So, I just got finished watching Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker, and I must say it's made an impact on me. So because of that movie, I'll be doing today's post on subtlety.
Now, it is very important to remember that subtlety is part of what makes a story bearable. Every story worth reading has some subtlety in it, even the most overblown fantasy and sci-fi (Warhammer 40k comes to mind) has some amount of subtlety in it, no matter how small. Otherwise you end up with something along the lines of the infamous 'SPESS MEHREENS' speech. All bluster and no substance. Subtlety, you see, cannot be substance in and of itself, subtlety is a quality. However, substance cannot exist without subtlety. Ice cannot exist without being a solid, but 'solid' is a quality, it cannot be ice on it's own, follow?
Subtlety then is yet another component of storytelling that simply cannot be done without if one wishes to tell anything even vaguely approaching a serious story, even non-serious stories need some degree of subtlety. Subtlety gives characters life as much as unsubtlety (Struggling for words here). Without subtlety, all actions and events would seem exaggerated. I would say that one would have to make an effort to write a story with no subtlety at all. Therefore, it is the skillful use of subtlety and it's relative abundance that improves a work, rather than it's mere existence.
Let's take another example to help get me going, shall we? Let's take All Quiet on the Western Front as a prime example of subtlety and... Guns of the South as a non-subtle example. Now, one might object to this, say that the two works are as different as apples and oranges and one cannot compare them. But I disagree, one can compare apples and oranges, apples have a sweeter taste and a firmer skin, while oranges tend to more spongelike in consistency and quite tangy. But that's beside the point. While I realize that these two works are completely different in purpose, time, style, just about everything that can be compared, I promise I will only compare the subtlety or lack thereof of the two works in comparison to one another rather than quality or style.
Guns of the South is a work that works (Ha) on a relative lack of subtlety. Hell, the book is about time-traveling racists who give Robert E. Lee AK-47s to beat the Union with. I don't think subtlety ever consciously crossed Mr. Turtledove's mind. There are characters who are bloodthirsty raving monsters, and characters that are good, honest open-minded types, and very little gray area between the two. All the actions of the characters are dramatized, overwrought reactions, everything that happens is a big dramatic ordeal. Every battle is a massacre, every conversation is world-changing and so on.
All Quiet on the Western Front, on the other hand, almost defies my previous statement about a work not being able to be made entirely out of subtlety. I believe that nothing can sum up the book's style and feeling better than the foreword itself:
"This book is to be neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped shells, were destroyed by the war."
Every part of the book revels in subtlety. Every moment is carefully crafted as to give a sense of overwhelming despair, to give a sense of a changed man who no longer looks upon the horrors of war as frightful, but so commonplace that he no longer feels that he is himself. Battles are not long, drawn out narratives of excitement and violence (And one is almost certain that they should not be) in order to draw attention both to Paul's mindset and to emphasize the actual important events that happen. The subtlety of Remarque's storytelling makes every event more meaningful rather than less. By not exaggerating events with overblown prose and pages of buildup, he manages to make every event count, he manages to do what a thousand pages of purple prose would not and could not do.
And that's about all I have to say. I ran out of steam early on this one, I blame it on watching Stalker and thinking "I need to make a post on subtlety" once I finished picking up the pieces of my blown mind up off the floor.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Saturday, June 25, 2011
On Balanced Characters
Another problem I often see. Unbalanced characters. Well, let's get to it then, shall we?
I. Flaws make the world go 'round, or, Why Characters NEED flaws
Flaws are a necessary part of any character. Really, get this through your head right now. It took me a bit. Flaws are an important part of any character. But flaws alone won't do it, mind. If you just give a character a short temper, or make them forgetful, that's not enough. Flaws need to be real, believable, and impact the character's personality. Let's use another example from popular media, shall we? Avatar (Shudder) and District 9, since examples help my thought and writing processes.
While here I'll be talking about entire species rather than individual characters, all the points will remain mostly the same. Let's start with a bad example, Avatar. In that movie, the Navi or Na'vi or N'avi, I don't really remember where the apostrophe goes, lack serious flaws. They're all a bunch of peace loving hippies who are perfect in every way and convince an ex-marine that their way of life is better than mankind's. Since they lack flaws, because they are 'perfect', they become imperfect as characters. They are shown to a number of the audience as shallow caricatures of perfection, they lack the ability to make the audience sympathize with them. The Navi then lack the ability to connect with the audience, and thus remain little more than cardboard cutouts.
