How to write villains

[dollyt8]

I hope this is the right place to share this. I've been working on a blog for some time, and while many posts are directly related only to my novels, there are a lot of other posts that are tips for writers in general. For example, I just finished a three-blog series on writing villains; how to make them scary, as well as how to make them sympathetic, that might be useful. You can find all three here: Read the Blog

I'm wondering, what are your thoughts on sympathetic villains vs. the truly monstrous villains? It seems like some people feel the sympathetic villain trope needs to go entirely, but I'm not really there yet. I think it's better to have both sympathetic and completely horrific villains for contrast.

 

[Diana Silver]

I'm not sure I'd follow you in the dichotomy. Every character - villain or hero or antihero - can have all sorts of traits. Some of them sympathetic, some of them monstrous. I personally prefer to have all my characters be monstrous in some regard at some point during the story. The question is: what makes the monster in them come out?

A truly monstrous villain who is only that all the time... that is certainly a trope. Personally, I have no clue how I could make that realistic, though.

 

[JBCrowson]

I'd go further and consider not only what makes the monster come out when it does, but why it doesn't come out more, how characters put the monster away again when it has done its thing. David Banner - Hulk is much more interesting (to me) for this reason than simply Hulk smashing things without that conflict.

 

[JBCrowson]

Liked the blogs, very easy to read through. One thought - I'd see those entries as being more "what makes villains believable" than "how to write villains". Of course the former is needed for the latter, and I am splitting hairs somewhat in making the distinction. Good luck with the November writing goal - ambition is essential to a good villain (cue evil laughter).

 

[Mad Swede]

In my experience from writing fiction based on my real life experiences, the most effective villains are those who seem ordinary people with normal character flaws. That makes their actions and behaviour far more of a shock when it is revealed, and it means I can have the protagonists act and react in ways which give their characterisation more depth.

 

[dollyt8]

I'm not sure I'd follow you in the dichotomy. Every character - villain or hero or antihero - can have all sorts of traits. Some of them sympathetic, some of them monstrous. I personally prefer to have all my characters be monstrous in some regard at some point during the story. The question is: what makes the monster in them come out?

A truly monstrous villain who is only that all the time... that is certainly a trope. Personally, I have no clue how I could make that realistic, though.

It definitely doesn't have to be a dichotomy, but it's often looked at that way. What I'm referring to is the trope of villains that are 100% pure evil by nature, often embodying the actual devil or the fact of evil in the world rather than being full characters, vs. the characters that are evil because of nurture or lack thereof and are therefore usually presented as not being fully responsible for their actions.

Anyway, thanks for your input!

Liked the blogs, very easy to read through. One thought - I'd see those entries as being more "what makes villains believable" than "how to write villains". Of course the former is needed for the latter, and I am splitting hairs somewhat in making the distinction. Good luck with the November writing goal - ambition is essential to a good villain (cue evil laughter).

Lol you're right. Maybe I need to rebrand the series. I'm glad you liked them, and thank you!

In my experience from writing fiction based on my real life experiences, the most effective villains are those who seem ordinary people with normal character flaws. That makes their actions and behaviour far more of a shock when it is revealed, and it means I can have the protagonists act and react in ways which give their characterisation more depth.

Definitely! However I also like the really iconic villains that, even though they may be somewhat one-dimensional, are completely unforgettable because of presentation. Thanks for your input!

 

[Aldarion]

I'm wondering, what are your thoughts on sympathetic villains vs. the truly monstrous villains? It seems like some people feel the sympathetic villain trope needs to go entirely, but I'm not really there yet. I think it's better to have both sympathetic and completely horrific villains for contrast.

I basically agree with you there. While I believe there is far too much of a push to make villains sympathetic, fact is that not all villains are absolute evil.

So as I see it you have several main categories of villains:

1. completely evil people (rarest, often due to a psychological disorder)
2. people who became evil due to circumstance (such as mistreatment etc)
3. idealists who want to do good

I honestly find the last group the most interesting one, as some of the greatest evils in history were a consequence of what people would consider good, even perfect, ideas and ideals. I won't go into detail here to avoid RL politics, but as for fiction, Sauron is an excellent example of a villain who wants to do good (at least at first - Tolkien's villains generally experience significant motive decay over time).

 

[pmmg]

Looking at your blog, I am not sure that the sympathetic villain is taken as a joke by any great majority. I think a lot of people are still enamored with villains, and many will say a sympathetic villain is one of the aims to fleshing them out and makeing them not so one dimensional. Many of the people here (and elsewhere) have said things along the lines of, my favorite type of villain is one who believes they are trying to accomplish something good, but get sort of hijacked along the way. So, if there is some pendulum that swings between sympathetic and truly monstrous villains, I think it is still hovering over the sympathetic side.

For myself, I dont have a dog in the fight. I go with whatever is needed for the story at hand. One of the great advantages of fantasy is we do get to make our villains as purely evil, or wholly sympathetic, as we want, and as fits the tale we are trying to tell. To say one is better than the other is to fail to see that they are not one a scale of better or worse, but are tools of equal weight waiting for proper use. They may fall into being one's preference, but preference does not make one lessor.

