How to make the villain relatable/human without making the hero seem like a monster for killing him?
I have a story I'm writing which has a villain that, in order to make him more human/developed, I gave him a relatable, tragic and/or disturbing life story, gave him plenty of reasons to be who he is and do what he does (understandable or almost), and made him the hero of his own story.
For story reasons, he needs to be killed, and also kind of deserves this because of his deeds. "Kind of" because his reasons and story makes very blurred the line between evil and simple cause and effect, so it's not that simple to just say that he did what he did "because he is evil". However, I don't have the intention of making his death an emotional moment, because he is supposed to be seen as unlikable, an unlikable character that has a point, a victim that becomes a perpetrator. The hero, although having more positives than negatives, isn't a saint either, having at least a bit of the blame (or at least in the villain's vision).
And here comes the problem. This story is the first of a trilogy where this hero is the protagonist. I think that the hero needs to be likable the most possible to make the reader urge to read more about him. Previously, I asked questions regarding problems with this same hero's likability. I was having these problems because I was incorrectly characterizing/developing this character. Now that it seems that I got it right, and now that the villain is also well developed, now the villain is making the hero seem unlikable for killing him. If this was a one-shot fiction, such ambiguity of who is the real hero would be great, it would be amazing, but the problem is that there's still two sequels with this protagonist to go, and I can't simply discard them just because of some mere details in the first title.
So how can I make the villain sympathetic without affecting the hero's likability for killing him?
Edit:
I think I forgot to include in my question a very important detail of my problem, and I need to clarify what I meant in my question. By "hero of his own story" I really mean "hero of his own story", as the villain is a narcissist. He's not doing any good to other people, the only one benefited with his actions is his ego. So it's not a case of "doing the right thing to other people the wrong way", but instead it's "doing the wrong thing the wrong way towards other people, having as final intended effect the satisfaction of his own ego". The villain sees no reason why he doesn't have the complete right to do what he wants, and the story shows that he indeed is not totally wrong, but the means he used are too extreme for "solving" his problem.
Edit 2:
After reading the answers and thinking about this matter, it downed on me that actually the villain isn't as sympathetic and the hero isn't as "monstrous" as I was thinking. I think I got so much in the villain's head that I started to think just like him, seeing the villain as a hero or someone worthy of sympathy, and seeing the hero as a villain or someone unlikeable. I think that's why I was having this problem. Now I don't see the villain as positively as when I asked this question, especially because what he does is wrong no matter his reasons or what caused him to be that way, so it makes no sense to see the hero as unlikable for him simply doing what is necessary.
Also, Dan J.'s and Seserous' answers were spot-on on this matter, because even though the hero just does what needs to be done, he did that coldly and with wrath, that's another reason why it was leaving a negative impression on him for killing the villain.
YOU DONT! You make the Villain as relatable and human as possible and then you make the hero kill him mercilessly and t …
6y ago
I'd say the way to make the villain sympathetic is to make him human. Someone who errs, someone who regrets things he's …
6y ago
Self-Defense, or Suicide. One way to do this is to make the hero killing the villain a matter of self-defense. Trap the …
6y ago
Just because you can understand how the villain got that way doesn't mean you have to agree with the villain's actions. …
6y ago
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/36331. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
4 answers
YOU DONT!
You make the Villain as relatable and human as possible and then you make the hero kill him mercilessly and then make the hero and the reader question their own morals and maybe discover that there is no such thing as villain and hero in this words, we just fight for different things and make them question every single decision they have made until this point!!!
Then you make even more money by selling happiness and mindfulness books to your now troubled audience.
You're Welcome
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/36389. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
I'd say the way to make the villain sympathetic is to make him human. Someone who errs, someone who regrets things he's done, someone who isn't always up to his own standards. Look for example at King Claudius's monologue in Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2:
O, my offence is rank! It smells to heaven.
It hath the primal eldest curse upon't,
A brother's murderer. Pray can I not.
[..]
- but O, what form of prayer
Can serve my turn? 'Forgive me my foul murder'?
That cannot be, since I am still possessed
Of those effects for which I did the murder -
My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen.
May one be pardoned and retain th'offence?
Claudius is sympathetic because we all do things we then regret, and yet do not dare to own up to. Our wrongdoings are different in magnitude, that's it. At the same time, Claudius's struggles can hardly make Hamlet less likeable for feeling he must avenge his father. Our sympathy for Claudius doesn't negate what he has done.
Then, you have how the protagonist feels about killing the villain. Does he struggle with it? Does he regret having to kill him? Does he try to find an alternative? Or is he gang-ho about it?
In Roger Zelazny's Amber Chronicles (the first pentalogy), the antagonist has almost been successful several times in murdering the protagonist and several members of his family, he's betrayed their kingdom and is actively trying to destroy the world. He's too powerful to be stopped in any other way than killing him. He's condescending, deceitful and self-absorbed. He's also an artist, a poet, and the protagonist's brother. And so, we get the following gem:
I wish... I wish that some time, long ago, something had not been said that was said, or something done that was not done. Something, had we known, which might have let him grow differently, something which would have seen him become another man than the bitter, bent thing I saw up there. It is best now if he is dead. But it is a waste of something that might have been. (The Hand of Oberon, chapter 13)
It's not on the antagonist to make the protagonist likeable. The protagonist has to do something we are not comfortable with. Very well - how does he treat it?
0 comment threads
Self-Defense, or Suicide.
One way to do this is to make the hero killing the villain a matter of self-defense. Trap the villain, the hero would do the moral thing and take him alive, put him in a prison, try to get him treatment for his crazy: But the villain is so obsessed or dead set on doing what he does, that even when he is trapped, he tries to kill the hero to escape, and the hero has no choice but to shoot back, push back, whatever, and this kills the villain.
A similar alternative is inadvertent suicide: The hero, trying to be moral, traps the villain, and intends to imprison him. The only way out of the trap is a 90% chance of suicide. The villain, obsessed with his mission will risk anything, and does -- and dies. He can't jump the gap, he misses the rope, he throws a parachute from the plane and dives after it: He catches it --- then loses it in the wind, and falls to his death.
0 comment threads
Just because you can understand how the villain got that way doesn't mean you have to agree with the villain's actions.
Most people can understand how Black Panther's Erik Killmonger turned out the way he did. (More of that discussion in my answer to this question.) That doesn't mean that the viewer has to agree that his solution is the right one. We can accept that Erik has a point without endorsing his plan as the only correct response.
Also, if your villain has a point, but your hero has to kill the villain anyway, I think that's good moral shading which you should carry into the next books. That's something your hero should wrestle with. "Was I right? Did Villain have a point? Did Villain really deserve to die?"
Your villain can be evil and understandable. His death can be both necessary and a tragedy.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads