The SolAARium: Discuss the craft of writing - Alphabetical Index in the 1st Post

[Storey]

Thanks SM for pointing out that a protagonist can be evil. I sometimes forget that minor detail. As for what my favorite villain would be like I would say that I prefer the no nonsense in your face type. He knows what he is doing is considered wrong by the social mores and religious system of his time and he doesn’t care. He makes no apology for what he’s doing and faces up to the possible consequences without complaint. That last part is very important for me. I dislike the inner turmoil that some writers put their villains through and I detest it when they whine after being caught. Give me a good old amoral villain anytime. I also prefer that he have intelligence and wit. This is a bold man and he’s usually after one thing and one thing only because it leads to everything else. Yes I’m talking about POWER! An example would be Black Michael and his henchman Rupert of Hentzau. Anyone know which book/movie he’s from? And by the way he could be she. I was just too lazy to write he/she throughout the paragraph.

Director.
Thanks for the suggest on Ian Pears. I’ll give him a try. But I don’t know if I would consider Ahab a villain. He’s possessed by the whale and what it did to him but he doesn’t try to harm anyone in his crew and in fact in the end they gladly chase the whale with him. Maybe they’re contaminated by his madness? Been too long since I‘ve read the story but it is a great book.

Joe

 

[Director]

Storey - I guess this is where we have the discussion as to evil by intent, or evil by extent.

Western culture is pretty forgiving of minor character flaws if the person seems sincere about making amends and not repeating the behavior.

But I can argue that Ahab - just as a for instance - is evil by intent, since I believe he would have risked ship and lives even if he had known they would be lost. He was not able to stand aside from his fixation.

Hint - I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion, here. I don't truly think he's an intentional villain - I just think it can be read from his actions.


But I agree with you that I'm a bit tired of 'every villain must see the light and dance with the ewoks' kind of ending. Admit it - wouldn't you like to have the chance to see - just once - the famous scene end this way?

"Luke... I am your father, Luke." "And a rotten bastard you are, too, Vader! ZZZAP!"

I can plead that Charlie Rivers didn't begin as a villain, and that by 'redeeming' him I was only trying to close the circle.



MrT - I HATED the Thomas Covenant books and yet felt compelled to read them. But brrrr! what DEPRESSION. Admittedly, leprosy isn't funny (outside a Monty Python skit) but he just never seemed to come to terms with his situation.

Here's another book no-one's ever heard of that's FANTASTIC - in fact, here's two:

Fevre Dream by George RR Martin, mixes Mississippi steam boats, good and evil vampires, and a host of GREAT characters. One of the best, NOT typical vampire stuff.

The Great Steamboat Race by John Brunner. An Englishman manages to tell a riverboat tale, loosely based on the famous RE Lee vs Natchez race, in authentic voice with great characters. Another story about a 'driven' man.

 

[Director]

Originally posted by Secret Master
Just wondering, Director, but have you ever heard of any "evil" person who did not rationalize their actions? Even if such rationalization seems ridiculous or absurd?

I don't know of any human being who doesn't rationalize about his actions, all of them and constantly.

Here in the American South we are prone to epidemics of self-righteous rabble-rousers who not only know what's best for you but will force you for your own good. I know that some rationalize that the good done is worth the evil of using force, but a frightening number see no problem and aren't rationalizing at all. And they are evil, I have no doubt.

Moving back to a lower branch of the subject tree, to what degree do you 'build in' your character's beliefs, ethics, morals - character - from the beginning, and to what degree do you let the character evolve? Do you conciously attempt to direct the evolution to predetermined goals?

Has anyone seriously attempted a 'purely good' hero? Would such a character be worth the effort?

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Oh no! I'm reduced to quoting LD here

"Shades of grey"

That, in my view, is the ideal character...be he protagonist, antogonist or nonentityist. I don't like the over-Lucas-ization of a character. Give me grey any day and leave those altruists in the closet.

