The 3-dimension thing

[nnozomi]

Some rambling about writing to distract from RL worries.
Thinking a lot about antagonists and how they’re introduced, and also the flip side of, I don’t mean protagonists exactly, “good” characters? When I was reading Freya Marske’s A Marvellous Light a little while ago I was disappointed by it on these grounds: I felt like all the characters were very clearly presented as “good, you should like this person” or “bad, you should dislike this person,” making them flat and uninteresting to read about, especially the bad ones. To be fair, I’ve only read book 1 of a trilogy, but I did not get the impression that she was setting up for more character development later on. I wonder if she did it deliberately that way, or just was not interested in focusing on this particular kind of character work? I feel bad about criticizing Marske’s book this way, but she’s obviously a very talented writer and—okay, speaking to my personal interests alone—I wish she had put her talent to work less for her sex scenes and more for her characterization.
I mean… to take three examples of media that I think do this right.

Waters of Time>

I was talking about Erica H. Smith’s Waters of Time series in my last post; the author has a (spoilery) post on her antagonists which makes it clear how few are of them are simple un-fleshed-out baddies, and how many of the others change over time from villain to comrade or from villain to terrible-person-who-is-also-complicated-and-relatable. She notes that “writing antagonists can be fun, but it’s more fun when they are complicated people and have at least a partial redemptive arc, or when they appear to be one thing and turn out to be another, or keep changing roles,” and I think this applies to reading (or watching) antagonists too.

Guardian

Guardian has an assortment of villains-of-the-week, but nearly all the “villains” who get notable amounts of time on screen are more complicated than they appear (Sang Zan in a way, Zheng Yi, Ye Huo, An Bai and friends, Ya Qing, Sha Ya, Zhao Xinci in a sense, not to speak of Ye Zun (and as for the evil administrators, Gao Jingfeng is clearly in over his head and failing to cope, while the Regent is skillfully never quite evil enough to be absolutely on the bad side)). Most of the straight-up “bad person because the narrative says so, the end” characters (Zheng Zhongyuan, the Rebel Chief, the fight-promoter guy) have very little screentime, so we’re not bored by them. (I could go on at length about this issue in cdramas in general…see also Chen Moqun and Wang Shi'an...).

Marlows

Antonia Forest kind of specializes in flawed characters who may be on the “bad” side of the narrative to various degrees, but who also come with complex internal lives and motivations—Lois Sanger, Marie Dobson, Lieutenant Foley, Ginty, Patrick, Jukie, Tim, Edwin. Which makes them stay with you (in contrast, I remember the name of exactly one of Marske’s “bad” characters, and very little else about him, because what is there?), and makes the narrative itself more complicated, and thus makes the “good” characters more complicated too. We feel growing sympathy and even admiration for Foley, blended with a growing awareness of his amorality and ruthlessness and just generally being a horrible human being, which makes it clear why he becomes an untouchable but ever-present part of Peter’s mind later on; the virtuoso scene describing Lower IVA’s reactions to Marie’s death comes off in part because Marie is unlikeable but also someone hard to feel good about disliking as it becomes clearer and clearer how hapless she is, particularly posthumously. Edwin Dodd is an antagonist who’s also someone placed in an impossible position and struggling on his own terms.

In part instinctively, I’ve been trying to do this in my own original thing. (There is one unambiguous antagonist who is just a straight-up bad guy, but he’s off-page.) I’m still struggling with the other two major ones; by trying to make my antagonists ambiguous and—not relatable exactly—imaginable as fellow human beings?, I feel like they keep slithering away from me qua antagonists, which makes it hard to hang on to the conflict., But just setting them up as the evil X or the would-be evil Y isn’t very helpful; one is very determined but also very alone and trying to work out whether she was right to cut off most of her private feelings (aagh, very little of this comes out on the page, not sure how to work it in) and the other is driven by selfish and self-centered motives but also believes he’s doing the right thing. (Plus one other newish potential antagonist whom I have modeled gleefully on a favorite cdrama character not to be revealed, who is deliberately ambiguous; I’m gonna keep him that way, it’s more fun.
In terms of the other side of the equation, I am so damn fond of my main characters at this point, I’m afraid of doing that thing where the author loves the characters but hasn’t put in the work to make the readers love them too. In a way I’m better off having my three distinct protagonists, since they can have a range of flaws and good points which compensate one for the next? I feel like “putting in the work” is the keyword here on all counts—taking the time and effort to make the three-dimensional framework where all the characters’ motivations seem like “yeah, that’s what they would do in this context” as opposed to “Because The Author Said So.” Sorry, I feel like I’m just restating extremely obvious tenets of writing fiction, but--? Any thoughts, advice, good or bad examples welcome.

