# How bad is too bad?



## Ban (Dec 11, 2015)

The question is simple. How evil are you willing to make a character in your stories? I just watched a video on the creepiest characters in the song of ice and fire series and realised just how sick some minor characters are, for example: the first reek, tickler, biter, rorg, patchface and Shagwell. And those are excluding the major horrors of Joffrey, Ramsay, gregor clegane and Qyburn. 

Some of these guys apparantly did and do things that i would never attribute to even my darkest villains. Maybe i'm a wimp, but i draw the line at torture and depraved sexual actions. So, what do you think?


----------



## FifthView (Dec 11, 2015)

For me, one of the most overused devices I've encountered when reading is torture.  I think the folks at Writing Excuses listed rape instead when asked about overused tropes/devices.

Personally, I have difficulty desiring such a character to be in anything I write.  On the one hand, see above:  it's easy.  Kick the cat, oh kick it!  I naturally revolt from the idea of using such an easy device. But on the other hand, I've probably missed some easy opportunities and have made my writing more difficult when I avoid those possibilities.

Intrinsically, I feel that villains who enjoy torturing or raping are not sophisticated enough for me to care about writing them.  But I've a mind to write an insane serial killer (working one into my current WIP–I think), and I think that maybe torture at least will play a role.  I think it comes down to authenticity, for me, rather than the easy route of just slapping on torture or rape to make someone evil.


----------



## Russ (Dec 11, 2015)

When I write fantasy, I really am writing about real world and modern problems being tackled from a new angle in a new light (I hope).

Thus for me, any real behaviour is fair game.

But the answer really varies based on your writing style and goals.


----------



## Ban (Dec 11, 2015)

I think that i can't do it because i write from the perspective of my characters. I always want to understand the character completely before i write a word about them, but with people this evil i don't want to see anything from their twisted perspective.


----------



## WooHooMan (Dec 11, 2015)

It's less about what they do and more about why they do it.

Personally, I hate it when writers seem to think that the more "evil" a villain is, the more scary of threatening they are.
Like I'm okay with a villain torturing a character as long as they have a reason to do so.  Too often I see villains torturing characters just because the writer wants you to know they're evil.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 11, 2015)

Nothing should be out of bounds _IF_ required by the story. 

The real question is:

What kind of story do _you_ wish to tell?


----------



## Penpilot (Dec 11, 2015)

I think ASOIF can get away with it because things are balanced. Just as there are very good characters, there are these very bad ones. And of course there are the ones in the gray.

For me, to write a truly despicable and depraved character, I would need a very specific purpose for doing so, not just because I want to show just how bad this villain is. And if I were to write such a character, I would try to balance things out in some way.


----------



## Creed (Dec 11, 2015)

One of the golden rules is simply to be true to your characters; don't make them caricatures, flesh them out, give them backgrounds and motives. I think that ties in with FifthView's _authenticity_. Torture is an easy device, but is it a justified device? Is it a truly serviceable device? Also, is it a device readers are going to accept?

I don't skip pages, because I'm scared I'll miss something important. But I have put many books down and over the years have yet to pick them back up. That's one of the dangers with using pain and trauma as a writing tool. If an author is using experiences like that for cheap evil points, that's gonna get on my nerves and the nerves of a lot of people, and you can be sure some of us will stop reading. Some of the bad guys you mentioned above? GRRm (and the directors) got on my nerves simply for the depiction of their evilness. I found it cheap, unnecessary, and uncomfortable.

That being said, maybe if the author can be true to the perpetrator, maybe we'll be able to see something human inside of them. Maybe we can hate them for what they've done while we hope they can redeem themselves. I guess it depends on what exactly it is that they've done, how much know about their background/motives, and how much we sympathize for the victims.

Based on that, depending on what you're going for here, it might be a good idea to be true to the _victims_ as well.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 11, 2015)

There is some crazy stuff in ASOIF that I would never think of. 

Forcing the noble lady to bite off her own fingers in prison in order to survive? 

heeby Jeebies. 

But… people obviously love it. It is so popular, _I think_, because Martin is willing to go there, to those deep dark terrifying places that most people won't go… it creates crazy good drama, and at the end of the day I think that is what people really want. 

When I think of my favourite books/stories they all have really bad villains. Really, really bad villains, and yes, rape and torture are usually involved. 

Psycho is probably one of my favourite stories of all time… for me it doesn't get much better than an attractive, seemingly innocent young man preserving his dead mother with taxidermy chemicals in the basement, while at the same time assuming her identity and dressing like her/talking like her and killing young ladies in a jealous rage. 

I _wish_ I could go places like that in my writing.


----------



## Russ (Dec 11, 2015)

Banten said:


> I think that i can't do it because i write from the perspective of my characters. I always want to understand the character completely before i write a word about them, but with people this evil i don't want to see anything from their twisted perspective.



If I used this is my standard my books would be boring middle aged white guys doing boring stuff.  I think you have to cut yourself a little slack and try to write people you don't completely  understand or ever will.  Some people never completely  understand themselves so I don't think you can be expected to understand all of your characters at a very deep level.


----------



## Ban (Dec 11, 2015)

Interesting, I guess i'm the only one who has a clear line. But how do you guys write about characters like that? The idea of writing a raping, torturing whatever disgusts me to the point of wanting a nice warm shower. Whenever i write characters like that, i immediately think of real life examples of people who were crazy enough to do those things (Dahmer, Gacy, BTK, Boston strangler, Zodiac, Bundy, hannover vampire, chessboard killer, and the list goes on and on), which completely ruins the mood.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 11, 2015)

Banten, it might come down to how far you go into the villain's head.  The serial killer I'm thinking of using will not be a POV character in my novel.  I'm planning to have a sort of fade-to-black for him, but other POV characters will encounter and/or investigate the after-effects, the results of what he does.  I don't think I'll have any POV encounter him until the end, although one of the main characters may die in that fade-to-black situation earlier.

I figure, if you can show the after effects of battle, natural disasters, etc., showing the after effects of torture shouldn't be incredibly different.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 11, 2015)

Yeah. This has got me thinking. 

In Blake Snyder's book "Save the Cat" he is very adamant that stories should appeal to the 'caveman' in all of us. Keep it primal. 
He says he asks himself throughout the story writing process "Is it primal?" and "Would a caveman get it?" He isn't the first person who I have heard mention this. I remember another writer (can't remember who though…) saying that during the writing process pretend that you are telling the story as a campfire story. Pretend you have an audience around the campfire and you have to keep them engaged. Something about the campfire triggered in me this thought, again, of keeping it Primal. 

Anyway, Snyder says that _almost_ all plots should hinge on something primal, like survival, hunger, sex, protection of loved ones, or something that basic. 

"By making what drives your character more primal, you'll not only ground everything that happens in principles that connect in a visceral way, you also make it easier your sell your story all over the world. 

Think about it. 

Everyone in China "gets" a love story, Everyone in South America understands _Jaws_ or _Alien_ because "don't get eaten" is primal - even with snappy dialogue. " (Snyder, Save the Cat, pg 158-159). 

He goes on to talk about the primal drives in a few story lines: 

Desire to save one's family - Die Hard
Desire to protect one's home - Home Alone
Desire to exact revenge - Gladiator
Desire to Survive - Titanic 

So when in doubt ask "is it primal?" 

So I think, perhaps, torture, rape, war, insanity, sadism, etc are pretty much as primal as you can get? I mean, can you really think of anything more scary then that? So I wonder if that is why (even though it is criticized as cliche) it still works? It is still the easiest way to create the most drama?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 11, 2015)

Let me put it this way, & understand I'm moving away from the depravity to illustrate a point.  

I'm a middle-aged, heterosexual, white male. That has zero bearing on my ability to write an asian lesbian, or an inner-city female teen in Islamabad, or an elderly Inuit chief. 

I'm confident I can write any of those, and far more, because I can develop and portray each as a unique individual with reasoning, motives, agency, & sympathetic traits. 

Maybe you're having an issue because the depravity is the ONLY trait.   

Example: Darth Vader is a despicable being after his fall to the dark side. He murdered scores of children and took part in the destruction of entire worlds. However, he's a beloved character because there's a story in how he became the monster, & that story creates sympathy.


----------



## Ban (Dec 11, 2015)

If it is scariest is detable. May i direct you to http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/15569-most-frightening-aspect-character.html 


But i understand what you mean and think that a primal way of thinking definitely works. However i think that the positive primal thinking of protection, survival, emotions, etcetera, are far moremotivating than the negative ones you mentioned. Almost all stories need this primal positivety, but i think barely any need the negatives to function as a good story. 


Also thank you for reminding me of Gladiator again. I have to watch it again...but not yet..not yet.


----------



## Netardapope (Dec 11, 2015)

I think it all depends on how the evil is used. The problem with exxagerate evil is that it is usually used to make a character look bad rather than it being something the character would do. For example, if a tyrannical king rapes little girls for fun it's obvious that the writer only added that fact to make us hate him rather than try character development. But if a character who is a Satan - equivalent did that it would make sense with his character and wouldn't feel as forced.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


----------



## Netardapope (Dec 11, 2015)

Netardapope said:


> I think it all depends on how the evil is used. The problem with exxagerated evil is that it is usually used to make a character look bad rather than it being something the character would do. For example, if a tyrannical king rapes little girls for fun it's obvious that the writer only added that fact to make us hate him rather than try character development. But if a character who is a Satan - equivalent did that it would make sense with his character and wouldn't feel as forced.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk





Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


----------



## Ban (Dec 11, 2015)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Let me put it this way, & understand I'm moving away from the depravity to illustrate a point.
> 
> I'm a middle-aged, heterosexual, white male. That has zero bearing on my ability to write an asian lesbian, or an inner-city female teen in Islamabad, or an elderly Inuit chief.
> 
> ...



