# Unlikeable Heroes and Likeable Villains: What's your shade of gray?



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

This topic seems to keep coming up in my discussions with fellow readers and writers, so I thought I would post about it here.  My favorite part of reading is the characterization--if I find the characters interesting, I'll keep reading regardless of setting, genre, or plot (unless the plot makes no sense, given the characters a writer has brought to life and their motivations).  I love my characters in shades of gray, not black and white.  That said, I don't want all my characters to be in equal shades of gray (unless I'm reading an Anne Tyler book or something in a similar vein.)  I like having distinct heroes to root for and villains to boo, when all is said and done, and in a well-written book, I find the heroes and villains equally interesting for different reasons.

This is not the case for everyone--I know in the writers' groups I belong to, several of the participants tend to root for the villains in genre fiction, simply because they find the villains more interesting than the heroes.  I know someone who read the Harry Potter books just so she could read about Snape (who's more of an anti-hero than a villain, I guess).  I found Snape one of the more interesting characters in Harry Potter--but I was rooting for Harry, not Snape, and if Harry hadn't interested me just as much as Snape, I doubt I could have finished the books.  So what do you think?  Do you have any favorite heroes or villains or both?  And why are they your favorites?


----------



## farrellclaire (Mar 5, 2010)

I tend to root for villains quite a bit. (I also enjoyed Snape, for want of a better word.) Sometimes I hope they redeem themselves but mostly not. Usually I just hope they live to be bad another day. They can be the most interesting thing in a book/film. In Heroes, a _lot _ of people's favourite character was Sylar. When he wasn't on-screen, it just wasn't always as interesting.

In general though, I like flawed heroes. If they are too perfect, I get bored.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I prefer my heroes flawed. I can't stay interested in a hero who is too perfect. Perfect is boring. I want them to make mistakes and have lots of room to grow. I'm okay with readers getting angry and frustrated with my hero on occasion, just so long as they're rooting for him in the end.

Villains. I don't often root for them, but I want to understand them. They need to have a good reason for being the way they are. I can have sympathy for them and still hope they get stabbed in the heart.  

I was much more interested in Snape than in Harry. Harry was a vehicle for plot for me and not so much someone that I was really attached to. I felt for him, but my interest lay in the other characters more and most of all in the world around them.


----------



## farrellclaire (Mar 5, 2010)

Oh, yes, I need to know what motivates the villain.  I like to know about them, I care more if I have some idea of what they want and why than if they are just a forgettable name who happens to do bad things until the hero defeats them.  I enjoy finding out how they got to that point.  I personally have fun writing about villains when I try to understand them and their history.

I never really liked Harry.  I love the books but the MC didn't really do anything for me, I'm not sure why.  I was a lot more attached to most of the other characters.


----------



## Chimere McKether (Aug 25, 2010)

I like to fall in love with the heros and LOVE to hate the villians, like most of you said, I want to understand what motivates a character to do what they do. Characters don't do what they do for no reason or react to situations for no reason, something made them the way they are. There is no thing as perfect characters. I can't get into idealistically "perfect" heroes or heroines because I'm not perfect. I love when conflicts arise because that's where the true color of the character comes out. I love to read characters that breathe, feel, think and react the way we do in real life. Mechanical characters (meaning how one idea of what a character "should" be equals BORING! that's only scratching the surface of what a writer want their character to look like, but how the character responds and be who they are that's what captivates the story) Write and let the characters be is what I say, that's what pulls me into the story.   Good topic that you brought up, purplepen79!


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

I agree that perfect, righteous heroes are boring.  Captain Picard was always frowning and saying things like, "We must follow our morals, and bring righteousness to the galaxy."  I found him boring.  But I loved the hobbits in Lord of the Rings; they were sometimes lazy, sometimes a little dumb, they often cared more about eating than saving the world, and at the end... well, I won't reveal the end in case anyone hasn't read the books, but consider what Frodo did.

In my own fiction, I give my heroes flaws and humanize my villains.  In my novel Flaming Dove, there are no pure good characters.  There are no "heroes".  Even the protagonists are deeply flawed and struggle with their dark side.  Likewise, there are no pure evil characters.  The main villain is not really a villain at all; he's an antagonist, he fights the protagonist, and while being deeply flawed--he's a hopeless womanizer who cheats on his wife--he's not "evil".

