It sounds like you're saying that there are no well-developed villains, and if someone presents you with something that proves you wrong, you say that that character is not a villain and therefore doesn't count. So you define all the terms, redefine them at will, and thus guarantee that you win all arguments.
I would definitely like to add religion to my fantasy story. It's such an important part of history, and it's crazy to see how it has affected the world we live in today. Honestly, it would be pretty weird if I left something like that out. Religion just makes any different fictional world feel more real. However, it doesn't have to be an important part of the story.
I can't decide if the superstitious, traditional-ritual, and rules-complying elements in my story are religion or just social customs. I'd only have to add a tiny bit to make them religion, and I'd have to remove more than a tiny bit to make them definitely not-religion. So I guess they're more religion than not.
I'm not sure how it can be said that villains are never fleshed out. Especially in recent Marvel movies, you've got all sorts of 'villains with reasons'--Thanos, Killmonger, and even the Vulture from Spiderman Homecoming come to mind. Actually, I'd be willing to argue that 'villains with reasons' is becoming a fad. Annoyingly so, actually. I like sympathetic villains as much as the next guy, but sometimes I just want to watch a guy murder people to satisfy his God-Complex, you know?
I honestly kind of agree. I think a villain needs more than just a reason. There needs to be more scenes with him to really flesh out the character. Having a character just being evil with a reason is very surface level to me. I think Game of Thrones does a pretty good job at writing characters that are bad for a reason, but do you really get to know the character well at the same time.
It is easy to write bad “villians” who are one-dimensional because people tend to think up something horrific and disgusting and think that is enough to pass as a “villain.” If you want to write a REALLY good “villain” then you have to dig deep and find your dark place - obviously many people are not willing to go there and so create a superficial and generic “bad guy” ... this makes me think of Iago who is actually a badly written “villain” in some respects. He was merely evil for evil’s sake, he pulled down all those around him, and was not concerned when he was caught finding the whole scenario amusing. It worked though because he represented the darker sides of the other characters and played on their weaknesses so that you then ask yourself “who was really to blame?” Did the Machiavellian Iago plant despair or merely tease it out of those around him? If the “evil” was lying within all his victims then what lies in us we’d rather turn a blind eye to? That is depth and purpose of the “villain” it allows people to see what they would otherwise not want to see in themselves not merely as a possibility, but as a reality (Crime and Punishment does a masterful job of that too.)
I thought that the premise was that Iago thought that Othello had slept with Iago's wife? Well, and also passed Iago over for promotion, but sleeping with his wife seems more personal.
He causes harm for harms sake. He feels wronged by the world considering himself smarter than Othello and decides to ruin him, himself and everyone else (including his wife who he has no real reason to believe has cheated on him.) He preys on their “weaknesses” and takes away from each what they value the most; cares not for the death of his wife nor Desdemona, maims the handsome guy (Roderigo?), and by doing so he proves to himself he can outsmart anyone and will likely die laughing in knowledge of this. He is the instrument of “evil” revealing the flaws of others; the manipulator who uses any excuse to harm others he can think of. That is what I read. I don’t even believe he hated Othello per se, I think it was the fact he was deemed “lesser” than someone else by the world and so decided to kick back against reality and show how cunning he truly was. He won by causing calamity.
Like I just said. There are many, many “reasons” he comes up with. All are false. He simply wishes to cause as much destruction as possible. The fact that Othello was black was more about the effect on the audience at the time I think - some geopolitical machinations at the time I think? Honestly, it’s been a LONG tie since I’ve studied it. Needless to say the audience sympathised with Othello not Iago. Here the murderer is viewed as the victim of enflamed love. As always there is a lot more to Mr. Shaky McSpear than meets the eye. Great stuff!
I think you put this very well. Whatever a writer may believe or not believe, that attitude is very likely to influence the writing. And you also made the point that the culture the writer lives in or was raised in will also play a part ...even if the writer doesn't personally believe in whatever the dominant religions of that culture may be. Because I write historically-set fiction, I do find it hard to put myself in the shoes of somebody who lived back then, as regards religious belief. I know that would have influenced their line of thought as well as behaviour. So exactly what did they think was right, or wrong, or morally acceptable, or even 'lucky?' I think sometimes we bend over backwards to give historical characters our own modern-day perspectives, when, in fact, theirs would have been quite different. While modernising belief means a historical writer may create more politically correct characters ...were they realistic for their time? Probably not. That being said, there were always people who thought outside the box. And if they lived in a society where thinking outside the box didn't get them put in jail or burned at the stake, then I suppose a historical writer can ascribe an out-of-the-box religious attitude to the characters in their story and get away with it. But I think it's also important, for historical accuracy's sake, to make it clear that not everybody shares their characters' so-called 'enlightened' attitude.
I am not saying every villain is not fleshed out. I am just pointing out the ones that stood out to me hence me trying to understand it for myself through discussion. The case of the Lecter I can't call him a villain because is higher up the danger scale. This is my view on it. I have not got a name for him because he is no common well not as far as I know. He does not come up on the news very often thank god for that. I am not asking you to agree with me. You have your views and I have mine.
I think the problem @ChickenFreak is running into with you, is that your definitions of narrative terms are often unintelligible and contradictory. Which, as one might imagine, isn't ideal for conversation. If you can't clearly communicate what you mean by 'villain,' or 'well-developed,' then I can't find room to agree or disagree with any of your conclusions about them. The only thing I can do is to continue to ask you to define your terms until they're consistent.
Things that are fundamentally "a human making": Language, Writing , Civilisation, Money, The concept of love, prejudice, the concept of nature, justice, philosophy, politics, buildings, dogs, war, vengeance.
1. No. 2. No. 3. No, very little, partly and no. You speak wise words. You are right. SJW-movement is good example. Kid drown to moral corruption and moral & intellectual dishonesty the second they have any power - or they think they have.
So you don't think people who go into politics are motivated by the hope of achieving power over others ? - you don't think power and control is why someone like Donald Trump ran for president ? (or why Hitler wanted to be a national leader, or Stalin ? ) You don't think that organised religion gives its high ups power over other people - Spanish Inquisition ring any bells ? You don't think that amassed wealth gives people power - George Soros? Donald Trump (again) ? etc etc
Robin Hood & his men. Kelp, Dortmunder, Murch and his mother... Henry Chinaski Albert Spangler/Moist von Lipwig, Willikins, Nobby Knobs, Cohen the Barbarian, CMOT Dibbler Catbert Zaccheus the Tax Collector Aladdin Svejk and some of his friends Bosambo ...
You are right. We develop to be good. That is why a good character needs to be well developed. Jealous, envious, covetous, sadistic, narcissistic... That is every one of us before we grow out of it - if we do. And even if we do, we keep the potential. To dig deep is to put aside all our normal excuses, masks and behaviour and to see what is underneath them. There is a villain - and he/she is undeveloped, brutal and bestial. And we don't want to see him/her, because it is impossible to unsee him/her after that.
