# Dark Love



## luckyscars (May 12, 2013)

I don't like heroes.

My absolute pet hatred is what some call the 'Mary Sue', that is a character who is 'good' to the point of being dull and unrealistic. In the past I have often found myself trying to contrive flaws in characters just to fight the urge to resort to Disney-ish 'good guy vs bad guy' templates. Of course, fighting this head on isn't the answer to getting it right, but ultimately its my goal to write a different kind of story with a different kind of character. I find it more interesting and insightful and more in keeping with 'real people' to write about characters who are, rationally speaking awful, for the majority of people I simply believe are neither good nor bad but, on the whole, prone to doing terrible, even criminal things though often with good intentions.

What I'm describing is probably what they call the anti-hero - that is, a protagonist who does not fit the mold of a hero. I know this kind of idea has been kicking around for a long time now, hundreds of years in fact. And in a sense that is kind of the problem. When I look at examples - from King Lear to Walter White - I am concerned that while the antihero is not dead it is becoming increasingly difficult to create one that isn't driven by the same motivations that have been done over and over again. It seems the key to a successful antihero is one that the audience empathizes with, even if they dislike what they do and even who they are. So empathy is important. But how is it achieved? 

Let's give an example. Say I wanted to write a novel in which the principle character was a serial murderer and necrophiliac. Say I wanted to make them utterly despicable, as evil as anything that has ever been and to do all manner of terrible things. But say I still wanted them to be an interesting character that an otherwise stable-minded and rational reader can enjoy reading about and root for in the context of the story - is this possible? 

Seems the only way to do this kind of thing is to either 1) Make the villain the victim (abusive childhood or whatever), 2) Make them a 'closet hero' (they're murdering to save the world, etc) or 3) To make them do something good in spite of their nature (after raping fifteen corpses they befriend a bird with a broken wing). I feel like all of these options are not new and, more importantly, not true to life. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Apple Ice (May 12, 2013)

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the "Eragon" series, but it has four rather large books and Eragon is the typical good guy hero who doesn't have a bad bone in his body and Galbatorix is the evil king. Throughout the book I was thinking "I want Eragon and his friends to die and the king to win" simply because the author made the villain so much more interesting and built him up so well for such a long time throughout the books and actually gave him credible reasons and motivations for his actions. All the while Eragon was being just being a great guy with all his gang.

But I think whoever you make the protagonist, despite their love for the anatomy of dead people, the readers will still be on his/her side if you write in such a way that makes them want to. If it's a good story the readers will most likely follow your characters blindly. Especially if you make the protagonists enemy, after raping _*16 *_corpses, punch the bird with the broken wing in the face and then insult its mother.


----------



## Angelicpersona (May 12, 2013)

I can't exactly tell you what I'm doing, but apparently I'm doing something right because I had a random reader comment the other day that they didn't know whether to like or hate one of my main characters. He presents a caring face to the other main character, but behind that is cruel intentions, which occasionally spill over to their relationship.
For him, it was a learned way of life (his father was a sick bastard but adored him). I suppose he could have chosen to rise above it, but instead he chose to revel in it, and the end purpose of their journey as the reader will learn seems selfless, but is really selfish (he wants to cull the world of the dark of weakness and rule over it)


----------



## Robert_S (May 12, 2013)

Well, as a first thought, you could have it so that he never does any of this to children. In fact, you could probably write that he's killing child molesters who are back on the street and raping their corpses as vengeance for the children. Child molestation seems to be a very polarizing topic. 

Just a quick thought.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (May 12, 2013)

For myself I don't like the term _hero_ or _villain_, I'm not a big believer in Good or Evil, don't care about good guys vs. bad guys or whatever. Shock for its own sake is pretty boring, too. For me it's just about characters and their actions, and their motivations are interesting and believable or not ("because he's crazy" or "because he's evil" being very uninteresting). Might help to start with the character and then decide what awful things he's going to do based on who he is and what makes sense.


----------



## JosephB (May 12, 2013)

I never read anything with this Mary Sue character I keep hearing about. And it seems like if you're going to write a character like that, the least you could do is pick a different name.


----------



## Kevin (May 12, 2013)

Sounds like _Dexter._  He takes pleasure in killing and watching things die. If that's not evil I don't know what is. (Hey, watch it, you're blocking the t.v. I'm playing _Call of Duty _here. Luv the graphics...)


----------



## Skodt (May 12, 2013)

Should take a dip into a series called the Gentlemen Bastards. First book is the lies of Locke Lamora. I did a review in the book section here.


