In Defense of "Woobie Villains".
Mostly inspired by a conversation with darth_eldritch last night, but I felt this needed to be said. Let's say that lately (although, honestly, it's been around for such a long while that I have no idea why the fuck I'm surprised to start seeing this now), the whole idea of the sympathetic villain has come under fire. Some people (none of you, really, just in general) have started calling it "wimpy" and "wussy" and started accusing them of being "huggable" and "cuddly" and not menacing. While they may have some valid points, I personally don't agree.
First off, a sympathetic villain doesn't necessarily have to be "cuddly". If anything, the villain in question can be absolutely horrifying and awful and yet still have a backstory that at least sheds a new light on his actions and why he does what he does. Take a look at Claude Frollo in THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME -- all right, while I would call him the opposite of sympathetic considering his actions, he still has reasons, twisted as they are, for doing what he does. He genuinely believes that he's doing the right thing, even though how he plans to serve God is, basically, committing genocide, child abuse, and so many other things. Not to mention how horrified he is about finding himself attracted to the gypsy Esmeralda. While it doesn't really make him sympathetic in the slightest -- if anything, it just makes him far more horrifying -- there is a moment where the audience can pity him if only a little, what with, "God have mercy on her/God have mercy on me...", showing at the very least that Frollo is genuinely afraid of Esmeralda and what she may mean for him, as well as his own soul. Granted, he goes gleefully skipping over the Moral Event Horizon long after that, but for a moment, there's a spark of pity there. It doesn't mean that we're rooting for him. After all, to quote CHARACTERS AND VIEWPOINT, nobody wants Oedipus to stay married to his mother. Nobody's rooting for Macbeth to win.
Second of all, a sympathetic villain actually makes a nice change from the pantomime villain whose sole purpose is to be evil -- or just the villain who wants money, world domination, and the like. Just look at Mr. Freeze in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. He's not doing what he does for the purpose of being evil; he's doing it to get revenge on the men who made him the way he was and killed his wife, Nora. It's made even more haunting by the fact that...well, if one was in Mr. Freeze's place, wouldn't you want to do the same thing in regards to getting justice for a loved one being murdered? I think most of us would, at any rate -- and Freeze...well, he can. Even when one's close to tears near the end of "Heart of Ice", there's a certain amount of identification in it too. Because I can imagine some have been in Freeze's position at one point. Perhaps they haven't taken the actions that he did, but they've definitely felt it. Which really brings me to my next point.
Third is the matter of empathy. In my opinion, a lot of good fiction involves empathy. A riveting plot is all well and good, but if your audience doesn't care about your characters, your story is dead in the water. They'll out it down and find a new one. They have to find a way to empathize with your characters, or otherwise...why should they keep reading? While one doesn't need to really empathize with the villain, at the very least, it can make things more chilling. Not with what he's doing, per se, but at least with why they do what they do. If it's done right, it makes things more frightening, because they're more real.
While we're on the subject of that, there's also the matter of the fact that nobody ever really thinks of themselves as evil. No one, with the possible exception of Dr. Evil, wakes up in the morning thinking of new evil things to do. Nobody really ever thinks of themselves as just a side character, for example -- as Stephen King says in ON WRITING, the camera is on *us*, baby! Same with villains. Every one of them no doubt has an elaborate set of reasons as to why they're doing what they're doing. Which also ties into why I love Well-Intentioned Extremists so much -- because they don't think they're really evil. They think they're doing the right thing, which makes it even more chilling when the heroes go up against them. They could be offering the heroes arguments on why they think they're creating a better world. It's also why the Operative in SERENITY works for me -- he isn't evil, merely a soldier following orders, with the added bonus that he recognizes that what he's doing is wrong, but persists with it because he feels that it's the right thing for everyone. Which also puts a new spin on the Alliance as well -- they are almost like the Cybermen in DOCTOR WHO as they don't think they're evil, merely trying to help. And the bit of self-awareness in the villain can also go a long way because the villain isn't reveling in their evil. They recognize that they've lost their way, but don't really see a way out. Which I think adds a bit of pathos and complexity there, and makes it better than if the villain was just a one-dimensional gloating caricature straight out of the days of Dudley Do Right. It doesn't mean trying to diminish what he's doing or apologize for his actions, simply showing why someone does what they do. I know that books such as WICKED have done this well -- hell, Elphaba gets a hell of a lot more character development than the original Wicked Witch of the West, and the Wicked Witch is still a wonderful villain. But I believe that Elphaba got more reasons for her actions, and a more complex backstory, as well as turning how Oz works completely on its head. That's another reason I love the sympathetic villain -- it allows a writer to push out of the audience's comfort zone to some degree, and take them on a journey through how the human brain works. One is always asking "why" to some degree -- hell, I know I'm still asking it! It brings to mind one quote from Oancitizen in TO BOLDLY FLEE: "Bad art is a distraction. Great art changes people."
Which is true for villains as well. Cardboard villains are mostly a distraction. Fleshed out villains with reasons for their actions take people on journeys. They always leave some degree of an impact on people. Same with characters in general -- one-dimensional characters are distractions and forgettable. Great characters leave an impact on your life. And besides, the way we are now, we're looking for more depth in fiction. We're looking for things that change us in one way or another. THE HUNGER GAMES. DOCTOR WHO. LORD OF THE RINGS. STAR WARS. Similarly, I believe more than anything, we in general want a challenge. And honestly, when I write a book someday, I want more than anything to know that I've left an impact on people, large or small. At the very least, I want to know I did something right. Because that? That's worth everything in the end.
