Writing a Hate-Worthy Character

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Dolores Umbridge. That's what I mean by the title.

Most characters you want to make your readers love, but sometimes the need arises to create a character so horrible you just want to tear their face off with your fingernails. Some villains are made engaging by making them layered and sympathetic, but a villain that is unbearably awful can be just as effective. There's nothing better than a book that makes you feel strong emotions, and characters like this are good for it...they'll make you absolutely furious, feel helpless to stop the injustice, and most importantly, they'll keep you reading. This is all about the class of characters created to produce *hatred* in the reader.

I'm mainly hoping to elicit discussion, but here are some things I have found:

1. This kind of character is usually of the sadistic type. They enjoy exercising and abusing power and inflicting pain. They don't have to be a sadist necessarily, but it definitely helps. Nothing's more effective than a character who makes your main characters suffer and has fun doing it.

2. The cruelty they inflict upon your character is important, but not as important as your character's helplessness to fight back. This is why hate-worthy characters are often authority figures. The character has to be made to submit to their cruelty. Better yet, make them participate in their own torment. Your main characters have to be so powerless in the situation they're in, your character can force them to inflict their own punishment and they can't do a thing about it.

3. Actually having redeeming, positive or "nice" qualities for your hate-worthy character might have some advantages. I'm not sure why, but a facade of charming qualities is so much better than obvious evil. J.K. Rowling did this somewhat with Dolores Umbridge's love of kittens and doilies and girly stuff, except in this case it seemed vaguely sick and creepy, which made it so, so much more effective. I really can't pinpoint why this is. But I figure it's a certainty that an outwardly, obviously evil and nasty character is a lot less effective than a character who can appear to have good qualities. Better yet, instead of having a contrast between the appearance and the reality, blend the good qualities with the evil. Instead of kidnapping the MC so he can be taken away to the bad guy's lair to watch his love interest be tortured, perhaps he's sent a polite invitation.

Those are some things I've thought of. Anything anyone can add?

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[FifthView]

3. Actually having redeeming, positive or "nice" qualities for your hate-worthy character might have some advantages. I'm not sure why, but a facade of charming qualities is so much better than obvious evil. J.K. Rowling did this somewhat with Dolores Umbridge's love of kittens and doilies and girly stuff, except in this case it seemed vaguely sick and creepy, which made it so, so much more effective. I really can't pinpoint why this is. But I figure it's a certainty that an outwardly, obviously evil and nasty character is a lot less effective than a character who can appear to have good qualities. Better yet, instead of having a contrast between the appearance and the reality, blend the good qualities with the evil. Instead of kidnapping the MC so he can be taken away to the bad guy's lair to watch his love interest be tortured, perhaps he's sent a polite invitation.

For me it all comes down to selfishness and self-centeredness. All three of your points could be reduced to this. Because these hated characters are fundamentally not "for" anything but themselves, this means they will be against your MCs, against the goals of your MCs, against the primary "goal" of the novel (i.e., the reader's desired outcome), and this makes them worthy of hate.

I think those positive qualities can be actual rather than only superficial, but the hated character's selfishness ultimately reveals to the reader that any positive qualities will not be redeeming. In other words, the positive feature(s) will be "opposed" by the hated character just like everything else the reader wants to see happen. And, yes, contrast is key here. There's almost the feeling that if the hated character would only relax in the selfish self-centeredness, this positive trait could blossom, but he/she won't. So the reader feels resentment toward that character (and that blocked opportunity) and can truly grow to hate the character.

Edit: I would also add that these characters tend to have a very high self-regard. But that's just a part of the selfish self-centeredness.

Edit#2: Those superficial positive gestures are a slightly different thing, I think, than using real positive features. They're more of a slap in the face, an obvious lie: Using positive gestures for a selfish goal.

 

[Saigonnus]

The likable sociopath. He blends well with society, is even nice and has many redeeming qualities, and yet in a limited way, seeks to accomplish something evil by any means necessary. I think a good example of this concept is Dr. Moriarty. Civilized yet dark of purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ragnar]

If you haven't seen this show this post won't make much sense. But the show "The Walking Dead" has had a number of intriguing villains. The show really delves into the characters, their personalities and how living in s post apocalyptic world changes them. They've had several villains, like the Governor. A megalomaniac who was both charming (charismatic) as well as sadistic. Then there are the inhabitants of Terminus. A railway switching station converted into a compound where on the surface, all seems well. But behind the public face, they are really cannibals. Now, I'm sure everyone has seen the adds for the new season where Negan, holding a barbed wire bat is threatening the group. Negan promises to be a fascinating character. Truly, someone people will love to hate. The little I know about him is that he's an ex-car salesman turned into a ruthless overlord who uses violence to suppress any descent or voices that aren't in line with his wishes.

