How should I introduce a villain? Does there need to be a specific one?

[eRl]

So I am confused about this. I have a whole exposition and such written, and have introduced (or at least left foreshadowing threads) to most of the characters, plot lines, etc... But thus far I don't really have a villain set up, just a general threat hanging over my main character's world. I've made a vague reference to "mad scientists", but that's about it (it's a weird mix of YA dystopia, and fantasy, not really sure what happening genre-wise, my prologue(post story) is very fantasy-esque, but the story's started in a dystopia world) Anyways, my basic, vague idea is for like what happens is that what the scientists release (something from a fantastical "otherworld") causes the main conflict (it sounds cliche but I have many differences and twists) Anyways I'm unsure if I should leave the scientists to fade out under the main threat, or continue their part in the story as side characters, or even villainize them as much more prominent.
Ideas anyone?

 

[FifthView]

I chose "1" in the poll above, because I think that having a single credible, very interesting villain is a great approach, and there are pitfalls in trying to have too many. That said, you could have what I'd call "villainous" others who are basically supporting cast in the main villain's side of the story. I.e., make one of these scientists the main villain; but that shouldn't stop you from showing a few of the other scientists in a very negative light.

For what you've described so far, I'd use a comparison analogy. Daredevil season 1 was great because Fisk, Kingpin, was great. But Daredevil season 2 focused more on the vague "Hand" and so wasn't very good in comparison.

 

[Night Gardener]

I think that well-crafted multiple villains can exist in a narrative. The enemy of your enemy doesn't necessarily have to be * your* ally: you can just end up with multiple advesaries. Often, it's easier to write a top boss villain a supporting cast of underling-villains ( ala video game narratives. )

I'm currently writing multiple villains with very different goals to the MC and each other. My WIP is very conspiracy-driven and has a bend towards political intrique, so having one 'arch-villain' may be an option, but probably won't be the best option for me.

In your case, a loose organization of mad-scientists would likely have some "front men" in suits. Maybe hire a good PR firm to sweep unsighlty things under a rug. A tighter organization of mad-scientists would likely furbish their own front men for public purposes, and deny that there's a rug for things to be swept under.

We typically like one singular person to be the arch-villain mastermind, but it's not necessarily the correct approach for every situation. If you think your narrative can support a group of collective villains, then that's the direction to try first. You can always add one more "man behind the curtain", so to speak.

 

[skip.knox]

This is Man vs Nature. Your villain is not a person but an environment--a disease, a curse, acid rain, whatever. They have to find a way to fix it, flee from it, whatever. You don't have to have a sentient villain. In my first book, the "villain" was an invasion of a quarter million goblins. That kept everyone busy.

 

[Penpilot]

To jump off what Skip said, you don't need a villain in your story but you do need an antagonist, something that stands in the way of your main character achieving their goals.

Sometimes the antagonist is a villain like Voldemort, Darth Vader, or Megatron. Sometimes it's a force of nature like a storm, the bitter winter, or a pack of wolves. And finally it could be your main character's inner demons, alcohol, low self confidence, etc.

Also an antagonist who is a person doesn't have to be a Villian. It could be someone like a stern math teacher with demanding standards who is only doing their job.

What type of antagonist(s) you choose depends on the needs of your story. For example Star Wars has the Empire and Darth Vader. The Empire can be thought of as a force of nature, but that's where Vader comes in. He's a personification of that vague concept of Empire. He represents their values and their immediate threat.

 

[FifthView]

Often, it's easier to write a top boss villain a supporting cast of underling-villains ( ala video game narratives. )

I wouldn't call that "video game narratives."

I do think it's important to distinguish between villain and antagonist, and not confuse the two concepts. The Harry Potter books are probably a good example.

Villains
Voldemort
Bellatrix Lestrange -- and other Death Eaters
Dolores Umbridge (was she a Death Eater? I seem to remember that her own views paralleled Death Eaters, but she wasn't officially one)

Antagonists
Draco Malfoy -- and some other members of Slytherin
Professor Snape
The Dursleys

So...a video game narrative might be one where a string of sub-villains is confronted and defeated, one- or two- at a time, before the main boss villain, who's all that's left, must be fought. But Harry Potter's story isn't so much like this. The minor villains in the Harry Potter world show up for the final battle with the boss villain (Death Eaters, that is), except wherever they've already been killed, like Professor Quirrell. And Dolores Umbridge, although she's met and mostly disposed of before that final book, is kind of an odd, incidental villain in the tale since she's not a Death Eater.

Then there are the antagonists who offer antagonism to Harry throughout the story but are not, strictly speaking, villains. Skip's "Man vs Nature" is a protagonist-antagonist dynamic; nature is not a villain. A villain will be an antagonist, I think, but not every antagonist is a villain. (Edit: Or the rare exception, when the villain is the protagonist.)

I'm not even sure that all the Death Eaters can be called villains. Some of the more-or-less nameless or underdeveloped Death Eaters are basically simple henchmen. (Similarly, I wouldn't call all the Chitauri invaders in the first Avengers movie to be thousands of villains descending through the wormhole.) As "henchmen," they are almost like a force of nature, perhaps, but might be better thought to be extensions of the main villain.

