Comments on: Writing Villains Vs. Writing Heroes

By: B. Mac

B. Mac — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:30:56 +0000

As long as the relatively nice villains have some threatening goals, I think their niceness won’t be a major liability. For example, Napoleon in His Majesty’s Dragon is urbane and doesn’t have a “KILL EVERYBODY!” mentality, but that actually makes him more likely to conquer Europe. For example, he offers an enemy garrison to option to walk away rather than starve, but they must surrender their officers and weapons. He figures that without weapons or officers, they’ll be no threat to him, but the enemy will struggle to feed or rearm all of those men.

In my own writing, one villain spares a hero that had saved his life previously*, but 1) his goal is threatening/mostly villainous and 2) he kills one hero, takes another hostage, and builds his sites in cities to reduce the chance of nuclear bombardment. He’s not unwilling to do nefarious things, but may be willing to consider humane alternatives under some circumstances.

*This is Evil Overlord-approved, by the way. #68 here.

As for the villains that are so psychopathically evil that people expect them to die gruesomely… I think it could work if they’re stylish enough. One really effective example is Hannibal Lecter, from Silence of the Lambs. He’s a cannibalistic serial killer, but his edges are somewhat rounded in a few ways–he’s sort of helping the police catch another serial killer, he convinces another asylum inmate that sexually assaulted the main character to kill himself*, and he’s an extremely high-functioning psychiatrist.

*Even serial cannibals have standards.

By: ekimmak

ekimmak — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:50:35 +0000

Ok, my first thing to say is DON’T get the new version of internet explorer. It has an awful interface that lost everything that I liked about the old browser.

Secondly, the relevant comment. I think a problem I’ve been having with my villains is that they’re either so nice that you wonder why they’re even villains, or psychopathically evil that people expect to die in gruesome and karmic deaths.

By: Dillan

Dillan — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 02:38:46 +0000

Hey my character lord sovereign is the main character but hes also like dr doom where his megalomanic themes are shofter due to his belief that under his benevolent dictatorship he can abolish war diseases hunger etc.hes like cable when he had the whole messah complex.I really enjoyed cables views on peace and was rooting for him to succeed.Im aiming for a villain whoes morals make you question whether or not hes true a villain.The heroes of my story are a multinational un santioned team who are boggled down by corrupt politicians.Another reason my character feels hes the only one capable of bringing or is that these politicians let petty squabbling prevent a chance for peace.I really like the moral complexity in showing a story where the villains a good guy and the heroes are shown in a darker context

By: ekimmak

ekimmak — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 03:58:52 +0000

For number six, is it okay if the hero has that as his power? One of my characters has luck as a superpower, and uses it to his advantage. (Need to get away from thugs in a casino? Pull every slot machine you can, which will all score jackpot, and create a crowd trying to get the money, thus blocking the pursuers)

By: i88

i88 — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:08:22 +0000

Well his “mentor”/”Slayer” kills off heroes and doesn’t care who gets in his way. Black Jack actually has to become one of the people he makes fun of to “save the day”. I use mentor loosely because all Slayer did was give him a notebook explaining how to steal millions and never get caught.

By: B. Mac

B. Mac — Sun, 02 May 2010 00:54:35 +0000

Since the villain is the protagonist of your story, I think it makes sense that he’s a bit softer than the typical villain. (Like Dr. Horrible, for example). However, I’d recommend maybe thinking about getting him tied up in something maybe a bit bigger than a bank robbery for the central plot. For example, maybe a hero or villain is trying to do something significant that B.J. has to stop.

By: i88

i88 — Sat, 01 May 2010 21:51:00 +0000

I’m writing a “superhero” novel but in a villain’s perspective. “Black Jack” isn’t insane or over the top but mostly realistic in terms of he’s sarcastic, dry, and tells it like it is. He kind of makes fun of heroes and is kind of like that guy that everyone knows. The cocky ass that you just want to strangle at times but if you understood him you’d hang out with. He’s not particularly evil or causes chaos, he just robs banks and museums. Is this okay for a villain or does he needs to be more sinister or something like that?

By: Lighting Man

Lighting Man — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:17:09 +0000

These guidelines are the conventions of the genre, that’s the point, they’re a distillation of what worked the most over the ages in B. Mac’s opinion.

Although, I think the first and second rules can be a bit contradictory, especially in the early portions of a superhero’s career. Lex Luthor is often considered the ultimate supervillain (at least prior to Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker, which tilted the scales unfairly, by being awesome.) quite simply for the exact same reasons while so many people hold so much love for Batman. Batman is just a normal human being that through determination managed to make himself physically and mentally capable of combating the very worst of humanity, whereas Lex Luthor is an ordinary human being that made himself knowledgeable enough to be capable of fighting the very best the world has to defend it, the man of steel, an invincible alien capable of ripping every bone from his body in an instant.

With the exception of a few incidents with lazy or incompetent writers, Lex Luthor has never been able to stand toe to toe with Superman, he has always had to try to succeed simply by virtue of being better then the Last Son Of Krypton, and he has always done so without solely relying on Superman’s no-kill policy to survive.

In light of how much weaker he is then the hero, his victories are vastly more impressive, he becomes scarier, the reader knows that there is truly something to be scared of in him, and Superman’s victories are impressive because he persevered and stuck to his ethics throughout.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have a character like Doomsday. He is in every way utterly superior to Superman, he can push him through a moon without stretching first. His acts are capable of being impressive, if handled correctly, but his victories are assured. Superman’s victories over him have to be handled excessively carefully, otherwise it’s just a “Duh, why didn’t he do that from the start?” or the readers get to wonder how he magically got more powerful.

Of course, most of what I’m talking about has more to do with nemesis villains then Calender Man or other villains of the week, in which all the guidelines apply for the most part.

Despite my praise for weaker villains, it is a delicate thing to handle, because if they’re too weak, no matter what they’ve achieved, you can still completely destroy the severity, respect for your character and turn away readers. The Man Of Tomorrow cannot beat up a six year old midget, even if that six year old midget managed to get Lois Lane killed through precise political machinations, and writers have failed while writing Lex Luthor to the point that sympathy really was engendered towards him due to how far out of his league he truly was, so it is a tight rope walk.

By: GSkull

GSkull — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:08:58 +0000

Interesting – it’s okay to be a sociopath, but an equal-opportunity sociopath (or an out-and-out psychopath) is to be preferred.

I suppose one could break some of these rules if one is intentionally satirizing the the conventions or writing a comic villain, but that would call for a fair degree of care on the part of an experienced writer.