Being a Better Writer: I, Villain · 10:46pm Jun 9th, 2014
Advance Warning: today's post is going to involve copious amounts of spoilers from everything from games to movies to books. Most of them will be fairly obvious and over a year in age, but I'm giving this whole entry an advance warning anyway. Spoilers be beyond here.
Villains.
I think it says something about us that while some people can't name a favorite hero, almost everyone can remember a favorite villain (or "not favorite," as the case may be). Darth Vader. Truth. Smaug. Agent Smith. Brother Jon. The Lord Ruler. The Joker.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. The point is, you can ask just about anyone who there "favorite" villain is, the one who gave them shivers as a child or as an adult, and most of them will be able to think of someone. Villains are just as much a part of a good story as anything else. They haunt our heroes' nightmares and waking moments, stalk them from behind the scenes, threaten them and their loved ones. Or maybe they don't even notice the hero at first, to preoccupied with their quest for power as they dominate nations. Or maybe, just maybe, they're on the heroes' "side," carefully playing within the rules—but only just, all while smiling a sickly sweet grin that promises of future darkness.
So today, I'm taking a request topic, and we're going to talk about villains—good ones. We're going to talk about how you make an antagonist that sits in your readers mind, that's just as memorable as the hero is, who worries your fans every time they make an appearance. The kind that haunts your reader's mind long after the book is gone, that sits in the back of their head like a song they can't stop thinking about. So buckle up, because here we go.
Understanding the Need for a Villain
Do you need me?
The first question you need to ask yourself with your story is do I need a villain? Not every story does. There are plenty of stories out there where the main character is their own antagonist, or where the character faces a rival rather than a true villain, a rival who might not be on the same side of the hero, but isn't explicitly against them either. Don't feel the need to shoehorn a villain into a story that doesn't need one. Take a step back, look at your basic plot (because a villain is something you'll be deciding on quite early) and ask yourself what adding a villain could add to your story, but also take away. Is there a theme in mind that would be weakened by a villain's actions? Would the story be weaker if the spotlight were splitting its time between your main character and your villain? Stronger? Is your heroes' portrayal going to be strengthened by their interaction with the villain, or weakened?
Recognize that a villain is a fully fledged force in any story they are part of. Antagonists, rivals, opposition, these are all things that a hero can run into while keeping the focus on themselves. But a villain is a different story. Once you bring villain into your story, a true villain, they're just as much of a character as the hero is, and they're going to get a share of that attention. Electro and the Green Goblin (Hobgoblin?) in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 are both strong examples of this. Once they're introduced, they hold as much sway over the story, if not more, as Peter Parker does. Once you set out to include a villain, you're ceding a portion of your heroes' story and journey over to them. A villain is going to color most, if not all, of your entire work. Another great example: Loki, from the Marvel film franchise. How many of those films has Loki played a direct hand in to date? Thor, The Avengers, Thor: The Dark World ... and you can see his hand in a few of the others as well, indirectly. If you don't want that split and intensity of focus with something hanging ominously in the background, you don't want a villain.
And don't need one. Don't make the mistake of thinking your adventure needs a villain. There are some stories that work just as well without a villain. Inherit the Stars, for example, has absolutely no villain of any kind. Nor do the films Castaway or better yet Twelve Angry Men. Classic themes of conflict—man versus nature, man versus technology, man versus self, to name a few—exist for a reason. The moment you bring a villain into your story, realize that your conflict is going to change from versus self, to versus man (or force/demon/whatever the villain is).
So, before you set out to make your villain, take a moment to sit back and determine if you need one. Check your themes, where you want your hero to go. Will a villain help that or hurt? If the answer comes up with the latter, then perhaps it's best you save your villain for another day, in a story where they'll strengthen the work, not weaken it.
The Memory
Die!
So, your story needs a villain. Where do you start with that?
The first place I like to begin is in thinking about what your audience is going to remember about this foe. What core image and emotion do you want them to fix in their mind when they think back on this character? This is the question you'll want to answer, because this will determine much of how you approach your character. Do you want your reader to feel uneasy and alarmed whenever the villain makes an appearance, or do you want them to feel intimidated? Maybe you even want to make them feel confident? Or respectful? These are all emotions and feelings that you can create a villain to evoke, but you're going to have to work towards that angle from the very beginning in order to achieve that vision. Will your villain be a "hands-off" villain like Radiant, hiding in the shadows and concealing their identity until they're ready to show their hand? Or will they be an unstoppable force who actively interacts with the hero and shapes the breadth and depth of your story's world, driving the story throughout the work?
