Developing Characters

[ow_tiobe_sb]

"The most dangerous villains are those that we can like and admire.  The most terrifying villains are those that we can become."

I don't know the original source of the quote - I heard it from a good friend, who in turn heard it from someone else.  But it resonates.

Right!  The next person who uses the word "resonates" within a non-acoustical context gets a short, sharp thrashing, cane-style!  (J/k, Viking. ;)  My undergraduates use the term far too often in their papers because they believe, mistakenly, that it makes them sound sophisticated.)

And yet... sometimes, there are villains that do not show signs of being sympathetic, and yet are mesmerizing to watch.  Darth Vader (prior to showing his backstory in the prequel episodes of I, II, and III).  Doctor Doom.  Lex Luthor.  The Joker.  These guys range the gamut from egotistical to arrogant to psychotic.  So why do people find them so darn cool?

In my opinion, unsympathetic villains (not necessarily those you've mentioned) prove fascinating due to their nihilistic tendencies.  I would compare their appeal to that of the train wreck to the eye witness: these villains' actions do a sudden (often repeated, yet often aleatory) violence to the established social/ethical discourse that affords no ready neutralisation within that established discourse's analytical framework.  In other words, nihilistic villains operate outside the coping mechanisms of the dominant social order ("We cannot pigeonhole this enemy!  What does he want?  Why does he do what he does?  How do we stop him?") and thereby (at least temporarily) interrupts that system.  Villains of this sort tend to be capricious, relentless (unless relenting suits their current impulse), savage (in the sense of being opposed to a civilised order without necessarily being vicious or uncivilised in his methods), and inexplicable.  These villains present us with a glimpse of an uncanny, ineffable, human sublime: a terrible void that unnervingly stares into the observer, who, though disturbed by the phenomenon, nevertheless wishes the sensation to continue.

Of course, if Jean Baudrillard (in "On Nihilism" from Simulacra and Simulation) can be trusted, post-industrial society does possess coping mechanisms for this sort of nihilism, for the simulacral order itself is systemically nihilistic and always ready to neutralise and deter nihilists who are, themselves, already merely the graffitied façade of a nihilistic architecture.  However, I would counter that, in praxis, the dominant discourses at hand in both daily life and in fiction often do not operate within the type of playing field Baudrillard describes, and they often limit themselves to a more modernist or postmodernist sensibility, which was/is preoccupied with "the destruction of appearances [...] in the service of meaning" or "the destruction of meaning," respectively.  Therefore, we can still be fascinated by villains who destroy Wall Street because they believe those financial institutions to be built upon an ancient Native American burial ground or villains who simply destroy without aim.  (Of course, Baudrillard would counter that this fascination of which I speak is a symptom of the simulacral order's nihilism...)

Benoît in Man Bites Dog comes to mind as a villain who approaches the nihilism that I have described; however, he is not a perfect example, often providing at least plausible explanations for some of his actions.  Another imperfect example might be protagonist/antagonist (the way Bertolt Brecht played with his alienation effect, who knows how to classify him?) George Garga from Im Dickicht der Städte (In the Jungle of Cities).  The Joker, as written by David Goyer and the Nolan brothers, comes very close to this sort of nihilism, but he falls short when he reveals his gaming aesthetic to Batman (which, however, may prove to be just another one of The Joker's various narratives).  I suppose the best example would be any terrorist without a cause, the sort of character who is hard to come by in RL.

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

[Viking]

"The most dangerous villains are those that we can like and admire.  The most terrifying villains are those that we can become."

I don't know the original source of the quote - I heard it from a good friend, who in turn heard it from someone else.  But it resonates.

Right!  The next person who uses the word "resonates" within a non-acoustical context gets a short, sharp thrashing, cane-style!  (J/k, Viking. ;)  My undergraduates use the term far too often in their papers because they believe, mistakenly, that it makes them sound sophisticated.)

Well, the American Heritage Dictionary does provide the following definitions for "resonate":

To evoke a feeling of shared emotion or belief: "It is a demonology [that] seems to resonate among secular and religious voters alike"

To correspond closely or harmoniously: "Symbolism matters, especially if the symbols resonate with the larger message"

[ow_tiobe_sb]

There was absolutely nothing incorrect about your usage, Viking.  My students rely on the word so often that I've become absolutely tired of hearing it used in that context.  :banghead:  No foul, however, on your part. :)

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

[Gremlin]

In my opinion, unsympathetic villains (not necessarily those you've mentioned) prove fascinating due to their nihilistic tendencies.  I would compare their appeal to that of the train wreck to the eye witness: these villains' actions do a sudden (often repeated, yet often aleatory) violence to the established social/ethical discourse that affords no ready neutralisation within that established discourse's analytical framework.  In other words, nihilistic villains operate outside the coping mechanisms of the dominant social order ("We cannot pigeonhole this enemy!  What does he want?  Why does he do what he does?  How do we stop him?") and thereby (at least temporarily) interrupts that system.  Villains of this sort tend to be capricious, relentless (unless relenting suits their current impulse), savage (in the sense of being opposed to a civilised order without necessarily being vicious or uncivilised in his methods), and inexplicable.  These villains present us with a glimpse of an uncanny, ineffable, human sublime: a terrible void that unnervingly stares into the observer, who, though disturbed by the phenomenon, nevertheless wishes the sensation to continue.