This is true in real life, as well.  There are few purely righteous people in this world.  And even the most evil people have a human side; they still have people they love and good deeds they've done.  They probably don't even know they're villains; they think THEY'RE the good guys.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

I tend to like comprehensible villains whose motivations are accessible and make "sense".

This occasionally makes it hard for me to get into a fantasy work, because authors in that genre often employ a "Dark Lord" type villain - "Hi, I'm Evil Incarnate and I Just Like to Wreck Stuff and I Have No Other Goals". I cut Tolkien some slack on this score - particularly after reading _The Silmarillion_, since it shows you that there was a motivation for the bad guys down there somewhere, even if it wasn't shown to the reader in _The Lord of the Rings_ - but it's hard for me to be as charitable to his many imitators.

One of my favorite villains in literature is Nero from _Quo Vadis_, simply because his entire personality and motivation makes perfect "sense". I guess Sienkiewicz had the advantage of drawing his villain from life, even if the sources we have available didn't give him a perfect or objective picture to copy from. The character is given a set of rather petty and banal personality flaws - vanity, cowardice, stupidity - and access to power, and all of his actions based on those "inputs" are completely plausible. That's the kind of villain I like.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

And since people are talking about _Harry Potter_, I should add that I liked how Rowling handled her "Dark Lord" villain - for a good part of the series, the villain is absent, and a series of "ordinary" villains based on recognizable personality types fill in for him. Heck, even the "evil diary" from _Chamber of Secrets_ is a recognizable character type - the false counselor - with a decent motivation: it wants to "come back to life". It's Iago plus Pinocchio.

When she finally brings her "Dark Lord" villain into the action, she makes sure in _Half-Blood Prince_ to give us some back story on him so he makes sense. I was struck by how Voldemort was a "dark mirror" image of Harry. He faces similar childhood disappointments and traumas, but reacts to them with anger, and a desire to _punish_ - and that sets his personality going forward. Harry has a different set of reactions and that sets _his_ personality going forward. People always yammer that Rowling "can't write", but I think her parallel orphan rescue scenes - Hagrid coming to get Harry to tell him about Hogwarts and Harry's reaction to it, and Dumblebore coming to tell Tom Riddle about Hogwarts and Tom's reaction to it - are so well done and so obviously intentional that it puts the lie to that claim.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> People always yammer that Rowling "can't write", but I think her parallel orphan rescue scenes - Hagrid coming to get Harry to tell him about Hogwarts and Harry's reaction to it, and Dumblebore coming to tell Tom Riddle about Hogwarts and Tom's reaction to it - are so well done and so obviously intentional that it puts the lie to that claim.


Who says this? 

I agree that too many fantasy novels have arch-typical "evil overlord" villains, ala the Dark One from Wheel or Time. I try to avoid them in my own writing (well... just ignore the evil overlord of darkness in the novel I wrote at age fifteen, which thankfully nobody but my grandmother read).


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Unless the book is trying for a fairy-tale vibe, I usually don't like heroes who are all good or villains who are all evil.  But then I usually don't like secondary characters who are just a stereotype either.  I much prefer more complete characters with strengths and weaknesses intact.  Its just a better all around read when I can understand everyone's motivations - even if I can't always stomach the motivation, I want to be able to understand it.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

I can deal with a villain that's all evil, long as he's still interesting. May not be from a book, but Heath Ledger's Joker is still my all-time favorite. Watching him set fire to a mountain of money (with a guy tied up on top), telling the other thugs that the city _deserves_ a better class of criminal.....aaah. Gave me chills. _That's_ the villains I like. _That's_ the villains I try to create. Forget killing because they're labeled bad, or have Take-Over-The-World syndrome. I want someone killing because they're so twisted and broken with rotted logic and festering anger that they think what they're doing is right, or fair, or what the world deserves.

