The Orion Team. discussion

52 views
CONVENTIONS OF SPYING > What Makes A Compelling antagonist?

Comments Showing 1-46 of 46 (46 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Samuel , Director (last edited Dec 24, 2014 12:39AM) (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
I recently re-read these two books, both of which are in the spy thriller genre.

Ballistic (Court Gentry, #3) by Mark Greaney
The Ghost War (John Wells, #2) by Alex Berenson

Going over both, I noted both take different approaches in how the antagonists are characterized.

For the first book, "The Ghost War", Alex Berenson attempted to make his antagonist, General Li, the PRC'S Defense minister who CIA officer John Wells tries to destroy "sympathetic" to a extent. Although a hard line Chinese nationalist, General Li, in contrast to the younger "moderate" Princelings who run China with him, isn't corrupt, not particularly anti-western and wished to improve the economic lot for the millions left out in China's economic boom while staving off the economic collapse his colleagues are blind too. The only problem was that the way he set about in achieving his sympathetic goal involved morally ambiguous and at times misguided actions which would have done more harm than good.

In the second book, "Ballistic", Mark Greaney dials up the insanity and depravity in his antagonist Daniel de la Rocha, the most powerful drug lord in Mexico who matches resources with fugitive assassin Courtland Gentry. Insane with a capital "I", de la rocha becomes obsessed with targeting and killing the child of a pregnant widower whose husband failed to assassinate him and takes pleasure in ordering murder, torture and mutilation of countless people as the bloodshed drives his obsession.

What sort of villain would you find more compelling and interesting in a spy thriller? The kind which is sympathetic or the type which has the insanity dialed up to eleven? As always, I would love to hear your thoughts.


message 2: by Michel (new)

Michel Poulin | 167 comments Samuel wrote: "I recently re-read these two books, both of which are in the spy thriller genre.

Ballistic (Court Gentry, #3) by Mark Greaney
The Ghost War (John Wells, #2) by Alex Berenson

Going over both, I noted both take different a..."


I would definitely prefer an antagonist with some positive traits. The sadistic psychopath type would tend to repell me, especially if the author allows him/her to escape his just punishment, while innocents are killed/tortured/maimed. A rogue spy/secret agent/cop with moral principles but with a grudge makes a great antagonist in my opinion.


message 3: by Samuel , Director (last edited Feb 14, 2015 04:01PM) (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
There's a third category I've forgotten to mention.
The kind of antagonist who starts somewhat sane and slowly becomes a raving lunatic.


The Gray Man (Court Gentry, #1) by Mark Greaney

In Mark Greaney's first book, he has a former CIA analyst turned fixer for a French Energy corporation as the main bad guy. While not a pleasant man at from the start, he tries to put on the basic pretense of professionalism. However as the plot progresses, and his attempts at killing the main character only resort in failure, he becomes a lot more erratic and sadistic with the hostages he has taken to lure the main character to his position.


message 4: by Samuel , Director (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Days of Rage (Pike Logan, #6) by Brad Taylor

Another, more recent example of the third category is Yuri Gorshenko, one of the secondary antagonists who acts as the point man in a black op run by the director of the FSB. He starts as a fanatical Russian nationalist but for the most part, efficient and professional. But at the conclusion of the first 1/3 of the story, his team suffers multiple casualties from the actions of the deuteragonist of the series, he becomes Captain Ahab, becoming increasingly obsessed and vengeful, committing actions like firing on a crowd of civilians with an AS VAL in an attempt to get revenge and in his last ditch attempt at killing his target, his rage causes a critical mistake which gets him on the wrong end of some steel piping and a knife.


message 5: by Joshua (new)

Joshua Hood | 161 comments I am working through the same dilemma.


message 6: by Joshua (new)

Joshua Hood | 161 comments I think your antagonist has to force your hero out of his moral comfort zone. Nietzsche said that those who chase monsters must be careful they do not turn into monsters themselves.


message 7: by Samuel , Director (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Safe Havens Shadow Masters (A Sean Havens Black Ops Novel) by J.T. Patten
This spy thriller managed to do a very interesting blend of type one and two. The antagonist isn't a good guy and he's a textbook sociopath, but he's also suffering from other "problems" which does gain him some sympathy. Half the time I wanted him to suffer a painful death while the other half I was wondering if all he needed was a bit of help with his other issues to redeem him.


