Hello, all. I’ve decided to make another rare appearance, and I bring with me my thoughts on one of my favorite parts of any story: the antagonist.
Most stories revolve around a central conflict between a protagonist and an antagonist. Well, most good stories (this is to say nothing of the stories that pit a protagonist against an environment, a quest, or some other non-sentient foe). There are also quite a few modern stories that involve heroes and villains, which often fail to measure up. The reason is fairly simple. These stories have a tendency to be less interesting and to give the reader less freedom.
One of the greatest marvels and joys of literature is that we can develop an intense attachment to, and affection for, people that are not real. Even an antagonist can be beloved or thoroughly enjoyed. Kay’s Brandon of Ygrath, Martin’s Lannister clan, Follett’s Hamleighs and Bishop Waleran, and Rowling’s Lord Voldemort are just a few well-crafted schemers and antagonists. What is crucial about these characters is that they are not irredeemable or unrelentingly ‘evil’ in the simplistic moral sense. They operate to achieve ends that benefit their own ends or the ends of those close to them, and we can come to appreciate their struggles and motives though we may not agree with them.
Stories become far deeper when they are populated with antagonists rather than villains. An antagonist is a matter of perspective, and a more fluid construct than the rigid absolute of a villain. You need only shift viewpoints for your protagonist to become an antagonist, and a story that operates on a level moral playing field is far more compelling than one that operates on a rigid battlefield between good and evil (I’m going to try to avoid veering off into a digression on Lord of the Rings or the Chronicles of Narnia—that’s a discussion for another article).
A crucial aspect for a compelling antagonist is to allow him to be him own character. You no doubt know your protagonist from the ground up—you’ve met her parents, you know what her childhood was like, where she grew up, what she wants, and why she wants it. Your antagonist should receive the same treatment upon construction. Even if he is a scheming bastard who wants to conquer his neighbor’s land for the extra income—why? Was he spoiled as a child, or denied what he wanted? Is he entitled, or does he think his neighboring lord is undeserving of the plenty? Even if he couldn’t say, you should be able to. Your antagonist can even desire to take over the world if he wants. Just show us a good reason why.
A great way to show more sides to your story is to allow your antagonist some face time—and not to simply monologue about his plans or his tortured childhood. The last-minute antagonist back story is a clumsy technique. A good antagonist demands finesse. Even if you do not slip into his perspective, we should get the sense that there is more depth to this person than your protagonist may realize. Perhaps the cruel general’s draconian methods are actually necessary for an army of the size he leads, and his soldiers respect him for his discipline and unbiased justice. Or the selfish king is simply taking all precautions against the enemies he knows surround him and laboring to keep his kingdom from falling into civil war. Perhaps the seductress has no other weapons available but her femininity, and this is the only way she knows to bring about the changes she wants to see or to get the information she needs.
That is not to say that your antagonist needs to be redeemed entirely. Perhaps they really are entirely self-serving and revel in the chaos that they sow. Even so, he is human, and will feel the burden of power, the sting of defeat. He will struggle in his efforts, just as the protagonist does in hers. Your protagonist may not know this. Your antagonist’s second-in-command or closest confidant may not know his frustrations or his fears that he labors to bury. Shedding a bit of light on him is nothing to be concerned about—we can all still fear a man who bleeds. Even if we never get to know your antagonist as well as we get to know your protagonist, there should at least be a sense that there is depth there, something of heavy substance behind all the invading, murdering, stealing, lying, and general antagonizing. Even if they end up being nothing more than rumors, at least allow the chance for your antagonist to be seen to, perhaps, have something of a point, even if it is only from their own perception of reality.
Antagonists can be deliciously devilish, unbelievably brutal, or simply diametrically opposed to whatever it is your protagonist is up to. Above all, though, your antagonist is a character. He has desires, he has a history, and he has his own reasons for doing things. Let him exist as a whole, solid person, and the conflict in your story will take on new depth.
Dia on 26 August 2010, 12:50 said:
I actually disagree with you on your mention of Voldemort. I thought that he was a villain and she played him very straight. Out of curiosity, what redeemable qualities did you think that he had?
However, if you look at the early on books where Harry is innocent, Snape is closer to the real antagonist. Voldemort is just lurking in the background. Now, HE has some redeemable traits and I would consider him a very well-rounded antagonist. He was working to his own benefit, and you never were quite sure which side he was on. Sometimes it looked like he was working for Voldemort, sometimes he was working for Dumbledore/Harry.
But still, this is just a minor point that I am being pedantic about. I agree with the basis of your article. Too often, people stick to worn-out archetypes/tropes and never try to reinvent them in a new way.
kaikaikat on 26 August 2010, 15:32 said:
I agree with you on Snape, but I was considering the series as a whole with Voldemort as the main antagonist/villain.
