Some Tips for Creating Well-Rounded Villains

Yesterday I talked about characters in general. Today, I'm going to expand on what makes a villain work.
By the way, for anyone who didn't read the last post (I don't know why you didn't; you should!), the characters, Kinlar and Keldrin, that I reference, are from an old story that I wrote about six years ago.


So, what makes a good villain?


1. Motivation. No one does anything for nothing. Keldrin joined the sorcerer, and the only reason he did so was because he was ... evil. 
There was very little motivation. He would most likely have done it whether Kinlar had been around or not. There should always, always be some reason villains do what they do.


2. A range of human emotions. Keldrin had jealousy, fear, and hatred. He had no emotions besides these; no remorse, uncertainty, or longing.


3. He (or she) must believe that what he is doing is right for either himself or everyone. Either your villain must believe that he is above the law and can do whatever he wants; or else he thinks that what he is doing is best for everyone. 
And I don't mean in that annoying, patronizing way that authors will do where they sort of do the sarcastic aside: 
'Of course he was doing it for the greater benefit! Greg was firmly convinced that poisoning all the dogs would be best for everyone. Why couldn't anyone see that?'
I mean where he firmly believes that whatever it is, he is in the right. 
He has to have reasons (of course the wrong reasons) that he's thought out and convictions that he holds to.


4. He must believe that the ends justify the means, but he shouldn't necessarily like the means. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of villains who get kicks out of evil. I'm not saying that they should dislike being cruel, but it really is boring when villains seem to forget their goal and instead focus on being nasty for no reason.


5. He should have at least one moment of almost choosing right over wrong. Perhaps I should say that he has to have an inner struggle. Especially if he sees the protagonist doing the right thing despite the trouble it causes him. He should wonder, at least for a little while, what it is that motivates the hero. He should maybe remember back when he himself wasn't evil. Then, the next time the chance presents itself, he should struggle against doing the right thing.
Now, the way he goes will depend on your villain. If you intend to redeem him by the end, then perhaps he should choose the right thing ... just this once. Not necessarily, but possibly. Even if it's not a positive act, such as helping a beggar; maybe it's just not doing something wrong. Maybe he decides not to poison the king, or he lets one of his enemies go free.
If he's going to be evil to the end, then he will probably end up choosing evil over good, sending him on a further downward spiral that will result in his destruction at the end. Or he might choose the right thing, but when the consequences are negative he quickly goes back to the security of his evil.


6. They should be at least of average intelligence. One thing that gets my goat is how overtly stupid villains usually are. 
How in the world (that they plan to utterly dominate) did they ever get in the position they're in if everything they do is obviously calculated to overthrow their own regime? Never mind the hero destroying them; they should have destroyed themselves long ago. Cackling evilly and revealing your evil plans will never get you to the place you want to be. Here's an example of a typical villain's List of Things to Do: 1. Conquer the world. 2. Destroy the good guys. 3. Enjoy it.
Conquer the world. Yep, that's a pretty broad category. They don't even have an idea of how they're going to do that. I guess they just figure that being fearsome and treating their own henchmen bad will cause everything to fall into place.
Your villain should have a set and definite plan for how he's going to get what he wants, and it should either be a plan that would probably work out if the hero didn't throw a wrench into it, or it should be the 'perfect crime' sort of scenario, where everything should have worked, but, because of the very nature of evil, no matter how perfect it is it's doomed to failure.



So, I hope this was helpful and entertaining! If there's anything I missed, please let me know in the comments box :)

Don't Tell Me He's Smart!

