villains

[BeccaPrice]

On the Lois Bujold list, there's a discussion of villains in her books.

I just realized: there are never any villains in my stories. Even the one story that I have plotted out but not written yet, it shows both sides, that someone could be a thief and a villain in one context but a hero in another.

I haven't written that one out yet, because I'm not sure which order to put the 3 elements of the story. It'll be published separately from my Dragons and Dreams collection, because it's a longer story, and doesn't really fit in with the others (it's got 3 "chapters" and the others are simple short stories.)

[Turtle91]

IMHO "villains" are essential in any story - except those for very small children who don't comprehend the concept yet. By "villian" I don't limit the roll to an individual, but there needs to be some kind of conflict or challenge that needs to be overcome...

(if that was your question??)

[BeccaPrice]

I didn't really have a question, just musing.

In my children's stories, there are challenges, but no real villains, no particular bad guys. Even when there's a putative bad guy, it usually turns out that he isn't that bad after all. And the theme of Heart of Rock is that, depending on who is telling the story, one side's hero could easily be another side's villain. I didn't set out to make that be a moral in my stories, but looking at them, it does seem to be a universal theme. I suppose that says something about me.

[crich70]

Since you're writing a fairy story for young kids I don't think that that is necessarily bad, though older kids might wonder. Real life does have a lot of grey areas often enough as far as whom is good or bad. The line from 'The Empire Strikes Back' says it well. "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend upon our point of view." Of course a lot of fairy tales do have a clear villain as well. The evil stepmother, the selfish brother, the troll, etc. but I think it depends on the story myself as some fairy tales don't have such a character.

[VydorScope]

Since we are just musing....

So my current books have a set of classic villains, but I am shifting away from that. In a straight up "good vs evil" story they work, but in most cases it is more complex that that.

For example, in a war one side might call a general a hero for his amazing tactics, while the other might call him a criminal and a murder. In my 3rd book I have exactly that problem where Dusty, someone who lives to help people and recognized hero among his mates, comes face to face with the reality that some people see him as an vicious monster of sorts. Specifically the 3rd party victims to the war that Dusty is fighting with "villains." In the forth book, the "good guys" and "bad guys" team up against other "bad guys" while the "good guys" are living in fear of each other making the whole thing a bit fuzzy.

[frahse]

In real life people are flawed. Heroes might have warts and villains might love their mother.

[gmw]

There's one of those generic writing rules around that says something about every story needing conflict. A less commonly seen rule is that every story needs to gain the reader's empathy. Villains have simply been the most common way of achieving these ends. They produce conflict by their very nature, and the hero's plight against such villainy produces empathy.

If you can achieve the sames ends while still retaining a more realistic view of the world - that villainy is often a matter of perspective - then so much the better (it seems to me). I imagine a children's story is likely to have a tidy resolution to such conflict, which is perhaps less realistic (people are rarely that forgiving), but provides a nice and optimistic moral.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by frahse

In real life people are flawed. Heroes might have warts and villains might love their mother.

This. Barring the Justice League-verse and Squirrel Girl, even modern super-heroes are believable, flawed characters.

Although sometimes it can be more fun to write a villain than a hero. One of my recurring FMCs is arguably the villain of her stories, because she's the result of me wanting to write a wild, fun character instead of one who cares about conventional ethics.

[Lemurion]

While stories do benefit from dramatic conflict, they don't require "heroes" and "villains." Instead, they require a "protagonist" and an "antagonist." The antagonist isn't necessarily a villain, they're just someone with goals opposed to those of the protagonist.

Both can be "good," both can be "evil," or any other combination you might want. The key is that they each have goals and those goals are opposed to each other so that each believes that only one or the other can succeed.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

While stories do benefit from dramatic conflict, they don't require "heroes" and "villains." Instead, they require a "protagonist" and an "antagonist." The antagonist isn't necessarily a villain, they're just someone with goals opposed to those of the protagonist.[...]

Yes protagonist and antagonist are more generic definitions, but they typically have the same implications. Which one is being antagonistic may be merely a matter of perspective, and so trying to designate one the protagonist and one the antagonist can be misleading and brings us back to the OP: a story in which there are no villains.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by gmw

Yes protagonist and antagonist are more generic definitions, but they typically have the same implications. Which one is being antagonistic may be merely a matter of perspective, and so trying to designate one the protagonist and one the antagonist can be misleading and brings us back to the OP: a story in which there are no villains.

I see your point, but I don't entirely agree. Using protagonist and antagonist helps separate out the moral dimension - there is no villain even though there's an opposing character. It is a matter of perspective, but it's the author's job to set that perspective, so it's not an issue.

I'm just saying you don't need a "villain," to have an antagonist and dramatic conflict. A good person who opposes the protagonist (or hero) often makes for better conflict.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I see your point, but I don't entirely agree. Using protagonist and antagonist helps separate out the moral dimension - there is no villain even though there's an opposing character. It is a matter of perspective, but it's the author's job to set that perspective, so it's not an issue.

I'm just saying you don't need a "villain," to have an antagonist and dramatic conflict. A good person who opposes the protagonist (or hero) often makes for better conflict.

Another way of looking at it is that in his own eyes the villain, antagonist, etc. is justified in doing what he/she is doing. They don't see themselves as evil. For example if someone is attacking and killing women most people think of that person as evil, but from their perspective they might be doing "God's work," or some such and find it hard to understand why the other characters are upset about it. Granted that's an extreme example, but the principle works. The villain dressed in black and twirling his mustache is rather cliche.