Let's talk about villains

[Catherine Le Bars]

I love villains. Who's your favourite and why? What do you look for from a villain, how do you write your own?

 

[Catherine Le Bars]

To start the ball rolling... I was fascinated by Hannibal Lechter in both the Harris novels and the first film. Why? Because he was intelligent, and he has standards. Only killed and ate the 'free range rude'. Although that wasn't necessarily true in the film.
And, he was recyclable.
I didn't want him to be caught or die, because the world was more interesting with him out there (not that I wanted him popping up in my kitchen).

 

[Hannah Faoileán]

I love Captain Kennit in Robin Hobb's 'The Liveship Traders' (apart from what Robin made him do near the end of book 3 which seemed sensationalist and useful for the story rather than something that character would actually do, might think but not actually do).
He is cruel, tries to be ruthless but all the time is fighting a humanity he definitely has. And he often made me smile.

For me, the best villain's are those you love to hate and hate to love (but you can't help it).

 

[Rich.]

I was fascinated by Hannibal Lechter in both the Harris novels and the first film.

Me too! But in The Silence of the Lambs, I'm not sure he's really the villain – that's Buffalo Bill. [As I write this I realize I'm nitpicking. Excuse me while I shut the fup.]

I love Captain Kennit in Robin Hobb's 'The Liveship Traders' (apart from what Robin made him do near the end of book 3 which seemed sensationalist and useful for the story rather than something that character would actually do, might think but not actually do).
He is cruel, tries to be ruthless but all the time is fighting a humanity he definitely has. And he often made me smile.

Agreed on all counts!

--

I'm a big (anti-?)fan of Schaffa from NK Jemisin's Broken Earth trilogy [among my favourite books, I bang on about them here a lot]. I don't want to say too much for fear of spoilers, but suffice to say he's a truly awful person with whom you are made to empathize.

As to how I write villains, by trying to do what Jemisin did (it's good to aim high!), by trying to make them internally coherent in the hope that they will provoke that kind of sickening empathy. Oh my gosh, that could be me...

 

[CageSage]

Not that I'm slow or anything like that, but this was a query I needed time to think on.
In the way I plan and write stories, I do a 'sheet' for every character who plays a major role (and some of the minors, too, if they have influence over an act or intent). Every character. Why? Because every character is the hero of their own story, even the opposition/antagonist/baddie. If the opposition didn't want to fight for it, what would be the effort req'd by the main character? Whatever the 'thing' is they fight for, they both have to believe beyond any doubt that it is what they need and life without it isn't of value.
Every character has their own agenda, and in my planning stage, they all get their own beat sheet/plan/outline, so when it all ties together, the knots and bonds are what binds each to the progression of their deepest desires/needs. And often, the opposition is the 'lesson' of how it goes when the 'rules' are broken.
That's a bit general, but at the moment, it's the best I can explain it. I can't think of them as villains, just the person who isn't willing to do it the 'right' way, to earn what comes, rather than taking by force (or any other way that means it isn't earned).
Just my two cents.

 

[Catherine Le Bars]

I can't think of them as villains, just the person who isn't willing to do it the 'right' way, to earn what comes, rather than taking by force (or any other way that means it isn't earned).

Agreed. The definition of a 'villain' has changed during the past century. Perhaps the name is due a revamp.
The best villains imho are those with a clear purpose, not just out and out baddies. As we all know, sometimes the villain is simply on the wrong side at the wrong time (or even the right side at the wrong time, or any other combination of rights and wrongs). Regardless of perspectives and definitions, I see their role as to hinder or harm the main protagonist/ hero.

Me too! But in The Silence of the Lambs, I'm not sure he's really the villain – that's Buffalo Bill. [As I write this I realize I'm nitpicking. Excuse me while I shut the fup.]

Fair point. I would say there are multiple villains in SOTL, including Dr Chilton, but I still think Lechter stands above them all. Yes, he aided Clarice, but only on the understanding that she played his game. And it was a damaging game.
While it was useful that they had an understanding, I wouldn't have trusted him in a room with her

 

[Barbara]

Why? Because every character is the hero of their own story, even the opposition/antagonist/baddie. If the opposition didn't want to fight for it, what would be the effort req'd by the main character? Whatever the 'thing' is they fight for, they both have to believe beyond any doubt that it is what they need and life without it isn't of value.
Every character has their own agenda

And the more driven, fixated and intent they are on that need/goal, the more fascinating they are in my view. They believe they are right. Their belief is the kind that could be right. Maybe they ARE right. The fact they may be right in their thinking is something which I find scary; the fact that their 'wrong belief/worldview' could be(come) true.

I love villains who are so driven by their need, that they become nearly unshift-able, uncontrollable, they're willing (and in a weird way, enjoy) to lose everything, to go much further than anyone dares to go.

Their deepest desires/needs.

This.

Personally, I'm not keen on the word 'villain' either (although I shall continue using it because I can't think of a better one). I don't see them as villains. I prefer seeing them as misguided humans who clash with what society considers acceptable or moral. What is considered a villain today, would in a different time or scenario be considered a hero, or a survivalist.

I love uncontrollable villains. Those where you never quite know what they'll do next , or how far they're willing to go. Uncertainty is a big fear factor. (I love Heath Ledgers Joker for that.)

Writing villains. Love it. I love writing a story from their POV. They are fascinating. What makes people tick and become the way they are. I try to find that one thing in them that makes readers think 'if the same switch would be flicked in my live, I could become the same' (am I making sense or am I too Swisglish today??). To me, villains with humanity are strongest. What damaged them? Are they redeemable? Or should I say 'fixable'? (I hope everyone is - cynical me isn't so sure.). A villain with humanity is more powerful.

 

[Jonny]

I like a good villain too. And it's no secret most actors prefer playing them compared to goodies. I think we are all attracted to them in some small way. Remember that school bully we all hated but felt OK about them liking - or at least not actively disliking us?

There are many in literature I really like reading, and quite often the more despicable they are the better. But I'm a bit old school in that I never like to see them triumph. For me they must get their comeuppance. Nothing I like better than reading those scenes.

Like when the school bully finally got a good kicking in the playground from someone whose strengths they had underestimated.

 

[Mythobeast]

Hmm, favorite villain. So many to choose from. My preference is for villains that can develop a complex scheme with a lot of contingencies. The Jack Nicholson's Joker in the 1989 Batman movie is a good example of this, even if I wasn't fond of him being cast in the role. Alan Rickmon's Hans Gruber from Die Hard was similarly awesome.

Probably my all-time favorite is Adrien Veidt (Ozymandias) from Watchmen. He checks all of the boxes. Cool and calculating, but also not actually a villain. Ruthless, but only in proportion to the world-destroying disaster that he's trying to avert. He's entirely human -- even a sympathetic character.