In the first person, that is.

How would you go about this, if you were going to attempt it? I’m not talking about the antihero. Those at least have some redeeming qualities. Like Catwoman. I’m talking about the truly evil. Would you limit yourself to writing it in a way that brings the villain across as someone who’s just a little more than a prankster? Use him as a tool to mock the heroes of the story and point out their flaws? Would you enjoy using him/her to reduce the good guys to nothing more than happy, skipping in the meadow, annoying little do-gooders? This would be really fun for a children’s book, I think.

Or would you take the challenge to go deep into the psychology of a killer or some other form of villain? Would you go into his backstory, explaining why he turned out the way he did? Or perhaps use him to explore your own twisted thoughts? Maybe you would make him completely crazy, not really justifying his actions and without even attempting to provide any reasons for the reader to sympathize with him.

Which path do you think would be the most interesting to take and how would you keep from making him the antihero?

Inkblot, that sounds very, very clever. Please do this. Or I may attempt the concept in short story form.

(Unless you would be offended, in which case I would desist, and respect your ownership of the idea)

or making it clear from the beginning that he is evil, but making everything he does form a clear, even sympathetic kind of sense to really unseat people is the best (or the most interesting) way out of the options you laid out. It’s a great way to really explore the line between good and evil and how much we deceive ourselves about the basis of our actions.

Exactly that. Nobody in the real world is ever a villain in their own minds, so I would write them as sympathetic, possibly even heroic characters, and only reveal gradually that what they’re doing is evil and twisted. The most important point about any villain is that they usually are able to justify their actions as either necessary or good to themselves (no matter how twisted their logic may be).

There are occasionally people who come along who have no motivation beyond destruction, but those are rare and exceptional. Probably 99% of villains think they are the good guys.

^I’ve read I am Not a Serial Killer, and 1) it’s really pretty good, 2) it’s pretty much what it says on the tin, only not the way you’d expect and much better than you’d think. But it would also still work as an example.

One way not to write a villain would be the way it was presented in Sepulcher, where the villain did go around cackling madly to himself over his own evilness, but I just finished Ship of Magic, which has a pov villain (though not in first person) who knows he’s not a good guy, goes around plotting like mad, but is just going after what he wants in any way he can. He knows he’s not a good guy, but doesn’t care: he just wants power. He also goes around going good deeds, but evilly.

if you are just looking for general story structure ideas rather than specific bookwriting techniques you should check out breaking bad

walter is clearly the protagonist and i would argue it is clear he is also the villain

he has a lot of sympathetic stakes with his family and his partner and his battle with cancer but those things lose their grip on him as he descends further into darkness

they still matter to him of course but what matters most to him is having power and being in control of others

which id argue being a villain is all about

I don't know what most people think about Timothy Zahn's stories, but I really like his writings. In particular, his most famous Star Wars trilogy also gives the PoV of the villain: Grand Admiral Thrawn the military genius. In many ways, he's not evil persay as he simply wishes to restore the Empire, but create a less extreme version of it. So maybe not a villain, but the antagonist as they are attempting to thwart the protagonists' goals.

It's not actually through Thrawn's PoV, but rather his Flag Captain. Which sets up a sort of antagonist version of Holmes and Sherlock where the Flag Captain is competent (the incompetent henchmen really bug me), but it's through his eyes you witness the sheer genius of his leader.

When the villain's PoV is hidden, I think a lot more fear can be created based on the unknown. What the main characters don't know keeps the reader guessing.

However, if done right, knowing the villain's side can build a lot of suspense. As Thrawn lays his strategies and discerns the protagonists true intentions, there can be suspense built. The reader knows that the villain has figured out the heroes plans and the hero is walking straight into a trap and that dynamic can be highly entertaining. It can also backfire if there is too many incompetent Wiley Coyote traps where you know Road Runner is going to get out anyways.

I guess that's not answering the OP's question. However, the antagonist needs not be villainous to oppose the protagonist. And I believe that back and forth battle of wits can be highly entertaining if done right.

A good way to do a villain protagonist would probably be to pit them against someone even more evil.

CoughDextercough?

I recall writing a deranged 16-year-old semi-psycho who hunted even worse monsters.

Also, I second Falling and SWQ’s examples.

Oh wow, that’s sounds good.
I normally don’t have clearcut villains in my stories unless I’m writing comedy, but a friend of mine recommended that you make them kill a likable character; someone who is funny, the comic relief. It shocks the reader, because the comic relief is safe. JKR did it, and I don’t know about you, but it shocked me.

The sacrifices we writers make for a good story…
Oh well, when you have made it big you can go back and writer anonymous fanfictions with that character, just to reminisce.

Re: Hard Candy – like with Dexter, you’re not supposed to think “Awesome! I wish RL had people doing this!”
Hayley is a total psycho. The fact that her victim is a pedo significantly blurs the right line and “lightens up” what she does, but still. It’s also implied that she regularly kills pedos for fun.

