Villainy in the pot o' plot

[Namatu]

My MC has a threat of villainy in her, but it's of an unintentional variety. This is essential to the story. The central antagonism of the plot comes from within, with additional aggravation provided without. (It's really much more interesting than I'm making it sound.)

I have a villain character, but he plays a very tertiary role at the moment. I'm ironing stupidity out of my manuscript and adding greater complexity and relevance. Most of my supporting characters have much larger roles than this villain. I hate reading stories with pat, little seen villains, and I'm wondering if that's what I'm doing myself.

How essential do you consider a villain to be (in terms of development and page presence) when he contributes only a fraction to the overall plot?

[Tirjasdyn]

Hrm...my own novel has a villan but it's a far away villan who isn't really responsible for what's going on...two of the MC become villanous as the plot grows. In end I want the reader questioning what is right.

[TheIT]

In my current WIP, I've got an obvious villain who sets events in motion, but no one knows who he is and I don't intend for anyone to find out. I don't think he'll show up anywhere else in the story. There's also a traitor character who will be discovered. What I'm aiming for is that by the end of the story my MCs will know there's some sort of conspiracy afoot, but they won't have enough information to stop them. They'll stop the current plot against the kingdom, and they'll know there's an enemy out there.

[maestrowork]

There are no villains in TPB. It doesn't mean the readers don't think there are some, but they will find out that there really isn't any. It's pretty much a self vs. self story. Personally, I'm highly attracted to stories with no clear "bad guys."

[Namatu]

There are no villains in TPB. It doesn't mean the readers don't thin there are some, but they will find out that there really isn't any. It's pretty much a self vs. self story. Personally, I'm highly attracted to stories with no clear "bad guys."
Good. That seems to be what's happening in mine. Everyone's turning out to have their own surprising ambiguities.

[Shady Lane]

I never have a "bad guy." I don't think I really understand the premise.

There's plenty of conflict and everything....but I don't have a villian.

[ClaudiaGray]

I didn't realize that I didn't have a true villain in my book until after my editor pointed it out (not in a critical way). You can do without if the story moves along anyway; conflict is the main thing, and if your MC's situation and personality provide it on their own, you're fine.

[Niapri]

I have a villain...sort of. He's actually one of my MC's best friends. The only thing that makes him a nemesis is that his interests go against the MC's, and his personality...flaws mean that he doesn't care. An incidental antagonist, in a way. ^^;

So, an antagonist in the traditional sense isn't a must - just a serious conflict that means something to the MC.

[Prawn]

I have a several villains, that way I can kill one off, and still maintain tension. I have the villains do serious evil, but they also do lots of marginally evil things that my readers identify with. Things that they wish they could do themselves. Readers feel slightly guilty at affiliating with the villain in this way, and so they are satisfied when he gets his just desserts.

[Oliveman]

Let me offer you a piece of advice (for everyone) with regard to surprising characteristics jumping out of a character. This is good! This is why: contradiction within a character breeds complexity. Flat characters are called thus, not because of their unimportance, but because they don't have contradiction in character. The character(s) at the center of your story should be the most complex of all, as it is in the contraction that the reader's connection arises. I'm sure we all have moments when we are couragous, and those when we're fearful. Spiteful and kind. Sure of ourselves and lost. Brash and timid. You get the idea. Each of us is deep, and it is the connection to that depth that attaches the reader to your character. Those other characters surrounding them may have complexity, but it should not detract from your MC, confusing people about who the main character is. In The Great Gadsby, for instance, the narrator, who acts in the story, is not the MC. This is because the one with the greatest complexity is Gatsby. I'm fairly sure many would support me in this opinion.

Now you know what it means when someone complains that a character doesn't have enough dimensions.. what they really mean is, "Why is he always like this? When is he gonna be human?"

A "villain" in a story, is, more specifically, a character of antagonism. They might be justified, in their own perspective, in what they do in the story, but whatever character they are, it needs to provide a grounds for conflict with the character of your MC. They still shouldn't be more complex, however, or the attention would switch to the "villain", and people might become confused and be forced to pick sides or simply exit the story, so to speak. Remember that "Bad Guys" aren't doing bad because they think it is wrong. No, they see what they do as right, and perhaps the MC sees it as wrong, and conflict arises from that difference and the willful pursuit to change it by the MC, or however else they react.

The main point, however, is to create central characters with depth through contradiction, so if a bad trait pops out of them- embrace it, or at the very least, play with what you've found. Contradiction is the way of human nature.