Craft Chat JUNE - BUILDING YOUR ANTAGONIST

[RK Wallis]

To carry on from Galadriel’s great start to antagonists last month, let’s dig deeper into antagonists.

As before, the discussion thread will be open for FIVE DAYS from when we post the Chat. Let us know your thoughts and experiences. If you disagree with anything, that’s fine. Tell us why. We love hearing from you. All opinions are welcome and valid additions to our learning. Keep it civil.
Rachel (RK Capps), Galadriel, Ed, Kay (Ancora Imparo)

First, let’s recap:

• One of the most important things you need to know about your antagonist is their GOAL.
• Is what they want the same as the protagonist? If not, what do they WANT?

Why does our work need an antagonist? It’s a universal concept understood among the writing community … the protagonist must oppose a powerful antagonist. This is where the story conflict comes from. This relationship makes your readers worry, and worried readers turn pages.

And that’s what we want.

But this relationship doesn’t have to be the Sauron/Frodo relationship of Lord of the Rings. It can be something akin to the relationship of Elizabeth Bennett/ Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice. There, Mr Darcy is our antagonist, as a very wealthy man compared to the poorer Bennetts (whose father’s estate is entailed away to a distant cousin). At the start, Mr Darcy is the more powerful of the two, although he’s not the antagonist long – that soon becomes Wickham.

Basically, we want something along the lines of:

The antagonist stands in the way of the protagonist being able to solve his problem. Very roughly put, the protagonist wants to go from Point A to Point B, but as he starts on his journey, the antagonist shows up and pummels him about the head, neck, and crotch with a Wiffle ball bat.

Wendig, Chuck. Damn Fine Story (p. 49). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Let’s do some homework first – yes, your antagonist, your book. Keep in mind the antagonist is the protagonist of their own story. Try this technique borrowed from James Scott Bell:

One of the techniques I teach in my workshops is borrowed from my courtroom days. I ask people to imagine their villain has been put on trial and is representing himself. Now comes the time for the closing argument. He has one opportunity to make his case for the jury. He has to justify his whole life. He has to appeal to the jurors’ hearts and minds or he’s doomed.

Write that speech. Do it as a free-form document, in the villain’s voice, with all the emotion you can muster. Emphasize what’s called “exculpatory evidence.” That is evidence that, if believed, would tend to exonerate a defendant. As the saying goes, give the devil his due.

Note: This does not mean you are giving approval to what the villain has done. No way. What you are getting at is his motivation. This is how to know what’s going on inside your villain’s head throughout the entire novel.

Bell, James Scott. Writing Unforgettable Characters: How to Create Story People Who Jump Off the Page (Bell on Writing Book 12) (p. 110). Compendium Press. Kindle Edition.

So, where do you start when creating your antagonist? How long is a piece of string? There is no wrong way and no right way. In fact, the right way is what works for you.

However, let’s approach this by using the Litopian method of critiquing: let’s ask questions. We already know two questions (thanks to Galadriel):

What does the antagonist want?
What is their goal?

Now ask (*rubs hands*):

What do they fear? Why?
What drives them? Why?
WHY do they want their WANT? What happened in their past that scarred them so much they now believe what they want is justified?
Were they abused? What happened?
Did someone die? Who? How? How were they important to the antagonist?
What is their plan?
How are they butting heads with the protagonist?

Do you sense a theme? With every story question ask yourself “Why?” Dig below the surface. At least 5 layers. We want to surprise readers. Satisfied and surprised readers buy your next book. Give readers something they’ve seen before and they won’t. Simple.

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!

WEBLINKS:

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/the-main-types-of-antagonists#the-4-types-of-antagonists

25 Things You Should Know About Antagonists (excuse the language)

The Burning Desire: The Difference Between Magnificent & Maddening

YouTube:



Rachel




BEST BADDIES
Baddies. Don’t you just love them? In so many films and books they often look as if they’re having all the fun while the poor protagonist is run ragged trying to outmanoeuvre, outfight and outwit them.

