I'm starting to get confused...most of us writers don't even know what evil is, anyway Besides evil this being such a horrendously subjective, morally contentious term - our ideas of evil are composed of what we've already seen on TV, and literature, and assumptions...While we're all been victimised by someone or another - I don't think their reason was because they enjoyed it. It's something you'd have to research and think about...possibly writing that character's bio since the moment they were in born - to truly understand it. Maybe you should consider what kind of evil you're dealing with - as well as heavily researching evil. I'm sure there's varieties that some sad-structuralist academic has coined up. I just think it's too easy to pin down evil as enigmatic or sadistic and then continue writing. A writer should understand, regardless of what they let their audience/readers in on. ;P It's like when I female characters. I always try to empathise - despite being a male myself. I even have my female co-writer, Laura, and female friends read my characters in order that I don't misrepresent half the population. Another good example is my friend who is a heavy-on Christian-male. He wrote a script about rape, and abortion for his coursework...that annoyed the feck out of Laura He was simply imposing his values and beliefs upon an issue that he had no first hand experience with...Of course, that's why research is vitally important! So yeah, writing is dangerous! We're all very dangerous people. We have a responsibility to think about what the hell we're writing. Whether it explorations of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or in this case...morality. We're all crafting narratives that say something about the world. So how can we comment on evil if we don't try to understand it. (Does not apply to heavily moralistic children's fiction ;P) Sorry...random rant.
Evil's actually very easy to understand, as it's a concept and idea. However, this topic started out with antagonistic behavior that may be labeled as evil, so it's primarily an issue with behaviors. Some of these are easily defined with textbook precision, while a lot of others have to be defined first, then given room for either creativity or other motivation. Evil itself is stagnant; evil isn't evil, it's an abstract, primarilyan adjective used to describe kinds of behavior. If you want to determine reason and motivation behind an "evil" action or behavioral pattern, research is required. After that, creativity comes in and you can have some fun.
I think there are "reasons" for everything people do. Whether it is good, bad or completely selfish there is always a reason. It just depends on the mind set of the person and the point of view the story is coming from. Some examples that are really interesting to keep in mind: In the movie "Devil's Rejects" the story is in the point of view of this family of horribly sick, psychopathic serial killers. They perform some of the most despicable acts known to man and it is simply to meet their own ends, and because they get a sick rush out of it. But Rob Zombie puts the perspective in their eyes, making you root for the serial killers in the end.... Also in the game Fable III *SPOILERS* if you haven't played it and want to!! *SPOILERS* highlight it Your brother is this seemingly evil, corrupt tyrant of a king, but when you get to confront him, you discover he did all of these evil things to raise and army to defeat a greater evil. Even the Devil has a reason, being kicked out of heaven, he turns souls to his side so he can one day return to heaven and defeat God.... So event he epitome of evil has a reason to be evil. You don't have to go into full detail about your villains reason, but it is good to have one, otherwise your character will seem cartoonish and flat.
Evil for evil sake Not necessarily. I agree, sometimes "just because" can be a reason. Sociopaths tend to act in their own interest of curiosity, needs or boredom. 2-D happens when the character is not defined, or has robotic responses to stimuli, not when they are resolute or simple in their decisions. Also one other circumstance I can think of for an antagonist to do evil, is if their perception is similar to 'Romanticism', in that nothing is definable and therefore evil and good are just actions and part of a journey. End results mean nothing. One last example, Gimork from the Never Ending Story, embodied the servitude toward nothingness, which to the protagonist was evil. If you embody evil, you probably wouldn't need other motives. Either way takes a ton of 3-D thought and development.