Reading through the rest of your blog. I do like the thought of having two villains and contrasting them against each other, which is not something I have ever set out to actively do (though I may have at times inadvertently). I may look for an opportunity to do that. I also like the concept of false hope of redemption (or even false hope and false redemption). There's a reason the banner over Hell says abandon all hope.

I'm gonna go a different direction with this thread, and instead of trying to answer the question of what makes a good scary/evil/powerful villain, I'm gonna say instead, give the story what it needs and write it true. You write the villain true, with its own goals and ambitions, externally and internally, and the rest will take care of itself. Figure out the conflict, figure out the stakes and the why, and what is really behind the villain and why they are contesting, and what they will do to achieve it, and they can drive a story. (I'll add that part of this is figuring why they are the main villain in the first place, cause they have to be successful to have gotten to their place, and in doing so...must have become formidable). I dont really care if the villain is sympathetic or the incarnation of some souless evil, it has to fit the story, and make sense. What does it want? What is standing in its way? What will it do to get it?

The actual plotting of scenes and events to give them credibility, such as outsmarting, or killing off a minion, looks campy and out of place if its just for show, but if it comes from who they really are, then it resonates as true, and makes what they are driven at look more impossible to stop.

Along these lines, I am gonna say, villains are not tropes. There is no reason to talk in terms of tropes. Better is to figure out your story and tell it true. It may be that others look at it and say...hey, I recognize some of these patters, after all, many of the things that we write about have been interesting to humanity for a long time, but we are not making our stories like a modular construction...hmmm, need villain here, guess I'll reach into the trope box and pull something out to plug in... We are telling things with meaning and grit and soul. You are putting yourself on page. Dont diminish it by calling it a trope.

 

[dollyt8]

Looking at your blog, I am not sure that the sympathetic villain is taken as a joke by any great majority. I think a lot of people are still enamored with villains, and many will say a sympathetic villain is one of the aims to fleshing them out and makeing them not so one dimensional. Many of the people here (and elsewhere) have said things along the lines of, my favorite type of villain is one who believes they are trying to accomplish something good, but get sort of hijacked along the way. So, if there is some pendulum that swings between sympathetic and truly monstrous villains, I think it is still hovering over the sympathetic side.

For myself, I dont have a dog in the fight. I go with whatever is needed for the story at hand. One of the great advantages of fantasy is we do get to make our villains as purely evil, or wholly sympathetic, as we want, and as fits the tale we are trying to tell. To say one is better than the other is to fail to see that they are not one a scale of better or worse, but are tools of equal weight waiting for proper use. They may fall into being one's preference, but preference does not make one lessor.

Reading through the rest of your blog. I do like the thought of having two villains and contrasting them against each other, which is not something I have ever set out to actively do (though I may have at times inadvertently). I may look for an opportunity to do that. I also like the concept of false hope of redemption (or even false hope and false redemption). There's a reason the banner over Hell says abandon all hope.

I'm gonna go a different direction with this thread, and instead of trying to answer the question of what makes a good scary/evil/powerful villain, I'm gonna say instead, give the story what it needs and write it true. You write the villain true, with its own goals and ambitions, externally and internally, and the rest will take care of itself. Figure out the conflict, figure out the stakes and the why, and what is really behind the villain and why they are contesting, and what they will do to achieve it, and they can drive a story. (I'll add that part of this is figuring why they are the main villain in the first place, cause they have to be successful to have gotten to their place, and in doing so...must have become formidable). I dont really care if the villain is sympathetic or the incarnation of some souless evil, it has to fit the story, and make sense. What does it want? What is standing in its way? What will it do to get it?

The actual plotting of scenes and events to give them credibility, such as outsmarting, or killing off a minion, looks campy and out of place if its just for show, but if it comes from who they really are, then it resonates as true, and makes what they are driven at look more impossible to stop.

Along these lines, I am gonna say, villains are not tropes. There is no reason to talk in terms of tropes. Better is to figure out your story and tell it true. It may be that others look at it and say...hey, I recognize some of these patters, after all, many of the things that we write about have been interesting to humanity for a long time, but we are not making our stories like a modular construction...hmmm, need villain here, guess I'll reach into the trope box and pull something out to plug in... We are telling things with meaning and grit and soul. You are putting yourself on page. Dont diminish it by calling it a trope.

You're right; I definitely don't think the majority of folks take issue with this. However, I do see a lot of YouTubers who create mirrored negative content about new TV shows and movies, and they pretty much all have the same things to say. One of those things is usually that those shows work too hard to make the villain sympathetic (or at the very least do so in the wrong way). They're not the majority, but they're pretty vocal.

Anyway, I'm glad you got something out of it! Very good points about fitting the story and making sense than anything else as well. Thanks for such a thorough response!

 

[JBCrowson]

I like the way the Vetinari character evolves over the discworld novels. At the beginning he's mostly bad, by the end he's one of the good guys.

Not sure I'd agree that Sauron starts out wanting to do good. He starts out as henchman to Melkor, and uses werewolves to help achieve his master's goals.