However, District 9 provides a strong contrast to Avatar. The Prawns, the aliens of D9, are far from perfect. They are shown as troublemakers, criminals, not merely mischievous but violent. However, they are also shown as in such a state because of the effects of their environment, because of the situation they are in. Because they are downtrodden, because they are oppressed and forced into a state of poverty, ignorance, and powerlessness, where the government is hostile to their prescence and society at large hates them, they find themselves forced into such roles. As such, their flaws, their unsaintly actions make them more sympathetic instead of less.
This is why flaws are important to establish a character. Without flaws, a character will not seem real to an audience, they will appear as the saintly but ultimately meaningless cardboard cutouts of Avatar, rather than the troubled and sympathetic Prawns of D9. Without flaws, a character is not that - a character. Perhaps more importantly, however, while flaws in general make a character able to evoke sympathy by virtue of making them 'real' to the audience, specific flaws can evoke more sympathy than any amount of suffering or hardship spent in virtue. Take John Proctor from The Crucible. John is a adulterer, and this flaw is one of many that makes him human and thus able to be sympathized with. But it is his pride and his temper are two of the biggest contributors both to his downfall as a character and the sympathy that he evokes. It is his pride that allows him to stand up against the world, his pride, while a flaw, one that dooms him in the end, also makes him seem an upright character, someone to be inspired by, while his anger at the world, and at those he views as unjust makes him more sympathetic, for who has not looked at the world around them and felt dissatisfied with those around them?
Which brings me to my second point...
II. Flaws are not bad!
Now this might seem odd at first. "But Vae!" I hear you say (Or perhaps I am hearing voices in my head again), "Isn't the fact that they are flaws and not virtues make them bad?" This is true, to a certain degree. But virtues and flaws are both double edged swords. A man who holds onto his pacifism even in the face of death, violence towards him or those he cares about, or other such threats will be seen by some as a morally upright and willfull man who refuses to allow the injustices and sins of the world reach his own moral center. But by others, he can be seen as a morally weak man for holding onto his passive refusal to act for what they may see as good. They may view such a man as weak, as a coward or perhaps as simply too stubborn to do what they see as right. In the demostration of virtues, virtues can easily be seen as flaws.
Likewise, flaws may also be seen as virtues. Proctor's pride, while it is what damns him in the end, is also what makes him, in the eyes of many, a morally upright and strong man. His pride defines his character, causes his refusal to sell out his neighbors, and also what grants him a noble death. However, without his pride, he would also could have ended the entire farce of the witch-trial before it started, by outing both himself and Abigail as adulterers before the town. Seeing as that would have ruined his reputation and wounded his pride, however, he waited until it was too late for the accusation to have any real impact.
Flaws are what create a character, and should not be seen just as something one 'has to' tack onto a character in order to make them real. They should be taken and celebrated as an important aspect of the character, one that may adversely impact their life (In fact, it should adversely impact their life), but also one that grants the character depth and perhaps from time to time should be beneficial. A coward may be hated, and a coward may be a weak man who runs from conflict of any kind, but also a coward may be a survivor at all costs, a coward may be a man who knows that dying will not help him or anyone else, or in a non-violent conflict, knowing that coming into conflict with others may burn metaphorical bridges with the characters he comes in conflict with. Of course, it's hard for complete cowardice to be written as a 'noble' flaw (Ciaphias Cain, for example, is far from a coward, despite his claims, and fits 'Opportunist' or 'Survivor' more), but this does not mean one should shy away from the flaw. After all, while flaws can inspire readers to like a character more, they also can and should make readers like a character less. Flaws can be good in the eyes of the audience, but they should also be bad on some level in the eyes of the audience, and they should adversely impact the character's actions in the story.
Which, again, brings me into my next point...
