Effective villain protagonists

[Kailoto]

So I've seen a lot of threads recently about writing characters who are generally unlikable, like murderers or bullies. It's an interesting discussion to be having, because I've also seen a rise in popularity of the "villain protagonist," or the type of main character that clearly resides on the wrong side of the line.

To be clear, it's an entirely different thing than an antihero. Antiheroes like Batman may blur the lines between good and evil, or justice and revenge, but at the end of the day they have good intentions and are always redeemable, no matter how lost they may seem. Villain protagonists are decidedly irredeemable, typically less remorseful, and oftentimes unsympathetic.

I've always been fascinated by any stories centered on a strong villain protagonist, probably because those stories defy a lot of common conventions. Obviously the main character is difficult to root for, but there's also the fact that these types of stories usually don't have happy, cathartic endings, and are often filled with moral ambiguity that makes it hard to root for anyone. One of the assumed facts of writing is that the reader should identify with the characters and feel invested in their cause, but having an unabashed villain as the central figure makes that hard to do.

I finally took the time to sit down and think about why it was that I enjoyed watching these types of shows so much, even though they eschew so many time-tested rules. The reason I came up with - and it might be different for others - was that I liked seeing the villains act. I liked seeing them in control and handling their situations.

There's a sort of flair, a dance to a good villain's actions. They aren't the underdogs facing insurmountable odds, but rather the puppet masters that have to stay in control of their strings. As such the best examples are constantly dancing around their obstacles and opponents, paying attention to everything, seizing every opportunity, lining up every piece carefully so that when the movement and chaos dies down, they come out on top. I get the same pleasure watching them go about their insidious deeds as I do seeing a master pianist move their fingers deftly across the ivory keys, a ritual that is at once impenetrable and tantalizing, something that you do not fully understand but can't help being drawn to.

All the good renditions of this character type feature this dance. The tango between Light Yagami and L in Death Note is a prime example of this. More recently, House of Cards has Frank Underwood taking on everyone around him, and while he may not have started that way, Breaking Bad's Walter White was certainly a manipulative villain for a time.

Does anyone else have other reasons for why they like to see these types of characters? Everyone probably has their own, but I find it interesting that there are characters out there who are absolutely despicable in who they are, but absolutely fascinating in what they do.

[kitsubasa]

I particularly like villain protagonists because they tend to be more direct and driven about their goals than heroes are.

One of the main ways a work can deter a hero from getting what they want is by throwing a caveat in with it (if you get it you hurt these people, the other characters don't want you to get it because [X]). When a villain protagonist appears in a work, they're usually much less susceptible to these narrative caveats that would stop a normal protagonist (Someone's going to get hurt? They're not me. Other people want me to stop? They always want me to stop.). Furthermore, they push so hard to their end that investment in the story becomes synonymous with investment in them achieving their goal. They care, the work cares that they care, we care that the work cares that they care... everyone's pushing for them to succeed. Even when that success is horrible.

(I should mention though: off the top of my head, I can't think of many works where I enjoy outright villain protagonists -- only things with an ensemble cast which features a villain perspective in the same capacity as more heroic/grey characters. My point might have a little less weight in stories where a villain is the sole perspective, since it's a matter of dilution and comparison. The obsession and intensity of a villain protagonist is mostly exciting when we can see other people putting less into their goals)

[Vogue]

For those of you that have seen Ping Pong The Animation, I consider Smile a villain protagonist. Spoilers for this series below.

Even though we view him alongside Peco (who is 100% the story's hero, if not main protagonist), it's immediately evident that the two have different motivations. He doesn't play for a love of the game up until the very end (when both he and his stoicism are defeated by Peco), and he doesn't get a victorious ending like Peco or even China. But we don't see his actions as inherently villainous ever, really. He's treated as misguided and revered by most of the other characters for his skill. He's not a character that the audience ever wants to root against. But it's through the glimpses of the Robot/Hero motif that we can get a better idea that throughout all eleven episodes, he's being set up as someone that Peco has to beat. In fact, one of the key moments of his defeat is when Peco breaks him of his metal shell and gets him to smile.