Yes, but an asian lesbian, inner-city female teen in Islamabad and an elderly inuit chief are fundamentally like me. Sure their gender and ethnicity differs, but they most likely have roughly the same morals and values that i have. The opinions and beliefs of my characters can be radically different than mine. I'd have comparatively little problems writing a nationalistic, zealous, libertarian, short, old, black woman. I am none of these things, but i can understand that the person possesing those traits can still be kind and just. This humanity is lost to me when i read or write about people who enjoy rape/ torture/ whatever. To me they have left a fundamental part of their humanity, compassion, so it is difficult to empathise with them for me.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 11, 2015)

You don't have to empathize with them at all. However, recognize evil people do exist, & excluding sociopaths, they probably weren't born that way. They learned sadism & evil. At least, that'd be my approach with a dark character. 

In your examples from ASOIF, you're talking about sociopaths. Joffrey & The Mountain certainly are sociopathic, as is Ramsay Bolton. In that case, it may be hard to write. I'll give you that. It also takes a great deal of skill, in my opinion.

Take Nabokov's Lolita, for example. Humbert is a deplorable, vile creature. He's a pedophile & also the POV. Depravity and a warped mind are central to the story. Within that vileness is an engaging tale, partly because we witness the world through the rationalizing mind of a monster. And, it's a masterpiece. 

Being unwilling to explore such characters is certainly your prerogative. It's your work, after all. In my opinion though, any writer unwilling to explore even the darkest natures of the human condition is selling themselves short.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 11, 2015)

I find, for myself, it helps to read books that heavily rely on these sorts of characters, like TAS mentioned. When I can see how other authors did it then I can use some of the same techniques. 

The Collector by John Fowles is a short read, but pretty good for the getting into the MC's head (who is a sociopath who loves a girl and kidnaps her). 

The Tell-Tale Heart by A.E. Poe is an obvious example, but a really good one. 

And my all time favourite villain, Junior Kane, in Dean Koontz' masterpiece From the Corner of his Eye is really well described and the reader spends quite a bit of time in his head.

What I like about these three examples is that the entire time the villain justifies to himself why what he is doing is right. You understand his motives (even though they are warped) and you see him as rounded, albeit crazy. They aren't just evil for evil's sake.


----------



## Xitra_Blud (Dec 11, 2015)

I usually try to make my villains likeable, but I don't mind going all the way. The way I see it, in fiction, there is no limit if it tells a great story.


----------



## Penpilot (Dec 11, 2015)

I agree with pretty much everything T.A.S. said. 

Speaking only for myself, I think one of the reasons I don't have solid lines that I can draw in the sand is I've taken a lot of philosophy courses in university. Truth be told, when I graduated, I believe I was only a few credits shy of being able to list that as a minor.

In reading my share of philosophy papers, essays, etc. I had to be able to understand things from from viewpoints that ranged from similar to mine to headache-inducing, mind-boggling, WTF, completely off the wall, couldn't be more different than mine.

Having to do this for my philosophy courses, and to some extent my major, trained me in a way that I'm able to shift gears in the way I think and see things from a different perspective. I may not agree with this perspective, but I think I can understand, at least to some degree, the foundation on which this different thinking is based on.

Yes, it can be icky. Yes, it might be a dark place that most, including me, don't like to go, but I don't fear it. And maybe part of why people fear going there is they fear that they might actually like it, and it might say something about them and the darkness within them.


----------



## Ban (Dec 11, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> And maybe part of why people fear going there is they fear that they might actually like it, and it might say something about them and the darkness within them.



That line alone shows that you took some philosophy classes 
In my specific case i can assure you that i am not afraid of liking it. I wanted to study criminology since a young age (didn't do it) so i am familiar with some of the most despicable of people that have been around. Not a single part of my pacifist body wants to be like these beasts.

I understand what you mean though. I have a good interest in philosophy as well. My schooling in the subject does not go much further than watching "the school of life" channel and the "8bit philosophy" series on youtube however (i recommend  both). I have little problem inserting myself in another person's point of view, but a depraved mind like the ones i am talking about is just beyond what i am comfortable with, due to the alieness of those people. 

I am still really surprised that no one else has a strict line. Does this mean that people aren't thinking in the extremes that i thought of? Or is my hesitance to write about characters like this indicative of something in me? 

Philosophy debate?


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Dec 11, 2015)

When I write characters like this, I always keep in mind that even if they know a particular action is bad, what they're fighting for in the end is in their eyes good.Really, I don't find it difficult, I can draw on myself. I think we all have the ability to do horrible things, perhaps not to the extreme degree that our characters do, but I know I at least have done a great many selfish despicable things. My characters are a reflection of myself. I'm able to write evil people because I accept my own capacity to do horrible things.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 11, 2015)

Banten said:


> ...is my hesitance to write about characters like this indicative of something in me?


