How do you get into the mindset of/portray a villain? Do you use conventional reasoning about motivation, look at cutting edge research, try to use the point of view, or some combination? Like a rapist regarding rape as a reproductive strategy vs. rape is about power, or just a horrible person.
Beating the hero is one thing. Getting the hero to compromise, to pass their moral boundary, betray themself--that's the mark of a true villain.
That assumes a hero.
I think what Brandon is saying is that a true villain will push the hero to break his own moral codes in order to stop/catch the villain. The rapist is not raping for reproductive reasons. This would imply he wants a child but raping a woman is not a productive way of getting a child. Rape is about power. But there needs to be a reason why he's raping, and not only because he seeks power. What happened to him in his past that's causing him to rape women? What's his motivation? His goal is power. What's the motivation? I'm not sure what you mean by 'cutting edge research' though. I'm assuming the villain is the antagonist in this story, which would leave the protagonist as the hero.
Men would rape women for the purpose of childbearing if it was the apocalypse and he was well-prepared and of the obsessive "let's repopulate the fuck out of the planet" state. But ONLY in that circumstance.
I'm unsure as to whether you're actually looking for help specifically with rapists, Dwayne, but if you want some first hand accounts, this book is a pretty good place to start: http://www.amazon.com/Men-Who-Rape-Psychology-Offender/dp/0738206245
I've never read the whole thing, but the Amazon "preview" shows quite a bit and it helped me when I was writing a story about an anger rapist a couple years back. (Google also previews some of the book here.) Mind you, the first-hand account stuff is pretty disturbing, so there's always that to consider.
Bekka you just described Danny Boyle's 28 days later. I loved that movie.
That movie was totally what I hand in mind, actually.
I was hoping it would have been read like this:
How do you get into the mindset of/portray a villain? Do you use conventional reasoning about motivation, look at cutting edge research, try to use the point of view, or some combination? Like a rapist regarding rape as a reproductive strategy vs. rape is about power, or just a horrible person.
It seems it was read like this:
How do you get into the mindset of/portray a villain? Do you use conventional reasoning about motivation, look at cutting edge research, try to use the point of view, or some combination? Like a rapist regarding RAPE as a reproductive strategy vs. RAPE is about power, or just a horrible person.
@Bekanator - I didn't want to get in a why people rape debate, or even really discuss it. It was just an example since there is a debate between if rape comes from a desire for power and rape as an evolved alternative mating strategy.
@Brandon & Moon - Sorry if I was unclear. I meant 'villain' in more the horrible person sense, not the antagonist sense, although there is a lot of overlap. In the stuff I've been working on sometimes the horrible person can be a friend to the antagonist sometimes, and sometimes the enemy. If we go all Dexterish it can be the antagonist. One of the questions I've been writing about is how evil do I let a good friend be? Especially when I'm in need?
@Moon - I was talking about do you check the latest research on an issue or just go with the common wisdom or what?
You guys all seem a little offended by the fact there is such a debate in real life, so probably not the best choice for an example. I recently heard an interview on (I think) NPR (which I can't find the link to) with a guy doing research on rape as an evolved mating method, so the fact there is such a debate was floating around my head. I'm more of the solution oriented 'just execute them' school of thought.
That all being said, how do you portray the motivations of horrible people? Do you look at resent research, accept the common wisdom, or just try to guess how a horrible person must think?
Honestly, I thought you were asking for advice about how to get in the mindset of a villian. When you used rapists as an example, I wasn't sure if you were citing it as an example or if you were actually looking for help in that villianous area specifically.
To answer your questions, I would go with all three. Research will give you the realism you'd want to portray. Accepting the common wisdom would help to ground your readers in what society at large has accepted as common motivations for rape. I'm not entirely sure that I would want to 'guess,' instead infusing some of my own ideas and thoughts about about how horrible a person can be. Also, you can take from your own experiences. If you're looking for psychological aspects of what rapists think and the characteristics of a rapist I would suggest Character Traits by Linda Edelstein. Or, watch documentaries about the subject on YouTube. Usually a rapist just doesn't pick a random target. They'll watch them, planning how they'll do it. They'll fantasize about it, fighting the urge, but usually in the end the obsession and compulsion to commit the crime will overtake any common sense and consequences they can/will face. Much the same as a drug addict. Not sure if this answers your questions, but I hope this helps in some way for you.
