Superhero or Supervillain?

I like the idea of the love interest being the supervillian. He's bad and her friend is out to destroy him but she can't resist him and has to find a balance between accepting him and trying to change him. It only becomes predictable if he does a complete change into a good guy, or if she dumps him because he's so evil. Having her deal with the fact that he's evil and still wanting him is different (at least in my opinion).

Right. Ok, if the heroine is going to fall in love with the supervillian, then that would make her pretty ... daft. Bcos from what I know, that would completely go against him being a supervillian. Supervillians are evil. Super evil. Hence "super" before "villian". They don't fall in love. And even if they do, it's a twisted kind of love. Think Voldemort falling in love. He's probably the best supervillian I know of, and except it's a fanfiction, I don't think the dude is capable of love.

What you could do is probably make the supervillian an ordinary villian. Probably an up and coming villian. Someone who still has his priorities straight, though is headed for a dark path. If he's a supervillian and he falls in love with the heroine, it won't be very believable.

I have to disagree with the supervillain needing to be inherently evil or incapable of love. He doesn't have to burn down orphanages or torture random strangers for his own amusement; all he has to be is someone who's agenda runs against the grain of society.

If you want a recent pop-culture version of this (as opposed to dusting off obscure comic books for decades ago), check out Dr. Horrible by Joss Whedon. The "villain" of the piece is actually quite a sympathetic character in many ways. He's not about death and destruction for the sake of death and destruction. He actually doesn't even like the idea of killing people. He just sees the status quo as a sick system that perpetuates problems rather than solving them and he's out to take control away from the people who support it.

Of course there's still a greed and power aspect, he does want to rule the world after all, but he's not really evil by most standards. His goals are certainly in conflict with the hero's, as well as the police and every level of government, but I don't think it's at all a stretch that a woman would fall in love with someone like that. Ambition, conviction, courage... all good qualities. A supervillain who was all about being as evil as evil can be just wouldn't be very interesting to me.

And yes, I know my example is a comedy but the basic premise still holds.

Viktor Night said:

I have to disagree with the supervillain needing to be inherently evil or incapable of love. He doesn't have to burn down orphanages or torture random strangers for his own amusement; all he has to be is someone who's agenda runs against the grain of society.

If you want a recent pop-culture version of this (as opposed to dusting off obscure comic books for decades ago), check out Dr. Horrible by Joss Whedon. The "villain" of the piece is actually quite a sympathetic character in many ways. He's not about death and destruction for the sake of death and destruction. He actually doesn't even like the idea of killing people. He just sees the status quo as a sick system that perpetuates problems rather than solving them and he's out to take control away from the people who support it.

Of course there's still a greed and power aspect, he does want to rule the world after all, but he's not really evil by most standards. His goals are certainly in conflict with the hero's, as well as the police and every level of government, but I don't think it's at all a stretch that a woman would fall in love with someone like that. Ambition, conviction, courage... all good qualities. A supervillain who was all about being as evil as evil can be just wouldn't be very interesting to me.

And yes, I know my example is a comedy but the basic premise still holds.

Click to expand...

Lol I'm sorry, Dr what? You're joking right? That's YOUR idea of a supervillian? That's not a supervillian. That's a joke.

Supervillian = Voldemort, et la.

If you're going to call someone a villian and make them sympathetic and open to emotion and willing to fall in love, that's cool. But a supervillian? Sorry, that doesn't sound believable at all.

In fact, @ Wavy Blue, your signature explains it better. Zuko from Avatar = Villian. His father/sister = supervillian.

There's a reason they have "super" before the villian.

Also, no it's not a stretch that a woman can fall in love with a supervillian. It's happened plenty times on TV shows, movies, etc. However, if (and this is to the OP) you're going to do it, then you have to make it believable. Yes, she loves him. But does he love her? And why? Why would he fall in love with someone who is everything he's not, who is pretty much against everything he's for, who he knows will eventually change him if he sticks with her? There has to be a good reason, other than she's an ordinary nice girl and she's pretty hot (cos they're plenty of hot girls who wouldn't mind being evil with him), or that they're destined to be together (that's a very, very weak explanation).

