Thread "Villains and Heroes: Only one of them is entertaining" in forum "Comic Talk and General Discussion *"

Posted at 12:02PM, Feb. 21, 2018

There has been some debate about humanizing your villains. Before I get into it, I like to say that I have a staunch interest in antagonists. A great villain calls for an entertaining story and a strong protagonist. At least in my opinion.

An entertaining villain cultivates audiences and pulls them in as much as your hero.

Now why is this important? Because writers who write good villains has unleashed an evil spirit from the mind though the arm, to the brain. We all have a bad side.

What do you think?

Posted at 4:02PM, Feb. 21, 2018

I enjoy a truly evil "non-human" villain, but they only seem to work in fantasy as actual non-human entities with different sorts of objectives. I'm rewatching Gravity Falls, which has a fantastic extradimensional villain. Beetlejuice is another one-dimensional non-human villain that comes to mind or whatever that dark evil force was in The Fifth Element.

Otherwise, characters need to be characters. Granted, there are nasty people in the world, but they have reasons. Those reasons might be a total lack of empathy. It doesn't mean they aren't human. In fact, someone who is selfish and prone to getting really pissed off is extra human in a way. A temperamental "bad guy" is as human as hey come. A cold, calculating villain might require more thought, since it is less common and harder for readers to relate to.

I think all characters should be not necessarily "strong" but DEEP characters. Personality should go beyond their role. Of course, characters are written to fill a role, but if that's where you stop, they are one-dimensional. One-dimensional doesn't necessarily mean boring. However, it's not believable for a human character. It breaks my ability to suspend disbelief and immerse in the world. It's fine if I can't relate to the "bad guys," but I still want to believe they could be real. I can't immerse in a story with one-dimensional beings (unless they are intended to be unfathomable and literal non-humans).

One-dimensional heroes are as boring as one-dimensional bad guys. But it is a more serious flaw for the story since a relatable character is needed for audience projection/empathy. (If the main protagonist is unfathomable, a "Watson" can help.)

Posted at 2:02AM, Feb. 22, 2018

Gosh usedbooks you're brutal. One dimensional? That's a line segment. Usually they're called two dimensional for a cardboard cut out that least occupies space in the scene even if it has no depth. :)

But one dimensional implies the character doesn't even fill space! Yee-ouch. Not even a spear carrier, less than just a spear. Cold. But so true.

Posted at 5:02AM, Feb. 22, 2018

A personality can have one dimension. A personality is not a physical form.

Posted at 5:02AM, Feb. 22, 2018

Talking metaphorically as if a writer is filling the scene with characters and without depth the scene is missing something but if one dimensional it's just a line and barely there.

I am always thinking of framing a scene and blocking. Since my panels are staged in 3 dimensions I visualize all of this. So I see a 2 dimensional character as a cut out and a one dimensional one as a line segment. In fact, I think I might have coined the idea of the one dimensional character around here. Something with no width or depth that is just barely there and doesn't even fill the background.

As vapid and worthless as my characterization is I'm something of an expert on characters without depth or even width.

All characters should be interesting. I was told early on that even a spear carrier should have a trait or motivation that makes him more than just a line segment. There has to be something there even if it can't be readily explained or understood. You have an unfathomable villain, you better have something behind it. Jack London gave forces of nature some character, Lovecraft gave his unfathomable THINGS MAN WAS NOT MEANT TO KNOW character and shape by how others were affected and the very fact that it could not be comprehended by the human mind.

Posted at 6:02AM, Feb. 22, 2018

bravo1102
I am always thinking of framing a scene and blocking. Since my panels are staged in 3 dimensions I visualize all of this. So I see a 2 dimensional character as a cut out and a one dimensional one as a line segment. In fact, I think I might have coined the idea of the one dimensional character around here. Something with no width or depth that is just barely there and doesn't even fill the background.

Fair enough. I'm mostly a reader, and characters exist in my imagination, so I don't think of physicality at all. I talk of dimensions not on a physical plane but in the more basic definition of a trait or attribute. A character with a single purpose, one thought, one reason.

