea is sound. The bad guy doesn't think of him/herself as bad. S/he's the hero of the story—in that cbharacter's viewpoint. In fact everyone is the hero of their own story, and focused on their needs, as they see it. 

The trick is that from our hero's viewpoint the other person is a problem that cannot be ignored. That view might be wrong. The antagonist may not be what the protagonist thinks but it matters not at all to the reader, because they are viewing the antagonist as the protagonist does in the moment that character calls now, misconceptions, biases, and all.

Anything that surprises the character should surprise the reader, for the same reason.

In a given football game, which team is the "bad guy?" Depends on who you're cheering for, right? So make the reader cheer for the protagonist. Make them know the situation _as the protagonist does,_ with the same needs and desires. Do that and the antagonist will be exactly as bad as s/he appears_ to the protagonist_.


----------



## Cran (Nov 28, 2016)

How bad does the bad guy have to be? As bad as you want him to be to make your story. That's it.

Bad is relative, meaningless unless you have something to measure it against. Antagonist, Opponent, Rival, Enemy, only apply if the point of view reveals or requires it. 

Just about every trope has been portrayed more than once, from the rival is a sweetheart hero to unethical actions for the greater good to the uncaring destroyer of worlds to the rebel against authority to the unrelenting hatred of all things human to simple revenge, which completes the circle and brings us back to rivals for the same treasure.

If you can't name three stories you enjoyed from each of those sub-categories, you need to read or watch more.

How bad must the bad guy be? As bad as your story wants him to be.


----------



## The Fantastical (Nov 29, 2016)

While I understand the many comments about you don't actually have good guys and bad guys just antagonists and protagonists... but isn't that sort of indicative with modern fantasy, with it's habit of moral grayness and totally ambiguity as to who's actually good? I don't know about you but I think that fiction needs the moral divide, humanizing the villain is all very.... ambiguous of you but fiction is a parody of life, not its perfect reflection. Simply reflecting back what is already in the world, might make you feel all warm and un-hypercritical inside because you aren't called to judge a character, but that doesn't allow us the stark contrast needed for us to make that this side or that judgement. Which I think is important to make. 

As a race we need to be reminded about the short and nasty things that happen when we step over to the dark side of the force, walk in the woods alone, talk to strangers and so on... Humanizing the bad guys, is just taking away the need to make that judgement, it doesn't remind us to stay away from the dark shadows or fear the thing that goes bump because it might just be a love sick vampire wanting love-body to love bite... 

This is, I think, why fantasy isn't as good as it used to be. It is all very well to have created all these amoral worlds, with amoral characters who deal with amoral problems but it takes the most basic thrill out of story telling. The horror what might be in the dark, and what might be in the dark isn't so scary if is it just a person with different perspectives as us, because lets face it... that is basically the rest of the world. 

Anything can be justified if given a grey enough world to live in. It is only by casting shadows can we really get a feel for the edge of things.  


P.S And to those that have said... as bad as they need to be. That makes sense thanks!


----------



## Gavrushka (Nov 29, 2016)

The most enjoyable stories for me are where there's a blur between protagonist and antagonist, or even a reversal. I cringe at the shallowness of stock heroes and antiheroes, knowing the ending before I've waded through the unimaginative beginning. - Fool me into backing the wrong side, and I'll applaud you.

So, when writing, it may be a better approach to ask 'how good can you make the bad guy, and how bad can you make the good guy.'


----------



## Ultraroel (Nov 29, 2016)

Depends on your story etc. My initial bad guy is one that has been corrupted. One of the referee races on my world that consideres developments "cheating" due to the view he has been corrupted to. He's merely trying to set things straight in his own opinion, which pretty much means destroying most of the cultures that have been developed over the last thousand years.. He's misguided, forgets his role in the bigger picture and decides to act on his own, instead of with the rest of his race. He's not evil, he's not even self-reighteous. He's just convinced that his role in this world is to be the referee that has to stand up to cheating. Turns out, he will be cheated.. but he doesn't know ofcourse.

Spoiler for Naruto fans that haven't finished yet: If you watched Naruto. I love How Madara Uchiha is not inherently evil but just thinks he knows better and wants to cast the world into an induced hallucination that will banish all violence, but will also destroy everything life is as is..


----------



## Sam (Nov 29, 2016)

What is bad and good? 

To your antagonist(s), what your protagonist(s) is doing is bad; to your protagonist(s), what your antagonist(s) is doing is bad. 

There is a very old, but very true, saying in life: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. A person does not wake up one morning and decide to be bad. Things happen in their life that conspire to make that person become what they are. Good guys and villains are no different. Just as there is a fine line between genius and insanity, there is an equally fine line between bad and good, so much so that good people can do bad things, and bad people can do good things, because that's what being a human is. 

