How DO I Embody Evil?

You read my post too figuratively. I never stated that ebodiments of evil can only be characters set on the ultimate destruction of the multiverse.

You can embody evil in very different ways, I agree. But in my opinion, it would be much more difficult to sell the character you talk about as the embodiment of evil, than one who operates on a higher scale.

As I said, the traits of the character (gluttony/lust etc.) does not matter too much when it comes to the embodying of evil, there are so many character traits that fit. It is the goals, actions and the results that decides just how evil they are seen. True, character traits matter, of course, but no matter the trait, an embodiment of evil would have a purely evil goal, which defines him as an embodiment of evil.

 

Why so desperate to sell the character as the embodiment of evil? In matters such as that he should demonstrate great evil rather than the reader being simply informed of the fact. Characters in-universe might well be able to point at him and say he is a complete monster, but he's not much more than a cartoon villain or plot artifact if there's no characterisation of him and no reason given.

If you're embodying something you are effectively characterising it. Characters need characterisation. Characters need some kind of reason for doing the things they do. The fact that you can state that a character is the embodiment of evil doesn't dispense with his need for reasoned motivation.

I should also point out that you're dissembling there- the first traits are those which modify actions (does he do them carefully or quickly), while gluttony and lust aren't traits so much as they are character flaws that can inform actions.

The traits of the evildoer's victims do matter if he is using them or seducing them- not so much if he is simply killing them offhand. The traits of the evildoer will obviously matter if you hope to characterise him.

 

I haven't read Rand's stuff yet, though I want to. But let me ask you this, Mallory:

Wouldn't it be cooler if the guy you see as a villain see himself as good? That's what I'm going for. I mean, you probably think that Bush and Obama are evil, etc. And I don't wanna get into that discussion, about them, but wouldn't it be cooler to write a character that does all of the things that you hate, but out of a true will to help people and achieve fairness and a better world? It's easy when the villain uses rhetoric of goodness simply so he can enrich himself and be Dr. Evil or something. It's a lot cooler when he believes his own rhetoric, and does not see that his actions are leading down a dark path and a scary slippery slope.

 

That's what the C.S. Lewis quote means, and indeed the general agreement is that a villain sees himself as more or less justified in his actions- indeed it's a rare villain who sees himself as the villain. Such a villain would enact these laws that infringe people's liberties, not out of desire to harm but a genuine desire to help, or indeed to restrain people from choosing things that might hurt them. It's a plausible argument, and one a villain could quite easily come to rely on to convince himself and indeed others that he is in the right when he regiments society, installs cameras in your house or any one of the other gross infringements such a position could plausibly justify.

 

The question is, which villain is more interesting. If two villains are trying to micromanage a society, to the core, one does it out of pure evil, and one out of compassion, which of the two villains would be more intriguing? It would be certainly easier to hate one of them than to hate the other.

I think that the answer is not entirely clear. On the one hand, we lean to say "the villain with good motives has depth and makes us struggle with ourselves because we see his point. The villain with the bad motives is a saturday morning cartoon villain, and doesn't challenge us."

But, at the same time, to repeat an example I gave in another thread: The bad guy who suddenly has a change of heart is getting old (especially when Prison Break repeated that theme) while the cold hearted sociopath could look interesting because his experience is so different than our own, and he sees humans the same way you see characters in GTA.

 

There are many ways to sell a character as the embodiment of evil, you assume that I just mean to say that he is it. Selling a character is much more than that, it is the full presentation of a character throughout the story. In other words you continously sell a character. I quote what I wrote earlier in the thread:

That would be my way of selling him as the embodiment of evil, not just plain state it as you assume.

Agreed, very similar to what I have allready said earlier.

Once again you assume that I am just plainly stating it, and as quoted above I have allready addressed the need for motivation.

I would say that being susceptible to lust or gluttony is a trait, but they can be described as much. Also, being smart and prefering to plan and scheme are also traits, traits that modify actions.

Yes, but my post was about how to embody evil, not characterise a character.

 

So you intend to present this character as the embodiment of evil, and you intend to do that through him carrying out singularly evil acts. Fair enough, but how many evil acts will he have to do (with motivation, of course) before he has demonstrated his devotion to every aspect of evil- killing a million orphans might demonstrate his wrath, and a million-hooker orgy his lust, but you've still got five to go, and that's just the deadly sins!

Indeed, it's been my point all along that evil embodied isn't necessarily some cosmic horror obviously hell-bent on doing monstrous things and indeed gleefully doing them for the furtherance of an abstracted general "evil", not caring a whit who sees him and what they might think, but rather it's more likely to seduce and convince, a pied piper leading people down the path to perdition. We can tell the mass-murdering horned demon is evil and that we must fight him, but the trusted advisor who's a little heavy on the flattery?

 

As said in my first post, and quoted above, I would make my character appear as something which embody evil through an act where the character does something of unimaginable evil. But that would be my way, and I never said that it was the only way.

A character which embody evil doesn't have to have all the possible evil traits, as most every trait might be used in an evil way, and many of them would contradict one another. Surely you would say that Sauron is in his own way the embodiment of evil, and he does not share all of your seven sins. The seven sins themselves can't even be described as evil. Lust, gluttony and wrath do not make you evil, they make you flawed. Also, as stated in a previous post, "you can embody evil in very different ways."

They can both be evil, but making the reader feel that the trusted advisor is the embodiment of evil (however flattering he might be), and not just some guy that is evil, would be much more difficult. That was my point all along. Selling the Big Bad as the embodiment of evil is much simpler than selling a thief, or a trusted advisor, as it.

 

So, wait- your point is that it is easier to write a cosmic horror as an embodiment of evil than it is to write scheming, self-serving villains as such? I whole-heartedly agree, indeed I assumed that was a given and that you were taking issue with the idea that anything short of a Big Bad could embody evil.

Characters such as Iago and the Witches demonstrate many of the same evils as Sauron and the like, separated only by scale. Evil, in the broad sense, destroys lands and worlds, but it also destroys individual people- while Lucifer as an angel could summon armies to attack God Himself in the name of his spite and jealousy, Iago, also consumed by spite and jealousy, cunningly destroys Othello.

 

It bears mentioning that Shub-Nigguraths, Destroyers of Worlds and so on don't need reasons to do what they do (indeed, they probably have no lines), and so they are more adventure book evils, there to be feared or smote by heroes.

 

Best evil is the one that plays with the mind. Ideology. They believe their idea is the best.

And if you open your eyes and watch the news...evil is abound in this world.

People in Egypt are wanting something, but based on their want of someone out, they're not really specific on who they want to replace him....making those that are "evil" have a chance to rule a land even with more fear and torture than he who they want to remove.

No amount of cosmic cruelty can match man's mean. Not by a long shot.

All it takes is 1 person to ruin the world.

 

I mentioned it in an earlier post, but obviosuly you didn't catch it, and as such lost the point of my argument

The Big Bads do not have to be faceless evils or a variation of Sauron. You may have extremely deep evil characters, whose goal is to rule/destroy everything, or any evil of a high scale. The fact that they might not need a reason, doesn't mean that you cannot make a character who has it.

@J_Jammer: It's a "good" kind of evil allright But there are many kinds of "good" evils.

 

a man with a short beard and a everlasting scowl. He sits in a turnable chair in a dark chamber that does not light up even with the giant windows on the walls. He faces the windows, but the door to his office are behind him. A cigar rests in his left hand, glowing with a scarlet colour as ash falls onto the carpet and smoke rises to fill the room. The man would kill God, if he believed in him, for extra money, but only if he did not have anyone else to do it. Death was his motto, and he would shoot the boy and taste his blood just for the fun of it, then call an unfortunate maid to clean the "Mess". His favorite pet is a poisonous spider, and he would have it sitting at his table for future visitors.

Hope this helps

 

Should probably point out that you said selling a character, which has rather different implications, especially given that you suggested he carry out outrageous acts in order to sell this idea that he is evil, which comes off simply as writing cartoon villains who do it just because, or indeed adventure book villains.

My point re. adventure books was that where goodies are good and baddies are bad, and it's really all about living happily ever after and kids going to bed happy, then you don't need complex or persuasive villains and Ig, Destroyer of Worlds can tear up the place until your hero rides in to stop him.

If you want to make a point beyond goodies are good and baddies are bad, or indeed your story is a bit more complicated than the adventure book, then your bad guy really shouldn't be the type to carry out destruction as an end in itself, because then he's not very believable.

 

Only writers think of evil as good in a sane sense. ha.

 

One way to go at it is to describe how the evil make the other characters feel. Describing something by indirect means is often more effectful then describing it directly.

For example:

"He was big and imposing man."

Can have a lot less emotional impact as a description than saying the same thing indirectly

"He made me feel small. "

 

Selling a character as evil is in no way a negative term. I have never said that the character should do one insane act of evil out of nothing, completly unmotivated just for the sake of being bad. Selling a character is a continuous process throughout the enitre book. Also, it is not the character who wants to sell himself as bad, but the writer. I must ask; are you quarreling just for the sake of quarreling? This is just the same as you wrote earlier, the same stuff in different wrappings.

Yes, but the evil character may still be deep and have motivations and reasons beyond "I am evil, therefore you must die."

Is this the fourth time I've said this? I never stated that any character of mine was like this. I don't know where you got it from. The need for motivation and reason is something I have pointed out several times.

This thread is derailing so badly. I apologize for that, everyone.

 

Excellent

 

Isn't that characterisation by him simply doing something outrageous? Apologies if that wasn't the intent, but you have to agree it looks that way without a nod to the reasons that lead him to do these acts (which really ought to be pretty good for a total outrage).

Am I missing something here? Again, apologies if that's not what you meant but it's been one of my bones of contention that characters need some kind of reasoning behind their act to come off as believable, and well-reasoned evil is far more interesting, but of course far more difficult to write. Monstrous characters might well have very skewed reasoning, sure, but really characterisation demands some degree of plausibility. E- in all fairness if he has a damn good reason for killing everything and everyone, I'm cool with that.

 

I would agree that by looking at that sentence alone, it would seem like that was the only thing that defined that character. However, one would assume that the book is longer than that single scene. You cannot give long descriptions and presentations of every characters motivation each time you write something on these forums. Besides, the character doesn't even exist. The post was about how the OP could embody evil. If you also see that sentence in regards to what I have said about selling a character continuously...

Anyway, I will accept that it might be interpreted the wrong way, seeing as there are many posts, and sometimes the key information lies in one or two posts earlier in the thread.

We do not disagree on this at all. I merely intended to say that even in Adventure Books (that I get the feeling that you don't like, not that it matters) the Destroyer of Worlds might be more than the faceless evil without any further motivation or reason.

Our debates has a tendency to heat up it seems, but that is the beauty of such things. I suppose we have come to an agreement now, or is there more you'd like to clear up?

 

I've always used "Lack of empathy" an a vehicle for evil.
When someone sees another as inferior and can not or does not allow themselves to see the world or situation from that persons perspective, then it gives the characters license to commit unspeakable acts.
That's what the Nazi's did. Also absolute truths as in religious intolerance, this also works for intellectual concepts like fascism and communism any sort of ism in fact.
But Evil as a "Force"? It's been used in Omen like stories but remains ambiguous, its never really explained except supernaturally.
I think the Book and Movie "The Keep" deals in an interesting way with this sort of subject.

 

This is not advice on how to make a character pure evil. It is however advice on how to make an evil character cool. If you look at the best villains, they have no past. Think about it. The Joker. Sauron. These two are not given much of a past for the most part. When they are, they end up sucking. Darth Vader was the man, before they made him into a whiny little man child.

So, as opposed to some of the suggestions in this thread, I suggest make their motives a mystery for the most part. Reveal them later or whatever. Maybe you can't have evil for evil's sake. But why not considering it's been a running theme in so many popular fictions and of the 20th century. Well maybe I should say something more like, give a very simple reason as to why they're evil. 'The Dark Side' isn't exactly ever explained, but people understand. 'He's Crazy' or frig, I have no clue why Sauron is evil in LOTR.

Anyway, basically I'm not saying the most pure evil characters are like this. But the coolest evil characters, you don't always understand their motives. That's alienating. And for an evil character that can be good. Strange habits, strange decisions, things that will confuse the reader. Later down the road maybe give an explanation.

 

I love that quote. So true!

I must say, I think that sorta villain is by far the most interesting. I prefer balanced worlds - it's deeper that way. Everyone does something for a reason, even if their reason is simply that "It's fun". But few do something because they don't care. I find a story more interesting when it's not so black and white.

For example, Frollo in Walt Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame is by far one of the most interesting villains! He has depth - he's deep and spiritual and yet SO blind - he's very very evil and yet he's complex. I love that.

 

You know what I think is really evil? Pandas. Pandas are really evil. If you need to embody pure evil, make the character a panda and have learn kung-fu to fight off the master's former student and save the kingdom. That bastard.

 

I'll have to agree here. The bad guy in that movie was told his entire childhood that he will be a great figure.

Then the master comes along and says "Nope." Then the panda comes along and beats him up.

Evil pandas.