So that's mostly my thoughts on sympathetic villains. Granted, YMMV, and I could be wrong, but that's my thoughts on the matter.
Thoughts? Comments? Hatemail? I'm interested. :)
First off, a sympathetic villain doesn't necessarily have to be "cuddly". If anything, the villain in question can be absolutely horrifying and awful and yet still have a backstory that at least sheds a new light on his actions and why he does what he does. Take a look at Claude Frollo in THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME -- all right, while I would call him the opposite of sympathetic considering his actions, he still has reasons, twisted as they are, for doing what he does. He genuinely believes that he's doing the right thing, even though how he plans to serve God is, basically, committing genocide, child abuse, and so many other things. Not to mention how horrified he is about finding himself attracted to the gypsy Esmeralda. While it doesn't really make him sympathetic in the slightest -- if anything, it just makes him far more horrifying -- there is a moment where the audience can pity him if only a little, what with, "God have mercy on her/God have mercy on me...", showing at the very least that Frollo is genuinely afraid of Esmeralda and what she may mean for him, as well as his own soul. Granted, he goes gleefully skipping over the Moral Event Horizon long after that, but for a moment, there's a spark of pity there. It doesn't mean that we're rooting for him. After all, to quote CHARACTERS AND VIEWPOINT, nobody wants Oedipus to stay married to his mother. Nobody's rooting for Macbeth to win.
Second of all, a sympathetic villain actually makes a nice change from the pantomime villain whose sole purpose is to be evil -- or just the villain who wants money, world domination, and the like. Just look at Mr. Freeze in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. He's not doing what he does for the purpose of being evil; he's doing it to get revenge on the men who made him the way he was and killed his wife, Nora. It's made even more haunting by the fact that...well, if one was in Mr. Freeze's place, wouldn't you want to do the same thing in regards to getting justice for a loved one being murdered? I think most of us would, at any rate -- and Freeze...well, he can. Even when one's close to tears near the end of "Heart of Ice", there's a certain amount of identification in it too. Because I can imagine some have been in Freeze's position at one point. Perhaps they haven't taken the actions that he did, but they've definitely felt it. Which really brings me to my next point.
Third is the matter of empathy. In my opinion, a lot of good fiction involves empathy. A riveting plot is all well and good, but if your audience doesn't care about your characters, your story is dead in the water. They'll out it down and find a new one. They have to find a way to empathize with your characters, or otherwise...why should they keep reading? While one doesn't need to really empathize with the villain, at the very least, it can make things more chilling. Not with what he's doing, per se, but at least with why they do what they do. If it's done right, it makes things more frightening, because they're more real.
While we're on the subject of that, there's also the matter of the fact that nobody ever really thinks of themselves as evil. No one, with the possible exception of Dr. Evil, wakes up in the morning thinking of new evil things to do. Nobody really ever thinks of themselves as just a side character, for example -- as Stephen King says in ON WRITING, the camera is on *us*, baby! Same with villains. Every one of them no doubt has an elaborate set of reasons as to why they're doing what they're doing. Which also ties into why I love Well-Intentioned Extremists so much -- because they don't think they're really evil. They think they're doing the right thing, which makes it even more chilling when the heroes go up against them. They could be offering the heroes arguments on why they think they're creating a better world. It's also why the Operative in SERENITY works for me -- he isn't evil, merely a soldier following orders, with the added bonus that he recognizes that what he's doing is wrong, but persists with it because he feels that it's the right thing for everyone. Which also puts a new spin on the Alliance as well -- they are almost like the Cybermen in DOCTOR WHO as they don't think they're evil, merely trying to help. And the bit of self-awareness in the villain can also go a long way because the villain isn't reveling in their evil. They recognize that they've lost their way, but don't really see a way out. Which I think adds a bit of pathos and complexity there, and makes it better than if the villain was just a one-dimensional gloating caricature straight out of the days of Dudley Do Right. It doesn't mean trying to diminish what he's doing or apologize for his actions, simply showing why someone does what they do. I know that books such as WICKED have done this well -- hell, Elphaba gets a hell of a lot more character development than the original Wicked Witch of the West, and the Wicked Witch is still a wonderful villain. But I believe that Elphaba got more reasons for her actions, and a more complex backstory, as well as turning how Oz works completely on its head. That's another reason I love the sympathetic villain -- it allows a writer to push out of the audience's comfort zone to some degree, and take them on a journey through how the human brain works. One is always asking "why" to some degree -- hell, I know I'm still asking it! It brings to mind one quote from Oancitizen in TO BOLDLY FLEE: "Bad art is a distraction. Great art changes people."
Which is true for villains as well. Cardboard villains are mostly a distraction. Fleshed out villains with reasons for their actions take people on journeys. They always leave some degree of an impact on people. Same with characters in general -- one-dimensional characters are distractions and forgettable. Great characters leave an impact on your life. And besides, the way we are now, we're looking for more depth in fiction. We're looking for things that change us in one way or another. THE HUNGER GAMES. DOCTOR WHO. LORD OF THE RINGS. STAR WARS. Similarly, I believe more than anything, we in general want a challenge. And honestly, when I write a book someday, I want more than anything to know that I've left an impact on people, large or small. At the very least, I want to know I did something right. Because that? That's worth everything in the end.
So that's mostly my thoughts on sympathetic villains. Granted, YMMV, and I could be wrong, but that's my thoughts on the matter.
Thoughts? Comments? Hatemail? I'm interested. :)