Sorry for the wall of text. But looking at these characters has really helped me to broaden my knowledge of character development. Of course there have been many villains in books. And the ones that stand out, in my mind, are always the ones where good and evil blend and who change depending on the situations and storyline. The sister of Raistlin and Caramon, Kitiara in the Dragonlance books. The many Taken and the queen in Glen Cook's Black Company series. I especially like Marc Remillard from Julian May's Galactic Milieu series.

Complex characters that aren't just "bad guys" are what fascinates me. Characters that struggle with real emotions and real issues of morality have always kept me turning the pages and anxiously awaiting the next book.

 

[Heliotrope]

I agree with FifthView in that I think it all boils down to altruism.

Lets say you have three characters find a ten dollar bill. One character buys a homeless guy a coffee and a muffin, another guy buys himself a coffee and gives the homeless guy his change, and a final guy buys himself a coffee and a muffin and kicks the homeless guy on the way out the door, who will the reader "like" better?

Who will be seen as the "bad guy"?

Now, the last guy very well could buy the homeless guy the coffee and the muffin, but only with the intention of now having that guy "owe" him in some way.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Hand the guy his money with kind words, set the coffee down, kick him in the face and roll the bum to get his money back... walk away sipping the coffee.

I agree with FifthView in that I think it all boils down to altruism.

Lets say you have three characters find a ten dollar bill. One character buys a homeless guy a coffee and a muffin, another guy buys himself a coffee and gives the homeless guy his change, and a final guy buys himself a coffee and a muffin and kicks the homeless guy on the way out the door, who will the reader "like" better?

Who will be seen as the "bad guy"?

Now, the last guy very well could buy the homeless guy the coffee and the muffin, but only with the intention of now having that guy "owe" him in some way.

 

[Penpilot]

Let me see if I can phrase this right. I think hated characters, truly hated ones, lack the ability to draw empathy from the reader. What I mean by that is, if the reader/audience tries to put themselves into this character's shoes, and they can't think 'Yeah, given the same circumstance, I'd probably do the same', I'm thinking they'll really be hated.

Game of Thrones comes to mind with a bunch of characters. Spoilers ahead. You have been warned.



Take Jamie for instance. When he pushes Bran out the window, we despise him. But when we learn his reasons, we understand, and though we hate the act, we don't hate Jamie, at least not as much.

Then look at Joffery, no empathy, no understanding, he's truly hated.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

A lack of hate for Jaime due to understanding? He is a character who earns a certain redemption and sympathy, but his motives there while understandable, really don't earn any forgiveness or sympathy. His return to semi-favor is hard earned.

And if Jaime dies, seriously, it's still a he had it coming moment.

 

[Penpilot]

A lack of hate for Jaime due to understanding? He is a character who earns a certain redemption and sympathy, but his motives there while understandable, really don't earn any forgiveness or sympathy. His return to semi-favor is hard earned.

Game of thrones spoilers, go away or be spoiled below.


For me they do. First, you understand that he's the King Killer not because he just wanted to save his own ass. He did it to save Kingslanding and its people from the mad king's wildfire. Doesn't that take some of the edge off the hate? Second, he tried to kill Bran to protect those he loved, Cersei AND his kids. I'd dare say that most parents would do something completely immoral if it meant saving the lives of their children. I mean, it's clearly stated that if the children were revealed to not be Robert's, they'd be killed.

Just those two things for me move Jamie away from the totally hated category. I may not root for him at this point. I may not cry for him if he gets his kumuppins, but I don't despise him. But then, yes, when you add in the other things he does, he moves further and further away from completely hated and into towards liked category.

Understanding = Sympathy = Empathy

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Something I should explain: A character who is unsympathetic is unsympathetic. Readers don't like him, but he doesn't *necessarily* inspire much emotion.

Theres a difference between a character who does not incite sympathy and a character who readers actively *despise.*

 

[RossHalford]

I find that the best way to write about a "hate-worthy" character is to every now and then entice the reader to route for him/her, to cheer him/her on in times of crisis and need. As soon as he/she has escaped the worst moments and finds himself say, in a tranquil setting where peace ensues, to suddenly have him/her to do something outright evil. This makes the reader believe that they've been cheated by the character, and just like in real life they will start to despise them.

 

[FifthView]

Something I should explain: A character who is unsympathetic is unsympathetic. Readers don't like him, but he doesn't *necessarily* inspire much emotion.

Theres a difference between a character who does not incite sympathy and a character who readers actively *despise.*

I agree. I understood that and tailored my original response with that understanding.

I do suppose that I glossed over the execution that will make a character hated, given the selfish and self-centered aspects I mentioned before. A character can be selfish and still not be hated (although probably still disliked if the selfishness is strong and there's no reason to be sympathetic toward the character.) A character can be self-centered, with a high self-regard and actually come across as comical rather than hated; for example, the comical buffoon that's always failing or getting himself into trouble without a clue as to why. A character can have degrees of selfishness and self-centeredness below levels that will make the character hated.