III. Flaws in characters should impact them!
For God's/Cthulhu's/Jupiter's sake, do not make the mistake of creating a character with flaws, and then fail to demonstrate them, or make the flaws only come up in minor events. Flaws are a big part of people as any extended interaction with them will clearly show (There's my arrogance flaring up again), and should affect them when in major plot points are concerned. Don't give a character flaws and then refuse to have those flaws affect the story. Don't make a hot-headed character suddenly calm when in heated negotiations. Don't forget that he's got a temper. Make him Khrushchev! Let him get mad! If it spoils the negotiations, well, sometimes the author writes the story and sometimes the characters do. That's one of the little joys of creating interesting characters. Sometimes what they do is just as entertaining as any pre-planned even in the story.
Flaws in characters should always be present. They may not come up depending on the situation, but they should always be a part of the character no matter where he is or how important an event is to the plot. A flaw should never be ignored, but at the same time, they should not be overplayed. Which, again, leads me quite nicely to my next point...
IV. Flaws are not the only aspect of a character!
If there's one thing I don't want anyone to walk away from reading this (If anyone is reading this) thinking, it's "Well, obviously since flaws make a character, I should make a character with nothing but flaws!" If you claim that no one would read this and think that, I'm either a bad judge of my own writing and have already went over virtues and flaws well enough to have presented them both fairly, or you haven't read/seen/experienced enough bad fiction to understand that this does crop up from time to time.
Always remember that though flaws make a character interesting, virtues make a character interesting as well, and also that flaws and virtues without personality are like thumbtacks and posters without a wall. While a character's flaws and virtues are definitely part of his personality, they cannot be all that character is. A character also has life experiences, a character has memories and quirks that are neither flaws nor virtues, a character has views on life and relationships apart from his own qualities and vices. Always remember that a character is not merely a set of good things and bad things, but a person in their own right, with things to say and do that are not necessarily good or bad, but merely reflective of who they are.
Sin and Saintliness cannot exist in a vacuum. Both must exist on a person, a living breathing being, even if they aren't real and must be made so through a fiction of thought. Characters are not all good, and they are not all bad, they aren't even all a mix of the two. Characters are just that: characters. Sometimes with good aspects, sometimes with bad aspects, sometimes with aspects that don't fit any sort of postive or negative judgment, aspects that are just part of who they are, little things that make them just like you or me.
So, to recap as usual...
I. Use flaws to make your characters real! Don't ignore vice for virtue!
II. Don't add flaws just as something that you 'have to' do! Celebrate your characters' flaws! Revel in the good and the harm they do!
III. Don't add a flaw and then ignore it whenever it becomes convienent! Remember flaws are a part of the character, not a cheap device to be used only when they pose no threat!
IV. Don't add only flaws to a character, or only virtues or even only both! Characters are more than the sum of their parts, but they still need those parts! People have good parts, bad parts, and parts that don't fit in either category!
I. Flaws make the world go 'round, or, Why Characters NEED flaws
Flaws are a necessary part of any character. Really, get this through your head right now. It took me a bit. Flaws are an important part of any character. But flaws alone won't do it, mind. If you just give a character a short temper, or make them forgetful, that's not enough. Flaws need to be real, believable, and impact the character's personality. Let's use another example from popular media, shall we? Avatar (Shudder) and District 9, since examples help my thought and writing processes.
While here I'll be talking about entire species rather than individual characters, all the points will remain mostly the same. Let's start with a bad example, Avatar. In that movie, the Navi or Na'vi or N'avi, I don't really remember where the apostrophe goes, lack serious flaws. They're all a bunch of peace loving hippies who are perfect in every way and convince an ex-marine that their way of life is better than mankind's. Since they lack flaws, because they are 'perfect', they become imperfect as characters. They are shown to a number of the audience as shallow caricatures of perfection, they lack the ability to make the audience sympathize with them. The Navi then lack the ability to connect with the audience, and thus remain little more than cardboard cutouts.
However, District 9 provides a strong contrast to Avatar. The Prawns, the aliens of D9, are far from perfect. They are shown as troublemakers, criminals, not merely mischievous but violent. However, they are also shown as in such a state because of the effects of their environment, because of the situation they are in. Because they are downtrodden, because they are oppressed and forced into a state of poverty, ignorance, and powerlessness, where the government is hostile to their prescence and society at large hates them, they find themselves forced into such roles. As such, their flaws, their unsaintly actions make them more sympathetic instead of less.
