Maybe They're Born With It: Nature, Nurture, and Freudian Excuses, Part III
On the opposite end of the spectrum from the villain whose every action is explained by their awful childhood is the villain who is evil for no good reason. The prevailing explanation supported by the narrative is that they were just born evil (if the other characters merely think so, it doesn't count).
Real life is full of people whose actions are inexplicable to us, or strike us as deluded, evil, or bizarre. In general, we assume that this is some sort of immutable character trait in that individual: they're inherently mean, or a weirdo, or scheming, and there's nothing we can do about it. It usually doesn't occur to us-- at least not unless we deliberately make an effort to think about it-- that these people might be responding to a situation we don't know about, or behaving oddly relative to their usual conduct, or acting in a way that makes perfect sense according to their own internal logic. Psychologists call this phenomenon the 'fundamental attribution error', defined as 'people's tendency to place an undue emphasis on internal characteristics to explain someone else's behavior in a given situation, rather than considering external factors.'
When we write a villain who is distinctly the Other-- someone we cannot imagine identifying with, or imagine the reader identifying with-- the immediate urge is to write them as completely evil. We may not even be aware that we're doing so. Cognitive biases, by their nature, are subtle. And it's not out of line to have your characters exhibit these biases in-story. However, if the narrative itself-- the 'objective truth' of your universe and story-- supports the idea that the villain can be entirely explained by inborn evil tendencies, it strains credibility.
Yes, our baseline personalities do play a large role in how we behave. At the same time, environment is a key factor in shaping how those 'baseline' traits manifest-- we learn about socially acceptable and unacceptable behaviour; we learn about ways to use our strengths or compensate for weaknesses; we have different resources for meeting our needs. Biologists refer to this interaction between underlying propensities and the environment as 'GxE' (genetics x environment), because these factors that shape us are so entwined.
We don't have to empathise with the villain, or excuse their actions, in order to give them character depth. Their actions must run on some sort of internal logic, even if it's logic the audience will find repulsive. It also needs to be logic that connects to the setting and the character's personal experiences. That way, no matter how unsympathetic your villain is, or how awful their actions, they seem like a coherent, credible character.
Real life is full of people whose actions are inexplicable to us, or strike us as deluded, evil, or bizarre. In general, we assume that this is some sort of immutable character trait in that individual: they're inherently mean, or a weirdo, or scheming, and there's nothing we can do about it. It usually doesn't occur to us-- at least not unless we deliberately make an effort to think about it-- that these people might be responding to a situation we don't know about, or behaving oddly relative to their usual conduct, or acting in a way that makes perfect sense according to their own internal logic. Psychologists call this phenomenon the 'fundamental attribution error', defined as 'people's tendency to place an undue emphasis on internal characteristics to explain someone else's behavior in a given situation, rather than considering external factors.'
When we write a villain who is distinctly the Other-- someone we cannot imagine identifying with, or imagine the reader identifying with-- the immediate urge is to write them as completely evil. We may not even be aware that we're doing so. Cognitive biases, by their nature, are subtle. And it's not out of line to have your characters exhibit these biases in-story. However, if the narrative itself-- the 'objective truth' of your universe and story-- supports the idea that the villain can be entirely explained by inborn evil tendencies, it strains credibility.
Yes, our baseline personalities do play a large role in how we behave. At the same time, environment is a key factor in shaping how those 'baseline' traits manifest-- we learn about socially acceptable and unacceptable behaviour; we learn about ways to use our strengths or compensate for weaknesses; we have different resources for meeting our needs. Biologists refer to this interaction between underlying propensities and the environment as 'GxE' (genetics x environment), because these factors that shape us are so entwined.
We don't have to empathise with the villain, or excuse their actions, in order to give them character depth. Their actions must run on some sort of internal logic, even if it's logic the audience will find repulsive. It also needs to be logic that connects to the setting and the character's personal experiences. That way, no matter how unsympathetic your villain is, or how awful their actions, they seem like a coherent, credible character.
No comments have been added yet.
