Building the Bad Guy

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And if they are scary, then how did he do it so effortlessly?

Twelve volumes of HoME say otherwise .

A disembodied spirit of malice who is represented though his servants rather than his own presence.

"Hate" to nitpick, but in LotR and the letters Sauron is described embodied at the time of LotR.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

and surely having all this supposed 'political correctness' makes it even easier?! Just have your bad guy drive a bigger car, be a homophobe and be fond of pate de fois gras and you'll be bang on

Right on point; I fail to see why a bad guy needs to conform to the norm. After all, the very position of "bad guy" demonises him and probably also what he stands for. On the other hand, censoring oneself due to whatever legislation is stupid, because you would have to avoid all possible groups that would be offended - right?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Raynor

On the other hand, censoring oneself due to whatever legislation is stupid, because you would have to avoid all possible groups that would be offended - right?

You know, I've been wanting to do a census of sorts to find out just what the most offensive thing in the US is and write a book about it?

I'd provide a hate mail address on the last page...

Here's what makes Tolkien's bad guys interesting [in my opinion]: even the truly evil ones didn't necessarily start out that way. His bad guys have stories, motives, really great dialog...

Now look at Shakespeare's villains. Just a sampling, I haven't got all day...

Iago: whimpering that Othello got promoted over him. Hints that Othello has been doing illicet things with Iago's wife. Oh snap. He's a manipulative creep. Somewhat inept on his own, but great at messing with other people. A bit of a Wormtongue character, really.

Richard III: says he's a villain in his opening soliloquy. That's a good way to judge bad guys, by the way. You want a good villain, give him good monologues. Melkor, Milton's Lucifer, Richard III, Saruman... Dick feels cheated by life, so he's going to be evil. Intense, no?

The Entire Cast of Macbeth: ooh, controversial. Lady Macbeth is NOT the bad guy! Well, sort of. You want a great story, make your characters totally screwed up. Who do you blame? The witches for giving Macbeth the idea? Macbeth for acting on it? Lady Macbeth for goading him? Fate for predetermined bad-guy-ness? Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, Frodo Baggins, and Eru meant for Melkor to be Morgoth and create snow.

Really good writers make their bad guys round. They have histories. They have reasons for their evilness. They have really expansive vocabularies.

Eff political correctness. Pick an idea and embody it in a character.

[Lalwendë]

Thing is, I reckon this Horowitz bloke is just having a rant because he's had writer's block

Tolkien managed to stack up the bad guys without resorting to anything that even today we might get offended at - if anything he was the very model of 'PC'! Possibly by, as Hookbill says, portraying his evil in a very third party way, through the minions, the results of Sauron's works. On the other hand, Philip Pullman (for one) doesn't appear to be bothered in the slightest who he upsets - having an evil woman (sexist!) and an evil priest (irreligious!) in his most famous work.

So there are just two examples which put paid to the ill-founded rant.

[davem]

I found the changes made for the movie version of his book interesting. Reminds me of something Rateliff mentions in Mr Baggins, about a reference to Charles Darwin (a reference to Darwin being 'a young biologist everyone is talking about') was removed from recent US editions of the Dr Dolittle books. Presumably it was felt that even to mention the dreaded name was enough to upset religious sensibilities.

I wonder whether the reason Tolkien's villains are accepted is that the seeting is a fantasy world, & has no obvious direct connection with our own world. Add to that the fact that Tolkien was a man of his time, & there is likely to be less for the loonies to grab onto as a source of offence. Whether Tolkien could get away with what he has done if he was offering LotR for publication today is another question. Of course, as we've been discussing over on the other thread about potential new Middle-earth stories, publishers have a tendency to lay down pretty strict rules for authors:

The whole process of producing mass-market books now works against quality. The paucity of stand-alone genre novels, especially but not only in fantasy, is a testament to their generally poor quality, and that can be blamed on the padding. If you write a good novella, you must pad it to a fare-thee-well to make it a salable novel; so when readers see a novel not part of a series, they almost expect to find an overstuffed novella. If you have a story that wants to be a single tight novel, plenty of unscrupulous operators will urge you to dilute it into a trilogy. Beyond that point there is not much commercial incentive for further adulteration, unless your first name is Robert and your last name Jordan.

