How bad is too bad?

[Devouring Wolf]

i once wrote an entire cult dedicated to the murder, reanimation, and fornication of corpses for example, and it was incredibly entertaining for me as a writer

That is my kind of twisted.

 

[Gurkhal]

I think much wisdom has already been shared in this thread. I do normally feel that really depraved characters shouldn't be the major villains as that goes to strongly in the "black-and-white" duology that I dislike. Instead I prefer when the villains or "villains" are simply people with both good and negative traits that defines them but perhaps have stronger negative than positive traits, even while they are capable of good deeds without an allergic reaction.

Making a character a rapist is however an example of making them irredemably evil, in my understanding, and thus its something that I normally reserve for minor antagonists if used at all.

 

[Miskatonic]

That is my kind of twisted.

Care to share why?

 

[Reilith]

I might be late to hop on this boat, but I will still try. It doesn't come from my writing experience exactly, but from my reading. Robin Hobb's Liveship Traders trilogy has one of the creepiest villains I've ever read, without overusing horrible tropes. There is a bit of everything there, and most of all, you read from the villain's perspective as well. It was a sort of a homecoming for me, reading that, as it helps see how the mind of a depraved villain works, it even helps you associate with him at some times ever though he is despicable and horrifying. He is a true made person, with his problems, his experiences and thoughts and actions. It was a very helpful read for me, and the books are fantastic even beyond that. I believe it was the most helpful read I've had in my life, regarding to how to write villains.

 

[Banten]

Thank you for replying Reilith you're not too late

I actually think your reply would fit well into another thread i made a little while ago. http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/15569-most-frightening-aspect-character.html

 

[imagine123]

My characters are on various points of the "not acceptable behavior" distribution. I think the worst of them is a favorite of mine, essentially a psychopath, but so innocent and child-like about it, I find it hard to step away and realize, oh, yeah, what he wants to do is kind of evil...

Through the years, I've read a lot of books regarding some nasty, disturbing topics, trying to understand why characters would do some nasty, disturbing stuff, and how other characters who've had that nasty, disturbing stuff happen to them would be affected by it. There are a few mindsets that, while I can understand/accept them, I won't write in.

People are people, and most people are human. No matter what the direction of today's fiction and how the media portrays world events seems to imply. Most aren't going to hurt others unless pushed to it. If we're looking at proportions, it makes more sense to have a cast of characters where the majority are just regular people pushed to do extraordinary things (whether they be bad or good things), and a few bad apples who are capable of or enjoy raping/killing/molesting/torturing. However...normal people are usually rather passive, while the bad apples are the ones that are active (i.e., a serial killer has to go hunt his/her victims). The bad apples are also unpredictable. And we all know active + unpredictable makes for entertaining fiction. So I guess their prevalence in fiction makes sense.

I don't like stories that are overly grimdark or grimdark just "because". It seems high-schoolish (but this just might be because that's the time I went through a period where I devoured things like JTHM and thought it was awesome). It's also a waste. Evil characters/events are the spice in fiction and in life. That's why we are so interested in them; because they aren't the norm. If you have a plain dish that you want to amp up, it make sense to throw some spice in there. But there's a threshold where too much spice makes the dish both boring and inedible. And if it's just all spice, then you've got no dish.

I do find it interesting that murder/killing seems to be SOP in fiction and no one bats an eye, but when it comes to anything sexual, there is immediately a problem. I'm sure (scratch that: certain) that the difference between those two classes of deviant behaviors and their use in fiction has been discussed in-depth on this forum, so I won't go further into it. I will say that murder/killing needs to be treated a bit heavier in fiction, though. It ain't easier to kill someone than to rape someone.

 

[Miskatonic]

I do find it interesting that murder/killing seems to be SOP in fiction and no one bats an eye, but when it comes to anything sexual, there is immediately a problem. I'm sure (scratch that: certain) that the difference between those two classes of deviant behaviors and their use in fiction has been discussed in-depth on this forum, so I won't go further into it. I will say that murder/killing needs to be treated a bit heavier in fiction, though. It ain't easier to kill someone than to rape someone.