David Dalglish


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> I can deal with a villain that's all evil, long as he's still interesting. May not be from a book, but Heath Ledger's Joker is still my all-time favorite. Watching him set fire to a mountain of money (with a guy tied up on top), telling the other thugs that the city _deserves_ a better class of criminal.....aaah. Gave me chills. _That's_ the villains I like. _That's_ the villains I try to create. Forget killing because they're labeled bad, or have Take-Over-The-World syndrome. I want someone killing because they're so twisted and broken with rotted logic and festering anger that they think what they're doing is right, or fair, or what the world deserves.
> 
> David Dalglish


David, I like to think there are two kinds of proper villains: Those who have clear motivations, a sympathetic side, and who are really more "antagonists" than pure evil "villains". But if you _are_ going to go with twisted, evil villains... make them REALLY evil and REALLY powerful. Make them so scary and cruel, you'll think the hero stands no chance.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

DArenson said:


> David, I like to think there are two kinds of proper villains: Those who have clear motivations, a sympathetic side, and who are really more "antagonists" than pure evil "villains". But if you _are_ going to go with twisted, evil villains... make them REALLY evil and REALLY powerful. Make them so scary and cruel, you'll think the hero stands no chance.


I think I'm with you on this. Forget what I said earlier about understanding them. Sometimes, if they're twisted enough, just knowing that is sufficient.

What often puts me off is when the antagonist is just an archetype.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> What often puts me off is when the antagonist is just an archetype.


Somebody mentioned Sauron earlier. I think he actually works as a villain, because back when Tolkien wrote, the evil overlord wasn't an archetype. He is now, because about two thousand fantasy novelists after Tolkien based their villains on Sauron. But back in the 1950s... a flaming eyeball on a tower was scary stuff.


----------



## farrellclaire (Mar 5, 2010)

Heath/Joker - one of the best villains of all time, I was definitely rooting for him.    He made that film for me.  That kind of character is one I enjoy writing.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> One of my favorite villains in literature is Nero from _Quo Vadis_, simply because his entire personality and motivation makes perfect "sense". I guess Sienkiewicz had the advantage of drawing his villain from life, even if the sources we have available didn't give him a perfect or objective picture to copy from. The character is given a set of rather petty and banal personality flaws - vanity, cowardice, stupidity - and access to power, and all of his actions based on those "inputs" are completely plausible. That's the kind of villain I like.


I am sooo glad I read this today. I'm working on a rewrite of a novel, and Nero is my villain. I love writing him, because he's so understandable and crazy. I will definitely read _Quo Vadis_--in fact, I just ordered it! I adore fascinating, believable villains. As an actor, I always found villains more fun to play than heroines. The protagonist needs a strong villain--whether external or internal--to push against. And I agree with those who say they want the protagonist to be flawed with room to grow.

Once again, thank you! Can't wait to read Quo Vadis. And, for anyone who's interested, ancient Rome is full of fabulous villains.

Suzanne


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

I have a hard time reading about or writing about a character who has all heroic or villainous qualities.  To me the characters need to be completely fleshed out, with good and bad qualities and interesting quirks that make them human, otherwise it's hard for me personally, to get sucked into the story.

Dawn


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> I can deal with a villain that's all evil, long as he's still interesting. May not be from a book, but Heath Ledger's Joker is still my all-time favorite. Watching him set fire to a mountain of money (with a guy tied up on top), telling the other thugs that the city _deserves_ a better class of criminal.....aaah. Gave me chills. _That's_ the villains I like. _That's_ the villains I try to create. Forget killing because they're labeled bad, or have Take-Over-The-World syndrome. I want someone killing because they're so twisted and broken with rotted logic and festering anger that they think what they're doing is right, or fair, or what the world deserves.
> 
> David Dalglish


Agreed. I think that we need a villain we can understand and sympathize with....or one that is fascinating simply because he's so gosh darn psychotic. In the end, the character just has to be one that I can believe in and doesn't bore me to tears.

With that being said, I detest "perfect" heroes. I spend a good portion of the story hoping they get their self-righteous behinds handed to them by Mr. Evil Overlord or Mr. Tortured Soul.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Tim Dorsey takes it to the edge and over with his hero/villain/whatever Serge A. Storms. Insane. A serial killer. But one of the more likeable guys in the cast of characters.


