Jerks: Some Observations

No character should ever truly be evil in the pure and unambiguous sense of that word. That's melodrama, and melodrama is lazy storytelling. That doesn't mean characters can't have rotten motivations, but their reason for doing bad things shouldn't simply be, "because they're bad." While it may be tempting to create an individual so vile and despicable that he or she is utterly beyond sympathy, a black hole of a human, that's not likely to be a resonant, enduring villain. The best bad guys are a little bit relatable. We see something in them, a recognizable glimmer, and when it's an uncomfortable echo of ourselves, we find that regardless of arbitrary and subjective labels like "good" and "bad," we care.

In Dicing Time for Gladness (Book I of the Victoria da Vinci series), as well as Crass Casualty (Book II), the primary antagonistic figure is Victoria's personal nemesis, the Baroness von Berge, Greta Greaves of Austria. But Greta doesn't think of herself as bad or even unreasonable. In her vain and paranoid mind, she is a victim of constant persecution, a tragically misunderstood woman slandered by rivals who are jealous of her wealth and power. She rationalizes her actions so thoroughly that she can't understand why anyone would have a problem with anything she was doing.

Another antagonist is Bamwighul Elucidus Fishfire, who makes a brief appearance in Book I and returns as a major character in Book III, Hate's Profiting, which I am currently writing. Bam is a particularly interesting case. He's a murderous psychopath, and feels no empathy for his victims. But he feels no antipathy towards them, either. He isn't motivated by hate or anger. Killing is a game to him, a sport. (And in book III, it has developed into a lucrative, thriving business for him as well.) In one sense at least, Greta is the more sadistic of the two. Bam commits a homicide and them moves on to his next prey with no emotional attachment (and no remorse). Greta wants her enemies to live and suffer. More than that, she wants them to fear, respect and even admire her. She seems to be aware at some level that the things she does are wrong, because she goes to such great lengths to defend and justify herself with bizarre, inconsistent and convoluted logic.

Other characters who come into conflict with Victoria include conservatives such as Josiah Blumfield (Constance's father) and City Councilman Hautious Sugging. But remember, they think of themselves as guardians of civilization and defenders of virtue and morality. In their minds, their impulses are righteous and their actions are noble (even if Sugging is a sanctimonious creep). The point is, they are the heroes of their own private internal narratives, from the standpoint of which Victoria is the bad guy — a purveyor of corrupt values, wickedness and degeneracy.

According to the results of a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (see the abstract here), violent behavior is tied to a sense of over-estimation of self. In other words, people who score highly for narcissism on psychological tests are more likely to be aggressively anti-social and commit various kinds of assault, both physical and emotional. This isn't very surprising.

Low self-esteem: "I'm no good. I'm not worthy of happiness."

Normal, healthy self-esteem: "I am as good as anybody else. It is reasonable for me to expect to be treated with the same courtesy and respect that should be extended to everyone. If I work hard and do good things, I should be acknowledged and fairly compensated for it."

Narcissism: "I am better than other people. I am worthy of special treatment and privileges. Those around me should recognize that they are lesser beings. They should be grateful for my mere presence. I should be generously and immediately rewarded for anything I do."

Of course we all recognize that behavior pattern: people who push in front of other people in line because they're in a hurry. (Like the rest of us aren't in a hurry, too? Asshole.) People who interrupt you to tell you why you're wrong. (Who the hell made you Emperor of Facts?) People who harass and criticize and can't seem to understand why it's not received well. (Oh, you disapprove of me? How galvanizing. I shall change my erroneous ways at once. Thank you for jolting me to action.) People who contribute little, yet make extravagant demands of everyone else with no shame whatsoever. (Do you not see that everyone in the room is staring at you with disgust right now?)

Since these kinds of individuals have so deeply internalized the assumption of superiority and entitlement, of course they become angry when they do not receive the lavish adulation that they believe they ought to be getting just for showing up. So they lash out, with words or punches, in any and all ways they think they can get away with. How dare the world not shower them with a never-ending stream of gifts, VIP treatment and sincere, gushing compliments? They are often obsessed with teaching other, inferior people to know their place. They rarely say anything nice or offer real support, and when they do it's in the form of presumptuous bragging, asserting their inherent right to judge anyone, anywhere, any time, on the basis of anything. (Examples: "Hey, you're not bad for a beginner." "Let me show you how you're supposed to be doing that." "Can I give you a few pointers?")

If you have people like this in your social media feed, you may notice that they never pop up to say things like, "congratulations!" or "I'm so happy for you!" or "you look great!" or "wow, that looks like fun!" or "what a beautiful place!" But they very quickly appear to argue, to challenge, to mock, to condescend, to insult or to contradict. They can't resist the urge. And then what happens when somebody else calls them out on their rude and arrogant behavior? They get all whiny and indignant, hiding behind such defenses as, "I'm just telling the truth!" (The "truth," as they see it, is whatever opinions they hold, and if others disagree it's because they're just too stupid to get it.)

I believe it's helpful, when writing characters who do awful things, to consider why they think they do them. How do they see themselves? How do they see their choices? What made them like this?

It has been observed repeatedly that I like to write flawed, morally ambiguous characters. Even my protagonists tend to be damaged, sometimes irredeemably. I certainly prefer that to one-sided stock characters for whom you are supposed to root wholeheartedly, or else despise. We might feel unalloyed love or searing loathing towards actual human beings out here in real life, but if we try to force that feeling on our readers in our fiction, that's a sloppy shortcut. We must always leave enough ambivalence to make our characters feel like real people and not single-purpose literary devices.

Recent popular posts:

The Intersection of Grammar and Philosophy

Sleeping With My Editor

Martinus or Martino?

Answering the Inevitable Questions

Crazy People in History #1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My author page:
www.AustinScottCollins.com