Almost all of the characters I've written in the past six months have had well-defined starting points and, if they're important, also had well-defined end-points and a general outline of how and why they get from point A to point B. Only then do I begin to write. This is true of virtually every character in RRR (exhaustive preparation for that one), all of my FC characters, the "Master T" who's guest-posting in Gaijin's AAR, etc. I think that it's one of the crucial aspects of any character-driven narrative.

That doesn't mean that it's essential in all AARs though. Just that it is a component that will ulitmately deliver a higher interest level for me if it's included and well-written.

 

[Craig Ashley]

Wow!!!! I am so pleased to see so much activity here. Great thoughts and discussion from all. In paticular, I need to thank SM for clearing up some of the terminology. I know I learned a few things. First off, if anyone wants to continue the discussion on good and evil and the religious aspects of all this, count me in. Normally I would shy away from such a topic on the net, because most of the time people with differing opinions end up just telling the other how stupid they are. With the participants here, I am sure the discussion will remain both intelligent and civil. However it is OT and should be moved somewhere else. (This is why I say we need an OT Discussion Thread in the AAR Forums - so we as a community can discuss the topics of the day and these meaty eternal questions). That said, I'd like to respond to somethings and share my meager thoughts.

posted by Director

As the writer laments in 'The Screwtape Letters' there are so few souls who have fully embraced evil and given themselves over to the dark. They can be fascinating, although I personally do not have any biographies of famous Nazis on my shelves. Even here, among the weirdly twisted, we meet a lot of people who are trying to rationalize away the evil they are doing.

Such people or beings are fascinating, but can be daunting to read about and even more daunting to write about. I think an absolute evil character could be an interesting character. Though it is very difficult and even disturbing for the author to attempt to crawl around in such a character's head. Attempting to rationalize their deeds and thoughts is a great challenge.

posted my SM

Just wondering, Storey, but have you considered such a lack of self-reflection (I assume that is what most inner turmoil villains go through is really about) is precisely why they are evil? The root of the problem, as it were.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Most of my evil characters (or semi evil characters) suffer from a lack of self-reflection. I think that is what allows them to do the atrocities that they do. Even if the character is trying to do what he thinks is good (like some of those rabble rousers Director mentioned), they don't take the time to reflect exactly how their actions effect others. They have their pat little rationalization and never bother to examine it.

posted by director

Moving back to a lower branch of the subject tree, to what degree do you 'build in' your character's beliefs, ethics, morals - character - from the beginning, and to what degree do you let the character evolve? Do you consciously attempt to direct the evolution to predetermined goals?

Has anyone seriously attempted a 'purely good' hero? Would such a character be worth the effort?

To address the first last, what's your definition of absolute good? Someone who doesn't ever commit and evil or wrong action? If so than I think it would be possible to examine such a character. He's outward appearance could seem like the perfect man, but inside he could be corrupted by pride and self-righteousness. Such a character would almost take a villainous tone. The pharisees of the Bible would be an example of such men.

Or a character that is humble and good, but struggles with each decision. He is aware of “darkside” and even tempted by it because at times it seems easier and a quicker way to his desires. The inner struggle in him could be interesting reading, even if he ultimately decides to stay on the straight and narrow.

If you meant a character that is purely good and is incapable of even considering an evil act, then no. Such a character is not relatable. Though his affect on those around him could be interesting. So maybe. Think of Jesus in the Bible. The Gospels are a very interesting read, even though the central figure is the walking definition of absolute good.

Secondly, I find myself build and mapping out my characters more and more. My FC characters had their belief systems in place before I ever began telling their story. How much do I let them evolve? I think once a person reaches a certain point, it is very rare and difficult for them to change their core values. That said it is possible, but not likely to be a change from black to white. If a person is untrusting, then even if they are forced to learn to trust by incredible circumstances, they are not likely to become open and trusting to all immediately. The simple force of habit will pull them back towards their old mindset. That's not to say they can't change, but it is must be a long process, one full of half steps and retreats.

