Writing Essentials: Characters Part Three: Scum

Yes, I know it should be a quote-a-thon. I just hate to break up a series.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on writing. I am not a published author, don't have any sort of English or writing degree, have never taught English or writing and, in fact, do something entirely different for a living. I am simply stating my opinion and caution any reader to assume that every statement described as if it were incontrovertible be assumed to include an "in my opinion" on it. This series is my own opinion as an aspiring writer to describe things I work to do in my own writing and what I look for when I read.

Relax Max, on two posts back, mentioned that a protagonist didn't have to be a "good" guy. I agree. When I write, however, my protagonists generally are "good", to my definition. I've had protagonists that could fit into the "not quite evil villain" category (though generally not because those people give me headaches. I hate when people can't think critically, so my protagonists rarely fit in there), but I don't like centering a book on a character I don't like (which I described here). And there are some things I will not accept except in an antagonist, the characteristics that, for me, make one truly and irredeemably evil. My list, of course, may not match yours. But, it's my blog, so I'll tell you.

True sadist. This is the sort of person who kills/torments for nothing more profound than self gratification and pleasure. I'm not fond of people who take pleasure in the agony of others. If you do, I don't even care if you're crazy. You're evil as far as I'm concerned. Albert Fish was a twisted horrific serial killer (fond of children and cannibalism and many other unsavory things). He was caught when he sent a letter to the parents of the ten year old girl he killed (and ate) describing in detail what he did. Ick.

Rapists of pretty much any flavor. I've never found any justification trotted out for this effective. To me, there's nothing at all redeemable in someone who would force another for whatever rationale they have. Send 'em after children, and you can't kill this character off too quickly (or too painfully) for my tastes.

People who manipulate others to do violence. You can be the poor grunt wielding the hot tongs without necessarily being a horrible person. If you're Joseph Mengele coming up with new ways to torment people, you are horrible. If you're the sort promoting violence or brain-washing others to do horrific things, you are scum.

People who would do "anything" for money or power. Yeah, yeah, greed is often in and I'm not talking about prostituting yourself so much as I am lying, cheating, stealing, killing, leaning on, etc. If you're willing to let someone else suffer the consequences for your own greed, you are not a good person. Could you be redeemed? Someone else might give you the benefit of the doubt. Me, I'd never probably trust you. Prostituting yourself is different from prostituting the people that trust you against their will.

People who thrive on hatred. Perhaps they were once decent people, but now everyone is just someone to betray, someone to teach a lesson. These individuals look at the world as something to hate and the only thing that gives them joy is sticking it to someone else.

Sociopaths/Psychopaths. What I mean by that are people so self-involved they couldn't care less about the impact to others of their actions. They may only not be a serial killer because they hate to get their shoes dirty. The rest of the world is so insignificant to them, that they can do horrific callous things and be genuinely surprised it would bother anyone else. Not that they would care.

If you notice some overlap, I'm not surprised. many of the characteristics that make one evil in one way carry over into other ways. You don't see some of the "take over the world" types because I feel that greed or sociopath covers it. Ditto for "mad scientist." You don't have to be Joseph Stalin to be evil. Evil can go on in little ways and only affect one or two. I do have some of these in my writing, though I go with the darker villains as often as these, if not more so. There's plenty of these in existence so a villain like this is certainly plausible. But he (or she) is generally so self-absorbed, they don't stand for anything. Oh, they might spout some doctrine or another, but it is likely a means to an end, a tool used for controlling others.

And, while you might see them lurking in one of my works, they often have bit parts. I prefer my big villains to have something the reader can identify with. And they never get the title role, at least not in my stuff.

Getting tired of bad guys? Starting Tuesday, I'll be heading on into protagonists. Woot!

Read more...

Writing Essentials: Characters Part Two: A Darker Villain

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on writing. I am not a published author, don't have any sort of English or writing degree, have never taught English or writing and, in fact, do something entirely different for a living. I am simply stating my opinion and caution any reader to assume that every statement described as if it were incontrovertible be assumed to include an "in my opinion" on it. This series is my own opinion as an aspiring writer to describe things I work to do in my own writing and what I look for when I read.

