The Psychology of Evil: Comparing notes on what makes a good antagonist

I'm a antagonist girl. I'm typecast as villains and is intrigued and usually write stories close to that perspective. Reading this thread I noticed that there was a lot a room to stress one aspect of it all.

That the most important thing is that the antagonist fits the themes and the protagonist. Writing a protagonist and an antagonist* should be like writing a romance. The important things in not either individual traits but how this traits interact with each others and the overall themes.

If loneliness is a theme, both should have interesting traits in this aspect, perhaps they are very much alike, or very different, or just slightly different from each other as long as it makes an interesting. (Of course you can make characters first and then see what theme arises in the clash between the two.)
If race or cultural background is a theme, both protagonist and antagonist should relate to this theme in an interesting way.
If individualism vs the best for the group as an important theme, then perhaps the both of them should handle hard choices in this regard.
If you have a subplot about the protagonist falling in love you could have a parallel to this in the antagonist, maybe a love lost.

Don't read this as a rule, not even a rule of thumb. It's not an equation of "If protagonist have trait in the theme of X the antagonist also must some kind of twisted or true reflection of this "

The rule of thumbs is rather "If you want a dynamic story with loads of interesting aspects, having them reflected in protagonist and antagonist to create a dynamic between them is a good tool"**

Examples: Frodo was small and very human, Sauron was wast and utterly inhumam.
Both Magento and Xavier is interletual ideologically driven induviduals striving for a better world.
In Ailien isolation is a theme, for the humans its a weakness and cause of fear, the xenomorph got a great advantage of the situation.
In Spirited Away the protagonist is a very normal girl handling things in a quite normal but brave way when she faced with a very strange world.
....And in Harry Potter this was clumsily overdone with Harry and Voldemort

A antagonist is never a stand alone thing, it's only as good as how well it fits the story and the protagonist.



(*or either/both of them in plural)
(**and possible all other charactes as well*

 

I'm not sure why one should be especially dismayed that a discussion such as this should fixate on the Nazis. Given who we are, given when we are, it's what most folk hereabouts know a little about. There are, clearly, quite a number of other naughty historical figures that may be evoked, but doing so is not likely to stimulate spirited discussion.

As to the wider point, it seems to me that drawing on any historical figure for inspiration - on this point - poses considerable difficulties and is likely misguided.
If you wish your character to be one of flesh of blood - not some dessicated model of evil whose humaness is lost beneath layers of ill-conceived, culturally influenced, psycho-biography - then best to cast your eyes about you or, indeed, inside of you.

 

I'm going to apologise in advance if the following spiel makes little sense, k?

I enjoy reading stories where even I can't decide who the antagonist is. I really admire authors who set up human characters on both sides of the conflict.

I might be a little weird in this regard, but the novels that satisfy me the most are the ones where I reach the final chapter and I know that no matter which side wins, I won't be entirely satisfied.

Because, as clichéd as it sounds to say so, there are two sides to every story. I think antagonists can be portrayed very poorly in popular culture. Some writers often act like they're just brick walls to bounce their protagonist's personality off.

I don't think we can justify saying "This person is bad because of this," but rather "I disagree with this person because of this." When I write an actual antagonist (something I don't frequently do) I don't aim for people to view my antagonist as bad, but to really, truly hate them because they disagree with them on such a fundamental level that they can't reason with them.

It's a moral relativism thing, in my opinion. Gilbert Harman, I think it was (though don't quote me on that), argued about moral agreements, and how we sign up to social contracts which define our values. He argued that we simply cannot reason with those signed up to different moral agreements than ourselves.

For instance, to use something from my own day to day life - I am a strict vegan.

But if I tell someone that they should be vegan, because it's right, and we shouldn't exploit animals for our own desires, they just reply "So?"
I cannot, no matter how articulate or well reasoned my pro-animal rights argument, convert most people. Harman would argue that this is because, while the exploitation of animals in this regard is so black and white to me, it is simply not a part of their agreement.

He goes onto argue that morality is relative in relation to our agreements. Like we can't determine size without relating it to a comparison class, nor can we determine morality without relating it to a moral agreement.

In Harman's argument, if you were signed up to the same agreement as Hitler, you would be able to reason with him. However, telling him not to kill Jews because "it's wrong" won't do anything.

I think I went off on a bit of a tangent there. My point is that if you want to create a truly evil antagonist you have to make him sign up to a totally different moral agreement to your reader. If there is no way your reader feels they can reason with him, if all options are exhausted and there is no way the antagonist can be persuaded to 'do the right thing' it is absolutely infuriating! Those are the characters I hate the most. And I really do hate them.

"But Dad, you can't eat that, it used to be alive!"

It's really the same reason that I find the best authors to be the ones who make me conflicted between sides. If they can successfully narrate two completely different and incompatible moral agreements to the point where I can't decide which one is better, that shows a lot of talent, and it really makes me think.

 

Not surprising, I do tend to be a bit thick at times

As far as a template for your story's villain goes, I must disagree that Hitler works every time.