message 8: by Tom (new)

Tom Young | 10 comments Great question. The best antagonists are ones who are human enough that you can understand how and why they wound up on the dark side. I dealt with this theme in my newest novel, "The Hunters," which comes out in July, 2015. My antagonist is a 14-year-old Somali terrorist. He became a terrorist after becoming an orphan. An encounter with my main characters places him in a situation that gives him a chance to rethink his decisions.


message 9: by Samuel , Director (last edited Feb 25, 2015 12:03PM) (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Tom wrote: "Great question. The best antagonists are ones who are human enough that you can understand how and why they wound up on the dark side. I dealt with this theme in my newest novel, "The Hunters," whi..."

Hello Tom, welcome to the group. I hope you will enjoy it here :)

The concept of an "antagonist looking at a chance of redemption" you've just posted about is very rare in the military thriller genre, and one which hasn't actually been done before (as far as I can recall). Most antagonists I've seen either fall into the two categories I mentioned at the start of the discussion thread. But this new category you've proposed is very intriguing.

But it seems that you've gone for something out of the box for "The Hunters". What made you decide to use the "antagonist with a chance of redemption" concept in your latest military thriller novel?

The Hunters (Michael Parson & Sophia Gold, #6) by Tom Young


message 10: by Jack (new)

Jack (jackjuly) | 145 comments Intelligence mixed with batcrap crazy.


message 11: by Samuel , Director (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Jack wrote: "Intelligence mixed with batcrap crazy."

So like the example in category two I posted at the beginning of this thread. De La Rocha is off his rocker, to put it mildly, but the man does know how to use his considerable resources in a pretty effective manner.


message 12: by Tom (new)

Tom Young | 10 comments Samuel wrote: "Tom wrote: "Great question. The best antagonists are ones who are human enough that you can understand how and why they wound up on the dark side. I dealt with this theme in my newest novel, "The H..."

Hi, Samuel. Over the past few years we've had a few news stories about people who get radicalized but later see the error of their ways. It's rare; once someone becomes a jihadist, for example, it's pretty hard to bring them back. But it does happen from time to time. So, I wondered: What would that journey be like, and how would it start?

I began writing The Hunters purely from the POV of my main recurring character, Air Force flier Michael Parson. But I decided the story needed more zing, so I started writing every other chapter from the POV of a 14-year-old radicalized Somali--who's smart enough to question things. Of course, I don't know what it's like to be a Somali, but I remember what it was like to be a 14-year-old boy, and I let my imagination run with that.

This Somali boy, Hussein, encounters Parson and his friends. At first Hussein intends to kill them, but circumstances put the boy in a situation that require him to question what he's been taught.


message 13: by Samuel , Director (last edited Feb 26, 2015 11:19AM) (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Tom wrote: "Samuel wrote: "Tom wrote: "Great question. The best antagonists are ones who are human enough that you can understand how and why they wound up on the dark side. I dealt with this theme in my newe..."

That's very fascinating, Tom and I commend you for adding an extra dimension to your antagonist's characterization. You've manage to make me curious enough to want to check out The Hunters (sometime after it's released), along with "Sand and Fire".


message 14: by Tom (new)

Tom Young | 10 comments Thanks for those kind words, Samuel. I appreciate it.


message 15: by Kevyn (new)

Kevyn (kevynm) Now I want to read this book.-The Hunter!
Do I have to start from 'The Mullah's Storm'?


message 16: by Tom (new)

Tom Young | 10 comments Kevyn wrote: "Now I want to read this book.-The Hunter!
Do I have to start from 'The Mullah's Storm'?"

