Giving a Villain/Unlikeable character Redeeming Qualities

DwayneA said:

I read on one page on the internet that people hate villains who are "pure evil" with no redeeming qualities.

Click to expand...

Take care to distinguish hating the character, which may be the author's intent, from hating that the author has made the character this way.

If villains are supposed to be the "bad guys and girls", why do they have such qualities?

Click to expand...

If they have redeeming qualities, that offers the possibility that the character can be redeemed in the end. That in turn opens up the dramatic question for readers: Will the villain be redeemed in the end?

Also, if the villain has redeemable qualities, that may help the reader empathize with the villain, and so care more about what the villain does and what happens to the villain.

Also, redeemable qualities makes the story more complex. The more redeemable the villain, the harder it will be for us to accept some of the things the hero might do to vanquish the villain. We might accept a hero killing a purely evil villain, but not accept the hero killing a potentially redeemable villain.

I say it this way (in fiction and in real life): The reason we deem something evil is to justify taking some action that we could not otherwise justify. More forcefully: We deem something evil in order to justify our own evil.

So the more evil we deem a person to be, the fewer constraints we place on ourselves for how we might harm the person.

How can I determine the best redeeming trait to give my villains?

Click to expand...

Consider giving the villain whatever redeemable quality most constrains the hero, the trait that makes it hardest for the hero to justify taking whatever action he most wants to take. Perhaps the trait with which the hero most strongly identifies. "But I can't kill someone who loves puppies!"

Dale

Well, a villain that is purely evil -- I will offer up Palpatine from the Star Wars series -- has his or her uses. They are often the evil behind the evil of other characters, Darth Vader and Draco Malfoy in the Potter books. Also there is the promise of a giant showdown, the purely evil also tend to be purely badass. These villains are often best used sparingly and the question then becomes when the villain was off-page or off-screen were there some redeeming qualities we did not see?

A villain that is not pure evil feels more real, because the real monsters of the world are often very sympathetic viewed in a certain light, such as in "The Last King of Scotland." In fiction, it is not so much as giving the villain a redeeming quality, but more as exploring the character you have created. The story and the journey the character takes should help you determine the quality that will round out your character. It can be something small like you mentioned, serving to humanize a monster, or it can tie into the overall theme of the story so that the question becomes was the villain actually a villain at all?

Just my thoughts, hope you find them useful.

As long we understand the villain's motivation, he or she can wear as much black as they like. It's when they're evil just for being evil's sake, that they appear unrealistic and don't bring as much to the story. Giving them a kitten or a surprisingly nice hobby isn't enough.

-Derek

Voldemort had an unhappy childhood. *sniff*

Dwayne: I don't think it's "people hate villains who are "pure evil" with no redeeming qualities". It's when the villain has no good reason to be evil. In fact, an otherwise well characterized "pure evil" character with an obviously tacked on "quality" just to make him more sympathetic can seem more contrived and unrealistic.

Take Voldemort: he was abandoned by his parents. And, his parents were never in love in the first place. And if that sounds lame, consider the fact that his father had NO LOVE WHATSOEVER for his mom -- not even a single sliver -- because he hasn't even met his mom before he was tricked by the love potion, which we know cannot produce anything approximating love. It was a kind of twisted relationship that almost never happens, and love (and the lack thereof) is established as very powerful magic. And Voldemort's childhood was deeply affected by the lack of love -- the fact that he was such a bully from the start means he never made any friends, or even had anyone sympathize with him. So, the reader feels sympathy for Voldemort, yet they know that he probably is as evil as a human can become. We also feel sorry for him because we know what an abomination ripping your soul into eight parts is. We see Voldemort's soul in its stunted form during Harry's "death" scene, and we know he is faced with a fate worse than death. All of that is far more effective than, say, making him like roses.

The trait that makes a villain sympathetic should never be tacked on like it's a new haircut. It should have deep ramifications on his character.