----------



## luckyscars (May 13, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I never read anything with this Mary Sue character I keep hearing about. And it seems like if you're going to write a character like that, the least you could do is pick a different name.



It's not that the Mary Sue character is particularly commonplace - at least not in its purest form. It's an old trope that goes back to earlier times when heroes were portrayed as flawless, Christlike and impossible. Fiction, at least adult fiction, has for the most part evolved to a level where most characters have at least a notional complexity to them. For example, even Harry Potter (which in many respects is a throwback anyway) is portrayed with at least a few personality traits that do not fit the mold of a Mary Sue Hero. My point is that I don't think this has been pushed far enough. Somebody mentioned Dexter, who is indeed polarizing but this is an exception and not the rule. And in any case Dexter still fits many superficial requirements of a hero, and has a certain charisma which probably explains why he is still likeable even if he is 'bad'.

In my view the dilemma is that on the one hand we have to make a protagonist empathetic, but on the other hand we have to try and inject something new. As much as I disagree with the 'everything's been done before' view it is true that it has never been harder to write a great character.

My intent is not merely to shock but to provide something thoughtful. Let's put it this way: Most of us spend a good portion of our lives reading about evil. And yet, judging by most books, we show next to no interest in really understanding it. At least not from the standpoint of those who actually do it.


----------



## JosephB (May 13, 2013)

I know what a Mary Sue character is. I was kidding. And are you just musing -- or are you seriously telling me that characters need to have some level of complexity?


----------



## Kyle R (May 13, 2013)

Okay, so what I'm getting from this is you have two concerns that you're struggling with:

1) How to achieve empathy for a non-traditional, possibly villainous character, and,

2) How to come up with some new and unique.


I think for the first struggle of yours, the key is to recognize that empathy doesn't have to relate to positive emotions. Reader-empathy just means your readers identify and relate to the emotions your character is feeling.

He could be doing terrible things, but if the emotions he experiences are genuinely believable, the reader will empathize. That is to say, a character who does despicable things can still be a compelling character if their emotional reactions, and motivations, are believable and ring true.

I have no sympathy for a murderer, but I can definately relate to his feeling of *frustration* when trying to clean up the bloody mess in his room (Who here hasn't had to clean up spilled food or something?), or the *panic *he experiences when he realizes, after dumping the body, that his driver's license was in the bag in which he stashed the corpse, which is now bubbling down to the bottom of the lake!

Oh, crap! If the police ever find that bag, he's done for! What is he going to DO?! I must read more to find out! 


You can have a character doing terrible things, but the reader can still empathize because emotions are universal, and the motivations and reactions that stem from it, if flowing in a logical nature, seem true, authentic, and compelling.


As for your second concern (something new and original), I'd say that's a different issue altogether. I believe the key to finding that "new and unique" character is to look at your character's *path* through the story as a whole, instead of labelling and identifying your character as an archetype.

The way the character reacts and moves through the story, bouncing off other characters and settings, and the emotional processes and decisions the character makes along the way, _that_'s what makes the character unique and ultimately memorable, even if, as an archetype, the character started out as something commonplace.

:encouragement:


----------



## luckyscars (May 13, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I know what a Mary Sue character is. I was kidding. And are you just musing -- or are you seriously telling me that characters need to have some level of complexity?



Like people, all good characters are built of contradictions. That is what makes them complex.


----------



## JosephB (May 13, 2013)

Wait -- characters are supposed to be like people?!

What I meant was, are you seriously telling me something you think I don't know? Because that's a colossal no-brainer.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 13, 2013)

I am with you 100%, people simply are not like that, all good or all bad. My novel is set in an old people's home, the protagonist is a retired drug dealer (strictly cannabis) and he gets the other residents at it. My 'bird with a broken wing' is that they are using the money to fight a baddie who wants to buy the home to shut it down and turn it into a redevelopment site. Of course I have a few twists and turns in there, but the hero is definitely outside the law, and the traitor in the ranks is on the side of the law and as hateful as the villain.


----------



## luckyscars (May 13, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Wait -- characters are supposed to be like people?!
> 
> What I meant was, are you seriously telling me something you think I don't know? Because that's a colossal no-brainer.



Colossal no-brainer it is not. 

If you think it is I can give you exactly five hundred and sixty three examples of books I have read that would be wonderful, except for the fact there is not a trace of a real human being in any of them.