Now if you me how much do I let my idea about who they are evolve, then that is different. I am learning to trust my characters. Sometimes an action or even a piece of their personality I planned on, starts to ring hollow after I begin writing. This usually means it doesn't fit the character and I should scrap it. (I wish I could say I always did this, but like I said, I'm learning) The best characters seems to take on a life of their own.

[plug]As a brief plug, this is where the FC can be very helpful. As a writer you only have to focus on one or perhaps a small handful of characters. Therefore you are able to focus soley on that character. This lets you really get inside their heads and find out what makes them tick. The FC has been an immense help to me as a writer. [/end of plug]

Lastly this discussion seems to have evolved into a more general discussion on characters in general and the ideas of good and evil in them. While it has been very good and I would love to hear more, I'd like to rephrase my original question. Before I asked what makes a good antagonist, the answer that jumped out to me was the relationship he has with the protagonist. So this begs the question, what makes the relationship between the two (protag and antag) work? What sort of elements have to be in the relationship? Keep going along the current path of discussion if you wish, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this topic as well.

 

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Are we sure that we want to get into a discussion about the nature of good and evil and/or embark on a thorough hashing out of religious tenants? I'm just asking because this is one subject where things can get very heated very fast...

Agree, Chris... I realised that my post may have sounded broader then I intended...

For me, that discussion is connected with my Tlaxcala AAR, where the protagonist is a heart-cutting 'savage' cannibal, and antagonist is the Western civilisation. Thus comes the discussion about absolute, religion, and Devil (as I will surely run into those things as my Tlaxcalans build closer contacts with Europeans).

I would not be reckless enough to throw it in for a deep OT discussion in this forum as I said, tolerance is my motto.

To Director's question... exactly what I am struggling with! My hidden agenda is to illustrate how a young and naive native American boy becomes a wise, brutal (maybe), mature leader of a biggest empire in the world, which is based on fundamentally different moral principles than Christianity. What would it look like, I am asking my confused self.

So I like my characters to change and evolve over time; maybe because this is what's happenning to me and I want to share it.

I don't think a purely good character would be worth the effort, - my honest opinion - as the readers will not ID with him/her. Readers will grow attached to someone who's like them - 'slightly tarnished' . Jules Verne, however, was of a completely different POV...

Now, the other question is how to manage this transformation vividly and believably - requires a heck of a lot of skill... that's where I need a lot of help.

 

[Bismarck]

Wow! this thread got busy really fast...

Ok, how to get everything out of this thread that needs saying....

T: I thought it was funny you brought up Donaldson's work, because in another one of his series, the Gap cycle, I think he really showed he had the chops for moral ambiguity and character development... I think those are the books he should be best known for, as what starts off as a black and white melodrama turns into a seething pile of grey.... and it is something that makes you really examine the role of the antagonist.... though the first book is pretty horrific... lot of villany in that one... there is not one person in any of those books that I can say they are a pure and good person... but they are survivors and it is just interesting seeing them all playing against each other.

I think a purely good character would have the inherent problem of probably being somewhat flat and archetypal.... flaws are what make characters interesting...

Example... what is a generally more interesting story.... someone doing something because they are pure good, and that is what needs to be done, or someone who is flawed doing the right thing against their nature. I think in general, the best kind of pro/ant relationships exist when the reader can understand and sympathize with both sides.

Even though I tend to take a rather distant and broadly brushed approach to my characters(I just put things together and see what's going to happen tomorrow... I don't preplan a lot of my characters... I learned that lesson the hard way.) I don't think I've done really evil yet in my AAR.... I've done bad, I think at most my characters were this.

M

 

[Gaijin de Moscu]

. So this begs the question, what makes the relationship between the two (protag and antag) work? What sort of elements have to be in the relationship? Keep going along the current path of discussion if you wish, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this topic as well.

What a great question, Craig.

I have some initial thoughts on this, but I am struggling and trying. Open for discussion. Let's call them PT and AT for brevity here...