This is why flaws are important to establish a character. Without flaws, a character will not seem real to an audience, they will appear as the saintly but ultimately meaningless cardboard cutouts of Avatar, rather than the troubled and sympathetic Prawns of D9. Without flaws, a character is not that - a character. Perhaps more importantly, however, while flaws in general make a character able to evoke sympathy by virtue of making them 'real' to the audience, specific flaws can evoke more sympathy than any amount of suffering or hardship spent in virtue. Take John Proctor from The Crucible. John is a adulterer, and this flaw is one of many that makes him human and thus able to be sympathized with. But it is his pride and his temper are two of the biggest contributors both to his downfall as a character and the sympathy that he evokes. It is his pride that allows him to stand up against the world, his pride, while a flaw, one that dooms him in the end, also makes him seem an upright character, someone to be inspired by, while his anger at the world, and at those he views as unjust makes him more sympathetic, for who has not looked at the world around them and felt dissatisfied with those around them?
Which brings me to my second point...
II. Flaws are not bad!
Now this might seem odd at first. "But Vae!" I hear you say (Or perhaps I am hearing voices in my head again), "Isn't the fact that they are flaws and not virtues make them bad?" This is true, to a certain degree. But virtues and flaws are both double edged swords. A man who holds onto his pacifism even in the face of death, violence towards him or those he cares about, or other such threats will be seen by some as a morally upright and willfull man who refuses to allow the injustices and sins of the world reach his own moral center. But by others, he can be seen as a morally weak man for holding onto his passive refusal to act for what they may see as good. They may view such a man as weak, as a coward or perhaps as simply too stubborn to do what they see as right. In the demostration of virtues, virtues can easily be seen as flaws.
Likewise, flaws may also be seen as virtues. Proctor's pride, while it is what damns him in the end, is also what makes him, in the eyes of many, a morally upright and strong man. His pride defines his character, causes his refusal to sell out his neighbors, and also what grants him a noble death. However, without his pride, he would also could have ended the entire farce of the witch-trial before it started, by outing both himself and Abigail as adulterers before the town. Seeing as that would have ruined his reputation and wounded his pride, however, he waited until it was too late for the accusation to have any real impact.
Flaws are what create a character, and should not be seen just as something one 'has to' tack onto a character in order to make them real. They should be taken and celebrated as an important aspect of the character, one that may adversely impact their life (In fact, it should adversely impact their life), but also one that grants the character depth and perhaps from time to time should be beneficial. A coward may be hated, and a coward may be a weak man who runs from conflict of any kind, but also a coward may be a survivor at all costs, a coward may be a man who knows that dying will not help him or anyone else, or in a non-violent conflict, knowing that coming into conflict with others may burn metaphorical bridges with the characters he comes in conflict with. Of course, it's hard for complete cowardice to be written as a 'noble' flaw (Ciaphias Cain, for example, is far from a coward, despite his claims, and fits 'Opportunist' or 'Survivor' more), but this does not mean one should shy away from the flaw. After all, while flaws can inspire readers to like a character more, they also can and should make readers like a character less. Flaws can be good in the eyes of the audience, but they should also be bad on some level in the eyes of the audience, and they should adversely impact the character's actions in the story.
Which, again, brings me into my next point...
III. Flaws in characters should impact them!
For God's/Cthulhu's/Jupiter's sake, do not make the mistake of creating a character with flaws, and then fail to demonstrate them, or make the flaws only come up in minor events. Flaws are a big part of people as any extended interaction with them will clearly show (There's my arrogance flaring up again), and should affect them when in major plot points are concerned. Don't give a character flaws and then refuse to have those flaws affect the story. Don't make a hot-headed character suddenly calm when in heated negotiations. Don't forget that he's got a temper. Make him Khrushchev! Let him get mad! If it spoils the negotiations, well, sometimes the author writes the story and sometimes the characters do. That's one of the little joys of creating interesting characters. Sometimes what they do is just as entertaining as any pre-planned even in the story.
Flaws in characters should always be present. They may not come up depending on the situation, but they should always be a part of the character no matter where he is or how important an event is to the plot. A flaw should never be ignored, but at the same time, they should not be overplayed. Which, again, leads me quite nicely to my next point...
IV. Flaws are not the only aspect of a character!
If there's one thing I don't want anyone to walk away from reading this (If anyone is reading this) thinking, it's "Well, obviously since flaws make a character, I should make a character with nothing but flaws!" If you claim that no one would read this and think that, I'm either a bad judge of my own writing and have already went over virtues and flaws well enough to have presented them both fairly, or you haven't read/seen/experienced enough bad fiction to understand that this does crop up from time to time.