People don't do bad things just because they can. More often than not, there is an underlying reasoning behind their actions. That's what makes anti-heroes and anti-villains fascinating to write. They're unpredictable. 

When you have predictable characters, you also have boring characters.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 29, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> . . . .humanizing the villain is all very.... ambiguous of you but fiction is a parody of life, not its perfect reflection. Simply reflecting back what is already in the world, might make you feel all warm and un-hypercritical inside because you aren't called to judge a character, but that doesn't allow us the stark contrast needed for us to make that this side or that judgement. Which I think is important to make.



You make an interesting point—and to some extent, I agree with you. Good versus evil has its place in fiction, that's for sure.

For me, though, it's less about "humanizing" the villain, and more about clarifying their motivations. Giving them believable reasons for doing what they do. Or, at the very least, justifying their presence in the story.

As the reader, I can hate or fear the villain as much as the writer wants me to—but I want to be _sold_ on it, first.

If the only reason for the bad guy existing is so that they can "be the bad guy" of the story, then I'll just view them as what they are: a flimsy, lazy plot device—and I'll probably look elsewhere for a writer who knows how to handle villains better.

Make me believe that the villain's there of their _own_ accord, not the writer's. :encouragement:


----------



## The Fantastical (Nov 29, 2016)

Kyle R said:


> You make an interesting point—and to some extent, I agree with you. Good versus evil has its place in fiction, that's for sure.
> 
> For me, though, it's less about "humanizing" the villain, and more about clarifying their motivations. Giving them believable reasons for doing what they do. Or, at the very least, justifying their presence in the story.
> 
> ...



Making a believable villain is part and parcel of making a believable hero.... I a agree with you on that. Villains are important and you need to write a good one.

 I just don't think that having a believable villain goes hand in hand with making him human, relatable or with giving them some redeeming quality.


----------



## Ultraroel (Nov 29, 2016)

I agree with the Fantastical there. It has nothing to do with making him himan, more about making his motivations clear and creating empathy for his motivation, no matter how twisted it can be. 
Unless you are going for an inherent evil such as in the Wheel of Time i.e. Where evil is simply evil cause of its existence. Or many other fiction ofcourse.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 29, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> Making a believable villain is part and parcel of making a believable hero.... I a agree with you on that. Villains are important and you need to write a good one.
> 
> I just don't think that having a believable villain goes hand in hand with making him human, relatable or with giving them some redeeming quality.



This is where we disagree. In my opinion an antagonist is not believable unless he is, in some way, relatable. Who is the antagonist in Jaws? The shark? No. The antagonist is Quint. The movie Halloween works as a film, but would make a terrible book because the antagonist is a two dimensional cartoon character of the boogeyman.


----------



## The Fantastical (Nov 29, 2016)

Terry D said:


> This is where we disagree. In my opinion an antagonist is not believable unless he is, in some way, relatable. Who is the antagonist in Jaws? The shark? No. The antagonist is Quint. The movie Halloween works as a film, but would make a terrible book because the antagonist is a two dimensional cartoon character of the boogeyman.



I don't watch horror films.... But on principle of what you are saying I disagree. 

Ever since first man, sat by the first fire and decided to tell the first story about the monster in the cave up on the hill that eats whoever enters we have told tales of the un-human, things that are the alien in their in-humanness. This is the most primal and basic fear. That which we cannot understand and that does not feel that way that we do. 

If you go about humanizing the monster in the cave. Giving it family, lost ones and human emotions than what you end up with is something that is a lot less scary. Something that we can all be friends with and sing songs around the campfire with if only someone would explain that eating people isn't nice to it. 

So While you would say that Quint is the perfect villain, I would say that the killer shark was the more convincing villain. The one that played most to our natural fears. The un-feeling and unknowable. The in-human.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 29, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> I don't watch horror films.... But on principle of what you are saying I disagree.
> 
> Ever since first man, sat by the first fire and decided to tell the first story about the monster in the cave up on the hill that eats whoever enters we have told tales of the un-human, things that are the alien in their in-humanness. This is the most primal and basic fear. That which we cannot understand and that does not feel that way that we do.
> 
> ...


Nonsense.  The monster is more dangerous if it has a family.  It's more likely to not stop or even relent because its needs are bigger than simply and empty belly.

Motivations that's greater than simply being bad produces a far more dangerous character.


----------



## Gyarachu (Nov 29, 2016)

Coming from a Fantasy perspective, you can certainly have a 'Big Bad' who is totally bereft of relatable or redeeming qualities; the classic example would be Sauron. However, there will always be lesser antagonists who the characters directly contend with who do have such qualities--Saruman or Gollum for example--without which the story would likely fall flat.