Be safe and well.

Comments

[miss_ingno]

This has given me much food for thought! I don't really have much to add, but I agree that memorable antagonists definitely need to. Resonate with the reader, maybe? 🤔 Like, they don't have to be relatable, but their motivations are more than "because I said so". I wonder if it's a matter of screen time, too, we tend to spend more time with the protagonists... Hm.

I haven't done much more than outlines and worldbuilding exercises for the original ideas I want to write some day, and part of the reason why is I need to figure out the stakes for my protagonists—and I suppose the antagonists would ideally be the opposite to that, for maximum character conflict? They need to be a hurdle somehow, and if they're actively pursuing the opposite of the protag's goal, the motivation should follow from there.

Which hopefully will help me craft good villains, too :D

(I've been meaning to check out A Marvellous Light, is it otherwise worth the read?)

[china_shop]

and I suppose the antagonists would ideally be the opposite to that, for maximum character conflict? They need to be a hurdle somehow, and if they're actively pursuing the opposite of the protag's goal, the motivation should follow from there.

From what I've read, it often works well if the antagonist and the protagonist have the same goal -- then the antagonist can also act as a foil and raise the stakes for the protag. Like how in Guardian, everyone's after the Hallows. (I think I got this from Take Off Your Pants!: Outline Your Books for Faster, Better Writing by Libbie Hawker, FWIW.)

[nnozomi]

Resonate with the reader, maybe?
Yes! The perfect word.

I haven't done much more than outlines and worldbuilding exercises for the original ideas I want to write some day, and part of the reason why is I need to figure out the stakes for my protagonists
aagh yeah, the conflict is the hard part :( Worldbuilding exercises can be so much fun, though, and lead you in unexpected directions. Good luck with it!

(I've been meaning to check out A Marvellous Light, is it otherwise worth the read?)
In spite of complaining so much about it, I would say it's definitely worth a try? I didn't dislike the protagonists, I thought the worldbuilding was really interesting, and the writer can definitely craft a good sentence. Let me know what you think.

[clevermanka]

Yes yes yes for complicated antagonists. I love hearing different perspectives on character interpretations, and agree that setting up someone to be evil just to be evil is boring.

IMO The Regent is actually the most villainous of Guardian's major antagonists because his only motivation is the protection of himself and his own power. The others mostly have some sort of external reason, and it's usually vengeance for lost love. It's usually misplaced/misdirected, but love is at the root of nearly all of them. Even Zhu Jiu's motivation is the betrayal of hero Hei Pao Shi which is further twisted by Ye Zun's mind manipulation (the exact same trick Rebel Chief used on Ye Zun). Off the top of my head, I can only recall a few who are purely selfishly motivated. The Regent, Zhang Danni, the guys who take Butler Wu's kid, and the sonic mind manipulation girl's dad.

I think the crux of creating an interesting antagonist is making their point of view understandable, even if you don't agree with it. I always think about this scene from the original Star Trek show when I'm confronted with this issue--in life and fiction.

As far as showing the reader why your protagonists are lovable, that's something I'm grappling with in my own fiction, but I'm coming at it from the opposite side. I only have experience writing fanfic, so I'm having difficult developing the necessary affection for my creations. I need to figure out how to bond with them so I want to write about them.

[nnozomi]

IMO The Regent is actually the most villainous of Guardian's major antagonists because his only motivation is the protection of himself and his own power.
Yes, to some extent I agree with this. I haven't been totally convinced by a couple of fics where the Regent is the main antagonist, though, just because...mm...his evil is directed toward the status quo? and if the status quo is better, he's not going to make special efforts to be evil just for the sake of evil?