1. They must be somehow tied together. This is the toughest part for me. Why does the AT continue to antagonise? Is it because the PT has something AT wants? Are they in the same pack, so to speak? Is it the same person? This might be the key to the believability of the conflict...

2. Then, the famous conflict in the AT/PT relations... this is where I am also torn. Why have a AT at all in the first place? It can of course be whatever - living and non-living, - but I am not always sure whether I need an AT who conflicts with PT. Can't think of good examples from published literature, however (might be a hint there). Can I write a novel without a conflict at it's core and still be published?

3. Another element is mutual attraction. I think there must be something almost sexual, dangerous, borderline, for the relations to sparkle up. Cortes (AT) invades Mexico (PT). He takes Dona Marina (representative of PT), and possesses her. They develop some liking for each other, for what it's worth. Here we have something deeper then just an evil conqueror marching through to take the gold.

In some books AT is a close friend of PT, or it's his conflicting desires... again, to he point above.

I am sure I am missing some fndamental elements, but this are the key things I restle with when writing an AT/PT pair.

Sasha.

 

[Valdemar]

This is great, even if it stretches my grasp of both philosophy and the english language

I'll stay out of the religious and moral discussions and return to the discussion of character build

Originally posted by Director
Moving back to a lower branch of the subject tree, to what degree do you 'build in' your character's beliefs, ethics, morals - character - from the beginning, and to what degree do you let the character evolve? Do you conciously attempt to direct the evolution to predetermined goals?

Has anyone seriously attempted a 'purely good' hero? Would such a character be worth the effort?

Last things first: No, as I stated earlier, the inner conflict, the moral flaw, the shade of grey, all the different ways this discussion has tried to describe the multifaceted human being, is missing in a purely good hero.

Touching briefly on religion, not only the old testament god but also jesus did some soul searching, lamented on his fate, lost his temper, and briefly considered if the world was truly worth the trouble , but still the old testament tells a much more compelling story, from the "entertaining POV".

As to building my characters I can only start by echoing the value of things like the FC. I'm not as acomplished a writer as otheres here, haven't written much outside the FC, but when that is said, I did plan my character(s), but only as a rough outline.

This is where he is now, that is his belief as he sees it, this is how I wish to portrait his beliefs through his actions and this is what I believe he will ultimately end up doing as a consequence.

I DO NOT predetermine everything like MrT says, because I like the story to change gradually along with my characters, nobody has a constant personality, even when faced with confrontation, they will lie to themselves or try to decieve themselves with their own perception of their own personality and that in the end will change their personality.
Only a completely isolated person will not be influenced. He may choose not to listen or react, but he will be influenced.
Consequently I build my characters as they go along, with only broad and unspecific goals in mind. It has a tendency though for some very complex personalities and some inconsistencies.


To elaborate a little further:

Originally posted by MrT

"Shades of grey"

That, in my view, is the ideal character...be he protagonist, antogonist or nonentityist. I don't like the over-Lucas-ization of a character. Give me grey any day and leave those altruists in the closet.

Almost all of the characters I've written in the past six months have had well-defined starting points and, if they're important, also had well-defined end-points and a general outline of how and why they get from point A to point B. Only then do I begin to write. This is true of virtually every character in RRR (exhaustive preparation for that one), all of my FC characters, the "Master T" who's guest-posting in Gaijin's AAR, etc. I think that it's one of the crucial aspects of any character-driven narrative.

"Grey" yes that would be the appearance, but to me grey is black and white, tiny fragments of this and that, just like black is all colours

If you take my "grey" character under a microscope, then he would (hopefully) appear to be made up of thousands of miniscule parts of black and white as well as grey dust. Grey in itself is dull, black, blue, red, white green, yellow, at distance may appear grey but close up they will give up a palette (is that a word in english) of color, reactions, moods, and feelings.