Re: Lolita – also, remember this reason one guy gave to Nabokov for why he didn’t think it’d be cool to publish the book: “There are no good people in it,”
Dolly herself, who is technically the “victim”, is pretty damn evil herself, at times. You could describe the two-way manipulation games between her and Humbert as kind of like the gravity between Pluto and Charon.

JKR did it, and I don’t know about you, but it shocked me.

Zeroth Law:
Ole Bill himself did it when he killed the shit out of Mercutio.
“Grave man” indeed.

He doesn’t like anyone, so why should he care?

Careful there. I know what you mean – a villain should be evil (duh!). But sometimes a villain is more interesting because they seem to care, or maybe pretend to care, or something… all you know is that this person has a very twisted moral compass.

To use a HP-example (major spoolerses, beware!):

I wasn’t implying that you think that. :)
But there are folks out there who have expressed the wish that Dexter Morgan existed for real.

Yeah, she’s a total psycho, but people would enjoy reading about her. I would thoroughly enjoy reading about someone like that.

Same here. Especially from her/his POV – could be trippy.

And I agree with everything else you said. 100%.

Thanks. :D

Yes, definitely questionable, but it gives the creator of that character much credit when viewers or readers react that way.

I think that’s the difference between a good writer and a bad writer. In real life, mentally insane people aside, no one really think they’re “evil.” They’re all driven by one thing or another and from their point of view you could be the “bad guy.” Of course, there are certain things that society has grouped into “good” and “bad,” but the difference between a standard fantasy villain who does things because he’s sooooo evil and the villain of a well written book is that one of them honestly believes he’s doing the right thing and the other just does it because he can.

To be honest, I try to stay away from writing ‘villains’ and stick with ‘antagonists’. It keeps things more realistic and often, more interesting. People can’t be boxed into overarching ‘good’ or ‘bad’ categories, except for those extreme exceptions. However, I don’t really want to write those extreme exceptions unless I can be sure that it’ll turn out well. Right now, I’m not sure of that at all, so yeah…

like with Dexter

dexter hasnt been portrayed as a real villain in a very long time but this may have more to do with incompetent writing than pure intention

Kind of like what was done with Gus and Walter. I liked it. If I’ve ever come across another example like this, it was not that interesting enough for me to remember it. Breaking Bad did it quite well, I think.

the really neat thing here is there were times i actually rooted for gus over walter because walter causes so much more collateral damage with his recklessness and gus was so hardcore

villain versus villain is pretty boss when they are both good characters

Saving the world by slaughtering a thousand innocents?

Yes, there’s definitely something wrong if the villain is ‘cool’ enough for the readers to wish that s/he’s real.

Something wrong with the people who think that, I’d say.

But if the villain is meant to be evil, isn’t it kind of wrong to make the ‘evil’ person likeable?

No. A lot of fictional villains stole the show in their respective story.
Sen and Puppet said it best – I can’t really add anything there, except:
Remember that Villains Act, Heroes React.
...although in certain cases, that in itself is up for debate.

In real life, mentally insane people aside, no one really think they’re “evil.” They’re all driven by one thing or another and from their point of view you could be the “bad guy.”

I could break godwin’s law right now… but I won’t.
:-)

often out of the misguided belief that they’re doing right (or out of understandable motivations such as the desire for power, the desire for money, etc.)

Yeah, but then you get real thorny issues like the motivation behind pedophiles and such.
Some shrinks are quick to say “Yeah, but it happened to him when he was little!”, but I call bullshit.
See, if that were the case, where did the world’s very first pedo come from?

He thinks that if we make ourselves useful to the Reapers, they’ll keep us around. Sure, we’ll be slaves, but we’ll be alive.

From what I know of the Reapers, that makes a lot of sense. Is this Saren guy in the second game?
I only got halfway cause I suck.

dexter hasnt been portrayed as a real villain in a very long time but this may have more to do with incompetent writing than pure intention

I was referring to season 1. But yeah, I know you Americans are at the 6th or whatever, where things apparently went wahooni-shaped.

Saving the world by slaughtering a thousand innocents?

The needs of the million outweigh the needs of the thousand.

@SWQ – I’ve always wanted to play around with that sort of idea, have the perspective of the heroic brave rebels who fight back against the eeevil dystopian government and then have the perspective of the wonderful righteous government that’s trying to keep its citizens safe from the terrorists running around on their land. But I think the videogame Brink already stole my idea. :P Ah well, I could never work out the details about how to put it into practice anyway, if I wanted both to turn out to be evil (revealed through the perspective of a third viewpoint) or just leave it ambiguous. But I still think it’s an interesting idea.

@Klutor re: Mass Effect – this isn’t much of a spoiler, but just in case:

Bit of a bigger spoiler that explains more what I was talking about above: