What makes a good villain?

[Momo]

What makes a good villain?

Note I said good, not great. I know what makes a great villain: unforgettable one-liners, stands out from the crowd, resonates universally across all of our psyches, represents symbols of myth and legend, stays with us for a long time, blahdy-blah.

But what makes 'just' a good one?

I'm working on a new writing project part-time after work; I got brought in after it had started. The guy I'm working with has already written a (rather weak) synopsis across three acts. I noticed that although he refers to an antagonist, he's left him out of the synopsis entirely. I was quite glad he'd done that, actually, because it means I get to glue on my demon claws and type out a good ol' villanous plot-thread. I get to make the villain my own. I like that.

So, what do I mean by 'a good villain'? I mean that it is believable, not cliched, that the audience will relate to it; and that he and the heroes wrap around each other so tight that they're almost intermingled by the end of the tale.

This thread is not to ask about what characteristics, motives or attributes villains should have, in your opinion. Rather, it's about what looks out of your eyes when you start channeling 'villain'. It's about experiences and misunderstandings, lessons and triumphs. It's about the time you realised that you're not quite the good guy you'd always thought you were...
In our tale, the villain is something to be ganged up against and fought, for love and friendship - but, of course, I'm far more interested in who he is and what made him what he is today...

I hope to pick up something useful from this debate.

[LittleFuzzy]

What makes a good villain?

Note I said good, not great. I know what makes a great villain: unforgettable one-liners, stands out from the crowd, resonates universally across all of our psyches, represents symbols of myth and legend, stays with us for a long time, blahdy-blah.

But what makes 'just' a good one?

I'm working on a new writing project part-time after work; I got brought in after it had started. The guy I'm working with has already written a (rather weak) synopsis across three acts. I noticed that although he refers to an antagonist, he's left him out of the synopsis entirely. I was quite glad he'd done that, actually, because it means I get to glue on my demon claws and type out a good ol' villanous plot-thread. I get to make the villain my own. I like that.

So, what do I mean by 'a good villain'? I mean that it is believable, not cliched, that the audience will relate to it; and that he and the heroes wrap around each other so tight that they're almost intermingled by the end of the tale.

This thread is not to ask about what characteristics, motives or attributes villains should have, in your opinion. Rather, it's about what looks out of your eyes when you start channeling 'villain'. It's about experiences and misunderstandings, lessons and triumphs. It's about the time you realised that you're not quite the good guy you'd always thought you were...
In our tale, the villain is something to be ganged up against and fought, for love and friendship - but, of course, I'm far more interested in who he is and what made him what he is today...

I hope to pick up something useful from this debate.

Competency but not narrative omniscience/omnipotence *i.e. a demonstration what while he's smart and works effectively s/he can be tripped up/thwarted/befuddled just like any other person* Plausibility, his or her actions and motivations shouldn't be difficult to make sense of or require a suspension of disbelief to accept. Finally, the villain's villainy should be reasonable, from the right perspective. Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is perhaps a cliche itself these days but provides one example of this. You say you want the antagonist and protagonists to be wrapped tightly around each other and in my lights that requires making a villain we can empathize or even sympathize with. One who you could actually write as a protagonist if the story weren't written from the hero's perspective.

[Aimless]

Obsession and doggedness, desire for domination, desire for retribution, seeing and using people--friends, enemies, bystanders--as means to various more-or-less important (never mind good) ends, disloyalty, justification of morally iffy actions, doing much of this furtively.

[Crowheart]

English accent and slicked back hair.

Ta-da!...instant villian!

[RandBlade]

[Echovirus]

Simon Cowell pic

I think we have a winner! A villain you can't help but love.

[Nessus]

I think we have a winner! A villain you can't help but love.

[Aimless]

I was going to say "Nessus" at first but thought it might be too personal

[Nessus]

I am not a very good villain; I cannot provide proper foundation for my genocidal tendencies nor am I relatable in any way. Darth Vader without the charm?

[Lebanese Dragon]

Hard to define a good villain in every case.. always be an exception that works.

1. illicit a sense of fear from the viewer/respect (someone you wouldn't want coming after you/have some sort of influence/power)
2. an actual dislike by the reader (cruel personality types can accomplish this)
3. sinister or ill-intentioned goals
4. I personally prefer the bad guys with a little depth... his goals or his means are unjust but you can see some sort of justification under it all.
5. uniquenss (having unique mannerism, thought patterns, abilities) things that both when a reader reads that identifies aha that's that one guy.. but also just serves to make him stand out.

I'd have to spend more thought to try make it more concrete, but there are definitly some fundamentals that make a certain person come off villiainous. I think those hit at the heart of what makes a good villain, how believable and intriguing you make 1-4 will really decide how "good/great" the villain is. If the villain lacks any of those they probably won't be as good of villain.

[Ominous Gamer]

To be honest, a lot of the brainy villians in the batman universe are pretty good. I'm not saying they need to be batshit insane, but they have this way of explaining their decision to do evil in a way that makes sense. Along the lines of the Joker's speech about how no one panics when something goes according to plan, even if the plan is horrifying.

[Asmodian]

Fuzzy gave a great definition. Most of the villains are not very believable, batmans villains are not believable but are ok because they are insane. So either you go with completly insane and thus not requiring realistic goals motivation or you go with someone with clear goals you can sympathise with. Perfect villain for me is Tywin from Song of Ice and Fire, as a reader we do not like him but realy aside from the nasty way he decided to educate tyrion he has done nothing we wouldnt cheer if it was one of the protagonists doing it. A poor vilain is Sauron from Lord of the Rings, because he is evil for the sake of evil, seemingly without any goal one can relate to beyond kill all the good guys.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Using my metric, just because I think it's fairly useful, even though I know it can be improved upon.

A villain like sauron is high in #1, #2, #3 but low in #4, #5. (1,2,3 are really the most basic) and depending on your audience can be better. If your audience is younger then #4 doesn't matter as much they just want to see "eye-candy", and have a sense of fear.. they wouldn't understand the subtle or big goals as much as anyway, nor understand them to be logical or illogical, and thus not having it doesn't affect a younger audience as much. An older audience would like #4 a lot more.

Lastly, I think #5 is actually pretty important to get that great villain feel.. I feel like actually that encompass those "great one liners", habits "flipping a coin" or clothes... makes him stand out, he's someone special...

[GGT]

Hi, momo!

So, what do I mean by 'a good villain'? I mean that it is believable, not cliched, that the audience will relate to it; and that he and the heroes wrap around each other so tight that they're almost intermingled by the end of the tale.

This thread is not to ask about what characteristics, motives or attributes villains should have, in your opinion. Rather, it's about [b]what looks out of your eyes when you start channeling 'villain'. It's about experiences and misunderstandings, lessons and triumphs. It's about the time you realised that you're not quite the good guy you'd always thought you were...

In our tale, the villain is something to be ganged up against and fought, for love and friendship - but, of course, I'm far more interested in who he is and what made him what he is today...

hmm. I suppose that 'good villain' means he's not 'evil' or rotten to the core? If the villain and hero are tightly intermingled, but bad guy is to be ganged up against---to fight FOR love and friendship....

...in my eyes that means they're either relatives, lovers, or good friends. Could also mean they're loosely 'related' as neighbor/landlord, student/teacher, or co-worker/boss, but still very important people in their lives. Finessing power. Power and control, and manipulation.

When I've realized times I wasn't quite the good guy I'd always thought myself to be, it was after seeing my own passive/aggressive streak that would pop-up out of nowhere, and surprise me. That I could say things that I knew would cut like a knife into their heart, and immediately regret saying it. I'd learned that from those I love, who did the same to me, so it was surprising in so many ways (if that makes sense). I don't understand people who plan that kind of thing. That would be my definition of real 'villains'.

A 'good villain' is like that. They're just like you, in so many ways. Maybe you even love them, but also grow to hate them. They're exposed for having something else up their sleeve, something not anticipated. In literature or movies, the "trick" is getting the reader/viewer to hate the villain without hating themselves. To root for the protagonist/hero, as if they're rooting for their own self-redemption. To be understood as a flawed character amid a cast of flawed characters, but having something special that makes them forgivable, and a bit more lovable, right?

"I can be a prick at times, but at least I don't orchestrate it in advance! I'm not devious that way!"



Does that help, is that what you were looking for, momo?

[Momo]

I am not a very good villain; I cannot provide proper foundation for my genocidal tendencies nor am I relatable in any way. Darth Vader without the charm?

Forgive my ignorance but who's the last pic of in your post? And you have kilotons of charm. It's in the way you think.

So either you go with completly insane and thus not requiring realistic goals motivation or you go with someone with clear goals you can sympathise with. Perfect villain for me is Tywin from Song of Ice and Fire, as a reader we do not like him but realy aside from the nasty way he decided to educate tyrion he has done nothing we wouldnt cheer if it was one of the protagonists doing it. A poor vilain is Sauron from Lord of the Rings, because he is evil for the sake of evil, seemingly without any goal one can relate to beyond kill all the good guys.

I get what you're saying here. And yes, Fuzzy's post was excellent. I personally wouldn't call Sauron a villain, necessarily. We never converse with him (in LoTR), as you said. He's more a shade or flavour of the world the tale's being told in.
That made me think of Lucifer. I mean, honestly, I don't think the Xtian tale would have made it past year 50 without this stunning villain. I think that the character Lucifer almost perfectly communicates the things about us that get us into trouble. He has a powrful will, which results in his being punished. He is prideful and seductive and is left lonely as a result. He's a character that's built upon the most intrinsic, self-harming aspects of ourselves. Is that brilliant or what?

Does that help, is that what you were looking for, momo?

Yes it does, thanks for taking the time to channel some villain for this thread.
It struck me when you said that you can't understand people that plan that sort of thing (hurting another). I think that a poorly-conceived villain is not well understood by the guy writing him, and I think the biggest writing trap to fall into is to keep writing a villain that isn't you. I guess that's what makes a good villain - he's me! (except without all the damaging actions, because this is make-believe, dammit).

[GGT]

Yes it does, thanks for taking the time to channel some villain for this thread.

It struck me when you said that you can't understand people that plan that sort of thing (hurting another). I think that a poorly-conceived villain is not well understood by the guy writing him, and I think the biggest writing trap to fall into is to keep writing a villain that isn't you. I guess that's what makes a good villain - he's me! (except without all the damaging actions, because this is make-believe, dammit).

Well, that's why great writers are admired, right? There's that special way they have of being both villain and hero....being in both shoes, and knowing exactly what a 'good villain' means....because they also know what being a victim means.

[Nessus]

Forgive my ignorance but who's the last pic of in your post?

Henry Ford. He was a bit like mr. Burns, only less endearing. Whereas dr. Oppenheimer there is more of a tragic figure who may be perceived villainous, but it's not very clear-cut.

[Crowheart]

Our Ford, a villain?

Whom better to guide us to our brave new world?

[Nessus]

Henry would have preferred the Third Reich, actually!

[ImAnOgre]