Depicting Evil

[Reaver]

What is evil?

I have a question for all my fellow writers out there: Which kind of evil is scarier: The Sociopath (one who doesn't or can't differentiate between good and evil/ right and wrong) or The Psychopath (one who knows the difference, but doesn't care)? I'm very interested to hear what you guys think. Thanks!

 

[sashamerideth]

I think it would be the psychopath for me. They seem more grounded and would have the ability to orchestrate cunning schemes and plots, revelling in their own mania.

 

[Laughing_Seraphim]

The differences clinically and otherwise aren't as well defined, black and white as one might imagine. In terms of potential to impact however, I would be more leery of a psychopath as one commonly (but not universally)accepted difference is that sociopaths are socially inept and would be instantly noticeable. The psychopath, on the other hand, is likely an individual one could spend time with, imagines them to be of robust character and so forth. The great guy or gal, the one everyone loves, the winner, the popular person. In this case though, Mr./Mrs. Wonderful will sodomize your cat, rape your husband and skin you alive to get his or her car re-upholstered. The entire time you're watching the dowdy lad with poor hygiene who is too socially inept to even say hello, and is unlikely to ever interact with you at all.

 

[Telcontar]

I believe you have those reversed. The sociopath is usually the harder to spot of the two, whereas the psychopath is prone to violent outbursts and extreme behavior.

You are right in that they are ill-defined. I think that they are usually thought of lately as slight distinctions of the same underlying disorder, if I recall convos with my brother (a doctor) correctly. Either way, I agree with your overall point - the scarier one is the one who can blend in.

A pop-culture example is the show Dexter, whose titular character (at first) is presented as a sociopath but manages to fool everyone into thinking he is a more or less normal.

 

[Matty Lee]

Neither the Socio nor Psychopath however they defined are particularly useful villains to me. Neither of these people has any tragedy about them, no sympathetic pathos, no admirable qualities. Evil isn't sociopathic. Evil is every single one of man's good traits turned upon itself. Evil is the inversion, not negation, of humanity. The Grand Inquisitor, gives us an evil character opposed to Christ who is the inversion of humanity. Man's desire to alleviate suffering, one of his most human, and most good traits, is turned against his desire for the true, pure, good, beautiful.

A villain need not be sympathetic of course, but he must have virtues, and those virtues must be turned in against themselves.

 

[Laughing_Seraphim]

I believe you have those reversed. The sociopath is usually the harder to spot of the two, whereas the psychopath is prone to violent outbursts and extreme behavior.

You are right in that they are ill-defined. I think that they are usually thought of lately as slight distinctions of the same underlying disorder, if I recall convos with my brother (a doctor) correctly. Either way, I agree with your overall point - the scarier one is the one who can blend in.

A pop-culture example is the show Dexter, whose titular character (at first) is presented as a sociopath but manages to fool everyone into thinking he is a more or less normal.

In spite of the fact that I have nearly 6 years of education on the matter under my belt, I am going to go ahead and quote, then link to a fairly decent internet article on the subject.

The last main difference between psychopathy and sociopathy is in the presentation. The psychopath is callous, yet charming. He or she will con and manipulate others with charisma and intimidation and can effectively mimic feelings to present as “normal” to society. The psychopath is organized in their criminal thinking and behavior, and can maintain good emotional and physical control, displaying little to no emotional or autonomic arousal, even under situations that most would find threatening or horrifying. The psychopath is keenly aware that what he or she is doing is wrong, but does not care.

Conversely, the sociopath is less organized in his or her demeanor; he or she might be nervous, easily agitated, and quick to display anger. A sociopath is more likely to spontaneously act out in inappropriate ways without thinking through the consequences. Compared to the psychopath, the sociopath will not be able to move through society committing callous crimes as easily, as they can form attachments and often have “normal temperaments.” The sociopath will lie, manipulate and hurt others, just as the psychopath would, but will often avoid doing so to the select few people they care about, and will likely feel guilty should they end up hurting someone they care about.

This is taken from, here , and is about as solid as you're going to get without actually taking abnormal psych, development, adjustment, diagnostics, applied for DSM, neuro-pysch and the rest of the pathology tree.

 

[Reaver]

All of these points of view are very insightful and have helped me greatly. I guess I never truly appreciated how complex "evil" really is. I've always thought of it in terms of absolutes-- black or white, right or wrong, yes or no...Now I see that it's all about varying degrees. Thanks to everyone who commented!