Usually when we point out villain protagonists they're violent/criminal. It's just as possible to write a villain as a protagonist for the reason that he has to clash against the story's hero.

[trooper6]

One of the assumed facts of writing is that the reader should identify with the characters and feel invested in their cause, but having an unabashed villain as the central figure makes that hard to do.

I think one of the big problems with "assumed facts of writing" is that they are contingent (historically, locationally, genre, etc) but people think they are universal. Take for example that set of tips seen to be a prerequisite of good writing: get rid of adjectives and adverbs. Tell that to Charles Dickens! This tip is a way to fight purple prose, as if purple prose were the worst thing in the world. But there was a time when purple prose was the thing to do.

I put forth that the idea that a reader should identify with the main character and feel invested in their cause is similarly contingent of an idea. I'll say more after this quote...

There's a sort of flair, a dance to a good villain's actions. They aren't the underdogs facing insurmountable odds, but rather the puppet masters that have to stay in control of their strings. As such the best examples are constantly dancing around their obstacles and opponents, paying attention to everything, seizing every opportunity, lining up every piece carefully so that when the movement and chaos dies down, they come out on top. I get the same pleasure watching them go about their insidious deeds as I do seeing a master pianist move their fingers deftly across the ivory keys, a ritual that is at once impenetrable and tantalizing, something that you do not fully understand but can't help being drawn to.

Not every villain protagonist is a puppet master. That is a trope that is particularly popular right now, but not the only way it has gone or can go.

For the last few years I've been reading a lot of pulp crime novels, many of them from the 1950s and 1960s. Those novels are full of villain protagonists...and they aren't puppet masters. Quite often they seriously bone headed errors that I, as a reader, know are not good choices (Tip: no matter how good looking that random woman is, don't volunteer to kill her husband for her). I just read a novel called The Pedler about a guy who has no redeeming qualities, who is not as smart as he thinks he is, and who is just terrible. He's a brute, not a puppet master. What is the point of this book? I asked myself that. Especially considering that there were lots and lots of these types of books in the 1950s.

I think these books were popular as a form of voyeurism. I think it gave people living in the suburbs a thrill. In some ways it is probably why people in the suburbs like(d) gangster rap and death metal. You think your life is boring and antiseptic...so you want to go slumming. But you also think your life is superior (morally, intellectually, etc), so you don't want the thing you are slumming with to seem better than you. You want to enjoy reading about the petty criminal but always feel like you would are better than that petty criminal. It is like watching a slow motion train wreck.

This leads to the question...why am I reading all these 1950s pulp novels...I mean, I don't live in the 1950s.

Well, that is another interesting question. Partly because I love history and these novels are a really interesting window into the 1950s and 1960s...and when confronted with differences, they become a really interesting window into the current moment. Sometimes the train wrecks are really, really interesting to watch. The Pedler, that one was rough. But I became fascinated by the fact that this book existed and lots of people liked it. It was also set in the town I grew up in, so it was neat to see all these historical references to San Francisco. And I suppose I learned something about how prostitution worked in the 1950s.

But I want to bring up another sort of pulp novel which leads to another sort of reading relationship: gay/lesbian pulp novels of the 1950s/1960s. These are another set of novels with "villain" protagonists...you know...gay people. The novels would follow them into their "twilight world"--usually they would have to die or convert by the end. Lots of straight people would buy these novels for the titilation and voyeurism and to feel superior...and probably as some form of assurance that gay people would never "win." But that wasn't why gay people read those novels! They read the novels because they wanted some sort of representation. They would reject the idea that just because the characters were gay, that made them villains. I would read those novels (a lot) and like a lot of queer people from back in the day (I'm not from back in the day...I just like reading old books), I would enjoy the ride and reject the "comeuppance" at the end.

So...anyway. There are lots of different ways to do a villain and a lot of different reasons people like to read about them.

