Writing Article: Villains and Antagonists
Added 2017-10-04 12:24:43 +0000 UTCThey're important to the flow of the story, but many antagonists are treat as nothing more than "evil for the sake of evil" cardboard cut-outs, and that's a mistake.
In this article, we look at what aspects make up a good villain, using examples from movies, literature and anime.
Comments
I have to respectfully disagree with you on the lord of the rings (though agree on most else). That was actually just not remotely true. It was not poorly received before the movies, but actually already a classic and often credited with creating the modern fantasy genre. It was a 'classic' as early as the 60s... and actually played a surprisingly large roll in the protests of that era. And in Literature circles... especially fantasy but beyond that in the mainstream... it has been a huge deal for decades. They were teaching whole classes about it before the movies. Dozens of books and articles analyzing it. Millions of copies sold. All before the movies. So respectfully disagree there. Everything else you said im fully on board with!
OsRavan
2019-06-09 01:49:40 +0000 UTCHi, new patreon here. I’ve just read the Villain piece and am pleasing surprised to see Adam as a ‘good’ example. Out of my group of friends I’m the only one who likes him. But my main question is that is it possible to have a purely abstract enemy like the Grimm as they are more a force of nature rather than an antagonist. Would it be a similar thing about making them a threat while not making them mooks? Or is they’re a difference in how this style of antagonist should be written? Anyway, if going to read some more articles now and thank you for the hours of entertainment you provide with your work.
Connor Whyte
2017-10-20 21:07:32 +0000 UTCFair enough. I think I'd prefer articles on things you feel confident about. Write what you know, teach what you know.
eidolic
2017-10-04 19:37:01 +0000 UTCFirst person madness descent is way too specialised a topic, I'm afraid. I could give it a go, but lacking any experience in it - and there are few who even try to write it - I'd essentially be lecturing off the top of my head. I'm not sure I'd consider that good instruction, however. The simplest suggestion I would make on such a topic would be to not make it obvious. I know some people like to write the text going crazy or starting to spell or grammar wrong, but that would just push a reader away, I imagine. Unless you want this character to only have small segments every now and then. I'd instead suggest slowly making the content seem more unusual, stretching into the bizarre, and then do a twist later where someone reveals that much of it is in the narrator's mind.
Coeur al'Aran
2017-10-04 19:31:06 +0000 UTCI have to agree with berserkers not really being a good example of madness. I was thinking more along the madness in Tsukihime (perhaps 'lunacy' would be a better word). Something about the first-person descent is just so interesting to me, so maybe I'm just bias.
eidolic
2017-10-04 19:28:07 +0000 UTCI believe Chigurh counts as a "psycho character", i.e. someone who isn't supposed to follow any of the scales because he is meant to be inhuman. In fact, I'm fairly sure the writers said they wanted him to essentially be Terminator, but for them not to get sued. In that case, it's true that you can get away with just ignoring it all, but it's still a big gamble. It's easier in movies than literature, and that's probably best shown in Lord of the Rings. The book was actually quite poorly received, and only truly started to become the cult classic it is once the movies were out. Madness is a... strange topic. It only really works in psychological thrillers or horror, neither of which I am particularly fond of. It normally manifests in the antagonist, but in those cases is often just a case of the stupider and more ostentatious you write it, the better it works. Take the Joker, for instance. He's a cult classic, but I wouldn't call it impressive writing. It's more that his personality (and often those playing him on screen) have drawn audiences. I would actually say Nasu does madness poorly, in that their "berserker" Classes don't really seem all that mad. Madness is more than just shouting unintelligibly all the time.
Coeur al'Aran
2017-10-04 19:24:41 +0000 UTCAnother great article, and one that I've been waiting for for a long time. However, I can't help but think that this set of rules is one that is broken fairly often in popular culture, and can be done so to great effect. Best example I can think of is No Country for Old Men, and Anton Chigurh. He's about as unsympathetic a villain as it gets. Using the model from the article: Capability: Skilled hitman with a cattle gun. Relentless. Motive: Retrieve the money? No, he turns it down. Kill the main character? But he doesn't stop once he's dead. His motives are cloudy at best. Personality: Blunt and extremely uncomfortable to be around. Reason to oppose protagonist: Again, he turns down the money. And it's not out of loyalty to his contract, cause he kills his contractor and still chases him. Sympathetic Reason: I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly can't think of a reason to sympathize with him. He seems more like a monster than a human, an agent who follows his own rules for his own reasons. An inherently mysterious force. And he's (imo) one of the most compelling villains put to film in a very long time. Also, always suspected you were a Nasu fan to some degree, glad to see it's true. Any chance you'll ever cover how to write madness?
eidolic
2017-10-04 18:42:39 +0000 UTC
