The art of it . . .

[Krista]

11 minutes ago, W_L said:

Some genres may be things you like and enjoy, but you personally cannot write as an author.

For me, I learned last summer, I can't do anti-villain driven crime genre justice. Sure I can write generic stuff about drug dealers, corrupt cops, and so on, and characters turning dark, but it's not the same kind of story caliber I am aiming for.

To be fair, a lot of authors can't write Breaking Bad-type stories. Many people love the series, but it's uncommon to write anti-villains that readers will genuinely love. Creating an LGBTq+ character like Walter White would be a great monument to whoever can achieve it first.

I'm finding it a challenge to write obviously flawed characters. I keep wanting to backtrack and defend their actions, and I have to get into the mindset that some people just do bad things. There's no reason for it other than being self-serving or whatever. There is psychology behind it, but at least for me and the story I wish to tell, that psychology is more for the readers, not me being bogged down in it within the writing itself. It should be something I may be considering, as a sort of base level or stencil to build from. Scaffolding? To make the characters more fleshed out and targeted in how and why they do what they do, but yes. I still need to allow them the freedom of movement within the story to do everything I need them to do. Not be over their shoulder like an auntie telling them off for their bad behavior, so to speak. 

[Jason Rimbaud]

43 minutes ago, Krista said:

I'm finding it a challenge to write obviously flawed characters. I keep wanting to backtrack and defend their actions, and I have to get into the mindset that some people just do bad things. There's no reason for it other than being self-serving or whatever. There is psychology behind it, but at least for me and the story I wish to tell, that psychology is more for the readers, not me being bogged down in it within the writing itself. It should be something I may be considering, as a sort of base level or stencil to build from. Scaffolding? To make the characters more fleshed out and targeted in how and why they do what they do, but yes. I still need to allow them the freedom of movement within the story to do everything I need them to do. Not be over their shoulder like an auntie telling them off for their bad behavior, so to speak. 

*shudders* This feels icky.  

I think a way that might help you get into that mindset, villains don't think they are villains.  Often, they believe they are the hero in their own stories. 

I've never met anyone that is all bad, or anyone that is all good. Humans are a mix of emotions.  

If I write a villain, I don't think of them as a villain, just a person that believes they are doing whats right. 

I'm done being serious now. That felt weird.  

[Krista]

17 minutes ago, Jason Rimbaud said:

*shudders* This feels icky.  

I think a way that might help you get into that mindset, villains don't think they are villains.  Often, they believe they are the hero in their own stories. 

I've never met anyone that is all bad, or anyone that is all good. Humans are a mix of emotions.  

If I write a villain, I don't think of them as a villain, just a person that believes they are doing whats right. 

I'm done being serious now. That felt weird.  

I wish I could explain the characters better without giving away plot, but I wouldn't call them villains. Your description of villains are spot on though. They need to think their idea/convictions are worthy and what's necessary. 

But you go back to being you, I'd hate for you to have to take a lot of extra baths to get the ick of serious off you.  

[William King]

One person's villain is another person's hero!

[Mike Carss]

My first novel was written from the bad guy's POV. He wasn't inherently evil, but he operated on the wrong side of the law. From this POV, all the "good guys" were the antagonists. I wanted readers to root for the bad guy, and I think it worked. The novel is far from perfect, though. The good guys tend to behave too "evil". In hindsight, I should've toned it down, but it was a fun experience.

[W_L]

13 hours ago, Jason Rimbaud said:

*shudders* This feels icky.  

I think a way that might help you get into that mindset, villains don't think they are villains.  Often, they believe they are the hero in their own stories. 

I've never met anyone that is all bad, or anyone that is all good. Humans are a mix of emotions.  

If I write a villain, I don't think of them as a villain, just a person that believes they are doing whats right. 

I'm done being serious now. That felt weird.  

 

13 hours ago, Krista said:

I wish I could explain the characters better without giving away plot, but I wouldn't call them villains. Your description of villains are spot on though. They need to think their idea/convictions are worthy and what's necessary. 

But you go back to being you, I'd hate for you to have to take a lot of extra baths to get the ick of serious off you.  

Don't get too stuck in villain-mode, it can be dangerous.

I think both @Krista and me are just stuck in writing characters who aren't evil incarnate, but have good intentions at least to begin with. 

The hardest thing to write in my view is an anti-villain, someone who with a bit more luck and plot armor could have been a hero in another story. My original concept for a story was modelled after Breaking Bad, which had many people who are somewhat decent morally at the start, but ethically, they go down the path to hell due to selfish reasons even if it seems their actions were selfless at the start. 

And sometimes, anti-villains are actually heroes in the story, looks at Godfather part I, Michael Corleone was a WWII veteran, honest, and decent human being until his environenment and the "family business" made it impossible for him to be a decent person. He became a mass murderer and villain that has become iconic in American pop culture. 

Real evil isn't psychopaths or sociopaths who lack empathy for their cruel acts, but the regular person who due to a twist of fate and circumstance are forced to do cruel acts and not show an ounce of mercy in order to survive in human society. To me, the most engaging villain and anti-villain is someone who is normal until they can no longer be normal.

Edited January 31 by W_L

[MrM]

I wrote a story about preternatural evil disincarnate that ended with an interesting twist. I found wallowing in that evil very disturbing, but it taught me a great deal about its nature and from where it comes. The story was a spin-off from another story I wrote about spiritual salvation. 
 

A certain kind of evil is a chain linked from one person to another in a long linkage of hate and abuse. It perpetuates down a line of pain and betrayal. 
 

Writing about this kind of thing is enlightening if painful. To take on the mantle of the ‘evil’ involved is to plumb the depths of one’s own soul. To find the evil in us that we’ve inherited by some means in our histories and give it voice.

I think it is one of the most challenging things to do in literature. 

[Jason Rimbaud]

47 minutes ago, W_L said:

and me are just stuck in writing characters who aren't evil incarnate,

To call a character a villain, doesn't mean they are evil incarnate. If you prefer, call them antagonists. Either way, when writing a character of that vein, if you are having trouble, just remember they aren't all bad, they might love their family, they might be patriotic, they might be trying to protect their kids, either way, they can do bad things, while still being a good person. 

In your example about the Godfather, Michael was never a good person. He might have done good things, but he was always the evil person he began. And if you were to ask him, for all those reasons you listed, he would not consider himself evil. And as much as I hate that movie, I do, along with most of the actors, except for Marlon Brando, Michael is a perfect example of a complex character who is inherently bad but does many good things despite that. 

In the Amazon series Reacher, the protagonist, sees a dog tied up outside a house dying of thirst, he jumps the fence, and waters the dog. If my memory serves, kicks the shit out of the owner of the dog for not taking care of the dog. He did a good thing in a bad way. Violence is not the answer in that particular situation. The writers showed he had a good heart underneath all those muscles that liked to hurt people. 

In Godfather, Michael is the villain, In Reacher, Jack is the anti-hero. Both programs give multiple dimensions of character. Both men do murder, both men break the law, both men have a moral code they follow. I wouldn't consider either of them good. But they are interesting studies of characters.