To use another example which was already mentioned here, take the _Wheel of Time_. Yes, the Dark One is unrelatably evil, but for the vast majority of the story he is essentially absent, and the visible, active antagonists are human beings who have sided with that evil due to fear of death, tragic love, or other such relatable human experiences (that's not even mentioning the host of other "greyer" antagonists who are not affiliated with the Dark One). The 'Big Bad' in this story largely just serves to "up the ante," so to speak, of the conflicts arising from the human condition.

The point being that irredeemable, unrelatable evil need not lead to one-dimensional characters or stories, so long as the protagonists are made to contend with antagonists who we can relate to and empathize with, and so long as both sides are forced to make morally ambiguous decisions.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 29, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> I don't watch horror films.... But on principle of what you are saying I disagree.
> 
> Ever since first man, sat by the first fire and decided to tell the first story about the monster in the cave up on the hill that eats whoever enters we have told tales of the un-human, things that are the alien in their in-humanness. This is the most primal and basic fear. That which we cannot understand and that does not feel that way that we do.
> 
> ...



Did I say Quint was the "perfect villain"? No I did not. I simply said he was the real antagonist in Jaws. He was the character opposing Chief Brody's desire to get home safely. The shark was simply an object. It's the same story as Moby Dick. The white whale isn't the antagonist in that book, Ahab is. Ahab was a character that Ishmael both feared and admired. His humanness made him memorable. There are lots of books written with the big-bad-wolf as the antagonist. It's simple and easy to do. It works well for fairy tales and other children's books trying to send a simplified message to readers. There's nothing wrong with it. I just prefer antagonists with more depth and character. I write books for adults who are interested in realistic characters, not caricatures.


----------



## Gyarachu (Nov 29, 2016)

Tettsuo said:


> Nonsense. The monster is more dangerous if it has a family. It's more likely to not stop or even relent because its needs are bigger than simply and empty belly.
> 
> Motivations that's greater than simply being bad produces a far more dangerous character.



Sorry, but I think this is the nonsense here. Which would terrify you more? Facing an unfathomably powerful, malicious force of pure, irredeemable, unturnable evil hell-bent on not only the destruction of all humanity, but on dragging the entire world of the living into the hope-forsaken underworld where every moment of existence is pure agony? Or a person doing terrible, unspeakable things but who possesses a redeemable heart and who you have some hope of convincing to turn from their path?

The choice is easy for me.

That's not to argue that believable villains aren't better for a story, but the idea that they are scarier is just silly.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 29, 2016)

edited -- double post


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 29, 2016)

Gyarachu said:


> Sorry, but I think this is the nonsense here. Which would terrify you more? Facing an unfathomably powerful, malicious force of pure, irredeemable, unturnable evil hell-bent on not only the destruction of all humanity, but on dragging the entire world of the living into the hope-forsaken underworld where every moment of existence is pure agony? Or a person doing terrible, unspeakable things but who possesses a redeemable heart and who you have some hope of convincing to turn from their path?
> 
> The choice is easy for me.
> 
> That's not to argue that believable villains aren't better for a story, but the idea that they are scarier is just silly.


Since no such thing exist, I find this pure evil thing you're describing not scary at all.


----------



## Gyarachu (Nov 29, 2016)

Tettsuo said:


> Since no such thing exist, I find this pure evil thing you're describing not scary at all.



Well fortunately writers don't write for audiences lacking the capacity (will?) to exercise imagination.


----------



## Ptolemy (Nov 29, 2016)

Gyarachu said:


> Well fortunately writers don't write for audiences lacking the capacity (will?) to exercise imagination.



(Addressing the question of relatability of an antagonist) Well shouldn't we as writers be able to create a character that is so complex in their morals ambiguity, motives, level of reality, and overall character that readers can use their will to exercise imagination to determine if the villain is actually bad or not? We are supposed to guide readers on a journey throughout our world, through our vision and let them decide on their own terms what to take out of it. Of course not every reader is going to imagine the same things as we will, it's only natural. Is that not what writers do? To use our worlds to entertain?

To me the ability to develop a villain is to develop a character. To me a "villian" and an antagonist are two different things, like a square and a rectangle for example. A square can be a rectangle, but a rectangle cannot be a square. So a villain can be an antagonist but not all antagonists can be villains. It is all relative to their respective definitions too, Moby Dick is a villain but not the antagonist, Ahab is the antagonist but not the villain. Moby Dick's evil actions and motives are super important to the plot, so important that it is the plot. Ahab is the one who is the antagonist though. His obsessions with killing Moby Dick and his borderline insanity to get revenge not only stands in the way of Ish's goals but it also gets in the way of the entire crews goals. Ahab is out for the whale and the whale only and does not care what others think. Ahab is such a complex character that we feel bad, concerned, and also we get flustered at his motives all in one book. He feels a need (aka an obsession) to kill this whale that took his leg, which is a motive and he will do anything to get this whale that took something from him. I've always said it wasn't the whale that made Moby Dick Moby Dick, it was Ahab that made Moby Dick. Because without Ahab there would be no Moby Dick. 

