How bad is too bad?

[Ban]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.