The subject could possibly be a good title of a book actually, but anyway, wanted to throw something out there and see what others thought.

When it comes to villains in stories, I know the general rule of thumb is that the villian has to be punished at the end of the story (which 9/10 involves their death), but I have to wonder, is it so wrong for a villain to find redemption before their death. See, for me, I think the most memorable villains (for me personally) are the ones who find some kind of redemption before they are defeated - I guess you could say an ephinany. You know, when they have a chance to redeem themselves. They can still be punished in some way (ie, Death) but maybe they could have a chance to show some humanity or sorrow for their wrongs.

For me personally, I think a great villain is someone you can sympathses with to an extent - by that I mean you understand why they became evil, either because of some tragedy, or their upbring, etc. I personally think a villian is much more interesting once you realise their motives, rather than the whole "I'm evil because the plot said so," motive. That way, you almost want the villian to be vindicated based on what you know.

I guess it depends on the type of villain (I very much doubt Stanley Kawoski could find redemption as that guy is a p***k), but I'm in favour of the villain finding some kind of redemption before they are defeated. I'm not saying that they should go good at the end... just something to show that they are human.

Anyone else think this?

I would say that it depends on the villain and the nature of his/her villainy. It also depends on whether the thrust of the story is 'good guys versus bad guys', or whether it has a closer connection to the real world (i.e. in which no one really falls 100% into either of those categories). If the readers are led along the 'good guys/bad guys' route, then the usual mindset of such a story is that bad guys can't be redeemed (whereas, in contrast, the good guys can do anything, including quite bad things, without requiring redemption).

There are a few examples in Dickens' stories of villains (usually minor ones) redeeming themselves somehow before meeting their fate. Nancy, in Oliver Twist, is an example of this. You couldn't, however, have had Bill Sykes redeeming himself, as that would have completely undermined the credibility of his character throughout the rest of the story.

I would say it can be quite difficult to achieve convincingly. It's too easy to make the redemption excessively noble, or too trite. To be convincing, I think it needs to be quite subtle, without being lost on the reader.

Alex

Hey Alex. You made some good points there and I agree with you on the Bill Sykes example (why didn't I think of using him in my first post) as he is a real monster. Then again, I don't really think he is asking for any redemption as he has no problem with how he is. Then again, I don't really buy the whole "heroes doing bad things but getting away with it because they're redeemable thing either". I'm not saying heroes have to be clean cut, I just think that they should have repercussions for their actions.

One thing i have noticed with some manga stories is the invention of the "honourable villain". In the sense, that while they are the antagonist, they do have a code of honour. They don't kill out of cold blood, nor do they really seek vengence with the world, mostly it's a personal vendetta against the protagonist. I kinda like these kind of villain as it makes them stand out from the usual kind of villians that don't care about the lives they kill.

Comic books are also great for this. A vast majority of spiderman villains didn't start off as villains - most of his most famous ones involved a run in with spiderman that caused an accident and turned them into what they are. Also, quite a lot of them have families to feed, but their path of crime makes it hard for them to keep on the straight and narrow. At the same time, Spiderman feels responsible for creating them, so that's why he won't kill them.

But you did make some good points there, thanks for that.

I would say that a well-rounded character is always more engaging and interesting to the reader. Captain Hook in Peter Pan (the original book) is a great example of a villain you really feel sorry for. But he doesn't get redeemed. Then there is Humbert Humbert in Lolita, who is both entirely evil and disturbingly ambiguous. Nabokov coerces the reader into empathising, if not sympathising, with him. There are plenty of villains who one 'loves to hate'. The reader despises them, but enjoys spending time with them because they have an entertaining or fascinating character (Hannibal Lecter).
So yes, I think a villain should be human.

Then again, I don't really buy the whole "heroes doing bad things but getting away with it because they're redeemable thing either".

Me neither. I was hoping to sound slightly ironic about that. Basically, I don't believe in the concept of "good guys" and "bad guys". It's a concept that has been used to justify an awful lot of dubious practices, most notably, recently, by the United States (e.g. Guantanamo Bay and "extraordinary rendition"). All there is, are good deeds and bad ones, and most people are capable of both.