How do maintian that detailed "potline" for your characters in a story like FC, where you constantly get bombarded by other characters view of your character's personality? Especially in a situation where the otherAuthor places motives on your character on your behalf?

I find it incredibly difficult to build my character exactly in "my image" when he is confronted with others, "no plan survives first contact with reality". Granted in your own AAR, that is completly in your own control, but then again when then chooses a second personality to react to the first character, does than alter your viewpoint on the personality of the first chracter you introduced?

Oh, boy this got a bit more longwinded than intended Hopefully it appears as clear on text and in english as it does in my head , if not don't hesitate to ask.

V

 

[Craig Ashley]

originaly posted by V

I DO NOT predetermine everything like MrT says, because I like the story to change gradually along with my characters, nobody has a constant personality, even when faced with confrontation, they will lie to themselves or try to decieve themselves with their own perception of their own personality and that in the end will change their personality.

I do not think a person's personality is as fluid as you suggest. For a younger person, yes, but older more established characters have an established way of doing things.

People have a core set of beliefs, their personal ethics, what's important to them, their code of honor. All of that is central to who they are as a person and how they view the world around them. In addition people have a preferred way of doing things, an MO. This is what sets the frame for a character.

Now I'm not saying that people do not act against their core beliefs or never stray from their preferred MO, but there better be a reason - and a good one - for them to do so. The reason could be due to outside influences. To use the FC as an example, when I first introduced Shur'tu, he was a level headed character. There was a certain element of savagery in him, but also of calculation. If you look at him now, his actions go directly against all of that. He's become a loose cannon, a ticking time bomb. More and more he is unable to control himself. Why is he doing this? Well I hope I have been able to establish the reasons why. Though at this point I have not yet stated why those reasons affect him so dramaticly. But I've had this general theme of trust/mistrust in my mind when I created the character and have guided him towards this very point. How did I do it? Well I had the background in place in my head and I occasionally worked with other writers behind the scenes to put Shur'tu in the right circumstances. (Namely you V, and Rath Jones)

Another reason someone could be forced to act against their core belief system is that two seperate elements come in conflict. I'll use a real life example. My pastor believes that a Christian and a non Christian should not get married. He will not officiate such a union. A while back, a couple came to him and asked him to marry them. They were both non Christians. He agreed to marry them and as his custom, began pre-marriage counciling with the couple. Durring this time he lead the bride-to-be to the Lord. Now he was faced with the situation of potentially marrying a Christian to a non Christian, but he had also given his word that he would marry this couple. No matter what he did, he felt he would be acting in violation of both his beliefs as a Christian and his personal sense of honor. As it turned out, the groom accepted the Lord shortly after, so it was a non issue. The point is when two elements of his core beliefs came in conflict, he was faced with having to choose one over the other.

My point is a person or a character simply must have a compelling reason to act against their normal selves. It happens all the time, but there is always a reason. For a person to actually alter their personality, it should take an extrordinary situation and be a process, a long journey rather than a quick trip.

I hate when you see a classically flawed hero and then just before the story ends he magicly and suddenly overcomes himself to save the day AND then never even considers reverting back to his old ways. Humans are truly creatures of habit. For a moment anyone could act against their established patterns, but they will eventually hear the siren call of their old familar ways.

 

[Valdemar]

Originally posted by Craig Ashley

People have a core set of beliefs, their personal ethics, what's important to them, their code of honor. All of that is central to who they are as a person and how they view the world around them. In addition people have a preferred way of doing things, an MO. This is what sets the frame for a character.

Now I'm not saying that people do not act against their core beliefs or never stray from their preferred MO, but there better be a reason - and a good one - for them to do so. The reason could be due to outside influences.

I agree to a certain extend that they act on their own "perception" of their code of beliefs (smashing every thing together here beliefs, ethics etc.) by that I mean that it is not nescessarilly the way one would objectively react. I think that there is a lot of subconsious actibg to core beliefs that the person cannot control and the more pressure is added the more "oout of character" the person will become and consequently the person wil alter his personality. MrT's example from Donaldson is a good example, illustrated by the fact that he has to contesting personalities because he beliefs the world doesn't exist.