Deciding what emotion's and feeling you want your villain to evoke first is an important choice, because that choice will mean everything that comes afterwards. Let's look at an example. One of my favorite villains is General Raam (whose image heads this topic) from Gears of War. Raam is interesting from a storytelling perspective because he's one of the few villains who thrives solely on presence alone. He hardly speaks, unless you count actions. He gives no backstory. But every facet of his design is themed towards one clear factor: intimidation. His introduction carries this feel as he casually walks right through a firefight and kills a character who until that point, had been calling the shots over the hero. Every one of his appearances is designed to intimidate the hero character (the player, in this case) and show just how ruthless and dangerous Raam is. As a villain he only appears a few times, but every time he does, the scene is written to imply to the viewer exactly how dangerous this foe is. Each of his appearances is designed to exemplify his menace. As a villain, that's really all Raam is: A menacing force. But because the creators wanted the viewer to take away that feeling of intimidation, to remember it, everything that came afterwards was a part of that design.
So, when you sit down to start with your villain, think about how you want your reader to regard them. What feelings will your villain evoke? Will this help the story? Play to its themes? Or will it be a distraction from them? Does the villain need to change, or will the story work better with the new theme? This is a part of the creative process, figuring out what will stand out to your reader about the villain. The villain for "Beyond the Borderlands" went through a couple of personality iterations before I hit on one that combined the almost rag-tag feel I was going for with confident threat. Now, small segments of that will likely flex as I work on the story, but at the same time the core will stay the same, and the villain fits right in with the "mood" of the story. If all goes as planned, readers will remember [REDACTED] for their casual, almost playful mask just as much they will the cold, calculating and ruthless intelligence and power behind it.
Motive
"I can help you."
Once you know what mood and emotion you want your hero to convey, now it's time to flesh them out. And one of the first things you'll need for your villain is motive.
Oh, how many seem to think that they can skip this step. The truth is, creating a villain who has no real reason to be a villain is simply creating a forgetful, throwaway character who won't stand out. You cannot simply explain to your audience that the villain is evil "because he is" or "because he wants to be." True villains aren't "villains" because they woke up and decided to slaughter a village. They're villains for a list of reasons (circumstance, choice, perspective, personality) just as much as your hero is a hero for their own list. Weak villains simply exist to stop the hero. A strong villain, on the other hand, has a motive.
Take Khan, in the header image. Star Trek into Darkness does a great job at developing Khan as a complex character aside the main cast. He's a villain with not only a plan, but objectives, motivations. These motivations have him playing sides, acting in complex ways, all to achieve his goals (which sometimes even the audience is unaware of). There's an impressive line about halfway through the plot where Khan tells Kirk "I can help you," which gets mirrored by Kirk a short time later when he makes the observation "I'm pretty sure we're the ones helping him."
The best part? Khan's motivation is something that not only the characters in the film relate to, but also the audience. He wants to save his crew, his family. "What would you do for your family?" he asks, and it forces the audience to think about it, to compare their own motivation to that of a known villain. The best villains have causes or beliefs that are in some way relatable to the audience, to the reader. Take a truth and put a single, different twist on it. These are the villains that stick with us the most, because they're the ones that we see shadows of ourselves in, that remind us that villainy really isn't that far removed from what we think of as normal behavior.
But that's just part of it. A villain with a good motive, a believable motive, is one that we can relate to. We might not agree with them, but we can understand how they became who they were, and see the mentality that makes their worldview. Remember, a villain often doesn't see themselves as a villain. To them, many times they're the "hero," willing to do what no one else will. If the reader understands this—and we don't need all the gritty details, after all, the story is about the hero—then the villain will be that much more memorable and real to them.
Make them Powerful
"Seven minutes. Seven minutes is all I can spare to play with you."
Now that you have a motive and a presence, it's time to give your villain some teeth. They need to be powerful, a foe who can go toe-to-toe with your hero on some level and succeed. A villain who can't threaten your hero isn't much of a villain at all. No, you want a villain with teeth.
