# Thoughts on developing an antagonist? (1 Viewer)



## ty520 (May 6, 2019)

Was hoping people could share their thoughts on importance of developing a backstory, motive, etc for antagonists.

Can an argument be made for an antagonist who remains a total mystery, even after the story has ended?

WARNING: potential GoT spoiler below:

...
...
...

This issue came to mind after watching season 8, episode 3 of Game of Thrones: I was left very dissatisfied with the resolution of the Night King story arc.

it took a bit of brainstorming to think of a successfully written antagonist who remained a complete mystery - the only one to come to mind was Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker, and i believe it was successful because they used his mysterious background as an intriguing plot device (every time he recalled how he got his scars, he made up a new story, but it was told it in a completely believable way each time)


----------



## Terry D (May 6, 2019)

You develop the backstory and motivation for an antagonist _exactly the same way_ you do for any other character.


----------



## ty520 (May 6, 2019)

Terry D said:


> You develop the backstory and motivation for an antagonist _exactly the same way_ you do for any other character.



i guess i wasn't clear:

how important do you think it is to develop a comprehensive backstory, motive, etc for an antagonist?


----------



## Theglasshouse (May 6, 2019)

Very important since a villain is a source of conflict even though some stories have no villain. Even inner conflict can be the villiain. In a novel imo a villain is worth the time to write. It has to do with your beliefs, morality, and experience. We all have it even if not religious. How to go about is different for each writer. Some use real people, some people from the past ( people who are famous and historical). While others use myer briggs. A journal is helpful for me though since characterization expresses emotion. It is more deserving than plot to focus on. Myer Briggs is useful in helping characters overcome obstacles, how they react, and maybe what motivates them. Motive is the why. Think why does it happen? We each all have our subconscious beliefs and it's all part of the subconscious process. Knowing the hero's journey is helpful. A villain is just one type of character. It's worth reading the hero's journey and some examples of each and why they are important. Think of backstory as the emotional scar or the wound of a character that motivates them into action. The inciting incident can be a decent motivator as well.

As for a total mystery I am sorry since I need to read more such as the book you mentioned. While not qualified to answer your question I think it can be done. The great book of Amber is useful since it has a lot of mysterious antagonists. Including one that wears a mask. Roger Zelazney wrote that one ( the series).


----------



## bazz cargo (May 6, 2019)

Hi Ty, welcome to WF.

This really depends of what works for you. 

My own system is to think up a scene and then work out the motivation behind all the characters actions. 

Sometimes I will be annoyed by someone and stick them with a nasty situation just as a vicarious revenge. 

Good luck
BC





ty520 said:


> Was hoping people could share their thoughts on importance of developing a backstory, motive, etc for antagonists.
> 
> Can an argument be made for an antagonist who remains a total mystery, even after the story has ended?
> 
> ...


----------



## Theglasshouse (May 6, 2019)

If playwriting and writing biographies don't intimidate you it is an additional method. The book called the playwright's process has a good section on how playwrights do it ( biographical questions section is large). But be careful since playwriting is different. It's based more on drama of ordinary life but some genres that are considered popular fit. I personally am a fan of James n frey's book 1 which has a pretentious title. But teaches you how to playwright. It has the same method as Lagos egri. That is his theory. I read egri 's book. He goes and reviews the theory. On how to write based on a theme or premise. But you can write based on real people using this method. But it is a lot of work. Consider a tape recorder to get an conversation recorded if you decide on that. That's a lot of backstory to create a room for a motive.


----------



## Terry D (May 7, 2019)

ty520 said:


> i guess i wasn't clear:
> 
> how important do you think it is to develop a comprehensive backstory, motive, etc for an antagonist?



My point was, you treat your antagonist the same way you treat any other important character. Unless you are viewing your antagonist as an archetype (think Michael Meyers in, _Halloween_), but those are always pretty two dimensional.


----------



## bdcharles (May 7, 2019)

ty520 said:


> Was hoping people could share their thoughts on importance of developing a backstory, motive, etc for antagonists.
> 
> Can an argument be made for an antagonist who remains a total mystery, even after the story has ended?



I hope such an argument can be made, because the antagonist in my first novel never has his backstory nor his nefarious actions explained, other than by his admission that seizing power at any cost is fun. I didn't want him to be redeemable. I don't want his history to be important. I don't want anyone identifying with his backstory. He's there, and he's doing what he does. He is a device to ask the question of whether there is equality or is life just a pecking order, and if the latter, then using that mechanic, do people do certain things that are considered bad simply to elevate themselves in said order (the answer being, basically: yes, because it works). The protagonist's job is to demonstrate that unpowerful people, unloved, insignificant, ugly people can, however, stand against such actions, and in doing so find power of their own - if they know how.


----------



## bdcharles (May 7, 2019)

Terry D said:


> My point was, you treat your antagonist the same way you treat any other important character. Unless you are viewing your antagonist as an archetype (think Michael Meyers in, _Halloween_), but those are always pretty two dimensional.



I think the OP is saying how important is it, rather than how's it done?


----------



## Terry D (May 7, 2019)

bdcharles said:


> I think the OP is saying how important is it, rather than how's it done?



I understand that. It doesn't change my answer. If it's important to create backstory, etc. for other characters, it's important for the antagonist too. Why on Earth would a writer treat his antagonist any differently than his protagonist?