I've talked about the deluded villains, those that aren't so much evil as severely misguided, trapped within their own beliefs into doing evil things. But there are some people who go beyond that step, venturing into that gray-to-black area beyond an honest mistake and into either insanity or at least taking things to such extremes that results aren't rational even within the paradigm. Many times, what they do and how they act's so heinous, it seems impossible they can't be evil (and even the most generous would have to say they're skirting the line at least), but many are mentally ill, driven beyond their limits or completely in the thrall of someone knowingly evil. These are people who might have been decent but their feet stumbled on the path, yet they are often too far gone to be retrievable. They are not masterminds. There is no method to their madness. They are lost but they defy sympathy since they take out their insanity with violence on the blameless.

Here's a (non-exhaustive) list of examples:

Fanatics: People who believe something, but have let loose of any sane way of addressing it. Instead of thinking of regrettable steps they feel they must take in pursuit of their perception of necessity, they begin to see all destruction as a means to whatever end they originally had. It's the difference between a suicide bomber taking out an army barrack (which makes a certain kind of brutal sense) and taking out a marketplace of civilians of their own nationality (which no longer means anything). It can mean blind faith in any task set by a manipulative but trusted leader and unquestioning loyalty. It can mean that original beliefs become the rationale for striking out in every direction.

Timebombs: Sullen people who have labored for a long time under a sense of martyrdom but haven't done anything about it only to explode in the end in a spree of senseless violence. Like shooting children in an Amish school, or the Columbine massacre, or drowning all your children one after another. Something snaps and the target of the violence often has little or nothing to do with the original cause of pain. The acts can be planned or impromptu, but the end result is frequently a large number of innocents killed with no way of understanding what drove someone to do so (suicide frequently punctuates these kinds of sprees).

Compounders: Individuals who do a little transgression and are either so emboldened by not getting caught that they keep pushing their new limits or are so paranoid about someone finding out that they compound the original mistake with more and worse crimes. Gambling becomes embezzling becomes framing someone else becomes murder. In the end, what they do is so horrible that the original concern seems completely trivial. Their perspective is shot as they become, often in surprisingly little time, monsters by degrees without ever realizing they've slipped from rational behavior.

Dark Depths: People who are pushed into doing something violent, for example, through circumstance, only to find they've a taste for it. Soldiers gone wrong, for example. Taught to be a sniper for a purpose, perhaps one can find himself with a taste for it above and beyond a satisfaction in a job well done or the comfort of believing what one does is for the greater good. People like this may have started out with innocent intentions, but, as they find pleasure in their evil-doings, they begin to manufacture excuses for more, manipulate the situation to give them opportunities. Over time, the excuses become flimsier, they targets less justifiable until one is just a madman taking out random subjects.

(On that last one, I've often wondered about the assertion that serial killing is a modern disease. It occurs to me that if one were into sadism, torture, mayhem or murder, in early days there were plenty of opportunities to indulge it in professions. One could become an executioner [many punishments, capital and otherwise, were horrifically painful] or a mercenary and do your worst on a Crusade or as a Conquistador. It's only as we've become less tolerant of sanctioned horrors that they've had to strike out on their own. The career choices aren't what they used to be.)

Insanity and mental illness often play a part in these and we've given some credence to that in the legal profession. But how far does it go before insanity isn't a viable excuse any more, before we say we slid past crazy and into evil? I don't think the answer's easy and I don't think everyone has the same line. I write a great deal of sword and sorcery and my protagonists have quite a few bodies in their wake, but they never do anything I consider evil. Yet I can read another book where someone torments a child and feel they are evil to the core.

I probably have more of these types of villains, these skirting around the black, than I have of the full-blown psychopaths. Or, one of my villains can start here where there's still a potential for sympathy only to end up completely gone over to the dark side in the end.

I think what's interesting about the villains I've talked about the past four posts is that there might be some hope of redemption in them. They could learn. They could grow. You might even be able to wrangle one into a protagonist or an anti-hero, more so the misguided ones of the last three posts than the ones that are so far gone here. Still, even here there could still be hope. Tomorrow (or maybe Monday), I delve into what makes someone an irredeemable villain to me, what I see as evil.

Read more...

Writing Essentials: Characters Part One: Villains that Aren't Completely Evil Pt. 3

Again, I have to pause, this time for the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger on this day in 1986. Seven died in that mishap 73 seconds after launch: Michael J. Smith, Dick Scobee, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Christa McAuliffe, Gregory Jarvis, and Judith Resnik. Lack of safety oversight, wishful interpretation of ominous data, schedule and budget pressure were all cited as causes - and sadly sighted as causes again for the Columbia accident seventeen years later almost to the day. This is a bad week for NASA in terms of accidents. May we never look at another accident to find it could have been prevented if we'd but learned from the past tragedies.

On to the writing...

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on writing. I am not a published author, don't have any sort of English or writing degree, have never taught English or writing and, in fact, do something entirely different for a living. I am simply stating my opinion and caution any reader to assume that every statement described as if it were incontrovertible be assumed to include an "in my opinion" on it. This series is my own opinion as an aspiring writer to describe things I work to do in my own writing and what I look for when I read.

So, I've tried to demonstrate the kind of antagonist I mean, one that isn't evil (to the definition I provided yesterday) and yet who can do terrible, evil, even heinous thing because his (or her) paradigm demands it.

These fall into at least two basic groups. One type involves the people who are convinced by a charismatic leader to aid and abet nefarious plans, either because they are gullible, because the leader capitalized and rationalized horrific actions based on their existing paradigm, or through fear of the alternatives. This could also apply to those who turn a blind eye while these things are happening. Nazi Germany is almost a textbook example of brainwashing, control through fear, hysteria, promotion of horror through blame. Clearly, there were some masterminds behind this; the German people were not inherently monsters nor was wholesale genocide part of their existing paradigm. However, those masterminds were able to take advantage of existing antisemitism and nationalism to further their own considerably more extreme agendas.

The problem with this kind of antagonist, the dupe, the tool, the follower, is that such individuals are only a piece of the problem. They may be conflicted, but not enough to stay their hands, and, frequently, they may become fanatics to overbear any lingering twinges of guilt, edging them toward true evil. But they are pawns and, in my opinion, a pawn makes for dull and uninteresting antagonist. For such an antagonist, their motivations and inner turmoil is almost unimportant because they're not acting on their own initiative but being manipulated by someone else. Take them out or convert them, and the problem remains. Pawns are easily replaced. It's the mastermind you want (and masterminds are different type of villain that I will - eventually - get to). Those that do nothing, the apathetic, are not doing less evil, per se, but they are so passive that it's hard to make them an effective villain. There are times when the lack of action is so pronounced, though, that it effectively becomes an act.

That doesn't mean pawn types are useless however. Pawn type villains can be readily used two ways. First, build up enough of them, and you magnify the power of your mastermind. Secondly, however, they can provide a front, can give the appearance of the mastermind only to later be revealed as a dupe. This is particularly useful in extended series of novels or serials where one might think XX is the bad guy only to find out in episode 94 that YY is the woman pulling the strings. I can and have used them (and will use them again this way) but never as my end-all be-all. They make, in my opinion, poor ultimate villains.

Much better, in my opinion, is the second kind of non-evil villain, the one working on his own recognizance, consciously making choices that can do great harm, but doing so out of what they consider necessity based on the paradigm they live in. It might be a scorched earth policy that eradicates 1/5 of the arable land. It might be dropping the big one on a civilian target. It might be setting a village to the torch to protect one's own clan.

They must be acting independently, perhaps influenced by the ideas and notions of someone else, but applying their assumptions to the world as they see it and reacting in a rational way within that paradigm. That is very important. The assumptions themselves can seem completely nonsensical. They don't even have to be popularly accepted; they can be one specific to the individual antagonist. But, he has to be acting logically within the realm of that underlying assumption or he steps into the realm of the insane. And that is another post as well.

Bear in mind that the motives are not necessarily selfish. A man who drowns his daughter because he truly believes his family will starve to death otherwise does so because he believes it is true, that he will not be able to feed all of his children. He will feed himself not out of selfish reasons because he believes (quite possibly truthfully) that his existence is key to the survival of the remainder of his house. If he truly believes this, his action is not insane, just tragic. People can give up their lives, forgo their fortunes, destroy wantonly based on a flawed premise taken to a logical conclusion.

If it's one lonely fanatic doing so, that can make an effective story, perhaps more sympathetically than the evil genius, but such a story can severely limit a message. If, however, our villain is working under a paradigm, however, twisted, that is part and parcel of existing society (even it's taken to an extreme), it is more than a struggle between protagonists and an antagonist, but more a commentary about aspects of society - even the one we have now. That's a very powerful possibility that makes this a very compelling type of villain.

Now, one can take that non-evil antagonist and make him so extreme the rationality goes away, the logic left behind. There can still be compelling and still reflect on society, but it's less powerful...unless you get clever with it. I really admired, when I was reading Michener's Hawaii, the contrast between John Whipple and Abner Hale. Both, in theory, were there for the same thing, both with similar (presumably) beliefs, but with Abner's preoccupation with sin, his paradigm was immune to all data and became immune to logic, becoming so extreme it tottered toward madness. Whipple, on the other hand, had a more open mind and his paradigm shifted over time as he challenged many of the notions he began with, becoming a better person as a result.

There are, of course, hybrids of these two types and many a rational believer can become an frothing fanatic if driven too far. Which is where I'll go next. And pawns can become independent, the kind rationally acting from belief if the chain of command is broken or they are on their own too long.

The choice of villain, what they represent and how they got there can do wonders for giving depth and meaning to even a simple story. They can add interest and challenge notions, by personifying them. In my opinion, the non-evil but misguided villain is one of the most interesting type of villain out there, with tremendous potential.

Next, gray area villains like those that are insane.

Read more...

Writing Essentials: Characters Part One: Villains that Aren't Completely Evil Pt. 2

First, I have to pause for a moment to remember the Apollo 1 fire. Three men died on this day in 1967: Gus Grissom, Edward White and Roger Chaffee. Dire lessons were learned about slipshod work, not looking at the big picture, and putting men needlessly in harm's way. May we honor that sacrifice by remembering those painful lessons.

On to the writing...

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on writing. I am not a published author, don't have any sort of English or writing degree, have never taught English or writing and, in fact, do something entirely different for a living. I am simply stating my opinion and caution any reader to assume that every statement described as if it were incontrovertible be assumed to include an "in my opinion" on it. This series is my own opinion as an aspiring writer to describe things I work to do in my own writing and what I look for when I read.

Ok, on to "villains" who aren't really evil - in my mind. And that brings up a valid point. What is evil? Well, it depends on who you ask. Different people have different ideas on what things and people are evil, what are regrettable but necessary, what are, in fact, heroic and admirable. And a particular act or person could be any of the three depending on who you ask and how you put it.

But, this isn't everyone's blog. It's mine, so I'll just tell you what I consider evil. To me, people are evil who go out of their way to hurt/humiliate/kill/rape for their own gratification or to serve their own (and no one else's interests). [Ed. Update - when I say serve your own interests, I do not include self-defense. It's not admirable, but it's not evil either IMO.] Kill your wife to get her insurance money? Evil. Rape anybody (feel free to try to convince me that rape can be done for any reason than serving one's own interests - good luck with that)? Evil. Running over the man who stumbles out of his car after running down children deliberately at a crosswalk for 20 minutes? Not evil. Killing a spy in cold blood who could endanger fifty of your fellow soldiers. Not evil. I think torture is evil, but I don't think you have to personally be evil to perform it. It depends on what you think you're doing it for. If I had my daughter's kidnapper in hand and I wanted to know where she was, would I torture the bastard for it? Damn straight.


And that's a key item, too. There's a term kicked around quite a bit, one of those words I generally despise because it's a management buzzword, but it's a good one for this situation: paradigm. In this instance, I think of it as describing "the world as we see it" - what we believe to be absolutely and fundamentally true. It doesn't matter if it is true, we only have to believe it is true to act on it. The fundamental belief that people who weren't Catholic faced an eternity of torment if they didn't return to the "true faith" allowed people to torture and torment Jews and "heretics" with clean consciences. The fundamental beliefs that indigenous people, or people imported from Africa and Asia were of lesser value, were subhuman and just barely above domesticated animals, allowed them to be enslaved, misused, put in harm's way and, yes, even slaughtered out of hand. They were called heathens, their gods defiled and their culture discarded. That these cultures were sometimes more advanced than the dirty illiterate armies that ousted them is not a factor. It only matters what the invaders and importers believed.