Herman Melville gives us a world with complex characters packed on a boat, all Melville needed was a boat to set his story on. We as readers were guided throughout the setting and characters which allows us to make our own decisions on the book. I personally thought Ahab was a decent guy who was consumed by his obsession, I thought that Ish kinda a shallow character, but I was able to make these choices on my own and I was able to determine that Moby Dick is a villain and Ahab was the antagonist even though Ahab was never billed (or told to us directly) that he was the true antagonist of the book. Many believed that Moby Dick was the antagonist of the book because he drove Ahab's borderline insanity but it was Ahab's decisions that made him turn into a monster.


----------



## JustRob (Nov 29, 2016)

It isn't possible to say how bad a character should be without first defining the nature of evil. Psychopaths have been mentioned, but they are not inherently bad. I hope not as all computers are fundamentally psychopaths and yet we rely on them to manage society to an enormous extent nowadays. They solve problems and we give them instructions about the solutions that we find most acceptable to us. Bad characters are just people who have chosen alternative solutions to the problems facing all of humanity from the ones that people who regard themselves as good would choose, given a choice, that is. Sometimes the good person must do something bad in some respect and equally the bad person may do something good. What is truly scary is doubt, our doubt about how a computer will behave and why, so often seen in users by IT support people like myself, and doubt about the behaviour of a person. At least a consistently bad person is reliable, while an erratic good person (er, hastily naming no names) may seem more of a threat. People need certainty in their lives rather than concepts like good and evil. We are all hostages to society at large, so being "good" may simply be an extreme example of Stockholm syndrome.

However one defines good and evil, the best villains are not the most extreme in any way but the most unpredictable even though they have their reasons for what they do. The question is whether "good" people can come to understand their motives fully without being influenced into adopting them.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 29, 2016)

Gyarachu said:


> Well fortunately writers don't write for audiences lacking the capacity (will?) to exercise imagination.


What you've described isn't a character, it's a force of nature imo.  It's not personal with a force of nature as it's just what they do.

I'm more afraid of the a 2nd Hitler who believes he's right and will do whatever it takes to achieve their goal.  They cannot be avoided.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 29, 2016)

Gyarachu said:


> Well fortunately writers don't write for audiences lacking the capacity (will?) to exercise imagination.



Which would scare readers more, Sauron or John Wayne Gacy? Sauron might be more fun to read about, in an RPG sort of way, but he's not going to be knocking on my door, at 3:00 AM. Someone like Gacy just might... I've never felt dread about any antagonist in any fantasy story I've read, and I have a perfectly well developed imagination, thank you. But really all we are doing here is splitting hairs between the realms of fantasy -- where anything goes, which is fine -- and more realistic fiction in which the readers expect more realistic antagonists. It all goes back to what has been said several times, "the character is as bad as he needs to be for your story."


----------



## Gyarachu (Nov 29, 2016)

Ptolemy said:


> (Addressing the question of relatability of an antagonist) Well shouldn't we as writers be able to create a character that is so complex in their morals ambiguity, motives, level of reality, and overall character that readers can use their will to exercise imagination to determine if the villain is actually bad or not? We are supposed to guide readers on a journey throughout our world, through our vision and let them decide on their own terms what to take out of it. Of course not every reader is going to imagine the same things as we will, it's only natural. Is that not what writers do? To use our worlds to entertain?
> 
> To me the ability to develop a villain is to develop a character. To me a "villian" and an antagonist are two different things, like a square and a rectangle for example. A square can be a rectangle, but a rectangle cannot be a square. So a villain can be an antagonist but not all antagonists can be villains. It is all relative to their respective definitions too, Moby Dick is a villain but not the antagonist, Ahab is the antagonist but not the villain. Moby Dick's evil actions and motives are super important to the plot, so important that it is the plot. Ahab is the one who is the antagonist though. His obsessions with killing Moby Dick and his borderline insanity to get revenge not only stands in the way of Ish's goals but it also gets in the way of the entire crews goals. Ahab is out for the whale and the whale only and does not care what others think. Ahab is such a complex character that we feel bad, concerned, and also we get flustered at his motives all in one book. He feels a need (aka an obsession) to kill this whale that took his leg, which is a motive and he will do anything to get this whale that took something from him. I've always said it wasn't the whale that made Moby Dick Moby Dick, it was Ahab that made Moby Dick. Because without Ahab there would be no Moby Dick.
> 
> Herman Melville gives us a world with complex characters packed on a boat, all Melville needed was a boat to set his story on. We as readers were guided throughout the setting and characters which allows us to make our own decisions on the book. I personally thought Ahab was a decent guy who was consumed by his obsession, I thought that Ish kinda a shallow character, but I was able to make these choices on my own and I was able to determine that Moby Dick is a villain and Ahab was the antagonist even though Ahab was never billed (or told to us directly) that he was the true antagonist of the book. Many believed that Moby Dick was the antagonist of the book because he drove Ahab's borderline insanity but it was Ahab's decisions that made him turn into a monster.