Recently I re-read the first long fantasy I ever wrote, The War for Erasthinia. It was probably around twenty thousand words. I was ... fifteen, I think.
One thing I noticed about it was my main character. Throughout the entire book we're being told that he's really smart. He's put in charge of the army at the age of seventeen, the king listens to him, etc, etc. He's also incredibly humble and brave and the best sword-fighter ever (except for his uncle who taught him how to sword fight, of course).
But, despite all the telling of how smart he is, what I actually showed was that he was pretty stupid. He did quite a few things that make you wonder how he even made it to the age of seventeen, much less became the commander of the whole bloomin' army.
So I was wondering, why is that? How come you can say something in a story until you're blue in the face, yet be contradicting yourself all along?
I think it's because I wasn't really interested in the character; I was just interested in the story. Kinlar had to become the commander, and to do so he had to be so smart, skilled, brave, and just generally amazing, that everyone else who might have been qualified were passed over in favor of him.
But then I made him act stupid in order for him to be captured. Of course, I didn't realize he was being stupid; I wasn't even paying attention! All that mattered was that The Plot went the way I wanted it to. The characters weren't part of the plot; they were just along for the ride.

I can't say that I've learned to master character completely over the years, but I have learned a few things.

1. Show, show, show! We've all heard this a million times, but showing really is better than telling; and most especially (I would say) when it comes to characters.
It can be difficult to understand what showing means; to me, I have to really take the time, because whenever I just think about showing instead of laying everything out for the reader I have a hard time imagining how to do it. I have to actually be writing.
I often catch myself describing something that I should be showing through a character's actions, and then I'll either change it or leave myself a note and come back to it later.

2. Know your characters strengths and weaknesses. In The War for Erasthinia, Kinlar didn't have any weaknesses whatsoever in my own mind. He was pretty much perfect.
When he got angry, it was at the man who betrayed his soldiers; he was so humble that all the adulation heaped on him did nothing to affect him; he was such an amazing sword fighter that even after being in prison for a month or more he was able to defeat a guy who had the sorcerer's magic sword fighting power in him. He had absolutely no flaws whatsoever.
And so he ended up being super boring. He needed a balance of both good and bad; if he was brave, he needed to be hot headed. If he was smart, and everyone was always telling him so, he needed to become over-confident and make a stupid mistake. If he was kind to his men, he needed to be too lenient to someone who deserved a heavy hand to keep him in line.
Every strength must be balanced by a weakness. Which brings me to my next point.

3. Know your villain's strengths and weaknesses, too. In my novel, Kinlar only had one enemy (besides the sorcerer). Everyone just loved his socks off except for this one guy, Keldrin. Keldrin was bad, through and through. I made sure to let everyone reading the novel know that he was a no account, nasty, selfish, jealous dude.
Throughout the book, he sneers at Kinlar, threatens him, ignores him, and then goes off and betrays him. He has absolutely no remorse; no moments when he wavers between right and wrong; and no qualms about bringing his whole country down to the ground, even if he gets very little or nothing out of it. Not only that, but he stinks at just about everything. He's no good at sword fighting, he's not very smart, he's a coward who stays as far away from the fighting as possible, and he's only tolerably good at archery (despite having trained under the same tutors as the prince).
And guess what? His being so obvious made him just as boring as Kinlar.
The things that make a villain really work are,

• 1) Motivation. 
• 2) A range of human emotions. 
• 3) He (or she) must believe that what he is doing is right for either himself or everyone. 
• 4) He must believe that the ends justify the means, but he shouldn't necessarily like the means. 
• 5) He should have at least one moment of almost choosing right over wrong. 
• 6) He should be at least of average intelligence.

In my next post, we'll look at these points in detail.

4. Make your plot and characters work together. If something is a convenient coincidence, it probably shouldn't be there. Coincidences are evidence of characters serving the plot. In my current novel, the main character and the villain meet for the first time in a seemingly random way; but in reality, the villain had set it up on purpose.
If something happens, it should be something in character for the characters, and it should be something that makes sense plotwise.
In The War for Erasthinia, Kinlar somehow escapes from the sorcerer's island on one of the sorcerer's ships. The explanation given is very weak; but I needed him to escape at that time, because the story was more important than the story making sense.