Of course, if Jean Baudrillard (in "On Nihilism" from Simulacra and Simulation) can be trusted, post-industrial society does possess coping mechanisms for this sort of nihilism, for the simulacral order itself is systemically nihilistic and always ready to neutralise and deter nihilists who are, themselves, already merely the graffitied façade of a nihilistic architecture.  However, I would counter that, in praxis, the dominant discourses at hand in both daily life and in fiction often do not operate within the type of playing field Baudrillard describes, and they often limit themselves to a more modernist or postmodernist sensibility, which was/is preoccupied with "the destruction of appearances [...] in the service of meaning" or "the destruction of meaning," respectively.  Therefore, we can still be fascinated by villains who destroy Wall Street because they believe those financial institutions to be built upon an ancient Native American burial ground or villains who simply destroy without aim.  (Of course, Baudrillard would counter that this fascination of which I speak is a symptom of the simulacral order's nihilism...)

OTB, you're far too well read for your own good. :P I don't say that because it's a bad thing...but just because now you're going to suffer from an endless barrage of questions.

How, precisely, does Baudrillard claim such an individual is curbed?  Through the use of individuals who use similar methods but align themselves differently? What is the "playing field [he] describes," precisely? Modern/postmodern society in reality or fiction?  Or the conflicts themselves?

By the by, what do you teach and where?

Villains are almost always my favorite characters to write.  What's really fun are evil mirror versions of good characters.  Subverting somebody's past to transform them into evil characters is a tremendous challenge, but very rewarding.

Take my Patriotman. He has an evil clone in another universe named Riot.  Where PM is a Christian conservative patriot, Riot is an antitheist/nihilist anarchist. Their pasts are identical in virtually every way, but while PM saw his combat wounds as his badge of honor for a life served for his country, Riot saw his pain as needless and unneccessary suffering brought upon him by a vicious impirical government. While PM jumped on the chance to serve the ideals of his nation again, Riot saw the opportunity for revenge. The parallels between them give me a lot of opportunity to question the ideals of both characters, and the ideals of all the characters around them.

[ow_tiobe_sb]

[OT]I've taken my reply to Gremlin to PM to avoid flooding this thread with tedious digressions.[/OT]

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

[BlueBard]

[OT]I've taken my reply to Gremlin to PM to avoid flooding this thread with tedious digressions.[/OT]

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

Good plan.

You lost me pretty near the beginning of that last digression.

But then again I'm an uncultured non-collegiate computer geek, so it's to be expected. ;)

[Midnight]

I totally wanted to push this thread even further but work has not allowed me time to read it fully. :( Keep asking questions, keep the discussion going!

[BatWing]

u need 3 things

a brain, unlimited imagination and creativity. ;)

[Midnight]

u need 3 things

a brain, unlimited imagination and creativity. ;)

I'm more concerned with methods.

[AfghanAnt]

So you start with the look of the character; Are the characters' personality and behavior a direct result of what they look like or do you have these traits in mind before you start?

Going back to the design itself, when you develop a character's look, is it serendipity or do you start with a design process and worktowards a concept (American patriot, gritty street hero, cosmic power)?

Yes the personality is a direct result of the design for me.

Serenipity mostly, I'll take a word or random string of them (Afghan Ant), concept I read about (Bat-Boy from World News Weekly), or image (http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=65451&rendTypeId=4) and built from there. When I'm design I try to pull in certain elements from the source but a lot of the overall design is organic. I'm a huge fan of asymmetry in character design so a lot of my design start as scribbles.

[Deaths Jester]

Well, when I develop a character I first come up with a name.  Usually it's something that just feels right and causes me to create an automatic picture of what they look like in my head.  Now of course, I usually start developing the villian of a piece before creating the main character.  From there, the mental pic usually gives away alot about the character's mentality.  Whether it be a clenched fist or a grimace or such, it just seems to build automatically without any real work on my part.  I will though usually run them through a few situations not involved in the stroy jsut to see how they react but not much more.  From there I just toss the character in whatever the plot is and let them run free with it, seeing who they bring into the mix that needs to be fleshed out and such as I go.  It's almost like once the name is decided the character builds themselves and take on a life of their own when I write.

{edit: boy, do I knwo how to kill a thread}