----------



## bvlarson (May 16, 2010)

I find Villains likeable if they have a very definite goal they are struggling to reach. Because I like that sort of villain, I tend write my villains that way, making them interesting. Some people find them sympathetic because they are working _so hard_ to achieve their evil ends. Heroes who are unlikeable is much harder to pull off. Usually, the only way I can do that is by making everyone else absolutely horrible.
-BVL


----------



## Robert Tell Author (Aug 17, 2010)

Dawn McCullough White said:


> I have a hard time reading about or writing about a character who has all heroic or villainous qualities. To me the characters need to be completely fleshed out, with good and bad qualities and interesting quirks that make them human, otherwise it's hard for me personally, to get sucked into the story.
> 
> Dawn


I totally agree. For fiction characters to be credible I believe they must have both strengths and weaknesses, just like the rest of us flawed **** sapiens. Characters that are all good or bad are just stick figures or stereotypes and it's hard to "bond" emotionally with them or to care what happens to them. This may work for comic strips, graphic novels, and some movies, but serious readers expect (and deserve) more challenging characters in the fiction they buy.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

bvlarson said:


> I find Villains likeable if they have a very definite goal they are struggling to reach. Because I like that sort of villain, I tend write my villains that way, making them interesting. Some people find them sympathetic because they are working _so hard_ to achieve their evil ends. Heroes who are unlikeable is much harder to pull off. Usually, the only way I can do that is by making everyone else absolutely horrible.
> -BVL


Agreed. It's a much finer line when it comes to heroes.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> I am sooo glad I read this today. I'm working on a rewrite of a novel, and Nero is my villain. I love writing him, because he's so understandable and crazy. I will definitely read _Quo Vadis_--in fact, I just ordered it! I adore fascinating, believable villains. As an actor, I always found villains more fun to play than heroines. The protagonist needs a strong villain--whether external or internal--to push against. And I agree with those who say they want the protagonist to be flawed with room to grow.
> 
> Once again, thank you! Can't wait to read Quo Vadis. And, for anyone who's interested, ancient Rome is full of fabulous villains.
> 
> Suzanne


Actually, if you're writing something set during the reign of Nero, _Quo Vadis_ might end up being dangerous for you to read.

The characters of Nero, Petronius (_especially_ Petronius), and Tigellinus are so well done that it can be difficult to imagine these figures in any other way afterwards. If you've got your own vision for these characters you might want to avoid the possibility of cross-contamination.

Petronius ends up dominating the novel, and he's neither the hero nor the villain. We might need a thread for "Minor Character Monsters" - minor characters who are just so cool that they end up overshadowing the major players.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

farrellclaire said:


> Heath/Joker - one of the best villains of all time, I was definitely rooting for him.  He made that film for me. That kind of character is one I enjoy writing.


One of my favorite movies of all time. Christopher and Jonathan Nolan are brilliant at taking archetypal male characters and fleshing them out in film (as well as exploring intriguing ideas/premises--if you haven't see _The Prestige _ or _Inception_, I highly recommend both films, more for the premises than the characters, though the characters in both are interesting). What I want to see from the Nolan brothers next is an equally complex female character.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

DArenson said:


> Somebody mentioned Sauron earlier. I think he actually works as a villain, because back when Tolkien wrote, the evil overlord wasn't an archetype. He is now, because about two thousand fantasy novelists after Tolkien based their villains on Sauron. But back in the 1950s... a flaming eyeball on a tower was scary stuff.


I think that there are some evil characters, like Sauron, who aren't personified evil; however, they're interesting for their philosophical/archetypal implications. What intrigues me about Heath Ledger's Joker is his personification--he's a well-personified archetype with a clear philosophy that we may not agree with, but it's so well-written we understand it on some level, and that makes him so much scarier than he would be otherwise. We all have "an agent of chaos" lurking deep in our subconscious, and the writer who can play on that archetype skillfully keeps everyone glued to the page or screen . . .


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

DArenson said:


> Somebody mentioned Sauron earlier. I think he actually works as a villain, because back when Tolkien wrote, the evil overlord wasn't an archetype. He is now, because about two thousand fantasy novelists after Tolkien based their villains on Sauron. But back in the 1950s... a flaming eyeball on a tower was scary stuff.