Always remember that though flaws make a character interesting, virtues make a character interesting as well, and also that flaws and virtues without personality are like thumbtacks and posters without a wall. While a character's flaws and virtues are definitely part of his personality, they cannot be all that character is. A character also has life experiences, a character has memories and quirks that are neither flaws nor virtues, a character has views on life and relationships apart from his own qualities and vices. Always remember that a character is not merely a set of good things and bad things, but a person in their own right, with things to say and do that are not necessarily good or bad, but merely reflective of who they are.
Sin and Saintliness cannot exist in a vacuum. Both must exist on a person, a living breathing being, even if they aren't real and must be made so through a fiction of thought. Characters are not all good, and they are not all bad, they aren't even all a mix of the two. Characters are just that: characters. Sometimes with good aspects, sometimes with bad aspects, sometimes with aspects that don't fit any sort of postive or negative judgment, aspects that are just part of who they are, little things that make them just like you or me.
So, to recap as usual...
I. Use flaws to make your characters real! Don't ignore vice for virtue!
II. Don't add flaws just as something that you 'have to' do! Celebrate your characters' flaws! Revel in the good and the harm they do!
III. Don't add a flaw and then ignore it whenever it becomes convienent! Remember flaws are a part of the character, not a cheap device to be used only when they pose no threat!
IV. Don't add only flaws to a character, or only virtues or even only both! Characters are more than the sum of their parts, but they still need those parts! People have good parts, bad parts, and parts that don't fit in either category!
Friday, June 24, 2011
On Villains (Part Two)
Alright, split this into two posts for ease of reading/writing. Let's continue, shall we?
III. The Third Goal of Writing Villains: Conflict
Ah, the struggle. This is the most important time not to fuck up. This is where the hero and the villain clash, and lightening should strike at every blow. Now please, don't confuse the idea of conflict and struggle with personal physical violence, though that certainly is one of the more prevalent manifestations of conflict (And a good one at that). The conflict between hero and villain doesn't need to be violent. But it cannot, or rather should not, be quick, it should not be one-sided, and it should not be easy. To make the conflict quick, one sided, or easy saps the struggle of all meaning and impact, which is my primary concern here. To make a conflict any of those things, it gives the appearance of the hero getting off easy, it lessens the view of the heroes abilities (Or exaggerates them beyond all reason, thus destroying the audience's suspension of disbelief), and it destroys any impact the end may have had if it was preceded by a weak conflict.
So make the villain formidable. Take up a good deal of the story with the conflict, backstory and resolution don't matter without a good conflict. No one (Scratch that, few people) want a sandwich that's all bread, likewise, few people want a story that's all backstory and resolution and no conflict, no meat. I think writing this before dinner may have been a small mistake. Anyway, the biggest part of a conflict is to make it seem like a struggle. Many stories go for the 'Underdog' aspect, where the hero is significantly weaker than the villain. There's nothing wrong with this, although again, one must be careful when writing the hero's side so that they are not so weak as to make any victory at all seem unbelievable, such as three people against a world-spanning Empire, or one small ship against the galaxy, unless you plan on making them lose in a glorious/inglorious manner.
When the conflict begins in earnest, it's also probably the best time to show your villain's characterization. Particularly if you're writing from a limited 3rd Person or a 1st Person perspective, it gives the opportunity for the hero and the villain to interact, and in doing so, highlight the similarities and differences between the two characters. Preferably not in the narrative, mind, but through dialogue and action.
IV. The Final Goal of Writing Villains: Resolution
The big finale. This is what it's all been building to. Thousands of characters and probably four digits' worth of words as well. Close to two hours of work.
When writing a resolution, make it effective.
...