Voldemort's entry on wikipedia has a mention of him being "more tiresome than an Ian Fleming villian".

Click to expand...

That is unencyclopedic. It is an opinion, not Gospel. Does it work for you?

I can add little to the great advice given so far.

When questions of this type come up, I ask myself which Villians did I like the most and why?

I then do a deep dive with these Villians and drill down to the core of the 'Why'.

One of my favorite literary Villians belongs to C.S. Friedman, in Black Sun Rising, part of her coldfire trilogy.

THe Villian was named Gerald Tarrant and he was an evil sonabitch. But there was a civility, nobleness, and 'depth' to his evil. He was incredibly complex and in some ways a little contradictory, but even his contradictory nature fit a sort of 'logic' just as in real life we often contradict ourselves.

Anyways, I would recommend that you make a top five list of your favorite villians then dissect 'Why' they are/were your favorites.

For me, I love complexity, depth, power, and 'realness'. That is the formula that pretty much bonds me to any villian. What is your formula?

Mel...

Pretty much any advice on writing, (bar spelling/grammar) such as the creation of a character, are opinions, and should be treated as such, i.e. with skepticism.

DwayneA said:

Voldemort's entry on wikipedia has a mention of him being "more tiresome than an Ian Fleming villian".

Click to expand...

People often confuse characters in Fleming's Bond novels with characters in the 007 movies. In some cases they aren't even recognizably similar, or the movies have created new characters altogether. But many Bond movie villains are memorable, notably Scaramanga the assassin from Man With The Golden Gun, who is reckoned to be the bad version of Bond -- just as clever, just as deadly, but lacking Bond's morality and loyalty (which kind of links to your two sides of the same coin thread). Instead of a kitten or puppy, Scaramanga has a midget henchman, which works to make Scaramanga even more memorable and also gives him someone to interact with.

-Derek

interestingly enough, the inspiration for my villain is one of the coolest people i know. though he's more of a physical inspiration than a personality inspiration.

The only villains in what I'm currently writing aren't bad. They're just doing the same thing my MC is doing, but they're doing it to him.

What people don't like are two-dimensional characters unless you are in comedy or satire. There's a great Mercedes Lackey quote, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I misattribute it, on point. She said "Even dark magicians get up in the middle of the night for milk and cookies."

Your characters should have depth to them. Now some of them are going to be hellspawn and that's okay. But, you need to know why they are unredeemable hellspawn. Even Voldemorte had a driving goal - admittedly it was a lot like Hilter's i.e. Magic users are the master race and should control the world and any one who disagrees with me can die - but he had one.

You want the "villian" to prevail in Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog in part because he's a really nice person and the "hero," Dr. Hammer, is such a cheesy tool.

A character that's "pure evil" isn't believable because no one thinks of themselves as pure evil. Voldemorte thinks he's doing the right thing. The various dictators in our history that have killed thousands of thier people thought they were doing "good" to benefit a greater cause. The bad guy has his reasons for doing the horrible things he does. He doesn't just do them because he's "evil."

Characters should be believable which means they need to be whole people, not just stereotypes. The best stories for me are when the protagonist and antagonist are just different shades of grey, because - let's face it - that's life.

Depending on the type of story you're telling, an evil for evil's sake villain can work. For the most part, however, readers want to see motivation and characterization in all the major characters. The best villains, many readers say, are those who don't believe they're evil, that what they're doing is the right thing. If it happens to hurt or kill many people, well, it'll all work out in the end because it's all for the greater good.

Basically when constructing your villain, you need to look at your story and see what sort of character needs to occupy that spot. If your story can handle an evil for evil's sake character, go for it. But even then, it might be a good idea to see about characterization and dig into why this character is evil.

Wark said:

The only villains in what I'm currently writing aren't bad. They're just doing the same thing my MC is doing, but they're doing it to him.

Click to expand...

Is it a war of moral relativity?