From archetypes to stereotypes, combinations of both, and just plain nasty people, there’s a lot to choose from. The Joker; Lex Luthor; Norman Bates; Professor Moriarty; Dracula; Hannibal Lecter; Abigail Williams in The Crucible; Snow White’s evil queen; Ragnarok from Thor; Cersei Lannister from Game of Thrones. They’re all so different, even if some are old tropes and stereotypes (more on that later). And they all worked. Mainly (most Lex Luthors were cardboard stereotypes, I think). Add your own to the list. Hell, let’s add anthrax, diphtheria, Aids, cancer, covid… or further back… Remember blood poisoning? Some poor battle-weary soldier, seeing a fine red line rising from what he’d hoped was a flesh wound. Sorry, dude. Game over. Until superheroes Penicillin and Antibiotic flew in. Too late for our battle-weary warrior, sadly, but at least we can count on them in our modern world... yeah?

Well, the best baddies, like the worst bacteria, adapt. They find weaknesses you didn’t even know you had. They start to outmanoeuvre, outfight and outwit you. Enter Sepsis. Blood poisoning’s bigger and badder brother. Back in 2020, The Lancet claimed Sepsis was the world’s biggest killer, beating cancer and coronary disease. Kills millions of people every year and disables many more (and that was before it teamed up with its new bestie, covid, so it could, you know, take down a few more). Took a much-loved friend last year. She was forty-nine. Yeah. Baddies. Don’t you just love them.

The point of all that is your antagonist can be anyone and anything. You can even be your own worst enemy. (How many times have you heard that?) An antagonist can be anything inside you or outside you. A person, a mountain, a boat, a whale, a whole horrifying world of hungry vampires looking for lunch (you); a religious nutcase projecting her own insanity onto another character in the hope no one will notice; or a teeny-tiny-wee bacterium that’s going to surprise you, change tack and hit your weakest flank, just when you thought you were winning, and snuff you out. Just because.

Do bacteria feel anything when they rip the light and life from a beautiful soul and send it back into the circle? No. They don’t. Rage is a great motivating force, but indifference is much worse. Indifference is… nihilism. The emotion is all ours (the protagonist) as we deal with the loss. Bacteria (the antagonists) just look for the next host to devour. No hysteria, no drama, no emotion. Just intelligence, cunning, and an absolute determination to win.

Nurse Ratched, anyone? (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Google it. Study her. Learn.) Or Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. Thirty years apart, but they could have been soulmates. Or Cersei Lannister, acknowledged as one of the most complex characters in GoT: a veritable amalgam of antagonist and protagonist rolled into one, dipped in poison and sent out to flay the world.

Weak baddies make things uncomfortable for the protagonist and give them a hard time. Throw in a car chase, plane fight, starship battle or cutting-edge CGI animation and you’ll win fans. Sure. But we’ve all been there, seen that, bought the hype and (mainly) forgotten them by Tuesday.
Strong baddies have bigger arsenals, from the psychological to the atom-sized. They bring carnage, grief, change, horror… death. They’re seismic. They take what you love. What you love. Think about that. They rupture worlds, internal and external. They destabilise. They bring suffering on a nuclear scale. Whether a person or an event, they turn your world into a wasteland. We do not forget them. And we won’t forget the protagonist who (finally, after all that pain and struggle and loss) defeats them... Or is vanquished trying.

For me, the worst baddie of all (or the best, depending on your tastes) is one that makes your blood run cold. Makes you feel visceral anger and fear that this loveable protagonist, who you thought invincible, might not be up to the job. That this, this – no, I’m not going to swear; trying to give it up – that this baddie might just have the power to outmanoeuvre, outfight and outwit our protagonist, after all. Our beloved protagonist who we’ve followed so far in this great story, cheering for them all the way. This baddie might actually defeat them. The antagonist might win. And, as we know, sometimes they do.

Stereotype antagonists tend not to win. Those stories of heroes and heroines winning the day, saving the world without any real loss, are all great – we need them the way we need comfort food when we’re feeling low. I’m not saying don’t write these kinds of stories – I love them – but know what you’re doing. Know why you’re writing the Lex Luthor or Snow Queen / stereotype, instead of a Nurse Ratched or Anton Chigurh / sepsis. Is it easier? Of course, it is. Old tropes follow well-worn paths for us all to travel (and they work, too. I'm not saying disregard them). But it’s the brave writer who steps off the path and cuts a new trail with only their trusty – but magical, remember – nib to show the way.

Good people / characters have flaws and bad traits. Bad people / characters often do good things. As Rachel has mentioned above, if you understand your antagonist’s history and motivations, you can create a more nuanced character. Often, the reader may not need to know the antagonist’s bad history, past abuse etc – but you, the writer, need to. Drip feed it to the reader if you want, but only if absolutely necessary. Remember, what a character does is who the character is. No one knew exactly why Hitler did what he did, back then. But good people all thought the same thing: we have to stop this. That meant fighting. Losing battles and loved ones. Lives and dreams shattered. Still had to do it. Because the alternative was unbearable. Unacceptable to civilised people. That Alternative was a big mf of an Antagonist. (mf: mountain of fury… )

Returning for a moment to the characters we don’t forget: how many people do you think read Anne Frank’s story, and the antagonist she faced, and then forgot about her (or her antagonist)? Life didn’t throw that lass any easy boulders, easily batted off. She didn't get a contrived family drama or car chase. She got sepsis with a capital H.

But if you want to give us a happy ending, where good triumphs over all evil (yeah, right. In which parallel universe?) at least give us realistic misery before we get there. Real adversity (not a plot device), and sharper antagonists (who cause your main character serious pain and loss) can hone clever protagonists into the sharpest of blades, finest of lasers, or the stardust of old planets if that’s where you want the story to go… and give you real pleasure in writing them, and your reader real pleasure in reading them – and coming back for more.

The best characters – protagonists and antagonists – like real people, go on journeys, inner and outer, over and over. They lose as well as win. Often, the best ones lose a lot. Because, guess, what? Your reader has probably lost a lot in their life, too, and so they empathise with that realistic, damaged, heart-broken, on-her-knees-but-still-fighting protagonist, just as they recognise the realistic, cold-hearted s.o.b. nasty antagonist, and get immersed in your story, because they know bad things happen to good people. (And good things happen to bad people, dammit.) Life isn’t easy. The best stories teach us that. Don’t short-change your protagonist by giving them an easy ride with a stereotypical antagonist who is too easily defeated, and a plot you’ve twisted into a pretzel so everything looks bad… but isn’t really. Frighten your protagonist – and your readers. Horrify them. Make your baddies bad. Really bad.

Like that nurse Ratched. And pray she never teams up with Anton, or Cersei. They'd make Sauron and all his armies look like over-dressed drama queens out for Halloween.
Ancora Imparo

PS... And if there are any budding medical geniuses reading this over a cup of coffee: put that cup down and stop wasting time. Away and find a cure for sepsis.

 

[Hannah F]

I read recently about the Pratfall Effect (Aronson '66) = people tend to empathise more with a person who admits a fault (could be why very few who watched the Depp-Heard circus felt any empathy for Amber. She tried to pass herself off as faultless whereas Depp held himself accountable for his drinking and drug addiction). In our stories, both the protagonist and antagonist will glean more empathy from the reader if they own their faults (even if they only admit them to themselves and thereby also the reader).

Another one is the Sunk Cost Fallacy and how it aligns with cognitive dissonance (Festinger) = the more emotional time and effort people invest in a person or cause, the less likely they are to admit (even to themselves) the faults in the person/cause, so rather than admit they were wrong, their beliefs end up aligning with the bad person/cause and they will stick with them even though reality proves this to be a stupid thing to do (one of the reasons people follow bad cults or uphold crazy beliefs). This could be useful in considering those who side with the antagonist.

 

[Hannah F]

I think it's interesting in Pride and Prejudice that the antagonist changes. I'm now trying to think of other examples apart from enemies that try to stop a quest.

 

[Dorm Ant]

I think it's really important that an antagonist has a weakness. They must be potentially beatable in some way, (even if it's a very long shot and will take an entire team of heroes). If they have a weakness AND a tragic backstory, like childhood abuse or their village being burnt down in front of them, it makes them even more fascinating.

What really turns me off is when the antagonist is all-powerful and has seemingly no reason for being evil - they just seem to have been born or conjured up that way. An example of this is the bad guy in the Jessica Jones TV series and graphic novels. He tells people to do something and they're compelled to do it, no exceptions. This includes horrific things like children staying in cupboards until they starve, people murdering their parents, and people going blind because they are told not to blink. I got bored. With a terrifying baddie like that, who had no apparent weak point, there was only so long that I could follow the story.

 

[Hannah F]

I think it's interesting in Pride and Prejudice that the antagonist changes. I'm now trying to think of other examples apart from enemies that try to stop a quest.

Ah, I've thought of one. Naomi Novik's Spinning Silver is a web of who believes who's the baddie and how some of these perceptions change. I won't spoil it for you. You have to read the book.

 

[Serra K]

From the link above, 25 Things You Should Know About Antagonists:

God-like uber-antagonists who never lose and who know everything there is to know and who are forever one step ahead of the game are just as dull as a protagonist who features the same over-powered qualities. (Worse, an antagonist of this particular caliber must often be trumped on a technicality.) It’s called “a game of cat-and-mouse,” not “a game where the mouse goes up against an orbital laser built by Jesus.”

 

[Serra K]

other examples apart from enemies that try to stop a quest.

Skeksis from The Dark Crystal are an interesting antagonist, given that they are the dark counterpart of the the urRu. Their goal is to interrupt the fulfillment of the gelfling prophecy, but by the end...better not write a spoiler in case there's one person left on the planet who doesn't know the story.

 

[RK Wallis]

people tend to empathise more with a person who admits a fault (could be why very few who watched the Depp-Heard circus felt any empathy for Amber. She tried to pass herself off as faultless whereas Depp held himself accountable for his drinking and drug addiction). I

That's fascinating, Hannah, and an excellent example

@Serra K, how funny is Chuck Wendig. His book, Damn Fine Story, is great too

 

[izi 出久]

If an antagonist is written well, I always side with them. I'm not sure how many on this forum subscribe to manga / anime, but Garou in One Punch Man is an antagonist whose initial fault was he sided with the "monsters". He believed that not all monsters should be killed--that some weren't bad--and his belief made him an object of ridicule at school. Bullied by his classmates and his teachers, Garou grows up to be a superb villain. Not indestructible. But wholly likable and wholly bent on taking down all heroes.

 

[Hannah F]

I've said this before, but I preferred Captain Kennit, the antagonist, to the protagonist in The Liveship Traders. Didn't like what Robin Hobb did with him towards the end of book 3; I was very annoyed with her.

 

[MattScho]

From the link above, 25 Things You Should Know About Antagonists:

God-like uber-antagonists who never lose and who know everything there is to know and who are forever one step ahead of the game are just as dull as a protagonist who features the same over-powered qualities. (Worse, an antagonist of this particular caliber must often be trumped on a technicality.) It’s called “a game of cat-and-mouse,” not “a game where the mouse goes up against an orbital laser built by Jesus.”

But sometimes that's completely compelling. as a broad stroke rule, that's probably true as it applies to the primary storyline, man v man. But man v nature kind of thrives on disproving this notion, as does man v self.
These are all non-traditional antagnoists, but they're all central characters of the books, standing in opposition to the protagonist, and they are all invinceable.
In On the Beach, the antagonist is time, mixed with nuclear fallout. Despite the actions of the characters, it will win.
The protagonist is either the American seaman who refuses to admit his family is long dead, or the human race, which can't quite decide if it's better to go out raging against the night, or holding a loved one.
I found it to be a stunning work.
On the bit more heartbreaking side of things there's (in english) History by Elsa Morante. The protagonist is the schoolteacher, raped by a Nazi during the Roman occupation who spends the book devoted to the boy that rape produced. the boy stands in for hope in a bleak world.
The antagonist is poverty. Poverty wins just as surely as nuclear fallout. I spent a week unable to get out of bed on finishing this one. It's brilliant, and way, way, too depressing to ever be read (also, out of print, though you can buy it for something like $120 on Amazon).
Catch-22's antagonist is war, isn't it? the whole point of the book is that war always has the final say. No matter how much joy we took in the spirit of Yossarian, he is fully beaten, crushed, by it.
Of course, in general, Batman is more interesting than Superman. but there are some really notable exceptions.