I never said anything to the contrary. If that was all directed at me, you spent a lot of time arguing against something I never argued.


----------



## Gyarachu (Nov 29, 2016)

Terry D said:


> Which would scare readers more, Sauron or John Wayne Gacy? Sauron might be more fun to read about, in an RPG sort of way, but he's not going to be knocking on my door, at 3:00 AM. Someone like Gacy just might... I've never felt dread about any antagonist in any fantasy story I've read, and I have a perfectly well developed imagination, thank you. But really all we are doing here is splitting hairs between the realms of fantasy -- where anything goes, which is fine -- and more realistic fiction in which the readers expect more realistic antagonists. It all goes back to what has been said several times, "the character is as bad as he needs to be for your story."



My point was that I can imagine many things that don't exist, put myself in such a world and such a situation, and imagine what facing such a thing would feel like. Many readers can, and that's why so many are drawn to fantasy. If you cannot do that then yes, the problem is on your end.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 29, 2016)

Gyarachu said:


> My point was that I can imagine many things that don't exist, put myself in such a world and such a situation, and imagine what facing such a thing would feel like. Many readers can, and that's why so many are drawn to fantasy. If you cannot do that then yes, the problem is on your end.



What problem?


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 29, 2016)

Gyarachu said:


> My point was that I can imagine many things that don't exist, put myself in such a world and such a situation, and imagine what facing such a thing would feel like. Many readers can, and that's why so many are drawn to fantasy. If you cannot do that then yes, the problem is on your end.


Who said I couldn't imagine it?  I said I'm not afraid of some make believe pure evil entity.  I'm more afraid of people that are willing to do anything to cause me and my family as much harm as possible because they exist and have existed.


----------



## Ptolemy (Nov 29, 2016)

Gyarachu said:


> I never said anything to the contrary. If that was all directed at me, you spent a lot of time arguing against something I never argued.



My bad I was going to respond to you, but I didn't and it kept the quote my bad


----------



## Gyarachu (Nov 29, 2016)

Terry D said:


> What problem?





Tettsuo said:


> Who said I couldn't imagine it?  I said I'm not afraid of some make believe pure evil entity.  I'm more afraid of people that are willing to do anything to cause me and my family as much harm as possible because they exist and have existed.



Well it appears we've gotten nowhere. Time to agree to disagree.



Ptolemy said:


> My bad I was going to respond to you, but I didn't and it kept the quote my bad



I figured. No worries.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 29, 2016)

Gyarachu said:


> Well it appears we've gotten nowhere. Time to agree to disagree.



Nowhere? Really? A new writer reading through this thread will see that it's important to consider just how she wants her antagonist to come across, and might realize that the nature of the antagonist could very well depend on the genre in which she plans to write. They might also learn that the most important criteria for designing an antagonist is the story itself. A world-eating-mega-demon might be just what's called for in an epic fantasy tale, or the charming sociopath who coaches your kid's baseball team on weekends could be just the ticket for a thriller. Sure, we didn't come to a consensus, but how can we when the needs of our chosen genres vary so much?


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Nov 29, 2016)

What people seem to have lost sight of is that good and bad are plot concepts. Our protagonist is good and the, whatever, is evil. So what? Story _happens_. It's emotion, not fact based, and it's lived, moment-by moment. Stick with the idea of a "bad" character and your antagonist is a plot device whose every thought is to do the things the author dictates, without question. So on the horror movies the evil insects/worms/snakes/zombies, etc., pour out of the ground and no one ever asks what they've been living on, or why they're so fixated on killing our hero. 

But in life our antagonist makes decisions based on "What's in it for me?" So do we. Forgetting that, and making the antagonist's driving force be the author's plot line destroys all sense of reality.

The classic structure of a scene/sequel on the page is:

• The protagonist either enters the scene with a short term goal or quickly acquires one.
• She or he is attempting to reach that goal when something interferes.
• The protagonist works to regain control, but each effort is thwarted as the stakes rise and options narrow. This continues until—to stop the scene from descending into melodrama—the protagonist is forced to recognize defeat and withdraw, ending the scene.
• The protagonist must lick his/her wounds, think over what must be done to salvage the situation, and plan for the next encounter. That done the sequel ends and the next scene begins. Danger is greater. Options narrow. But our protagonist is steadfast, of necessity, for reasons we make plain (and which cause poetic justice to demand the protagonist prevail).

Does it matter that the antagonist is an insane megalomaniac or a businessman who needs the protagonist's property for a business deal? No. What matters is that the _situation_ in the moment the protagonist calls "now," causes him/her to stretch and grow—to reach deep inside and become more than they thought they can be.

