So far, this discussion has revolved around villains, but I think it’s useful to remember antagonist and villain aren’t necessarily the same. You can have villain protagonists and hero antagonists. Protagonist and antagonist (and deuteragonist and tritagonist) are just narrative roles, while hero, villain, anti-hero, and anti-villain are more moral judgements, so you can mix and match to your heart’s content.
Turning to villains specifically, I think the truth of “You have to love your monster” hinges on how you define love. Like, I don’t love most of them as people. Many of my villains have done some abhorrent things, and most of them are utterly unrepentant. I understand them and what makes them tick, but understanding isn’t love. However, I do love them as characters. I like them, the aura about them, and their deeds in a dramatic sense.
For me, I think the best antagonists are defined less by their motivations than by how they interact with the protagonist or the rest of their world and what those interactions say thematically.
So he’s concocted this plan for the curse to kill her husband, their unborn children, and leave her life in ruins so he can swoop in to play the consoling hero. Then she’ll marry him because it’s what he deserves, of course.
He’s no physical threat to the heroine, and he’s honestly pretty pathetic overall, but that’s the point: this world is one where a wretched little man can cause a lot of pain and suffering, all because his love corroded into entitlement.
He starts off more or less an anti-villain, an enemy naval officer who nevertheless possesses deep personal integrity and continues to serve his increasingly broken government out of patriotism. Over the course of the series, as he rises through the ranks and confronts that government’s atrocities firsthand, he becomes more and more of a hero antagonist until he ultimately carries out a military coup to restore their original democratic constitution.
By the end of the series, he’s a full-on hero protagonist/deuteragonist in his own right. And what makes it all the more remarkable to me is that he never really changes as a person.
Turning to villains specifically, I think the truth of “You have to love your monster” hinges on how you define love. Like, I don’t love most of them as people. Many of my villains have done some abhorrent things, and most of them are utterly unrepentant. I understand them and what makes them tick, but understanding isn’t love. However, I do love them as characters. I like them, the aura about them, and their deeds in a dramatic sense.
This is an interesting question, because when I think about the ones I find most memorable, it’s kind of a grab bag of different motivations. Some are all about indulging their own desires or acting to further their own interests (Ramsay Bolton, Leo Bonhart, the Joker). Some are fully convinced of the righteousness of their cause (Loghain Mac Tir, the Lord Ruler, the Illusive Man). Some act out of duty even without a real ideological commitment to the cause they serve (Tom Theisman).
For me, I think the best antagonists are defined less by their motivations than by how they interact with the protagonist or the rest of their world and what those interactions say thematically.
My favorite is probably Rian Mac Colla from The Skull in the Tree. At a glance, he’s a humble carpenter in a backwater village. His friends and neighbors would call him a good, hard-working man. But he’s secretly made a deal with a demon to curse his childhood sweetheart. She married another man while he was off on his apprenticeship, and he’s been seething ever since.
So he’s concocted this plan for the curse to kill her husband, their unborn children, and leave her life in ruins so he can swoop in to play the consoling hero. Then she’ll marry him because it’s what he deserves, of course.
He’s no physical threat to the heroine, and he’s honestly pretty pathetic overall, but that’s the point: this world is one where a wretched little man can cause a lot of pain and suffering, all because his love corroded into entitlement.
Turning back to “antagonists aren’t always villain”, Tom Theisman from the Honor Harrington series by David Weber.
He starts off more or less an anti-villain, an enemy naval officer who nevertheless possesses deep personal integrity and continues to serve his increasingly broken government out of patriotism. Over the course of the series, as he rises through the ranks and confronts that government’s atrocities firsthand, he becomes more and more of a hero antagonist until he ultimately carries out a military coup to restore their original democratic constitution.
By the end of the series, he’s a full-on hero protagonist/deuteragonist in his own right. And what makes it all the more remarkable to me is that he never really changes as a person.