'The only true evil is moral relativity.' -Zoltan Chivay, The Witcher (game)

Hannibal Lecter enjoys good food, good music and good wine. He's an intellectual who loves stimulating conversation. What's not to like? Oh, I suppose there's that whole "he eats people" bugaboo.

If you want a character who isn't just a caricature you must try to make him well-rounded and fully realized. Real people are rarely (dare I say never) only one thing or another. Young people's or children's literature isn't the place to go for fully rounded, complex villains. Don't look to 101 Dalmatians, Harry Potter or Star Wars. Go to adult literature (Silence of the Lambs) or history (Hitler, Mussolini) and see what made those evil people tick. Why did they do what they did and how did their hobbies or other redeeming qualities contrast or support that goal?

dpaterso said:

As long we understand the villain's motivation, he or she can wear as much black as they like. It's when they're evil just for being evil's sake, that they appear unrealistic and don't bring as much to the story. Giving them a kitten or a surprisingly nice hobby isn't enough.

-Derek

Click to expand...

Spot on.

No one is evil just to be evil. Villains feel justified that what they are doing is furthering their cause.

DwayneA said:

I read on one page on the internet that people hate villains who are "pure evil" with no redeeming qualities. Non-villains who don't have such are considered flat...

Yet I've seen and read about villains who were "all black" with no redeeming qualities, such as Voldemort from Harry Potter. The guy didn't care about anyone but himself, he's incapable of love and emotions, and he doesn't even consider his followers his "friends". And the way several other villains in the story were portrayed throughout the story, it was obvious that they didn't have such redeeming qualities either such as Bellatrix Lestrange or even Dolores Umbridge...

...If villains are supposed to be the "bad guys and girls", why do they have such qualities? Why do we despise villains who are "all black"? How can I determine the best redeeming trait to give my villains?

Click to expand...

My own opinion is that we're looking here at a problem of definitions. People often complain about villains "with no redeeming characteristics" but frankly I doubt that is really what sparks their dislike/disinterest in such characters. What inspires fascination, understanding and believability is that a character "leaps off the page" and seems alive. Very often this can involve our understanding of what makes a character tick. If we, for example, understand that Magneto's entire world view is utterly shaped by his experiences in the Holocaust, then his ruthless dedication to mutant-kind seems real. But on the other hand, if that detail is simply stapled upon a character who comes across as nothing more than a power-hungry bigot then we don't care, mostly because we don't believe.

But this isn't a matter of making a villain sympathetic. It can work that way, but frankly the more one learns about Voldemort the more one sees him as a twisted monster. One feels pity for his mother, but after a certain point we feel little or none for him.

Richard III in Shakespeare's play is a compelling and fascinating character, and that "love abandoned me in my mother's womb" is but one tiny reason we react to him as we do. Much more is how he relishes his plots, shares with us his plans and boasts after each success. Bolsolo in The Duchess of Malfi is mostly a cypher, but we see from his actions that he has in his own way a rigid sense of honor. Iago in Othello is even more of a cypher, yet the cypher itself is part of what makes him so compelling (What does he have against the Moor, to go to such great lengths?). Hannibal Lecter created such a sensation (imho) almost totally because of his relationship with Clarice Starling, and the details of what happened between them.

Don't know if this was of any help at all. My main point is that there's something alchemical about putting together a villain, but that an essential part of it is some sense that this is a real human being. We don't need to know all the details. But you the writer need to know enough about the individuality of the villain to bring them into sharp relief.

DwayneA said:

How can I determine the best redeeming trait to give my villains?

Click to expand...

The best redeeming trait for your villains may be something that you admire in people. For example, if you admire hard work, persistence, focus and drive, you could have your villain display these, albeit for an 'evil' cause. Traits by themselves aren't necessarily good or bad. If you think about traits that make you sit up and take notice of people, or traits that perhaps you would like to have, and give them to your villains to use as they will, then your villains may feel admirable to you and your readers, even if their methods and aims (which cause you and your readers to dislike or hate them) are not.

dgiharris said:

I can add little to the great advice given so far.