Let me give you an example. Say a man becomes the leader of a country during a time of bitter partisanship and conflict, even pockets of violence. Because of the perception of this leader's loyalty, a portion of the country declares independence. The revolutionaries provide little that benefits the rest of the nation, no vital resources, poor overall standing financially - little/no industry, transportation, etc. They also are clinging to a social model that is increasingly seen as outdated and economically disastrous.

The leader believes that if he doesn't bring the nation back together, the entire country will be destroyed. The reasons why he believes so aren't obvious, but he feels so strongly, he attacks in force with the hopes of crushing the rebellion at the outset. Instead, despite advantages in wealth, logistics, industry, materials, population and legality, the attempted crushing fails miserably. In fact, as the battle turns into a real war, this becomes a recurrent pattern. The rebels have the advantage in military expertise and doing the bulk of the fighting on home soil (where it could be expected that people will fight most viciously), though this only further impacts the finances and viability of the rebellious areas. The war drags with unspeakable losses and staggering costs.

More people are killed than in all the fighting before (and even since). Tensions and hatreds become even more polarized, with the loyalists resentful for fighting a war they don't have much stake in and furious at the fanatical rebels they fight. The rebels feeling as they though fight for their very identities. As the tides turn to favor the advantages of the loyalists after several years of bitter bitter battles, the word comes from the leader to his generals to burn and destroy the civilian landscape and infrastructure of the rebel states. When the end finally comes, the rebel forces are decimated, their youth all but destroyed, their lands left ownerless, bankrupt and destitute, and governed by an angry faction of loyalists determined to exact revenge for their own losses. It takes decades to recover and, more than a century later, resentment and differences remain.

All for no more reason than because the leader (and remaining loyalist government) was convinced that being separate would destroy the remaining nation as well as the rebellious section, that accepting the independence of the rebels was not a viable option. The man was Abraham Lincoln.

Now, many (including myself) would say that Abraham Lincoln was a good man. However, it isn't impossible to have a character making decisions based on a premise that one's protagonists don't have be a very sympathetic (and even not so sympathetic) antagonist.

It's amazing to me how quickly these posts grow. I have more to say on this subject, but it will have to wait for part 3.

Read more...

Writing Essentials: Characters Part One: Villains that Aren't Completely Evil Pt. 1

Someone suggested I write a series of posts on writing elements. One might object to my doing so since I'm completely unqualified to do so - I don't and never have taught English or writing and I'm not even a "published" author except under the loosest possible definitions. But I want to do so anyway, and not just because I'm always trying to humor Relax Max. I have some very definite opinions about what I think about when I write and what I look for when I read.

So, let me start with this disclaimer on this series: I'm not an expert on writing. I am not a published author, don't have any sort of English or writing degree, have never taught English or writing and, in fact, do something entirely different for a living. I am simply stating my opinion and caution any reader to assume that every statement described as if it were incontrovertible be assumed to include an "in my opinion" on it. This series is my own opinion as an aspiring writer to describe things I work to do in my own writing and what I look for when I read.

The most important critical element for me, when it comes to reading, movies, writing, in fact, stories of any kind, are the characters. Over the years, I think, literature has become more and more cognizant of the non-black-and-white nature of people, that people aren't "all good" as a general rule and protagonists have taken on more dark sides or gray areas as a result, which adds depth and interest (but can make a reader uncomfortable). I will go into protagonists, of course, but, today, I want to focus on villains. In fact, I'm going to focus on villains for at least a couple of posts because I often think they get too little attention. I've been guilty of it myself.