5. Your story will be much better if you just tell it. There are plenty of Christian books that I've read that I'd never read again.
There are other Christian books that I've liked enough to read again, but have skipped large portions in the re-read.
The first group are just sermons disguised as story; the second group is comprised of books where the author has a good story and good characters, but once in a while lets the message overwhelm them.
I once read a series of books where each one was called A Journey in ... where it was basically a theology book with a bit of story to give it more interest. The theology was good, and these weren't exactly supposed to be novels. The characters had conversations and debates on whatever the theme of that book was, and at the end came to a conclusion; and that was fine (though definitely not 'read again' material).
But it seems like a lot of books that claim to be exciting novels are really about the same as that series; the story comes second to the agenda, the characters are not developed, and both plot and characters serve the ultimate purpose of bringing us to whatever point the author wants to make.
People don't like being lectured. They like reading a good story where the message isn't in their face. So just tell the story. Your readers will thank you.

6. Don't be obvious.
I'm not telling you to be obscure. That's just as bad. But don't throw the villain's nastiness or the hero's awesomeness in our faces. Let us figure it out from the story.
In cowboy movies, everyone knows immediately who the bad guy is because the music turns sinister, we see a close up shot of a nasty smile and cold eyes, and he starts making trouble the second he's on screen. We know the hero because there's a beautiful girl who smiles at him, and he's handsome, and right away he starts being amazing.
Not every hero/heroine should be the epitome of beauty, and the villain shouldn't right off the bat repulse everyone except for the other equally evil (but less important) bad guys who work for him.
Also, if someone dislikes your main character, that shouldn't automatically put him/her on the bad guy's side. Maybe he has a legitimate reason for not liking your amazing, perfect hero; or maybe he's been lied to. There are a lot of possibilities, so why just stick with the boring one?

7. Don't flaunt your idea's uniqueness. If there's one thing that annoys me, it's this: in the middle of a book, typically fantasy, the author will either break in with narration or have one of the characters say something about how different this book is. Something like, "Now fairies are often regarded as cute little pixies with wings; but in reality, they are far more dangerous than the tales would have us believe."
For me, that destroys the credibility of a book. That's just as bad as any other kind of telling. Why do they feel the need to jerk us out of the story, just to point out that fairies aren't really like we think they are? How about you show us that? And don't show it by having a character yell,
"Wow! I always thought that fairies were cute little pixies with wings! Apparently they're far more dangerous than the tales would have us believe! RUN!"
Show it by being subtle. Or maybe don't call them fairies, since the word has so many connotations that you might not want to have attached to your totally unique dangerous beings.
Nothing will drive me further away from a book than being told that it's breaking the mold and that (by implication) all the books where fairies are cute little pixies with wings are boring and not worth my time. Maybe they are, but I don't need to be hit over the head with the author's opinion on that.
The best stories are those that are focused, unassuming, and self-confident enough to trust the reader to figure things out. If your story is unique, then we'll be happy to acknowledge that. But if you tell us it is, then we might just put the book down and go read something better.
Plus, it just makes you look desperate. "My story is amazing! I have ideas in here that no one's ever thought of before! I'm really thinking out of the box on this one! Please read it! It's so unique!"
Now, of course, if it's a comedy then that might be different. In the 'Ella Enchanted' movie, there are some genuinely funny references to well known fairy tales that are sort of turned on their heads.
But don't do it if you're trying to be serious.

Well, I hope that you enjoyed this! Now go write a unique story where Hansel and Gretel aren't the shivering, scared children that we've always heard about, but are instead fearsome warriors ...

Debunking the Myth of 'Anything Goes' in Fantasy

Possibly the most annoying thing I've heard from people defending certain fantasy movies is the argument that, since it's fantasy, who cares if it's realistic? After all, the whole thing is fake anyways. In other words, a character can defy the laws of gravity, but it's OK because, hey, it's fantasy!
That's just ridiculous. If, in the movie, the laws of gravity are present and intact, then no one should be able to violate them, no matter how amazing he or she happens to be. But how do we know that the laws of gravity apply in the movie? Well, do the characters fall down when they die? The law of gravity is therefore intact; and anything contradicting it, without a better excuse than the awesomeness of the character, has no business being in the movie.

This certainly goes in our novels as well as in our movies. We can't establish a rule (implicitly or explicitly) and then break it willy-nilly. If we do it once, then our readers might forgive it as an oversight. Twice, and they begin to wonder what's going on. Multiple times, and they start to nod their heads in boredom. What's the point of a story that breaks its own rules just for the sake of excitement or convenience?