My advice would be the same for any type of horrible person you're trying to portray. Rapists, murderers, thieves, etc...
@Bek - I noticed, lol.
@Moon - It does. It isn't so much that I feel like I need help (never felt/had feedback) that I needed improvement in making horrible people seem more believable, but it has often been central to the story so it seemed a good idea to check with others to make sure I wasn't missing something basic.
I typically watch television with some good villian characters. I mean, it's research but it's also being lazy. It's the best part of being a writer.
Well, if you ask me you're thinking about it wrong if you are putting your characters in terms of moral absolutes. Your antagonist is a character with objectives that are incompatible with your protagonist's objectives, this brings them into conflict as they cannot both get what they want.
For characters that are actually interested in doing "bad things" well... then the motivation is going to be different from one to the other. One rapist rapes for reasons another rapist probably wouldn't understand, and you want to choose the motivations that are most convenient for the story you're trying to tell. Some thieves steal to eat, others steal for the rush, some thieves steal to get rich. Some murder out of rage or for revenge... others to feel powerful... but it really depends a lot on the story you're trying to tell. If you are interested in writing them effectively... then you have to understand their motives and then build it off of their motivations.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't understand the question.
@Nick - I'm a moral absolutist. Many of these people are not in conflict with any other major characters. The question is how do you describe the thought process of people who often decide to do evil things? If you think morals involve relativism and/or over focus on conflict, it won't make sense.
Example: In the land of whatever, during whenever, X attempts Y that requires local travel because of reasons unimportant to this example reason. This meets with mixed results because that is how life goes. Z reacts by helping, because he is X's good buddy.
This is all complicated by the fact Z is an arsonist and uses these outings as a chance to do scouting for the next building he wants to burn down. Not taking advantage, just trying to free up time to be helpful. At some point X knows all this, feels guilty, and is unsure what to do about the arson.
And I don't want to get into some sort of argument about the nature of morality here, but I still kind of think that in order to get into the heads of these characters your best bet would be to focus on the motivations behind their behavior.
I suppose that this is something of a cop out, as it merely restates the question as "how do I understand the motives of people who do bad things," but as a writer you are often required to accept and understand perspectives that you do not share at least in theory, in order to write them. It should be no harder to understand and accept the motives of people who engage in arson (in theory) than it would be to understand and accept the motives of people who like to ride hot air baloons. I'd just read a lot about the specific group and try to conceptualize the various impact that these behaviors can have, the appeal in them, the downsides, the ways that the appeals or downsides might be percieved as one or the other, as opposed to the way I might assume them to be percieved.
I hope that is helpful, because I don't think I can do much more for you.
As an aside I follow the logic of the arsonist a lot better then they guys in hot air balloons. This guy in the Remax balloon tries to kill himself on the powerlines at work every summer.
It does make sense, and few people think they are the bad guy. One could make the question 'How do you get into the mindset of anyone dramatically different then you?' That would be a fair thing to ask, but I'm focusing a subset who play a more problematic part because readers have a strong tendency to examine characters who do horrible things more closely. If you get the motivations for the secretary at the waiting room off, most folks gloss over it. The serial killer who might even get less word count will be gone over and over.
Nick says it well, I think.
I tend to assume that everyone acts rationally, regardless of whether a particular brand of rationality comes off irrational to everyone else. For this reason, I try to expunge boring words like 'evil' and 'villain' from my vocabulary when I write (and in life, but that's another discussion). So in terms of getting into a particular mindset, I will start at the bottom and reason my way to a particular behavior/action. I would argue that most people know when they're doing something morally "wrong," and can understand why it is regarded as unacceptable/unwanted behavior, but manage to reason themselves past that threshold. On the whole, individuals that are antisocial to the point where they lack the ability to feel empathy/shame are few and far between. And (arguably) boring as characters.
Linda has a very good point, and one that coincides well with what I was going to say...
I read an interview with Ricardo Montalban when he was playing Khan in Star Trek II. He was asked how he became one of the most convincing and memorable villains in movie history/what did he do to make his portrayal so powerful. His response was that he had to teach himself that a villain doesn't seem himself as one. A villain sees the world, and his enemies, as hopelessly in need of saving, repair, redemption, justice, what have you. The villain sees himself as the hero, and his actions as necessary to accomplish honorable and noble goals.