Voldemort was not necessarily redeemable, but we were treated to an in-depth examination of his past, his origins, and the chain of events that led him to become the Dark Lord. As I said, good antagonists don’t need to necessarily be redeemable or even remotely good people—we just need to be able to understand them to some extent, or at least have a grasp on why they turned out the way they did.
But you’re quite right—Snape is another excellent example.
Gary on 26 August 2010, 15:33 said:
This is a great article. In a sense you’ve redefined the terms ‘villain’ and ‘antagonist’.
I disagree a little on the redeemability factor. Would antagonists always need to have some sympathetic or redeeming quality? Aren’t there times, when an entirely unredeemable antagonist can actually serve a story better?
Complete Monster
What do folks here think about this? Can these types of antagonists be written well? How can they be written badly?
kaikaikat on 26 August 2010, 15:52 said:
Gary:
A complete monster villain could be done well and could be very fitting—it simply depends on the story you’re trying to write. Many stories could only be wounded by having such a character as the main foe, though they can make very good additions to the supporting cast. I think Gregor Clegane is a pretty decent example of this.
As for the always-redeemable antagonist, it depends on your personal definition on that point. For me, if I cannot at least see the reasons behind the antagonist’s actions, however twisted, then they become a villain rather than an antagonist. For some people, there isn’t necessarily a distinction between villain and antagonist. Apologies if I didn’t make that clear!
As always, what’s best for your story is the best thing to do in that instance, all other rules be cursed.
Talisman on 26 August 2010, 23:05 said:
Excellent article.
On the issue of redeemability, I would argue that a better term is sympathy. A good, well-rounded antagonist, even a Complete Monster, usually as a reason for what they do. In my opinion, the best antagonists are the ones that make you say “Wow, I can see why you’re doing that, but I still have to oppose you.”
A good example is Magneto from the X-Men comics. He’s definitely an antagonist (terrorist and mass murderer and orchestrator of any number of supervillain plots), but he’s also sympathetic. He endured terrible brutality in his youth, and his ultimate goal – rights for mutants – is even noble. It’s his methods that make one oppose him.
kaikaikat on 26 August 2010, 23:59 said:
Talisman:
Sympathy is a good word for it. Understanding works as well—some appreciation for the antagonist’s situation. “Reason for actions” is probably not the best term for it.
Magneto sounds like a great example (I’m only familiar with him and the X-men universe second hand). It’s a mark of a good story when you can sympathize with a mass-murderer who uses terrorist tactics.
Thebazilly on 27 August 2010, 01:01 said:
The first thing that leapt to my mind at Talisman’s point was William Hamleigh from The Pillars of the Earth.
He’s a horrible, vicious antagonist. He commits rape and murder several times through the course of the book, and is generally a detestable bully. But he’s also a viewpoint character, and the reasons for his actions are built up slowly from the beginning. Eventually it gets to the point where you can understand William’s actions perfectly— and yet you still want to wring his neck.
sakuuya on 27 August 2010, 01:19 said:
I don’t like your redefining of “villain,” because, while it has moral connotations that “antagonist” lacks, saying that “a villain is an antagonist that lacks redeeming qualities” oversimplifies things too much.
It’s really the morality thing. “Antagonist,” as a term, just means someone who opposes the protagonist. In the strictest sense, an antagonist is not necessarily a villain, because skilled authors can have “good guys” that disagree with and hamper each other.
In the show (and novels, but the show is frankly better) Dexter, James Doakes is an antagonist because he interferes with the protagonist’s activities, but he’s still basically a good guy, not a villain in the moral sense—and certainly not in your restricted sense.
The problem with your redefinition of “villain” is that there’s no difference in the terminology you’d use for Doakes (who, again, is an antagonist but not a traditional villain) and Magneto (who is both. Well, usually, at least. He’s on the side of the angels at the moment). There should be a distinction between a sympathetic and an unsympathetic villain—and the way both ideas differ from the more general “antagonist.” I guess I don’t really understand why you’d want to redefine the terms to lose that nuance, when “sympathetic” and “unsympathetic” work perfectly well to explain the difference.
On an unrelated note, I don’t think a sympathetic backstory is enough to make a villain likeable, necessarily. For me, at least, once a villain goes far enough into Complete Monster territory, then s/he’s a complete monster, no matter how terrible their childhood is or whatever.
Let’s look at Magneto again. In the comics, he’s capable of forming personal attachments to baseline humans (Lee Forrester, Luna Maximoff), doesn’t kill randomly, and occasionally tries to forge a less-supervillain-y path for himself. These traits make him a compelling villain, because they say “This person is not all evil, despite being a villain.” Yes, he’s got a sympathetic backstory full of attempted genocide ‘n’ abandonment ‘n’ betrayal, but that alone isn’t enough.
How do I know? Look at the movies. He abandons Mystique after she loses her powers, allows swaths of his Brotherhood to be depowered (which to him is equivalent to death), and, oh yeah, uses his best friend to attempt to commit genocide. Seriously, he’s never the least bit sympathetic in the modern-day portions of the movies. He’s still got basically the same backstory as he does in the comics—though, ironically, his backstory isn’t actually as awful as his 616 counterpart, which you think would end up in a less-evil Maggie—but, even with the backstory and his basically noble goals, his actions are just so unforgivable that he’s never registered as sympathetic to me.
And that’s saying something, because, in case this post hasn’t tipped you off, I’m an absolutely pathetic fangirl. XD
kaikaikat on 27 August 2010, 01:43 said:
There is a point where my own personal classifications of things begin to differ with other people’s. This may be an instance of such. My views on morality are extremely grey, so it usually takes quite a bit of effort to get a character branded “villain.”
For me, a villain is a very small class of ‘antagonist,’ and ‘antagonist’ is a highly “customizable” (to use a rather blunt word) term. An unsympathetic antagonist is not necessarily a villain. For example, I found Doakes to be an unsympathetic antagonist, but not a villain—I understood his motives and reasoning perfectly, and I even respected him for his determination and courage, but I did not like him one bit. That did not make him a villain by any means. I fear, in not making the distinctions between my terms more clear, that I’ve muddled things rather handily.
Neither Doakes nor Magneto would be villains in my book, in short. Both are compelling antagonists, one is unsympathetic (subjectively), one sympathetic (again, subjectively).
Again, it’s not so much about likability or redemptive factors as it is an exploration of motives and history thorough enough to at least allow us some understanding.
Steph (what is left) on 27 August 2010, 03:16 said:
Couldn’t have said it better myself. I like the points you raise in this article.
Kaikaikat on 27 August 2010, 14:41 said:
Thanks! I’m sure a lot of it is fairly old hash, but if nothing else I hope it provides some food for thought.
RomanticVampireLover on 27 August 2010, 19:28 said:
Wonderful article; concise and to the point. Very well done. :D
Danielle on 28 August 2010, 02:33 said:
Although under almost any definition you use, the Joker is a villain. He’s pretty much irredeemable, completely unsympathetic, and violates pretty much every moral code there is. Tie a pretty girl to the train tracks, and Joker will douse her in acid before telling the train to speed up.
So while I think antagonists are better in general, since their motivations are complex and their backstories can be very interesting, a good villain can work as well. I guess it’s all about being fascinating. Joker is extremely fascinating, even if he doesn’t know his own backstory.
Snow White Queen on 28 August 2010, 15:23 said:
This is a great article on an interesting topic. It’s great to see writing articles back on the main site with a lot of discussion following!
falconempress on 29 August 2010, 03:26 said:
This is actually the second article centered around the problematiqué of the antagonist, and I have to admit it was the better one. Short, sweet, smart and to the point.
Thank you:)
Kaikaikat on 29 August 2010, 17:36 said:
Romantic Vampire Lover: Thank you!
Danielle: A good villain can be loads of fun. The Joker is a great example. I admit to not knowing much of him outside of the Dark Knight universe, but he does seem to be villainous to the nth degree—causing chaos for the sake of causing chaos.
Snow White Queen: Thank you—I’m glad you found the topic interesting. Not that the sporks haven’t been good reading, but I thought a oneshot writing article might be a nice change.
Falconempress: Really? Drat! I read through the tags to make sure I wasn’t stepping on a previous writer’s work—I must have missed it. I sincerely hope I didn’t cause any offense or give the impression I was trying to one-up anyone.
Thank you all for your comments!
falconempress on 30 August 2010, 06:58 said:
It was on a different site, no worries:)
NeuroticPlatypus on 14 September 2010, 10:05 said:
Good article, and I got what you meant about Voldemort. He isn’t really redeemable, but we can see how he got to be the way he is. He was an orphan, had a crappy childhood, and manipulated people into thinking he was great. Thus, nobody saw it coming. His backstory is actually similar to Harry’s, so he could have become a Harry, but he didn’t. Voldemort isn’t just presented as OMG he’s EVUL! His history is explored, which makes him a better antagonist.
kaikaikat on 14 September 2010, 23:27 said:
Exactly—he was Tom Riddle before he was Lord Voldemort, as opposed to being born a dark lord.
Maese Delta on 24 February 2011, 16:38 said:
While it’s up to debate if there are any hard and fast rules about memorable characters of any kind, villain or hero or whathavever, I think unusual mannerisms certainly help make a villain (or antagonist) memorable.
Memorable characters like these come about from a combination of believable psychology (motive) and a sense of dimension. What I mean is, most memorable villains aren’t 100% absolute evil, they have some character trait or something that helps the reader / viewer relate to them. Of course, a villain could be memorable for defying this rule, but to execute this well is a feat easier said than done.