(You get brownie points if you appreciate the wordplay in the title.)
In the Novel & Short Story Writer's Market 2020 (by Writer's Digest Books), David Corbett wrote an article entitled "No More Mr. Nice Guys" that resonated with me. The article put forth guidelines for creating protagonists that are fascinating in their vices instead of their likability. The article was compelling in its breakdown of transgression, contradiction, desire, struggle, and vulnerability as tools authors can use to drive empathy from readers when building protagonists who are relatable but flawed, especially when their virtues go too far and become vices.
The article ignited reflections on how art reflects life, and how the characters we build in our stories may reflect our relationships in real life. Even the most heroic of victors is modeled after a human being, which means he must not be perfect in every way. No one is. Think of the great Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes is the protagonist of his stories, yet he is undoubtedly flawed; as such, he is often described as an antihero, since he doesn't have the pristine rap sheet that conventional heroes may have - instead, he lacks a certain level of morality, maybe a bit of courage, and certain values people may expect. At times he could be seen as selfish and rude, and he has his own vices that he can't always shake. Those qualities make him unlikable. But he is brilliant. He saves lives, or at least he protects the public by taking criminals off of the streets. He is an unconventional vigilante, a hero who does things differently than the traditional hero would. Perhaps we need to redefine what "hero" might mean, but that's another conversation for another day.
The article also got me thinking about the other side of that coin: We acknowledge that protagonists can be flawed yet likable, or unlikable yet heroic and relatable. But what about villains? Can (and should) antagonists have humanizing characteristics that can also drive empathy among readers?
It seems like an oxymoron, but the more you analyze the reason behind it, the more sense it makes. Basically, as we called out before, we are all human, meaning we are multidimensional. We are not perfect. Even if we are the protagonists in our own stories, we have vices, we make mistakes, and who knows – we may even be the antagonists in someone else’s story.
For fiction authors, it tends to be a fun exercise (and fairly easy, no?) to conjure up strong vices to characterize villains, but how often do you think about the humanizing elements of your protagonist’s enemies? Often, humanizing a villain requires the author to dive into his psyche and his background, explaining why he is the way that he is and potentially motivating such emotions in your reader as pity or understanding or even support (a reader pulling for a villain to straighten out is a perfectly acceptable outcome!). I think the heart of the matter is that thorough character development is always appreciated but is easily under-executed for villains, and that may be a missed opportunity.
Authors who are effective at crafting complex characters are able to build personality traits or behaviors that may resonate positively with readers, forming a moral or ethical dilemma for the reader to consider. If the character himself is dealing with an internal conflict, we will be more likely to associate with him, even if he is the most vile character, because we all have experience with being faced with a difficult decision and choosing incorrectly. As a rule (which can always be broken, so this does not necessarily always have to be the case), it is better for readers to be torn than to be completely against a character, if you wish for that character to resonate with audiences. If you are planning for a “bad” character to redeem himself or have an emotional moment or be faced with a difficult situation, the reader will follow your story more closely and believe it more readily if said character has already been humanized with some likable quality. In essence, the more relatable evil characters are, the more engaging the conflict is, and the more successful your story will be.
This concept is one to consider and leverage to fuel future character development. But I encourage you to feel empowered to build your characters in a way that makes the most sense for your stories. To draw a parallel to content marketing, brand cohesion is always key; alignment in any story builds credibility and "believability." The point here is to think of character complexity as a tool you can use to support your plot. We know that conflict drives the plot forward, but now it is time to consider that conflict tends to be more interesting when we aren’t sure which way the characters may go, inspiring readers to stay engaged and connected throughout your story.
Comments