I think that the people who make the argument of 'anything goes' are those who don't get fantasy. They'll watch/read it once in a while just for entertainment, but they don't understand people who really like it. So when people like myself complain about Thorin and Co. in The Desolation of Smaug being chased around by a dragon that breathes fire and can fly, and this same dragon being unable to even singe their beards, they just don't get that a story must stay true to its own rules or else it becomes laughable. Or maybe it's because the viewing public has been so dumbed down that a stupid chase scene that stretches the movie out way beyond what it should have been is more interesting than what should have happened: a tense, witty scene in the dark with Smaug and invisible Bilbo. Because who wants dialogue when we can have a dragon covered in molten gold just for the fun of it?
That's the way we'll get people to regard fantasy as a legitimate form of literature or film.

We've Stereotyped Ourselves!

Having been introduced to the online writing world several years ago, I've had time to observe what goes on amongst authors and what they say about themselves. Being the only author that I know personally was rather difficult, or would have been if I had realized that there was a whole world on the internet where authors are encouraged, prodded, and helped by other authors. It's been fun and very informative, and I would never want to put down those people who are sincere and trying to help each other out. However, there are a few things that really do annoy me about authors. There are a lot of stereotypes that they've placed on themselves, for what reason I can't imagine, because generally stereotyping is frowned upon. So here are a few things that authors say about themselves that just don't make sense.

1. Because I write, I'm insane!

I see this one all the time. Even authors that I admire and like say this. Constantly on their blogs they are proclaiming their... lack of sanity? As if writing were something that somehow automatically makes you a good candidate for a mental institution, yet also simultaneously one of the few awesome people in the world. But I've never understood this. How am I insane simply for writing a story? Writing seems to me a much more tame thing than, say, going over Niagara Falls in a barrel or climbing a treacherous mountain. Of course writing can be exciting to the author, but crazy isn't an epithet I would apply to myself or any other normal human being who happens to write. It also seems to me to be a mark of arrogance to act as though we are some special sect of people simply because we write.

As a side note, people are always calling NaNoWriMo crazy and insane. Generally, if I realize that I am doing something only a madman would do, I don't do it. So when NaNoWriMo took a story that originally had something of a plot and turned it into a fifty-thousand-word plotless disaster, I stopped doing it. You might find me on NaNoWriMo, but you won't find me doing it.

But anyways, as a general rule I don't think authors are particularly strange or crazy. At least those of my online acquaintance. I realize that there are a lot of authors out there who probably, in real life, are actually weird, insane, crazy, and should be institutionalized. The kinds who write pathetic, stupid, or wicked books. But I'm not talking about them; I'm talking about a mostly-Christian, moral, normal group of people that includes myself. And you know what? In spite of all the talk of craziness, I haven't really seen it yet.

2. Sadistic and proud of it!

How many times have I seen authors (Christian ones) bragging about the fact that they love to put their protagonists through the most horrible, awful things imaginable? They act as though putting them through the wringer is something that they enjoy, rather than something they do to further the plot or character development. Even the mildest thing that a character goes through is something that I sure wouldn't want to go through ever in my whole life, and yet authors treat it flippantly. "Yeah, I'm sure not nice to my characters! My MMC's little daughter was killed, his wife was captured by lecherous soldiers, he just found out his brother is a traitor, and to top it all off he's about to have his hand cut off. Poor guy." Um, yeah, poor guy. Understatement of the century, anyone? I don't know about anyone else, but I cringe when I'm reading about horrible things that have happened to characters in books, and I cringe when my own characters have horrible things happen to them. Is it necessary? Yes. Is it fun? Definitely not! Remember, you are in a sense the god of your story. You know everything that will happen and why it happens. God doesn't get a sadistic kick when His people go through trials; the trials are not the end, but the means to the end of sanctifying them and bringing them closer to Him. Similarly, we should be using whatever hardships our characters face for the ultimate purpose of bringing them farther along in their character development and their closeness to God, and we should not, EVER, make light of what they go through. Are they fictional? Yes. Does that somehow make it permissible to enjoy their distress and sorrow? I don't think so. So the next time you're tempted to sound sadistic on your blog concerning one of your characters, think again.