----------



## dale (May 7, 2019)

as far as an antagonist in my stories. i always try to make them likable. are they total bastards? yes. but there's generally always
some personality traits with them where the reader gonna think.....god damnit. i actually like this son of a bitch. lol


----------



## Rojack79 (May 7, 2019)

Honestly it all depends on how involved you are with the antagonist. Does he need a long drawn out backstory or will a simple "he's evil just because" suffice for him. For example, I have loads and loads of Characters and while it might take awhile I'll have all of there backstory done up if it helps flesh them out.


----------



## Stygian (May 8, 2019)

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but how would one go about making a story with no physical antagonist? For one of my stories I'm working on, putting a physical antagonist would feel a bit shoehorned in. Does anyone have experience with this style of writing? If anyone knows good sources I can read up, please share.

On Topic: IMO, the best antagonists have always been believable and relatable. The most boring villains are always the 1 dimensional mustache twirling evil-doer; same goes for protagonists that lack flaws.


----------



## Bardling (May 8, 2019)

There is a difference between what the readers know and what the author knows.  To have an internally consistent character, the writer needs to understand what drives the character.  Otherwise it is too easy to slip into the antagonist doing things because the plot demands it, not because the character demands it.

The Joker being your only successful example of an antagonist that remains a complete mystery helps prove the point.

The Batman comics have provided a large and complex canon for Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker, and has already hammered out much of the characterization.  I don't think having an antagonist that remains a complete mystery to the reader is very easy, and not having a backstory or motive in the writers mind would be nearly impossible.


----------



## Bardling (May 8, 2019)

Stygian said:


> I don't mean to hijack the thread, but how would one go about making a story with no physical antagonist? For one of my stories I'm working on, putting a physical antagonist would feel a bit shoehorned in. Does anyone have experience with this style of writing? If anyone knows good sources I can read up, please share.
> 
> On Topic: IMO, the best antagonists have always been believable and relatable. The most boring villains are always the 1 dimensional mustache twirling evil-doer; same goes for protagonists that lack flaws.



The old man and the Sea is an example that is often used of an antagonist that is not a person.  The antagonist could very easily be an environmental threat instead of a person.


----------



## Theglasshouse (May 8, 2019)

To stygian: try Sasha blacks' book particularly how to write a villain in steps. But have a notebook handy. I have yet to implement it. I am also using John Truby's approach. She even mentions him in her villain how to book. It's a lot of work. She has a workbook for villains and heroes. And it's good for the most part. The villain one is way better. You need the villain book to understand the hero book. I am not afraid to share what I know ( since I've been  there)but if you do not like the purchase I am not responsible. She allegedly is a psychologist. It might be true. Don't work with theory and try to implement the story strategies. As of this moment I am going to try to write my premise in a notebook. It sounds counterproductive sort off. But John Truby was successful and taught George Lucas and I bought the book years ago. What I didn't bother doing since it is memory intensive to remember everything of a book is to write in my notebook as I read the book. I can already tell it's going to be a marathon to remember the most important notes and write them down.


----------



## 50shadesofdoubt (May 8, 2019)

My protagonist morphed into an antagonist role toward the end, then fell back when all hell broke loose.


----------



## Sir-KP (May 8, 2019)

Instead of Joker, try taking Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds as example. He is known as the Jew Hunter for his outstanding ability. He doesn't have anything personal to them, but he gives an example of chasing out mouse and welcoming a squirrel despite both being rodents. Through out the story, he's simply outsmarting his targets. But is he truly loyal to the SS? He is later revealed that he doesn't give a sh*t to the joint assassination and would rather use it for his own success.

The character misleads you the entire movie as if he was a loyal SS hunter dog.


----------



## Bard_Daniel (May 8, 2019)

Multi-dimensional antagonists are key, methinks. I would think that you would want them to be as developed as the protagonists. Think Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest. She represents the entire system of institutionalization for the mentally ill. Through that lens, she is a pawn that nonetheless dictates the lives of the people trying to function on the ward. However, could you argue that she is only doing what she knows, in an attempt to "cure" (i.e. make complacent) the people that she is housing? Just food for thought. 

 Also, I agree that they can be things other than characters themselves. Example? Hmm. Let me see..... in The Road, by Cormac McCarthy, there are villains, but the entire post-apocalyptic nightmare, it can be argued, is the antagonist. The things that come out of it are the secondary antagonists. It's the world that is the villain- it makes the people who and what they are.

Just my amateur opinion!


----------



## luckyscars (May 9, 2019)

Something I haven't seen mentioned much here is humor. 

I'm not actually saying the character has to be funny, but rather there should be something about them that makes them sort of absurd or at least Not Just Another Bad Guy. Rather than undermining their antagonistic role, finding that extra dimension actually enhances it. Integrating some aspect of funny with Pure Shittiness is a good way to avoid falling into cliche, maintaining a sense of humanity, and making them all the more frightening.

Consider examples like The Red Queen from Alice & Wonderland, Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs (and Hannibal Lecter, in a way), Captain Hook from Peter Pan, Long John Silver from Treasure Island, Patrick Bateman from American Psycho, lots of Dickens novels...these are characters that are undeniably bad but have a larger than life personality that often represents as rather charming or funny.


----------



## JJBuchholz (May 9, 2019)

When I develop an antagonist, I think of the following criteria:

1) What is their motivation for being a villain?
2) How do they relate to the protagonist?
3) Is the antagonist pure evil, or do they have a chance at redemption in some way?
4) Will they take a life, or stop short of inflicting physical pain?
5) What is their weakness?