It's the problem in the moment that keeps the reader turning pages, not some concept like good or evil. When someone is trying to bash your head in you don't worry about good or evil because survival is what counts.

So...toss a body through the overhead to crash onto your protagonist. Set the house on fire and lock the doors. Be a bastard to your poor protagonist and test him/her to the limit. Put the character on a slope, running to keep from falling and unable to catch their balance. Keep the reader to busy worrying about what to do next to think about concepts. Make them _care. _Make the story _move_. Screw plot. Plot's for you. Action is what the reader wants.


----------



## Cran (Nov 29, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> While I understand the many comments about you don't actually have good guys and bad guys just antagonists and protagonists... but isn't that sort of indicative with modern fantasy, with it's habit of moral grayness and totally ambiguity as to who's actually good? I don't know about you but I think that fiction needs the moral divide, humanizing the villain is all very.... ambiguous of you but fiction is a parody of life, not its perfect reflection. Simply reflecting back what is already in the world, might make you feel all warm and un-hypercritical inside because you aren't called to judge a character, but that doesn't allow us the stark contrast needed for us to make that this side or that judgement. Which I think is important to make.



OK. And yes, these sorts of black and white morality tales exist ... for children. However, the popularity of anti-heroes and shades of moral grey tell us that even older children understand that not everything - in fact, almost nothing - is empirically black or white, good or bad. 

We like heroes who face moral dilemmas. We like good people doing bad things. We wanted Butch and Sundance to get away from the Bolivian soldiers. We wanted Han Solo to smuggle stuff and shoot down Empire fighters and bombers. We wanted Wolverine to trash the place. We wanted Gladiator to kick the shit out of the Emperor. We wanted Robin Hood to take Maid Marian (sp?) away from the duly appointed Sheriff of Nottingham, and her maidenhood in the process. We wanted Batman and Spider-Man to kick the crap out of the real villains and escape the vigilante charges against them. We wanted Firefly to outrun the reavers and the central authority to show the people what the real crime was and who did it. We want post-apocalyptic worlds where laws are forgotten and heroes make their own rules, and their own choices. 

Perhaps the pendulum will swing back, and perhaps you would be ahead of the curve, but I think that as a story-loving society, we have grown well beyond the simplistic good is good and bad is bad. We know better, and we want stories that don't insult our intelligence. 

If the enemy is not redeemable, then it is a waste of space and must be eradicated. Starship Troopers. Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Gyarachu (Nov 29, 2016)

Terry D said:


> Nowhere? Really? A new writer reading through this thread will see that it's important to consider just how she wants her antagonist to come across, and might realize that the nature of the antagonist could very well depend on the genre in which she plans to write. They might also learn that the most important criteria for designing an antagonist is the story itself. A world-eating-mega-demon might be just what's called for in an epic fantasy tale, or the charming sociopath who coaches your kid's baseball team on weekends could be just the ticket for a thriller. Sure, we didn't come to a consensus, but how can we when the needs of our chosen genres vary so much?



Yes yes that's all well and good, but it's not what I was referring to. The very fact that this is your response reinforces my conclusion that our discussion went nowhere. Not exactly in a negative way. Just a misstep in communication, it seems.



Cran said:


> OK. And yes, these sorts of black and white morality tales exist ... for children. However, the popularity of anti-heroes and shades of moral grey tell us that even older children understand that not everything - in fact, almost nothing - is empirically black or white, good or bad.
> 
> We like heroes who face moral dilemmas. We like good people doing bad things. We wanted Butch and Sundance to get away from the Bolivian soldiers. We wanted Han Solo to smuggle stuff and shoot down Empire fighters and bombers. We wanted Wolverine to trash the place. We wanted Gladiator to kick the shit out of the Emperor. We wanted Robin Hood to take Maid Marian (sp?) away from the duly appointed Sheriff of Nottingham, and her maidenhood in the process. We wanted Batman and Spider-Man to kick the crap out of the real villains and escape the vigilante charges against them. We wanted Firefly to outrun the reavers and the central authority to show the people what the real crime was and who did it. We want post-apocalyptic worlds where laws are forgotten and heroes make their own rules, and their own choices.
> 
> ...



As usual, responses like this continue to miss the point entirely. Little better than strawmen, and arguably as simplistic as the "morality tales" they're employed to rail against.

But I've tried. We've tried. Many have tried. I think it's just the way it's going to be.


----------



## Cran (Nov 29, 2016)

Gyarachu said:


> Yes yes that's all well and good, but it's not what I was referring to. The very fact that this is your response reinforces my conclusion that our discussion went nowhere. Not exactly in a negative way. Just a misstep in communication, it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but what point have we missed. I was addressing the OP. 

So, ante up. What have I missed?