 

[Steerpike]

Reaver:

The points made above are all very good, and I think reflect the state of 'evil' in the real world.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that in a Fantasy world, you certainly can have black and white, good and evil, as absolutes. Fantasy has quite a tradition of it, in fact. The fantasy world is your own, and just because we don't see evil presenting itself in that fashion in the real world does not mean you can't do so in your own fantasy world. I do think it has to be handled with skill, so that you don't end up with something that reads like a parody, or that you don't have caricatures where you do not want them, but if you want to employ a more absolute view of good and evil you should feel free to do so.

 

[Devor]

The points made above are all very good, and I think reflect the state of 'evil' in the real world.

I don't think we've quite come close to capturing the complexities of evil in the real world. On the one hand, most comments have focused on the extremes - psychopaths, sociopaths, nazis. On the other, people have talked about "evils" which are only evil from one perspective but are just desperate from another. But nobody's really flushed out the sort of real evils which might have a story behind them.

For instance, a person's first murder might be justified under some moral contrivances which a person has established for themselves. But once performed, I think it could be seen as breaking something of a barrier. I think that's partly why, for instance, you see sociopaths and psychopaths killing animals when they're younger and working up to murder as they get older. They might have a proclivity for it, but I think the same can happen, to a perhaps lesser extent, even when no such proclivity exists. One kill opens a door for the next. Some of us may have experienced a similar pattern, for instance, with lying - in our minds certain people may deserve to be lied to, and why should I admit to the blame if it could as easily have been an accident? Eventually, if it happens often enough without the person changing course, those justifications might become broader, until most observers would say they're no longer remotely valid. They had some mugger come to my middle school once and talk about this sort of pattern.

Then I think one slightly evil pattern can lead into another one. Following up with lying and murder, a person might find themselves in a situation where they have to do something corrupt to protect a lie. I've seen stories where that sort of pattern builds up into murder, and I personally find that both believable and realistic.

Such people aren't born as evil psychopaths or tricked by an evil Nazi group think into becoming evil. Their lives, their stories, just take an unfortunate turn where evil slips into some of their choices and builds, and maybe the people around them and the happenstances of their lives help to build it still further, bit by gloomy bit. In my mind, that's the most believable and relatable and tragic type of villain. The person that is in many ways a victim of their own actions, but still has to be stopped.

 

[Steerpike]

No, we haven't come close to address the complexities of real-world "evil," or even how and when that term should be applied. But I think the posts above that point out the complexities involved, and that there is very little that is black and white, are reflective of the state of things in the real world. In fantasy worlds, on the other hand, absolutes may be a real and integral part of the fantasy world.

I think you are right, Devor, in that one often sees a progression of evils, some of which may at first seem minor, or maybe even innocent, and then are expanded upon over time until you reach the point of truly egregious conduct. I do think that provides for a believable and more complex villain in any work, be it Fantasy or not. And, as you note, it renders the villain more relatable. While we would not find ourselves drawn to such extremes, there is something instinctively relatable about the the pattern. We recognize it and see the underlying humanity in it, and that makes for a good villain.

But in a Fantasy world I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of someone or something as an embodiment of evil, without rationale or this progressive pattern. I'm not opposed to the idea of a "race" (for lack of a better term) that embodies such things. In a Fantasy world, you can employ such things, and whether they exist in reality doesn't matter. I do think, however, that a writer going down that path should tread carefully, because there are pitfalls along the way (cliche, parody, and the like). It ca be done.

Personally, I like the "villains" who turn out to not be quite as villainous as initially portrayed. Antagonists who are at odds with the protagonist, and may initially appear to be evil, but as the reader learns more it becomes clear that the antagonist in the story is really pursuing separate goals, maybe even for noble purposes in some sense, and is not really "evil." In some cases, maybe the protagonist is little better, if at all.

 

[Devor]

But in a Fantasy world I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of someone or something as an embodiment of evil, without rationale or this progressive pattern.

I didn't mean to sound like I was contradicting your main points. It was just your one line which got me thinking so I quoted it. I have no problems with and often enjoy the pure evil tropes we see in many fantasy works. I think it's one of the elements which helps to set the genre apart on a thematic level. It's something which is believable here and not in other works of literature.

 

[Steerpike]

I didn't mean to sound like I was contradicting your main points. It was just your one line which got me thinking so I quoted it. I have no problems with and often enjoy the pure evil tropes we see in many fantasy works. I think it's one of the elements which helps to set the genre apart on a thematic level. It's something which is believable here and not in other works of literature.