So how those aspects are utilized when showing a character being active makes a difference.

I think that one of the key aspects is the way the character actively subverts the positive movement toward a desired outcome—primarily, I mean the outcome the reader desires to see happen. This doesn't need to be the overarching outcome for the novel, but any little outcome would do. For instance, if the reader wants to see two characters fall in love, even if the story isn't a romance, then the hated third party could actively seek to cause rifts between those two characters, feed lies and misinformation, and so forth, for selfish reasons. If a sympathetic main character wants to succeed in his martial or magical training, impress the higher-ups, stop being bullied and labeled a useless individual, then the hated character might work to subvert that for selfish reasons.

Physically hurting or torturing a sympathetic main character does much the same thing. Dolores Umbridge subverts the reader's desire to see Harry and company happy and unharmed (the desired outcome) while also standing in their way of discovering things about the main plot and solving the looming problems. She does so for selfish, self-centered reasons, and takes pleasure in seeing the results of her own actions because they are signs of her power and ability effect her own vision for the future. (High self-regard.)

 

[FifthView]

Game of thrones spoilers, go away or be spoiled below.


For me they do. First, you understand that he's the King Killer not because he just wanted to save his own ass. He did it to save Kingslanding and its people from the mad king's wildfire. Doesn't that take some of the edge off the hate? Second, he tried to kill Bran to protect those he loved, Cersei AND his kids. I'd dare say that most parents would do something completely immoral if it meant saving the lives of their children. I mean, it's clearly stated that if the children were revealed to not be Robert's, they'd be killed.

Just those two things for me move Jamie away from the totally hated category. I may not root for him at this point. I may not cry for him if he gets his kumuppins, but I don't despise him. But then, yes, when you add in the other things he does, he moves further and further away from completely hated and into towards liked category.

Understanding = Sympathy = Empathy

I don't think understanding alone makes much of a difference. We can understand that a hate-worthy character does the things he does because he has selfish goals, because he's a sociopath, even because he was abused as a child or lost a beloved spouse to violence or any number of psychological tipping points. This understanding alone doesn't negate the hate-worthiness.

For instance, I may know that I need to defend my country from an aggressor country, I may have family and friends who are in grave danger from imminent invasion, but if I launched a preemptive massive nuclear strike against the aggressor country, irradiating the lands for thousands of years and instantly killing millions, that probably wouldn't be dismissed as an understandable response unless very clear info regarding the absolute necessity of the action existed. Shoving Bran out of a window, particularly when we've been viewing the world through Bran's experience and he's a very sympathetic character, is not really excused by Jaime's desire to protect his own sister and kids. His desire is selfish. His response was self-centered: a child's life is only so important as Jaime's selfish desires, only important if it is a life that circles his own.

I read the first ASOIAF books so long ago, I'm probably mixing up what I read and what I saw in the HBO series, but I seem to recall a very sudden shift in my impression of Jaime that centered on his defense of Brienne. I think his defense of her showed the reader that he's capable of not being selfish and self-centered. Later when we learn more about his decision to kill the Mad King, this impression is made stronger. And, as the story progresses and we see more about how he interacts with Cersei, his children, and Tyrion, we begin to understand that Jaime is not thoroughly selfish and self-centered, and this changes our evaluation of him. He's at least not hate-worthy.

Edit: Incidentally, I'm reminded of another recent thread about "growing villains," and the distinction between showing actual growth and merely revealing more about a character. I think it could be said that Jaime actually grows rather than that we are merely learning more about him as the story progresses. Perhaps he is actually less selfish and less self-centered later in the story than at the story's beginning? Or perhaps there's a little of both, actual growth and revelations of latent altruism.

 

[Penpilot]

selfish[/I]. His response was self-centered: a child's life is only so important as Jaime's selfish desires, only important if it is a life that circles his own.

This is what I wrote in my initial response. "I think hated characters, truly hated ones, lack the ability to draw empathy from the reader. What I mean by that is, if the reader/audience tries to put themselves into this character's shoes, and they can't think 'Yeah, given the same circumstance, I'd probably do the same', I'm thinking they'll really be hated."

 

[skip.knox]

Honestly, I don't hate any villains. I do hate poorly done characters.

Most times, a villain who is done despicable mostly leaves me cold. If I am repelled at all, it's not because of the villain, it's because of the protagonist. It's because I care about her or him, and don't want to see him/her suffer or lose. It's about sympathy more than antipathy.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Perhaps i see the hatred-worthy character as a distinct character type because of this...

First, I like my complicated villains. In 98% of cases, one-dimensional evil is completely boring to me. The inability to relate with the villain makes them completely uncompelling. I want complexity and nuance, just as I do in any character. Plain evil is just as dull as plain good.