I don't know you personally, but from what I'm reading here, this only says you don't enjoy writing or reading these types of characters. That alone is a perfectly legitimate reason to avoid them altogether.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 11, 2015)

Banten I'm not sure how much you buy into Meyers Briggs, but remember when you did the test and you got infp? I told you I was infp too? It is a pretty rare personality type. What is wonderful about infp personalities is that we are super idealist, we are the Pollyanna's or the Anne Frank's of the Meyers Briggs test. We believe in the goodness of everyone and we are very deeply wounded when we hear about bad stuff in the news. It is harder for us to detach. We tend to be more emotional, taking on the emotions of others until we are exhausted. We have a keen ability to relate to others and understand others, which earns us the title of the "mediator" or the "idealist healer". We want to fix everything. We don't like conflict and we want everyone to be ok. 

I'm the same as you when writing these characters. I'm more comfortable writing man vs. nature or man vs. self, but man vs. evil man? Count me out. I get so worked up over it that is consumes me and I'm a wreck for weeks. I cry. I can't let my mind go certain places. I can admit I cant watch Game of thrones on tv because it is too intense for me. How can others watch this stuff and not be effected? I saw the episode where Cercies men killed the baby in the brothel and I lost it. Was a mess for days. 

I get it. It may be that you are just more emotional, like me. Things are too real. That is ok. Where we excell as writers is in getting into the deep emotions of our characters. Really understanding them on an emotional level. Did you know that they think Shakespeare was as infp? And Tolkien too? We are in good company 

INFP Personality (Ã¢â‚¬Å“The MediatorÃ¢â‚¬Â) | 16Personalities


----------



## DanJames (Dec 11, 2015)

They'll be as evil as is required. I recently wrote story about a king who outlawed chairs (it really needs more context  ), it doesn't sound that evil in the grand scheme of things, but no one in the kingdom was allowed to sit, anywhere, no matter the circumstance. Sitting was, best case scenario, punished with time in the stocks, and at worse punished with death. It's a pretty vile act, when considered, but at the time of first reading could be seen as a sort of laughable one.

Rape, torture and other evil acts are fine for characters, as long as they aren't just applied because 'LOL VILLAINY'. Just because you're an evil baron, who rules with an iron fist, doesn't mean you'll rape a milk maid just because you can. Every act a character commits should be to serve their development, the plot, or at a stretch, a recurrence of themes. That kind of goes for all acts, not just villainous ones.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Dec 11, 2015)

This bad is too bad...unless you are a smooth criminal.*drops the Mic.


----------



## Penpilot (Dec 11, 2015)

Banten said:


> I am still really surprised that no one else has a strict line. Does this mean that people aren't thinking in the extremes that i thought of? Or is my hesitance to write about characters like this indicative of something in me?
> 
> Philosophy debate?



8-bit philosophy is cool. Ran across that earlier this year, and instantly dropped that into my subscribe feed.

Looking at myself, the number of characters that I'd classify as being depraved I could count them on one hand. One of them was a BS story in which I unjustly screwed with the reader's trust. My writing teacher scolded me for it and rightful so. 

I don't think I've pushed things into the black as hard as others have done, but I tend to dwell in the gray a lot. My antagonists tend to be redeemable if only they'd want it. For me, it's just more interesting to write.

I remember there was a similar thread to this, and I answered that if there was a line I wouldn't cross, it'd probably have to do with harming children.

This isn't to say I wouldn't do it if the story called for it, but the type of story that would call for it isn't necessarily something I'm interested in writing, at least now.

So maybe, I'm cheating a bit with my answer, and I'm in the same boat as you, and I'm just not willing to admitting to myself that I have a line. Or at least I haven't pushed myself towards it close enough to see.


----------



## glutton (Dec 11, 2015)

FifthView said:


> Banten, it might come down to how far you go into the villain's head.



This is an important point. If your bad guy who is trying to find the secret to immortality by kidnapping and dissecting people gifted with special powers, babies included, is only discovered by the heroine a few pages before she mocks him and tools him in every way imaginable, physically and mentally, that will probably be easier to swallow than if he is a POV character for much of the book.

Nothing like a verbal owning followed by physical beatdown followed by outplaying of contingency plan to restore order XD


----------



## Caged Maiden (Dec 12, 2015)

As with any negative act, there are degrees. I was a bit horrified when I was meant to read from the POV of a child (age 14) who rapes women after he's sacked and burned their villages in Prince of Thorns. That being said, I liked much of the writing style, but found some subjects distasteful enough that I didn't buy the other books. 