But I think the trend in fiction has been away from villains painted as pure evil, in recent years. Compare, for example, those in the Bond films from the 1960s (e.g. Dr No and Goldfinger) with those from more recent films from that franchise (e.g. in The World is not Enough). The early ones were painted as evil with no explanation, whereas the later ones have a believable reason for doing what they do. (But not in the books; Fleming did attempt to justify the characters of most of his villains, if only with a thumbnail sketch.)

Alex

Me neither. I was hoping to sound slightly ironic about that. Basically, I don't believe in the concept of "good guys" and "bad guys". It's a concept that has been used to justify an awful lot of dubious practices, most notably, recently, by the United States (e.g. Guantanamo Bay and "extraordinary rendition"). All there is, are good deeds and bad ones, and most people are capable of both.

Sorry Alex, I misunderstood what you said before. Fair enough. And I have to agree with you there, there are no real good or bad guys. Even good people can do bad things - Mel Gibson, for instance, is supposed to be great guy and a philanthropist, but he's the most racist, sexist pig I've ever heard of. And I think he hates the English! Well, if he doesn't he goes out of his way to make them the villains in the films he does.

<Added>

Also, as an added thing to this thread, one thing I do actually like about a good villian is when you create one that is so hateable and so wicked you want something bad to happen to them... but when it comes, there's an added twist to make you feel sorry for them.

One example I have is with the manga series Fullmetal Alchemist (SPOILER WARNING: Sorry, but I have to give spoliers to make the point, so if you're thinking of reading this series, stop reading now). In that there is a villain called Envy, who is a homanculus that often takes the form of a handsome man or beautiful woman. In it, he kills one of the main characters (leading to one of the most heartwrenching funeral scenes I've ever read in a manga) which in turn causes a lot of pain to the family. This made me really hate Envy and the suffering he caused, so for the rest of the series I really wanted him to get him comupance.

But when the time came and he got what he deserved, they threw in a twist. Basically, during the fight, they beat him down to his true form, an ugly worm monster. It's here we discover a little about his character, he's jeakous of humans and their beauty, but also the fact that they can love and be friends (hence his name). When they saw what he had truely become, he had a moment of clarity whereby he realised how worthless his life was. As such he killed himself rahter than face embarrassement.

Ok, so maybe not a redemptive twist, as the character was only really reflecting on his own inferiority complex than the evils he did, but it did make me feel a little sorry for the guy. I almost wished I hadn't wanted him dead for the rest of the series. But it was a nice twist to a character that I was prepared to hate.

Well, if he doesn't he goes out of his way to make them the villains in the films he does.

He knows we're too polite to make a fuss about it. What are we going to do? Clear our throats noisily the next time he walks along the red carpet at Leicester Square? Start an organisation called al-QuickBrew with the aim of forcing Americans to drink tea?

Alex

I'm in favour of the al-Quickbrew idea, would certainly be the most interesting of protests.

I think there's a case for a third alternative, that the villain gets away scot-free to perpetrate his villainy in the future. Most gloomily realistic outcome?

Jan

That I guess depends on the story. Indeed, while I have seen some stories where the villain wins and it is indeed a gloomy outcome - and a shocking twist - other times (especially in some horror films), the villain wins and it just seems like an ass-pull rather than a twist. But if done right, it can be effective.

I think villains, like any other important character, only really work if they change through the course of the novel and through their contact with the other characters. Otherwise they're cardboard cutouts, and the fact that they die at the end or whatever isn't really satisfying (except in a cartoonish, fairy-tale-ish way). HOW they change will of course vary: some may be redeemed by what they do or how they come to act differently, some may simply see themselves as others see them (often the fate of comic villains like Malvolio, for example) before they meet a sticky end, some may change to us in that we see why they are how they are, and so on.

But if drama is character in action, then the action needs to affect the character...

Emma