3. My characters are hijacking my story!

This is one of the most ridiculous claims that authors make. Their characters speak to them? Their characters won't stop arguing with them? Their protagonist has his own ideas about the direction the plot should take?

'Scuse me?

Am I alone in being one who has never heard even a whisper from any of my characters in the thirteen years that I've been writing?

Of course it can be difficult to keep a plot on track. Of course characters can be difficult to 'get right' and all that. But I find it extremely absurd to be always talking about our characters as though they were like the imaginary friends some of us had in childhood. I don't talk to my characters; they don't talk to me. Sort of like Tolkien's Entwives. I also think that if we gave up this talk of imaginary friends we might get along more quickly in our writing. I don't have to know what my character's favorite flower is, what his first word was, what her reaction to being suddenly surrounded by purple aliens would be (unless, of course, I'm writing a science fiction where purple aliens are a distinct possibility).

Here is an interesting thing I found out a few years ago: you can control your characters (without promising them chocolate). You can make the plot go where you want it to, if the plot makes sense. Your characters won't rebel, and if your plot takes an unexpected turn it's because YOU turned the plot. If you have a flash of inspiration, then it was from the brain that God gave you, not because you and your characters communicate telepathicaly. You have power over your own writing! How liberating is that? I know, I know, it's more fun to blame writing difficulties on characters, but it lost its humor a long time ago.

4. Forget unsocialized homeschoolers. We're the unsociable authors!

Well, really, here I can only speak for myself. I don't know most of the internet authors. But it seems to me that they do have lives that they live and families that they generally speak to. Their pictures seem to indicate that baths, meals, and rest are not foreign unto them. But if you simply read ninety percent of authors' blogs, you might get the idea that we go to an attic, lock the door, chain ourselves to a desk, throw the key out of our reach, drink coffee or tea exclusively, and subsist on chocolate. Again, I'm talking for myself (mostly), but when I write I find at least a little background noise to be helpful (growing up with a lot of younger siblings may account for this), and I'm usually in an area frequented by members of my family. Not only that, but if I had a cup of tea (I don't drink coffee) beside me, I might take one sip and by the time I remembered to take another sip it would be stone cold. I'm not talented enough to drink and type at the same time, and I have a strange feeling that most authors (for all that they are insane and special) are similarly lacking that talent. Also, it takes me about fifteen to twenty seconds to consume a cookie or part of a chocolate bar. I shudder to think of the state of my health if I had enough chocolate beside me to fill up my writing time (because, believe me, I would not neglect my chocolate!). Another thing is how sticky my computer keyboard would be by the end of half an hour.

I also consider myself to be a fair enough companion for human beings, even while I'm writing. Writing, like social media, should never take precedence over our relationships. It may be fun to joke about ourselves as being unsociable, but I hope that none of us truly is.

5. In conclusion.

So, to sum up: Insanity isn't something that most people are proud of, and in and of itself writing is one of the quieter talents. Unless you dictate your work to a scribe, writing is done by putting pen to paper or finger to keyboard. One of your characters may be insane, but that doesn't make you crazy. If you are insane, then I would expect that your writing would be unintelligible gibberish and your profile picture to be of someone in a straight-jacket.

Sadism in regards to protagonists (or any character, really) is, frankly, disturbing and probably isn't the best testimony for a Christian to be putting out there. Put your character through whatever you (don't) like, but don't like it!

Your characters and plot, just like a Disney Princess's destiny, are yours to control. You make the rules (within the bounds of God's Word, of course), you set the boundaries, you create the characters and the world and you think up the plot. If you are having trouble, don't bribe or cajole your characters, take a step back, ask God to help you, and think about how to solve the problem. I've done it before, it's worked, it can. be. done.

If you are unsociable with your family, don't be! God gave us a desire to write, but He also gave us family and friends. Real people. Don't neglect them, and don't joke about neglecting them either (especially if you really are). It's fine to set time aside to write alone by yourself. It's not fine to shut yourself away from everyone for ever.

