|
Post by Valhalla Erikson on Dec 22, 2021 0:43:20 GMT -6
There is a main villain I have for a fantasy series that I'm developing and, once I've dived into her backstory, I find myself creating a villain who is complex enough that I've considered doing a spin-off involving her finding redemption. The thing is I've seen several instances where writers would spare villains and the end results come out pretty cheap and leaves the audience feeling cheated because there's a lack of payoff.
Any advice on how to not fall into that trap?
|
|
|
Post by pelwrath on Dec 22, 2021 10:04:57 GMT -6
What makes your villian a villian? What were they before becoming a villian? At the end of my book the protagonist and antagonist decide not to fight it out due to circumtances that came up. Laurent makes it clear to Zephrin that their King of the Hill showdown will still happen, in the future. When both are healthy. Is Laurent still my protagonist at the end of the book, yes and he and Zephrin do hate each other. In #2 that is played upon in the Laurent-Zephrin relationship has a shift. Two other characters are brought in and it's slightly compliated.
Short answer, it doesn't happen over night. It's a slow change, also you need a replacement to develope along with a reason for the shift. Look at the Spiderman where we had Venom vs. Spiderman but Sandman and Goblin joined the fight.
|
|
|
Post by RAVENEYE on Dec 22, 2021 12:18:37 GMT -6
There is a main villain I have for a fantasy series that I'm developing and, once I've dived into her backstory, I find myself creating a villain who is complex enough that I've considered doing a spin-off involving her finding redemption. The thing is I've seen several instances where writers would spare villains and the end results come out pretty cheap and leaves the audience feeling cheated because there's a lack of payoff. Any advice on how to not fall into that trap? Hmm, I suppose that depends on what "payoff" is expected. Ought all villains be slain or imprisoned for the reader's sense of closer? Our violence-driven culture would say yes to the first. Our deeply ingrained hope for justice would say yes to the latter. And it's true, depending on the crimes the villain committed throughout the story whether readers will feel cheated. If their actions resulted in deaths of innocents, destruction of cities, etc. it would defy human belief if that villain isn't held accountable, even if redemption is part of their story arc. In such an instance, a reader might say, "What, those lives don't matter? They're just going to be swept under the rug? Bullshit." So, redemption in such a case would be the villain owning their crimes and accepting the consequences. Not getting off scot-free. Also, if the villain has the page count to conduct acts of penance, such as helping others, some of the "hero" characters might be detractors, unable to easily trust this villain's change of heart, and unwilling to help them until later stages of the story. Plus, that former villain could/would deal with profound guilt, tendencies to default to former behavior, etc, which would give the story all kinds of inner conflict. So depending on how the redemption story is handled, it could complex, heart-wrenching, and reach deep down into universal themes of the human experience. Not at all cheap or dissatisfying. Even if the story is classified as adventure or some other genre that isn't typically known for its delving into the human condition. So, in short, I guess it's all about execution.
|
|
|
Post by RAVENEYE on Dec 22, 2021 12:21:49 GMT -6
What makes your villian a villian? What were they before becoming a villian? ... a reason for the shift. Agreed. Excellent things to consider. It makes most sense that the roots of the catalyst for a character's redemption lies in their early history before they were villains. If they were "born bad," it's going to be waaaaay harder to convince a reader that such a shift would happen at all.
|
|
|
Post by Alatariel on Dec 22, 2021 13:56:23 GMT -6
When I discovered my main antagonist was going to be redeemed (it was the most logical progression of his character arc), I added a second antagonist who is more typically antagonistic and will get the satisfying death ending he deserves. It reminds me of many shows I've watched lately, the person the protagonist is fighting against is actually just a lackey for a larger/different baddie OR there are two factions who want what the protagonist has, and one of the factions is much more ruthless about it. Would adding an additional character/story line create too much story bloat? Maybe, but it could also be the solution to the satisfying ending problem. Or you can have your antagonist achieve a small amount of redemption before sacrificing themselves to save the protagonist? Depends how that's done, sometimes I hate it though. In Star Wars, Ben Solo should have been saved. We had a bigger baddie by then (Palpatine) and he got the crispy fried ending he deserved whereas Ben was starting to be redeemed and I wanted him to survive. When we see an antagonist begin to grow a conscious, most readers WANT redemption and that in and of itself is satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by HDSimplicityy on Dec 27, 2021 14:18:25 GMT -6
When I discovered my main antagonist was going to be redeemed (it was the most logical progression of his character arc), I added a second antagonist who is more typically antagonistic and will get the satisfying death ending he deserves. It reminds me of many shows I've watched lately, the person the protagonist is fighting against is actually just a lackey for a larger/different baddie OR there are two factions who want what the protagonist has, and one of the factions is much more ruthless about it. Would adding an additional character/story line create too much story bloat? Maybe, but it could also be the solution to the satisfying ending problem. Or you can have your antagonist achieve a small amount of redemption before sacrificing themselves to save the protagonist? Depends how that's done, sometimes I hate it though. In Star Wars, Ben Solo should have been saved. We had a bigger baddie by then (Palpatine) and he got the crispy fried Crispy fried ending.
