Building the Bad Guy

[Morthoron]

I think villainy has taken a turn for the...ummm...worse, or perhaps the world has. Tolkien drew his images of evil from another time, from his Catholic roots and from other ancient presentations of evil, whether Grendel in Beowulf or Lucifer the Fallen, himself.

When Tolkien stated his story was not allegorical to WWII, he meant it. There really isn't a hint of Hitler or Stalin in Sauron, is there? In both Sauron and Morgoth before him, evil was omnipresent and preternatural, the ancient demons made manifest on earth; hence Sauron is seen only as the Great Eye, wishing to rule the world, but not truly part of it. Tolkien did not foray far into the 4th Age, the Age of Man, and his one attempt he aborted rather quickly. Why? Perhaps because Man is far more horrific an evil than any demigod, and Tolkien's utter disdain for the modern, whether it be for automobiles or great machines of destruction (made by the Orcs, you know), is clearly delineated in his work.

Tolkien's conception of the world was clearly from another era -- Victorian morally and Anglo-Saxon linguistically. He could no more write a modern novel than William Faulkner could write sunny children's prose. Perhaps we too, in embracing Middle-earth, yearn for such simplicity, where evil is monolithic and horrible, yes, but it is identifiable as such. But the modern world is fragmented and perhaps going through the last throes of dementia. Evil has become synonymous with insanity, and a thousand times a thousand shards of evil prick us everyday. There is no rhyme or reason to evil, and though a battalion of experts prattle their platitudes on CNN and MSNBC, no one really can make sense of it. People rap themselves in bombs and blow themselves up in crowded buses, children go to school with automatic rifles and slaughter their schoolmates, and despite mounting evidence to the contrary, governments cynically allow the destruction of the environment so that the corporate coffers of their patrons swell even as the polar ice caps shrink.

It is as Charles Manson said when he opined perceptively, "You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays, everybody's crazy." Evil aint what it used to be.

[Boromir88]

I'm sure I'm not alone amongst those of us who've played in RPGs on here, when I reckon that dreaming up a bad guy is actually much, much easier than trying to create a credible good guy who is not a Mary-Sue!~Lalwende

Very true, and myself being a Sean Bean fanboy...Bean finds it much more enjoyable and fun to play the bad guy in movies (or the man with questionable 'morals') than the upright model good guy, as that gets a bit 'boring' for him. Where all it takes to make a really good 'bad guy' is have them commit a horrible act of evil and show they have no remorse for what they did, they actually take pleasure from committing evil. Which is interesting as Tolkien remarks this about his Orcs:

"They were indeed so corrupted that they were pitiless, and there was no cruelty or wickedness that they would not commit; but this was the corruption of independent wills, and they took pleasure in their deeds. They were capable of acting on their own, doing evil deeds unbidden for their own sport..."~HoME X: Morgoth's Ring; Myths Transformed

By showing your 'baddies' have no remorse and actually delight in committing evil, I think you really can make an effective bad guy for any story. This kind of ties into Hookbill's point about motives, and what motivates the character to do what he/she does? Money? Pure enjoyment? Fulfillment? Power?

Another thing that hasn't been talked about yet is the actual appearance of the bad guy. In old Hollywood movies, you see a guy dressed in black, and with some sort of physical injury (something simple like a scar or perhaps just an evil-looking hook) and immediately you should think 'there's the villain of the film.' But the thing that Tolkien did, that I personally thought was more effective than Hollywood, is direct statements that are intentionally vague about a person's appearance. Let's take Sauron for example:

Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. In his earlier incarnation he was able to veil his power (as Gandalf did) and could appear as a commanding figure of great strength of body and supremely royal demeanor and countenance.~Letter 246

I love this quote referring to Sauron's appearance (after he lost the ability to change forms). I mean we have 'terrible,' Tolkien is very direct in telling us that we should think Sauron is very terrible. However, it's also very vague. What is terrible? This is up to the fancy of the reader. Personally I don't like putrid, bloody and veiny demons, I think of 'terrible' as something dark, ominous and imposing. Point is, I think its up the reader to decide exactly how they interpret...'terrible.'

We also know that Sauron's form was that of a man, yet greater, but not gigantic. So someone who is bigger and taller than a Man, but not a hulking giant. As discussed in this great thread started by Thinlomien, the use of 'height,' not only as in someone appearing 'mighty' but also the use of height to create intimidation and fear: Heighty is Mighty.