The number one problem with 99% of writing is that people in books are nothing like real people. I would argue this is the primary reason why so many find it difficult to get into reading in general. Most fiction is contaminated with a kind of lofty preoccupation with characters that have been done over and over: With 'heroes' and 'villains' and other nonsense. This has been going on since Chaucer was rocking the two-groat ale and is not limited to new writers. There are many who display a strong understanding of the mechanics of writing and of creative imagination. But without understanding the human condition (which is never a 'hero' and rarely a 'villain') and being able to capture it coherently, it doesn't matter much how good you are at anything else.


----------



## Nickleby (May 13, 2013)

The trouble starts, it seems to me, when we start with a mold and try to fit a character into it. Start with the story. Pick an element, such as plot or character or setting, and establish the main goal. So the handsome knight has to slay the dragon and save the princess. Give them real motivations. Is the knight noble, or has he done this kind of thing before and gotten blase? Is the dragon savage, or is he willing to die to show his love for the princess? Is the princess innocent, or is she grooming the knight to help her wrest the throne from her older brother?

Use a trope, but put a little thought into it. If your character has a strength, balance it with a weakness. If your character has a flaw, give her a likeable trait to compensate. Real people are complicated and inconsistent. Your characters should be too.


----------



## JosephB (May 13, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> Colossal no-brainer it is not.
> 
> If you think it is I can give you exactly five hundred and sixty three  examples of books I have read that would be wonderful, except for the  fact there is not a trace of a real human being in any of them.
> 
> The number one problem with 99% of writing is that people in books are  nothing like real people. I would argue this is the primary reason why  so many find it difficult to get into reading in general. Most fiction  is contaminated with a kind of lofty preoccupation with characters that  have been done over and over: With 'heroes' and 'villains' and other  nonsense. This has been going on since Chaucer was rocking the two-groat  ale and is not limited to new writers. There are many who display a  strong understanding of the mechanics of writing and of creative  imagination. But without understanding the human condition (which is  never a 'hero' and rarely a 'villain') and being able to capture it  coherently, it doesn't matter much how good you are at anything  else.



It's a no-brainer to me, but maybe you're right. I guess I thought that people on a writing site who have read anything above the 6th grade level or who have maybe sat through the most basic high school level literature class (and paid attention) or who have otherwise thought a little about what they are doing would be aware of the most fundamental aspects of character development. I also don't read books with heroes and villains -- mostly books that succeed or fail based almost solely on the complexity of the characters and whether or not they behave like real people -- so I can't really relate to that either. Oh well.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 13, 2013)

Now I am going to take issue with you, luckyscars. let's take the emotive and evaluative out of this:-

The number one problem with 99% of writing is that people in books are nothing like real people. I would argue this is the primary reason why so many find it difficult to get into reading in general. Most fiction is contaminated with a kind of lofty preoccupation with characters that have been done over and over: With 'heroes' and 'villains' and other nonsense

With 99% of writing people in books are nothing like real people. I would argue this is the primary reason why so many find it difficult to get into reading in general. Most fiction has characters that have been done over and over: With 'heroes' and 'villains'.

Looked at like that it is possible to surmise there may be more than one reason for this. Far from it annoying readers I would expect supply and demand to be one of those reasons, Harry Potter has great heroes and wicked villains and a lot of people like it, if you are writing to sell books rather than add to a minority's understanding of the human condition ...

Okay, so I want to describe a real person, but I don't, he would never fit into the story, he is swayed by feelings and emotions too complex and intricate to be explained without losing the thread of the tale, he must, of necessity, be two dimensional to some degree.

"I would argue this is the primary reason why so many find it difficult to get into reading in general."
This is well phrased, but I would disagree with it, I see their difficulty as being locked into concrete reality, reading is instantly two degrees of abstraction, speech, then symbols for speech, why bother when you could be having a pint and experiencing the sensation first hand?


----------



## JosephB (May 13, 2013)

Harry Potter is also a children's book -- no surprise that the characters aren't all that complex or that it doesn't really qualify as an examination of the human condition.  It wouldn't occur to me to give that as an example for anything -- unless the topic had something to do with children's books, of course.


----------



## Ariel (May 13, 2013)

But Harry Potter does explore human nature on a level that children can understand.  Yes, there was less depth than I'd expect to find in a novel for adults but I would certainly not say that it does not examine human nature.


----------



## JosephB (May 13, 2013)

I'm sure it does -- on a child's level. So does any good children's book. I'm sure it's a good example -- if that's your audience. 

To be fair, I haven't read the HP books -- and we won't let our children read them because they so obviously promote satanism and of course, witchcraft.


