The Mystery, Crime, and Thriller Group discussion
Thrillers of any Kind
>
What does it take to create a villain?
Just curious about which Steinbeck villains you were thinking of.Stephen King seems to open all the doors to his inner demons when he creates bad guys.
I'm not an author but as a reader I think a lot of what makes a villain great is the hero who pursues him... a great hero is nothing without a counterpart. The same holds true with great villains. If it's too easy, if the stakes aren't constantly being raised then there's no real sense of fear.The reason Moriarty is considered a great villain (although scary? I'm not so sure) is the fact that he is an intellectual equal to Sherlock Holmes.
Silence of the Lambs is an amazing story in great part because of the presence of Hannibal Lector -- essentially a secondary character in the greater plot -- who is a genius, a psychopath and frighteningly chilling even from BEHIND prison walls because he knows exactly how to get to, and manipulate, Clarice Starling and... everyone.
It's a mental thing. A brutal villain is frightening, but one who can out think and out maneuver the hero while appearing to all outward appearances to be just another face in the crowd is bone chilling.
I agree with Mike.I'm also a non-spamming author, Annelie, and I'm no Steinbeck either. But my villains are normal people. They are in a situation where their personality, mixed with their morals, dictate the way act. My guys are generally brutal (but I've never been subjected to any brutality - seen plenty though!), but that's because they have to be in order to persue their 'career' or reach their goal, or put fear into someone. Outside of this, they are often loving, family men who enjoy hopscotch!
Maybe that's what makes a good villain. After all, if a guy wearing a suit approached you and engaged in conversation before pulling out a knife - how scary would that be? How shocking would it be?
My methods of creating good villains involve real people in bad situations.
Take care,
Andy
Hi Mike, hum... I see we have very different opinions. :-)I found Lecter not too scary, because he was behind bars, but his 'supervisor' dude (what was his name?) I found MUCH scarier, because it was clear that lecter could use him like a tool. Maybe its stupidity that scares me more than sharpness.
Andy - normal people in bad situations are scary, because these are things everyone can imagine happen to one self. Like the nice looking neighbor who turns out a rapist.
I think a great villain always has many layers - the 'normal' appearance, the the revelation that he/she is NOT quite what he/she seems to be. Mix in situations that let the beast inside roam freely, well peppered with cold-bloodedness and a good lack of compassion.
The question whether a hero has to be present in a story to make the villain even scarier is a good one. Personally, I'd find a villain much scarier if there wouldn't be a hero to stop the trail of blood and suffering.
It all comes down to the experiences and personality of each single reader. People who experienced domestic rape will most certainly find the 'normal family man' most scary, while mind-focussed people may find the super-intellectual villain who can outsmart everyone more terrible.
But that's just a theory :-)
Cheers
Annelie
I remember watching an interview with Lee Marvin the actor. He was asked a similar question. His response was that villians don't think they're bad. That got me thinking and it makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot of villians seem more evil because they have a rational for their actions. If that makes sense!
It makes a lot of sense! Villains do have their own morals and values.Annelie
I may refer to movies here, vice books, but I think it applies to both. I think what makes a great villain is to be able to provide menace without going over the top with it. I'm thinking of Cape Fear specifically; which featured Robert Mitchum in the original and Robert de Niro in the remake. Mitchum was downright scary, but he never went over the top, he just exuded menace. Whereas de Niro just tried to hard and I don't think it worked at all. I think this could apply to books as well...
I agree with Bill about not being over the top. What makes a villain compelling to me is that s/he can controls the situation, isolates the victim and constrains their actions or movements. This doesn't have to be physical - something like Strangers on a Train (at least the movie) was about psychological control. To me, feeling like all my usual safety nets and options are gone makes me nervous.
I think a good villian, no matter what genre or medium has to drive the story. The more compelling your antagonist, the more challenge you bring to the protagonist and the more emotion you get from your audience. A weak villian creates a weak story.Thanks for the question.
Gamal
Thanks for all the excellent and interesting answers!I think that a great villain or any great character in a story will touch our emotions. I'll go for a villain who opens not only the door for fear and terror for the hero(ine) but also (and here comes the tough part) to make the reader discover and admit to his/her own murky pool of darkness.
I guess I'll have to sweat over that one for quite a while. But it will be fun, I'm sure :-)
Annelie
Robert Mitchum was good. I remember him in a film playing an evil preacher, and his attempts to steal money from orphans. I prefer my villians to be smooth and calculating, but quiet desperation is also good. The last thing you need is over the top a la Gary Oldman!
Gary Oldman as Dracula was wonderful! Just saying... I think my villain is ready to go on paper (screen now) and man does he scare me. What a fun I'll have writing him! Thanks everyone for the insights!
Cheers
Annelie
Bad luck to leave someone at thirteen messages. If you're familiar with Star Trek DS9, then you'll know that Gul Dukat was probably one of the most rounded, realistic villians in any TV show IMO. I would avoid stereotypes.
Coming from a reader's point of a view, I think to make a character a villain it requires a lot of the author putting oneself into the book. If the author has a dark side that they may not be proud of, I think it's essential that they put that quality inside their main villain of the story and just keep expanding. The psychopathic killers that have mental issues are the best. I feel like the character needs to have a strong back story as to why they feel they are so evil. Such as, being abused as a child and then taking their vengeance out on the world.One of my favorite kinds of villains are the characters that quietly become psychopaths, or villains that betray someone else in their family just to get what they want. All they want to do is use people. I feel like a villain needs to be vicious and lacking a soul. Otherwise, they could just be any other character.
Hi Jiji,I totally agree! And I love puttin myself into my characters and exploring all these little corners and alleys of my own soul. Rest assured, I'll go crazy with villains and heros.
:-)
Annelie
Jiji wrote: "Coming from a reader's point of a view, I think to make a character a villain it requires a lot of the author putting oneself into the book. If the author has a dark side that they may not be proud..."Lacking soul...makes for a good villain. Cunning and ruthless comes to mind.
I would avoid child abuse as a reason for villians being bad. It seems to be an easy cliche these days.
Haven't thought about that yet. I don't think I'd have any reason to include it, although the character is clearly abusive. The fun part with 19th century crime novels is, that the upper class villains are still "gentlemen". So much fun to add that twist.
Whatever you decide to do with your villians, I think it is important to make it clear that they don't see themselves as villians. Their justifictions and motivations might be dubious or delusional but very few credible characters believe that they are bad.
That's what I said earlier! Three dimensional is the aim.
I'm tempted to do a blog on villians as part of my how to write a book blog. Back On topic. Forgot to say that rich person turned bad is another easy cliche in my view, but I suppose you need your villian to come from somewhere! What a minefield!
What great comments..........I particularly like "lacking soul". The "born evil" villain in my opinion is the most chilling. Stories today overuse the excuses of "I was abused as a child, I was bullied, my parents were drug addicts, etc. etc.". But the chilling villain is the one that is just evil with no extenuating circumstances to excuse his/her behavior. The other villain that I find interesting is the unknown one. I think of true crime and the Zodiac Killer and Jack the Ripper....cases never solved but those names still resonate as frightening killers. Good luck with your book and the development of your villain!
The unknown villians are potentially the worst. These are the people you could walk past in the street and wouldn't really notice...Then again you could say that about any villian :)
Channeling your dark side is definitely part of it, like others here have said. Just as important, though, the more empathetic and likeable the protagonist is, and the more emotionally invested the reader becomes in his/her plight, anyone who's causing the distress and is intent on making the hero's life hell on earth represents what I consider the perfect villain. It also helps if villains have dark, vacuous eyes, take great pleasure in the hero's pain and are either emotionally shattered, severely pained or seething when the hero 'turns the tables' on them, which they always do. It's always a plus if the bad guys, or girls, don't have a conscience.
I'm torn. On the one hand, there's a delicious pleasure in creating a villain that is from the old school of out-and-out evil. I don't, however, like them if they're pantomime villains, with warts and a cackle. Just seems silly to me.On the other hand, I'm also attracted to villains who are fairly ordinary people. I often sit in a cafe, look at the other patrons and wonder if any of them have carried out any evil acts.
And just like Jill, the unknown villain has a terrible allure for me.
And I forgot to say, Annelie, that if the villain is the primary protagonist, he's known as an anti-hero.
Hi Mark,nope, in my case the protagonist is a woman who gets abducted by the villain.
I thought the anti-hero is something like spiderman before he turned spidery
:-)
Mark, do you check people out a little more on airplanes? I could not live in Tel Aviv. Yes, I am a wimp. Jo Nesbo's Snowman scared me to death; I had to look at the ending before I could finish. It's probably 9/11 syndrome; the first attack on us since Pearl Harbor. I now understand how my parents felt. Should I read the end of your book first?
Watch the movie 'The Patriot' with Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger and that's where you'll find the epitome of the villain. You hate this guy so much you want to cheer when he gets killed. You want your readers to loathe this person.
Sandi,Your post made me smile. I once went on a date with a woman who told me she always read the last page of a book first. She found it too traumatic an experience not to know the ending before embarking on the journey. I couldn't bring myself to date her again, even when she promised to mend her ways.
I think I'm finally over my 9/11 syndrome. It was difficult, for a while, to sit in departure lounges and not resort to racial stereotypes. I hated myself for it. Luckily, it was short-lived.