 

[JohnBertel]

I can accept many antagonists as long as they don't give the "We are not so different, you and I" speech. Antagonist as The Shadow can be fascinating, but please don't explain the joke. And in most cases, it explains a joke that hasn't been told. All it's telling us is that the antagonist is a fan of The Heroes Journey.

 

[RK Wallis]

I can accept many antagonists as long as they don't give the "We are not so different, you and I" speech. Antagonist as The Shadow can be fascinating, but please don't explain the joke. And in most cases, it explains a joke that hasn't been told. All it's telling us is that the antagonist is a fan of The Heroes Journey.

I'm opposite to your tastes, Jon. I enjoy a good villain speech.

Like Dexter's brother in Darkly Dreaming Dexter by Jeff Lindsay.

Or Mr Darcy's from Pride and Prejudice - Elizabeth and Darcy's exchange as they walk has to be one of the most satisfying reads for me, so much so, I've lost count of how many times I've enjoyed Pride and Prejudice.

Or the one in Silence of the Lambs (book). That's sheer brilliance. Harris gives the audience the antag's speech (so Jame Gumb) but he hides it by saying it through Hannibal Lector via tapes. So, if done well, they're seemless, satisfy and give me more context.

We must try to forgive newer authors (for we all aspire to be one, one day), who are at the beginning of their writing learning curve. GRR Martin had written novels and a TV show writer for decades before he took on the mammoth task of writing GoT's. Writers must start somewhere.

But we all have our own tastes - each to their own

Another good resource: Stories Need Great Villains

 

[JohnBertel]

I enjoy a good villain speech.

So do I. I was talking specifically about speeches where the villain points out that they and the hero are very alike. Many times there has been nothing to show that the two are alike in any fundamental way. Like in No Time To Die.

What some call the 'defence before god' speech is something all villains should be allowed. Silence of the Lambs is a good one. BTW have you seen the deleted scene from the film? It is available in some editions.

 

[RK Wallis]

So do I. I was talking specifically about speeches where the villain points out that they and the hero are very alike. Many times there has been nothing to show that the two are alike in any fundamental way. Like in No Time To Die.

What some call the 'defence before god' speech is something all villains should be allowed. Silence of the Lambs is a good one. BTW have you seen the deleted scene from the film? It is available in some editions.

I haven't and sadly we don't have DVDs anymore which I imagine is where it is.

There's a really interesting technique in that Aaron Sorkin uses to help write his antagonists (very similar to the technique that James Scott Bell uses in our main post above). Methinks techniques provide a more realistic speech

 

[Pamela Jo]

If an antagonist is written well, I always side with them. I'm not sure how many on this forum subscribe to manga / anime, but Garou in One Punch Man is an antagonist whose initial fault was he sided with the "monsters". He believed that not all monsters should be killed--that some weren't bad--and his belief made him an object of ridicule at school. Bullied by his classmates and his teachers, Garou grows up to be a superb villain. Not indestructible. But wholly likable and wholly bent on taking down all heroes.

The last sounds like Rupert Murdoch. I'm tired of the villain backstory trope. I usually don't buy it for one thing. It's too psych 101. "Oh they got a wound. (Little violins play) Now they want to hurt back." In history there isn't one villain who wasn't convinced they were doing good. Philosophers have tackled the def of good and evil for millennia, mostly concluded: First do no harm. Religions have been established to try to encode the difference between good and evil, then too often ended up doing harm because someone re-interpreted the code... The writer consciously or not is defining good through their antagonist. Nurse Ratchett was not "evil" in the way described above, despite the backstory series. My Aunt was a psychiatric nurse at a state mental hospital in Ks. When she saw the movie she said nursing in general has lots of Big Nurses. They would be shocked to hear themselves described as villains because overwhelmingly they are convinced they are selfless angels of mercy. You don't have to have a wound to become a villain-just be very good at rationalizing and have boundary issues. This is a very interesting book

The Wisdom of Psychopaths : What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us about Success​

The Wisdom of Psychopaths : Kevin Dutton : 9780374533984

 

[Pamela Jo]

Also Stacey, my son had a friend that absolutely baffled him. Jack was born a hero. When he saw Disney's Sleeping Beauty his take was to become "the Daddy Prince." I have pictures of him sleeping in his stroller, naked except for a nappie, the cardboard sword his father made from him clutched in his hand. But his friend always wanted to be the burglar, the monster, the bad guy. Drove Jack crazy. He'd have heated discussions trying to convince him to walk away from the dark side. Child psychology explains this by some children's reaction to feeling vulnerable and dependent. They prefer to identify with, ie take on the characteristics, of the thing that frightens them ,than to feel like a defenceless child. I'm guessing this is what drives people like Steve Miller and Steve Bannon, both Jewish, who recreated the Nazi experience under Trump. It's also why I'm afraid we are reaching a tipping point in American politics. The democrats being so perfectly the Weimar government the republicans are gaining votes just because no one wants to identify with losers.

 

[Pamela Jo]

But sometimes that's completely compelling. as a broad stroke rule, that's probably true as it applies to the primary storyline, man v man. But man v nature kind of thrives on disproving this notion, as does man v self.
These are all non-traditional antagnoists, but they're all central characters of the books, standing in opposition to the protagonist, and they are all invinceable.
In On the Beach, the antagonist is time, mixed with nuclear fallout. Despite the actions of the characters, it will win.
The protagonist is either the American seaman who refuses to admit his family is long dead, or the human race, which can't quite decide if it's better to go out raging against the night, or holding a loved one.
I found it to be a stunning work.
On the bit more heartbreaking side of things there's (in english) History by Elsa Morante. The protagonist is the schoolteacher, raped by a Nazi during the Roman occupation who spends the book devoted to the boy that rape produced. the boy stands in for hope in a bleak world.
The antagonist is poverty. Poverty wins just as surely as nuclear fallout. I spent a week unable to get out of bed on finishing this one. It's brilliant, and way, way, too depressing to ever be read (also, out of print, though you can buy it for something like $120 on Amazon).
Catch-22's antagonist is war, isn't it? the whole point of the book is that war always has the final say. No matter how much joy we took in the spirit of Yossarian, he is fully beaten, crushed, by it.
Of course, in general, Batman is more interesting than Superman. but there are some really notable exceptions.

Neville Shute. I agree a stunning work. We've become too complacent about nuclear war. That seared the reality into my brain long ago. Do you know this story? Hero or antagonist? Swiss spymaster settled in Cork after his schemes earned notoriety. In the 80's banking, following Milton Friedman's creed, acted on the realisation that there wasn't enough gold or silver in the world to back the development surge they "needed" to "help" the 3rd world. Every one of them were convinced by Friedman that they were heroes. Swiss and other banks began selling gold and looking for something else to back currency. The US convinced the world that the American middle-class mortgage was the safest thing in the world. "Safe as houses." We know how that ended. The maxim subsequently changed to "arable land with water" which is why Gates owns more land now than the US government. The villains IMHO that have done worse than Hitler are Rupert Murdoch and Milton Friedman. Hitler was fallible, beatable and so in a way was the best case scenario. Those rising now have studied his fallibilities and what he could have , should have done. They have dissolved both US and UK democracies and are moving across Europe now. Hitler is not the real antagonist. The ideology is.

 

[MattScho]

The last sounds like Rupert Murdoch. I'm tired of the villain backstory trope. I usually don't buy it for one thing. It's too psych 101. "Oh they got a wound. (Little violins play) Now they want to hurt back." In history there isn't one villain who wasn't convinced they were doing good. Philosophers have tackled the def of good and evil for millennia, mostly concluded: First do no harm. Religions have been established to try to encode the difference between good and evil, then too often ended up doing harm because someone re-interpreted the code... The writer consciously or not is defining good through their antagonist. Nurse Ratchett was not "evil" in the way described above, despite the backstory series. My Aunt was a psychiatric nurse at a state mental hospital in Ks. When she saw the movie she said nursing in general has lots of Big Nurses. They would be shocked to hear themselves described as villains because overwhelmingly they are convinced they are selfless angels of mercy. You don't have to have a wound to become a villain-just be very good at rationalizing and have boundary issues. This is a very interesting book

The Wisdom of Psychopaths : What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us about Success​

The Wisdom of Psychopaths : Kevin Dutton : 9780374533984

yeah, but fiction has to make sense. Real life does not. Also, as Mario Vargas Llosa explains so perfectly, humans need villains for the world to make sense. It's a lesson people like Trump and Putin have instinctually understood.
We need someone to root for. Just as importantly, we need someone to root against.
Look at Putin's destuction of an almost familial relationship between everyday Russians and Ukrainians. Starting in 2005, he let it be known that Ukrainians were to be demonized. Every Russian cop/court/drama show from that moment featured Ukrainian killers, Ukrainian rapists, Ukrainian prostitutes, drug addicts, pedophiles, etc. It was an effort remarkably similar to Llosa's fictional demonization of, can't remember, Bolivians? Chileans?
The attacks are characterizations, completely over the top, and that, he tells us, is why they work.
It's a large part of the reason the war on Ukraine retains public support in Russia, when 20 years ago it was unthinkable, and you hear the same sorts of surprised by reality reactions from young Russian soldiers that you might get in Julia. The intercepted texts home note: "They have paved streets." "They have indoor plumbing." "They sell gourment coffee even in gas stations." On their intercepted phone calls they were described as neither pro-Russian or cruel, but nice, normal people. Time and again, you hear the parent back home noting, "but Ukrainians are barely human. We know this. Don't let them fool you." It took him 15 years, but Putin created that, and it was all quite intentional. This, after all, was the goal, all along. The destruction of Ukraine.
Trump is exactly the same in this. the goal, all along, was to convince his people he could never be defeated. They still fully believe he was not. True, he had decades of ground softening by the political right demonizeing the "mainstream media" and casting it to "the radical left."

However, to jump ahead to a later post, this is where your notion that it wasn't Hitler, it was his ideology falls apart. The truly destructive in world history, the Hitlers' the Stalins, the Pol Pots, create their own ideology. they are the defining element of what they do. True, anti-semitism pre-existed Hitler, but there is a reason Mein Kampf is so chillingly noteworthy, the way he combined hatreds and mechanization and nationalism was different, and clearly dangerous.

The world does not need super-villains. Literature does.

 

[Hannah F]

The last sounds like Rupert Murdoch. I'm tired of the villain backstory trope. I usually don't buy it for one thing. It's too psych 101. "Oh they got a wound. (Little violins play) Now they want to hurt back." In history there isn't one villain who wasn't convinced they were doing good. Philosophers have tackled the def of good and evil for millennia, mostly concluded: First do no harm. Religions have been established to try to encode the difference between good and evil, then too often ended up doing harm because someone re-interpreted the code... The writer consciously or not is defining good through their antagonist. Nurse Ratchett was not "evil" in the way described above, despite the backstory series. My Aunt was a psychiatric nurse at a state mental hospital in Ks. When she saw the movie she said nursing in general has lots of Big Nurses. They would be shocked to hear themselves described as villains because overwhelmingly they are convinced they are selfless angels of mercy. You don't have to have a wound to become a villain-just be very good at rationalizing and have boundary issues. This is a very interesting book

The Wisdom of Psychopaths : What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us about Success​

The Wisdom of Psychopaths : Kevin Dutton : 9780374533984

I know a lecturer of psychopathy. He has interviewed many convicted psychopaths. Some know perfectly well that there is no good in what they have done and knew this before they e.g. killed someone, but they didn't care. The self-satisfaction was a greater motivation than the knowledge of evil was a deterrent.
Non-psychopaths who end up on the wrong side of the law get there for many reasons, and for some it is indeed linked to a backstory that has made them feel powerless/deluded. And it must be remembered that the desire for vengeance is a very powerful human emotion.
There are probable as many reasons for becoming a villain as there are villains. And, as @MattScho said, fiction writing is art, not reality. The skill is to make the unreal seem real. I, for one, do like a well thought out villain backstory.

 

[Ancora Imparo]

Thanks for your contributions, everyone. This month's Craft Chat is now closed for comments.