----------



## Leyline (May 13, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> It's not that the Mary Sue character is particularly commonplace - at least not in its purest form. *It's an old trope that goes back to earlier times when heroes were portrayed as flawless, Christlike and impossible.
> *


No, it's not. It's an idiotic fan-fiction construct, concerning authorial self-insertion. You are misusing the term.


----------



## Leyline (May 13, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I'm sure it does -- on a children's level. So does any good children's book. I'm sure it's a good example -- if that's your audience.
> 
> To be fair, I haven't read the HP books -- and we won't let our children read them because they so obviously promote satanism and of course, witchcraft.



But, it's the good kinda witchcraft. No gingerbread lure houses there, no sir.


----------



## JosephB (May 13, 2013)

Leyline said:


> No, it's not. It's an idiotic fan-fiction construct, concerning authorial self-insertion.



That sounds either a somewhat painful, or perhaps pleasurable -- depending on what and where.



Leyline said:


> But, it's the good kinda witchcraft. No gingerbread lure houses there, no sir.



But isn't there like a Lord Baltimore who's a pretty bad guy?


----------



## Leyline (May 13, 2013)

JosephB said:


> That sounds either a somewhat painful, or perhaps pleasurable -- depending on what and where.



It originates in a piece of STAR TREK fan-fic, in fanzines, predating the 'net. tvtropes, the website, is responsible for trying to make it a broader term. As with most things, they suck.


----------



## JosephB (May 13, 2013)

I see. But I was talking more about the self-insertion part.


----------



## Leyline (May 13, 2013)

JosephB said:


> But isn't there like a Lord Baltimore who's a pretty bad guy?



I think it's Lord Vundervorld, but I'm pretty sure he didn't lure any kids with candy-based houses.


----------



## JosephB (May 13, 2013)

Leyline said:


> I think it's Lord Vundervorld, but I'm pretty sure he didn't lure any kids with candy-based houses.



Ha ha. Yeah -- that's actually pretty scary stuff. I think we had a sanitized version of Hansel and Grettel that glossed over the part where they shove the witch in the oven. That was my favorite part.

Regarding Mary Sue -- I'd always thought it was about too-good-to-be-true characters. You're saying the character is idealized because it's more like subconscious wish fulfillment -- putting yourself in the character's place?


----------



## Leyline (May 13, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Ha ha. Yeah -- that's actually pretty scary stuff. I think we had a sanitized version of Hansel and Grettel that glossed over the part where they shove the witch in the oven. That was my favorite part.



Mine too, I loved it!



> Regarding Mary Sue -- I'd always thought it was about too-good-to-be-true characters. You're saying the character is idealized because it's more like subconscious wish fulfillment -- putting yourself in the character's place?



It's a fan-fiction term that has been mis-used forever. Originally, it meant a character that was obviously the author inserting his/herself into the story and retconning everything to account for that. Thanks to tvtropes, people now think it means 'a character without enough flaws for me.' Which is, quite frankly, kind of retarded as a basis for opinion.


----------



## JosephB (May 13, 2013)

I've never paid that much attention to it. I remember someone put up a link to some long questionnaire that would tell you your "Mary Sue score" -- looked like waste of time to me.


----------



## Kyle R (May 13, 2013)

Leyline said:


> Originally, it meant a character that was obviously the author inserting his/herself into the story and retconning everything to account for that.



_My name is Bloomin' Onion, and I'm the coolest guy in the world. I beat up the bad guys and all the girls love me. What can I say, I'm awesome. People usually give me money and stuff just so they can follow me around and bask in my excellence. I let them, because I'm a nice guy, too. 

I look like (insert author's description here). I'm (insert author's age) years old and I'm a (insert author's occupation).

One day, I was strolling down the street, being awesome me, when a bad guy leapt out from behind a dumpster. "Give me all your money!" he yelled, waving a knife at me. I smiled and said, "What good is money when you don't have hands to spend it?"

He looked at me, all confused, and then I broke his hands off and slapped him in the face with them until he started to cry and said, "I'm sorry, I didn't realize how awesome you are!"

I said, "That's okay," and I sewed his hands back on with the expert precision of a world-class surgeon. He thanked me, and gave me _his_ money, because he wanted to follow me around and learn to be as amazing as I am. I told him he could try, but it was pointless, because my awesomeness could never be duplicated.

_


----------



## luckyscars (May 13, 2013)

Leyline said:


> No, it's not. It's an idiotic fan-fiction construct, concerning authorial self-insertion. You are misusing the term.



