How evil can an MC be before you stop reading?

[Trick]

Recent threads have inspired me to ask this question. My current WIP has a dark MC but he definitely has likable traits. I feel he is somewhat balanced between good and evil.

However, I've been planning an historical fiction novel, though it will be as accurate as possible with some necessary assumptions to fill in the blanks in the actual records. My concern is that, though the historical figure (who shall remain anonymous, to keep this discussion general) is literally the most interesting real person I have ever read about, he was also a major bastard... worse than any character in ASOIAF without question. He does have a lot of personal suffering to explain his evil actions but the things he did can never be justified, only understood in a coldly logical way.

On the flip side, some of his heroics and incredible executions of justice and vengeance will make for awesome reading, along with so many other pieces of his life.

Would you be too put off as a reader if the balance is too far on the side of evil? Often depicting atrocious, gut-wrenching, despicable and usually unnecessary violence?

 

[X Equestris]

Worse than any character in ASOIAF, you say? Worse than Ramsay Bolton?

 

[WooHooMan]

If it's a historic person, I think the limit is how evil this guy was in real life. The reader will be fine as long as it's accurate/believable.

 

[Ophiucha]

I don't think there is necessarily a hard limit on how evil a character can be before I stop reading, although I suppose there are certain acts of evil that can force me to put the book down. I grew up during the height of the 'torture' genre of horror films during the 2000s with a mum who took me to see SAW when I was, like, 12. I pretty much cannot be phased by any degree or description of gratuitous, gory violence of that nature. But other horrors can be written as gently as possible and I'll still slam the book shut and go read something nicer. And even the tamest and least upsetting of horrors can put me off if they are written in a way that suggests I should agree or side with that character.

But reading about a character who is evil, even to the extent that I can barely empathize with them? I'm fine with that, if it's written well. Particularly if it's a historical character, where I can justify the writer taking the time to detail their acts as a necessity of telling this person's story.

 

[Trick]

Worse than any character in ASOIAF, you say? Worse than Ramsay Bolton?

Not worse in is heart, I would say, but his actions were worse. In scope if not in individual cruelty (though there was an aggregious amount of that also).

If it's a historic person, I think the limit is how evil this guy was in real life. The reader will be fine as long as it's accurate/believable.

Accurate, yes. Believable? not for everyone most likely, until they've done the research.

 

[X Equestris]

Not worse in is heart, I would say, but his actions were worse. In scope if not in individual cruelty (though there was an aggregious amount of that also).



Accurate, yes. Believable? not for everyone most likely, until they've done the research.

If this character is someone we are supposed to sympathize with, then you've got your work cut out for you. Not saying it's impossible, but I think it will be hard.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

That he's historical may work to your advantage.

For example, I may read a historical fiction thinking "Damn you Khan!" but if Genghis Khan fascinates me, and the back-of-the-book blurb says it's a historical fiction about Khan, then I should know the MC's a bastard before I even open it.

On the other hand, if a totally fictional character were Genghis Khan-like, and I knew he was a bandit but expected a fun bandit like the guy in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, I might put the book down. Straight down to Hell.

I second what WooHoo says, you keep the MC true to the historical figure. It sounds like he's evil-bastardly enough you wouldn't have a need to make him worse anyway.

 

[X Equestris]

That he's historical may work to your advantage.

For example, I may read a historical fiction thinking "Damn you Khan!" but if Genghis Khan fascinates me, and the back-of-the-book blurb says it's a historical fiction about Khan, then I should know the MC's a bastard before I even open it.

On the other hand, if a totally fictional character were Genghis Khan-like, and I knew he was a bandit but expected a fun bandit like the guy in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, I might put the book down. Straight down to Hell.

I second what WooHoo says, you keep the MC true to the historical figure. It sounds like he's evil-bastardly enough you wouldn't have a need to make him worse anyway.

Yeah, Genghis Khan was sort of what I was thinking with this. If I saw him pop up, I wouldn't be surprised at whatever he did.

Of course, it's worth noting that you can have despicable people as the protagonist, so long as you aren't expecting people to root for them. Macbeth is a horrible man, but that's the point. You're supposed to be against him.

 

[Trick]

Accuracy is my goal but also some sympathy for the character. I'm glad to hear that his factual status will help. Most of the assumptions I will make will be internal and I plan to portray him as controlled by powerful emotions and with regret in his heart. He definitely was less evil in his later years and I've interpreted that as guilt and maturity (most of his atrocities were committed before the age of 25).

 

[cupiscent]

I think it depends a lot on the motivation and reasoning for actions, and also on how the character feels about it personally. Some of my favourite characters in fiction are those who do terrible things, and feel terrible about it, but they do it anyway because it's the best thing to do that results in the widest benefit to the most people. Especially when looking at characters in leadership roles, I am a big fan of the Prince model - the Prince's role is not to be liked, it's to achieve the best life and most security for the people of his principality. Show us that, and I'm interested in the Prince's struggle.

But if the character is just mean, then I'm not interested. I don't care about what meanness he's suffered under - I am not interested in watching that being paid forward.

 

[Trick]

His motivations were two fold (forgive the oversimplification) and, though he had a different title, he was, in essence, a prince His earliest motivation was revenge but he definitely did most of the terrible things for the sake of his country, even though they were misguided. In his time though, he was not far off of many other leaders - a bit more creative maybe but more honest also, brutally honest.

 

[Penpilot]

But if the character is just mean, then I'm not interested. I don't care about what meanness he's suffered under - I am not interested in watching that being paid forward.

I'm in agreement with this. I might be wrong on this, but I think all the ASOIF characters that have POVs, even though they may do despicable things, they're not evil. They have understandable motivations, and none of the them are because they want to be mean.

As for Ramsey Bolton, there's a piece of work. I can't wait to see him get his kumuppins. Wonder if it will be as satisfying as Joffery?

 

[K.S. Crooks]

I don't think being too far on the evil side is a problem, especially since people are general more frightened of ordinary evil than the extreme. In the Matrix Agent Smith wanted to wipe out all of humanity, but not scary. In Star Wars Anakin Skywalker kills all the younglings in the Jedi temple- basically he killed all the grade one students, a little scarier. But I would never want to be in the same room as Hannibal Lecter or Nils Bjurman who is Lisbeth Salander's guardian from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. To me these ordinary evil people are much scarier and off-putting.

 

[Trick]

But if the character is just mean, then I'm not interested. I don't care about what meanness he's suffered under - I am not interested in watching that being paid forward.

I would not say that is the case with this man, so that's good to hear. It's also a great point on which I agree. I want to portray him as a hero with huge flaws and regrets. In my mind, a character paying forward meanness is akin to a slasher villain.

I don't think being too far on the evil side is a problem, especially since people are general more frightened of ordinary evil than the extreme. In the Matrix Agent Smith wanted to wipe out all of humanity, but not scary. In Star Wars Anakin Skywalker kills all the younglings in the Jedi temple- basically he killed all the grade one students, a little scarier. But I would never want to be in the same room as Hannibal Lecter or Nils Bjurman who is Lisbeth Salander's guardian from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. To me these ordinary evil people are much scarier and off-putting.

He definitely accomplished extreme and ordinary evil at different times. He was idealistic to the point of madness, in my opinion, but he also accomplished good... if with an iron fist, dripping with blood.