In one of my series, I have created some small antagonists that are only present in one story, to a complex antagonist that appears in a multi-story arc (usually part of a large syndicate or organization that attempts to get bigger and badder the next time out), developing a huge vendetta against the hero.

When it comes to creating an antagonist, there really isn't a 'one size fits all' approach, as each one will be unique.

-JJB


----------



## Stygian (May 10, 2019)

JJBuchholz said:


> When I develop an antagonist, I think of the following criteria:
> 
> 1) What is their motivation for being a villain?
> 2) How do they relate to the protagonist?
> ...



This is a really good list I'm going to write down in my notes. I was thinking on similar terms, but could not quite put it into words. Thanks!


----------



## luckyscars (May 10, 2019)

JJBuchholz said:


> When I develop an antagonist, I think of the following criteria:
> 
> 1) What is their motivation for being a villain?
> 2) How do they relate to the protagonist?
> ...



This isn't really unique to antagonists though, is it? I mean I could write...

1) What is their motivation for being a hero?
2) How do they relate to the antagonist?
3) Is the protagonist pure good, or do they have any personality defects?
4) Will they save a life, or stop short of taking physical action?
5) What is their weakness?

^ That's the same for a protagonist.

I think this comes back to what somebody said earlier. Try not to differentiate hugely between 'bad guys' and 'good guys'. Unless you're writing very simplistic fiction, most characters, including antagonists, are not terribly different in terms of moral compass. What makes somebody the hero or villain is often simply down to circumstances.


----------



## Sir-KP (May 10, 2019)

JJBuchholz said:


> 1) What is their motivation for being a villain?



Personally I have this similar question, except I flip it around.

"What is the character's motives they think is right to be done that it makes them villainous?"

Because none of us think we are bad. We do not aim to be bad. We do what we think is right and would benefit ourselves and others.


----------



## ironpony (May 11, 2019)

ty520 said:


> Was hoping people could share their thoughts on importance of developing a backstory, motive, etc for antagonists.
> 
> Can an argument be made for an antagonist who remains a total mystery, even after the story has ended?
> 
> ...



The killer in the movie Halloween was a mystery.  The only background he is given as to why he likes to kill teenagers is that he just plain evil, according to another character in the movie.  So perhaps it can be done, like that one.


----------



## JJBuchholz (May 11, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> This isn't really unique to antagonists though, is it? I mean I could write...
> 
> 1) What is their motivation for being a hero?
> 2) How do they relate to the antagonist?
> ...



True. I use a similar formula for the protagonist as well. From my perspective, the attributes of the antagonist are always harder to develop that the protagonist.



luckyscars said:


> I think this comes back to what somebody said earlier. Try not to differentiate hugely between 'bad guys' and 'good guys'. Unless you're writing very simplistic fiction, most characters, including antagonists, are not terribly different in terms of moral compass. What makes somebody the hero or villain is often simply down to circumstances.



Another good point, and it's up to the author to define said circumstances, and how they affect the character both mentally and physically.

-JJB


----------



## Aquilo (May 11, 2019)

I mostly work with how every antagonist is a protagonist in his own world. Hazel from the Umbrella Academy is perfect for that. He's trying to kill a 'kid', but he's always moaning about abuse of worker rights as a contract killer, and due to repetitive strain over carrying time-travel case, he has to find himself a splint for his wrist. When he tortures Klaus, we see him need a pep talk from his colleague over how not to give up hope (He's got Klaus, and Klaus is... loving the torture lol). We know he's the bad guy, but we love him for it. Ledger as the Joker is just perfection, and Michael Cane underpins his character beautifully with "Some people just want to see the world burn." No more is needed wiith his backstory, but Ledger then plays with that stereotype: how you must have a damaged childhood to 'do wrong', right? Is he a protagonist in his own world? He's not looking for that, but he does become it for a lot of 'bad people' because of how free he is of social conditioning and restraint.


----------



## luckyscars (May 11, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> I mostly work with how every antagonist is a protagonist in his own world. Hazel from the Umbrella Academy is perfect for that. He's trying to kill a 'kid', but he's always moaning about abuse of worker rights as a contract killer, and due to repetitive strain over carrying time-travel case, he has to find himself a splint for his wrist. When he tortures Klaus, we see him need a pep talk from his colleague over how not to give up hope (He's got Klaus, and Klaus is... loving the torture lol). We know he's the bad guy, but we love him for it. Ledger as the Joker is just perfection, and Michael Cane underpins his character beautifully with "Some people just want to see the world burn." No more is needed wiith his backstory, but Ledger then plays with that stereotype: how you must have a damaged childhood to 'do wrong', right? Is he a protagonist in his own world? He's not looking for that, but he does become it for a lot of 'bad people' because of how free he is of social conditioning and restraint.



Good examples of this are in your typical cop-vs-fugitive story line. A cop, particularly, can be a protagonist or an antagonist based entirely on point of view. Even if their actions/reactions are largely just 'normal person doing their job with benign motivation'. 

In a story like Thelma & Louise, 'the law' are the antagonists and yet there is nothing that the police do in that movie that is 'bad' per say (at least nothing I remember) they just happen to be placed in an adversarial role to the good guys. A lot of times that is all you need. The 'antagonists' in that story are perfect for what is needed.