I think evil only needs a reason (or should we say 'motivation') when the reader demands it. I think these explanations need to be made based on the genre and audience of your work. For example, the wicked witch does not need an explanation of motive for her actions, along with evil flying monkies, etc., because she is inherently evil (whatever 'evil' really is). Children reading, or watching, The Wizard of Oz are probably not concerned with why she is evil, but simply what Dorathy (spelling?) does to avoid evil. If you are writing, say, a mystery, you better darn well know what motivates your evil serial killer. Of course, if you are a detective the first thing you look for is a motive. So to come back to the original post, if you are writing fantasy you may not need to give a reason for evil. Yet, if you plan to write to more info-thirsty readers (personally I always want to know why people are how they are), than you may need one. Does God have a reason for being good? Does Satan have a reason for being evil? Yet, I'm sure Jesus (if he was indeed a real dude) had sexual desire, needed money, got drunk, etc., as well as created miracles and inspired millions. But then again, most people who read the bible don't care about what motivated Jesus, but only care that he is the embodiment of good. So I guess, in conclusion, that it's all up to you and what sort of story you want to create. I think evil is valid explanation or not.
Flibbert I think what you are saying is that we don't have to show the reader or tell the reader what motivates somebody to be evil but I find it hard to imagine someone who is evil for no reason. Or good for no reason. If you have a choice to be good or bad, regardless of which you chose there is a reason. Of course you don't have to reveal it. Elgaisma have you considered bringing this debate into your story. Not in a big way but having a character question what it is she wants, why she does it and nobody able to answer it.
While a decent movie with a few actors I've never much been hot on, A Few Good Men provided one of the better 'villans' I've seen. The monologue we all know would have been othing if it weren't for the kind of moral conflict that such a situation engendered. Truth of the matter is, if it weren't for that moral conflict, the movie would have been average if that. My point is that a morally conflicted character as the villan is very interesting. It's only when the bad guy is made to be only evil for evils sake, it has to at least be explained. Sticking with the movie theme...T2. The new T1000 was relentless for it's/his lack of reason...At least it still had an explanation as to why he was the bad guy. So, I stick with the 'needs a reason' side.
Jumping in here, haven't read the whole thread yet as I don't have time but I wanted to get my thoughts out anyway. The idea of a villain being un-apologetically evil is one that I actually really like and is one that I am using in a book series that I am working on. However I also feel that just because a villian doesn't make any apologies for the way he is or in fact revels in the very idea of being evil doesn't mean he can't also have other reasons underlying what he does. For instance the character in my series wants power, he's the leader of one faction in a shattered empire and wants to unite the entire empire and eventually the rest of the known countries. He's not doing this to "bring about peace" or some other notion that would give him the air of a misguided fool. He's doing it simply because he wants the power and he's willing to do anything to obtain it. Yes it's a simple motivation but I believe that you don't need complex and intricate motivation in order to make a great and complex villain. The only time you need complex motivations is if you want the audience to sympathize or empathize with the actions of your villain, which is something I am not attempting with this guy.
It all depends. In some cases, a pure-evil villain (Voldemort, Darth Vader etc) can make the writing seem comic-bookish. On the other hand, it's annoying when people try too hard to get me to sympathize with someone who does horrible things and who I don't feel deserves sympathy. My tip - see it as your POV protag would. If the antag is a former best friend who betrayed the MC, or an abusive loved one, etc, you want to try and show all sides of the equation. On the other hand, if your antag is the MC's rapist or attempted murderer or someone who violated their rights in some horrible way, the MC isn't going to have rounded, see-from-their-perspective views, so either should you the writer. I mean, understand their motivations of course, but don't try to weave in said motivation as a soft spot for the antag.
But both of those characters have reasons. Voldemorts motivations are revealed over the course of the books as we slowly learn that he is a racist (against Muggles) and has a fear of dying, and hopes to live forever. Darth Vadar was good at one point but was convinced that the Jedi aimed to seize power, he was ambitious and held back and he was tricked into thinking that becoming a dark jedi would save his lover from death. After he killed his wife he is so full of hatred. They are "pure-evil" but still motivated.
Heathen! They only made 3 Star Wars movies.The prequels just weren't the real Skywalker. The whiney impetuous brat was as shallow a charcter as we can get. I would be ashamed to have written that brat. To have him become the second most powerful person in the galaxy, because he threw a hissy fit beggars belief. Vader was a villain through and through, but as we saw in Empire, he had a heart that could be broken, and a psycopathic desperation to get his son back. The prequels didn't happen, and Han Shot First.
Sasha I think that whiney brat summed up Vadar perfectly. I always wondered in the original films why he was never the big boss of the Empire and the little brat I saw in the new movies confirmed why.
Evil needs a reason. Unless the person is an insane psychopath, walking around with an illegal plasma chainsaw in your hands and a hockey mask in your face cutting people open isn't going to bring you many benefits. As to the Vader debate, I feel that Darth Vader is incredibly good... in the books. In the books, it reflected how he was torn between light and dark, and his eternal struggle against both. I've never watched the movies, but a friend who did informed me that apparently a whiny, incompetent, stupid idiot had impersonated the Sith Lord in the movies.
Indeed. It's a matter of empathy over sympathy. Really, no one is saying you should feel sympathetic for the antagonist...just -in some cases- should be able to understand where your villain is coming from. That way your work reads like an unbiased essay...exploring both sides of an argument. On the other side, there are villains as enigma's and symbols of fear - which is a different intention entirely. Again, I prefer to think of an antagonist as merely an opponent, and distinguish him from a villain. But yes, giving antagonists motivation just makes them seem less overtly functional for the purposes of your story.
Vader was prepared to overthrow Palpatine and rule as the Sith Lord, with Luke as his son, heir, and apprentice. He was a powerful man, Star Wars didn't get his place quite right, but Empire and Jedi certainly did, Star Wars was a fluke hit, Lucas never had an overarching story until much later in life. He had people telling him that things wouldn't work or how to make the scenes better in the original trilogy. In the prequels, he was worshipped as a god, and no one dared question him, he couldn't write a love scene if his life depended on it. Anakin was just a flat, two dimensional character, Vader, a flawed, and motivated villain with a human side that we didn't see until the end of Empire. Ok, a lot of this is my Boyfriend, he's a huge Star Wars nerd, and made me watch the early ones, before Lucas messed with the first three, then all the others... I think the marathon was 4,5,6 before remastery, 1,2,3, then 4,5,6 after remastering. Never read the books, but he's got a lot of them.
Something I don't think anybody has mentioned yet is POV. If the narrator is omniscient then we, as writers, can easily delve deeply into the evil antagonist's psyche. However, if the story is told from a specific, first person POV, then we may not, or ever, know the full extent to the antagonists motivations. Do you think an Allied solder in WWII knew Hitler personally? Nobody will argue in defense if Hitlers actions, neither will I, yet I'm sure he was still capable of love and friendship. If you were to write a WWII story, say, from an American solder's perspective, I'm sure Hitler would be portrayed as a pure evil character. Yet a story told from Hitlers perspective (this would probably be pretty controversial) I'm sure would contain some elements of good, despite obvious evils. I guess this point really doesn't get at whether or not characters can be pure evil with no reason, but perhaps we don't have to explain it if our story is told from a certain point of view.
Well, if you want the main villian to interact with the hero aka the good guys, then there has to be some kind of reason for that, like revenge for something for example.
I've never read a "meaningless evil" book... probably because the authors who write that way get turned away by publishers . I'd say pretty much any legit evil has its reason. Even if that reason is mere insanity.
Hi, I'm wading in without having read the entire thread. If you have an EVIL character without any motivation, it tends to be 2 demensional. People do things for reasons. Someone who kicks a puppy does so because they're mad wand to strike out, or because they like causing pain to helpless creatures or because they like feeling powerful. If they do it because it's simply in the Evil Doers handbook guide, it's has less impact. Also, there are consequences for actions. An evil person kills because they're evil, there are risking going to jail. Why do that, just because you're evil. Also in the real world, very few people think of themselves as evil. So if you want to have your characters be realistic, you have to give them motives that make sense, at least to them. just my thoughts.
Its also worth pointing out that how the evil person acts is just as relevant as why they act that way. For example remember the film Snatch - the guy who runs the dog fighting ring. Guy Ritchie did a survey and found that there would be a bigger emotional response from a guy who hurts animals that a child molestor. We have seen this with the Corleone family putting the horse's head in the bed and that character from Fatal Attraction who boils the little girl's pet rabbit alive simply because she was obsessed with her father. Or the causual way Hannibal Lector talks about enjoying the victims liver with a nice bottle of wine before making that noise. Or that character in Misery who catches her victim escaping. She doesn't tie him up - instead she cuts off his legs with an axe and uses a blow torch to ensure it can't be reattached medically. But I would argue all villains have a reason. Even that guy from Clockwork Orange who when asked why he does eveil things says something like "I just like buying from the other shop".
Also, not believable. Sure, sometimes the cliched, tropes are the most effective, because honestly a lot of readers have low or misguided expectations. I don't agree that evil is scarier when it has no reason, it's just more accessible, so we can face it, let ourselves get scared, then be able to move on from it and later say 'that was soooooo scary.' It's easy to dismiss such characters in regards to our real life, so it's then easy to let them into our psyche. This means we get more of the safe evil than we're normally able/willing to get of truly horrifying evil, but that doesn't mean the safe evil is actually more scary. It's like how people are more scared of some random stranger in the middle of the night harming their children, because that's easier to cope with than the statistics that show someone in the family is actually more inclined to do harm. A random event by a crazed stranger isn't more scary than the real possibility someone else you love and trust will break that trust and harm your child, it's just an evil easier to cope with, easier to comprehend, so it's the one we let ourselves consider. On the original topic: all evil has a reason. Unequivocally, because everything that happens in a story has a reason. Whether the reader or characters even know it can be navigated, but it doesn't somehow mean there isn't a reason, or more important that readers won't expect and look for a reason. As some pointed out, even when we don't know the exact reasons of some great villains, we still FEEL they have reason and purpose, however twisted. It may just be our own invention, but a deft writer will put enough into the actions of a villain to let the reader make such inferences, knowing they will because people naturally try to create order and reason. The reasoning that 'my villain is just evil' is about as lame as 'it was all just a dream' or 'the character was just crazy/sociopathic' It's almost always a cop-out when a writer isn't willing to take the time, or develop the ability, to dig deeper into their characters to find the reason. If we ever get the direct perspective of the so-called antagonist or villain or even just an 'evil' character, then empathy is paramount, and definitely possible if you're a good writer. William Gay has a brilliant short story called "Where Will You Go When Your Skin Cannot Contain You" that has about the most unsympathetic character ever, hopped up on meth, booze, and we find out he was pimping out his first love for drugs (if I remember correctly) and got her involved in meth and knows he's to blame for her eventual death, and in his grief he steals her body from the funeral home, yet by the end as he's being beaten to death by her grieving father, we understand why he did everything he did and feel the full tragedy and lack of justice being delivered upon the character. When I start to think it's better if evil has no reason, or if it's impossible to build empathy for unsympathetic characters, I re-read that story and realize I'm just not working hard enough, or writing well enough.
motives What you said reminded me of what my mentor and actually Johnny Depp acting coach told him. Each and every scene, keep in mind the character's desire. 2-D, 3-D, good, or bad, if you know the motive, you don't even have to say or write it out loud. It becomes a part of their being because they will always pull in that direction. I think that evil having a reason, even if the characters don't know it or get it, is scary. The reason doesn't have to be, taking over the world, or killing a family tree. Even a mouse wants to eat. But, movement takes place from a catalyst of some kind. For example, evil could be motivated by balance, feeling there is too much good in the world. Hunger, e.g. Zombies. I can't think of any 'evil' that didn't have a motive/goal in some way. Unless it is a formless conceptual evil, but then it is usually supported by some entity that has motives to relay that reflect what it serves.