Yeah, I knew what you meant. Was just expanding

I think you are right - purely evil elements in Fantasy can be used as plot devices or thematic elements and this allows the fantasy work to address certain aspects of morality, or the nature of good and evil, in a way that is difficult to do in a work that takes place in the real world. In such a fantasy work, you've basically established controlled parameters of the morality of that particular world, and you can the operate within those parameters without having to consider the vagaries of gray areas between good and evil in your story. I think it also provides for many readers a welcome departure from the real world, where things are not black and white. It seems to me that many are drawn, perhaps on an emotional level, to works where there are clear good guys to root for and bad guys to root against.

 

[Reaver]

Good advice, Steerpike. I'll definitely do my best to keep the evil characters in my stories from becoming caricatures and avoid any type of parody.

 

[Masronyx]

How to do it without being cliche?

Hmm... truthfully, I've always had some trouble with evil characters. The problem is not creating them, but keeping them 'real' so to speak. What made them that way? Are they truly insane? What drives this person to do this? Corrupted powers, personal anguish, madness derived from a tragic even that happened in the past? My problem is wanting to know what drives this person or these people to be 'evil', or why is this character(s) the antagonist? Greed? Insanity? Revenge? Or is it because they live in their own world and the protagonist either wittingly or unwittingly destroys that fragile world?

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

How to do it without being cliche?

Back in my twennies, I looked for any excuse to play with a video camera. One of those excuses was my dad buying a building with a conveyor belt in it. He had no use for the belt, so it had to go. A perfect opportunity to make a movie about an evil man who lures unsuspecting victims into his conveyor belt, only to come out the other side as... A HAMBURGER!

One victim's dying word was "why?" That was the villain's opportunity to reveal his motive:
"Because I hate the human race!"

Ah... being evil just for the sake of being evil! It doesn't get any more cliched than that!

without being cliche?

Oh... oh! O-O-O-OH!

Well... the NON-cliched villain has motives that are somewhat understandable, even though they obviously carry their actions way too far. Read about any war, and you'll find all kinds of motives for all kinds of atrocities.

I actually liked the villain's motive in Watchmen. He tried to justify his actions, as if he were doing the world a favor. I wasn't sold by his speech for a nanosecond, but... had to give him props for originality.

The villain in Dragon Tears (by Dean Koontz) had a rather bizarre reason for being the way he was:

Spoiler: a strange, but original motive

His mother was a fully functional hermaphrodite. As a result of fathering HER own children, she had mutant kids. The most powerful was her son who had, um... additional male parts and a missing male part. So, stronger urges, but no way to satisfy those urges: that was his motive.

The fact the he was a muscular behemoth who could stop time just made it that much easier for him to lash out at the rest of the world.

 

[Erica]

I'm an animal lover, so any scene that involves killing an animal for no good reason gets its point across.

Once scene I still remember from reading the Once and Future King was a scene where Morgan La Fay was performing some magical ritual that involved killing a poor cat in a grisly way and being completely vapid and unconcerned about it.

I also remember a scene in one of Fritz Leiber's books where a villain was reminiscing with his old nanny about all the animals he had tortured as a child. The senseless and unrepentant killing of animals (especially when reveling in it) is always a good hook for making someone look evil.

Of course, 'good' characters sometimes kill animals (and humans) in stories and may perform kinds of 'bad' acts, so it's the manner of the act, the reasons for doing it and his/her attitude about it that makes the difference. There's a scene in the Curse of Chalion where the protagonist performs a dark ritual that he feels terrible about, even though it's the only way to achieve his purpose, which is essentially noble.

I think that you can also elaborate this over to other evil acts. Rape, murder, child abuse, consorting with demons, jilting a lover etc. etc. can all be portrayed in ways that make it clear that it's a decent person doing a bad thing (or even something that is not regarded as bad in the context of the character's situation or culture) versus a blatantly evil act performed by an evil person.

Then there is differentiating the different kinds of evil that are out there. Is it the act of someone who is prone to a certain kind of 'pragmatic' evil versus the act of someone who is sadistic but passionate versus the unfeeling act of a truly sociopathic person (someone who cannot form genuine bonds and for whom the feelings of others are not real). Was the evil person always evil or did he or she start out okay and end up becoming more and more pragmatic, obsessed with revenge, bitter or whatever due to the circumstances in his/her life?

 

[Steerpike]

I think those are good points, Erica. Also, I think when it comes to making judgments regarding 'reasons' a character might have, it is a good idea to put the character into the context of the larger world and not necessarily to impose 21st century, real-world values on the character. Just by way of example, a character living in a harsh world at a cro-magnon level of technology (basically a nomadic, hunter/gatherer existence) might not think twice about killing an animal for any reason or for no reason at all, without being evil or bad. As you create the rules of your fantasy world and your fantasy society, that will dictate in large part whether such things are good, bad, or neither. There is a lot of room to play around within the moral strictures of the world.