Many thanks, Kevyn; I appreciate that. Actually, you don't. Though the books are a series with recurring characters, I try to write each one so that it more or less stands alone. You might see a few brief references to things that happened in previous novels, but nothing that would require prior knowledge of the earlier stories. (I've always thought an author would be asking a bit much to require that readers read each book in sequence from the beginning.) I often hear from readers who've started with the latest novel--and then they go back and read others. No one's ever reported any difficulty with that, and, of course, I always appreciate their kind words. The newest novel that's available right now is Sand and Fire.
Sand and Fire (Michael Parson & Sophia Gold, #5) by Tom Young


message 17: by Kevyn (new)

Kevyn (kevynm) Tom,
Just d/l-ed 'Mullah's Storm' on my Kindle.
Will review on Monday-Tuesday.
Cheers


message 18: by Tom (new)

Tom Young | 10 comments Kevyn wrote: "Tom,
Just d/l-ed 'Mullah's Storm' on my Kindle.
Will review on Monday-Tuesday.
Cheers"


Thanks, Kevyn!


message 19: by Samuel , Director (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Hmmm...another question for discussion on this thread. What cause an antagonist to not be interesting?

A character who fits the mustache twirling archetype where he's only defined by his crimes and not much else? In effect, becoming over the top like Ernst Stavro Blofield did due to the Bond film franchise?

Or something else? Would love to hear your thoughts.


message 20: by Michel (last edited Apr 11, 2015 02:25AM) (new)

Michel Poulin | 167 comments A villain with some weird physical ability, like one Bond villain who couldn't feel pain because he had a bullet lodged in his brain. What is needed is what I would call a competent villain (maybe not likable but at least not some caricatural megalomaniac with quirks).


message 21: by Samuel , Director (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Michel wrote: "A villain with some weird physical ability, like one Bond villain who couldn't feel pain because he had a bullet lodged in his brain. What is needed is what I would call a competent villain (maybe..."

Ah, Renard from The World Is Not Enough! I personally preferred his lover Mrs King who was the brains behind their plot. She was far more complex a character and brutally turned the "Bond Girl" template on its head.


message 22: by Samuel , Director (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Michel wrote: "A villain with some weird physical ability, like one Bond villain who couldn't feel pain because he had a bullet lodged in his brain. What is needed is what I would call a competent villain (maybe..."

My favorite Bond antagonist was Sean Bean's Alec Trevalyn, the closet thing to an anti-James Bond. Dangerously competent, a pretty understandable back story and quite a forward thinking evil scheme which predated the era of financial calamity and cyberwarfare.


message 23: by Tom (new)

Tom Young | 10 comments It's interesting when a villain has some kind of expertise, education, or talent. That makes him more fascinating than a brainless thug. For example, the villain in The Silence of the Lambs isn't just any nut job; he's Dr. Hannibal Lecter, former psychiatrist.


message 24: by Samuel , Director (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Samuel wrote: "Hmmm...another question for discussion on this thread. What cause an antagonist to not be interesting?

A character who fits the mustache twirling archetype where he's only defined by his crime..."


Speaking of Blofeld. Before the bond films too a hatchet to him, in the novels, he was a very visionary antagonist. In his backstory, he created a private intelligence firm similar to the kind which exist today such as STRATFOR and then there's the original SPECTRE. Spy fiction's first proper terrorist group. A non-state actor which tries to shape geopolitics to meet their goals, in this case profit. The concept was made cartoonish, but the original concept of SPECTRE as envisioned by Blofeld was ahead of its time in some respects.


message 25: by Samuel , Director (last edited Apr 20, 2015 11:17PM) (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Executive Power (Mitch Rapp #6) by Vince Flynn

Another type I've just remembered. The kind of antagonist who is like a "worthy opponent" to the protagonists with many redeeming traits that he's almost bordering on being a protagonist. But who still happens to be on the side of the villains.

This book features perhaps the most memorable antagonist of the Mitch Rapp series. His alias is David and he's a Palestinian agent provocateur. He's not particularly anti-Western and only loathes the more conservative parts of Israeli society such as the director general of Mossad whom he grudgingly cooperates with when acting as the point-man in an assassination attempt. What's more, he understands that the rest of the Arab world has only every used his people as pawns to be thrown away. So when he gets the chance to blow all the major terrorist leaders in Gaza to hell with a trick briefcase, he jumps at the chance to do so.
Only problem is that he's forced to cooperate with a Saudi Prince who makes an effort at co-opting "David's" plan for his own ends, efforts which escalate when he orders "David" to detonate a car bomb in a busy Washington street. "David" is remorseful while his patron is less so.


message 26: by Samuel , Director (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Samuel wrote: "There's a third category I've forgotten to mention.
The kind of antagonist who starts somewhat sane and slowly becomes a raving lunatic.