I think the crux of creating an interesting antagonist is making their point of view understandable, even if you don't agree with it.
Yes, absolutely!

I only have experience writing fanfic, so I'm having difficult developing the necessary affection for my creations. I need to figure out how to bond with them so I want to write about them.
Oh, interesting. In my case it's been mostly "write 150K about them, with lots of competence kink and hurt-comfort," but I'm not sure how I started out with them. (Actually, I know I started by sneaking them into the background of fanfics--two of my protagonists actually appear as unnamed characters in one of my Guardian fics--which can be a way in?)

[eight_of_cups]

I agree very much, though it's hard to articulate the criticism of what's wrong with...over-guided characterization? It's a problem I had with Robin McKinley's early books, for example; she's very good at complicating the moral inner worlds of heroes, but jarringly, the enemies those heroes face are just evil, grotesquely unhuman, and are only there to be fought and exterminated. The idea seems to be that the problem can be solved by getting rid of certain people, and not only is that not true in real life, it's not true in the moral landscape we tell stories in, either.

I think the really interesting genre for this question is murder mysteries. We start out with a corpse; the corpse is a person that someone tried to solve a problem by getting rid of. Sometimes murder mysteries make the corpse a terrible person that lots of people would have reason to kill; sometimes they make the corpse a person who seems so sympathetic that no one should have wanted to kill them at all. But either way, you have to make the reader care whether the detective finds out who did it, and you have to give them a little insulation from the horror of a person's violent death. The trope requires balance!

When I started working on my 'verse I wanted a story where everyone in the main cast is essential to the resolution of the situation -- even the enemies, antagonists, and anti-heroes. And since then I think it's gotten even more imperative to have stories like this, since there's this infectious temptation to demonize people as if destroying certain groups would solve all our problems. Sigh.

[nnozomi]

The idea seems to be that the problem can be solved by getting rid of certain people, and not only is that not true in real life, it's not true in the moral landscape we tell stories in, either.
Yes, what an excellent way to put it. (I've been reminding myself not to fall into this trap with regard to my one straight-up antagonist...)

But either way, you have to make the reader care whether the detective finds out who did it, and you have to give them a little insulation from the horror of a person's violent death. The trope requires balance!
Oh yeah, you're so right to bring in murder mysteries and their delicate balance! I think the ones I enjoy most are those which make the process of solving the mystery in itself as interesting (in both puzzle-solving and character-driven ways) as the solution, so that there's a kind of compensation in both directions (a good dose of ambiguity even if the murderer is straight-up bad, a decent amount of comfort even if good people are killed or forced to kill).

When I started working on my 'verse I wanted a story where everyone in the main cast is essential to the resolution of the situation -- even the enemies, antagonists, and anti-heroes. And since then I think it's gotten even more imperative to have stories like this
Oh dear, you're so right and this is so hard to do, although I think you did a brilliant job with it in Ryswyck (among other results, I'm very eager to see du Rau and Ingrid again...). I think I'm trying to do something similar, but right now I have a spaghetti-ish mass of tangles which may or not resolve by the end of book 3...

[luzula]

In terms of the other side of the equation, I am so damn fond of my main characters at this point, I’m afraid of doing that thing where the author loves the characters but hasn’t put in the work to make the readers love them too.
This is so much easier in fanfic! Where you can just rely on your readers also already loving the main characters. : )

[nnozomi]

This is so much easier in fanfic! Where you can just rely on your readers also already loving the main characters. : )
Isn't it? ;) But then you also have the opposite problem--you have to write the characters in a way that will make the reader think "yes, this is the character I love, this is how they would react in this context...".

[trobadora]

Yeah, this is a great point! In fanfic, you can assume people already love the characters - but they may well decide the people in your fic simply aren't the characters as they know them, which immediately takes away all the love even if they'd be otherwise perfectly good characters. *g*

[sakana17]

Ha, yes, I was thinking "Wang Shi'an and Chen Moqun" as complex, interesting antagonists and then you mentioned them. But dramas have a slightly unfair advantage because we get to see the characters as well. I can easily imagine one-dimensional versions of Wang Shi'an and Chen Moqun, and I'm forever thankful that the actors and director made the best, three-dimensional choices. As you say, that's not unusual for Cdramas (but also not universal, as I watch more and come across more variety of characterizations - not all of them are as nuanced).