Sauron is definitely a major part of a Dark Lord archetype - He just doesnt' have the long robes to hit the visuals usually associated with one. So many evil wizards, demon princes, dark knights (and we mustn't forget Ming the Merciless or Darth Vader) feed off of Tolkien's idea of a bad guy. But then even the Disneyesque evil queens (Malificent or the Snow White Queen) feed directly off the same images.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Dean Koontz is a master of creating fleshed out, motivated, creepy villains.  His psychotic villain in "The Good Guy" is one of the most terrifying villains I've seen.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> But then even the Disneyesque evil queens (Malificent or the Snow White Queen) feed directly off the same images.


That's getting into fairy stories, and those tend to be a lot more black-and-white. Then villain is usually big, bad, and broody, while the hero/heroine are all sorts of virtuous. (I guess Hansel and Gretal don't count, though you have to wonder about the early introduction of cannibalism...)


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

AYY said:


> That's getting into fairy stories, and those tend to be a lot more black-and-white. Then villain is usually big, bad, and broody, while the hero/heroine are all sorts of virtuous. (I guess Hansel and Gretal don't count, though you have to wonder about the early introduction of cannibalism...)


Intriguing comment. There are a lot of dark themes (like cannibalism) explored in fairy tales--the original Sleeping Beauty didn't end with a kiss. In the original Sleeping Beauty, the prince's mother turned out to be an ogre who wanted to snack on her grandchildren. What if Disney had tacked on that ending? Fairy tale archetypes fuel good fantasy and sci fi--fantasy/sci fi novels are fairy tales for grown-ups. For instance, going back to _The Dark Knight_, the thematic basis of the Joker character is the dark side of the trickster archetype.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

AYY said:


> That's getting into fairy stories, and those tend to be a lot more black-and-white. Then villain is usually big, bad, and broody, while the hero/heroine are all sorts of virtuous. (I guess Hansel and Gretal don't count, though you have to wonder about the early introduction of cannibalism...)


I have heard that the Hansel and Gretal story relates to the Little Ice Age and people abandoning their children in the woods because there wasn't enough food.

Dawn


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

Dawn McCullough White said:


> I have heard that the Hansel and Gretal story relates to the Little Ice Age and people abandoning their children in the woods because there wasn't enough food.
> 
> Dawn


Now there's a depressing thought....

To relate it back to the original topic, you have to wonder if the real villain is the witch or the parents. I'm inclined to say the parents were as culpable as the crazy child-eater, since they had a moral obligation to care for their children, while the evil witch is...well...an evil witch.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

AYY said:


> Now there's a depressing thought....


lol Well, yes. Since the question about cannibalism was brought up in this discussion regarding Hansel and Gretal I didn't think it would be stretching the somewhat "dark" train of thought the thread was already taking by mentioning it.

Dawn


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

AYY said:


> Now there's a depressing thought....
> 
> To relate it back to the original topic, you have to wonder if the real villain is the witch or the parents. I'm inclined to say the parents were as culpable as the crazy child-eater, since they had a moral obligation to care for their children, while the evil witch is...well...an evil witch.


Great point. Makes me wonder why Hansel and Gretel were so eager to get home . . .


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

Personally, when I'm writing--or reading--I prefer to have characters with flaws. What I like are incompatible world-views. Neither is necessarily 'right' or 'wrong', but you can't have both. Better if both sides have something of worth, so having the protagonist win means that something good has to go by the wayside. Good vs Evil, Right vs Wrong are too mundane.

David Wood, in his blog, asks writers from here various questions. You might enjoy taking a look at his blog to see what some writers think on various subjects. The question he asked me was: What makes memorable SF? My response seems germaine to this thread.

http://davidwoodonline.blogspot.com/2010/07/authors-roundtable-science-fiction-with.html


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

@ D.A.

Fascinating blog post--thanks for sharing.  I tried to post a comment on the blog itself but my dial-up connection threw a hissy fit, which is what happens sometimes when one lives in beautiful, remote nowhere, as I do.