This discussion is very apposite for me. In my first book I wrote an archetypal villain (he cut up his own face with a razor blade). But in my latest, the villain is a little more ordinary, more low key.
To be honest, I found writing the latest villain to be more interesting. There's a reason for that character being bad, beyond it being a personality defect. It's fun exploring that.
But I know a lot of readers want their good guys to be good and their bad guys to be bad (I often get some flack for having one of my undercover police officers take part in a riot).
It's just that, personally, I'm not a fan of black-and-white. I prefer living in the grey zone. It's murkier there, the weather is foggy.
Hi Mark,I prefer the complex play between good and bad, too. Nothing bores me more than the flawless hero(ine) or the rotten-to-the-core villain.
Its much fun to explore the depths of the human psyche, have a villain who is scary, the make the reader somewhat like him, trust him even, just to tear all that into pieces and let the reader reflect about his/her own inner villain/hero for a long time.
THAT would be my ideal of a villain. Its really tough to do that. But fun!
Mark Your post made me smile. I once went on a date with a woman who told me she always read the last page of a book first. She found it too traumatic an experience not to know the ending before..."
Cutting up your face is not villainous, it maniacal. Wow, I have never had the word "apposite" used in any type of communication. I'm going to look it up, because I don't remember what it means (and should).
OK, this book sounds more like my kind of mystery/thriller. I'd probably participate in a riot if it was something I was really emotional about. Probably at the back or side where I would be safe but vocal. So, it's only on Kindle, which doesn't like me for some reason. After a call to get them on track I will download and read without looking at the ending.
We women, especially when under 30, say stupid things because some guy said that comment was cute and made her unique. I've been married for 38 years and had a conversation with my husband yesterday where neither one of us got the other point. The communication problem between the sexes never ends. Happy Turkey Day, Mark!
Sandi,I think I'd better stay quiet on that matter.
Matthew wrote: "Watch the movie 'The Patriot' with Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger and that's where you'll find the epitome of the villain. You hate this guy so much you want to cheer when he gets killed. You want you..."True, there was some clapping in the theatre when I, agonizingly, saw the movie.
R.M.F wrote: "I'm tempted to do a blog on villians as part of my how to write a book blog. Back On topic. Forgot to say that rich person turned bad is another easy cliche in my view, but I suppose you need your ..."Another attack on rich people? I want to be one!
You can be rich in character, which IMO is better than being rich in monetary value. But that's just my view! That villians blog is still in the pipeline :)
R.M.F wrote: "I remember watching an interview with Lee Marvin the actor. He was asked a similar question. His response was that villians don't think they're bad. That got me thinking and it makes a lot of sens..."
Or, if not a rationale, a massive sense of superiority and entitlement.
L.H. wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "I remember watching an interview with Lee Marvin the actor. He was asked a similar question. His response was that villians don't think they're bad. That got me thinking and it makes..."
It's a fine line.
Some villains do know they are bad, but often have an "excuse" for doing what they are doing.I'm totally enjoying the dance of hero and villain on a razor's edge, when the contrast between good and bad gets blurred and one has to sort it out for oneself again later. Reflection is the thing I want my readers to do. But hell, 'em sentences have to be super sharp for that.
VERY cool that this threat is still going!
Cheers
Annelie
The interview with Lee Marvin is quite famous. I think the interviewer asked him how he played villains. Lee said he didn't 'play' villains. He just played men trying to get through their day.
This may be seen by some as over simplifying things, but if the reader doesn't want the villain dead, or at least his/her efforts thwarted in the end causing severe emotional distress and rage, he/she is not really a villain. I've only read one book where this wasn't the case. La Bête Humaine, a late nineteenth century novel by Émile Zola (also a movie, which I haven't seen, as I know it can't be as good as the book). I highly recommend this book by the way. One of my all-time favorites, which is told from a serial killer's perspective. Truly one of a kind. Even when the villain is a child, like in The Good Son, a movie with Macaulay Culkin cast as the villain, you want the mother to release his hand so he falls from the cliff to his death.
The Titanic provides another good example of a villain you want dead, which makes the story so much more compelling, dramatic and enjoyable.
All of my books have villains you want dead. They represent evil in its purest form. If you aren't scared of or don't get the chills from the villain's actions and intentions, what do you really have? Just mere antagonists, I think.
I think there's only one real villain in a story and the other antagonists are just loathsome people you hope get what they deserve, but not necessarily death. Prison, pain, the loss of everything they love, etc. Usually these people aren't evil personified, but are either greedy, narcissistic, unempathetic, mean-spirited or just plain unlikeable.
Hi Matthew,thanks for the book recommendation! I'll definitely read it.