So, to really make a believable villain, the author would need to really delve deeply into the antagonist's psyche and backstory to come up with life events and foundational causes which would create the effect of a skewed sense of justice, honor, salvation, etcetera. To me, this is the hallmark of any powerful and believable villain - that he or she has been brought by their own life events into a state of mind that sees their own heinous acts as acts of great heroism.
Sure, there are some people who recognize the socially accepted brand of morality, then rail against it for the sake of 'watching the world burn'. This can happen, but without scientific statistics on the matter, I can only guess that 99 out of 100 'bad guys' really can justify what he's done one way or another, even if only to himself.
So, unless you want to redo Nolan's permutation of The Joker, I suggest you come at your villain from the angle of a hero - if that makes sense to you. If you can't understand that perspective, however, you'll do better not to try because you will only hurt your writing if you can't even try to see that everyone has reasons for doing things that you think are bad, even if you think their reasons themselves are bad.
I agree with alot of what has been already stated. In addition to that I'll add that it would help to look at yourself and anyone you've known closely as well. We each have a moral compass, these change depending on culture or something more intrinsic within ones character. So, first I'd ask, is my villain a normally functioning human being (not a sociopath)? From there start to build a regular character, unless you're going for some sort of parody or satire or caricature. In the end what makes him a villain might be more how he goes about his goals not why. He could want to be the best parking meter officer in the city, but how? Does he fabricate evidence? Tamper with meters?
Now let's look at why: Even if your character is a normally functioning human being he will still have human flaws. Example: why would he tamper and fabricate evidence if he can still be the best parking meter officer in the city without it? Well, sometimes the answer is simple: he's too lazy to put hard work or effort into anything. Sometimes it's complex: when our character was 10 his dad lost his job as a parking meter officer, and died destitute even though he put in 20 years of honest work.
Another way to flesh out a character is really looking at yourself, your flaws, your stengths and your moral compass. Compare yourself to others you know well and ask a bunch of questions. Let's look at murder as one example, when is it ok for me (frank) to kill someone?
For me the only way i'd intentionally kill someone is to save another human life. For someone in another culture however (another moral compass sometimes) you can kill women for cheating, or being accused of cheating.
The above is a simple moral compass exercise. Those of us who live within the same culture will have the same general moral compass. The more complex/different ones will be in sub-cultures and cultures further removed from our own. If you ever get the chance to read "Rising up and Rising Down", a huge book about moral compasses, and our view of right and wrong, you'll see a more interesting look into what i'm talking about here.
I think i may have trailed off, but in closing what I do when I flesh out a villain is use my own moral compass and psychology as a base, ask what the ultimate goal or purpose of the villain is, and contrast how I would reach that goal with how the villain would reach that goal. If the psychology of this villain is vastly different, due to some dysfunction, then it would be wise to research the base knowledge of whatever the dysfunction is. You don't want to be writing about a sociopath who feels remorse for his/her actions, or a rapist who can't...perform.
If you want believable, then you would have to go with established research. If your character has a tendency to set fires on a regular basis, then you'd want to know why arsonists in general do such a thing. No, he doesn't have to be a pyromaniac, he could be doing it for some sort of revenge, or to make some misguided philosophical point, in the case of the latter you can probably get away with less research. Either way your base lies in established research of that particular mindset, be it criminal, or pathological.
You could always do your research first-hand. Go out and do villainous things to get the rush and see why someone would get a taste for it. Start small. Break into someone's house while they're gone. Don't take anything but leave creepy notes laying around their house. Or kidknap their goldfish. Something like that. Work your way up.
Considering that the example I used ended in a sex crime, and that could get me jail time, no I'm good.
If you notice, I wasn't using your example. I was using my example, which had nothing to do with sex crime and everything to do with stealing goldfish. I guess you could sex up the goldfish.
When there could be a debate, declare you aren't down with actions that end in sex crimes, harming pets, and/or jail.
I wasn't debating. I was giving you suggestions on how you can get into the "mindset of a villain". Which is what you asked for. You're like the kid who asks for a Big Bolt Construction Set for Christmas. Christmas comes along, you open your presents. Lo! Behold! A Big Bolt Construction Set! Just as you asked!
You then proceed to tell the loving gift-givers how Big Bolt Construction Sets are substandard toys and they never should have gotten you one. If they had been really sensitive they would have ignored your ever-more-shrill pleas for the toy and gotten you either something else or nothing at all. Either would have been better than giving you the toy you asked for.
Everybody's fucked up to some degree. That's really what it comes down to.