I think this is sort of how it goes. Could the story have been written without the raping of peasant women? Certainly. Would it have affected me as a reader, if Jorg was the lone outlaw who felt it beneath him? I dunno. I guess I could have bought it if it was because of his age, or maybe he had a physical condition or something. But it might not have made much sense, because as it was portrayed in the novel, rape was a sort of treat for those who sacked villages.  A payment they could count on receiving even if the town had no loot. Disgusting as I personally find the subject, I suppose I can understand. Or not, it's sort of turning my stomach talking about it.

Anyways, in my real life, I don't believe there's ever a reason to rape someone. I understand it happens, and I'm not sure why, but it does, and I accept it as a part of life, if not a symptom of our inability to fully eradicate the causes for such violent behavior. That being said, there are degrees of rape, and there is no similarity between a willing woman plied with a little too much booze, and a violent assault on a stranger in a park, or the forcing of oneself upon a prepubescent child.  I've mentioned it before, but nature doesn't advocate sexual attraction to children. Nature does, however, support the other two, in a sense, because anyone who has more opportunity to mate, likely has more progeny. NOW, the down side of this is that people were civilized before they built their first mammoth-bone hut. If a man you trusted assaulted your women, you'd kill him and gut him, and let your women spit on his corpse--so that couldn't have been a trait often passed on, maybe until recently, when people had the ability to survive as anonymous beings, separate from a clan?

Anyways, my point is, if you asked me whether I could torture someone, I'd say hands down, yes.  I could certainly enact cruelty on a body. All it would have to take is me knowing why I judged them deserving of my wrath. And that's the main point I'm trying to make. I could do unspeakable things to people who abuse children and animals.  I can certainly pay them back for their cruelty. But I couldn't grab some random person and enact violence upon them. I wouldn't be able to.  They would be like that animal or that child. They wouldn't be deserving. And I think therein lies the difference. 

When you debate whether you can write a depraved person, I understand and I find it as distasteful as you do. But I could certainly sympathize with a person who has a motive to do a depraved thing. It would all be down to their motivation.

So in one of my stories, my MC is raped in a kidnapping situation. Now, I have looked at the scene from a lot of angles, to make sure I'm not doing it for shock value, but it's an important scene because it speaks about a larger theme in the story. She's powerless and captive, and the man who's keeping her locked up thinks she knows a secret, and he thinks her male friend (locked up in another cell) knows it too. So when he assaults the woman, it's not to get her to talk, because he knows she won't. He assaults her in front of her friend, because he thinks it'll get the friend to spill his guts. 

Is it cheap? I dunno, maybe. Is it wrong? I didn't go into a lot of detail, summarizing the assault in a few sentences, so as not to try for shock value or dramatic effect. But I can't tell whether it's something that would make readers cringe.  To me, I think it's sort of a desperate and cruel act on the captor's part, but I can understand why those tactics work--because someone would rather be hit in the face than watch their loved one hit in the face.  They'd rather throw themselves in the way of the moving car, to save their child. We know that people who want power often take control of weaker persons to flaunt their supremacy. It's a sort of natural order, in a way. Until the scale tilts and the powerful becomes the powerless, because either his tactic didn't work (as in my story, when the characters escape) or when someone more powerful knocks him off his pedestal. 

Write what you feel comfortable with. I do not have a single "evil" person in any of my stories (well maybe some shorts, because I have about 100 and can't recall them all right now), and I don't think you ever need to really put yourself in an evil person's shoes.  I know I haven't. And I've done a fair amount of writing. I have some characters with some scars from the past tragedies of their lives, and I have some people who have neared that line of "not okay", and again, all I'm saying, is there are degrees to any antisocial behavior, and most people don't live on the other side of that line, irredeemably so.  Some people have done off-color things and repented.  Others have neared and danced around that line for most of their lives, but fear truly jumping over it.  Still others don't even think about the line, but might shoot you dead if you cut them off in heavy traffic... I mean, where does it begin? Who knows.


----------



## Cobwebs (Dec 13, 2015)

I find rape, young character deaths, and torture easy to use a leverage on your readers when it comes to "look how bad this dude is, look how terrible!"

Think of it this way: If you have to "prove" your character's "evilness" by making them do something that is (for the most part) taboo for the sake of being taboo, then you've gone to making a bad character who is ultimately one dimensional and forgettable. When you craft a villain, you want them to have as much purpose in their lives as your protag does. What are their goals? Hopes? Dreams? Why are they as twisted as they are? Why do they do the things they do and believe so vigorously that what they're doing is pleasurable or correct?

I am reminded of some friends' characters who twist the values on oppression, war, and death among the masses of their people. One being a "good guy" and upholding the peace in his kingdom, but by doing so with aggressively oppressive rules and a strict government regimen that all but suffocates his people into silence. The other is a "evil queen" who dearly loves her people and will stop at nothing to annihilate any kingdom that so much as threatens her peoples' way of life, thusly creating a massively strong military and sweeping terror across other kingdoms. Is one more evil than the other? Perhaps not, but they're wicked in their own ways and it lets the reader pick a side. I'm also reminded of a character from the webcomic The Meek, in which he kills his own wife to start a war by blaming it on the other kingdom.

Wickedness comes in may packages, and can be grown and cultivated in such a way that it becomes awe inspiring. Whether or not your readers like your villain isn't really the question, you want them to be attracted to their character enough that they come back to read more of the story.

For my story, I have several who can be classified as villains. One of which is a massively successful merchant who has an insatiable thirst for immortality, born from his near hysterical fear of becoming ill (illness in the world- both mental and physical- plays a major point in the world's lore). Out of this innocent people are slaughtered and a young woman becomes a vessel for a violent, malevolent demi-god's spirit who in turn uses her to gain leverage in the current government. There is also his bodyguard, a fellow who killed the Queen in order to wear her skin as a disguise and influence the court in the merchant's favor. On the other side of the coin, they love each other and it becomes more and more apparent as the reader goes on.

You _want_ your readers to feel conflicted about your villains, and you want your readers to feel like they need to come back and read more or finish that last chapter before bed to find out what your villains are about. They're still characters, and making them rapists for the sake of raping or killing children for the sake of killing (Darth Vader had a reason for it, so he is excused)- it just dilutes the character to be something unmemorable.

If you really do want your character's main evil to be focused on rape or torture, you have to dig deep into the psychology of those subjects before you go about writing them. Rapist mindesets can stem from a lot of issues and behaviors, the least common of which is for legitimate sexual gratification. Torture is much the same way. If you look at reports of famous serial killers throughout history, you'll find a lot of people who are scared, filled with cowardice, and have one or two events in their lives that serve as the major drive for their abhorrent crimes.

I hope this shed some light on this, and that I haven't echoed the other users too much!


----------



## Velka (Dec 13, 2015)

If I have a line, I haven't found it yet. That being said, while I have written pretty graphic fight scenes/battles, I've never had the need in my stories to go down many squicky rabbit-holes of human awfulness.

I've written torture, it wasn't easy, because a character I really liked was on the receiving end, but the torture scene was important because: 1. It demonstrated the unwavering loyalty of the character being tortured (they refused to give the location of their friend up to the torturer) 2. It showed how desperate the torturer had become in their quest to find the person.

Also, I think what one person finds "too bad" is very subjective. I have to say one of the most nefarious instances of a bad guy being really, really bad, in my opinion, was in a recent episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.



Spoiler: Spoiler Alert



Grant Ward is trying to get to somewhere in ass-end Russia. He gets on a passenger plane bound for Moscow. While in flight he flirts with the flight attendant to get a few airline bottles of booze in the back cabin. She invites him to visit her in her layover in Moscow, and he replies that his destination isn't Moscow. He then leans into her and whispers in her ear. She goes deathly pale and straps herself into a seat. 

Ward then gets on the PA system and announces that everyone will soon experience turbulence because the side of the plane is about to be blown open, resulting in cabin pressure and temperature drop, and that they will soon freeze to near death before all dying in the plane crash.

He then blows open the side of the plane and parachutes out.

To me, this is a really, really, evil move. He could've just blown open the door and jumped, but he took special glee in informing everyone on the plane of their imminent death. This is a man who needed to get to ass-end Russia quick, so killing a plane full of people so he could parachute out as the flew over his destination was, to him, a perfectly reasonable solution.


----------



## ascanius (Dec 15, 2015)

All three replies lost to oblivion, save this fourth.  
Today I have read and am galvanized to a response,
A response not lost or forsaken to ram.  

 I say write and to hell with sensitivity. 
Man the sails and show me humanity, 
in all it's deprived horror lest I forget it's glory.  

Remind me of those behind bars of steel, 
tell me of those too poor for a meal, 
and show me those lives we repeal.  

make me feel for that girl in a dark cage,
remind us for what we should all rage.
rage, against a number on a page.

Their tortured, unsought stories have value
even if cast upon a bloody violent hue
we forget they are not a statue.

Show me my humanity, lest we all forget.
Don't let us hide behind entertainment.
make me shed a tear rent.

hehe that was fun.


----------



## NerdyCavegirl (Dec 15, 2015)

I don't believe anyone or anything is truly good or evil. It's all a matter of perspective. And considering that I'm sure many of you have realized by now that I have little care for human laws or expectations, it shouldn't surprise anyone that I go to very dark places in my writing. I do have some personal moral values, but it's all too easy for me to see through the eyes of what would be considered the truly depraved. I imagine that I could justify anything if I felt the cause warrants it. That said, I'll be the first to admit I'm a little uncomfortable with how my mind works. But only a little. I'm comfortable painted a dark shade of gray, and regardless of my thoughts, I know I probably shouldn't do certain things for moral or legal reasons. I'd have to have a damn good reason. That applies to my characters as well; every twisted action has some purpose, even if that purpose seems no less twisted. Nothing is insignificant.