But if you wan to take dimension as a witty double-meaning, we'll call them two-dimensional for having no "depth." ;)

Posted at 7:02AM, Feb. 22, 2018

Actually when critically discussing characterization it is common parlance to refer to characters as two dimensional or cut outs because there is no depth and they're only so much scenery (which once upon a time was a cut out)

In school I was taught that The first fictional characters to be subjected to criticism were stage actors in Greek drama so the metaphors stuck. A spear carrier is an extra just There to round out a scene as literally someone carrying a spear. A flat character is only so much scenery and a cut out like the set he's standing in front of.

I come to this with a background in stage and film as any of my readers would tell you. I'm very conscious of mise en scene or how a character fills a frame in addition to how he fills up the plot and story. I've always seen characters and visualized them, never just as a bundle of characteristics but a face, a body a living and breathing presence. That's what a writer is supposed to be doing.

The reader is supposed to see and feel it as opposed to a collection of words or images on a page. Or at least that's what I want to read and what I try to do. And I 'll be damned if I don't occasionally fool my readers into thinking I pulled it off.

Posted at 8:02PM, Feb. 25, 2018

It all depends on what kind of story you're trying to tell.

Every villain, like every other character in your universe, has his or her or its own motivations, and history, and relationships. And in order to make that villain believable, the creator should have a coherent understanding of those things.

However, writing is very much a process of subtraction, and it is at the writer's discretion how much of that needs to find its way into the finished work. For example, the Big Scary Mafia Guy may be a hard case because he was bullied as a child at school, and now he tries to be super tough to overcompensate. Now, if you're telling a story about a protagonist who owes money to said Big Scary Mafia Guy, then we don't really need to know that he was bullied as a child. While it may be fun or even useful for you as the writer to keep that in the back of your head, it may make the bad guy seem less menacing and even make the reader not want to hate him as much.

On the other hand, if you're writing a story about an FBI informant who infiltrates the mob and gets to know the guys he's trying to take down, then maybe we should get to know our Big Scary Mafia Guy more. That way, we understand why our protagonist finds himself conflicted about ratting him out to the authorities in the story's closing act.

Personally, I like more well-rounded villains, even to the extent that the reader may at times find themselves questioning whether they relate more to the protagonist or the antagonist. But that's probably because I tend to prefer stories with more depth and layers to them. For a retelling of The Three Little Pigs, I'd probably get annoyed if the author chose to delve into the Big Bad Wolf's messy divorce and struggles with alcoholism.

Posted at 11:03AM, Mar. 13, 2018

A good villain has a backstory, and a set of goals that are seemingly righteous that motivate them to do whatever they're doing.

Reason why I loved Naruto and those old Tagalog action movies that are based of Filipino war heroes. Communist and Islamic rebels get humanized. And as a viewer, you get to sometimes root for the villain even if you don't completely agree with communism or islam.

Posted at 12:03PM, Mar. 13, 2018

You should also consider the ending of your conflict, and what kind of tone you want for that.
Is this a Tragic story where The antagonist must die and the hero (and readers) are heartbroken to do so?
Is this a heart warming tale were the villain grows and changes and redeems their self? and then there's a dance montage of some kind.
Is this an escapist action romp where you want a truly evil and despicable person our hero can finally get the best of and save the day? and we're all glad to see this terrible villain tossed into the abyss.

A flat villain is usually relatable through an exaggeration of our own sins. for instance, a Greedy person. We all want things. We've all had a moment when we let someone else go with less for our own benefit. So it's not out of the realm of imagination that someone could take that to the extreme. If that's all we know about them, we obviously think they are terrible and aren't super attached to their well being. I'd argue that dehumanizing this character allows us to truly hate them. The Joker in the Dark knight is a fairly flat character. The only thing we know about him is that he's a lying murderer. The movie goes out of the way to show us that everything he says is probably a lie. Yet he is entertaining and we can enjoy his death.