That's what everyone's writing these days: a vampire who eats human beings suddenly falls for a human being ... without any real believable reason, or an angel who lives in heaven of all places (the best place ever) decides to fall to earth for a girl ... because of destiny and some lame shit.

You have a great idea here, Wavy Blue, with an opportunity for great character development.

Glenakin said:

Lol I'm sorry, Dr what? You're joking right? That's YOUR idea of a supervillian? That's not a supervillian. That's a joke.

Click to expand...

That's why I mentioned it's not the greatest example, just the most well known one. I could probably dust off my comic book collection and find a few dozen better but I'd be the only one in the thread who would know what the hell I'm talking about.

Remove the comedy element and look purely at motivation and how the character is perceived by others around him.

Why would he fall in love with someone who is everything he's not, who is pretty much against everything he's for, who he knows will eventually change him if he sticks with her?

Click to expand...

Because love isn't rational. People fall in love with someone who's completely wrong for them all the time. Whether it's a case of their reason being hijacked by their biological need to reproduce or there happens to be one personality trait that's so overwhelmingly attractive to someone that they overlook other glaring imperfections and conflicts, it's a really common thing. I've had two different women fall in love with me, or something pretty close, when it was obvious that we weren't suited. Intellectually they knew we weren't a good match but emotionally it was a different story.

Glenakin said:

Supervillian = Voldemort, et la.

Click to expand...

You're not the first person to mention Voldemort to me as the be all and end all of villainy. I suppose I should also mention I've never read Harry Potter. I know there are a lot of other pop culture super-villains out there but I can't think of any others off the top of my head that are sympathetic.

Viktor Night said:

Because love isn't rational. People fall in love with someone who's completely wrong for them all the time. Whether it's a case of their reason being hijacked by their biological need to reproduce or there happens to be one personality trait that's so overwhelmingly attractive to someone that they overlook other glaring imperfections and conflicts, it's a really common thing. I've had two different women fall in love with me, or something pretty close, when it was obvious that we weren't suited. Intellectually they knew we weren't a good match but emotionally it was a different story.

Click to expand...

No offence, mate, but your definition of love reeks of romanticism. I don't doubt that love isn't rational - it just isn't as irrational as you make it seem. And love isn't a luxury everyone is capable of. When someone goes down the deep end, especially into supervilliany, their idea of "love" gets pretty twisted. So all that, oh, she's so beautiful, i could settle with her and two dogs and make babies - these are things that are so beyond them, beyond their comprehension. Because, like it or not, power and respect is much more enticing to them than love or romance or some M&B thingy.

I mean, I get you're the kind of person who gives people the benefit of the doubt, and would probably believe that love conquers all or some weird stuff like that, but that's just not reality.

Again, I put forth voldemort, because he's the only YA supervillian I can think of who was portrayed in a pretty impressive three dimensional way. Voldemort can't understand love. What he thinks is love is not what everyone thinks is love. That, my friend, is supervilliany.

Viktor Night said:

You're not the first person to mention Voldemort to me as the be all and end all of villainy. I suppose I should also mention I've never read Harry Potter. I know there are a lot of other pop culture super-villains out there but I can't think of any others off the top of my head that are sympathetic.

Click to expand...

Voldemort isn't the best supervillian out there - he just happens to be a YA villian I can think of.

But let's look at another supervillian I love - Zuko's sister, Azula. In fact, the mere characterisation in the Avatar series is so complex I'm amazed at how the producers were able to pull it off, cos I'd never something like that in a children's series. Study Azular and see what makes her tick, what inspires her, what brings out her passion, what motivates her ... do that, and you'll get a pretty good idea how supervillians think and act.

Avatar = best animated series ever made.

Glenakin said:

No offence, mate, but your definition of love reeks of romanticism. I don't doubt that love isn't rational - it just isn't as irrational as you make it seem.

Click to expand...

Whoa, that's not quite where I was going with that. I'm not saying that's the average or the norm in any way. I'm just saying that there are some occasions where people are so blinded by their love that it's entirely plausible for people to overlook a lot of things they normally wouldn't if love weren't a factor. Extreme example: The abused woman who gets the crap kicked out of her by her drug addict boyfriend three times a week then refuses to file charges when the cops intervene because she doesn't want the love of her life to go to jail.

I mean, I get you're the kind of person who gives people the benefit of the doubt, and would probably believe that love conquers all or some weird stuff like that, but that's just not reality.

Click to expand...

Giving people the benefit of the doubt? Usually. Believe that love conquers all? Rarely.

Again, I put forth voldemort, because he's the only YA supervillian I can think of who was portrayed in a pretty impressive three dimensional way. Voldemort can't understand love. What he thinks is love is not what everyone thinks is love. That, my friend, is supervilliany.

Click to expand...

*sigh* One day I'm going to have to break down and actually read the Harry Potter books.

It sounds intriguing, and could be pretty fascinating if done well. If they fell in love before he gets twisted up into supervillany? That might go a long way toward her holding out hope/being reluctant to kill him. Hope that the villain might choose to become the person he was before.

Going back to Harry Potter, I suppose Dumbledore and Grindlewald had that sort of dynamic.

Canotila said:

It sounds intriguing, and could be pretty fascinating if done well. If they fell in love before he gets twisted up into supervillany? That might go a long way toward her holding out hope/being reluctant to kill him. Hope that the villain might choose to become the person he was before.

Going back to Harry Potter, I suppose Dumbledore and Grindlewald had that sort of dynamic.

Click to expand...

That's a good example, though they didn't end up together did they? Which was for the best. Not becos of the gay element, but they were just polar opposite. I think Dumbledore kinda understood it was a lost cause and so did Grindlewald, especially after the death of Dumbledore's sister

Wavy_Blue said:

Hello, friends! So I'm dusting off my nano from a 2008 because I want to start working on it again. Basically, it's a young adult urban fantasy with super heroes (although urban fantasy is a loose term here, it's not very dark and gritty, more in the lighthearted vein of, say, The Incredibles) where the heroine find both her new neighbor and her best friend are superheroes. The neighbor (who ends up as her love interest) was originally going to be a superhero, and her best friend a supervillain, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be more interesting if it was the other way around. What do you guys think? Is it too overdone?

Lend me your thoughts!

Click to expand...

Well, it depends on a lot of things, really. Like how long the neighbour and the MC have known each other and the depth of their relationship, as well as where the whole story ends up. Dating Catwoman is a trope for a reason (although obviously this is a slightly different slant, given the MC is not the superhero involved in the relationship) so if you are sticking to comic-esque conventions then yeah, I'd say at least try it out and see if it works.

It could result in a lot of conflict on several angles, and have thoughts of redemption and stuff like that. Is he a supervillain save when it comes to her? Like if his plan suddenly goes awry and puts her in harms way, does he break his own plan to save her, even though that job is normally the superheroes? And for her, if she's known his non-villain alter-ego for some time, it might not be easy for her to simply write him off, you know?

And remember, a trait of supervillains is often not seeking the destruction of the good guy, but the turning of the good guy. And attempting to bring her over might be an attempt at that.

Supervillains (and I am thinking here of comicverse ones since this is sort of the genre you'd be looking at) are allowed to date and have favourite music and places and all those sorts of things. Xanatos loving Fox and their son didn't (most of the time) mean that he stopped being a villain, right? Joker has his thing with Harley, and Harley also has the thing with Ivy.

But overall, a triangle between superhero, supervillain and normal person is more common in superhero fiction than you might think. It adds a more personal level to the rivalry between the two warring sides.

Overall I'd say keep thinking about it, and if it works, it works... and if it doesn't, well, it doesn't.

Glenakin said:

There's a reason they have "super" before the villian.

Click to expand...

Well, I'd argue that in a superhero universe, a supervillain is any villain with superpowers.