So how do you do this? Well, think about the obstacles that you want to place in your characters path. Are they coming from the villain, directly or indirectly? What tools will your villain need to carry out such actions? Just as your hero is going to have a toolbox of skills, equipment, and abilities, so will your villain, and you need to decide what those are. More importantly, just as with your hero, you'll need to decide how they interrelate. These abilities and skills will shape your villains character, who they are. If your villain is going to pilot an attack chopper down the streets of New York, firing missiles at the hero, well buddy, you'd best have some plan for how she knows how to pilot that, as well as where she got the helicopter itself. Put those tools into their arsenal and ask how else they can use them. Did they steal the helicopter? Buy it? Were they once in the military (hint: this is why arms dealers make such popular pop culture villains—it's a simple explanation for quite a few villain skillsets)?
But don't misunderstand what I mean by power. A villain does not need to be physically impressive in order to be a threat. Once again, let's look at Mint and Radiant from "Rise." They weren't warriors like the Dusk Guard. They'd probably never had a fight in their lives. What they were was shrewd, revenge-minded businesswomen (businessmares?) who were able to successfully outwit a rival stockholder into carrying out a sequence of events that would leave them in control of the company they helped manage. Their power wasn't in their brawn (they had the golems for that) but in their brains and industry connections afforded by their position. Dorati from One Drink wasn't dangerous because of just her necromantic skill, but also because her job had put her in a unique position to extract her revenge. When you're building your villain, consider what tools, skill and equipment you're going to give them that will make them powerful.
Now, along with this, one question I've heard before is "how powerful?" A lot of young writers wonder exactly how much power they should give their villains. Should they be balanced with the heroes? Weaker?
Nope. I say, make 'em strong. A villain is a challenge, a monumental foe. Metaphorically speaking, you don't want your villain to be a speedbump on the heroes' road, you want them to be an oncoming semi, a powerful force that pushes your character to the limit and forces them to grow, develop, and be clever to win. Don't make your villain a pushover. If your hero is a nine on your imaginary power scale, make your villain a ten. Or an eleven. Push your hero. Make a foe that's smarter, or tougher, or faster. Something better that requires real effort to overcome.
if you're having trouble with this, think of a villain as another, stronger character. They have weaknesses and flaws, just like your hero. They have skills and talents, just like your hero. They have wants and personality. All of these play into their "power."
"Visual" Design
I didn't look like this yesterday.
Now, with all this, keep in mind that another thing that you want to consider is what this villain looks like. We're writers, which means we're helping our readers paint a visual image of our scenes, adventures, and characters. And our villain, make no mistake, is a character.
So, with everything that you've come up with so far (their impression on the reader, their motive, their strengths and weaknesses), what sort of look and descriptive wordswill make your villain stand out to the reader? How will their dialogue differ from other characters? How will you describe their actions? The way they move? Their expressions? Are they quick and liquid smooth with their actions? Or are they jerky and stilted? How does that fit their character? Their abilities?
This is all stuff to consider, as once again, as how your reader visualizes and perceives your villain matters just as much as how you perceive them. Your words must imply their design, not only their looks but also their personality and moods. Previously I've talked about how characters in my works have their own narration style that follows them around, the word choices of particular chapters and segments being determined by the character the story is currently following.
Villains can benefit greatly from the same treatment, even inside a character's view. Is the villain described with words that would make a reader think of unyielding stone or concrete, or with words that remind them of something natural, organic? Your choice of words and phrases will effect how your readers envision your villain, so make certain you don't inspire the wrong ideas. A villain who until now has been a willowy weakling physically overpowering a character, for example, might raise eyebrows.
Then again, that might be part of the plan. Plan accordingly.
Introduction and Growth
Striding right into your memories...
Now it's time to put it all together. To take your villain and insert them into your world. But before you do, a few last things to make sure of.
First, keep in mind how you're going to introduce your villain. A villain who makes a grand, bombastic entrance, like Vader in the header, is going to leave a clear impact on the reader. This villain is announcing his presence to all, and guarantees that your reader will be fixing on their every appearance after that.