Finally, writing doesn't make you special. God has given you a certain talent, just like He's given other people other talents. Writing is one among many, and it isn't necessarily better than being an artist, an engineer, or a doctor. The way to set yourself apart is not to be an author, but to be a good author to the glory of God. And even then, pride should never factor into our attitudes about ourselves.

The Four Feathers -- A Book Review

Well, hello everyone! It's been a really, really long time since I posted. But I'm here today with a review of a book by A. E. W. Mason: The Four Feathers. No, it's not a play on The Forefathers or anything. It is set in the late 19th century, when the British ruled much of the Soudan and Egypt. Harry Feversham comes from a long line of soldiers, stretching back to, apparently, the 1600s. Of course, Harry's father naturally expects that his son will follow in his footsteps and bring honor to the family name. But Harry is terrified of being a coward, and though he joins the army, when the call to arms comes he resigns his officer's commission, believing that no one will know the reason. Unfortunately, three men of his regiment find out and on the night of a ball to announce Harry's engagement to Ethne Eustace he receives three white feathers. When Ethne sees them, and he explains to her what has happened, she gives him back her engagement ring and adds a fourth feather from her fan. Harry leaves, determined not to come back to England until he has done one thing for each man that gave him a feather to prove himself and to atone for what everyone believes is his cowardice. In this way he hopes that Ethne, too, will take back her feather, though he tells her nothing about his plan.

I really loved this book. In fact, Mason's writing is several notches above the typical books you read written in the late eighteen and early nineteen hundreds. He's not worried about spoonfeeding his audience, and he is willing to make things complicated without immediately explaining what is going on. Not only that, but his characters actually have character. They are very well-rounded. Ethne is a strong and courageous girl, but she has her weaknesses too, as becomes apparent. Harry, though the book isn't written from his perspective, is very well done as well. Even Harry's father, who might be the closest to a caricature in the book, does not act in exactly the way you might expect such a man to act when Harry informs him of the feathers and his resignation. Another thing I liked about this book is the romance. Both Harry and Ethne are fairly undemonstrative people, reserved and quiet. They feel deeply for each other, but they never kiss or pour out gushing flatteries and declarations of undying love. I like that. I like it a lot.
But perhaps my favorite part in the whole book is the section where Harry tries to rescue Captain Trench (who sent him one of the feathers) from the House of Stone in Omdurman. I don't want to give spoilers away, but the descriptions of everything are just fantastic. I was drawn in completely from first to last. One thing is certain: Mason definitely had a gift not just for telling a story, but for writing one. And The Four Feathers is not the only book where he proves this, though it may be the best. I may post a review of The Courtship of Morrice Buckler sometime soon, as well as other books by Mason as I read them. However, I give this book five stars out of five (with a warning: there are some instances of the use of 'God' in a way which is not reverent; but these are fortunately not too numerous).

I found this book for free on the Amazon Kindle store, and I thought I recognized the title because my dad had watched a movie which I vaguely remembered being called The White Feather. However, he had watched an old 1939 version which was called The Four Feathers, which he had liked. So I watched it. Let me warn you, if you want to watch the movie, READ THE BOOK FIRST. I am serious. Otherwise the movie won't make a whole lot of sense to you. Not only is it very shallow on the character side (the characters don't talk much and when they do, they are completely different from those in the books) but many of the names have been changed. For instance, in the movie, Ethne Eustace becomes Ethne Burroughs, and her brother (she doesn't have a brother in the book) is one of those that sends Harry a feather. Not only that, but every single one of the elderly British gentlemen look exactly the same. They hardly have enough screen time to become distinguished one from the other, they all wear exactly the same clothes and exactly the same mustache, and they all have exactly the same voice. There are a lot of problems with the movie, which annoys me because the book wouldn't have been hard to transcribe semi-faithfully to the screen. And the ending? The ending is S.T.U.P.I.D. And the big battles between the British and the Dervishes? They are just there to take up time which should have been used to develop the characters, because not one single battle takes place in the book. Seriously.