As for the OP's concern...I suppose I'd ask whether these mad scientists unleashed that force intentionally, for a purpose, or the emergence of that force was a simple accident, an unintended result of unwise or selfish endeavors.

I would assume that the origins of this antagonistic force will be addressed at some point, and the fact that mad scientists are named as the cause will inspire this question of the direct relationship between the two. If it was an accident, then those mad scientists could more or less fade into the background. But if they did this on purpose, knowing full well what they were unleashing, then this would raise questions about their agency, and probably one or more of them would need to be set up in a prominent position as "villain."

Then again, maybe not. Are the heroes trying to stop this force/situation? Are any of the mad scientists, who know full well what they are doing, trying to stop the heroes?

Time could also play a role. If these mad scientists caused this situation many years ago, and the force has had time to propagate across the land, then it's more "nature," especially if the main heroes don't know the full history behind the situation. The issue of those scientists and the cause of the situation wouldn't be a big factor in the story.

If this is a more recent event, perhaps the cause would be an issue, at least a question for the characters. Even so, it might become a moot issue, depending on what kind of story is being written. (But I would question why the mad scientists are included as a factor in the story in the first place, in that case, unless it's all a big accident.)

There are other things to consider, probably. As often occurs with a "Can I?" or "Should I?" question, the answer is always Yes, No, Maybe, and will depend on factors about the story not explained in the original question.

 

[eRl]

Firstly, thanks for all the feedback!!!

Then again, maybe not. Are the heroes trying to stop this force/situation? Are any of the mad scientists, who know full well what they are doing, trying to stop the heroes?

Time could also play a role. If these mad scientists caused this situation many years ago, and the force has had time to propagate across the land, then it's more "nature," especially if the main heroes don't know the full history behind the situation. The issue of those scientists and the cause of the situation wouldn't be a big factor in the story.

If this is a more recent event, perhaps the cause would be an issue, at least a question for the characters. Even so, it might become a moot issue, depending on what kind of story is being written. (But I would question why the mad scientists are included as a factor in the story in the first place, in that case, unless it's all a big accident.)

There are other things to consider, probably. As often occurs with a "Can I?" or "Should I?" question, the answer is always Yes, No, Maybe, and will depend on factors about the story not explained in the original question.

In my story, the scientists have just caused this situation, though it is the result of many years of trying, (which is why basically Armageddon/the apocalypse is descending upon their world) the problem was that they let this force out and lost control of it. But do they continue to ally themselves with these demons, or fade out as lesser threats? I am unsure. My hero is simply someone who was trapped and experimented on by the scientists for a year. It is during a harrowing escape that the scientists lose control of everything.

 

[eRl]

I think that well-crafted multiple villains can exist in a narrative. The enemy of your enemy doesn't necessarily have to be * your* ally: you can just end up with multiple advesaries. Often, it's easier to write a top boss villain a supporting cast of underling-villains ( ala video game narratives. )

I'm currently writing multiple villains with very different goals to the MC and each other. My WIP is very conspiracy-driven and has a bend towards political intrique, so having one 'arch-villain' may be an option, but probably won't be the best option for me.

In your case, a loose organization of mad-scientists would likely have some "front men" in suits. Maybe hire a good PR firm to sweep unsighlty things under a rug. A tighter organization of mad-scientists would likely furbish their own front men for public purposes, and deny that there's a rug for things to be swept under.

We typically like one singular person to be the arch-villain mastermind, but it's not necessarily the correct approach for every situation. If you think your narrative can support a group of collective villains, then that's the direction to try first. You can always add one more "man behind the curtain", so to speak.

Thanks, this makes a lot of sense. I do have some ideas and I think a tighter organization as you described would be beneficial for my story.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

My thought is write them as you need them. Is the book about the characters war with the villains? Or is it about his struggle with everything going wrong? If the latter, you don't really need villains. Your mad scientists can just run away. But oddly you can alter the plot in places to bring them back and make them villains at specific points in the work. For example, he's battling whatever, and then at one point it becomes necessary to reveal to the world what's happened and mad scientist number one doesn't like that - so suddenly you have a battle within a battle.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[eRl]

Hi,

My thought is write them as you need them. Is the book about the characters war with the villains? Or is it about his struggle with everything going wrong? If the latter, you don't really need villains. Your mad scientists can just run away. But oddly you can alter the plot in places to bring them back and make them villains at specific points in the work. For example, he's battling whatever, and then at one point it becomes necessary to reveal to the world what's happened and mad scientist number one doesn't like that - so suddenly you have a battle within a battle.

Cheers, Greg.

Ohh that makes sense. Yes, it is like the latter option. Thanks for the advice!

 

[SoulThief]

I'm not a fan of villains, preferring the concept of people with different and often opposing agendas. I think such a view then changes the dynamics of a story because there will be varying degrees of "opposition" exhibited towards the protagonist by different characters within the story. It also facilitates conflict (i.e. interesting plot points) between many of the story's characters. I also love it when the reader can perceive that the "villain" in behaving in a perfectly acceptable if not ideal manner within their own view of the world (e.g. the "villain's" own world will die of they don't destroy ours). So having said this - as many as possible.