Hitler makes a excellent template for a story about a megalomaniac aspiring to world domination.

Hitler makes a poor template for the serial killer with "mommy" issues, who decides he hates all women and takes to murdering prostitutes and dumping their bodies in the woods or a shallow grave. I'd suggest Jack the Ripper instead.

Hitler makes a poor template for the money lusting bank robber who tommy guns down the security guards and empties out the bank vault. John Dillinger seems far more suitable for an inspiration.

The list goes on.

I can agree that the nazi template isn't exactly original anymore, but I think it can be a good place to start for inspiration to develop your own villain character, assuming your story involves the concepts of nationalism, war mongering and megalomaniacs aspiring for greatness.

I'm familiar with the historical figures above, but for the purpose of villain templates, how are they different from Hitler?

Dictators who mass murdered their political opposition, detractors, dissidents and anyone who simply annoyed them?

Forced medical experiments on unwilling prisoners?

Purges and concentration camps?

As far as their being evil goes, I don't think it can be disputed. However, thanks to mountains of history books, films, museums and the fact that many of the world war two veterans are still here to share their stories make the Nazis more well known in the public eye. In a hundred years, when the veterans are all gone and the only reference is the historical record, World War II and the Nazis will have the same kind of detached historical footnote as the Napoleonic wars of renaissance Europe. Then whatever the current conflicts are will have more significance and relevance to inspiring the writers of the future.

But that is just my two cents.

A villain character who is the material manifestation of pure evil is interested in helping everyone who furthers his agenda...not because it is the right thing to do, or because it is the good thing to do...but ONLY because it helps to further his agenda.

Good villain characters (in the theme of megalomaniacs bent on world domination), in my opinion, appear like a saint, helping the weak and dispossessed, earning popularity and fame that gradually elevates himself to positions of power and authority. Once the power and authority is secured, only then do the first hints of the rotten dark core begin to become visible behind his empty smiles and detached eyes.

But that is just me.

 

The difference is in the goals.

Hitler: super-race
Mao: advanced agricultural methods
Stalin: no ethnic/national consciousness left

I could go on, but I think this suffices to make my point.

 

Here's the thing: from a literary standpoint, the same villain could be exactly the same despite those three motives. All three were monstrous dictators, but they were also strong-willed visionaries who pursued their visions through totalitarian rule. In that sense, they're very similar "characters." The truth is that if Hitler had been born in Communist Russia but under similar circumstances, he would have likely turned out the same, even though he would have been communist rather than Aryan-supremacist.

I'd also like to point out that there is no "perfect" villain, no single "evil incarnate." There are so many ways to make a character villainous; the war-criminal dictator is clearly evil, but the paranoid control-freak abusive mother can be far more "evil," and more terrifying. Remember Nurse Ratchet from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? She's an utter monster, but on many levels she's the same as your average strict elementary school teacher. Or Ayn Rand's villains, who are so incredibly evil precisely because they fight against self-interest, in pursuit of total mediocrity and lack of purpose.

 

Mao said, in the late Fifties: ""When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill."

I see plenty of similarities between a man capable of saying such a thing, and the actions of Hitler, Stalin, and countless other despots.

 

I personally attempt to aim for the incredibly calculating villain. Google "Xanatos Roulette" or "Xanatos Gambit" over on TV Tropes. He has a plan for everything. Even the most unexpected thing that the protagonist could do somehow benefits his evil plans, and should the hero successfully "stop" or foil his plan, it actually somehow benefits the villain.

 

i personally think that the best bad guy is simply a good guy from an opposing or alternative perspective.

so not ACTUALLY a bad guy, just a... different guy, if that makes any sense.

 

That is an interesting point. Words such as "Bad guy", "Villain", "Terrorist", etc. are words people apply to their enemies.

To my knowledge nobody actually refers to themselves as Terrorists, Villains or bad guys.

As the old saying goes...one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

I interpreted the Death-Eaters as bigoted upper-class Brits. As I understand it, class still plays a large role in British society, especially at old institutions like schools and universities. You can change your socio-economic class by becoming rich, and get into the right schools, but you will still be viewed as a pretender by those from the "right" families, you won't have the right connections, and you'll be left out of the different boys' and girls' clubs that still exist.

In British English, the word "breed" is used to signify someone's family background. E.g, "She is a girl of impeccable breeding". So using the terms purebloods/mudbloods to signify someone's family background doesn't seem so far-fetched to me. The magic-users are not a different race, but they're a priveliged group, and they would like the priveliges to stay in their own families, just like the old British aristocracy.

So, when I read the books, I thought the main thrust of Rowling's metaphor was aimed at British class society. I have no idea if she has ever confirmed this, though.

What do you Brits say?

 

I am sure it is upto each reader to interpret it but I assumed Nazi because of the British/French/Russian Alliance. And the muggles being seen as dirty.

 

Many atrocities are founded upon singling out one portion of a population and galvanizing the rest of the population against them. Hitler stands out in this regard because the resulting war expanded globally.