But do you want that? What if you don't want the villain to be suspected of actually being such, or want them to appear weaker than they really are. Again, with Radiant and Mint in "Rise," the first introduction of the pair happens quite early on, in chapter 11, where they're part of the stockholders meeting with the princess (the title number was actually a bit of an amusing stealth pun). Of course, since their actions are completely overshadowed by Golden, and even seem kind rather than self-serving, no one ever guessed that the villains of the book where right there. Even later, when they show up again, they come off as somewhat snooty and standoffish, not as the dangerous, conniving threat they are. Meanwhile, the reader is left to form their opinions of the "villain" based on the events the characters encounter, such as the golems. By the time the reveal occurs, most readers have already painted a mental picture of the villain's personality based on the golems and their actions. Only when they find out who do they attach the face to the personality.
We talked about impressions. How you introduce your villain plays a large part in that, and should reflect in your design. A bombastic villain isn't going to bide their time without good reason, while a stealthy conniving one won't make a grand show that tips their hand unless they're either sure they've won ... or only want you to think that's their hand.
Along the same lines, once you've introduced your villain, don't neglect their growth. As the story moves forward and new events happen, they should react as well as act on the hero. Take Kung Fu Panda 2. The villain, Lord Shen, set out on his path as a result of a prophecy. Later in the film, he discovers that the actions that led to his exile (genocide, actually) were for nothing, and he's given the choice to stop his path since the purpose was a sham. He reacts by deciding that even so, he's come this far, why turn back now when he's so close to taking over China, even if his original intent was a complete failure? When presented with something that changed his worldview, he adjusts along with it (although not in the way anyone hopes).
Likewise, our villain needs to adapt and grow as the situation demands. If they don't, they'll fail as a villain (and maybe this is how your's will meet their downfall). Let them grow, develop new skills. Adapt to new scenarios as the hero changes the game. Don't be afraid to have them change their motives, even.
A Few Things to Remember
I have some advice for you!
Alright, there you have it! How to make a villain. But before I go, a few tips on things:
First—Don't make a villain who is evil for the lulz unless you're writing comedy or the Joker. And really, really know what you're doing.
Second—Do know the Evil Overlord list. Avoid some common tropes!
Third—Don't expect an incompetent villain to be taken seriously.
Fourth—Do treat your villain like a main character, not like a prop.
That's all for this week (wow, that took forever too)! Oh, the writing prompt! Ok, here's the challenge. Create a short blurb about a hero doing things the reader can agree with ... who is actually the villain, doing terrible things that we shouldn't agree with.
See you next week!
I haven't seen either of the Amazing Spider-Man movies, but most of what I've heard about them isn't good. Electro in particular I've heard was tacked on for the purpose of blowing things up, having essentially no real connection to the rest of the subplots in the movie.
I have seen Into Darkness, though, and I'm still ambivalent about it. I find it funny how you find complexity in the new Khan where other people whose opinion I trust see inconsistency and changing personalities from scene to scene.
But I do have to express admiration for that design of who I assume is Handsome Jack from Borderlands 2. The fact that his face mask looked so real (for the stylization) that I didn't even recognize it as a mask for a minute is pretty ingenious.
All of these are great gems to take in, but how is an inhuman mindset given the same view in your work on villains? Examples such as an alien villain, or perhaps an Artificial Intelligence, or a golem given awareness, even something that is dead, out of another sphere or existance and not exactly subject to a mortal or mortal minded thought process.
Is there a good way you can both translate and convey that striking emotion, but also bring about the audience to the villain being a force of power, but enough to get them asking, or wondering.
2192499
Wow, whoever it giving you movie reviews must be paying more attention to their cell phone than the film, because dang did they miss things. Electro is practically a "mirror" of Parker. We see him from before he's given his powers (and the life he leads) to what changes when he gets them. We see the gradual disillusionment as his psychosis takes over, the voices in his head (which you can hear in the soundtrack) gradually grow more and more aggressively unstable. He's one of the more sympathetic villains to come out of Hollywood in the last year, and definitely a well done threat as well as an impressively acted character in his own right. His actor did an impressive job starting as a bumbling, awkward underfoot office worker, smart but trusting and taken advantage of before slowly losing his faint grip on reality and turning into a murderous, revenge hungry, cold killer who you only catch hints of in the beginning.
Electro's performance was, IMO, one of the highlights of the movie.
As far as Khan goes, that's the trouble with writing a very smart, complex character and then not babying the audience with it. You rely on the audience to pay attention, and when they don't, they blame you. Khan's motivations and character are very clear through the film, are as his attitudes (the implications, for example, of forcing a father to become a suicide bomber in exchange for his daughter, is a great introduction), but only if you pay attention and try to put the pieces together yourself. Audience members wowed by The Fast and the Furious however, are going to be left confused. The amount of awards and recognition lauded on Cumberbatch and the writers for their work in that role is telling enough of the skill and care put into it.