Psychopathic antagonists are so _pass_é.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (May 14, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Psychopathic antagonists are so _pass_é.



But they are so _fun_. 

Seriously, though--antagonists who just happen to be antagonists because of the circumstances do work for some stories, but I personally like, in reading and writing, _bad_ bad guys. They may genuinely believe that what they are doing is right, but the lies they believe lead them into evil. Alternately, they are aware that they are evil, but don't care (or maybe that's their goal).

Also, I agree it's useful to think of a villain as the "protagonist of their own story." It helps you understand why they do what they do and avoids a villain that's bad for no reason. Hellraiser pulled this off well. The "monster" (Frank) had clear motivations but was still clearly evil.


----------



## BornForBurning (May 14, 2019)

> In a story like Thelma & Louise, 'the law' are the antagonists and yet there is nothing that the police do in that movie that is 'bad' per say (at least nothing I remember) they just happen to be placed in an adversarial role to the good guys. A lot of times that is all you need. The 'antagonists' in that story are perfect for what is needed.


Honestly this. The only real set in stone role of an antagonist is to oppose the protagonist. Everything else really depends on what kind of story you are writing. Sometimes the antagonist isn't really a character, or even an animate being. What kind of antagonist you want depends on what kind of problem you want your protagonist to struggle with.


----------



## Chris Stevenson (May 14, 2019)

I understand your question and I think I might have some of the answer to it. I wrote about creating a believable antag in my blog and used an example. You can check it out here in Guerrilla Warfare for Writers:

https://guerrillawarfareforwriters.blogspot.com/2013/01/creating-vile-believable-antagonist.html


----------



## luckyscars (May 14, 2019)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> But they are so _fun_.
> 
> Seriously, though--antagonists who just happen to be antagonists because of the circumstances do work for some stories, but I personally like, in reading and writing, _bad_ bad guys. They may genuinely believe that what they are doing is right, but the lies they believe lead them into evil. Alternately, they are aware that they are evil, but don't care (or maybe that's their goal).
> 
> Also, I agree it's useful to think of a villain as the "protagonist of their own story." It helps you understand why they do what they do and avoids a villain that's bad for no reason. Hellraiser pulled this off well. The "monster" (Frank) had clear motivations but was still clearly evil.



Some of this might be genre. Fantasy, for instance, tends to involve more stark contrasts between good and evil. Although I was under the impression that has been changing, I guess there's always going to be a market for traditional 'Sauron' bad guys. A lot of horror certainly is about pushing the limits of depravity. Again, I believe that's changing.

Anyway, so you can have *your* antagonist be whatever. The important thing is simply to say they don't have to be anything EXCEPT an adversary to your protagonist. Beyond that, pick from the buffet. Personally, I seldom get excited about extreme-evil types of characters. There's only so many ways you can rape a corpse or eat a baby or burn a village down, you know?


----------



## L2me (May 15, 2019)

I was going to say that some of the most interesting characters that i love from any fiction can be people i know little about or, people that i know their entire back story. depends how much mystery you want to add to a character or how much you want people to empathise with or be antagonised by. 
i think that characters actions or more important that back story, but whatever keeps people turning the page i guess.


----------



## BornForBurning (May 15, 2019)

> I guess there's always going to be a market for traditional 'Sauron' bad guys


I'd argue that Sauron isn't really a character per se. He's more of a mythological force of evil. Don't take this as a criticism of Tolkien, I've read Lord of the Rings six times. But Saruman is a character. He has personality and motivations. Sauron does not. 


> There's only so many ways you can rape a corpse or eat a baby or burn a village down, you know?


I'd have to disagree with this, especially the idea that an 'extreme-evil' character has to rape a corpse or eat a baby. It's about the mythological/spiritual core of what evil actually is. Eating a baby is just a proxy for that core idea. Sometimes a serpent encircling the sun is far creepier than any gore porn.


----------



## luckyscars (May 16, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> I'd argue that Sauron isn't really a character per se. He's more of a mythological force of evil. Don't take this as a criticism of Tolkien, I've read Lord of the Rings six times. But Saruman is a character. He has personality and motivations. Sauron does not.



Semantics. Not sure where the line is drawn between a very simple character and a 'force of evil' but even if we accept Sauron is not a character then surely you agree he is an antagonist, right? Because that's the point of the thread. Whether you think he is a character or not is irrelevant. 

 Essentially Tolkien, who was a well-known Bible Thumper, created Sauron as a somewhat lazy (by his standards) stand-in for The Devil. And my point is, is I don't think most modern fiction should be going down that route with antagonists. I think most readers are rather fatigued by it.



BornForBurning said:


> I'd have to disagree with this, especially the idea that an 'extreme-evil' character has to rape a corpse or eat a baby. It's about the mythological/spiritual core of what evil actually is. Eating a baby is just a proxy for that core idea. Sometimes a serpent encircling the sun is far creepier than any gore porn.



My point was to give examples of the kind of tired horses that are still consistently flogged by authors hoping to stir controversy. 

Look, three hundred years ago, you could simply write a story with a character who burns a church and have that character be viewed as shockingly evil. Since then, and in the last 100 years in particular, the western world has become increasingly tolerant as far as levels of depravity. To the point I would say there is very little left that is shocking in terms of evil acts. I suppose baby eating is still upsetting, but not much else.

Now maybe I'm just untalented but I personally find it very difficult to write an Extreme Evil character, because I'm not really sure what that character would do. It seems that just having them do really bad things would be insufficient, because there really isn't that much, is there? 

In literature, incest isn't considered particularly shocking anymore. Theft is normal. Nobody cares about blasphemy or apostasy whatsoever. Rape is still unpleasant, but is extremely common as a plot device and often redeemable so hardly qualifies enough on its own. Murder is always 'bad' but is all over the place and nobody cares about the simple act of one character killing another...so no, evil acts? Evil _acts _don't hardly exist in terms of shock value.

So how to we 'write evil'? I think it's about putting those acts in a context that actually brings out the emotional stakes. Murder isn't considered terribly shocking, but murdering somebody who loves you and who you love in a story that eloquently captures the emotions...that's different. Even if the method of murder is nothing particularly barbaric.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (May 16, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Evil _acts _don't hardly exist in terms of shock value.
> 
> So how to we 'write evil'? I think it's about putting those acts in a context that actually brings out the emotional stakes. Murder isn't considered terribly shocking, but murdering somebody who loves you and who you love in a story that eloquently captures the emotions...that's different. Even if the method of murder is nothing particularly barbaric.



Right, it's about capturing the emotional/spiritual core of the evil, not just the external act. If modern readers aren't shocked or disgusted by evil, authors have the power to maneuver language, characters, and scenes in such a way to show evil for what it is.


----------



## tzebley (Jul 2, 2019)

Thank you for this section. It was really informative. I have a project I am fooling around with and I almost posted a similar question to this.


----------



## Periander (Jul 2, 2019)

JJBuchholz said:


> When I develop an antagonist, I think of the following criteria:
> 
> 1) What is their motivation for being a villain?
> 2) How do they relate to the protagonist?
> ...



These are good questions.  I'd like to add that an antagonist need not be "evil", per se, but his/her goals must conflict with the objective of the protagonist in some way.  The drama in the story stems from this central conflict.  Ostensibly, it could be about anything, and the antagonist could even be a "good guy" who is trying to stop the protagonist from committing a terrible mass murder.

Part of what makes a good writer, I think, is the ability to make us able to relate to the needs and desires of the main character, even if she or he just so happens to be a rather despicable personality.  Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment is all about a murderer, but we come to see the world from his eyes and can pity his efforts to love and be loved, which are misguided, perhaps, but still utterly relatable.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 2, 2019)

Periander said:


> These are good questions.  I'd like to add that an antagonist need not be "evil", per se, but his/her goals must conflict with the objective of the protagonist in some way.  The drama in the story stems from this central conflict.  Ostensibly, it could be about anything, and the antagonist could even be a "good guy" who is trying to stop the protagonist from committing a terrible mass murder.
> 
> Part of what makes a good writer, I think, is the ability to make us able to relate to the needs and desires of the main character, even if she or he just so happens to be a rather despicable personality.  Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment is all about a murderer, but we come to see the world from his eyes and can pity his efforts to love and be loved, which are misguided, perhaps, but still utterly relatable.


 
This is actually a theme I want to explore in my own novel's. Not having a real villain per say but an antagonist that is working towards a noble goal in there own right.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 3, 2019)

I think it's exceptionally important to have a backstory in mind for your antagonist(s), even if nothing of this past is revealed. Knowing what's back there and who you're dealing with will help you write that person more consistently than winging it and treating the character like a plot device and not a person. Mysterious bad guys are great, too, but having at least an inkling of what's in your villain's closet can actually help you better build that mystery to make this person believable. It's easier to write in those hints at a past, a mystery, a personality at all if you know at least most of the truth. 

I hate evil-for-the-sake-of-being-evil, but I understand that it's a genre trope because at least someone out there likes it. The actual demons I've written aren't even that kind of evil. I've written all kind of sick, twisted characters, but I just can't bring myself to make someone totally evil, totally non-redeemable, and paper thin like that. It's just too boring.


----------



## Kid Author (Jul 3, 2019)

I think that developing and antagonist is almost as important as developing a protagonist.


----------



## velo (Jul 3, 2019)

Theglasshouse said:


> The great book of Amber is useful since it has a lot of mysterious antagonists. Including one that wears a mask. Roger Zelazney wrote that one ( the series).



The picture below is taken from google maps showing the "Artists at Play" exhibit at Seattle Center (where the Space Needle is).  I've always thought this is what the Pattern of Amber looks like...it probably wasn't based on it but it kind of blew my mind the fist time I saw it.


----------



## Jorge (Jul 4, 2019)

It's possible and makes the story more exciting with that element of mystery.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jul 5, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> I hate evil-for-the-sake-of-being-evil, but I understand that it's a genre trope because at least someone out there likes it. The actual demons I've written aren't even that kind of evil. I've written all kind of sick, twisted characters, but I just can't bring myself to make someone totally evil, totally non-redeemable, and paper thin like that. It's just too boring.


I get what you're saying for human characters, but for me the point of having a character who's an actual demon or supernatural being (or an alien so alien it's basically supernatural) is that those characters can be purely evil (or ambivalent) forces. The alien in Alien was never humanized--because the whole point is that it's _not_ human. I feel the same way about demons. The only reason I'd write a demon is to write an inhuman character; why would I then humanize them?


----------



## ironpony (Jul 5, 2019)

Theglasshouse said:


> Very important since a villain is a source of conflict even though some stories have no villain. Even inner conflict can be the villiain. In a novel imo a villain is worth the time to write. It has to do with your beliefs, morality, and experience. We all have it even if not religious. How to go about is different for each writer. Some use real people, some people from the past ( people who are famous and historical). While others use myer briggs. A journal is helpful for me though since characterization expresses emotion. It is more deserving than plot to focus on. Myer Briggs is useful in helping characters overcome obstacles, how they react, and maybe what motivates them. Motive is the why. Think why does it happen? We each all have our subconscious beliefs and it's all part of the subconscious process. Knowing the hero's journey is helpful. A villain is just one type of character. It's worth reading the hero's journey and some examples of each and why they are important. Think of backstory as the emotional scar or the wound of a character that motivates them into action. The inciting incident can be a decent motivator as well.
> 
> As for a total mystery I am sorry since I need to read more such as the book you mentioned. While not qualified to answer your question I think it can be done. The great book of Amber is useful since it has a lot of mysterious antagonists. Including one that wears a mask. Roger Zelazney wrote that one ( the series).



I would also agree with this, is that the antagonist is the source of conflict.  Do you have the what, of what you want your antagonist to do, just not the way, maybe?


----------



## Sir-KP (Jul 5, 2019)

Antagonist is just a character who does the exact opposite thing of what the protagonist does


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 5, 2019)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> I get what you're saying for human characters, but for me the point of having a character who's an actual demon or supernatural being (or an alien so alien it's basically supernatural) is that those characters can be purely evil (or ambivalent) forces. The alien in Alien was never humanized--because the whole point is that it's _not_ human. I feel the same way about demons. The only reason I'd write a demon is to write an inhuman character; why would I then humanize them?



***Having finally finished this post, I've suddenly realized that most of this is in no way necessarily applicable to antagonists, specifically, even if a lot of it pertains to worldbuilding and characters generally. I'm not the type of author who ascribes to good guy/bad guy relationships in general, so I'm not likely to advocate for any type of character being strictly typecast as a villain***

I think the market's saturated with 2D evil. It's boring. 2D evil ain't pushing writing boundaries. Any hack can do it. 

The Alien isn't evil. It's an animal. I'll die on this hill. It doesn't need to be humanized--just like the insects it was largely based upon. Just because it isn't human doesn't mean it will be a good POV character for a long stretch though (if at all). 

There are LOTS of other ways to write an "inhuman" character. Wanna push boundaries with character writing? Come up with novel aliens, AI, creatures with no physical bodies, creatures without a humanoid form, or just write human characters with mental illnesses. I've accidentally written mental illnesses. It's always fun to have someone point out a character is autistic/a sociopath/has major league dissociative disorders/whatever. However, I've found that if someone intentionally tries to make a character suffer mental illness, they tend to do it badly and can accidentally offend professionals and persons intimate with the disorder. This unfortunately seems to contribute to a startling lack of people even attempting to represent persons who suffer the disease in fiction, which I think might be even worse than writing them cheesily (by comparison, villainous persons with marked disorders aren't uncommon, and I hate this). So far, nobody's complained if I just let the disorder happen on its own at the intersection of the character and what I've put said character through. If you want to push some tough boundaries, give the world a sensitive, heartwarming take on schizophrenia.

I have a lot of not-human characters. I haven't written quite a number of the really "out there" beings because 1) no one's consciously aware of their interference in the narrative at hand, 2) they usually make for crappy POV characters, so readers don't like them. A character need not be human or humanized to be interesting (though there might be limits on what qualifies as a character, per se, as opposed to a force of nature, animal, part of the setting, etc.), but not all interesting characters need be POV characters. How a given "out there" critter or perspective fits into the narrative needs to be addressed from the onset of the writing process. Sometimes it's tempting to just let the weirdie walk on set, but it'll probably muck up your story (but might be the only interesting thing about the story when it's done mucking up everything you planned). 

For instance, I've got a few races of entities which are pure willpower incarnate. They exist because they say so. I've written several POV characters which are part-these-things, even, and it can be super difficult to explain them in-world and make them believable. One of the most fascinating of the pure-willpower bunch probably won't show up in my fiction (he died before the narrative--all but one of the old gods was wiped out in antiquity). I realized he was basically deaf (at best, mortals all sound like Charlie Brown's parents--as incomprehensible to him as the sonnets of worms are to us) and has a lot of difficulty feeling pretty much everything that mortals feel--hot, cold, flavor, smell, texture, pain, pressure, etc. He sees fine, but not necessarily with his eyes. Gender is a fascinating thing to play with when the critter in question isn't born with and doesn't need a sex or a gender, by the way. Most willpower races wind up very Lovecraftian, in my experience. If they're sufficiently alien from people, they aren't generally empathetic enough to be benefactors. Even benefactors with that kind of power can go full Wrath of God on people after getting sick of our crap, so in this way, really powerful beings aren't necessarily any more or less dangerous for being antagonistic, ambivalent, apathetic or beneficent to mortal races. Best place in a narrative for such OP gods seems to be in the annals of world history, unless you're going Bloodborne or Lovecraft on that narrative (but even then, a ton of history serves to add substantial depth to the worldbuilding and impress just how ancient and alien these creatures are for the readers and MCs). Cthulu isn't Cthulu if he's a POV. It robs the gods of their alien-ness and mystery, and that's the very stuff these critters subsist on for cosmic horror to work. While the Lovecraft's "the Outsider" features such an abomination as a POV, it's deliberately humanized and not that powerful in the cosmic sense. 