That seems to be an attitude in society in general, at leas in the US. The news will report all sorts of horrific violence and atrocities, people get upset for a few seconds and then move on. A bare breast on TV is more off putting than innocent people dying because of collateral damage in air raids for example.

Our attitudes towards sex, even heterosexuality, are still fairly primitive.

 

[ascanius]

I do find it interesting that murder/killing seems to be SOP in fiction and no one bats an eye, but when it comes to anything sexual, there is immediately a problem. I'm sure (scratch that: certain) that the difference between those two classes of deviant behaviors and their use in fiction has been discussed in-depth on this forum, so I won't go further into it. I will say that murder/killing needs to be treated a bit heavier in fiction, though. It ain't easier to kill someone than to rape someone.

I think this has to do with the finality of death be it caused by murder, accident or old age. The person dies, and people move on as best they can. It doesn't affect the victim anymore because they are dead. Sexual violence is very different there is no finality to it, it becomes a part of what shapes the victim until hopefully they cope with it or find some way to move on. Also how it affects the victim we can see and know the affects, with death we can only see how it affects those around us. A closer comparison would be comparing torture and sexual violence. See with death we all know that the pain and suffering have ended for the victim and will not happen again, not so with sexual violence or torture, sometimes our fears are our own worst enemy.

That seems to be an attitude in society in general, at leas in the US. The news will report all sorts of horrific violence and atrocities, people get upset for a few seconds and then move on. A bare breast on TV is more off putting than innocent people dying because of collateral damage in air raids for example.

Our attitudes towards sex, even heterosexuality, are still fairly primitive.

lol Being a little simplistic. violence, murder, rape, etc are all very terrible things but everyone agrees with that, well maybe some countries wouldn't but anyway. Excuse my cynicism but the bare breast on TV means that you get the very passionate extremist minority coming out of the wood work to praise or condemn such action based on their self-righteous political agenda. I bet most people could care less, but make a big deal about something and guess what suddenly you have more viewers, more twisted narratives, another focus group, political action committees, and another talking point for the politicians who what to save the public from the horrors of x.

oohhh, Interesting allegory, Funny though, here's the thing collateral damage is/was never intended, we all know that, hopefully. It would be very different if those meaningless deaths were intended. If you have a catapult destroying an orphanage in the middle of a siege that was never indented, we can accept it as a byproduct of war, we may not like it, we may wish and even try to find better ways. Now if the army is purposefully going into schools and orphanages to kill the innocent for whatever reason, and they are then praised for it by their comrades in arms and mothers yeah this really turns the army into evil demons and should be killed at almost all costs.

But also lets not forget, I wonder how the the person who is responsible for the collateral damage would react to finding out what they unintentionally did?

 

[Miskatonic]

Reminds me of the 80's when satanism was the big boogie man according to the more outspoken members of the evangelist communities, among others. This seemed to go hand in hand with the rise in heavy metal's popularity.

 

[ascanius]

Mah, give viking death metal any day! but yeah basic idea

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Reminds me of the 80's when satanism was the big boogie man according to the more outspoken members of the evangelist communities, among others. This seemed to go hand in hand with the rise in heavy metal's popularity.

Bit of chicken and egg argument there, then feeding off each other. Oddly enough, psychologists were huge in the rise of "satanism" and "cult" paranoia. That was ugly and under the auspices of science. Ruined more than a few lives.

 

[Miskatonic]

Bit of chicken and egg argument there, then feeding off each other. Oddly enough, psychologists were huge in the rise of "satanism" and "cult" paranoia. That was ugly and under the auspices of science. Ruined more than a few lives.

Unfortunately it seemed to go over a lot of people's heads that the whole satanic thing in heavy metal was usually a marketing tactic. Venom is a perfect example. They used satanism for theatrical purposes but could have cared less about satanism as some form of ideology.