Handsome Jack, surprisingly, actually underwent a complete character redesign as well as several visual incarnations. Originally he was a comedian through the whole game, but it ruined the "feel" Gearbox was going for. So they went back and rewrote all of his dialog, introducing the gradual mental breakdown and everything that went with that. Jack himself is a great character study because of his mentality: he's so sure he's the hero of the story, and justifies everything he does through it.
2192508
As far as alien though goes. I don't know. It's not something I've attempted, but one thing that I would start with is getting out of "rational" thought, from a human perspective.
As far as showing their power, characters reactions work well for that. Even if the viewpoint can't describe it, they can the reactions.
2192602
Honestly, most of what I remember of Into Darkness is the audacity of reusing the most memorable and poignant scene of the original Wrath of Khan with a twist that doesn't end up working as well. Sometimes I think this is a bold and gutsy decision, but mostly I'm just dumbfounded at why they thought it was a good idea. Is there even any value in this to people who haven't seen Wrath of Khan? It was so jarring that I forgot most of Khan's characterization from what came before, except I guess disappointment that Khan ended up being a villain in the end again after all.
Also, nice job insulting people who disagree with you. I don't know if I should just link to the people in question so I can avoid the temptation to further play telephone or just drop the issue altogether. I really am interested in hearing more debate on this subject, but not if there's going to be this much animosity going in.
2192654
But as you admitted, you haven't seen either film, and in the context of what you said, I stand by my statement concerning whoever made that statement: they weren't paying attention. From the people I've known who have seen it to the reviews that hit when the film came out, Electro's performance was standout, and core to the film. Saying that he was tacked in for the purpose of blowing things up implies such a lack of attention as to go to Jurassic Park and them come out complaining it didn't have dinosaurs, or that Joker was an unneeded character in The Dark Knight. There are those who hold that opinion, I believe that, but I don't have much respect for that opinion, because it flies in the face of what's been experienced. I didn't respect the reviews of Wreck-It Ralph that panned it as a bland, unfunny, boring plot-less film, supporting all of those statements with the summary text of "it's based on a video game, so it can't help it." Which was several, real reviews that hit for that film that 99.9% of the viewers would probably disagree with.
EDIT: In addendum. I don't disrespect the person who made the statement, but I will disrespect the statement. The idea that we must respect other's opinions and ideas rather than them as a person is a fallacy that leads only to problems. I did not respect the opinion of an individual who told me that "Rise" was a pile of "crap" and that I should remove it from Fimfiction and stop writing altogether. Was that his opinion? Yes. But I have no respect for that opinion, nor should I be required to respect it (if I had, I wouldn't be here, nor would I have published two books). We can respect individuals while still disagreeing on things. Unfortunately, far too many people take disagreement of an idea as a personal slight, and assume offense if disagreed with. Whoever said what statement you repeated? I doubt they're a terrible person. However, I disagree with the statement they made.
Unless they were referring to Rhino, who I would agree was totally was tacked in just for the visual spectacle (but he also has maybe two minutes of screen time).
Oh boy oh boy I want to read this when I have time. Villains are a favorite subject of mine, especially good ones. I'm totally in the middle of a mission in XCOM so I can't post a real comment quite yet (trying to get pumped up to continue writing Mente Materia) but I will read this and post a monster comment as soon as I'm done.
2192602 Odd, it didnt want to show the reply here. But thank you. Hmm. That does complicate things, but this was a fun article to read.
2192714
Fair enough. It's not like you're talking to them directly, and I honestly kind of misinterpreted what they actually said about Electro to start with. For instance, most of what Film Crit Hulk's column against the film is about is the characterization of Peter Parker and the arc he's taken throughout the two movies to come (particularly with the line about the best promises being the ones you can't keep), and the sum total of what he has to say about Electro is:
And even though I originally considered your Fast and the Furious comparison to be a low blow, on further digging I found this:
You're right in that I should try listening to people who liked these movies as opposed to just people who didn't. That's kind of why I'm having this conversation.