Ironically, one of the things I have seen more frequently in the past hundred years or so of writing are pure black (no gray) villains. At least, that's how I've seen it. I'm unsure if that's because of visual media that tends to polarize things or because of some of the over-the-top and very visible villains are well-known as examples, not just the Hitlers, Stalins and Mengeles, but also the Paul Bernardos (and his accomplice, Karla Homolka), Peter Sutcliffes, and Ted Bundys that have been splashed over newspapers and news programs and documentaries and more. Completely evil psycopaths, cleverly concocting their next moves for some nefarious end are great movie/novel fodder, but, in real life, they're not that common.

I'm not saying not to use them - I've got a few myself, and I'll talk about this kind in a later post. However, there is a whole host of other potential "villains," ones that aren't evil per se, though many might be quick to call them so, people who are honestly doing the best they can, following their moral imperatives only to end up doing terrible things. Sometimes, they pursue these horrible acts with willing gusto. Sometimes, they act with supreme reluctance. Both, however, are driven by the same overwhelming imperative:

Necessity exists.

So what, someone might ask. Why would it matter? Well, there are a few reasons. Not the least of which is that far more harm is done world-wide by people who feel they are doing the right thing than by people who either actively thrive on harm or those who really don't care one way or the other. The wide ranging effects of psychopaths in power would come to little or naught without their followers and those that look the other way no matter what happens. These antagonists and enablers are real, usually to a much higher degree than those mad scientists and creative and clever people who live off evil that lurk in so many works of fiction.

Another reason is that a story is more powerful if one can understand and appreciate the motivations of all characters, even the antagonists. The story is more real with a person on both sides of the conflict rather than a hero facing off against a personification of true evil.

Another reason is that misguided antagonists can often highlight a societal issue, trend, or aspect, whereas a wildcard psycho doesn't really represent anything but him/herself. People can be motivated by zenophobia or homophobia or love for the fatherland or religious fanatacism or ecoterrorism, etc., and reveal not only the dangers of any ideology taken too damn far, but also (often by contrast) its value when used with moderation.

A writer can also include aspects and history that enable the reader to understand when and what drove someone beyond a good person doing questionable things to a demented fanatic blind to the horrible things he or she does in the name of his or her necessity.

Intent matters. It matters in matters of the law. It matters to observers and jurors. It matters to readers.

If a man with a gun kills stranger on sight, I think most would think that's pretty evil behavior. Snipers rarely get a happy rap on college campuses and the like. If, however, both shooter and shootee are wearing different uniforms and in a battle venue, few would assume that the shooter was inherently evil (even if they think war is). The soldiers - on both sides - are fulfilling what they consider a moral imperative, trusting their leaders to send them in only when necessary to kill and face death.

Someone who walks by a child dying of disease is unlikely to win a humanitarian award. But someone who advocates health care except not for illegal aliens (or any other group), even if children die as a result, is not inherently evil in my opinion. Some would say that's just practical. Others, myself included, consider it misguided and tragic. The negligence can be evil, but one doesn't have to be evil to accept it as "necessary" in my opinion.

If someone tortures another for his own gratification, that's pretty twisted and evil. If someone tortures a terrorist to get information he thinks might save lives, is he evil? Even if the notion is completely wrong, is the individual who does it evil? Or is he likely convinced that this is the only option open to him? Necessity exists.

There is a difference between shooting an intruder and shooting your neighbor preemptively because you don't like how he looked at your daughter and shooting your neighbor who never did anything because you want to send the message that you're a ruthless badass. Many people, I think, understand the necessity in the first scenario, recognize the signs of mental illness in the actions of the second one, and would find the last the sign of a scumbag.

Finding sympathy with the antagonist makes for a more interesting story in many ways, less black and white; however, it makes things more challenging for your protagonists if he can't just ride through with his rocket launcher and take him out. It makes it complicated. It reflects to some extent on your protagonists, how they deal with a deluded or misguided, but dangerous, antagonist. Sometimes, there are no easy answers, just choicse between miserable options. Sometimes the happier options are there, but the antagonist can no longer see them. Sometimes, it means the good guys have to face choices that are equally bad. However, it also leaves open the option of alternative ways of dealing with our antagonists than extermination or humiliation or whatever.

No matter what kind of antagonist you favor, know why he or she is motivated to do what he or she does.

It matters.

That's what I think. What do you think?

Tomorrow, I will continue on misguided antagonists with some examples and the way I explain it.

Read more...