But.

In some cases, the author is able to make a character so abhorrent and awful...and not just that, but abhorrent and awful in complex, interesting ways...that I *am* engaged and interested. Usually not by sympathizing, but by fantazizing about tearing the character's face off with my fingernails. It's glorious.

 

[FifthView]

Perhaps i see the hatred-worthy character as a distinct character type because of this...

First, I like my complicated villains. In 98% of cases, one-dimensional evil is completely boring to me. The inability to relate with the villain makes them completely uncompelling. I want complexity and nuance, just as I do in any character. Plain evil is just as dull as plain good.

But.

In some cases, the author is able to make a character so abhorrent and awful...and not just that, but abhorrent and awful in complex, interesting ways...that I *am* engaged and interested. Usually not by sympathizing, but by fantazizing about tearing the character's face off with my fingernails. It's glorious.

I was thinking about this last night. Your mention of Dolores Umbridge from the very beginning was interesting because for me personally, she was the most hate-worthy character in the whole series. At least, the hate I personally felt for her was much stronger than my negative reactions toward Voldemort.

Heck, I'm not even sure I hated Voldemort. I've been wondering if this ties back into my impression that hated characters stand in the way of some outcome desired by the readers. Naturally, all villains and other antagonists will oppose the hero protagonists, but....

I'm uncertain whether this factor plays a major role in the hate/not-hate question. I think we expect antagonists to do things we don't like or at least things the protagonists won't like, and as long as those actions tie directly into the plot without going overboard, maybe we don't find them to be unusually shocking or reprehensible? I don't remember Voldemort going particularly beyond the pale. Sure, he took some of Harry's blood, he wanted to kill Harry, but he didn't torture Harry for several hours with pointy instruments simply for the pleasure of doing it. Dolores Umbridge was different because her selfish goals didn't seem entirely tied to the plot. I'm not even sure she was a Death Eater? She seems to have held similar ideas to Voldemort, and her efforts aligned with his, but she seemed like the ultimate self-centered character doing things for selfish reasons rather than as some instrument of the primary antagonist.

 

[Ireth]

I'm uncertain whether this factor plays a major role in the hate/not-hate question. I think we expect antagonists to do things we don't like or at least things the protagonists won't like, and as long as those actions tie directly into the plot without going overboard, maybe we don't find them to be unusually shocking or reprehensible? I don't remember Voldemort going particularly beyond the pale. Sure, he took some of Harry's blood, he wanted to kill Harry, but he didn't torture Harry for several hours with pointy instruments simply for the pleasure of doing it. Dolores Umbridge was different because her selfish goals didn't seem entirely tied to the plot. I'm not even sure she was a Death Eater? She seems to have held similar ideas to Voldemort, and her efforts aligned with his, but she seemed like the ultimate self-centered character doing things for selfish reasons rather than as some instrument of the primary antagonist.

Well, he did once use he Cruciatus Curse on Harry, which could be argued as the same effect of all those hours with Umbridge's Blood Quill condensed into a few seconds of torment. And he coerced Draco into trying to kill Dumbledore on pain of death. Voldemort was shitty to his own followers, even torturing one who begged him for forgiveness when he got his body back.

 

[FifthView]

Well, he did once use he Cruciatus Curse on Harry, which could be argued as the same effect of all those hours with Umbridge's Blood Quill condensed into a few seconds of torment. And he coerced Draco into trying to kill Dumbledore on pain of death. Voldemort was shitty to his own followers, even torturing one who begged him for forgiveness when he got his body back.

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten that. But for me that's still "part of the plan." He's doing it for a purpose, to show his strength and power, in pursuit of his goals as primary antagonist/villain of the story. It's like a captain of a ship having a disobedient crew member disciplined [Edit: I mean, flogged.] It's not something we might do ourselves, it's mean, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of doing torture simply for the pleasure of it. But I'm not arguing that Voldemort is an admirable person, heh.

 

[FifthView]

I wonder if hate is so subjective, characters may be hated more or less, for different reasons by different readers.

I've been trying to remember various characters I've personally hated. One recent example is interesting for me because I hated his actions, and so him, even though I believe he didn't act in a particularly malicious manner toward the main "good guy" characters or with conscious intention to oppose what I wanted to see happen. But his selfish, self-centered bumbling kept irritating me, preventing the outcomes I wanted.

He's a character from The Wire, a detective named Thomas "Herc" Hauk. In the final two seasons particularly, he does things for selfish reasons, either to boost his standing with others or to hide fairly minor foibles (like checking out a department camera when he shouldn't have and then losing it.) Because we have an overview of everything that's going on, we see how his incompetence and selfish actions subvert the department's investigation even though he himself does not realize this. One teenager actually ends up in danger, his foster mother in the hospital near death, because of this detective's bumbling self-interest.