What also came to mind reading this excellent, thoughtful post is the Cnovel Peerless because thevetia and I keep discussing how the author manages to make the reader like and care about the protagonists, who are both flawed and have annoying personalities. (I always admire characters I like and am invested in while reading but am certain I wouldn't want to meet in real life. *g*) We haven't quite figured out exactly how it's done in the story, but I think part of it is the reader being able to see that the outward personalities aren't all that there is; each character has an inward life that may also be flawed but more sympathetic or understandable.

[nnozomi]

Ha, yes, I was thinking "Wang Shi'an and Chen Moqun" as complex, interesting antagonists and then you mentioned them. But dramas have a slightly unfair advantage because we get to see the characters as well.
Yes on all counts! Wang Shi'an and Chen Moqun really are in a class by themselves, between writing, directing and acting--good examples, especially Chen Moqun of course, of antagonists who are deeply complex and without whom the story would fall apart, not just in terms of plot but of emotional resonance.

I think part of it is the reader being able to see that the outward personalities aren't all that there is; each character has an inward life that may also be flawed but more sympathetic or understandable.
Yes! Sounds like good writing (so easy to describe, so hard to do...). And it's one of the joys of reading, getting to know people inwardly this way in a way we often don't in real life.

[china_shop]

Re Guardian, I was going to say that Zhu Jiu is very much the moustache-twirling villain, but on second thoughts, I think in fact his loyalty to Ye Zun helps him to transcend that a bit, maybe?

In terms of protagonists, I wonder how useful it is to have them be aware of their own flaws and trying to improve, versus falling into them over and over without realising. I don't have an answer to that, but it might be a helpful thing to contemplate in terms of making your characters loveable and accessible (or in terms of giving them arcs). For ex, someone could have quite an awful flaw, but if they're aware of it and struggling to overcome it, and they have enough else going for them, they might still be identifiable? Idk. /probably rather obvious, hi!

[nnozomi]

I was going to say that Zhu Jiu is very much the moustache-twirling villain, but on second thoughts, I think in fact his loyalty to Ye Zun helps him to transcend that a bit, maybe?
I'm never sure where to put Zhu Jiu! (I only find him even slightly interesting when he starts being all frail and vulnerable, but I think you're right that his loyalty and especially his ending scene go a bit beyond the villain stereotype.)

I wonder how useful it is to have them be aware of their own flaws and trying to improve, versus falling into them over and over without realising.
That's a very good point (and not an obvious one). I think my protagonists are to some extent forced by the narrative into recognizing their flaws--privilege, self-deprecation, passivity--and dealing with them to some extent, but I'm not sure yet where any of them are going to end up, oh dear :)

[china_shop]

I'm never sure where to put Zhu Jiu! (I only find him even slightly interesting when he starts being all frail and vulnerable, but I think you're right that his loyalty and especially his ending scene go a bit beyond the villain stereotype.)

Yes, I mostly find him very uninteresting, too. I'd like him so much more if he was ever nice to anyone or seemed to like anyone (or anything!). I did enjoy his bickering with Ya Qing in ep 13, though.

That's a very good point (and not an obvious one). I think my protagonists are to some extent forced by the narrative into recognizing their flaws--privilege, self-deprecation, passivity--and dealing with them to some extent, but I'm not sure yet where any of them are going to end up, oh dear :)

Good luck! Those kinds of habits can be very hard to break in RL, especially when they're motivated by a deeper, unacknowledged flaw -- I imagine it's not much different for fictional characters. *pompoms*

[nnozomi]

Those kinds of habits can be very hard to break in RL, especially when they're motivated by a deeper, unacknowledged flaw -- I imagine it's not much different for fictional characters. *pompoms*
Thank you! Yeah, I am finding that a surprising amount of my original thing is about "how people deal as adults with the way their upbringings have shaped them," which has a lot to do with recognizing and dealing with these habits. I don't know where any of this came from...

[trobadora]

I think Zhu Jiu really believes in what he's doing, and that belief and his loyalty to Ye Zun, and the way he ultimately gives his life, help a lot in making him feel more fleshed out despite all the drama queen moustache twirling. (Sorry for the mixed metaphors, you know what I mean. *g*) Also that none of it is for personal gain.