And Utah for the win. Oh wait, this isn't a debate. Shit.
Oh wait, this isn't a debate. Shit.
Better villain: Darkseid or Thanos?
Debate!!
@Utah - Stop trying to get me in jail. I refuse to live out the slash fiction you keep writing about me.
@Brandon - Thanos, he learns. Darkseid isn't a villain or even a character, he is a natural disaster.
Utah, I love you. If you had a goldfish, I'd sex it up real good.
And, for the record, the best villain was/is/forever shall be Zod. Outside of the Superman universe... best villain is Hannibal Lecter.
"Many fine books have been written in prison." -HST
What about Wile E. Coyote? How man times can you get smashed with an Acme anvil and come back for more?
That's a valid point, Moon. Hell, the self-loathing that must arise from repeated abuse at the hands of a stupid bird would be enough to push a lesser coyote to suicide.
Unfortunately for Mr. Coyote, suicide would be nothing more than a repeating rerun of Groundhog's Day.
See, man, this is one reason you're a god. That is some right-on thinking right there. Though, living a rerun of Groundhog Day couldn't be all bad... Andie McDowell was incredibly cute back then.
What about Roger Rabbit vs. that cat from the Paula Abdul video?
Any rodent that can score such a fine-ass tedhead like Jessica is always the winner in any contest.
What about Roger Rabbit vs. that cat from the Paula Abdul video?
- Good one. What about Jessica Rabbit vs. Paula Abdul?
Any redhead wins any contest. Unless the redhead is a man, then automatic loss.
Wile E. Coyote is a victim of the cruelest villain, the Road Runner. He just wants to get something to eat.
Well then it seems that our job here is done, you have accomplished your goal of viewing things from the perspective of the apparent antagonist and maybe even learned a little bit about moral relativism.
@Nick - Disagreement is not always due to a lack of understanding.
Darkseid isn't a villain or even a character, he is a natural disaster.
He certainly LOOKS like a character. Or was this you trying to wrangle someone to debate with?
@Brandon - If I was trying to debate I'd tell you what I think of Harry Potter.
Yes he does. That is just one more reason I feel DC, with a few important exceptions, is just horrible.
Not really, I don't consider it a debateable issue. Derksied at character creation wanted to kill and murder and rule. 40 years later he wants to kill and murder and rule. Pretty much everything he did was some ploy to rule, and it didn't grow into anything else. Thanos wanted to date Death, gained ultimate power to try to win her over several different times, failed, decide he was pursing an unhealthy relationship, came to think such power was never meant for the likes of him, sort got back together with her to the point is is a one again off again relationship, has a troubled relationship with his adopted daughter, and Adam Warlock as a best frenemy. Derksied has more in common with the Borg or a hurricane then a character.
I don't write villains, or heroes. I write under the belief that everybody justifies their actions.
I like that.
Not really, I don't consider it a debateable issue.
Um, yeah...I'm gonna have to go ahead and call bullshit. If I took the time to type out some elaborate response to this whole Darkseid "issue," you'd slide right in to debate mode, as per usual. It's okay to own up to it. You're the guy who debates. That's fine.
Or was this you trying to wrangle someone to debate with?
Hold your horses! I don't normally defend Dwayne (but when I do I'm shit-hammered on Dos Equis), but I'm afraid I'm going to have to remind you that you, Brandon, threw down the original gauntlet for this debate. It was subtle, but nevertheless it happened and it looked like this:
Better villain: Darkseid or Thanos?
Debate!!
Yes, Dwayne tried to feign a deflection, claim he didn't want to debate when he obviously did, because he's a sneaky bastard and you can't trust him. However, I'm pretty sure the debate wrangler in this particular instance is one Brandon Tietz.
Yes, Dwayne tried to feign a deflection, claim he didn't want to debate when he obviously did, because he's a sneaky bastard and you can't trust him. However, I'm pretty sure the debate wrangler in this particular instance is one Brandon Tietz.
That means we both win.
@Brandon & Utah - I do like to debate sometimes, no argument. I also know a lost cause when I see one, and a good argument over that just isn't happening. I just really don't consider it debateable. It is so undebatable that Brandon, the guy who came up with the idea and suggested it, is trying you're trying to debate if I was looking for a debate instead. It is so undebatable I tried to switch it to does Darksied count a character? So yeah, post whatever you want about it. Best of luck.
