Those Bad Brit Boys



Now that my notes are in order - yeah, right - I've been playing catch up on some blogs. I ran across a few lovely bits from across the pond about Baddies, Villains and Antagonists, and how not to fall into cliche' when writing them.

Let's start with John Rickards talking about backstory for villains. He writes "Make him enigmatic, dangerous and plainly as mad as a weasel on crack, but never explain him. If you can't do the backstory well, maybe you shouldn't do it at all. Hint at something deeper, let the reader fill in the gaps, but never do the big reveal."

I LOVE the Weasel on Crack comment. It's just so... juicy! And he's right about leaving holes.

There is a fine line to walk between not enough and too much information. But, as writers, we do need to know the why, even if we never really use it. Most of the time, in logical situations (real life and in fiction) there's a reason why people become what they become.

Vincent Holland-Keen makes a wonderful statement about the creation of a baddie within the constrains of their developmental environment. That nurture has a definite role to play and that it's technically possible, yet highly unlikely, that a productive little citizen will suddenly turn to evil. I agree. It might happen, people do just snap for no apparent rhyme or reason, but when constructing villains in a narrative, everything has to make sense. Somehow. And it has to fit the context of the story you're telling. There's a time and place for unusual. And a time and place for logical.

Back to John again: The Novelty Killer has historically been a particular problem in serial killer fiction. One writer or another trying to one-up their competitors in the weird-and-nasty-method-of-death factor. The last book had people being disembowelled with a trowel ("One thing we know about The Gardener - he will kill again!!!!") so the next one has to have people being fucked to death with live badgers ("One thing we know about The Beast - he will kill again!!!!").

I have no problem with interesting or original villains. I don't necessarily have a problem with wildly overcomplicated murderers, if they make sense in context. If you're going to have cartoonish supervillainy, have it in a cartoonish world. Jack Nicholson's Joker is a cracking villain in Batman, because he's in Batman. Try making him the bad guy in the next Thomas Harris book and see just how fucking stupid you feel.

Yup. Context is everything. It's vital when crafting a screamer of a mystery.

A lot hinges on the villain, they are often lighting the fire under the hero's ass, after all. If there is no antagonist, there likely is no story. No murders, no mystery. No invading forces, no war. No threat... no story. No one wants to read about happy, cheerful people reading the newspaper. They want angst and drama, trauma and pain. For that, someone or some thing needs to inflict it. That's your villain, whether a mindless corporation slurping up mom and pop lives, or a twisted killer raping people with badgers.

Which would be interesting, I have to admit.

And, lastly, just because I'm a sucker for a guy with a beard (and I'm a fan), Stuart McBride , on his own homicidal thoughts.

Not sure if that would make Stuart a novelty killer or not - homicide via Jeep rage. Hmmm.... It could work...

Posted: Tue - June 21, 2005 at 08:52 AM         |

©