I didn't mean to make it sound like personalities are fluid, only to say that as long as the environment is static, the personality will not change, but the sum of small deviations from every possible point in the personality together can create a new whole when you "zoom" back out.

Look at the changes following mass psychosis, even if the impact is only for a brief span in time, the following collective grieve or shame can subtly changes personalities of entire countries once it is over.

Now look what you've done, now I won't finish my post for the FC before I leave work

V

 

[unmerged(6777)]

On the other hand, things can get interesting when the PT is confronted with a situation that creates a crisis in his view of the world - be that the attrocities of war which he had hitherto not experienced, a crisis in faith, a crisis in love or friendship, etc. The situation can be as much the PT in that case (echoing a comment of SM's) as any one particular character.

We all change over time as well...even when you're old you're not necessarily so set in your ways that there's no room for movement. That "movement" - or the discovery that you have two mutually incompatible beliefs or moral stances - can make for a great read.


Great posts all...some very interesting points to consider.

 

[unmerged(6607)]

I think LD's starting to wish he got a dollar royalties every time the Free Company was mentioned on this thread...


IMHO, one of the most interesting characters to write about is the really good person who has a tiny chink in their moral armor, and having that one chink over time ruin the whole person, turning them bad. Or maybe I just really, really enjoy the theme of corruption.

 

[Secret Master]

Wow, I leave a reamark and ask some questions, and I come back to find all kinds of activity! I didn't think my plan to revitalize the SolAARium would be so effective.


Actually, I brought philosophy and religious viewpoints into the discussion on purpose to illustrate something about how we write and view characters. The general rule is that we will write characters that are congruent with our worldview. That is, if one thinks all people are "shades of gray" in the moral realm, then ones characters will reflect this. If one thinks that it is realistic and reasonable that someone be completely good or completely evil, then one might try and create a character to fit that mold. Also, the way one views good, evil, and ethics will determine how those things appear in the writing (i.e. if one takes the position that evil is "the abscence of the good," then evil will appear in that capacity in ones work)


It also works in reverse. We will really enjoy that writing that we think has presented us with characters that are congruent with what we think people are. This is not to say that you cannot enjoy the writing of someone who has a radically different worldview, or that a work cannot convince you to change your views, but generally speaking, if the characters are constructed in a way that is in line with your view of human nature, you will enjoy them more. For example, feminist literary critics generally enjoy Shakespeare's comedies. (Taming of the Shrew being an obvious exception to this...) Why? Because Shakespeare's female characters in comedies, such as Rosalind in As You Like It, are strong, powerful, and intelligent female characters who control the action in their plays. To feminist critics, this is completely in line with their view of the nature of women, and thus they can speak highly of these plays. This is also the reason why different generations of people view literature differently. Its not because the literature has changed, but changing views on human beings and ethics over time change the way we look at characters in literature.

Characters that are central should change over time, by definition. If for no other reason, then they should be changing just because time has passed in the fiction of the story. If characters were completely static for twenty years, we would want to smack them around. This change does not have to be fundamental to the story, but a 16 years old who is king will not be the same man who is 36 years old and still king. This goes for both antagonists and protagonists, heros and villians. A really tasty villian should change and morph over time. Take Satan in Paradise Lost. Whether you want to call him hero, villian, protagonist, or antagonist, there is no question that his character developes and changes during the course of the poem. (His reaction to seeing Eve's beauty is a prime example of this!) This is why Satan has fascinated people for so many years. Even if you consider him evil incarnate, one cannot help but be entranced by what he has to say.

So this begs the question, what makes the relationship between the two (protag and antag) work? What sort of elements have to be in the relationship? Keep going along the current path of discussion if you wish, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this topic as well.

This depends on how broadly you want to define your antagonists, and how fast and loose one is willing to play with conflict.