[ladynamoru]

Hi Kailoto
I guess Im one of those who made an evil character recently (the bullies XD)

The 4 bullies in my story generally describes 4 common types of bullies

The reason I made such characters is not because im sadist or vice versa
but because its interesting, challenging and fun to write.

every time I watch or read stories, we always see the side of the protagonist

harry potter for example:

were with them through hardships and cheer for their success
but what about the antagonist?

prof. snape for example:

we hate his char on the beginning
( I want to focus on his side of the story)

Another reason why im fond of evil protagonist is their motivations and what drives them
(they seem more human in nature)

[trooper6]

Hi Kailoto
I guess Im one of those who made an evil character recently (the bullies XD)

The 4 bullies in my story generally describes 4 common types of bullies

The reason I made such characters is not because im sadist or vice versa
but because its interesting, challenging and fun to write.

every time I watch or read stories, we always see the side of the protagonist

harry potter for example:

were with them through hardships and cheer for their success
but what about the antagonist?

prof. snape for example:

we hate his char on the beginning
( I want to focus on his side of the story)

Another reason why im fond of evil protagonist is their motivations and what drives them
(they seem more human in nature)

But if you take all the advice people gave you in your thread to make your bullies "likable," then your bullies stop being villains and start being antiheroes who are redeemable. They become "bad boys" who can be fixed rather than evil dudes. The loss of your original concept is a bit sad to me. Because know it seems you are making a game that your friend would want rather than the one you wanted.

[ladynamoru]

But if you take all the advice people gave you in your thread to make your bullies "likable," then your bullies stop being villains and start being antiheroes who are redeemable. They become "bad boys" who can be fixed rather than evil dudes. The loss of your original concept is a bit sad to me. Because know it seems you are making a game that your friend would want rather than the one you wanted.

Yea, I sort of like followed what she want (an Otome Game. But since my original plan is to make a fun game with my story I kinda go along with the idea)
But I still have my original version (the dark version) that I plan to make as well (for self satisfaction purpose XD)

I take the advice of people because I appreciate all the advice ( both good and bad )
I also want to thank you for your comments ^_^

[qirien]

Having just finished a project with a villain protagonist, I have to say that they can be a lot of fun.

I love evil smashed with humor, because it gives you a chance to reexamine some ideas that we often take for granted. Princesses may be a bit spoiled, but they usually have a sense of innocence. So we questioned that stereotype by making a ruthless princess.

Evil characters also are cathartic because they give us a chance to vicariously say/do things we never would... and explore the consequences of that. It reinforces our own moral systems to ask questions like "Even when the evil princess gets everything she wants, is she really happy?", and "Did killing that rival really improve her life?" and "Does acting selfish erode one's ability to love?".

But I think in order to be the main character, a villain still has to have some likable traits. That's why humor and ambition work so well with evil. No one wants to read about a dull, ambitionless blob of an evil person that just sits around hating everyone all day. Unless, perhaps, they are very relatable in some other way.

edit: Maybe not "likable" traits. Maybe just "interesting" or "engaging" traits.

[trooper6]

But I think in order to be the main character, a villain still has to have some likable traits. That's why humor and ambition work so well with evil. No one wants to read about a dull, ambitionless blob of an evil person that just sits around hating everyone all day. Unless, perhaps, they are very relatable in some other way.

The protagonist from The Pedler (a pulp crime novel from 1952 reprinted by Hard Case Crime) had no likable traits at all. And he wasn't relatable. He had ambition...but is wasn't a likable trait in his case. But his character didn't just sit around and he wasn't dull. He was a man of action. Just evil and sort of stupid action. But it sustained the novel. I don't know how many modern readers would like the book...though it was reprinted so there is still a market.

There are lots of crime novels I've read where the protagonist has no likable traits and aren't relatable.

So it can be done!

[qirien]

I guess I should have said "engaging" instead of likable. Maybe readers don't like some villains, but they are interesting. That said, I wouldn't want to spend a whole VN writing about someone I didn't like at all...

You might want to check out this Writing Excuses podcast on this topic:
http://www.writingexcuses.com/2014/03/3 ... velopment/

It talks about how characters have different levels of Competence, Proactivity, and Sympathy - but characters in general need to have at least some of one of those.

[trooper6]

I guess I should have said "engaging" instead of likable. Maybe readers don't like some villains, but they are interesting. That said, I wouldn't want to spend a whole VN writing about someone I didn't like at all...