And that's a great point about self-awareness and striving to overcome a flaw! If there's a lot of character development, that may even be the main point ...

[china_shop]

Yeeeah. But he's not even an "ends justify the means" guy -- he's an "I kill people for kicks" guy who thinks he has an excuse/justification to do so. So whatever else he has going for him, to me he just comes across as unmitigatedly evil. (I really did enjoy his bickering with Ya Qing, though.)

[trobadora]

Yeah, I agree - it doesn't mitigate his evil at all. But IMO it makes him a person-doing-evil rather than a narrative function, if that makes sense to you.

[china_shop]

Yeah, there is more going on than just "causes problems". His backstory with the Envoy helps a lot, too. (Maybe that will make more sense in context, when we get there?)

[trobadora]

(Maybe that will make more sense in context, when we get there?)

Haha, I live in hope!

[skygiants]

My novella has three POV characters, and when I sent the first draft out to beta readers ALL of them were like 'well we love character A, we like character B, don't care at all about character C,' and I sat there like open-mouthed Pikachu because I had thought that character C's POV was going to be the most obviously relatable one from the get-go and it was going to take a lot more work to get people to see where characters A and B where coming from -- which I suppose is not so much advice as a 'you really never do know!' But I guess the lesson I took from that is that when I think a character's reasons for doing things are clearly obvious and relatable, that is probably a sign that I'm likely to under-write their rationale on the page because it seems obvious to me, and conversely if I have to put more work into understanding it on the page myself, it's likely to be clearer to the reader too ...

[nnozomi]

when I sent the first draft out to beta readers ALL of them were like 'well we love character A, we like character B, don't care at all about character C,' and I sat there like open-mouthed Pikachu because I had thought that character C's POV was going to be the most obviously relatable one from the get-go and it was going to take a lot more work to get people to see where characters A and B were coming from
lol, it's such a shock to get different perspectives on these things! (I had the opposite experience--one beta reader said "A's arc is great and really works for me" while another said "I think you need to rewrite A's arc heavily for it to jibe with her character as you've presented it," what am I supposed to do, add together and divide by two?)
(also, though I should've put it in the correct post, congratulations on all your publication news!)

when I think a character's reasons for doing things are clearly obvious and relatable, that is probably a sign that I'm likely to under-write their rationale on the page because it seems obvious to me, and conversely if I have to put more work into understanding it on the page myself, it's likely to be clearer to the reader too
Oh, that's a good point. I am something of a chronic under-writer, out of fear that I'll over-write something and spell it out boringly in words of one syllable, so this is a good guideline.

[cyphomandra]

Foley is such a great character, and Forest so good at conveying sympathy and repulsion all at once.

I do think some of the current book discourse can lend itself to uncharitable readings - specifically, a difficulty distinguishing between views expressed by the characters and views expressed by the author - and a lack of tolerance for growth during the course of the story (conversely I have also seen some very poor choices by authors!!).

To pick a not terribly obvious author - Jilly Cooper, at her best, could create a large cast of characters and make them all appealing and awful and, above all, understandable simultaneously. Her characters can be impulsive and make bad decisions without it feeling like the author has pushed them into it.

[nnozomi]

Forest so good at conveying sympathy and repulsion all at once.
Isn't she?

I do think some of the current book discourse can lend itself to uncharitable readings - specifically, a difficulty distinguishing between views expressed by the characters and views expressed by the author - and a lack of tolerance for growth during the course of the story
Yes, this is depressing. (On the other hand, it's comforting to think that given my almost nonexistent chances of becoming a famous/notable author, I will probably be spared being subjected to discourse of any kind!)

I'll look into Jilly Cooper, that's interesting! I don't think I've ever read anything by her (my only association is "pony books? no, probably not?").

(Oh, and I'd been saving your gift of chocolate for my birthday last week, since that's one of the occasions when I treat myself to chocolate, and it was DELICIOUS! Many thanks to all of you again.)

[superborb]

I've been watching cdramas lately, and I do feel like a lot of them have a set of 'boringly evil' characters and then (in interesting ones) the characters who get a little more nuance. I'm not sure why there are so many of the 'boringly evil' category though; it always feels unnecessary...