Even the tools we write with are conducive to hack and bloat. The copyist-monks of the Middle Ages valued every stroke of the pen, and wasted no written words. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, for instance, is an extremely terse work; for all its immense scope and importance, it fits easily in 300 pages of print. We find, at the end of mediaeval manuscripts, reminders of the labour that produced them. One scribe finished a book with the couplet, Explicit hoc totum: pro Christo da mihi potum......

hat was a sign of things to come. Publishers began to discover the selling-power of big books and multi-volume novels, and after the disappearance of the dollar paperback, made them the mainstay of their business. The loose and sloppy prose of the word-processor generation was perfectly suited to their needs. They were publishing books in greater numbers and at greater length than ever before, with editorial staffs constantly shrinking; one hears of cases where a single editor is expected to acquire and publish a hundred books per year. Meanwhile print runs were shrinking, advances and royalties remaining static at best; so that a mid-list author, to survive, had to become a hack, churning out vast quantities of work and sending them to press only half revised. The result: countless acres of what in our especial field is called, with a perfectly justified sneer, ‘Extruded Fantasy Product’. (The more general term ‘Extruded Book Product’ is occasionally used as well. I Googled that phrase and found to my chagrin that my own LiveJournal profile topped the list.) http://superversive.livejournal.com/49083.html

Add to that the real fear among publishers of causing offence (controversy is ok, but don't offend!).

Of course, fantasy has certain rules - mainly based on what Tolkien did, ironically. You can have 'Dark Lords', Goblins, Trolls, Dragons, & wicked Wizards, because that's what's expected by those who read those novels. What I mean is, the people who read such books are unlikely to object to the portrayal of fantasy villains, & the kind of people who would object would not be the kind of people who would read that kind of thing.

That said, an 'Angmarian' villain is not going to cause apoplexy in the way a Muslim villain will.....

[Morwen]

I suppose so called "political correctness" might affect a lazy writer who wishes to rely on stereotypes and caricatures. If you are going to use a 'shortcut' of ethnicity, religion, nationality, whatever to explain the evilness of your villian then you should be criticised. A well constructed villain should have his/her own personal backstory, his own inherent flaws which explain why he/she became a menace to society. And if that's what is being presented then fair enough.

[Morthoron]

I think villainy has taken a turn for the...ummm...worse, or perhaps the world has. Tolkien drew his images of evil from another time, from his Catholic roots and from other ancient presentations of evil, whether Grendel in Beowulf or Lucifer the Fallen, himself.

When Tolkien stated his story was not allegorical to WWII, he meant it. There really isn't a hint of Hitler or Stalin in Sauron, is there? In both Sauron and Morgoth before him, evil was omnipresent and preternatural, the ancient demons made manifest on earth; hence Sauron is seen only as the Great Eye, wishing to rule the world, but not truly part of it. Tolkien did not foray far into the 4th Age, the Age of Man, and his one attempt he aborted rather quickly. Why? Perhaps because Man is far more horrific an evil than any demigod, and Tolkien's utter disdain for the modern, whether it be for automobiles or great machines of destruction (made by the Orcs, you know), is clearly delineated in his work.

Tolkien's conception of the world was clearly from another era -- Victorian morally and Anglo-Saxon linguistically. He could no more write a modern novel than William Faulkner could write sunny children's prose. Perhaps we too, in embracing Middle-earth, yearn for such simplicity, where evil is monolithic and horrible, yes, but it is identifiable as such. But the modern world is fragmented and perhaps going through the last throes of dementia. Evil has become synonymous with insanity, and a thousand times a thousand shards of evil prick us everyday. There is no rhyme or reason to evil, and though a battalion of experts prattle their platitudes on CNN and MSNBC, no one really can make sense of it. People rap themselves in bombs and blow themselves up in crowded buses, children go to school with automatic rifles and slaughter their schoolmates, and despite mounting evidence to the contrary, governments cynically allow the destruction of the environment so that the corporate coffers of their patrons swell even as the polar ice caps shrink.

It is as Charles Manson said when he opined perceptively, "You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays, everybody's crazy." Evil aint what it used to be.

[Boromir88]

I'm sure I'm not alone amongst those of us who've played in RPGs on here, when I reckon that dreaming up a bad guy is actually much, much easier than trying to create a credible good guy who is not a Mary-Sue!~Lalwende

Very true, and myself being a Sean Bean fanboy...Bean finds it much more enjoyable and fun to play the bad guy in movies (or the man with questionable 'morals') than the upright model good guy, as that gets a bit 'boring' for him. Where all it takes to make a really good 'bad guy' is have them commit a horrible act of evil and show they have no remorse for what they did, they actually take pleasure from committing evil. Which is interesting as Tolkien remarks this about his Orcs:

"They were indeed so corrupted that they were pitiless, and there was no cruelty or wickedness that they would not commit; but this was the corruption of independent wills, and they took pleasure in their deeds. They were capable of acting on their own, doing evil deeds unbidden for their own sport..."~HoME X: Morgoth's Ring; Myths Transformed

By showing your 'baddies' have no remorse and actually delight in committing evil, I think you really can make an effective bad guy for any story. This kind of ties into Hookbill's point about motives, and what motivates the character to do what he/she does? Money? Pure enjoyment? Fulfillment? Power?

Another thing that hasn't been talked about yet is the actual appearance of the bad guy. In old Hollywood movies, you see a guy dressed in black, and with some sort of physical injury (something simple like a scar or perhaps just an evil-looking hook) and immediately you should think 'there's the villain of the film.' But the thing that Tolkien did, that I personally thought was more effective than Hollywood, is direct statements that are intentionally vague about a person's appearance. Let's take Sauron for example:

Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. In his earlier incarnation he was able to veil his power (as Gandalf did) and could appear as a commanding figure of great strength of body and supremely royal demeanor and countenance.~Letter 246

I love this quote referring to Sauron's appearance (after he lost the ability to change forms). I mean we have 'terrible,' Tolkien is very direct in telling us that we should think Sauron is very terrible. However, it's also very vague. What is terrible? This is up to the fancy of the reader. Personally I don't like putrid, bloody and veiny demons, I think of 'terrible' as something dark, ominous and imposing. Point is, I think its up the reader to decide exactly how they interpret...'terrible.'

We also know that Sauron's form was that of a man, yet greater, but not gigantic. So someone who is bigger and taller than a Man, but not a hulking giant. As discussed in this great thread started by Thinlomien, the use of 'height,' not only as in someone appearing 'mighty' but also the use of height to create intimidation and fear: Heighty is Mighty.

In fact, I think Sauron does this for most of his villains (at least when talking strictly about LOTR). The Balrog, the Ringwraiths, the Watcher in the Water, the 'nameless creatures gnawing' are all 'villains' where there is a lot of mystery surrounding them. It could be mystery about their actual appearance, perhaps mystery surrounding who they are and what the heck they are doing? The Ringwraiths (especially in FOTR) are presented as villains that we don't know much about. As we follow the Hobbits' journey to Rivendell, and there are several encounters with the Ringwraiths, the Hobbits have no clue who these black riders are, they just know these guys are evil and need to be avoided at all costs. And as a reader I got the same feeling!

So I guess all this talk about 'appearance' and the 'mystery' surrounding villains can be defined nicely by subtelty. Subtetly can also be a great tool in creating a good villain that scares the crap out of you. Just little comments that unnerve the reader like Gandalf saying in The White Rider: 'where the world is gnawed by nameless creatures.' Just this one little passing comment by Gandalf really creates a lot of fear.

I'm reminded of another fascinating author that reminds me of Tolkien, and that is George Orwell. Who's villain in the book 1984, is much like Sauron. Only instead of one evil Dark Lord, it's the government called 'Big Brother.' We never meed Big Brother throughout the entire book, we don't even know who Big Brother is. Is it one person in charge controlling everything? Is is a bunch of politicians, is it an oligarchy? We have no clue, but we know Big Brother is evil because we see their work. And this is something Hookbill talked about. We see the oppression, the complete enslavement of an entire population, all because of Big Brother. But we don't know who Big Brother is. All we know is their symbol is a giant eye...And when people see this eye, they get a strange feeling someone is watching them...hmm sounds familiar.

Finally, another tactic for authors to use, is through their good characters. How do the author's 'good guys?' How do they react to and view the bad guys? Something like J.K. Rowling does in Harry Potter with Voldemort. Talk about a villain, we know that Voldemort was so evil and caused so much fear that Rowling's good characters refer to him as 'He who must not be named.' That must be a villain indeed...someone so evil people can't even say their name.

Or how about what Tolkien does with his Balrog? The fear he creates by using his good characters. Legolas screams like a girl and Gimli starts crying and can't even look. So, by an author using his/her other characters to also create an effective villain.

I guess, in general, I'm saying, I agree with Lal, what a useless article and that author needs to stop whining.