You might want to check out this Writing Excuses podcast on this topic:
http://www.writingexcuses.com/2014/03/3 ... velopment/

It talks about how characters have different levels of Competence, Proactivity, and Sympathy - but characters in general need to have at least some of one of those.

Yes, I think "engaging" is a much better term than likable. Because a character can be engaging, but not likable. There are a lot of these engaging, but not likable male protagonists on TV nowadays.

I also think you can have a protagonist who is themself not engaging if the story/writing/situation is engaging enough...which is I think what was going on in that crime novel...

But I think the Competence, Proactivity, Sympathy thing works well. He was not at all sympathetic. He was more competent that the other underlings...but not as competent as he thought he was...and in some ways not so competent. But he was proactive!

[wendybirdx]

Huh, that's interesting!

I think the reasons I personally tend to like villains (even if they're not protagonists) is this strange combination of two aspects. First, a good motive, in the sense that, even if their actions are morally questionable, their objective (at least for the villains I tend to like) is a fairly normal, human desire. For example, Milady from The Musketeers is an assassin who takes down her victims with a neutral expression and a nonchalant air, but it's all done to build her life up from the ground. I guess it's interesting to combine amoral methods and common desires since it brings up a certain questioning regarding how far we would be willing to go to reach our goals and why we conform to certain rules when there's quicker or even obligatory ways that require stepping on some heads.
Second, how they plan out their methods. Since their methods are not acceptable in society, they must find alliances, work behind the scenes, frame others. And it tends to get quite complicated if they wish to protect themselves, wether it's socially or legally. I guess there's a third aspect that ties in to both, which is how the villains explain their own actions to themselves. Because even villains that show some regret tend to be quite determined about how their ways are justified, to an extent, or just the most effective methods to rise up the ranks quickly or whatnot, so it's interesting to see their point of view on morality.

I rambled a lot and I don't believe I've made myself too clear hah but in sum, I tend to like villains with realistic motives, and to watch the ways in which they execute their plans while protecting their reputation and integrity (in the sense of sanity, of being in accordance to some extent with their immorality).

To state general examples, we see some realistic motives that lead to extreme actions, like wanting revenge on family members or lovers (which brings up the questioning of how far it's truly acceptable to mistreat others based on your own mistreatment), or wanting to change the conditions around them for the sake of love (which questions the "to the ends of the earth" kind of love that is encouraged nowadays).

For a more specific example, Harrison Wells (The Flash) is quite the interesting character because he's only trying to return home, but clearly cannot do so unless he uses Barry's power, takes someone's place and plays out a character to gain others' trust in order to do so. He's even proven to be willing to kill the people he actually has grown fond of during his time under a false identity, and tells Cisco he's like a son to him before...well...killing him.

I don't know if I made any sense at all I hope it's somewhat understandable

[Kailoto]

Not every villain protagonist is a puppet master. That is a trope that is particularly popular right now, but not the only way it has gone or can go.

For the last few years I've been reading a lot of pulp crime novels, many of them from the 1950s and 1960s. Those novels are full of villain protagonists...and they aren't puppet masters. Quite often they seriously bone headed errors that I, as a reader, know are not good choices (Tip: no matter how good looking that random woman is, don't volunteer to kill her husband for her). I just read a novel called The Pedler about a guy who has no redeeming qualities, who is not as smart as he thinks he is, and who is just terrible. He's a brute, not a puppet master. What is the point of this book? I asked myself that. Especially considering that there were lots and lots of these types of books in the 1950s.

I think these books were popular as a form of voyeurism. I think it gave people living in the suburbs a thrill. In some ways it is probably why people in the suburbs like(d) gangster rap and death metal. You think your life is boring and antiseptic...so you want to go slumming. But you also think your life is superior (morally, intellectually, etc), so you don't want the thing you are slumming with to seem better than you. You want to enjoy reading about the petty criminal but always feel like you would are better than that petty criminal. It is like watching a slow motion train wreck.

You know, that's a good point. It's not really in vogue now, but there have been plenty of stories like that, where it's more a form of voyeurism, and I didn't think of those, probably because I don't read or watch them. And if I extrapolate, I probably wouldn't enjoy reading them as much because of the fact that they lack that control, the chessmaster approach to things. But that's certainly an entirely different form that I didn't consider.