What, you didn't like that end? Of course not. No one likes lots of build up and little pay off (*Insert sex joke*). The point is that the entire story has been building to the final battle or conflict! You can't skimp here, or you'll end up with your audience unsatisfied and disappointed. You need to make the final fight the climax of the story, to make the final blow against the villain entertaining. You can't just write half a page, or dedicate only half a minute to the destruction or defeat of the villain. You need to make it satisfying, whether through an ironic end (Overused and cliche, perhaps, but better than a half-assed end), through the failure of the villain to defeat the hero and his subsequent downfall, or through the redemption or the regret-fueled turn from his ways (Again, caution, writing redemption or regret for the final resolution of the villain can come off as sappy or cliche if done poorly)
The most important part of the resolution is just that: the resolution. To fail to resolve the conflict between the villain and the hero is either a cheap way to keep the possibility of a sequel open without actually having one planned, or a simple inability to resolve the conflict between hero and villain. Don't leave the audience unsatisfied. Give them a fine finish, make sure they know that the hero and the villain are finished with each other, that their conflict is done. Unless you already have a continuation of the story worked out.
So, to recap...
I: Turn the audience against the villain; make the villain a villain!
II. Make him a well-rounded character. Don't deprive him of reasonable motivation or redeeming qualities.
III. Make the conflict with the villain reasonably unpredictable and even.
IV. FINISH HIM! Or rather, resolve the villain's conflict with the hero.
III. The Third Goal of Writing Villains: Conflict
Ah, the struggle. This is the most important time not to fuck up. This is where the hero and the villain clash, and lightening should strike at every blow. Now please, don't confuse the idea of conflict and struggle with personal physical violence, though that certainly is one of the more prevalent manifestations of conflict (And a good one at that). The conflict between hero and villain doesn't need to be violent. But it cannot, or rather should not, be quick, it should not be one-sided, and it should not be easy. To make the conflict quick, one sided, or easy saps the struggle of all meaning and impact, which is my primary concern here. To make a conflict any of those things, it gives the appearance of the hero getting off easy, it lessens the view of the heroes abilities (Or exaggerates them beyond all reason, thus destroying the audience's suspension of disbelief), and it destroys any impact the end may have had if it was preceded by a weak conflict.
So make the villain formidable. Take up a good deal of the story with the conflict, backstory and resolution don't matter without a good conflict. No one (Scratch that, few people) want a sandwich that's all bread, likewise, few people want a story that's all backstory and resolution and no conflict, no meat. I think writing this before dinner may have been a small mistake. Anyway, the biggest part of a conflict is to make it seem like a struggle. Many stories go for the 'Underdog' aspect, where the hero is significantly weaker than the villain. There's nothing wrong with this, although again, one must be careful when writing the hero's side so that they are not so weak as to make any victory at all seem unbelievable, such as three people against a world-spanning Empire, or one small ship against the galaxy, unless you plan on making them lose in a glorious/inglorious manner.
When the conflict begins in earnest, it's also probably the best time to show your villain's characterization. Particularly if you're writing from a limited 3rd Person or a 1st Person perspective, it gives the opportunity for the hero and the villain to interact, and in doing so, highlight the similarities and differences between the two characters. Preferably not in the narrative, mind, but through dialogue and action.
IV. The Final Goal of Writing Villains: Resolution
The big finale. This is what it's all been building to. Thousands of characters and probably four digits' worth of words as well. Close to two hours of work.
When writing a resolution, make it effective.
...
What, you didn't like that end? Of course not. No one likes lots of build up and little pay off (*Insert sex joke*). The point is that the entire story has been building to the final battle or conflict! You can't skimp here, or you'll end up with your audience unsatisfied and disappointed. You need to make the final fight the climax of the story, to make the final blow against the villain entertaining. You can't just write half a page, or dedicate only half a minute to the destruction or defeat of the villain. You need to make it satisfying, whether through an ironic end (Overused and cliche, perhaps, but better than a half-assed end), through the failure of the villain to defeat the hero and his subsequent downfall, or through the redemption or the regret-fueled turn from his ways (Again, caution, writing redemption or regret for the final resolution of the villain can come off as sappy or cliche if done poorly)
The most important part of the resolution is just that: the resolution. To fail to resolve the conflict between the villain and the hero is either a cheap way to keep the possibility of a sequel open without actually having one planned, or a simple inability to resolve the conflict between hero and villain. Don't leave the audience unsatisfied. Give them a fine finish, make sure they know that the hero and the villain are finished with each other, that their conflict is done. Unless you already have a continuation of the story worked out.
So, to recap...
I: Turn the audience against the villain; make the villain a villain!
II. Make him a well-rounded character. Don't deprive him of reasonable motivation or redeeming qualities.
III. Make the conflict with the villain reasonably unpredictable and even.
IV. FINISH HIM! Or rather, resolve the villain's conflict with the hero.
On Villains (Part One)
For my first little rant, I'll use the subject of villains. It's an easy enough subject, villains are all too often abused, misused, and poorly characterized in storytelling. Let's start with what I think is probably the worst offense...
I. The First Goal of Writing Villains: Opposition
Villains often seem to have a problem with characterization. While (Thankfully) the "I am a villain because I am evil." cardboard cutout is rare outside of children's stories and bad fantasy novels, villains often suffer from the weakest characterization in stories. This is not a good thing. While it is certainly tempting to spend the least amount of time on the character who is not the protagonist or the hero, it is important to pay attention to the villain's character. Normally, after all, the villain is the second most important character in a story, it is the conflict between the hero and the villain that drives the story. If the villain is poorly characterized, the hero's victory over him (Or defeat by him, depending on the story) lacks any sort of push. Even if it was a struggle, at the end of the day, the hero just defeated a cardboard cutout.
It's easier to explain this with a few examples from modern media. Let's go with something like the first Assassin's Creed game. The first game displays good villain characterization, whatever the quality of the other elements of the story. I'll stray away from commenting on the terribly characterized second game.
In the first game, the game shows what it takes to make a good villain with each of it's assassination targets. The first goal is to turn your audience against them, or else they're not a villain in their eyes. This is usually the easiest part, the one that few storytellers seem to mess up on. A common method is to show them doing something unsympathetic. It is important to not overdo this, lest they come off as cartoonishly evil instead of as a serious threat. In the first Assassin's Creed game, to continue with my example, this is done with Garnier De Naplouse, the Knight Hospitallier, by having him order his crusader goons to break a patient's legs so he can't run away.
The first goal is comparatively easily. Violence against the innocent or at least those who don't deserve it, unnecessarily harsh punishment or rule, or a callous attitude to the loss of human life all work, though that is by no means an exhaustive list. It is important, however, to have something of that nature happen. If you fail to successfully pull off this first goal, then you fall into the trap of having the villain the villain for no other reason than the hero opposes him. This either means that your villain is poorly characterized, and you run into the aforementioned problem of having his actions carry little weight, or his status as a villain is called into question. Your readers will start to question whose side they should be on, particularly if your hero has shades of gray. Now, if this is what you're going for, by all means, do so. There's nothing wrong with a story with just protagonists and antagonists instead of heroes and villains, but don't try to sell a villain as evil simply because the hero opposes him.
II. The Second Goal of Writing Villains: Motive
The second goal in villain characterization is to give him motive, to turn him from a one-dimensional villain into a more human figure. This is where some stories run into trouble. Oftentimes a simplistic motive, such as power or revenge, is chosen. There is nothing wrong with these motives when done well. If the villain is out for power, have him actually be out for power. Have him fight and conquer, cheat and backstab, but don't use it as a catch-all excuse. Being out for power does not automatically mean heartless mass-murderer, keep the villain's goals in mind at all times.
Don't have him catapult children for shits and giggles, random wanton cruelty is not his motivation. If you must have him catapult children (Quick way to #1), explain why, and have him reflect on the decision. Perhaps the children are from a town he's sieging and he wants to speed up their surrender. Perhaps he views it as a necessary evil, or perhaps he's simply become callous to the kind of suffering that effective methods of intimidation often create. Perhaps he views the children as a possible (Future) threat to his rule, and thus just as guilty as the soldiers defending the town, though that reasoning would likely sap even more sympathy from him. Maybe he even views actually catapulting the children as going too far, as crossing his own personal line for cruelty and violence. Villains are characters, they too have limits, or at least should have.
Returning to my original example, in the first Assassin's Creed with the Knight Hospitallier assassination, Garnier explains his motivations quite well. He believed that his experiments on the helpless patients is helping them in the long run, he believed that his patients were better off than they were when he took them. He was, first and foremost, a doctor, a healer, a man who believed in helping those under his care. Whether or not he actually did help them, or whether his methods were necessary is another story entirely, of course, but the presence of benevolent motives and cruel but in-character actions allow the character to be understood and sympathetic while still being unsavory enough to turn the audience against him.