----------



## The Stranger (Dec 15, 2015)

me personally, i like to explore the darkness of the human soul. i cant make my villeins bad enough in my opinion. this often gets people questioning why i strive to make such depraved and sick characters, to which my simple reply is "evil never holds back". it can be an interesting mental exercise to devise the most disgusting and abhorrent crimes i can think of for my villains. i  once wrote an entire cult dedicated to the murder, reanimation, and fornication of corpses for example, and it was incredibly entertaining for me as a writer


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 16, 2015)

You can hint at the horrible things someone has done and the reputation it has given them without having to go into graphic detail.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 16, 2015)

The Stranger said:


> me personally, i like to explore the darkness of the human soul. i cant make my villeins bad enough in my opinion. this often gets people questioning why i strive to make such depraved and sick characters, to which my simple reply is "evil never holds back". it can be an interesting mental exercise to devise the most disgusting and abhorrent crimes i can think of for my villains. i  once wrote an entire cult dedicated to the murder, reanimation, and fornication of corpses for example, and it was incredibly entertaining for me as a writer



And how did it go over with the readers?


----------



## Velka (Dec 16, 2015)

The Stranger said:


> i once wrote an entire cult dedicated to the murder, reanimation, and fornication of corpses for example, and it was incredibly entertaining for me as a writer



Ok, found my line.


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Dec 18, 2015)

The Stranger said:


> i  once wrote an entire cult dedicated to the murder, reanimation, and fornication of corpses for example, and it was incredibly entertaining for me as a writer



That is my kind of twisted.


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 19, 2015)

I think much wisdom has already been shared in this thread. I do normally feel that really depraved characters shouldn't be the major villains as that goes to strongly in the "black-and-white" duology that I dislike. Instead I prefer when the villains or "villains" are simply people with both good and negative traits that defines them but perhaps have stronger negative than positive traits, even while they are capable of good deeds without an allergic reaction.

Making a character a rapist is however an example of making them irredemably evil, in my understanding, and thus its something that I normally reserve for minor antagonists if used at all.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 19, 2015)

Devouring Wolf said:


> That is my kind of twisted.



Care to share why?


----------



## Reilith (Dec 19, 2015)

I might be late to hop on this boat, but I will still try. It doesn't come from my writing experience exactly, but from my reading. Robin Hobb's Liveship Traders trilogy has one of the creepiest villains I've ever read, without overusing horrible tropes. There is a bit of everything there, and most of all, you read from the villain's perspective as well. It was a sort of a homecoming for me, reading that, as it helps see how the mind of a depraved villain works, it even helps you associate with him at some times ever though he is despicable and horrifying. He is a true made person, with his problems, his experiences and thoughts and actions. It was a very helpful read for me, and the books are fantastic even beyond that. I believe it was the most helpful read I've had in my life, regarding to how to write villains.


----------



## Ban (Dec 20, 2015)

Thank you for replying Reilith you're not too late 

I actually think your reply would fit well into another thread i made a little while ago. http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/15569-most-frightening-aspect-character.html


----------



## imagine123 (Dec 25, 2015)

My characters are on various points of the "not acceptable behavior" distribution. I think the worst of them is a favorite of mine, essentially a psychopath, but so innocent and child-like about it, I find it hard to step away and realize, _oh, yeah, what he wants to do is kind of evil..._

Through the years, I've read a lot of books regarding some nasty, disturbing topics, trying to understand why characters would do some nasty, disturbing stuff, and how other characters who've had that nasty, disturbing stuff happen to them would be affected by it. There are a few mindsets that, while I can understand/accept them, I won't write in.

People are people, and most people are human. No matter what the direction of today's fiction and how the media portrays world events seems to imply. Most aren't going to hurt others unless pushed to it. If we're looking at proportions, it makes more sense to have a cast of characters where the majority are just regular people pushed to do extraordinary things (whether they be bad or good things), and a few bad apples who are capable of or enjoy raping/killing/molesting/torturing. _However_...normal people are usually rather passive, while the bad apples are the ones that are active (i.e., a serial killer has to go hunt his/her victims). The bad apples are also unpredictable. And we all know active + unpredictable makes for entertaining fiction. So I guess their prevalence in fiction makes sense.

I don't like stories that are overly grimdark or grimdark just "because". It seems high-schoolish (but this just might be because that's the time I went through a period where I devoured things like JTHM and thought it was awesome). It's also a waste. Evil characters/events are the spice in fiction and in life. That's why we are so interested in them; _because they aren't the norm_. If you have a plain dish that you want to amp up, it make sense to throw some spice in there. But there's a threshold where too much spice makes the dish both boring and inedible. And if it's just all spice, then you've got no dish.