To latch on to your point about competing worldviews and sacrifice, I like happy endings if they fit the story leading up to them, but I hate, absolutely loathe, perfectly happy endings.  Such as the series where the heroine (if she can be called that) ends up with everything she ever wanted at the end--the man of her dreams, amazing strength, immortality, a beautiful baby, and everyone she cares about is happy.  All of this with a minimum of outward sacrifice or internal struggle on her part.  Where's the story in that?  Where's the interesting moral quandary?  Give me villians who really believe they're doing the right thing (and are convincing enough that we as readers, even if we don't agree them, at least understand them) and heroes that have to struggle against themselves as well as outside forces, the way we all do in this imperfect world.  That way, when the heroes get their happy ending, at least we're left with more than saccharine-coated cardboard as soul sustenance.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

And then there's Hannibal Lecter! I'm not sure Thomas Harris needed to go to the trouble of explaining his evil. I'm fairly certain he failed anyway. Lecter was already "likable enough" to root for him - even as he ate people's brains. What was it about that character that made him so...likable? Was it Anthony Hopkins' performance? Or was our attraction to him already there before the movie adaptation? (I've seen a lot of people say that they thought Brian Cox's Lecter in "Manhunter" was superior, but frankly I think they're just being contrary. Cox is a very fine actor, but his Lecter didn't make nearly the impression Hopkins did, and "Manhunter" didn't make the same impression "The Silence of the Lambs" did.)

What about Michael Corleone in "The Godfather" saga?

About _Harry Potter_ - I think a lot of people tend to gloss over Rowling's obvious talent. As derivative as the overall story of her novels might be - it's what she did with her characters and her "magical" world that counts in the end. A friend of mine always says that there are no new stories left to tell. It's just a race to see what a person can make with an old story. _The Lord of the Rings_ was derivative also. (Hello _Der Ring des Nibelungen,_ itself a collage of ancient myths.) Rowling's villains are a fascinating bunch: from Voldemort himself to Snape to Malfoy - all very complicated and very sympathetic (in that "they're evil" sort of way, of course.) Tom Riddle's development as a very clear parallel to Harry's was remarkable story and character development on Rowling's part. But it goes beyond Voldemort and Harry. I see parallels between Harry and Snape as well. Another sad kid with an unfortunate childhood. But everything he accused Harry of doing and being (how many times did he accuse Harry of "whining") Snape was guilty of himself. His entire existence turned out to be one big pathetic "whine." He was truly a loser. In the end, everyone turned out to be right about him: Dumbledore for trusting him _and_ the rest of the gang for being suspicious. And there's also clear parallels between Dumbledore and Grindelwald: another duo that chose very different paths. It is popular to bash Rowling and her series, but I think it is actually brilliantly structured, developed and written. And her villains are very complex.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

DYB said:


> What about Michael Corleone in "The Godfather" saga?


The Godfather, at its core, is a tragedy. It tells of Michael's moral downfall; the war hero who wanted nothing to do with the family business, the innocent, gradually fell into evil. By the end, he's more ruthless than his father. I don't think he's a "villain"; I see him as a tragic figure.



DYB said:


> About _Harry Potter_ - I think a lot of people tend to gloss over Rowling's obvious talent.


Do they? I think Rowling is generally very well respected--both among critics and the public. And for good reason. She's a very talented author. Her villains are especially complex; Snape must be among the greatest characters in modern literature.


----------



## Robert Tell Author (Aug 17, 2010)

The art in creating villains and hero's as I see it is in the balance between good and bad qualities. A hero needs to have the reader cheering him or her on to victory. Flaws make the hero more credible and complex but cannot overpower his or her good qualities—and vice versa for villains. If the villain is pure evil, that's a stick figure that the reader won't take seriously. But the villain has to be bad enough to overcome his or her good qualities so the reader feels satisfaction when the hero prevails. This is all an oversimplification, of course, but that's the idea.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

JK Rowling kept me glued to the page because all of her characters were compelling for me--the parallels between characters like Snape and Harry and Dumbledore and Grindelwald fascinated me, like the idea of Shakespearean foils.

And I think Hannibal Lector is interesting because of what he DOESN'T tell us.  Hannibal reveals just enough to lead the reader along and make him or her wonder what he's going to do or say next.  Thomas Harris pulled off a brilliant characterization with Hannibal, a delicate balance that could have been so easily overplayed.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

I don't know the Godfather books, I only know the movies. [I and II, that is - I don't count III.]