|
|
|
Post by HDSimplicityy on Dec 27, 2021 14:26:20 GMT -6
There is a main villain I have for a fantasy series that I'm developing and, once I've dived into her backstory, I find myself creating a villain who is complex enough that I've considered doing a spin-off involving her finding redemption. The thing is I've seen several instances where writers would spare villains and the end results come out pretty cheap and leaves the audience feeling cheated because there's a lack of payoff. Any advice on how to not fall into that trap? Pretty tough thing to do. Its good to give little hints at a coming change of heart soon into the story. You can have blantant scenes with an unexpected shift in their evil plan that surprises accomplices.
"You didnt do it? You had this all planned out. Now the enemy is a step ahead."
Then they fall back. AAaaannd the above happens again. The ending comes when what has happened has that payoff, after the redemption occurs. To not fall in the trap, here is an idea: write it as payoff for the relationship between them and the main character. If that person is satisfied, the reader, well... should be too. One of my two villains in my novel will have a redemption moment. The other... mmm.. does not. That redeeming goes through to the end. My goal is for the protagonist to have satisfaction. Same with the reader.
Ooo spin-off. Neat! Just make sure what you write in that plot isn't making readers wishing it was additional story in the main book.
|
|
|
Post by Valhalla Erikson on Jan 3, 2022 20:47:09 GMT -6
When I discovered my main antagonist was going to be redeemed (it was the most logical progression of his character arc), I added a second antagonist who is more typically antagonistic and will get the satisfying death ending he deserves. It reminds me of many shows I've watched lately, the person the protagonist is fighting against is actually just a lackey for a larger/different baddie OR there are two factions who want what the protagonist has, and one of the factions is much more ruthless about it. Would adding an additional character/story line create too much story bloat? Maybe, but it could also be the solution to the satisfying ending problem. Or you can have your antagonist achieve a small amount of redemption before sacrificing themselves to save the protagonist? Depends how that's done, sometimes I hate it though. In Star Wars, Ben Solo should have been saved. We had a bigger baddie by then (Palpatine) and he got the crispy fried Crispy fried ending.
Cajian style
|
|
|
Post by Valhalla Erikson on Jan 4, 2022 11:15:03 GMT -6
Spoiler warning for anyone who haven't seen the recent season of Cobra Kai.
The responses, especially Ala's remind me of John Kreese. When introduced in the show it would appear that he'd be the primary antagonist for Johnny and Daniel to overcome. But that was till the show started to showcase a few sympathetic traits regarding him and once a more dangerous threat in Terry Silver got introduced I start to see that Kreese is setting up for a redemption arc while the protagonist deal with a real threat in Terry.
|
|
|
Post by Alatariel on Jan 4, 2022 14:12:43 GMT -6
Spoiler warning for anyone who haven't seen the recent season of Cobra Kai. The responses, especially Ala's remind me of John Kreese. When introduced in the show it would appear that he'd be the primary antagonist for Johnny and Daniel to overcome. But that was till the show started to showcase a few sympathetic traits regarding him and once a more dangerous threat in Terry Silver got introduced I start to see that Kreese is setting up for a redemption arc while the protagonist deal with a real threat in Terry. Yes! My husband thinks Kreese will get a redemption arc and I was like "No! They already did that for Johnny." And then they brought in Silver and I think my husband is right. Kreese is going to get a redemption arc but the creators knew it wouldn't be satisfying unless we had a bigger bad to give the crispy fried ending. Really good formula, that one.
|
|
|
Post by Valhalla Erikson on Jan 4, 2022 16:54:19 GMT -6
Spoiler warning for anyone who haven't seen the recent season of Cobra Kai. The responses, especially Ala's remind me of John Kreese. When introduced in the show it would appear that he'd be the primary antagonist for Johnny and Daniel to overcome. But that was till the show started to showcase a few sympathetic traits regarding him and once a more dangerous threat in Terry Silver got introduced I start to see that Kreese is setting up for a redemption arc while the protagonist deal with a real threat in Terry. Yes! My husband thinks Kreese will get a redemption arc and I was like "No! They already did that for Johnny." And then they brought in Silver and I think my husband is right. Kreese is going to get a redemption arc but the creators knew it wouldn't be satisfying unless we had a bigger bad to give the crispy fried ending. Really good formula, that one. The minute when the show started giving Kreese sympathetic traits the writing was already on the wall. While the films did make Kreese come across as cartoonish I like how the series made Kreese look like your typical strict parent who does the things that they do because, in their mind, they're doing what's best for their kid. Not knowing how damaging their methods could be psychologically.
|
|