To be continued
I. The First Goal of Writing Villains: Opposition
Villains often seem to have a problem with characterization. While (Thankfully) the "I am a villain because I am evil." cardboard cutout is rare outside of children's stories and bad fantasy novels, villains often suffer from the weakest characterization in stories. This is not a good thing. While it is certainly tempting to spend the least amount of time on the character who is not the protagonist or the hero, it is important to pay attention to the villain's character. Normally, after all, the villain is the second most important character in a story, it is the conflict between the hero and the villain that drives the story. If the villain is poorly characterized, the hero's victory over him (Or defeat by him, depending on the story) lacks any sort of push. Even if it was a struggle, at the end of the day, the hero just defeated a cardboard cutout.
It's easier to explain this with a few examples from modern media. Let's go with something like the first Assassin's Creed game. The first game displays good villain characterization, whatever the quality of the other elements of the story. I'll stray away from commenting on the terribly characterized second game.
In the first game, the game shows what it takes to make a good villain with each of it's assassination targets. The first goal is to turn your audience against them, or else they're not a villain in their eyes. This is usually the easiest part, the one that few storytellers seem to mess up on. A common method is to show them doing something unsympathetic. It is important to not overdo this, lest they come off as cartoonishly evil instead of as a serious threat. In the first Assassin's Creed game, to continue with my example, this is done with Garnier De Naplouse, the Knight Hospitallier, by having him order his crusader goons to break a patient's legs so he can't run away.
The first goal is comparatively easily. Violence against the innocent or at least those who don't deserve it, unnecessarily harsh punishment or rule, or a callous attitude to the loss of human life all work, though that is by no means an exhaustive list. It is important, however, to have something of that nature happen. If you fail to successfully pull off this first goal, then you fall into the trap of having the villain the villain for no other reason than the hero opposes him. This either means that your villain is poorly characterized, and you run into the aforementioned problem of having his actions carry little weight, or his status as a villain is called into question. Your readers will start to question whose side they should be on, particularly if your hero has shades of gray. Now, if this is what you're going for, by all means, do so. There's nothing wrong with a story with just protagonists and antagonists instead of heroes and villains, but don't try to sell a villain as evil simply because the hero opposes him.
II. The Second Goal of Writing Villains: Motive
The second goal in villain characterization is to give him motive, to turn him from a one-dimensional villain into a more human figure. This is where some stories run into trouble. Oftentimes a simplistic motive, such as power or revenge, is chosen. There is nothing wrong with these motives when done well. If the villain is out for power, have him actually be out for power. Have him fight and conquer, cheat and backstab, but don't use it as a catch-all excuse. Being out for power does not automatically mean heartless mass-murderer, keep the villain's goals in mind at all times.
Don't have him catapult children for shits and giggles, random wanton cruelty is not his motivation. If you must have him catapult children (Quick way to #1), explain why, and have him reflect on the decision. Perhaps the children are from a town he's sieging and he wants to speed up their surrender. Perhaps he views it as a necessary evil, or perhaps he's simply become callous to the kind of suffering that effective methods of intimidation often create. Perhaps he views the children as a possible (Future) threat to his rule, and thus just as guilty as the soldiers defending the town, though that reasoning would likely sap even more sympathy from him. Maybe he even views actually catapulting the children as going too far, as crossing his own personal line for cruelty and violence. Villains are characters, they too have limits, or at least should have.
Returning to my original example, in the first Assassin's Creed with the Knight Hospitallier assassination, Garnier explains his motivations quite well. He believed that his experiments on the helpless patients is helping them in the long run, he believed that his patients were better off than they were when he took them. He was, first and foremost, a doctor, a healer, a man who believed in helping those under his care. Whether or not he actually did help them, or whether his methods were necessary is another story entirely, of course, but the presence of benevolent motives and cruel but in-character actions allow the character to be understood and sympathetic while still being unsavory enough to turn the audience against him.
To be continued
An Introduction
Well, I'm no good at introductions, so I'll just cut to the chase. I plan on using this blog to vent my feelings about storytelling and it's various aspects, such as characterization, setting, etc. I hope that if you're reading this (If anyone is reading this, really), you'll enjoy some of these posts. If not, well, I suppose that makes this blog simply a place to put some notes. Either way, someone wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)