I don't see how it is misusing the term to take it out of the fanfiction realm and expand it to this context. In any case its a semantic argument and I don't care. If it makes you happier we can change it to 'Bobby-Joe'.


----------



## luckyscars (May 13, 2013)

Olly Buckle said:


> Now I am going to take issue with you, luckyscars. let's take the emotive and evaluative out of this:-
> 
> The number one problem with 99% of writing is that people in books are nothing like real people. I would argue this is the primary reason why so many find it difficult to get into reading in general. Most fiction is contaminated with a kind of lofty preoccupation with characters that have been done over and over: With 'heroes' and 'villains' and other nonsense
> 
> ...




The 'why many people find it hard to get into reading' part is pure conjecture on my part and I freely admit it has little relevance to this debate. Of course I'm in no position to say why so many don't read. I can only say why I don't enjoy reading many things and, again, it comes down to character and the way personality (or lack thereof) is captured in writing . I agree that heroes and villains are marketable but, to me, that's rather like saying 'well McDonalds' food sells well so it must be a good thing'.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 14, 2013)

> 'well McDonalds' food sells well so it must be a good thing'.


From the point of view of a McDonalds' executive that is a truism, that aside I said "it is possible to surmise there may be more than one reason...", actually I am pussyfooting, I am pretty certain there are lots of reasons, "he would never fit into the story ... without losing the thread" is just one more. Stories are simplifications of reality, that is one way they become "truer than if they had really happened."


----------



## JosephB (May 14, 2013)

Olly Buckle said:


> From the point of view of a McDonalds'  executive that is a truism, that aside I said "it is possible to surmise  there may be more than one reason...", actually I am pussyfooting, I am  pretty certain there are lots of reasons, "he would never fit into the  story ... without losing the thread" is just one more. Stories are  simplifications of reality, that is one way they become "truer than if  they had really happened."



I don't think there are that many reasons why people don't read. I think it's mainly a lifestyle choice -- it takes time, it's not as easy as other kinds of passive entertainment -- and there are more options now for passive or less taxing entertainment than ever. That shouldn't be a revelation to anyone. And many people just aren't interested in reading fiction. My dad read a good bit -- but I don't remember ever seeing him read a single novel.

And I don't think that many people find it hard to get into reading because  they're dissatisfied with the characterizations or stories etc. People who  want to read do it -- they simply make the effort to find things they'll enjoy.


----------



## Leyline (May 14, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> I don't see how it is misusing the term to take it out of the fanfiction realm and expand it to this context. In any case its a semantic argument and I don't care. If it makes you happier we can change it to 'Bobby-Joe'.



Bull. The original meaning of 'Mary Sue' was an actual character named Mary Sue in a horrid piece of Star Trek fanfiction which amounted to fan wish-fulfillment. She knew more about the Enterpise than Kirk, could out-logic Spock, and could read a tri-corder better than Bones. Plus, they all fell in love with her.

You're complaining about overpowered characters . You're mis-using the term.


----------



## moderan (May 14, 2013)

Well, that's true, but I like tvtropes' retrofitting too. A "Mary Sue" has come to mean any character that amounts to an idealized auteurial self-image. I'm not sure that's doing the term a disservice--that's certainly something to shy away from.
But it isn't the original meaning. And I can vouch for it having been in use on bbs and usenet before the interner proper..


----------



## ppsage (May 14, 2013)

> _I don't see how it is misusing the term to take it out of the fanfiction realm and expand it to this context. In any case its a semantic argument and I don't care. If it makes you happier we can change it to 'Bobby-Joe'._


I think this is definitely a stretch too far because the authorial self-insertion aspect is fundamental to the Mary Sue character. Like Don Quixote, Mary Sue is conceived in irony, and deserves to remain there. I'd suggest calling the sort of character we're after an Amadis, after the romance hero Quixote idolizes and satirizes, and who, as a literary phenom of the sixteenth century, inspired gangs of Spanish Dons. Raising the question of whether, from the commercial position, using an Amadis is necessarily a poor choice.


----------



## luckyscars (May 15, 2013)

Leyline said:


> Bull. The original meaning of 'Mary Sue' was an actual character named Mary Sue in a horrid piece of Star Trek fanfiction which amounted to fan wish-fulfillment. She knew more about the Enterpise than Kirk, could out-logic Spock, and could read a tri-corder better than Bones. Plus, they all fell in love with her.
> 
> You're complaining about overpowered characters . You're mis-using the term.