In fact, I think Sauron does this for most of his villains (at least when talking strictly about LOTR). The Balrog, the Ringwraiths, the Watcher in the Water, the 'nameless creatures gnawing' are all 'villains' where there is a lot of mystery surrounding them. It could be mystery about their actual appearance, perhaps mystery surrounding who they are and what the heck they are doing? The Ringwraiths (especially in FOTR) are presented as villains that we don't know much about. As we follow the Hobbits' journey to Rivendell, and there are several encounters with the Ringwraiths, the Hobbits have no clue who these black riders are, they just know these guys are evil and need to be avoided at all costs. And as a reader I got the same feeling!

So I guess all this talk about 'appearance' and the 'mystery' surrounding villains can be defined nicely by subtelty. Subtetly can also be a great tool in creating a good villain that scares the crap out of you. Just little comments that unnerve the reader like Gandalf saying in The White Rider: 'where the world is gnawed by nameless creatures.' Just this one little passing comment by Gandalf really creates a lot of fear.

I'm reminded of another fascinating author that reminds me of Tolkien, and that is George Orwell. Who's villain in the book 1984, is much like Sauron. Only instead of one evil Dark Lord, it's the government called 'Big Brother.' We never meed Big Brother throughout the entire book, we don't even know who Big Brother is. Is it one person in charge controlling everything? Is is a bunch of politicians, is it an oligarchy? We have no clue, but we know Big Brother is evil because we see their work. And this is something Hookbill talked about. We see the oppression, the complete enslavement of an entire population, all because of Big Brother. But we don't know who Big Brother is. All we know is their symbol is a giant eye...And when people see this eye, they get a strange feeling someone is watching them...hmm sounds familiar.

Finally, another tactic for authors to use, is through their good characters. How do the author's 'good guys?' How do they react to and view the bad guys? Something like J.K. Rowling does in Harry Potter with Voldemort. Talk about a villain, we know that Voldemort was so evil and caused so much fear that Rowling's good characters refer to him as 'He who must not be named.' That must be a villain indeed...someone so evil people can't even say their name.

Or how about what Tolkien does with his Balrog? The fear he creates by using his good characters. Legolas screams like a girl and Gimli starts crying and can't even look. So, by an author using his/her other characters to also create an effective villain.

I guess, in general, I'm saying, I agree with Lal, what a useless article and that author needs to stop whining.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Boro

Legolas screams like a girl and Gimli starts crying and can't even look.

Classic!

That's the thing - Tolkien doesn't have to worry about offending anyone with his bad guys a lot of the time because they are unseen or even nameless terrors - not always, but I'll come back to that one later...

Tolkien makes use of classic horror/Gothic emblems to conjour up almost subconscious or primeval senses of terror within us. You do not need any knowledge of Satan to be scared of some horned beast rising out of the darkness in the way the Balrog does - he's the kind of creature every child imagines lurks somewhere in the cellar, under the stairs, in the castle dungeon, at the back of the clan's cave... Likewise with the 'dark' image of Sauron and Morgoth, the classic robed figure once seen in the symbol of the Grim Reaper or the plague doctor with his sinister beaked mask and nowadays seen in the image of Darth Vader.

That would be all too easy though, just to make your villains mysterious, thus avoiding describing their race and age. But Tolkien also has other villains who are very real and visible. Like Saruman, ostensibly a very clever and reclusive elderly man. Or Grima, a stereotypical nerd by all descriptions with his greasy hair and pale skin (hours spent playing Warcrack ). Or even Lobelia, a snobby old lady who may not turn out to be Mata Hari but she certainly gives Bilbo some unbearable grief.

The thing is, Tolkien was not scared of making us see how all people can easily slip into doing bad things, into being villains. He told us nobody was above censure, nobody immune from 'falling'. So he had no need to set up pantomime villains as everyone was a potential baddie. And yes, uncannily like Orwell's 1984, in that the ordinary people, the neighbours themselves, make it so that nobody can feel safe and secure!

Actually that's got me thinking again...just how symptomatic of the Cold War are both Lord of the Rings and 1984 in terms of baddies?! You have not only the faceless or impersonal threat in the form of Sauron/Big Brother but you also have the threat from and suspicion of your own neighbours - the Shire Quislings/Grima and the Thought Police being like the 'Reds Under The Bed'/Stasi threat. Hmmm...

[Boromir88]

The thing is, Tolkien was not scared of making us see how all people can easily slip into doing bad things, into being villains.~Lal

Very good point. Tolkien did not seem to offend any one particular group, because his villains can't only be seen as being representations of one particular group, but can be seen as being anyone. Unlike Horowitz who talks about the fact that he can't create a villain who is an environmentalist, a religious fanatic...etc, Tolkien's villains (nor as you cogently argue Orwell's) are not aimed at a group of individuals but every single individual person. Anyone can be 'the villain.'