When questions of this type come up, I ask myself which Villians did I like the most and why?

I then do a deep dive with these Villians and drill down to the core of the 'Why'.

One of my favorite literary Villians belongs to C.S. Friedman, in Black Sun Rising, part of her coldfire trilogy.

THe Villian was named Gerald Tarrant and he was an evil sonabitch. But there was a civility, nobleness, and 'depth' to his evil. He was incredibly complex and in some ways a little contradictory, but even his contradictory nature fit a sort of 'logic' just as in real life we often contradict ourselves.

Anyways, I would recommend that you make a top five list of your favorite villians then dissect 'Why' they are/were your favorites.

For me, I love complexity, depth, power, and 'realness'. That is the formula that pretty much bonds me to any villian. What is your formula?

Mel...

Click to expand...

Loved Gerald too, although I think he was a bit more of an 'anti hero' than a villain. The acutal antagonists were much worse (except Andrys in the third book, who was angsty but sympathetic...or sympathetic because he was angsty, whichever).

My favorite example of an 'all-black' (evil, that is) villain would be the Inner Party, or Ingsoc, or Big Brother, from 1984. O'Brien states rather clearly that their purpose is power for power's sake, torture for torture's sake, etc. The Party makes a very good villain because it's so plausable and so evil at the same time. The sheer inevitablity of it was what made the MiniLuv scenes so terrifying for me, personally.

So I guess I'm agreeing that villains/antagonists shouldn't be humanized if humanizing them will make them less scary or less effective as villains. On the other hand, the Party is more of a thing or a collection of people, rather than an individual. Individuals who are pure evil for evil's sake are harder to buy. That's when motivation comes in.

No person does something for no reason. A character can easily be sick, sadistic, irredeemable, and monstrous. However, the author must always know what made them that way. Pure evil is acceptable if it has justification.

Motivation is what separates the great evil characters from one dimentional melodramatic figures. All evil people do not think they are evil. Every one thinks they are the Hero, and good. I actually focus on this specifically in much of the stuff I write.

Use Her Name said:

Motivation is what separates the great evil characters from one dimentional melodramatic figures. All evil people do not think they are evil. Every one thinks they are the Hero, and good. I actually focus on this specifically in much of the stuff I write.

Click to expand...

Well they might not necessarily think they are a 'Hero,' but their actions are most likely perfectly justifiable to themselves.

DwayneA said:

If villains are supposed to be the "bad guys and girls", why do they have such qualities? Why do we despise villains who are "all black"? How can I determine the best redeeming trait to give my villains?

Click to expand...

Villains don't have to be hateable. It's enough if they're less sympathetic than the heroes.

What's important though is a villain's competence and potence. The best villains are as good as the heroes or better in all respects except for a key heroic virtue or two. Their lack of those virtues reduces our sympathy, but still makes us envy the villain for being so capable, and admire the hero for triumphing.

So rather than starting with a character who's detestable then adding virtues, my suggestion is to start with a character who's competent and potent, then removing virtues.

Which virtues to remove? My suggestion is to remove just those needed to place the hero in the best light. Consider: Luke Skywalker is brash, cocky and naive -- none of those are heroic virtues. But what sets his path to herodom is his compassion. His nemesis Darth Vader is bold, arrogant and cunning -- actually stronger heroic traits than Luke's. But what differentiates him most from Luke is that he lacks any compassion at all. So Vader's most villainous trait becomes the complement of Luke's most admirable trait.

Compassion is often removed from villains because compassion leads to suffering, and the audience always sympathises with a suffering character. Other traits that might be removed are sympathy, generosity, humility, courage, honesty, loyalty, honour. But if you removed all of those you'd end up with a melodramatic Edwardian villain. My suggestion: remove just the ones that contrast best with your heroes.