Cheers
Annelie
Mark wrote: "The interview with Lee Marvin is quite famous. I think the interviewer asked him how he played villains. Lee said he didn't 'play' villains. He just played men trying to get through their day."That's exactly what I was trying to say off the top of my head.
Matthew wrote: "This may be seen by some as over simplifying things, but if the reader doesn't want the villain dead, or at least his/her efforts thwarted in the end causing severe emotional distress and rage, he/..."I’m a newbie here, and this is my first time chiming in. Basically I agree with Matthew — by the end of the story readers should WANT the villain dead. None of my own villains has been “pure evil” at the start, like Hannibal Lector, for instance. Two started off as antagonists but became progressively more evil. One started as an ally. I see the progression to evil as part of the antagonist’s character arc.
I also think it’s important for the villain’s motive(s) to make sense to us, to be something with which we can identify and maybe even sympathize. Nelson DeMille’s villain in The Lion’s Game is a perfect example. He hates America because US fighter-bombers killed his family in a raid on Libya.
And of course the villain needs to be worthy of the hero, equally matched in terms of intelligence and at least as strong, if not stronger. This makes the final conflict more thrilling.
John wrote: "Matthew wrote: "This may be seen by some as over simplifying things, but if the reader doesn't want the villain dead, or at least his/her efforts thwarted in the end causing severe emotional distre..."That sounds as though the villain may not be the bad guy after all.
Hum... I think most readers didnt want Hannibal Lector dead, because for some bizzare reason he appeared "sexy" enough. Maybe because he was dominating in every sense? He had the ability to control and manipulate people around him to his liking. I can see some parallels to the Shades of Grey books - the control and power game. The fascinating question here (for me at least) is this: If one can create a villain who is highly dangerous and intelligent but not quite using it to the fullest extend, if he'd be just a little nice, would that cause some kind of Stockholm syndrome in the readers? Must ruminate on that one for a while longer. Might all be bull shit :-/
Mark wrote: "The interview with Lee Marvin is quite famous. I think the interviewer asked him how he played villains. Lee said he didn't 'play' villains. He just played men trying to get through their day."He was also a great comedic actor (in Cat Ballou with Jane Fonda -- very funny movie). I have your book now and 12/26 I can start reading again! Happy Holidays!
Sandi wrote: "Mark wrote: "The interview with Lee Marvin is quite famous. I think the interviewer asked him how he played villains. Lee said he didn't 'play' villains. He just played men trying to get through th..."The thing with Marvin (and other actors of that period) is that most of them had seen violence in the war, so they were no stranger to it's effects both physical and psychological.
The Mystery, Crime, and Thriller Group
Books mentioned in this topic
Moriarty (other topics)The Woman in White (other topics)
The Woman in White (other topics)
Othello (other topics)
A Human Element (other topics)
I'm wondering how some authors can create a villain so scary, that he/she sticks with us for quite a while, and others do not manage to convey the fear to the reader. I don't think its 'simply' good story telling, I think creating a scary villain needs more than that. One example may be James Moriarty, a character created by Conan Dole to kill off his hero Sherlock Holmes. Personally, I didn't find Moriarty scary, mainly because I'm not a Holmes fan. But for all Holmes fans, he is THE scariest villain, because he killed their hero. So there would be one 'recipe' - you make the reader LOVE the hero and the villain will automatically be scary.
What if the 'hero' is the villain? As in Bret Easton Ellis' American Psycho, for example. I found him extremely scary, because he seemed 'normal' to everyone around him, but his deeds were so extremely brutal and coldblooded, that one must be shocked, I actually tossed the book in a corner saying 'bad book! bad book!' at some point. But picked it up again, of course ;-)
But the one author that got me thinking about real depth and complexity was Steinbeck. I only now read him, never did before, and I can not believe how someone can create such sentences! And I think I found the answer for creating a villain the reader will not be able to get rid off for weeks after finishing the book. The author has to know himself / herself AND be able to admit to and embrace his/her dark side. We all have those dark and murky ponds in our souls that only few people may admit to.
But as an author, you have to jump right in, head first, and get yourself real dirty. I got the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that good fiction authors know how to open all these little doors that keep their souls hidden. They open one or two of them and pour what's needed onto the pages.
With Steinbeck I had the impression, he has one huge gate that he opens wide and he does not judge the contents. He throws them all on paper and lets us readers drown in good, evil, neglect, boredom, excitement... Whatever life has in store.
But thats just my humble opinion and I would very much like to know what you think. (I know, some of you were probably tortured as kids with Steinbeck books and can't enjoy him anymore. I have the same with Goethe).
Basically, this is NOT intended to be a Steinbeck discussion, but a discussion about depth and complexity in villains and what it may take to create them.
Cheers
Annelie