Again, you're criticizing me for misusing a term which, according to you, the original meaning of is no longer important anyway. Doesn't that strike you as somewhat counter intuitive? And again, its a semantic argument and I don't care. It isn't like I didn't make what I meant perfectly clear. So what exactly is the problem? I don't understand why you feel the need to make such a big deal out of it. I already said it makes you happy we'll call him Bobby Joe. Do you actually have any input into the point of this thread, which had nothing to do with what you're whining about.

Also, sir, I am not complaining about overpowered characters. I never used the word 'overpowered' nor anything synonymous to it. I am 'complaining' (a rather uncouth and unnecessarily infantile term to use here I'd say) about characters that are not realistic portrayals of real people whether it be heroes or villains or anything else. And even if we focus on 'overpowered', that in itself is not that far removed from what you describe a Mary Sue as being since portrayals of extreme and unrealistic virtue often do represent the author's self-perception. See how that works? Again, I have merely expanded upon the term to cover poor characterization in general, which is not against the law and if you don't like it then you may 'complain' someplace else.


----------



## JosephB (May 15, 2013)

Of course, you could always just talk about characters that aren't realistic -- there's no need to attach some kind of cute name to it.


----------



## squidtender (May 15, 2013)

*knock of the flaming and calm yourselves down or squid's going to turn the hose on you*


----------



## voltigeur (May 15, 2013)

As I read the thread I think you may be over thinking this. Would it work if you draw up your character and set the principles they believe in and what values drive their decision making. (This will make characters not evil or good but different.) Then put them in situations that challenge their values and force them to make hard decisions. The roundness of the character and the growth come from having to live with those decisions and actions.

So take a religious man (say a Quaker) who is absolutely determined to never harm anyone. Now have him faced with a tug that decides he is a coward and is going to rape his wife. He fights back and kills the man. Ask yourself what happens to this character then? How does he reconcile his actions and decision? Look at his emotions vs. rational.  This way your characters will change!  Remember the second time he will cross the line much easier. 

Anyway just some thoughts.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (May 25, 2013)

> My absolute pet hatred is what some call the 'Mary Sue', that is a character who is 'good' to the point of being dull and unrealistic.



For me, that depends on the genre. I'm writing a fantasy, and since I feel like this genre is riddled with Mary Sues, I made my main character unlikable to the point where you shake your head and want to put the book down. He's not downright evil - he's just extremely self-absorbed and shallow. Instead of writing a "good" character with flaws, I'm trying to write a "bad" character that has some good sides that will raise their hands eventually. I'm trying to pull the reader in by at least making him funny. So that's one way to go - don't find their flaws, find their (few) strengths. 



> Seems the only way to do this kind of thing is to either 1) Make the villain the victim (abusive childhood or whatever), 2) Make them a 'closet hero' (they're murdering to save the world, etc) or 3) To make them do something good in spite of their nature (after raping fifteen corpses they befriend a bird with a broken wing). I feel like all of these options are not new and, more importantly, not true to life.



If I were you, I'd drop the childhood-trauma memories. I think it's better to simply describe his/her environment as the story progresses. How's the parents behavior? What kind of people is the MC surrounded by? Where does he/she live? How does he/she relate to the world? etc. 

My character doesn't have any specific reason for being the way he is, I've simply created an environment that hopefully will lead the reader to understand how he must've been brought up. At least, that's what I'm trying to do. 

As for the villain, I love a villain with a purpose. SOme cliches shouldn't always be broken, because they are cliches for a reason. My goal with the villain is basically to make the reader emphasize with him. I want people to think "Damn it, why am I almost rooting for this guy? He's a psycho murderer, but still... I don't want him to die/fail". I took the easy route and made all of his actions rooted in love, one way or the other. Is it cliche? Yes. But don't fear the cliches to the point that nothing makes sense. 




> Let's give an example. Say I wanted to write a novel in which the principle character was a serial murderer and necrophiliac. Say I wanted to make them utterly despicable, as evil as anything that has ever been and to do all manner of terrible things. But say I still wanted them to be an interesting character that an otherwise stable-minded and rational reader can enjoy reading about and root for in the context of the story - is this possible?



Have you read I Am Not A Serial Killer by Dan Wells? It's written from the perspective of a young boy who is a sociopath. If the narrator of your story is supposed to be the bad-guy, I truly recommend you reading a few chapters from this book. The way he describes the narrator's struggle to suppress his dark, psychopathic nature is very interesting, and somehow even funny. Even though the main character has NO empathetic feelings, you still find yourself feeling sorry for him, relating to him and cheering for him.


----------