[nnozomi]

I'm not sure why there are so many of the 'boringly evil' category though; it always feels unnecessary...
Yeah, it's a shame. I suppose it comes from a combination of lazy (or pressed-for-time) writing, and maybe some of the censorship issues saying "make sure the viewers realize this person is BAD," who knows, not me. It does make the villains with nuance even more valuable and interesting to watch, though!

[grayswandir]

Kind of late here, but I just wanted to say I've been reading the comments on this post with interest, and agreeing with most everything everyone has said. Out of curiosity I tried googling for something like "how to write likable characters," and unsurprisingly the lists of advice were mostly extremely cliche and useless, but there was one page that mentioned something similar to what china_shop says about making characters recognize their flaws, and I that bit stood out to me as something I particularly agreed with. There's just something about self-awareness that I find compelling, and I like seeing characters think about their choices (even if they end up making the worse choice or have already made it), or acknowledge their faults (even if they can't change them, or try to and fail), including both protagonists and antagonists.

Granted, I'm coming at this from a perspective of, like, most of my favorite novels are very philosophical, which is certainly not everyone's cup of tea. But I think for me, having characters experience some kind of cognitive dissonance about their beliefs or thoughts or actions, whether they choose to confront the problem or have secret angst about it or just sweep it under a rug, is one of the ways I try to make them more interesting. I also think I generally aim for interesting rather than likable, even in protagonists, I guess on the theory that "interesting" is something I feel like I have (slightly) more control over?

[nnozomi]

There's just something about self-awareness that I find compelling, and I like seeing characters think about their choices (even if they end up making the worse choice or have already made it), or acknowledge their faults (even if they can't change them, or try to and fail), including both protagonists and antagonists.
Yes, this is such a good point; this self-awareness (which often implies, mm, I don't mean intelligence exactly, clear thinking?) is really interesting in itself, and can also be a turning point for plotting or characterization or both--once the wrong direction is acknowledged, internally or externally, to be wrong, how does the directionality change? (Sorry, I'm not very coherent tonight but you get the idea.)

I also think I generally aim for interesting rather than likable, even in protagonists, I guess on the theory that "interesting" is something I feel like I have (slightly) more control over?
Ha! I think my end goal for how readers feel about the protagonists would be "glad to have gotten to know them," which sounds silly, but--leaving a positive impression, whether as likable or interesting?

[elenothar]

I'm not a good person to give advice on this because I know that this is one of my weak spots - I always struggle with having enough conflict in my stories. I tend not to be interested even in villains that aren't one-dimensional, to the point where sometimes I'd prefer them to be one-dimensional over them taking up so much page/screen time - in fact, I suspect I most like stories where conflict comes not from a villian but circumstances, differing motivations of protagonists, that sort of thing. That said, I do think that it's possible to do villains well/better in terms of making it clear that they're, in the end, also just people and have narrative/character details showing that (I hesitate to use the word 'humanise', but something like that...). I also tend to find aftermath of villainy more interesting than the standard 'they died and don't have to face the consequences of their actions in any meaningful way'.

I think a big part of it is POV - usually the POV is with the protagonists, who, depending on their character, will spend more or less time wondering about the villain's background/motivations. Either way, you fundamentally aren't going to get the villain's 'real' feelings on things unless it's their POV. But it's a bit of a catch 22, because if you do add villain POV they really have to be interesting for readers to stick with that...

(Personally, I find self-awareness interesting for villains. An awareness of decisions made, and why, and it being left to the reader to decide whether they understand/sympathise with those decisions on some level.)

/end of unhelpful ramble 😅

[nnozomi]

not unhelpful AT ALL <3 I agree (even if my writing doesn't necessarily) with your point about the interest of conflict arising from circumstances, differing motivations etc. It's hard to do! But probably more interesting in the end...

Either way, you fundamentally aren't going to get the villain's 'real' feelings on things unless it's their POV.
Yeah, I am struggling with this now, having deliberately chosen limited POV characters (why...).