I'm not a historian, but I have heard that Goering was more a driving force in vilifying Jews than was Hitler himself. No matter which one it was, though, such a campaign always feeds upon the fears and prejudices of the population at large.

An evil leader, therefore, is an amplifier, regeneratively feeding back our own darkness. And for that reason, we revile him or her all the more.

 

You're right, a force of nature can be the villain in a story. The shark is the villain in Jaws. I can't name any story where the weather is the main villain, but there probably is one.

 

I have a few villains, one does evil because of conditioning (Stockholm syndrome type) and one because he doesn't know any better (Manipulated child in an adult's body). Both are controlled by a narcissist, and used to meet his goals of personal wealth and influence.

 

Day After Tomorrow, and a lot of other environmental disaster movies.

I've seen a LOUSY movie where 10 seconds of stock footage of ants up close was the villain.

 

Sounds like something by Ed Wood

 

Some of my favourite stories are where a virus is the antagonist.

 

I think the best villains are the ones who you can almost understand why they're doing the awful things they do. If my readers almost switch sides, then I've done it right.

Think about it; most people are not evil just for the sake of being evil. Even revenge can only take you so far. There should be some semi-logical reason for their turning against the whole world, that they can explain to others and possibly sway them to their side.

I have 2 main villains in my novel: One of them is mad, and you're never quite sure whether to hate her or feel sorry for her, and the other is a half-demon trying to take over the world, but he makes some rather compelling arguments as to why.

 

I always hate it when the antagonist, who is a person is mentally unstable and evil, and the author has no reason for how they became this way. What happened to them to make them go crazy? "He's evil" doesn't cut it. It's a huge pet peeve of mine.

 

In a lot of my stories, the antagonists also function as protagonists at different points, because my protagonists are rarely "good guys" in full. My protagonists end up being their own antagonists. Sure, there are nasty characters that are antagonists too. But they're just catalysts for the internal struggles that come later. That's how I handle my antagonists anyway. And when the antagonist is truly external, he/she is usually a character the the protagonist admires or trusts, which also leads to internal struggles.

There are many ways to create a good villain. But a villain's true purpose is never to be evil, except in comedy. It's not true that all good villains have to see themselves as perfect saints. But they can't just be aiming to be evil, or simply feel like taking over the world one day (again, except in comedy). But it's key to keep in mind that an antagonist is a character too (as long as it's a character ); it has to be treated as one.

And thank you for pointing that out, ZC--I agree deeply.

 

In general, I have a fondness for sympathetic villains, or at least villains who have a sympathetic reason for how they became so bad. I'm totally okay with them being bad-to-the-bone evil as long as there is a believable reason. This is why my favorite villain of all time is Lord Voldemort, because he has become an absolute monster, but his back-story reveals that the circumstances behind his conception were decidedly less than good, thus giving him a tad bit of sympathy. I decided to make the villain of my current story along the same lines, as in he's now an irredeemable force of evil, but he has a very good Freudian Excuse (that's a TV Tropes term, by the way.) My top villains are:

1. Lord Voldemort (Harry Potter)

Reasons: He is extremely powerful, has a terrifying appearance, has killed countless people for incredibly minuscule reasons, he has a close connection with the hero, and cannot comprehend love or friendship because he grew up in a loveless environment (I believe very strongly in the Frankenstein theory that your relationship with your parents or guardians determines what kind of person you become). These are all qualities that, IMO, create a truly hissable but believable villain. It doesn't hurt that his soul is in a billion tiny pieces from all the murders he's committed, either.

The Joker (The Dark Knight)

Reasons: He is incredibly intelligent, to the point where his plans require almost Jedi-level clairvoyance to work out. He is scarred, both facially and mentally, and he is the complete foil of Batman; whereas Bats is devoted to order and justice, Joker believes in complete anarchy and lack of rules. And Heath Ledger's performance was just plain unforgettable.

3. Dolores Umbridge (Harry Potter)

Reasons: She is the personification of corruption in the government system. She is a sadist who also has extremely racist attitude towards less-than-human beings. Umbridge is fanatically devoted to the system, to the point of ignorance in light of Voldemort's return. All in all, a despicable woman who represents every single childhood fear we ever had about the teacher we though was out to get us, and ONLY us. Brilliance on Rowling's part to play on that common fear.

4. Palpatine/Darth Sidious (Star Wars)

This is a villain without a single good bone in his body. He believes in complete and total power, with the Dark Side of the Force representing the evil side every human has. And Sidious is 100% immersed in the Dark Side. He single-handedly orchestrated on both sides the bloodiest world in galactic history, a war that cost billions of innocent lives, all just so he could destroy the Jedi Order. That's pretty awful in itself, but the fact he did it all while pretending to be the leader of the good guys is just terrible. The ultimate Wolf In Sheep's Clothing.

5. Judge Claude Frollo (Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame)

This villain is particularly important to me, since I am hugely obsessed with religious corruption. The worst thing you can do is use your religion as an excuse to murder those you personally hate. He justifies his love for a gypsy girl by saying it was a spell she cast on him. Just despicable.