 

[Finchbearer]

I’m not too sure on this one. Are we talking about someone who does bad things, but has some level of empathy, or are we talking about a misguided individual with unintended villainous actions? Sympathetic to who? To those who they are being villainous towards? I’m unsure if empathy should replace sympathy, given that a lack of empathy is what defines most villains.

I think if we’re talking about characters who could be described as villains they’re usually doing bad things, whereas you can have any number of morally grey characters who the reader can empathise with.

Sometimes I like a black and white villain who you know for sure is the antagonist, and sometimes I like reading characters whose motivations you learn along the way and you can feel conflicted by.

 

[Insolent Lad]

I've found I have a tendency to pair up the 'monster' villain with the 'conflicted' one in a master/henchman relationship. Either could fill either role but they can serve as foils to each other, and their interactions can help define just who and what they are. The morally gray main antagonist can make use of his sociopath henchman, even while being conflicted by the necessity of it and what might be done in his name. And vice versa with the loyal follower who has his own doubts about following the orders of his evil master--but does anyway.

 

[dollyt8]

I've found I have a tendency to pair up the 'monster' villain with the 'conflicted' one in a master/henchman relationship. Either could fill either role but they can serve as foils to each other, and their interactions can help define just who and what they are. The morally gray main antagonist can make use of his sociopath henchman, even while being conflicted by the necessity of it and what might be done in his name. And vice versa with the loyal follower who has his own doubts about following the orders of his evil master--but does anyway.

I think this is a cool idea! I have both a monster and conflicted villain in most of my stories, but I usually keep them separate. It would be really interesting to do a master/henchman dynamic to explore the differences further.

 

[JBCrowson]

I think this is a cool idea! I have both a monster and conflicted villain in most of my stories, but I usually keep them separate. It would be really interesting to do a master/henchman dynamic to explore the differences further.

Emancipor Reece and Korbal Broach in Steven Erikson's Malazan books spring to mind for this, and it works really well in my opinion.

 

[Gurkhal]

I have as far as I can recall favoured grey stories and thus at least grey villains. To the point that I, when I think about it, don't even think of any character of mine as a villain. They simply characters in conflict with each other.

When I read unredemable characters then I start to root for them since the author has given those characters such a rotten deal.

There are a few examples of the opposite but generally most authors don't make me dislike a character they want me to dislike. Instead I get irritated with the author and feel sympathy for the villain.

 

[Rexenm]

I think it’s some sort of alternate reality.

 

[TechnoHead5]

I basically agree with you there. While I believe there is far too much of a push to make villains sympathetic, fact is that not all villains are absolute evil.

So as I see it you have several main categories of villains:

1. completely evil people (rarest, often due to a psychological disorder)
2. people who became evil due to circumstance (such as mistreatment etc)
3. idealists who want to do good

I honestly find the last group the most interesting one, as some of the greatest evils in history were a consequence of what people would consider good, even perfect, ideas and ideals. I won't go into detail here to avoid RL politics, but as for fiction, Sauron is an excellent example of a villain who wants to do good (at least at first - Tolkien's villains generally experience significant motive decay over time).

I believe that too and also find those "idealists" like Thanos (the easiest example in pop-culture) the most compelling. Still, I do enjoy those "evil for evil's sake" type of villains too. Creatures that were born to spread chaos and mayhem without any second thoughts or any stellar logic behind them. Just like Orcs/Uruks in the original LOTR movies.

But I feel like those sympathetic villains are a sign of our times. A sign that everything needs to be explained to the very last detail. All of character's traits have to be carefully explained, just to avoid any misinterpretations from the reader/viewer. Not only that, they also have to fit into some widely-adopted logic to make sure the recipient won't say "I don't get that, why would he/she do that, that doesn't make sense."

 

[Aldarion]

I believe that too and also find those "idealists" like Thanos (the easiest example in pop-culture) the most compelling. Still, I do enjoy those "evil for evil's sake" type of villains too. Creatures that were born to spread chaos and mayhem without any second thoughts or any stellar logic behind them. Just like Orcs/Uruks in the original LOTR movies.

But I feel like those sympathetic villains are a sign of our times. A sign that everything needs to be explained to the very last detail. All of character's traits have to be carefully explained, just to avoid any misinterpretations from the reader/viewer. Not only that, they also have to fit into some widely-adopted logic to make sure the recipient won't say "I don't get that, why would he/she do that, that doesn't make sense."

Agreed. And that is a problem - I far prefer it when we are limited to what viewpoint characters know even in the omniscient narrator approach. We don't need to know if there are good Easterlings fighting against Sauron - people in Gondor certainly won't know it.

 

[Nighty_Knight]

I like the way the Vetinari character evolves over the discworld novels. At the beginning he's mostly bad, by the end he's one of the good guys.

Not sure I'd agree that Sauron starts out wanting to do good. He starts out as henchman to Melkor, and uses werewolves to help achieve his master's goals.

He didn’t start out a henchman though. He was a Maia named Mairon who was a brilliant craftsman and one of the mightiest Maia. He wanted to do good originally, he believed in strict order. That’s what Melkor (Morgoth) used to turn him to his side. Power. Sauron thought with enough power he could bring order and peace. But he slowly got corrupted. His need for power and order turned into lust for power and control.