Snidely Whiplash, Villain

Truly evil -- that's what an effective villain is supposed to be. And that--I have realized--is another area I need to develop. Plot is based on conflict--the good versus the bad, for example.

I'm still reading Plot and Structure, and the author James Scott Bell paraphrases Alfred Hitchcock on page 53: "The strength of a suspense story is equal to the strength of the villain." I've known for quite some time that I haven't fleshed out my villain (the red-bearded Savino) as well as I need to do. I suspect that's why my plot rambles and drags--the villain driving my plot is riding a tricycle. 

Can you picture Smaug riding a tricycle around the Great Hall of Thrain, chasing the burglar Bilbo Baggins? Or the White Witch ruling Narnia from a little red wagon pulled by a dwarf riding a bike with training wheels? Or Darth Vader racing after Luke SkyWalker in a pink Barbie PowerWheels with foot pedals?

There shouldn't be any sugar-coating for a villain. We all know that, and yet creating a truly evil villain requires work--thought, discussion about evil intent, the creation of backstory. Why is my villain so evil? I think I don't know because I'm too lazy or too afraid to dwell that long on evil intent.

Sometime ago, my son Caleb and I were discussing an article on comic books. The author of the article asserted that to create a really good story, the comic book hero (e.g. Spiderman) needs to be equally matched in strength and ability with the villain (Dr. Octopus). It's struggle that makes the story interesting, and if opponents are not equally matched, the game between them suffers. The difference between the two, the article explained, is that the hero is moral, while the villain is not (good versus evil).

I mentioned to Caleb that in my experience in life, most people I've met are a mix of good and bad. Often even the people who fall squarely in the bad category still have some element of conscience that can be evoked in certain circumstances. It was my thought that complex characters are more interesting, that characters who grow and change (and are thus a bit more unpredictable) capture readers' attention. Take Snape, for example (in the Harry Potter series).

At that point, my son was rolling his eyes. "Mom, I know you. You're going to try to redeem the villain in your book, aren't you?"

Well, the writers of Despicable Me did just that, didn't they? But no, I know better than to try something that complicated. Who do I think I am? J.K. Rowling? Snape often played the role of an under-villain. Redeeming the under-villain is one thing. Redeeming the real villain is quite another. There's simply no redemption for someone like Voldemort, and J.K. Rowling knew that. Yes, questions about hamartiology and soteriology arise. Is there such a thing as an unpardonable sin? Haman, Judas Iscariot, Goliath--is the blood of Jesus Christ efficacious to save even them? These topics may be debated in seminary, but in classic story-telling, I'm guessing there's a hands-down NO response.... not if you want a good story.

So my villain needs a make-over, a make-over suitable for a children's novel. Hmmm. I should send him to school. The red-bearded Savino needs a mentor. Maybe I need to re-read Wormwood's letters to Screwtape before I try to write Savino's resume.