2192907
He's got a point about the ending fight. I kept waiting for even a glimmer of the former character to shine through, but no, he stayed evil to the end. As far as why they used him instead of just focusing on the Golbin outright, I don't know, but I have a sneaking suspicion it was to do something that none of the prior Spider-Man film franchises have done with a character they never touched, which was "take a character that's a bit of a joke (I might be wrong, but from what I've seen of the comics he was never serious) and make him cool and believable. I could be wrong there.
Seriously though, you should totally hit it at redbox when it hits DVD. The first Amazing Spider-Man didn't impress me, but the sequel blew that out of the water for me.
And yes, Hulk totally sums up Fast and the Furious. Are they great? Yes. Straightforward, perfect popcorn polished to an absurd degree. "Here's the stuff, here you go," but polished like few other films are. It's the "literatri VS Shakespeare" thing I mentioned last week. F&F is most definitely one of this generation's Shakespearian masterpieces. Star Trek into Darkness plays to an entirely different "viewing set," so to speak.
EDIT: 18 high-class literature professors suffered fatal aneurysms when I wrote that.
2192995
Yeah, when I first started reading all of his columns I had to accept that he had good things to say about Cameron's Avatar (which I hated). He pays much more attention to how a film is trying to get something across than what that something is, whereas there are some somethings I can't abide no matter how well they're conveyed (looking at you, Ayn Rand). Likewise, he greatly values emotional clarity over rooting out plot holes and nitpicking, which to many nerds on the internet either makes him seem like a breath of fresh air or someone they can't find much in the way to sympathize with.
The article he wrote citing Into Darkness in particular I have a hard time syncing up with, because the larger point of the essay is that blockbusters these days are too focused on smoke and mirrors and plot gymnastics, keeping the audience wondering what's happening and what someone's motivation is and thus preventing them from getting invested. The problem is that I personally really like it when things get complicated and the story starts to resemble an array of falling dominoes. As much as I do like those things, however, they should never be the first thing that aspiring writers like me should try to learn. I need to learn how to walk before I can do parkour, if you know what I mean, and Hulk often emphasizes the importance of learning the basics.
And yes, I am doing myself kind of a disservice by not watching these polarizing movies. I'll be getting the first one on DVD as soon as I'm done with my current season of Game of Thrones, and I'll wait for the second one to be released, too.
The reason I asked about the particular, call it an odd idea of sorts that hit me, of when you get those kind of beings, those created by another. And when they grow, well, its unexpected and different how they adapt both to a non-creator race, compared to their own creator. So I wondered if you might have a view there perhaps on that different on interaction from a point of that the new race is allied to the old, or chooses to help them, in setting them up for the sights.
OKAY! I've finished reading and I've got some things to discuss! You'll forgive me if I become verbose.
Antagonist versus Villain -- You'll also have to forgive me for this one because it's one of my personal beliefs that the two terms, while similar, can refer to wildly different things (In much the same way that 'hero' and 'protagonist' can differ). An antagonist is much like the characters described in your blog, a character with reasons and motivations to justify their actions, just like the hero and can be understood or even sympathized with by the reader. The villain is a force that diametrically opposes the protagonist and cannot be understood or condoned by the reader.
I really feel reluctant for using characters from Stardust but I think this distinction is illustrated by comparing Moira Vahlen to the Invaders. (For safety's sake I'll give myself spoiler tags)
Moira Vahlen is a scientist working for XCOM (the protagonists) and is tasked with understanding the technology and physiology of the aliens attacking Earth. To do this she takes them apart... both the aliens and their weapons. Fans of the XCOM game will remember her clinical lack of concern for the pain the aliens endure while she's torturing them to death for information. When Twilight Sparkle appears on Earth, Vahlen intends to do the same to her and becomes increasingly agitated when the other humans of XCOM don't see Twilight for the alien that she is. She is eventually redeemed (I'll get into this in a little bit) but for the first half of Stardust, Moira Vahlen is the antagonist.
The alien invaders hang over the story like a Sword of Damocles. Noone knows why they are attacking Earth, the protagonists just know that they are. They attack at random and without a care for their own survival until the end once a real threat to their plan reveals itself. Just what that plan is will be revealed in the sequel to Stardust. In my mind they fit the term 'villain' more closely because they also oppose the protagonists but there's little room to sympathize with them.
Now that I think of it, another good way to contrast the two would have been the Governor and the Walkers from The Walking Dead.