Gaijin mentions the possibility of there being no conflict in a good piece of literature. As of this moment, I cannot think of a single novel/short story in the canon of English literature that lacks conflict. The conflict may be muted, but it is always there. (In poetry, we can argue this point.) I would say that conflict is central to prose writing. Furthermore, there are four primary types of conflict in narrative.

Man against man
Man against nature
Man against himself
Man against the divine

Generally, all conflict can be reduced to one of these, or a combination. Note that conflict does not have to be open warfare of any sort, nor is intention required. Protagonists and antagonists can be in conflict without knowing it or even being aware that they are perpetuating the conflict. (i.e. Oedipus is largely ignorant of how he is central to the cause of conflict in his story.) It is worth noting (probably again, since I bet I have mentioned this before somewhere) that contemporary writers really play with these dimensions of character and plot, leading to some relaly bizarre effects. However, it is not yet determined whether the experiment that is post-modern writing will be a success.

Sheesh, I just went of on a diatribe. I better get back to work.

 

[Storey]

Director: "But I can argue that Ahab - just as a for instance - is evil by intent, since I believe he would have risked ship and lives even if he had known they would be lost. He was not able to stand aside from his fixation. "

Okay I see where you’re coming from and I agree. Ahab is consumed by revenge and he would sacrifice any and everyone in his crew to kill that damn whale. His compulsion drives him to commit acts of evil as when he refuses to help search for some whalers missing in the Pacific, something one sailor just didn’t do to another.



Secret Master: "Just wondering, Storey, but have you considered such a lack of self-reflection (I assume that is what most inner turmoil villains go through is really about) is precisely why they are evil? The root of the problem, as it were."

Yes and no but don’t forget the original question was "what was your favorite villain like." This doesn’t mean that I don’t see the inner turmoil as interesting it’s just not my favorite type of villain. Strangely enough I require far more understanding of the inner turmoil of the hero than the villain. I think it takes more to convince me that someone is going to give their life for someone else than take someone else’s life. I could give you a list of villains that I found fascinating and were so tied up in knots of emotional conflict that the Gordian knot would be child’s play to untie compared to them but they still wouldn’t be my favorite type.



Secret Master: "Just wondering, Director, but have you ever heard of any "evil" person who did not rationalize their actions? Even if such rationalization seems ridiculous or absurd?"

Only a sociopath would fall into this category. That’s the extreme in the type of villain I was talking about. Even my favorite villain would say something like . "I should have been king but for an accident of birth." Just before he had the king killed.

Joe

 

[Valdemar]

Skipping the discussion of Godot, since I'm not that intimately familiar with the play, I'd like to add a subquestion to the above discussions of good and evil and PT AT:

Looking at the above statements, comments and asorted questions ,

Why are we all so "obsessed" with the concept of evil/villaneus characters? Above we have discussed at length what it takes to make a good villian, what is evil and why they may or may not be made up of many combinations of flaws ad fallacies,

How come no one has attempted a definition of a "good" character, aside from the overall argreement that too good is too much

What sort of combination of character then makes up your favorite "hero"? If a villian needs some positive strains does a good guy need a fallacy? Or can he be good simply by not doing anything neither good nor "evil"?

V

 

[Storey]

Originally posted by Gaijin de Moscu


But we Russians can not live without self-reflection. Look at all our literature. Pages upon pages of it. Crime and Punishment - the whole book's about self-reflection. Anna Karenina who died because of it. We are all brought up like that. We spend 50% of life self-reflecting on what could be done, and the other 50% on what the heck was not done.

Many years ago when I was a Russian interpret in the US army I read a dozen or so Russian plays and books. They drove me up the wall with their self-reflection. Works like the Seagull depressed me because the story boiled down to the peasant having a miserable life and there was nothing they could do about it but when they died they would go to heaven and receive their just reward. Don’t get me wrong Moscu I don’t think I have any real idea what Russian literature is like with the little I’ve read. I just was stunned by the negative/resigned view of life that I kept running into in the books I read. Could you recommend a Russian comedy that has been translated into English?

