How do you go about portraying your antagonist?

The danger here, for a writer, is that if you portray your antagonist too strongly, or give their perspective too much believability, or their personality too much charisma, the reader may end up rooting for them to 'win.'

This isn't fatal if the 'evil' nature of the antagonist doesn't exist, and they simply represent whatever opposes the protagonist. (Parents who refuse to allow their son to pursue a career in the arts because they feel the son will not be able to earn himself a decent living, without a 'real' job.) In fact, your story's resolution can contain elements of understanding and acceptance on both sides of the conflict.

However, If your protagonist is 'pure' evil—like the Joker in Batman—and he becomes such a strong character that the reader/viewer WANTS him to beat Batman, or at least survive the encounter to fight another day, then you may have a problem. That can skew your story a lot.

I think you can handle this dilemma in one of two ways.

One way is keep the 'villain' at arm's length, and don't let the reader identify with anything much he does. (We keep going back to movies for examples, but I'm thinking 'The Emperor" in the original Star Wars trilogy.) We know nothing about this individual, and have no sympathy at all for his position. This trick works, because the story really does become the protagonist's, and you have no wish to see anyone but the protagonist triumph.

OR, you can make the villain less evil, make his position and personality as 'human' as possible. If the villain and the protagonist are connected in some way, maybe were childhood friends, or there is some reason for the protagonist to fight against, but not hate the villain, then you can create a very complex story. (Again, think Star Wars and Darth Vader, who turns out to be Luke's father and saves Luke in the end.) If you get the balance right, your readers will want the protagonist to win, but will mourn for the villain if he dies, and will retain a very strong impression of the villain after reading the book.

It's a tightrope to walk, to get the balance exactly right.

 

?

As in believing in salvation by grace alone? And the total dependency of humanity upon God? How does that result in the sort of character you describe?

 

Sin once damned forever. In his world, if you screw up, you're out or being handed your hat. Calvins also believe that some are pre-determined for damnation, so they are damned in the womb. My guy believes some are simply not going to make it in the world, so they are expendable for someone else's personal gain.

 

Let me hand you a better weapon, if I may.

Calvinist/Reformed Christians do not believe a person is damned once they sin-- "sin once, damned forever." Rather we (yes, we) believe all people are condemned because we are enemies of God and rebels against him by nature-- being under the wrath of God is the default position. And that God of his own free grace chooses some for salvation, with no consideration for any so-called merit of their own. In which case your villain would be a very bad Calvinist in looking down on others, for he should know first and foremost that he himself is a sinner who deserves damnation, and it is only by divine grace he doesn't deserve that he himself is saved.

It is true, sadly, that some who consider themselves among the elect get to thinking it must be something in themselves that caused God to choose them. They forget that turns the whole thing inside out and gets them back to salvation by works/personal merit. Which is just the opposite of the Calvinist/Reformed position.

It is also true (also sadly) that here in America many people answered the question "How do I know if I'm among the elect?" by looking at how they were prospering materially. I.e., rich and powerful = elect. This also is BS and has no scriptural basis.

So if you are going to take this approach with your villain, you will do well to avoid stereotyping and be aware of the irony in this character's attitude. I do not say such a personality is not possible, just that he would be very self-deceived. Which might give you a key to his downfall.

Actually, as described his mindset sounds closer to Pelagianism. Pelagius taught that we all start out as blank slates and spiritual success or failure comes totally from the fault or merit of the individual. That, or Darwinism-- survival of the fittest and all that. I could see writing an effective villain who manufactures his life philosophy out of a perverse amalgam of distorted Calvinism and misapplied evolutionary theory, with a strong dose of Pelagianism thrown in.

Oh, and by the way, not all Calvinists espouse double predestination. John Calvin himself did not, on the grounds that the Bible is silent on the issue.

 

Technically, that's Social Darwinism (although, since the point of calling it Social Darwinism in the first place is to conflate the two ideas, there's certainly no reason why a villain couldn't do that in-story).

True Darwinism says that diversity, compassion, and flexibility are more important than conformity, aggression and conservatism. The people who later called themselves Social Darwinists originally ridiculed him on those grounds before they realized that they could hijack his name to give themselves "scientific" credibility when he himself became more popular.

The difference between Darwinism and Social Darwinism can be summed up by Mark Twain extremely well: "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug."

Nitpick over; everything else you wrote was amazing

 

His downfall is that his actions are principle to global nuclear war on Earth. He escapes dying in it, but the protagonist tracks him down and kills him to make sure he doesn't bring the same ideology back, especially since the human race will not survive the war without outside help, which the prot initiates, but only if he can ensure the human race will be a contributor to the collective races, not a subversive.

 

"Social Darwinism," precisely. That's what I was assuming; thanks for the clarification.