• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

What to do about the Villain - Open discussion :)

Dylan

Scribe
;P

61UU1McX7zL._SY425_.jpg


Looks cool but not as intense as the real one :LOL:
 
The redemption arc is always lurking, like a vigilante in the shadowed alleys.

Granted, I am fond of also doing those sorts of arcs too. They can be very emotional and have all the drama. And one of my favorite 90's heroines had such an ongoing arc for it (Xena).
 
To me it feels like this discussion is overthinking protagonist and antagonist, a lot.

I like to keep it simple:
- The protagonist is the main viewpoint character through which the reader experiences the story.
- The antagonist is the main opposition to the protagonist.

That's all there's to it. After this, it very much depends on the kind of story you are telling.

As a side note, I agree that if your antagonist is infinitely more important than your protagonist, then you have the wrong protagonist.

As for who drives the plot, that tends to change over the course of the story (and again, will depend on what story you're telling). It's common to have the antagonist drive the start of the story. They're often the ones who set the whole affair in motion. As the story progresses, the protagonist will get more and more agency, to where he starts influencing more of the story.

However, it very much depends on what tale you are telling, and what you consider driving the story. For instance, in the Hobbit, the whole story is pretty much driven by the protagonists, and Smaug isn't the embodiment of the world's central rule. Yes, you can argue that Smaug, by merely existing and sitting on a pile of gold is setting stuff in motion, but that's twisting stuff just to fit your model, and looking at it from outside the story. In the book, the dwarves and Gandalf decide they want to recapture their mountain, and they set out. They have all the agency from the start. As the story progresses, that agency does shift more and more to Bilbo, who goes from being a bit of lugage to the main mover of events over the course of the story. But it's never with the antagonist.
 

Queshire

Istar
Another trend I've noticed with my villains is a focus on twisted virtue. As an example of this, well, it wasn't actually writing, but in my regular TTRPG group we recently ventured into hell and each of the players had a chance to create and play one of the demon princes ruling over it. I went with the ruler of the ring of Sloth. The info I got for the ring of Sloth was that it was shrouded in mist that would petrify those exposed to it into trees unless they constantly kept moving. I had the demon lord view his job as a mercy. I mean, when you're in hell better a tree than getting hunted in the ring of Wrath or forced to continually climb over one another in order to avoid getting drowned in Envy's oceans after all. His ultimate plan was to infect the seed of the world to follow this one and escape hell by just waiting it out.
 

nava_dve

Acolyte
I don't think I'm looking for anything in particular here, if I'm honest. Just been thinking about my own villain a bit, and trying to piece together the best narrative outcome for her and my protagonists. For me, I'm probably going to redeem her since she doesn't understand the full consequences of her tyranny and has emotional ties to one of my two protagonists.

For authors who had good triumph over evil, authors who didn't, and any author or aspiring author who has something to say: what did you do with your villains?

I like didactic stories. And I like cohesion when writing. Everything should tie back to the central theme(s) of the story. An antogonist exists in concert with the protagonist. If you're writing a story about zealotry, the antagonist should embody those vices. And the protagonist should come to embody the virtues of proper faith.

What distinguishes the two?
What makes them the same?
What motivates their choices and why?
Is the antagonist merely a product of circumstances?
Given the same circumstances, would the protagonist make the same choices?

You can explore the hypocrisy of both characters if you want more nuance.
 

M Corbett

Scribe
I have a bad habit of coming up with characters that are meant to be villains only to find that I like writing them and they end up as my protagonists instead.

One of mine, the Dawn Queen, was meant to be a twist on sort of an Arthurian idea of the rightful ruler returning. She was the rightful ruler back during the age of gods and now she's back to gain her crown by conquest if necessary.

At least that was the original idea.

Now her origin is the same, but she's a wandering swordswoman shacked up with her mage girlfriend.
Well this sounds awesome. Sounds kind of like the story Daenerys Stormborn deserved.
 

Fidel

Scribe
To me it feels like this discussion is overthinking protagonist and antagonist, a lot.

I like to keep it simple:
- The protagonist is the main viewpoint character through which the reader experiences the story.
- The antagonist is the main opposition to the protagonist.

That's all there's to it. After this, it very much depends on the kind of story you are telling.

As a side note, I agree that if your antagonist is infinitely more important than your protagonist, then you have the wrong protagonist.

As for who drives the plot, that tends to change over the course of the story (and again, will depend on what story you're telling). It's common to have the antagonist drive the start of the story. They're often the ones who set the whole affair in motion. As the story progresses, the protagonist will get more and more agency, to where he starts influencing more of the story.

However, it very much depends on what tale you are telling, and what you consider driving the story. For instance, in the Hobbit, the whole story is pretty much driven by the protagonists, and Smaug isn't the embodiment of the world's central rule. Yes, you can argue that Smaug, by merely existing and sitting on a pile of gold is setting stuff in motion, but that's twisting stuff just to fit your model, and looking at it from outside the story. In the book, the dwarves and Gandalf decide they want to recapture their mountain, and they set out. They have all the agency from the start. As the story progresses, that agency does shift more and more to Bilbo, who goes from being a bit of lugage to the main mover of events over the course of the story. But it's never with the antagonist.
Solid points! Keeping protagonist/antagonist roles simple makes sense, it’s all about perspective and opposition. And yeah, who drives the plot can totally shift depending on the story. The Hobbit is a great example of protagonists steering the ship, with Bilbo’s growth taking center stage. Overcomplicating it can just muddy the waters. Keep it clean, keep it flexible.
 
Top