Supervillains (and I am thinking here of comicverse ones since this is sort of the genre you'd be looking at) are allowed to date and have favourite music and places and all those sorts of things. Xanatos loving Fox and their son didn't (most of the time) mean that he stopped being a villain, right? Joker has his thing with Harley, and Harley also has the thing with Ivy.

Click to expand...

I could not agree with this more. Yes, you have villains who are complete monsters, but there are plenty more who are complex, well-rounded characters. Just look at Mr. Freeze. The entire reason he's a villain is for his wife.

But I'm getting off topic here. As to Wavy Blue's question, I think you should go with whatever you think works best. Yes, there's the "all girls want bad boys trope" that could support having the love-interest as a supervillain, but at the end of the day you need to write the story you want to tell.

I'm a huge fan of superhero fiction and would love to see more in YA, so good luck to you!

Leanan-Sidhe said:

Well, I'd argue that in a superhero universe, a supervillain is any villain with superpowers.

Click to expand...

And that would be no different from arguing that only women can cook - a partially correct and pretty much weak argument.

The Joker is a supervillian. Probably the best example of a supervillian in terms of characterisation, personality, drive, emotion, strength, cunning ability, and delivery. Oh, and he has no superpowers.

Glenakin said:

The Joker is a supervillian.

Click to expand...

Point taken. And he and Lex Luthor are some of the big ones, aren't they? I wonder if the definition of a supervillain is simply the major villain in a comic book/ action-adventure-type setting...

But there I go derailing the thread again.

Question, Wavy Blue! Is the best friend character male or female? I hear love triangles are quite popular.

Hah, I enjoyed this thread so much, I blogged about it here.

I actually would find the love interest more boring if he ended up being the villain. If the best friend since childhood was the villain, it would be much more easier to connect the two.

Call it a personal pet peeve, but I'm sick and tired about bad guys falling in love with good girls especially when there is a shallow ridiculous reason the two are in "love".

When I think of superheroes, I immediately think of comic books for some reason. Even if the 'superhero' isn't actually a 'superhero' per say, like Spiderman or Batman who gets recognised on the streets in their canon world.

I don't think superhero stories get done enough in YA. Or in fantasy in general. (Descendents of Greek Gods don't count, imo. Though they kind of do, when they go around saving everyone... right?). I loved Vicki Pettersson's 'Signs of the Zodiac' and Jacqueline Carey's 'Santa Olivia' (neither which are YA). I wish there were MORE.

There's one thing I want to know though. What's your MC's role in all of this? Because as much as I love the Mary Jane Watsons and Lois Lanes, who pretty much represent all things good and hope to the heroes, sometimes I can't help but think they're kind of useless. Except for the girly romance thing, which is awesome...

Please do this! Go for it, go!

M.Austin said:

Hah, I enjoyed this thread so much, I blogged about it here.

I actually would find the love interest more boring if he ended up being the villain. If the best friend since childhood was the villain, it would be much more easier to connect the two.

Call it a personal pet peeve, but I'm sick and tired about bad guys falling in love with good girls especially when there is a shallow ridiculous reason the two are in "love".

Click to expand...

True.

Blue has a great idea on her hands. Hope she does it justice (lol I apologise if you're a "he". There're so many shes here I always assume everyone's a she. I'm a he by the way haha!)

Leanan-Sidhe said:

Point taken. And he and Lex Luthor are some of the big ones, aren't they? I wonder if the definition of a supervillain is simply the major villain in a comic book/ action-adventure-type setting...

Click to expand...

I'd go with someone who opposes, and opposed by, a character that is a superhero. Which means s/he has to be a certain calibre to at least pose a problem to someone so strong/powerful/smart etc. You often find supervillains and their heroes are tied, somewhere down the line, or have opposing powers etc.

Therefor it is possibly to have a supervillain who is not totally bad, and plausible that they could have a romance with a good guy?

Poetoffire said:

Therefor it is possibly to have a supervillain who is not totally bad, and plausible that they could have a romance with a good guy?

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's possible. Not easy, or healthy, or even with a happy ending, but possible. Depends on if you're going redeemable or not, of course.