But if you take all the advice people gave you in your thread to make your bullies "likable," then your bullies stop being villains and start being antiheroes who are redeemable. They become "bad boys" who can be fixed rather than evil dudes. The loss of your original concept is a bit sad to me. Because know it seems you are making a game that your friend would want rather than the one you wanted.

Yea, I sort of like followed what she want (an Otome Game. But since my original plan is to make a fun game with my story I kinda go along with the idea)
But I still have my original version (the dark version) that I plan to make as well (for self satisfaction purpose XD)

I take the advice of people because I appreciate all the advice ( both good and bad )
I also want to thank you for your comments ^_^

What you do with your story is up to your creative direction, but I'm glad to hear that you're planning to pursue both versions. I think there's something to be learned by following advice and seeing the changes, but you'd also lose something if it becomes different than what you set out to do, so I think that's admirable.

For those of you that have seen Ping Pong The Animation, I consider Smile a villain protagonist. Spoilers for this series below.

I have seen Ping Pong, and I totally agree. I mean, the narrative was completely forthcoming about it, with Peco often being referred to as a "hero" by Smile, who plays the role of the villain to get him back on his feet. The whole series was one of my favorites in how it dealt with talent and skill, but that final scene, where Smile decides to push Peco even though he's injured because "a hero has no weaknesses" was fantastic storytelling. I honestly never though going into it that I would love it so much.

[anon2045]

I think the reasons I personally tend to like villains (even if they're not protagonists) is this strange combination of two aspects. First, a good motive, in the sense that, even if their actions are morally questionable, their objective (at least for the villains I tend to like) is a fairly normal, human desire {....} I guess it's interesting to combine amoral methods and common desires since it brings up a certain questioning regarding how far we would be willing to go to reach our goals {....} I guess there's a third aspect that ties in to both, which is how the villains explain their own actions to themselves. Because even villains that show some regret tend to be quite determined about how their ways are justified, to an extent, or just the most effective methods to rise up the ranks quickly or whatnot, so it's interesting to see their point of view on morality. {...} I don't know if I made any sense at all I hope it's somewhat understandable

You worded it so well, the thing I like most about villains. It actually reminds me of a quote about villains I filed away somewhere, here it is...

"My favorite kind of villains are the ones that you can understand. Not agree with, not like, but understand. You’re frightened by their actions in a really visceral way because you realize that, in the wrong circumstances, you might become a monster too. The scariest type of monsters are the ones that seem human and familiar."

With a few exceptions, I've never been very attracted to in-human-like purely evil characters. To a certain extent, I want to understand why they do what they do. If I can crawl under their skin and picture myself making the very same choices, the sensation is uncanny, frightening.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, there are creatures like the Cthultu who are monsters that are practically impossible to relate to. Their inhumanity is exactly what makes them frightening.

So I suppose, thinking it over, that the villains I like the most have the ability to make the viewer feel frightened of them or make us analyze our actions/thoughts in a new light.

And then there are villains like Loki (from Thor) or Crowley (from Supernatural) who are so funny and snarky, that you can't help but like them a bit even if there actions are completely reprehensible.

It's all about the effect you want to create and the story you want to tell. Do you want to repulse/frighten? Do you want frighten the reader because they see themselves in the villain? Or do you want to frighten them with something outside of themselves? Maybe your intent is not to frighten at all, but to entertain or to make a statement on how much the viewers are willing to forgive if the villain is dressed in an appealing, charming package? Or maybe to make us think in general and question ourselves?

Anyway, there is also a tendency for the scheming, "mastermind" characters (i.e. the character who plan ahead instead of relying on luck and brawn) to be villains. I tend to like them since I find them more relatable (I can't really picture myself as the extroverted, brawny type hero so). It'll be fun to see a puppet-master, scheming-like character as the hero though. I think the closest to this would be detective stories...

[E-night]

I like proactive, intellegent and ambitious people, which means I have, to qoute tv tropes, found myself rooting for the empire way too many times to count.