So, following my line of inquiry about literature and fiction as such in general...
What makes a good antagonist? I'd mean an "active" antagonist here, rather than "forces of nature", "life itself" and other such fanciful things. In other words, what makes for a good bad guy to you people?
What makes a ‘good’ antagonist is what makes a good protagonist. Isn’t it? Shades of grey. A moral dimension. Better than a cardboard depth of motivation. I would have thought that an interesting antagonist to read about is the same as an interesting one to write about. If he doesn’t inspire you with his character in your writing, he’s sure as hell not going to inspire us to read about him.
The main problem with the protagonist in the Dragon Age story below is the total predictability. His motivations are clear from that opening paragraph. There’s nothing to discover or uncover.
A bad guy’s behaviour should follow some sort of logical pattern; perhaps not understandable or sympathetic, but steadfast to his own character and rationale (even if his personality is ‘batshit’ or all over the place). We don’t have to understand him, but we should feel that he is bound by the confines of his own code and character.
There is, of course, the question of how much we need to know about the antagonist. For example, going back to a common frame of reference, in Lord of the Rings (I don’t include the wider works here) we are told remarkably little about Sauron, and he is defined almost exclusively by other people’s descriptions, definitions and actions. (Although there is the scent of religion about him obviously.) But perhaps his mystery is why he works. *shrug*
Well, for me, an antagonist should be interesting to follow. Perhaps even ambiguous in his "being the bad guy", since, after all, what one person may perceive as bad, another will see as good. Therefore, a sociopath can make an interesting antagonist with a morality and reasoning that's on one hand clearly alien, but on the other hand, potentially not without merit.
And of course, the antagonist, just like everything else, has to make sense. It has to be a fleshed out character, as you said, not a cookie-cutter plot device. In general, every character should be fleshed out, if not necessarily in an explicit way.
Of course, this, too, can get rather silly. For instance, The Belgariad series has some token characters reoccurring throughout *five tomes* and being nothing else but allegorical figures of casualties of war. The first two times I encountered them, I felt, well, this is a nice detail. The third time and onwards it just felt ridiculous, like the author couldn't come up with anything new, or implement it better, without it being in-your-face-sad-philosophical-nonsense.
Ahem, derail. The "mysterious" antagonist... Well, I think it works a little better - though only if the mystery is slowly unravelled, thought words of others, through hints and actions and whatnot. Basically, through character development. Since in part, Sauron is "developed", through words of others the reader gets to know a bit more about him. On the other hand, we have to keep in mind that LotR is a bit of a pioneer in the genre, and what worked then has since been copied so many times that it won't work even if the Professor himself would write something new along the same lines!
I couldn't have said it better. In general I think every element in a story should follow some kind of logic that is acceptable in the story's world, that, if all relevant information is presented to the reader, he or she should be able to extrapolate the rest of the story, or at least make sense of it in hindsight.
Regarding the antagonist: I just can't accept antagonists who are evil just for the sake of being evil. Sauron partially is like that and in LotR he is presented that way, but in Unfinished Tales that is not the case.
In Warcraft too, the main antagonist, the one who ultimately drives every evil creature or force in that universe, is not simply, dumbly evil and certainly does not start out that way. I rather liked the way he is described - as a nihilist and an undoer of a world he sees as no good. It makes perfect sense to him despite the fact that his attempts at destruction are inconvenient for the inhabitants of Azeroth.
Maybe they can fuck this up too. They'll have to find a way to get players into the Twisting Nether, which is a realm that does not adhere to the normal laws of physics as they are in Azeroth.
The Shivering Isles, expansion pack for Bolivion, was supposed to take place in the realms of madness, a place that adheres to an incarnation of madness and chaos. There's an LP thread on the Codex somewhere...
So yeah, either they retcon it, or they'll just "forget" it. Maybe have it play a role in Warcraft 4 or some such.
What makes a ‘good’ antagonist is what makes a good protagonist. Isn’t it? Shades of grey. A moral dimension. Better than a cardboard depth of motivation. I would have thought that an interesting antagonist to read about is the same as an interesting one to write about. If he doesn’t inspire you with his character in your writing, he’s sure as hell not going to inspire us to read about him.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem with the protagonist in the Dragon Age story below is the total predictability. His motivations are clear from that opening paragraph. There’s nothing to discover or uncover.
A bad guy’s behaviour should follow some sort of logical pattern; perhaps not understandable or sympathetic, but steadfast to his own character and rationale (even if his personality is ‘batshit’ or all over the place). We don’t have to understand him, but we should feel that he is bound by the confines of his own code and character.
There is, of course, the question of how much we need to know about the antagonist. For example, going back to a common frame of reference, in Lord of the Rings (I don’t include the wider works here) we are told remarkably little about Sauron, and he is defined almost exclusively by other people’s descriptions, definitions and actions. (Although there is the scent of religion about him obviously.) But perhaps his mystery is why he works. *shrug*
Well, for me, an antagonist should be interesting to follow. Perhaps even ambiguous in his "being the bad guy", since, after all, what one person may perceive as bad, another will see as good. Therefore, a sociopath can make an interesting antagonist with a morality and reasoning that's on one hand clearly alien, but on the other hand, potentially not without merit.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, the antagonist, just like everything else, has to make sense. It has to be a fleshed out character, as you said, not a cookie-cutter plot device. In general, every character should be fleshed out, if not necessarily in an explicit way.
Of course, this, too, can get rather silly. For instance, The Belgariad series has some token characters reoccurring throughout *five tomes* and being nothing else but allegorical figures of casualties of war. The first two times I encountered them, I felt, well, this is a nice detail. The third time and onwards it just felt ridiculous, like the author couldn't come up with anything new, or implement it better, without it being in-your-face-sad-philosophical-nonsense.
Ahem, derail. The "mysterious" antagonist... Well, I think it works a little better - though only if the mystery is slowly unravelled, thought words of others, through hints and actions and whatnot. Basically, through character development. Since in part, Sauron is "developed", through words of others the reader gets to know a bit more about him. On the other hand, we have to keep in mind that LotR is a bit of a pioneer in the genre, and what worked then has since been copied so many times that it won't work even if the Professor himself would write something new along the same lines!
I couldn't have said it better. In general I think every element in a story should follow some kind of logic that is acceptable in the story's world, that, if all relevant information is presented to the reader, he or she should be able to extrapolate the rest of the story, or at least make sense of it in hindsight.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the antagonist: I just can't accept antagonists who are evil just for the sake of being evil. Sauron partially is like that and in LotR he is presented that way, but in Unfinished Tales that is not the case.
In Warcraft too, the main antagonist, the one who ultimately drives every evil creature or force in that universe, is not simply, dumbly evil and certainly does not start out that way. I rather liked the way he is described - as a nihilist and an undoer of a world he sees as no good. It makes perfect sense to him despite the fact that his attempts at destruction are inconvenient for the inhabitants of Azeroth.
The corrupt Titan? That's neat. I just wonder if WoW will let the players farm it in the umpteenth expansion...
ReplyDeleteI doubt he's still in the lore by now. He was way too abstract for today's fantasy players.
ReplyDeleteWhy not? They de-abstracticised the Light.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they can fuck this up too. They'll have to find a way to get players into the Twisting Nether, which is a realm that does not adhere to the normal laws of physics as they are in Azeroth.
ReplyDeleteThe Shivering Isles, expansion pack for Bolivion, was supposed to take place in the realms of madness, a place that adheres to an incarnation of madness and chaos. There's an LP thread on the Codex somewhere...
ReplyDeleteSo yeah, either they retcon it, or they'll just "forget" it. Maybe have it play a role in Warcraft 4 or some such.