Reasons and Methods -- Reasons and Methods are what really make an antagonist shine, and I find myself going back to Code Geass as an excellent study of how these two things can make great characters. Lelouch Lamperouge wants more than anything to create a safe world for his sister as well as thwart his father's plans to rule the world. Suzaku Kururugi wants nothing more than to free his country and his people from their status as second class citizens. Both have heroic reasons for doing what they do but the methods they take are vastly different.
Suzaku becomes an 'honorary citizen' with the conquering forces in an effort to gain influence with his country's new rulers to give his people equal rights and he eventually attains an extremely lofty position through skill and bravery. He sincerely feels that salvation is not worth having if you dirty your hands in attaining it.
Lelouch crafts a secret identity to lead a terrorist organization that eventually succeeds in destabilizing the world, giving him the chance to stage a coup and kill his father. Once on the throne he abandons the terrorist organization and his secret identity to become an even bigger despot than his father... only to orchestrate his own death so that his gentle sister would inherit the throne and have a world that would appreciate her. He sincerely believes that the ends will always justify the means.
Which is the protagonist? Which is the antagonist? I'll leave that up for people to find out but I can tell you that neither is a hero or a villain. Both have good reasons for what they do and they often go to extremes to see their goals realized.
Introductions -- Viking hit the nail on the head. When opposition to the protagonists appears it can be done in any number of ways but it must leave a lasting impression on the reader (unless you're trying to be reaaaaaal sneaky and plan on obfuscating the real villain for some time, but even such obfuscation can add to that moment when the villain finally reveals themselves).
Vide from Stardust is the most handy example I can think of. All smiles and motormouth gushing about his admiration of everyone he meets, the picture of a boot-licking cubicle monkey... until the moment the reader takes their eyes off him and he kills two highly trained and armed XCOM operators with his hands. He would have come close to killing a significant portion of the main cast had he not made a critical tactical error in the final stages of his plan.
On the note of absolutely amazing villain introductions, I will share with you two of the most memorable in my opinion and they're from the first three cutscenes from the .hack//GU series. The first video (2:50 to 3:36) shows the unfortunate death of our hero Haseo to two player killers, only for the series antagonist to teleport into the dungeon and blast the player killers with casual disdain.
The second video (4:42 to 8:50) shows our hero Haseo after taking ninety levels (not exaggerating) of badass utterly destroying a pack of player killers that are attacking weaker players. While this does introduce a lot of minor villains it's an excellent way of showing how Haseo has grown in skill and reputation. Player killers know him on sight as the Terror of Death. Fans of the series will get a certain sense of foreboding when hearing that nickname.
The third video... the third video (16:23 to 20:30) is the introduction of Tri-Edge and to this day is the standard to which I measure all villain introductions. His arrival is heralded by the sound of a tuning fork as he appears far inside the cathedral and wrapped in blue flames and wielding triple-bladed swords that look like something straight out of Cthulhu. Haseo lets out a righteous shout and charges... and has every one of his attacks blocked with casual ease before having his weapons destroyed. Tri-Edge then launches a single attack that not only kills Haseo but it reduces his character to level one, deletes his loot, reformats his computer and knocks him unconscious in the real world... all without saying a word or expressing an emotion beyond the blank stare from his one visible eye.
What really makes Tri-edge's introduction earth shattering is that he appears to be a corrupted version of the hero from the first games from his character appearance to his weapons and even including the attack that he uses on Haseo at the end. When Tri-edge first appeared my jaw hit the floor and all I could say was, "Oh my god" for the rest of that fight. Combine this with the appearance of two other from the previous game and I was instantly hooked. I'll admit that the main objective of the storyline was put on the backburner. More than anything I wanted to know just what happened to the great heroes of the past game and what turned them into what they were now.
... Wow I got verbose didn't I! I probably should stop and divert my writing impulses to Mente Materia before the lynch mob demands my blood.
Wow. All these super long comments, and I just came here to say that I really loved Mr. Scratch from Alan Wake's American Nightmare. He just seemed so believable — and now that I've read this blog, I can see he hit all the points in this blog pretty well.
2194893 all of alan wake is just a very great example of what a great story is. from start to finish, even american nightmare, has a grab that just leaves you wanting more every step you take. Even if you do yell at alan for cardio training.