I also tend to find aftermath of villainy more interesting than the standard 'they died and don't have to face the consequences of their actions in any meaningful way'.
Agree! (One of the many reasons why I like post-canon/futurefic so much for many canons.) Especially since it can complicate things for the protagonists in interesting ways as well.

[elenothar]

But probably more interesting in the end...

I honestly think it just depends on what people like to read? There are definitely a lot of readers who are more interested in villains than I am (shrug)

Chosing POV is such a trial. It always feels like halfway through you desperately want a POV that wasn't in the plan...

[nnozomi]

I honestly think it just depends on what people like to read? There are definitely a lot of readers who are more interested in villains than I am
Fair, and it probably also depends on where you draw the line for what defines a villain...

It always feels like halfway through you desperately want a POV that wasn't in the plan...
Yes! I suppose it's a hopeful sign for having created interesting (at least to the writer...) minor characters, but man, it would be so much easier if I hadn't decided to limit myself specifically to these three POVs. I did it for a reason! I stand by it! But still.

[passingbuzzards]

These are such interesting thoughts, and now that you’ve made me think about it I’m having a hard time coming up with any particularly complex antagonists in the media that I like! In some cases this is because the core conflict of the story isn’t really an individual, but also I think I’m just an easy sell when it comes to character motivation; if the narrative sets someone up in a particular way I’m usually pretty ready to take it on faith. (I’m also the kind of person who will almost never notice a plot hole unless it’s pointed out to me, so I think my suspension of disbelief just tends to be very total, especially with TV and movies.)

Though now that I’ve written this it does occur to me that Andor is really excellent about complex villains, and indeed the fact that all the major characters on that show feel three-dimensional and human is a big part of the appeal! But I think it’s not a prerequisite for me that a villain have genuine depth. (And this is terribly cynical and facetious, but I can’t help but think that there’s so much full-on cartoon evil on display just opening the political news on any given day that “this big bad is evil for no meaningful reason” doesn’t even feel like a stretch, heh.)

taking the time and effort to make the three-dimensional framework where all the characters’ motivations seem like “yeah, that’s what they would do in this context” as opposed to “Because The Author Said So.”

Possibly a bit moot given my characterization-duplicity(!) but I feel like the only time the question “why did this character do this” truly comes up in the reader’s mind is when the character is doing something that’s fundamentally not the logical/rational action in the situation, no? If they do something that’s blatantly irrational or detrimental to themselves / the situation / whatever, we definitely need background for what drove them to do that, but otherwise it’s not something the reader would feel the need to question, imo, since logical progression means we’re already on the same page. Idk; I think character motivations making sense tends to flow pretty naturally from witnessing those characters’ feelings about things as we go along, but that does mean it’s important for those feelings to be rendered at least semi-explicitly!

[nnozomi]

I’m also the kind of person who will almost never notice a plot hole unless it’s pointed out to me, so I think my suspension of disbelief just tends to be very total
Oh, me too! I believe what I'm told by the plot (unless I'm in nitpicking mode, but that rarely happens the first time through with anything).

I can’t help but think that there’s so much full-on cartoon evil on display just opening the political news on any given day that “this big bad is evil for no meaningful reason” doesn’t even feel like a stretch, heh.
Too true and very depressing...

when the character is doing something that’s fundamentally not the logical/rational action in the situation, no? If they do something that’s blatantly irrational or detrimental to themselves / the situation / whatever, we definitely need background for what drove them to do that
I don't disagree, but one thing I think makes characterization interesting is that the logical/rational action isn't always the same thing--I mean, for instance, you've been writing Vorkosigan fic (which I haven't yet had time to read properly...) recently, right? I feel like in any given situation, if you asked, say, Simon Illyan, Mark Vorkosigan, and By Vorrutyer what the logical action was, you'd get three different answers, and all of them would be correct for that given character--so the action has to be not necessarily objectively rational but rational according to, as you say, how we've witnessed the character acting/feeling so far. Which is the fun part, and also the hard part!

