Many stories feel flat if the antagonist has simplistic or one-dimensional desires.
In basically all of the James Bond movies, the villains want revenge and/or world domination.
In contrast, in Worm [1] you spend some time with the antagonists (and a lot of side characters), and get a much better appreciation of their feelings and motivations. Sometimes you even feel sympathy for very messed-up characters to the degree that it creeps you out. (Fun fact: there's even a chapter from the perspective of a dog. Brilliant! :D)
For a really interesting take on antagonists I'd recommend reading the Demon Cycle books by Peter Brett. In the first several books of the series the protagonist for the book is someone that was an antagonist earlier in the series.
This is writing 102 - instead of a cookie cutter Hero With Desires and an Evil Antagonist everyone is morally ambiguous, and struggling with it to varying degrees. As is the reader.
It's much more involving, much harder to write, and much less common in genre fiction. But when it's done well it's a whole other level of writing.
It is so far in my life the best story I have consumed in any media. I remember when I finished it I couldn't really enjoy movies or other books for several months. Every story felt shallow afterwards. Took a long time for me to forget Worm and to start enjoying other stories again.
For those who have read Worm (and those considering reading it) I can't recommend the podcast "We've Got Worm" highly enough. The hosts discuss each chapter / section of Worm week by week, breaking down the writing, themes, and characters.
Worm is written in an incredibly gripping style (as befits a serialized work) and my first frantic read through I definitely missed many subtleties and examples of brilliant writing. I'd always wanted to reread it, but wasn't up for committing to the 1.5 million words a second time. The story is so gripping though, that I ended up binging the podcast because even their recaps were so compelling I couldn't stop.
If you want to have a vicarious book club, and really examine a work in depth, check it out. (They also have an ongoing podcast discussing Stephen King's The Dark Tower series with a similar level of analysis and detail. An excellent way of examining good writing.)
> Many stories feel flat if the antagonist has simplistic or one-dimensional desires.
Without disagreeing - "simplistic" has a couple of facets and some are bad while others can be good.
Inspector Javert of Les Mis was not a simple character, but it is difficult to draw out why not. He is certainly very memorable, but also made up of simple perspectives and motivations.
I like the framework. The idea that desire is a universal part of the human condition is a good one. In thinking about the three desires you've listed – possession, deliverance, and revenge – I can't help but wonder where internal desires fit. The listed desires seem external in nature; that is, something outside of the hero's inner world. Where does something like the pursuit of meaning, the hope that you will be remembered, or the desire to feel loved, fit? Those desires seem equally, if not more powerful as drivers of the human condition.
That was just an example. You're absolutely right, there are much more moving desires than listed.
I don't think, although, that there is such a thing as completely internal desire. Love and need to be loved can't happen without external intelligence.
I can think only one such motivator — fear of death. Which can lead to hope being remembered and other powerful motivs
I don't think characters need to be deep to be memorable. The most memorable character from the Baldur's Gate series, and the only one notable enough to get his own Wikipedia article[0], is Minsc. Minsc is the cliched stupid-but-brave warrior hero we've seen hundreds of times before, but he has one memorable gimmick: his pet hamster Boo. The inherent comedy of this combination is enough to make him very popular. "Go for the eyes, Boo. GO FOR THE EYES! RrraaaAAGHGHH!"
You are right, the story can be good even with flat characters, but personally I end up rereading and rewatching ones where all the characters are vivid with their good and bad sides.
Such as First law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie — every main character is a fucking living person
I agree that this technique probably makes better characters, but I'm not so sure that better = memorable. The title and the article itself don't entirely match up imo
I can oppose that if you make your character vivid, with more points where a reader can associate himself with this person or moved by his feeling, there is a higher chance that the reader would remember a character.
I thought most people just wanted to leave the world a little better place. There are plenty of obstacles to that minor desire that we can all empathize with.
22 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 54.1 ms ] threadIn basically all of the James Bond movies, the villains want revenge and/or world domination.
In contrast, in Worm [1] you spend some time with the antagonists (and a lot of side characters), and get a much better appreciation of their feelings and motivations. Sometimes you even feel sympathy for very messed-up characters to the degree that it creeps you out. (Fun fact: there's even a chapter from the perspective of a dog. Brilliant! :D)
[1] https://parahumans.wordpress.com/
Much appreciated.
Bookmarked again, higher in the stack in a folder titled "NEXT UP" with only ~200 entries
It's much more involving, much harder to write, and much less common in genre fiction. But when it's done well it's a whole other level of writing.
Worm is written in an incredibly gripping style (as befits a serialized work) and my first frantic read through I definitely missed many subtleties and examples of brilliant writing. I'd always wanted to reread it, but wasn't up for committing to the 1.5 million words a second time. The story is so gripping though, that I ended up binging the podcast because even their recaps were so compelling I couldn't stop.
If you want to have a vicarious book club, and really examine a work in depth, check it out. (They also have an ongoing podcast discussing Stephen King's The Dark Tower series with a similar level of analysis and detail. An excellent way of examining good writing.)
Without disagreeing - "simplistic" has a couple of facets and some are bad while others can be good.
Inspector Javert of Les Mis was not a simple character, but it is difficult to draw out why not. He is certainly very memorable, but also made up of simple perspectives and motivations.
- the Ender's Game Series
- Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (a fan fiction by Eliezer Yudkowsky)
Anyone else have recommendations?
I don't think, although, that there is such a thing as completely internal desire. Love and need to be loved can't happen without external intelligence.
I can think only one such motivator — fear of death. Which can lead to hope being remembered and other powerful motivs
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsc
Such as First law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie — every main character is a fucking living person
- possession
- deliverance
- revenge
I thought most people just wanted to leave the world a little better place. There are plenty of obstacles to that minor desire that we can all empathize with.