Does good fiction need a villain?
Looking over my novels and stories, there are some sinister people, but I don't think there are any real villains.
Now, there are those who might use that criterion to criticise those stories, and they may not be wrong, but I am not attracted to stories where there is an obvious villain or nemesis, whether of the Robert Lovelace and Sir Percival Glyde variety, or the more complex Javert, or even the insidious Humbert Humbert.
One of the challenges today is that we are used to boo-hiss villains, and they are the staple of television drama - more subtle villains not being suitable for viewers who only occasionally drop into a series, or to the commercial interruptions and distractions of television and web viewing. Of course Francis Urquhart and his American cousin, Frank Underwood, are notable exceptions, but even they are subservient to what I find the more interesting driving force - events, my dear boy, events.
The effects of a world that is always in motion and inhabited by people who themselves grow and change (sometimes as a result of that motion) is, I think, enough to breed interesting stories. How one person sees or reacts to an event is often substantially different to how another does. Often, that difference is enough to spark conflict between couples, friends, families, communities, and so on.
No person's weltanchauung is wholly congruent with another's, so the same event can be perceived markedly differently by different people. This phenomenon has been the premise of many books and plays; it is also a notable phenomenon of quantum physics which suggests that the act of observation changes the event. Suppose we are doing that in our every day lives? There seems to be good evidence for believing this is so, just listen to the accounts of a traffic accident.
I was always taught that there are three sides to every story: your side, my side and the facts. We might add a fourth: the Truth (or Reality) if you prefer.
While we may seem to have strayed from villains, I think the variables above create enough opportunity for difference and confusion among the likeable and well-intentioned without the need to drag in Herod or Claudius.
When studying American literature a hundred years ago (no, Mark Twain did not come to speak), the professor categorised fin de siècle novel types. One category was "the international novel." It's not a term I've found used in standard criticism, but suspect it comes from the great American critic, Van Wyck Brooks, whose books are well worth revisiting for their scope and practical observations.
According to Dr Struble, the international novel's premise was that cultural differences breed drama. The best examples are, of course, the works of Henry James, but William Dean Howells, Edith Wharton and even Sinclair Lewis have made major contributions to the category. While some of their books have persons of evil intent, most do not.
The international "villains" tend to be of the self-interested/self-advancing variety. While this characteristic is not the preserve of foreigners, the difference in the manifestation of that self-interest to that of the protagonists creates the antagonism.
Combining events with a peculiar view of the world and distinct brand of self-interest, creates the dilemmas and situations that I find interesting.
Looking over my novels and stories, there are some sinister people, but I don't think there are any real villains.
Now, there are those who might use that criterion to criticise those stories, and they may not be wrong, but I am not attracted to stories where there is an obvious villain or nemesis, whether of the Robert Lovelace and Sir Percival Glyde variety, or the more complex Javert, or even the insidious Humbert Humbert.
One of the challenges today is that we are used to boo-hiss villains, and they are the staple of television drama - more subtle villains not being suitable for viewers who only occasionally drop into a series, or to the commercial interruptions and distractions of television and web viewing. Of course Francis Urquhart and his American cousin, Frank Underwood, are notable exceptions, but even they are subservient to what I find the more interesting driving force - events, my dear boy, events.
The effects of a world that is always in motion and inhabited by people who themselves grow and change (sometimes as a result of that motion) is, I think, enough to breed interesting stories. How one person sees or reacts to an event is often substantially different to how another does. Often, that difference is enough to spark conflict between couples, friends, families, communities, and so on.
No person's weltanchauung is wholly congruent with another's, so the same event can be perceived markedly differently by different people. This phenomenon has been the premise of many books and plays; it is also a notable phenomenon of quantum physics which suggests that the act of observation changes the event. Suppose we are doing that in our every day lives? There seems to be good evidence for believing this is so, just listen to the accounts of a traffic accident.
I was always taught that there are three sides to every story: your side, my side and the facts. We might add a fourth: the Truth (or Reality) if you prefer.
While we may seem to have strayed from villains, I think the variables above create enough opportunity for difference and confusion among the likeable and well-intentioned without the need to drag in Herod or Claudius.
When studying American literature a hundred years ago (no, Mark Twain did not come to speak), the professor categorised fin de siècle novel types. One category was "the international novel." It's not a term I've found used in standard criticism, but suspect it comes from the great American critic, Van Wyck Brooks, whose books are well worth revisiting for their scope and practical observations.
According to Dr Struble, the international novel's premise was that cultural differences breed drama. The best examples are, of course, the works of Henry James, but William Dean Howells, Edith Wharton and even Sinclair Lewis have made major contributions to the category. While some of their books have persons of evil intent, most do not.
The international "villains" tend to be of the self-interested/self-advancing variety. While this characteristic is not the preserve of foreigners, the difference in the manifestation of that self-interest to that of the protagonists creates the antagonism.
Combining events with a peculiar view of the world and distinct brand of self-interest, creates the dilemmas and situations that I find interesting.
Comments
Post a Comment