Very nice article on the Hero/Villain and Protagonist/Antagonist debate. Simple stories often paint things black and white, as that is much easier to comprehend. Good guys eventually triumph and bad guys beaten. This makes an okay story. However, add a little bit of depth, and it makes the characters way more interesting.
Take Disney villains. What makes some of them so memorable? For some, it's the feeling of power, like Maleficent, Jafar, and Ursula when they go giant. For others, it is the way they interact with others, hamming it up when possible, as with Scar, Gaston, Facilier, and Hades. These are memorable characters, though not deep. I feel like they are a stepping stone into stories with more depth though, as not all of them want to take over just because. Scar and Hades, much like Loki, feels unappreciated compared to their respective brothers.
Curious question though. Would AUTO from WALL-E be considered just the antagonist, or a villain? Feels more like just the former, as he was programed with override A-113.
On reasons, I would definitely point out Kill La Kill.
Yes, the initial protagonists could've gone with being less vicious, but they had reasons why. To try and avoid being suspected upon by the true villainous antagonist and to give a reason for the protagonist to keep getting stronger.
Also been playing through Bravely Default, and it is interesting to see villainous reasoning. I have not finished it yet; apparently I am not even halfway according to my sister, so I am expecting a plot twist of sorts.
I would also like to point out that sometimes stories can have multiple antagonists working against each other. Like in Bioshock, where becomes a pawn of one to off the other.
Hmm. For introductory impact, Sombra is definitely a character to look at what went wrong. Supposedly powerful, the writers tried to portray him like the looming darkness like Sauron. But then why did so many dislike him? I didn't like him because all he really did in terms of being a villain was give Shiny horn herpes and smash against the wall. He didn't have anything resembling an army; Chrysalis was much closer than that with her changelings, comparing them to the Orcs. No Ring Wraiths either. And the lines that he had? "Cryyyyyystaaaals." Yeah, we're supposed to take him seriously when he decides to go pokemon speak. It really didn't help that Gak got more screentime than him. On the flipside, look at how well they pulled off Tirek. He hides in the shadows, biding his time, but we actively see the effects he has, with his reputation and slowly draining ponies. Then, when he goes after Twilight, we get that awesome fight scene, where both sides show off their power.
I find it funny though. In stories I like seeing the protagonist start off weak or inexperienced, and grow stronger throughout the story. Strong heroes at best I like on the sidelines, giving the spotlight and story focus to the protagonist. On the other hand, I like seeing the villain really powerful, making a splash and such. But I also do like seeing what's called 'the start of darkness' for the villain, which is the events that caused the villainy.
And sometimes there doesn't even need to be villains. Take Bastion. Sure, there are monsters that attack you, but they are just beasts and fauna. The actual humans that attack you aren't being evil. They were lead to believe that you would continue the bloodshed that your own kind had wrought to cause the wasteland scenario you find yourself in. Then, should you do the right thing at the end, it definitely leaves an impact on the player.
On Cameron's Avatar? It's more or less straightforward with villains and heroes. Didn't really find anything deep, especially since the expedition was for profit rather than survival.
With Ayn's stories. Ugh. Atlas Shrugged I disliked so much. Didn't root for the 'heroes', like John Galt, because they had the pretentiousness rivaling fantasy elves. Didn't like the villains either, as they were two-dimensional greedy corporates. Only characters I gave a flying feather for were the middle characters caught in between. Felt sorry for them.
Though it brings much controversy, I do sort like seeing how many shades of grey stories can create on a topic depending on the writer and Point of view. One easily seen is the TCB stories. Some for, others against. At times ponies are kinder and see the pontification as a tragic necessity (well, the ones I consider good), other times they are the villains, more or less trying to be the master race. Then there is.... Chatoyance. Yeah, I shall shut my mouth on this particular topic.
Good read, I always like these columns of yours.
I'd have to disagree that villains should never be evil "just because", though. I mean, if they're going to actually speak and get characterized much then sure you need good reasons for their actions. But take Michael Meyers from Halloween. The doctor charged with his care flat out calls him "pure evil". We never get any back story or further explanation for him at all. And yet it works, given how many entries the series wound up having.
Granted, I realize the fact that that and all the other examples I might use are from horror films kinda says something, but I think it's still worth considering that there might be a select few circumstances where villains who are "just evil" work.
What about tragic villains and anti-heroes?
What about villains becoming anti-heroes?