----------



## The Fantastical (Nov 30, 2016)

Cran said:


> OK. And yes, these sorts of black and white morality tales exist ... for children. However, the popularity of anti-heroes and shades of moral grey tell us that even older children understand that not everything - in fact, almost nothing - is empirically black or white, good or bad.
> 
> We like heroes who face moral dilemmas. We like good people doing bad things. We wanted Butch and Sundance to get away from the Bolivian soldiers. We wanted Han Solo to smuggle stuff and shoot down Empire fighters and bombers. We wanted Wolverine to trash the place. We wanted Gladiator to kick the shit out of the Emperor. We wanted Robin Hood to take Maid Marian (sp?) away from the duly appointed Sheriff of Nottingham, and her maidenhood in the process. We wanted Batman and Spider-Man to kick the crap out of the real villains and escape the vigilante charges against them. We wanted Firefly to outrun the reavers and the central authority to show the people what the real crime was and who did it. We want post-apocalyptic worlds where laws are forgotten and heroes make their own rules, and their own choices.
> 
> ...



Now having had some time to think about it I think you and others here are making the same mistake that a lot of people make. There is a difference between a BAD GUY and a amoral character or a criminal. You say we cheer for Han Solo and Firefly.. yes but they are not the bad guys. They are criminals but they themselves are not bad they don't do morally bad things, by which I mean murdering people, torturing people those kinds of things. They just break the law, a law that most times is set up by the evil controlled antagonists. While you have the Reavers and Darth Sidius who are the true Big Bad in the story behind the scenes who do all of the above and more with a gin on their face.

The moral of the story is that sometimes to be good you have to break the law... but that doesn't translate into doing bad things, to be a anti-hero who isn't actually any better then the "antagonists".

Anyway if you look at all of the stories that you mentioned there is always a bigger, darker, evil behind the "antagonists". There is always a force that can't be humanized. Or talked to, or reasoned with. It is just a part of human nature that there is always a dark force that cannot be reasoned with, that is beyond our understanding. The humans turned to this dark force... they are part of the story I won't disagree with that as they serve as warnings... "Look at the horror that you can become if...". But they are not the Big Bad be it a evil force, a dark shadow in the soul or a corporation who is backing the business man who wants to buy out the family owned store.  

So in the end my point is that talking about conflict characters is fine but they are different from the Bad Guy, the evil behind all the "antagonists". How bad does that character/monster/force need to be? And I am happy with the answer of "However bad it needs to be".


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 30, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> The moral of the story is that sometimes to be good you have to break the law... but that doesn't translate into doing bad things, to be a anti-hero who isn't actually any better then the "antagonists".



Antihero protagonists are quite popular, too.

Look at writers like Alan Moore (_Watchmen_), Frank Miller (_Sin City_), and Jeff Lindsay (_Darkly Dreaming Dexter_), to name a few—their heroes often torture, dismember, and/or murder other characters as part of their own form of vigilante justice. Often, the acts are glorified.

Sometimes, bystanders get their heads kicked in if they're unlucky enough to get in the way.

Yes, in the world of black and white, our heroes would never cross moral lines. Two wrongs shouldn't make a right.

But our fiction doesn't have to be in black and white. Sometimes, shit gets messy. :encouragement:


----------



## The Fantastical (Nov 30, 2016)

Delete


----------



## Firemajic (Nov 30, 2016)

Sam said:


> What is bad and good?
> 
> To your antagonist(s), what your protagonist(s) is doing is bad; to your protagonist(s), what your antagonist(s) is doing is bad.
> 
> ...





Don't lynch meee... but maybe I am confusing "EVIL" with "BAD"....
There are people who have no regard for what is right and wrong... they are driven by their own dark desires...could care less if you are pleading and begging for mercy...  soooo.... maybe there IS a difference between bad and just plain evil.... anyway... 
and another thing... everyone is capable of doing dastardly things, How, you ask? Because they are able to justify the deed...


----------



## 1Zaslowcrane1 (Nov 30, 2016)

I figure that you have to decide what his/her motivation is and understand how that runs counter to the "common good" or even what the protagonist wants/needs. If you're unsure as to how to start, there are lots of great villians in literature. Find one who "speaks" to you and use him/her as a template a sort of jumping off place. I wouldn't recommend trying to "reinvent the wheel" if you're having difficulties. Also someone mentioned Looper (Great film) as how and why the protagonist and antagonist might "shift", however try to avoid allowing the distinction to become too grey otherwise you'll end up confusing a large portion of your audience (with mixed feelings about all of the characters), which was why Looper was not a commercial success.
I'm not suggesting writing "down" to your readers, only that you make the distinctions apparent to any who wish to understand. There such of a things as "being too smart for the room".
My villians were frequently very grey and I feel that my stories could have been better had I made the motivations of the antagonist a bit more...evil (selfish/self centered/ you pick your adjective at this point), so I'm coming from a place where I'm trying to move just a bit more toward "simpler", so take my comments with a grain of salt.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 30, 2016)

1Zaslowcrane1 said:


> Also someone mentioned Looper (Great film) as how and why the protagonist and antagonist might "shift", however try to avoid allowing the distinction to become too grey otherwise you'll end up confusing a large portion of your audience (with mixed feelings about all of the characters), which was why Looper was not a commercial success.