Originally posted by Gaijin de Moscu

So an evil man who just acts without fear and remorse is too Anglo-Saxon to me I do not understand him, which makes him fascinating but too... alien?

Well this type of villain is in the minority that’s for sure but they exist and can be interesting. I think they mostly work on Wall Street right now or possibly in the government. Never underestimate the lure of power and the fascinating ways it can twist a person. My villains just don’t spend much time thinking about it because they are too busy walking over someone to get what they want

Originally posted by Gaijin de Moscu

SM, your questions on non-human elements... there no evil in nature, methinks. Nature is neutral. We paint it evil, because evil is within our minds suppressed by heavy cultural baggage.

I completely agree.
Joe

 

[unmerged(6777)]

I suppose that my own preference as far as "heroes" and "villains" goes is more along the lines of having two equally believable people (or sides) finding themselves at odds or cross-purposes with one another. Neither needs to be good...and neither evil. They must simply have some sort of dynamic offset that provides the spark of interest for me. SM mentioned the Taming of the Shrew earlier which illustrates this point perfectly. Petruchio and Kate are (presumably) both essentially "good" characters and yet their sparring is what really makes the play for me.

I, like some others, have a lot of trouble with characters who are portrayed as "ulitmate good" or "ultimate evil" since from my perspective such a character does not exist...and even if they did then I suspect that I'd find them pretty boring.

Why? Because as the embodiment of such an absolute, they would cease to be subject to change and are thus completely predictable in their actions. *snore*

 

[Secret Master]

Originally posted by Valdemar

What sort of combination of character then makes up your favorite "hero"? If a villian needs some positive strains does a good guy need a fallacy? Or can he be good simply by not doing anything neither good nor "evil"?

Well, Valdemar, there are many different kinds of heros. My personal favorite types of heros? They fall into three general categories. One is the "forced to be a good man" hero. This type of character is one who would prefer to just let the world go by, but he ends up doing something good in spite of himself. Another is the "dark-brooding hero" character. This character is just one step away from giving in to the dark side of the force. A character who has to restrain himself, lest he do something terrible. The other hero is the tragic hero, which I also enjoy very much.


Why do we like our villians so much? Because we have met the enemy, and he is us....

 

[Secret Master]

Oh, and just to clarify some things I mentioned earlier.

What about some of the more recent stuff, postmod/theater of the absurd? Waiting for Godot, to pick a famous example.

Post-modern writing is not part of the canon of English literature; at least, not yet. It's still very new. Waiting for Godot was first published in 1954, marking it as a bit too recent to be considered an official "classic" of the language. It probably will be in due time (it is a great play), but when I refer to the canon, I refer to those works in the language that are accorded the status of "classic" because they speak to readers/audiences long after their initial time. The general rule on being an official part of the canon is that you need 75-100 years of being read and given good critical attention (after the work is publishe) before you can consider it part of the canon. Faulkner and his contemporaries are just barely squeaking by as important authors, but anything post-modern is just to recent.

Also, we must all remember that conflict is not always of the martial variety. If MrT and LD are drinking beer, and MrT burps in front of an attractive woman, and LD admonishes him for doing so, that is conflict (man against man). If LD wants to be a lumberjack, but he has a boring job as a weatherman that he hates, and he only keeps it because society tells him that only girly men who wear women's clothing can cut down trees, that is conflict as well (man against man again, just on a bigger scale). If LD wants to go outside and play in the snow, but a giant badger will kill him if he tries to do it, then that is conflict as well (man against nature). If LD reads a prophecy that he is doomed to moderate an EU forum and create the FC, and he tries to fight his destiny, that is conflict as well (man against the divine). If LD is saying to himself, "My God, what have I created? Should I close the SolAARium? Or should I keep it open?", then you have conflict against the self. (Note how conflicted LD seems to be! )