I do find it interesting that murder/killing seems to be SOP in fiction and no one bats an eye, but when it comes to anything sexual, there is immediately a problem. I'm sure (scratch that: certain) that the difference between those two classes of deviant behaviors and their use in fiction has been discussed in-depth on this forum, so I won't go further into it. I will say that murder/killing needs to be treated a bit heavier in fiction, though. It ain't easier to kill someone than to rape someone.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 25, 2015)

imagine123 said:


> I do find it interesting that murder/killing seems to be SOP in fiction and no one bats an eye, but when it comes to anything sexual, there is immediately a problem. I'm sure (scratch that: certain) that the difference between those two classes of deviant behaviors and their use in fiction has been discussed in-depth on this forum, so I won't go further into it. I will say that murder/killing needs to be treated a bit heavier in fiction, though. It ain't easier to kill someone than to rape someone.



That seems to be an attitude in society in general, at leas in the US. The news will report all sorts of horrific violence and atrocities, people get upset for a few seconds and then move on. A bare breast on TV is more off putting than innocent people dying because of collateral damage in air raids for example. 

Our attitudes towards sex, even heterosexuality, are still fairly primitive.


----------



## ascanius (Dec 25, 2015)

imagine123 said:


> I do find it interesting that murder/killing seems to be SOP in fiction and no one bats an eye, but when it comes to anything sexual, there is immediately a problem. I'm sure (scratch that: certain) that the difference between those two classes of deviant behaviors and their use in fiction has been discussed in-depth on this forum, so I won't go further into it. I will say that murder/killing needs to be treated a bit heavier in fiction, though. It ain't easier to kill someone than to rape someone.



I think this has to do with the finality of death be it caused by murder, accident or old age.  The person dies, and people move on as best they can.  It doesn't affect the victim anymore because they are dead.  Sexual violence is very different there is no finality to it, it becomes a part of what shapes the victim until hopefully they cope with it or find some way to move on.  Also how it affects the victim we can see and know the affects, with death we can only see how it affects those around us.  A closer comparison would be comparing torture and sexual violence.  See with death we all know that the pain and suffering have ended for the victim and will not happen again, not so with sexual violence or torture, sometimes our fears are our own worst enemy.



Miskatonic said:


> That seems to be an attitude in society in general, at leas in the US. The news will report all sorts of horrific violence and atrocities, people get upset for a few seconds and then move on. A bare breast on TV is more off putting than innocent people dying because of collateral damage in air raids for example.
> 
> Our attitudes towards sex, even heterosexuality, are still fairly primitive.



lol Being a little simplistic.  violence, murder, rape, etc are all very terrible things but everyone agrees with that, well maybe some countries wouldn't but anyway.  Excuse my cynicism but the bare breast on TV means that you get the very passionate extremist minority coming out of the wood work to praise or condemn such action based on their self-righteous political agenda.  I bet most people could care less, but make a big deal about something and guess what suddenly you have more viewers, more twisted narratives, another focus group, political action committees, and another talking point for the politicians who what to save the public from the horrors of x.

oohhh, Interesting allegory, Funny though, here's the  thing collateral damage is/was never intended, we all know that, hopefully.  It would be very different if those meaningless deaths were intended.  If you have a catapult destroying an orphanage in the middle of a siege that was never indented, we can accept it as a byproduct of war, we may not like it, we may wish and even try to find better ways.  Now if the army is purposefully going into schools and orphanages to kill the innocent for whatever reason, and they are then praised for it by their comrades in arms and mothers yeah this really turns the army into evil demons and should be killed at almost all costs.

But also lets not forget, I wonder how the the person who is responsible for the collateral damage would react to finding out what they unintentionally did?


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 25, 2015)

Reminds me of the 80's when satanism was the big boogie man according to the more outspoken members of the evangelist communities, among others. This seemed to go hand in hand with the rise in heavy metal's popularity.


----------



## ascanius (Dec 25, 2015)

Mah, give viking death metal any day!  but yeah basic idea


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 25, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> Reminds me of the 80's when satanism was the big boogie man according to the more outspoken members of the evangelist communities, among others. This seemed to go hand in hand with the rise in heavy metal's popularity.



Bit of  chicken and egg argument there, then feeding off each other. Oddly enough, psychologists were huge in the rise of "satanism" and "cult" paranoia. That was ugly and under the auspices of science. Ruined more than a few lives.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 26, 2015)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Bit of  chicken and egg argument there, then feeding off each other. Oddly enough, psychologists were huge in the rise of "satanism" and "cult" paranoia. That was ugly and under the auspices of science. Ruined more than a few lives.



Unfortunately it seemed to go over a lot of people's heads that the whole satanic thing in heavy metal was usually a marketing tactic. Venom is a perfect example. They used satanism for theatrical purposes but could have cared less about satanism as some form of ideology.


----------