I definitely agree that we shouldn't confuse our audience too much (unless, of course, confusing your audience is part of your goal! ).

But I have to point out: _Looper_ was certainly a commercial success—in worldwide sales, the film earned nearly six times its production budget, and reached #2 at the Box Office.

Audiences seemed to appreciate the grayness of it all. :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D (Nov 30, 2016)

Kyle R said:


> Sometimes, shit gets messy. :encouragement:



Thanks, Kyle. You've given me a new mantra for my writing :twisted:.


----------



## Newman (Nov 30, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> This is partly from wanting to know for my own book but also out of interest as I haven't read a lot about writing bad guys.... How bad does a bad guy need to be?



There's a theory that the bad guy is the extreme antithesis of your central idea.

Take _The_ _Walking Dead_ ATM: arguably, a central idea ATM is "caring about other people" ; Rick is good because he cares about other people (which is why he isn't reacting, for fear of what will happen to his "family") and that Negan is bad because he doesn't care about anyone else at all.

Negan is constructed with that root in mind; Lucille helps him take that root to the extreme.


----------



## Cran (Nov 30, 2016)

The Fantastical said:


> Now having had some time to think about it I think you and others here are making the same mistake that a lot of people make. There is a difference between a BAD GUY and a amoral character or a criminal.


That is exactly the point we were trying to make. For instance, I said something like: sometimes good people do bad things; and with the Firefly example, there is a group on the wrong side of the law who ended up exposing the greater evil - something in common with most anti-heroes or vigilantes. 

I'm trying to remember the name of a story/film that was remade with Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones - they then went on to make a sequel called US Marshals - in which both the protagonist and the antagonist were good people doing what they believed was the right and only thing to do; the real bad guys were represented in minor supporting roles.

So, it comes back to who are the actors in your drama, and where does the true evil lie. 




> So in the end my point is that talking about conflict characters is fine but they are different from the Bad Guy, the evil behind all the "antagonists". How bad does that character/monster/force need to be? And I am happy with the answer of "However bad it needs to be".


I'm good with that, and with your clarification of what you meant by bad guy. 

And there, the usual motivations are power (control), revenge or abhorrence, or arrogant superiority (people as nuisance vermin to be eradicated or home worlds to consume or remove).


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 30, 2016)

Cran said:


> I'm trying to remember the name of a story/film that was remade with Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones - they then went on to make a sequel called US Marshals - in which both the protagonist and the antagonist were good people doing what they believed was the right and only thing to do; the real bad guys were represented in minor supporting roles.



_The Fugitive_. A classic!  (Though, until you said so, I had no idea it was a remake. Learn something new every day.)


----------



## Cran (Nov 30, 2016)

Kyle R said:


> _The Fugitive_. A classic!  (Though, until you said so, I had no idea it was a remake. Learn something new every day.)


Yes! Thank you! I had The Hunted (Tommy Lee Jones, Benicio del Toro) on the brain and couldn't shake it.

The original was made just after WWII (not sure: '47 or '48, sometime around then), with Henry Fonda, and there was a series in the '60s (replayed in the '70s) starring David Janssen.

Always the hunt for the one-armed man, staying ahead of the law, and doing good deeds for other people.


----------



## SilverMoon (Nov 30, 2016)

"How Bad does a Bad Guy Need to Be?  Not so Bad.



> Originally Posted by  *The Fantastical*
> 
> He needs to have a redeemable quality to him/her. What I mean is that he needs to be relateable to the reader so that they can understand his motives without fully backing them



 What I've learned about depicting your bad guy in a Writer's Workshop- Never demonize your demons lest they become a one dimensional character. The reader will yawn or worse - feel sorry them.

Case in point. Take the cult film, "Mommy Dearest". Joan Crawford was portrayed as a "pathological Narcissist" and nothing more. Her daughter, a helpless victim, throughout the story line. Nothing more. 

No matter, the daughter was venting. If she considered herself a writer she broke a literary rule. "Art before catharsis" 

Presenting your Bad Guy as grey is not simplistic as it may sound.  It's a tough balancing act.


----------



## bdcharles (Dec 1, 2016)

SilverMoon said:


> Art before catharsis.



^ This.


----------



## 1Zaslowcrane1 (Dec 1, 2016)

I wasn't aware of that...I didn't think it had much acceptance at all, and again, I loved it! But I don't mind "working a bit" to keep up with the story. Most americans want to be spoonfed...


----------

