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!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2023-04-14 12:17 am (UTC)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!