Comments on: Humanizing Bad Guys

By: Therese Walsh

Therese Walsh — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:19:02 +0000

I’ll start out saying the character is going to be a puppy-murdering rapist, and start develving into their personality to find out why, then suddenly they aren’t murding puppies, they are trying to save the puppies from the heros who will enslave them as pets!

LOL, Cassie!

Oh, Snape. How could I forget him? Luscious, greasy villain. Yes. Thanks for the reminder, Brenda.

By: Brenda

Brenda — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:34:56 +0000

I’m thinking of Severus Snape and going farther back, Uriah Heep. Both are characters who have depths to them that make us want to know more. Twisted, yes, creepy, yes, but definitely interesting. Both have motives that are clear, but complicated.

By: Cassie

Cassie — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:06:39 +0000

D&D provides a million writing ideas ^_^

When I write, I always try to humanize my bad guys. The “downside” I’ve noticed is that my bad guys are never “evil”. I’ll start out saying the character is going to be a puppy-murdering rapist, and start develving into their personality to find out why, then suddenly they aren’t murding puppies, they are trying to save the puppies from the heros who will enslave them as pets! No, my bad guy just wants a world where they are our animal friends, not pets! And given more time, I’d explain away the rapist tag as well.

Just like real life, I think tags are more given to “bad guys” by the good guys who want to villafy them so that its easier to go after them.

By: Therese Walsh

Therese Walsh — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:38:51 +0000

I agree, Eric. Those labels provide a rich range of possibilities.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:29:24 +0000

Apt timing with the recent death of Dungeons & Dragons creator Gary Gygax, I always found character moral distinctions in that game to be useful towards fiction…

Lawful Good vs. Neutral Good vs. Chaotic Good.

Likewise on the other end of the spectrum you have Lawful Evil vs. Neutral Evil vs. Chaotic Evil.

Lawful meaning rule-bound, adhering to a kind of code, whether it be the laws of the land or the laws of the character’s own faction. Chaotic being the opposite end of the spectrum from that. A person who is either good or evil, but doesn’t adhere to rules in any case.

A more creatively broad way to interpret a character’s disposition.

By: Kathleen Bolton

Kathleen Bolton — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:31:31 +0000

I think the baddies are scarier when they are humanized.

“Another thing I could’ve mentioned here is that the bad guy is the hero of his own story.”

That’s a great reminder, Therese. Excellent post (and troubling picture, lol).

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:12:24 +0000

I love anti-heroes.

Dexter, Mr. Brooks, Hannibal Lecter. They’re not entirely evil. They just have a very different kind of self-defined morality that your average person probably wouldn’t understand.

Especially in the U.S., some of our greatest heroes are rebels. Which is beginning to seem a bit ironic as some rebels could easily be termed “terrorists.”

You could call it humanizing the bad guys, or from another perspective it’s de-humanizing the good guys.

By: Therese Walsh

Therese Walsh — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:10:26 +0000

Hi Richard,

That sounds like a perfect example.

Another thing I could’ve mentioned here is that the bad guy is the hero of his own story. Good to keep that in mind.

By: Richard Mabry

Richard Mabry — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:01:51 +0000

Teri,
Great advice. One of my favorite writers, Robert B. Parker, has crafted a sidekick, Hawk, to his hero, Spenser, who can be a “good guy” one minute and an enforcer and stone killer the next. Three-dimensional characters are the stuff of great writing, even when they’re the bad guys. Thanks for the reminder.