I play with demons and Fallen being different monsters. The two "demons" I've written the most are both incubi with partial mortal ancestry. They're fun to play with as men with decided flaws (readers seemed to like them more for being demons who tried to overcome these flaws than they probably would have if they had just been normal, tempted men, so the fiendish heritage served as a nice quick explanation and even a source of sympathy. Women readers tend to LOATHE cheating husbands... but they loved these guys). One is boundlessly generous, heart-on-his-sleeve extrovert with massive ADHD, who's utterly whimsical, terribly sensitive, easily tempted by sex and has a huge paternity drive--absolutely loves children and adopts like crazy. Part of his inner turmoil comes from having married a cool-tempered barren woman. He is very powerful but largely because his boundless curiosity and desperate need for affirmation and to be useful all the time has pushed him to a far greater understanding of magic (also, in the attempt to "fix" his wife). The other incubus is a stylish, abrasive, intellectual, snob and devout atheist, who was very committed to "waiting for marriage" just to spite the incredible temptation he felt after being scorned by a would-be lover as a young man. However, his oppressive need to leave a lasting impression on the universe and become powerful for power's sake still ties in with the overall need and purpose of sex/fatherhood, proving that he couldn't really escape his nature completely (and didn't necessarily need to). Both characters became professors of magic, eventually, and this completed both character arcs because now both were able to have their need for having/teaching/nurturing children fulfilled, left a legacy, proved how amazing/useful/needed/powerful they were, and finally obtained the respect and notice they craved while finding a place in the world.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jul 6, 2019)

@seigfried007 I think I agree with you, mostly, especially about non-human characters not being POV characters. That's inherently humanizing, and a human Cthulhu is not Cthulhu at all. I guess that I generally approach demons the same way, as "forces," like the Cenobites in Hellraiser or the demons in Evil Dead. I don't ask for stories to be realistic, but I do ask for them to be believable. Usually suspension of disbelief is pretty easy for me, but for some reason, probably personal preference/experience, I find "human" demons hard to believe. Your two characters sound more like humans with magic powers than demons, and as a reader I'd interpret them as such.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 6, 2019)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> I don't ask for stories to be realistic, but I do ask for them to be believable.



Interesting...


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 7, 2019)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> @seigfried007 I think I agree with you, mostly, especially about non-human characters not being POV characters. That's inherently humanizing, and a human Cthulhu is not Cthulhu at all. I guess that I generally approach demons the same way, as "forces," like the Cenobites in Hellraiser or the demons in Evil Dead. I don't ask for stories to be realistic, but I do ask for them to be believable. Usually suspension of disbelief is pretty easy for me, but for some reason, probably personal preference/experience, I find "human" demons hard to believe. Your two characters sound more like humans with magic powers than demons, and as a reader I'd interpret them as such.



Well, seeing as how demons have never come out of hiding to be scientifically studied, I can write them however I please. That said, I've written them many ways. There's the "mindless, hopeless evil that can no more change it's emotional state than a fire can cease being warm", the "intelligent creature predisposed to certain sins/character flaws/evil/selfishness", the "elemental of evil" and... the Fallen. The big thing that turns me off "pure evil" is that the "pure evil" entities in question are always portrayed as being intelligent--even by human standards, and "always chaotic evil" implies a total lack of ability to change. If they can't change their minds, can they be intelligent? can they have free will? And the conclusion that I came to was that they can't be that intelligent and be completely stuck with no hope of change. They might be unwilling to change due to all kinds of societal, cultural, instinctive, constraints or it may be due to a personal issue and conscious will to be "evil". Perhaps their character arcs led them to a point where "evil" is inescapable, even if they weren't "born that way"/"stuck that way". Having the ability to change makes them far more compelling and opens up all kinds of interesting possibilities--ones that disappear when an author denies  denies them free will/agency in their own lives. How can something be truly intelligent without the power for introspection and self-determination? Otherwise, they're not "intelligent" but ... puppets... just being pulled along for the whims of author and plot... or else, nothing but an animal. Without the ability to introspect and reflect on one's actions and motivations, a creature cannot truly be evil (or good).

Fallen are interesting to run into and try to get in the heads of for me. Basically, in my view, a Fallen is an entity of pure willpower but one created by God after God (because God, by nature, always existed) and is, therefore, subject to time (there was a point at which it did not exist; ergo, it's not actually an eternal creature) and not omnipresent/omniscient (there are some very neat arguments about being one of those three O's leads to being all three out there. Basically, one can't be all powerful without knowing everything and being everywhere/everywhen, and taking one leg out of that God Chair denies complete God-hood). I run Fallen as very specific and exceedingly powerful entities which have all/most of the powers attributed to gods/God by others (making creatures, peoples, worlds, planets, warping time and reality itself, etc). As the invention of evil is attributed to Fallen, it makes for a fascinating thought experiment to try to recreate the invention of evil--and to get into the heads of the sorts of creatures who would do such a thing. Haven't written them directly as POVs and have no plans to, even if some have directed events in the background and screwed things up for POV characters. As highly intelligent entities with far fewer limitations than mortals, they nevertheless retain the ability to change and can become/do "good" for any number of reasons--even if they overwhelmingly choose to remain "evil" (again, each having different reasons and motivations for doing so--just like other characters). Essentially, their only weaknesses are character flaws. A lack of stimulation, in many ways, is the most dangerous thing for a creature whose body is its soul is its power. To forget oneself is to cease existing in this case. Depression and self-doubt are truly crippling when the source of one's power is one's mind. To be weak-willed is to be weak. This is part of why so many are drawn to greater "evil"--just to stay active and, in their own way, sociable, because it's through social interaction that willpower is tested, strengthened and refined. Passion is a great source of strength, but it can be difficult to remain passionate when one has seen everything, done everything, tried it all. When complacency is so weakening, one might even think that war was inevitable just to keep the species alive (which is a pretty fascinating concept). 

Re:Incubus
Unlike other demons, incubi/succubi are prevalent in pop culture to the point where lots of people are familiar enough with the term such that I can use it as authorial/metaphorical shorthand. The majority of "demons" in fiction are either 1) trash in erotic fiction, 2) 2D pure evil trash. I wanted to use the concept to add a level of depth to these troubled characters, and it worked with my readers. Most female readers don't find a regular old cheating husband compelling, but making him an incubus who is trying to be a good person and failing miserably actually served to make him more sympathetic--and that's what I was going for, so it worked. 

If such a creature as an incubus actually existed, I don't believe such a creature would be as compelling, warm and understandable as the characters I wrote (who were part mortal for a reason). But such a creature would also make for a crappy POV character... and not a real character anyway, in all possibility.  I think real Biblical demons (if they existed at all) would be closer to Fallen, and the idea of something with such immense experience, age, intelligence and power debasing itself by... what? Knocking up mortals with deformed babies? Raping mortals? Causing miscarriages? It's ridiculous. These are all things we do to ourselves! Why would anything so powerful do something like that? Isn't that.. small fry evil-doing? Wouldn't that get dreadfully boring and under-stimulating in a fairly short while (relatively speaking, since these creatures don't get old and die)? And when one considers that demons don't need to reproduce sexually (and in some versions of the myth, can't reproduce sexually), the idea of them having sex with mortals seems so silly. The whole purpose of sexual reproduction is to continue a species and add genetic variety--but such creatures don't need either because they don't die in the first place, and reproducing in and of itself actually creates more competition (but could only make an entity which is younger and unable to understand the events that led to the parent entity becoming a Fallen in the first place). If their greatest weaknesses involve boredom, loneliness, depression, anxiety, doubt... and warfare with each other, making another creature with the power to hurt them is probably viewed as a form of self-sabotage (these are, after all, creatures which betrayed their benevolent creator and fellow angels. Profound loyalty and affection would probably viewed as setting oneself up for misery and eventual death). Also, being so much older and more powerful than mortals, they'd be more likely to view mortals in a similar manner to how we view animals, I'd think. Again, it's an interesting thought experiment, but one that doesn't necessarily make for good novel fodder.


----------



## waterborne (Jul 9, 2019)

I often write without an antagonist, but instead make interests clash and use a lot of internal conflict. I find that a significant portion of the time that antagonists are unrealistic.


----------



## AndreaStory90 (Jul 11, 2019)

exactly.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jul 11, 2019)

@waterborne - that's basically what the protagonist/antagonist conflict is--clashing interests. Sometimes the antagonist is villainous, but sometimes, like what you seem to be describing, they're not. You can have an antagonist who is a good guy or even the hero of the story. L was the antagonist in DeathNote.


----------



## CyberWar (Jul 12, 2019)

I think the best antagonists can be made by observing "banality of evil" - that evil people in the real world mostly aren't deranged psychopaths, let alone supervillain-esque caricatures who commit their villainous deeds just so that they can twirl their mustache, rub their fingers and cackle sinisterly about how terrible and evil they are. I think a great antagonist is a character who could easily pass for a regular, relateable person, even a likeable one, were it not for circumstances and choices that put him firmly into the villain camp. Even better, if the antagonist cannot even be unambiguously qualified as a villain, i.e., consciously and intentionally immoral/evil character. 

One of the best examples, I think, is Inspector Javert from "_Les Miserables_" - what marks him as the nominal villain of the novel is the excessive zeal with which he strives to do good rather than any innate evilness on his part. He can be described as a humorless and overzealous martinet, but in no way a typical "evil" villain. I think Javert embodies that "banality of evil" that actually characterizes most real-life, and most good fictional villains - what makes them evil isn't innate cruelty or depravity, but rather an overzealous or misguided desire to do good, often combined with a flawed belief in what is good to begin with. The Nazis are another shining real-world example of this "banality of evil" - the absolute majority of them weren't depraved sadists, but ordinary patriotic Germans who loved their country and dutifully obeyed a government they sincerely believed would make Germany great again. Adolf Eichmann, one of the chief architects of the Holocaust, is often cited as a shining example of a "banally evil" person. He wasn't a sadist or sociopath, and not even particularly anti-Semitic. If anything, he was a rather mediocre "regular guy" personality whose chief quality was diligence in duty. It was chiefly this dilligence - in itself a good quality - combined with personal career ambition that drove him to become the notorious war criminal that he is now known to be. Being the dutiful and punctual upstanding citizen and soldier that he was, Eichmann carried out his every appointed task meticulously, not concerning himself with the fact that these tasks revolved around planning a genocide - though at that point, he wasn't in any position to object. Ultimately, Eichmann was doomed to his fate not because he was an innately cruel or evil person, but by uncritical use of his own good qualities for evil ends.


----------