The Gray Man (Court Gentry, #1) by Mark Greaney

In Mark Greaney's fir..."


The Last Man (Mitch Rapp, #13) by Vince Flynn

Another great example of the "gradually growing crazy" kind of antagonist is the Pakistani spymaster featured here. In this book he's running a particularly delicate op and the stress, combined with latent delusions of grandeur and his ego get to him. This leads to the man developing a cavalier obsession with cutting off every last loose end of his op.


message 27: by Feliks (last edited May 23, 2015 08:59AM) (new)

Feliks (dzerzhinsky) Two things

~Intelligence
~Inside knowledge of the hero/protagonist, such as from an old friend, family member, or camrade


message 28: by Samuel , Director (last edited May 23, 2015 12:49PM) (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Feliks wrote: "Two things

~Intelligence
~Inside knowledge of the hero/protagonist, such as from an old friend, family member, or camrade"


Those very reasons are why I rank Alec Trevalyn from Goldeneye as the greatest Bond antagonist. He's got 007's attack plan in his head, and he plays things accordingly.


message 29: by Samuel , Director (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Feliks wrote: "Two things

~Intelligence
~Inside knowledge of the hero/protagonist, such as from an old friend, family member, or camrade"


So in your opinion, a good antagonist is some kind of "dark reflection" of the hero?


message 30: by Michel (new)

Michel Poulin | 167 comments What you could call a good antagonist was SS officer Otto Skorzeni in WW2. A big, strong and athletic man with multiple talents (6' 5'', expert driver, marksman, mountain climber, mechanical engineer), he liberated Mussolini from his prison in the Alps and organized the infiltration of German soldiers disguised as American soldiers during the Battle of the Bulge. He was called by Winston Churchill 'the most dangerous man in Europe' and was loyal to the Nazi cause to the end, yet was not involved in war crimes and was exonerated by the Allies at the end of the war.

Another good antagonist out of WW2, but a fictitious one this time, is Major Kurt Steiner, played by Michael Caine in the movie 'The Eagle has Landed'. Steiner was sent to England undercover to assassinate Churchill and very nearly succeeded.


message 31: by Feliks (last edited May 23, 2015 11:09PM) (new)

Feliks (dzerzhinsky) Michel wrote: "What you could call a good antagonist was SS officer Otto Skorzeni in WW2..."

What would I call him? A loser! A failure! His side lost! There were great soldiers on both sides. Skorzeni was one of them. But there's only one loser and only one winner in a world war and the Krauts huffed our sausage, not the other way around. Major Kurt Steiner was a badass but eventually his force succumbs to Treat Williams in 'Eagle'. Robert Shaw can't defeat American supply lines in 'Bulge'. That's the way it goes. No one is undefeatable. But ya gotta fight on the right side.


message 32: by Feliks (last edited May 23, 2015 11:31PM) (new)

Feliks (dzerzhinsky) Samuel wrote: "Those very reasons are why I rank Alec Trevalyn from Goldeneye as the greatest Bond antagonist.
..."


When you're right, you're right. The story has singular merits and your argument is sound. We agree.

But unfortunately this stellar storyline, came too late. Came when the franchise was too aged, too old. This plot premise should have been developed and launched much, much earlier. Instead, it emerged when all the talent was gone, vanished. It transpired when all the substance from the series was vacated.

But yeah I concur with you. Lookit how great 'Star Trek' movies became once Meyer brought back 'Khan'. That series almost died on the vine until Meyer saved it. Khan and Kirk. Great villains are intimate villains. The best enemy is someone who knows you well. Vader and Luke. Zod and Kal-el. Holmes and Moriarty. Quint vs Bruce. Judah Ben-Hur and Masala. The Cincinnatti Kid vs 'the Man'. On and on..all the best villain-hero pairs are great because they are familiar with each other..


message 33: by Samuel , Director (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Been watching a blockbuster action film called Rogue Nation. It's antagonist is a perfect example on how not to make a good spy fiction villain. Not compelling is an understatement. Competent up to a point but bland. I suppose it's due to his sociopath nature. Seemed to be totally dead inside, but the execution meant he wasn't compelling.

Compare him to the bad guy in the third film played by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Pure terror. An arms dealer who suffers from absolutely vicious mood swings and yet manages to retain his competence. You don't know what will set him off. Which allowed the actor to create a sense of fear whenever he was on screen.


message 34: by Samuel , Director (last edited Aug 03, 2015 01:40PM) (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Enemy of Mine (Pike Logan, #3) by Brad Taylor

I suppose it's much easier to create and portray a textbook sociopath in a novel due to the fact you can see how they tick unlike on the big screen, where it's all down to decent material and a good actor who can portray the madness (if any) the bad guy has. Show don't tell does have its disadvantages occasionally I suppose.

Brad Taylor's third book for instance has this contract killer/mercenary soldier who is a realistic portrayal of a madman. Commits horrible crimes and when things don't go his way while doing so, he behaves like someone frustrated about a parking ticket or taxes. Best exemplified during a pivotal scene where he hurts one of the characters in a nightmarish fashion. Because it's a book, it's easier to see the callous disregard to everything around him which makes him a compelling, love to hate sort of fellow and the kind which leaves you smiling after the main character gets his hands on him and does a beat-down which he doesn't walk away from.


message 35: by Samuel , Director (last edited Aug 03, 2015 05:47PM) (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Samuel wrote: "Been watching a blockbuster action film called Rogue Nation. It's antagonist is a perfect example on how not to make a good spy fiction villain. Not compelling is an understatement. Competent up to..."

Come to think of it, I think the element was missing was something to distinguish him. Solomon Lane was pure vanilla compared to Owen Davian. A block of ice next to a firework. And also, they didn't give the former much screen time. Hoffman on the other hand got enough moments to establish how his global arms dealer was utter scum with some brilliant use of the "how we got here" trope, along with a gagged Ethan Hunt, Ethan Hunt's wife, a lot of shouting and one SIG-Sauer P228.


message 36: by Feliks (last edited Aug 03, 2015 07:48PM) (new)

Feliks (dzerzhinsky) I cleave to the philosophy I articulated above. Your most dreaded enemy is someone who knows you intimately; even worse..someone who you love or loves you; someone who *is* so close to you that they are a part of you. Someone you've laughed with, fought alongside of, someone you have history with. They're never supposed to 'also' be evil.

Thus, when they go wrong, you are all sorts of disturbed. The enemy is not supposed to be in anyone you hold dear; much less, is there supposed to be anything evil in your own self. You're not supposed to harbor anything foul in your own nature; nor are you supposed to condone it in anyone you know. Evil is always in 'the other guy'. The foreigner. We kill foreigners!

This is why movies like 'The Offense' with Sean Connery are so great.


message 37: by Feliks (new)

Feliks (dzerzhinsky) p.s. I must add that Adam Hall's 'Quiller' seems to go through absolute dangerous hell in every one of his adventures. He seems more than outmatched by villains every inch his equal in brain and brawn. He only ever succeeds by the narrowest margin. This is superb.


message 38: by Samuel , Director (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Feliks wrote: "p.s. I must add that Adam Hall's 'Quiller' seems to go through absolute dangerous hell in every one of his adventures. He seems more than outmatched by villains every inch his equal in brain and br..."

Reminds me of the opposition Tom Wood's Victor The Assassin (who I made a thread for in your group) faces. In all of the books (except number 3) there is at least one or more individuals who are just as competent as him. On a good day, Victor is unstoppable but not immortal. An SIS officer, one of Mossad's Legendary Kidon hit-squads and a very insane South African Private Military Contractor have at one point or another caused him bad days and nights.


message 39: by Samuel , Director (last edited Sep 03, 2015 12:35AM) (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Specifically, the SIS officer impaled Victor through his right arm. The Mossad hit-squad attempted an ultimately failed extraordinary rendition, with the team leader nearly ramming a piece of broken glass through Victor's left eye. As for the South African, the mercenary nearly beat Victor to death with an empty Heckler and Koch MP5SD


message 40: by J.B. (new)

J.B. (goodreadscomjbmorrisauthor) Feliks wrote: "I cleave to the philosophy I articulated above. Your most dreaded enemy is someone who knows you intimately; even worse..someone who you love or loves you; someone who *is* so close to you that the..."