And Tolkien doesn't do this just with his villains, but also with most of his characters (when we are talking about The Lord of the Rings). There are a few characters that seem super good and the ultimate heroes (Gandalf, the Elves, and Aragorn for instance). Sure they make their own errors in judgement from time to time, but they just seem too great and heroic for the everyday individual to be able to identify with. Or at least I've never been able to identify with them.

The Lord of the Rings focuses around Hobbits, and I think Tom Simon does an excellent job explaining why it was Hobbits that made The Lord of the Rings a success and why for millions of readers The Silmarillion was a failure.

Personally, I find Mr. Simon's comments to be dead on, but everyone is different with what they like and don't like. I found it much easier to connect with the ordinary and simple hobbits than with the 'high and noble' Elves. When it comes down to it, it is the ordinary and simple that 'save the world,' and it is the 'ordinary and simple' that dominate the Lord of the Rings.

So, not only are Tolkien's villains capable of being anybody, but also the heroes (or perhaps the unheroes is a better word ) can also be anybody.

[Lalwendë]

That's something I often wonder- if its the absence of Hobbits that alienates so many readers from The Sil - even for me, I love the book, but it's not half as satisfying as reading about the adventures of Bilbo and Frodo. There's something 'like us' about them.

And maybe that's why Tolkien does manage to create non-offensive villains, as they are rooted in reality, and are essentially like us - well, perhaps the Balrog is only like me first thing in the morning, but most of the villains in human form are just like us or like people we know. Saruman is like the clever guy who just thinks he knows too much. Grima like the office sneak, the brown-noser. Gollum like the guy on the street corrupted by bad influences and addictions. Lobelia like the interfering neighbour. Denethor like the politician making the wrong choices...

Odd that. Tolkien was writing fantasy, and yet his characters are also very everyday people. It's in the thrillers where we find the people who are not everyday folk maybe?

EDIT: and yes, you can good sir

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Another thing that hasn't been talked about yet is the actual appearance of the bad guy.

It definately helps to make them dark and twisted. Who's the bad guy? Probably that guy over there, with blood dripping out of his mouth. It takes almost no talent to portray evil if you're going to slack off and make a character visually bad. Why not just give them nicknames to dehumanize them more?

When Aragorn is introduced, he is an ominous stranger, sitting in the dark. Strider. One o' them Rangers. Dangerous folk. A star good guy, basically uncorruptable, great lineage, handsome when he showers, poetic, trustworthy... And he's introduced as being scary looking.

All that is gold doesn't glitter. The diamond in the rough.

Your good guys don't always look good.

But your bad guys tend to look bad. It's a decent standby.

Sauron is terrible to behold. Wow. A giant disembodied eye. Yeah, it does tend to freak people out... Undead murderers riding emaciated horses. Christopher Lee's Saruman had sketchy fingernails. Very pointy. Orcs are twisted hideously, tortured into fearsome beasts. The balrog is a creature of shadow and flame. The Mouth of Sauron... I don't even need to describe him. Most bad guys are dark (typical) and a lot of them are physical malformed. A good set of eyes will pick them out of a crowd.

Hecks yes for appearances. Everybody judges based on them.

are all 'villains' where there is a lot of mystery surrounding them

Fear of the unknown.

When Tolkien didn't create the actual nightmare, he created the monster under the bed. It fits in with bad guy imagery: make a villain who is not like me or you.

It's easy to hate people who stand out in a crowd. Even if they stand out by standing there invisible but for a crown.

[Finduilas]

But Fea, there was a time when Sauron was beautiful. Morgoth too I believe. Of course, they never stayed that way

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Finduilas

But Fea, there was a time when Sauron was beautiful. Morgoth too I believe. Of course, they never stayed that way

There were times they weren't evil.

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

There were times they weren't evil.

Are you sure? Melkor maybe, but Sauron? And when Sauron stole the secret of the Rings, he was evil, but fair to look upon.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Finduilas

Are you sure? Melkor maybe, but Sauron? And when Sauron stole the secret of the Rings, he was evil, but fair to look upon.

I think they are probably referring to the Music of the Ainur when all of them were fair and good and all.

[Morwen]

When Sauron appears to the Jewel Smiths of Eregion as the Lord of Gifts he still had the power to appear beautiful. It appears that he could still take on a pleasing form when in Numenor and it was only after its destruction that he was "robbed now of that shape in which he had wrought so great an evil, so that he could never again appear fair to the eyes of Men" (Silm, Akallabeth)

Similarly Melkor, while in Aman spreading lies among the Noldor, had not yet taken on the form of "a dark Lord, tall and terrible" which he assumed when seeking out Ungoliant and which became his permanent form after the darkening of Valinor.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

This is a purely spontaneous idea, backed up by shoddy memory if anything. Maybe they carried the ability to look beautiful up until they had commited irrevocable evil, thereby damning themselves?