[passingbuzzards]

Oh yeah, definitely! This just had me thinking about it sort of sideways, hah, in that I feel like the reader isn’t generally approaching character actions with vast analytical skepticism to begin with, so provided that we spend enough time up close with a character we’re pretty unlikely to feel like they’re driven by “because the author said so.” (And really this is the essential difference between fiction that’s character-driven and fiction that isn’t, right? Because for me all the books that jump immediately to mind as having this issue are ones falling under headings like hard sci-fi / speculative cyberpunk / Sci-Fi With a Message, where the author’s principal concern was very obviously to show off their worldbuilding or their politics, not their characters. Cough, Frank Herbert...) ITA that ensuring that the reader has a feel for what the character’s “rational” looks like is the crucial point!

[nnozomi]

so provided that we spend enough time up close with a character we’re pretty unlikely to feel like they’re driven by “because the author said so.”
that ensuring that the reader has a feel for what the character’s “rational” looks like is the crucial point!
Yes, excellent way of putting it on both counts! We need to get far enough into their mindset that it just feels natural to be along for the ride, wherever it's actually taking us/them.

where the author’s principal concern was very obviously to show off their worldbuilding or their politics, not their characters.
Yup, ask me why I've never managed to get very far into any of those, oh dear. (Trying to think of examples and not coming up with any because I've steered so clear of them, but I agree with your point. I did think of one of a number of counterexamples in Melissa Scott, at least in my favorites of her books, which are quite heavy on both worldbuilding and Messages, but still focus heavily on individual characters with individual concerns, making them satisfying for me.)

[trobadora]

This is such a fascinating, thought-provoking post! I’ve had it open for ages wanting to reply … better late than never, right?

the author has a (spoilery) post on her antagonists which makes it clear how few are of them are simple un-fleshed-out baddies, and how many of the others change over time from villain to comrade or from villain to terrible-person-who-is-also-complicated-and-relatable.

I don’t even know the series, but I read that whole post with delight! Excellent stuff. Yeah, you can really tell these are fully realised characters, not narrative functions. Which is as it should be!

Most of the straight-up “bad person because the narrative says so, the end” characters (Zheng Zhongyuan, the Rebel Chief, the fight-promoter guy) have very little screentime, so we’re not bored by them.

You know, I never actually noticed this? But it’s so true. Same for Da Ji’s murderous husband. If they’re one-dimensional, they’re only briefly there; if they get more screen time, they’re more fully fleshed out. (Which one comes first?)

I’m still struggling with the other two major ones; by trying to make my antagonists ambiguous and—not relatable exactly—imaginable as fellow human beings?, I feel like they keep slithering away from me qua antagonists, which makes it hard to hang on to the conflict.

Do you mean that as they’re more fleshed out, they should be able to find different solutions? Or just that the focus drifts away from the conflict qua conflict and towards to their individual struggles?

Mostly I think the best conflicts are between sides where the difference isn’t “one is evil” but they have incompatible values and goals. And the way they should almost be able to get past their differences but ultimately can’t – or one side can’t – is what makes for a lot of fantastic tension that just isn’t there if it’s good-vs-evil all the way. (I have no idea how that applies to your writing at all, but in general …)

I feel like “putting in the work” is the keyword here on all counts

Agreed! And for making readers love characters, I don’t think it’s a detriment if the author loves them a lot, only if the author believes that because the characters are so great, of course everyone will love them! *g*

[nnozomi]

I don’t even know the series, but I read that whole post with delight! Excellent stuff. Yeah, you can really tell these are fully realised characters, not narrative functions.
I recommend it if you're in need of something new to read! (She's hedda62 on ao3 as well, I believe it's okay to cross the streams there, if you've seen her name.)

If they’re one-dimensional, they’re only briefly there; if they get more screen time, they’re more fully fleshed out. (Which one comes first?)
Ah, good question! Did the writers realize they didn't need to use that much screen time to establish the one-dimensional characters? (Given how hugely the Rebel Chief affects the whole plot, he's literally on screen for something like five minutes? Maybe ten?)

Do you mean that as they’re more fleshed out, they should be able to find different solutions? Or just that the focus drifts away from the conflict qua conflict and towards to their individual struggles?
Mostly that if the antagonists' viewpoints are reasonable in their own way, I don't have anybody who's actually evil, so if I want someone doing evil things I have to struggle ;). And it's harder to resolve "good vs evil" than "everyone has different perspectives and different needs/interests." But as you say, this should be able to work out through interesting tension! Still working on that...