A problem with character evolution

[lin robinson]

That's what I like about Dr. Phibes and Phantomas. They just go around being evil for the hell of it.

I guess the most distilled evil character is Mr. Jeckylll, defined as all that's bad separated out from the good.

The villain in "Time Bandits" gets my nod as well. Sucking folks to their doom with games shows giving away kitchens. "Is THIS the best the Supreme Being can send against me?"

[vintagefury]

On the vein of "pure evil"... I'm thinking maybe one of the ways to achieve it is to never question why it is evil, merely allow that it is evil and that's what it is. Making any attempt to look at the source of "pure evil" and understand it could be what fizzles the whole thing.

Just a thought. I dunno.

[lin robinson]

I blame if all on society and my parents.

[Vorthale]

^^ Hahaha




This has turned into quite the philosophical discussion. What is evil? Is there a pure evil? How does one define evil, and where does evil stray from that path I'm getting lost here, but it's an interesting discussion.

[Peter Graham]

Hello Vorthale,

But also during the book my main character Davian and him begin to gain a mutual respect for one another. I don't want it to seem like he's suddenly a good guy and changed his ways, but I want him to help fight for the fate of the world. I want him to be less of a burden and more of a blessing in disguise. I want him to exhude another side of himself, but not cheesily so.

Don't worry about this. I have banged on in the past about my personal dislike for "evil" and "good" as entirely separable constructs. It's a mainstay of fantasy, I know, but the idea that all of the evil people would go and order themselves into a coherent society over here whilst the good people go and order themselves into a coherent society over there is, to my mind, somewhat unsatisfactory. Especially as the evil people seem to have no appreciation of nice views. They always get the blasted slag heaps and rotten marshes!

There is nothing wrong with characters (even demon characters) being a confusing mix of good and bad. Bear in mind that bad people can sometimes do good things for bad reasons. Also bear in mind that labels like "evil" and "good" are fairly subjective at the best of times.

Have a look at the first two books of Milton's Paradise Lost. The main character is the devil, but by the end of Book One, it is very hard not to sympathise with him and see him as the hero of the piece. As one might expect, the situation changes, but Milton's ability to make us see things through someone else's eyes is one of the hallmarks of his greatness as a writer. So don't be afraid of moral confusion. And don't be afraid to play games with the reader. And don't ever be afraid to avoid the awful "Star Trek" strategy of having the bad guys eventually realising (with the able assistance of Starfleet) that Being Nice To People Can Be A Good Thing and that perhaps beheading your own children for dishonouring a boiled egg is a tad excessive, not to mention being an Act Likely to Infringe Their Personal Dignity and Human Rights.

If it's any help he's caught and killed.. so maybe his punishment could help reflect on how twisted he was?

Interesting. But in my view, a justice system based on revenge reduces everyone to the same level of moral uncertainty, no matter what our Penny Dreadfuls might say.

Regards,

Peter

[lin robinson]

maybe his punishment could help reflect on how twisted he was?

A problem I've frequently seen with this sort of thinking is building a situation where "killin's to good for 'em".

The first time I noticed it was in Death Wish 2. This gang had repeatedly raped and tormented his poor little hispanic maid over a period of time and in the end they get killed. Not good enough.

There is a dramatic principle called "catharsis" that says that you have to be able to process and satisfy the emotions you arouse in the work. Failing that leaves a residue on the audience. Death WIsh audiences swept out of the theater looking for some deserving punk to beat to death.

The same thing in the book version of "Man On Fire"...made into a film with Denzel Washington and moved from Europe to Mexico (EXCELLENT film about how Mexican crime works) In the movie the victim miraculously survives her kidnapping (I doubt I'm spoiling what is an obvious Hollywood ending) But in the book, after the girl has been built up as this wonderfully sensitive, caring, wonderful person...she's brutally raped for a week by scumbags then allowed to choke to death on her own vomit.
And what happens to them? The good guy shoots them. It just doesn't get the job done.

The Hollywood movie code of the forties and fifties led to a lot of gangster movies where some dashing asshole would carve the world up and become widely admired by kids like Pacino's "Scarface"...but in the end get shot by cops to show that crime doesn't pay. Not a message that got through to the bigshot wannabes that loved George Raft, Cagney et al.

What I'm getting out, death isn't an easy fix.

no matter what our Penny Dreadfuls might say.

Ah, you knew Penny. I dated all those Dreadful girls. Lots of fun when they weren't preaching.