And I don't know if Michael is a tragic hero who falls from innocence.

I know that's what you think the whole time during the two films, but then there's that flashback scene after everyone is dead where the "boys" are eating around the table. Santino is clearly still in charge, and Tom says to Michael that he's been talking to his father about his future. And Michael looks up with that quiet Al Pacino about to explode look on his face and says, "Really, Tom? You've been talking to _my_ father about _my_ future?"

I think Michael intended to be in charge and to be the last man standing from the time he learned to walk. That's what that scene says to me.


----------



## robertduperre (Jun 13, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> I don't know the Godfather books, I only know the movies. [I and II, that is - I don't count III.]


And that's all you need to know, really. This is one of the few examples of the movie being better than the book. The novel itself...is horrible. Mario Puzo has been quoted as saying, "If I knew that many people would read it, I would've written it better." Huh? That makes no sense to me.


----------



## indie (Sep 5, 2010)

I tend to root for the good guys, but there are a few villains that I have found myself hoping that they would reform, or start working for the good side. Unfortunately only television villains are springing to mind at the moment.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

purplepen79 said:


> Such as the series where the heroine (if she can be called that) ends up with everything she ever wanted at the end--the man of her dreams, amazing strength, immortality, a beautiful baby, and everyone she cares about is happy. All of this with a minimum of outward sacrifice or internal struggle on her part. Where's the story in that? Where's the interesting moral quandary? Give me villians who really believe they're doing the right thing (and are convincing enough that we as readers, even if we don't agree them, at least understand them) and heroes that have to struggle against themselves as well as outside forces, the way we all do in this imperfect world. That way, when the heroes get their happy ending, at least we're left with more than saccharine-coated cardboard as soul sustenance.


I can't _imagine_ which series you could possibly be talking about 

If they earn the super happy ending, then fine. If it's just handed to them? I'm not a fan. If I wanted to hear about that, I'd read the tabloids.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

I have to say that this isn't something that I've ever thought much about, in fact, I'd say that the only time that I care about heroes and villains at all is when super powers are involved, at which point I need at least one virtuous hero and one nasty villain. Take something like Heroes, I like the show, but for the life of me I've been unable to find a hero and a villain, all there is is an overwhelming amount of greyness, as a result everybody is all over the place. So, I guess that would mean that I have a very rigid idea of what a hero is, and what a villain is.


----------



## jason10mm (Apr 7, 2009)

I think the "super evil" archtype is much older than Sauron, probably dates all the way back to the Devil. Most folks idea of Satan is just mindless evil, his "motivations" are heavily discredited 

Humans have a long history of demonizing opposing leaders or communities, reducing them to simple nonsympathetic stereotypes of unbridled evil. Seeing this reflected in fantasy works, where the bad guy actually IS pure evil, isn't that surprising. What bothers me is when the super evil is just as damaging to his own side, making you wonder why he has influence at all. The classic example of the evil king killing his guards who fail in some trivial task. Really? Seems like there wouldn't be a whole lot of loyalty or quality service in that case. I know this did happen, a lot, in history as well, but it just seems like lazy storytelling to demonstrate the bad guys EVILNESS by having him prey on his own troops.

I do like layered heros, but too much whining, self-doubt, and odious behavior can be a turn off. He doesn't have to be a saint, but he does have to cowboy up fairly early on, demonstrate some kindergarten level social interaction skills, and not sabotage his entire army because he secretly loves his childhood friend who is now dating his senior commander


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

This subject makes me think of Peter Pan

-- interruption -- woohoo! I learned how to make the link WITH the kindleboards reference code in it!!!! --

Ahem. Anyway...

I read Barrie's _Peter Pan_ for the first time as an adult, for bedtime story reading for my son. I remember being at once amazed and dismayed. I grew up on the Disneyfied version. So sad for me!

Captain Hook was tragically sympathetic to my mind, and I couldn't stand that selfish little beastie Peter. Hook might just be the first antihero in western literature. I'm sure Peter was the villain in this story, and I think Wendy was actually the hero.

By the way, I checked the sample of the version I linked to (you have to be careful) and it looks like it has good formatting, forwards, etc. In fact, I think I want to read it again now!


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Alice Y. Yeh said:


> I can't _imagine_ which series you could possibly be talking about
> 
> If they earn the super happy ending, then fine. If it's just handed to them? I'm not a fan. If I wanted to hear about that, I'd read the tabloids.


Good point--I want the ending (deliriously happy or otherwise) earned by the characters, not the ending the writer secretly wishes would happen to him or her.

@Robert Tell
I like your point about a balance of qualities in the characters themselves--if a hero is too flawed, he's no longer the hero, and if a villain is too sympathetic, he ceases to be a villain and moves into anti-hero territory. If a reader's perceptions of a particular character change over the course of a novel, that's great--if that's what the writer intended with that particular character.

@LKRigel
Now I have to re-read _Peter Pan_, it's been so long. I read it as a child and haven't picked it up since. However, your posting and recently seeing _Finding Neverland _ have made me want to re-read it. I remember it being a magical experience.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

Ditto on Karen. Now I want to read the original _Peter Pan_ too!


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Alice Y. Yeh said:


> Ditto on Karen. Now I want to read the original _Peter Pan_ too!


Me too. Might be a fun Book Klub book.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

The edition that I linked to has a nice introduction by Anne McCaffrey and also one by Barrie, plus some original illustrations - although they don't really come out that great on the Kindle.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

T.L. Haddix said:


> Perfect heroes are boring. David D.'s post made me think about the Punisher. He's the ultimate anti-hero....


Nah, I have to vote for Elric of Melniboné.  Any hero who not only


Spoiler



kills his lover*, is the main agent in the killing of most of his race, and later kills his best friend*


, is my idea of an anti-hero. He still is the hero (after all, he _is_ an incarnation of the Eternal Champion), and I love the books, but I wouldn't want to have _anything_ to do with him in real life.
_____________
* OK, so those weren't _entirely_ his fault, but the middle one was


----------



## TomMWiseman (Sep 10, 2010)

In my recently published book, Grey Skies Ahead, I created a main character who goes from bitter and somewhat unpleasant, to likeable.
I didn't want just another cardboard cut out, though, those have their places. I wanted someone who ranted and raved but deep down, is really a decent person.

Hopefully, those qualities come through in the novel.

Thanks,
 Tom


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

LKRigel said:


> The edition that I linked to has a nice introduction by Anne McCaffrey and also one by Barrie, plus some original illustrations - although they don't really come out that great on the Kindle.


Thanks for the link!



NogDog said:


> Nah, I have to vote for Elric of Melniboné.  Any hero who not only
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Wow--now I want to read this. Your spoiler just intrigued me all the more.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

purplepen79 said:


> ...Wow--now I want to read this. Your spoiler just intrigued me all the more.


Try to find the original 6 novels. Some of the later collections are a bit iffy, and the later novels don't really have the right impact if not taken in context with the original stories.

_Elric of Melniboné
The Sailor on the Seas of Fate
The Weird of the White Wolf
The Sleeping Sorceress_ (a.k.a. _The Vanishing Tower_)_
The Bane of the Black Sword
Stormbringer_


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

Oh, I'll have to second the early Elric books. Awesome, awesome writing and story telling. And when originally introduced, the Punisher was just a rip-off of Don Pendleton's Executioner character, a very obvious rip-off, though the Punisher is the one better remembered today as Marvel has done some solid work with the character over the years.

I tend to like my characters complicated, both in my reading and writing. I don't mind black-hat or white-hat characters, if there's reasoning behind why they are the way they are, but I usually prefer the shades between. Since I read a lot of fantasy, I've noticed I tend to like characters who have values I can appreciate, though I might not always agree with their actions.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

On a side note, Michael Whelan did some great cover paintings of Elric - I remember seeing the paintings and being impressed with them long before I read anything about the series itself.  He also said the earlier books were more to his liking as a cover artist as he preferred the author's portrayal of Elric earlier in the series than later--the portrayal of Elric was less 'self-mocking' and more sincere than in the later books.


----------