Thoughtful comments Feliks. Something all writers should consider.


message 41: by J.T. (new)

J.T. Patten (jtpattenbooks) | 70 comments I think I have a couple compelling antagonists in the Safe Havens series.

Prescott Draeger and now Paulo.

To that point, I'm looking for some reviewers in advance of the SAFE HAVENS: Primed Charge release April 22. If you send an email to jtpatten@safe-havens.com and will accept a PDF or ePub ---to in good faith to write a review on Goodreads and Amazon for or before release day, I'll send a copy immediately.

Thanks much!
JTP

http://amzn.com/B01CKLJM8M


message 42: by Samuel , Director (last edited Apr 12, 2016 11:30PM) (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Warning Order (Search and Destroy, #2) by Joshua Hood

Almost forgot, but a most recent example of why making your antagonist a depraved son-of-a-gun isn't a bad idea can be seen in this book. The author does not hold back in letting the bad guy of this story loose. I must confess that when reading the segments which this monster featured in, I was checking over my shoulder quite a lot.

The character is not a sympathetic fellow. He's a vile Islamist who doesn't think twice when executing a scheme that would destroy the nation of Iraq and kill 3/4 of its population.

But the great thing about him is that his creator does not let the man's depravity define him. Steel trap mind allows him to pull off some jaw dropping gambits and he's also no pushover when the heroes take their shot at killing him. For much of the book, this guy makes barely any mistakes, stays several steps ahead of his hunters, and when the heroes finally try to kill him, it's in a city, which he's turned into the death-trap to end all death traps.

Basically, the villain of this book avoids parody and staleness, and combines, intelligence and charisma with the right touch of a sharp shot of murderous, blood boiling rage and insanity. You literally cannot take your eyes off the page in horror as he begins racking up a eye-watering body count with bullets, knives, ropes, grenades and rocket launchers.

No tragic sob story about whatever in the past made him into the man he is today,

(did have a brother who died, but that merely pushed him in a particular direction, the villain of this book was crazy anyway and just needed a spark to set him off)

He's just a unapologetic, competent extremist with the guts, brains and technique to leave the Middle East covered in an ocean of blood. Some men want to watch the world burn. Well Joshua Hood's "Al Qatar", is the man tearing the pin off the hand grenade.


message 43: by J.T. (new)

J.T. Patten (jtpattenbooks) | 70 comments I like an antagonist who is caught up in duty or ideology as opposed to simply being psychotic. The belief system drive leaves room for either compassion or hatred at any varying point in the novel.


message 44: by Bodo (new)

Bodo Pfündl | 208 comments SAFE HAVENS Primed Charge (A Sean Havens Black Ops Novel, #2) by J.T. Patten

A new brand of villain is introduced in J.T. Patten's second novel "Primed Charge".
Meet Paulo Violardo, an Italian intelligence officer, explosives expert and fanatic Freemason master. Paulo is a true believer of God and a “Christian fundamentalist” in his own right. I found it very refreshing to see a believable portrait of a holy warrior of Christ for a change, instead of the ever repeating stereotypical Islamic Jihadists. The author places little tidbits of Paulo’s backstory through the book, helping the reader to better understand how this guy ticks. But just when you think you figured him out, wait for what he does at the end. It really rattled my feelings about him!


message 45: by Alan (new)

Alan Field (alanjfieldbooks) | 6 comments I like antagonists who are both sociopathic and moralistic. They make their own rules and will use anybody to get what they want.


message 46: by Samuel , Director (new)

Samuel  | 4691 comments Mod
Alan wrote: "I like antagonists who are both sociopathic and moralistic. They make their own rules and will use anybody to get what they want."

Everybody believes themselves to be the hero. Would you say Alan that such a concept normally produces compelling villains? Personally, having encountered two such examples in my fiction reading this year, I'm inclined to agree with the concept, but how about you?

http://wwwshotsmagcouk.blogspot.co.nz...


back to top