The Right To Write

Antagonist Speech: Part 3

There is a breed of villain that scares me the most.

Bad villains. Not essentially wicked villains or sick and twisted villains. I mean villains that aren't good villains. And they don't scare me in genuine way. Not a chance. they scare me in a sense that I'll never want to pick up a book again.

Guess what the best way to make your reader shy away from your book is? Your antagonist's dialogue.

Let's base this section off of correcting this horrible example I wrote:

"Why my foolish young one, your plans will fail instantly. I shall win, because I am evil!" Vargex the Obliterator growled in deep dark gruffness. "Let me kill you know, my fascinating friend, for your wand of Zalore is far to weak to defeat me," His deep British accent staggered as he burst into  treacherous rolls of laughter. "Now that I will kill you, I will reveal my plan. I, oh so maniacally, plan to shoot the destruction ray of Obliteratorness into your planet and disintegrate it."

What's wrong with this paragraph? Everything. Let's break it down.

Your antagonist has a brain. First off, I doubt your villain would defy the fact that the protagonist will win and save the day. Then ever so blatantly hint at, or even tell him why he's failing--because his wand of Zalore was too weak.

"Gee, thanks Mister Bad Guy. Now I know what exactly why my plan isn't working. I'll just fix the problem and defeat you, of course, if that's ok with you."

This is usually a result of horrible plotting or cheesy screenwriting when writers want to find some way around defeating the antagonist. But how about let's not have the antagonist defeat himself. Your antagonist needs a mind, full of secrets and plans, that are not to be simply handed over to your hero. If you need your character to see these plans somehow, why don't you just have him find the plans himself. Let your main character do it, not the enemy.

Your antagonist should also have a mind to have a sensible conversation with your protagonist. Perhaps one that would actually benefit him. Remember that your antagonist has goals too, and he should be working towards them as well. The interaction between the antagonist and protagonist should be a climactic one, not a predictable, unrelated group of words.

Vocabulary. What else? How about the horrifying choice of vocabulary:

"Amusing, little one, evil, fail, any supposedly poetic helping verb such as 'Shall, has, have, may, whilst, etc,'" the fact that every piece of his dialogue is doing practically nothing to help the antagonist carry out his intentions, etc etc. I could go on forever.

My point is, all that total junk you hear in movies and over-generalized books, where the villain sounds as if he's a Ghandi wannabe? Yeah, that? Stop it. Don't think for a second that it will assist you in any way. Also, don't overuse the words you usually hear in the mass of total junk, because, it's well, junk. You attempt to create a dramatic, crafty antagonist will result in utter backfire.

Be original in their sense of word choice. Give your villain a more natural sense of dialogue.

Stereotypes, stereotypes. Firstly, the word "dark" in description is not only the overused word for villains chart, but is an extreme overgeneralized form of description. You should go into depth about why he is dark rather than simply stating he is. Did he kill members of his family? Is he part of a fatal organization? What makes him dark. Through describing his past, or his nature, you don't even even need to note that he is "dark."

What else? Oh, how about that evil deep accent? It doesn't have to be the most intimidating voice that pops in your head that makes him intimidating. Find some other way to set this impression. What about him actually doing something to set the levels of intimidation. What if he killed of one of the supporting characters? Or tortured characters? It's the actions that matter, not the stereotypical impressions. 

It doesn't have to be a dark male, it doesn't have to be an evil genius behind his wannabe throne. It could be an awkward young man. It could even be a sweet-tempered girl.

Readers like surprises and changes. Prove yourself by going beyond what the general public has set before us. Give us a unique character with a unique background.

Demolish the inferiority. Your villain has every right to think he's better than your antagonist, but don't soak every word in that emotion. Take any discussion that includes your villain being over-egotistical and banish it from your writing because the dialogue should be based on the villain actually carrying out his plans, not gloating on and on about how grand his plan is, or how much better he is than your protagonist.

I happen to see this trend between primary villain and henchmen as well. What's up with that? There always happens to be a irritable, ingenious villain, and idiotic, awkward servant. I'm not sure if this is a particle of comedy or anything, but it's nothing but slowing and irking. If the assistant isn't helping, why do writers still feel obligated to insert the chemistry between them. Sometimes the villain will threaten to have his henchman's plate on a platter if he doesn't execute a specific deed. Then when he fails, his head manages to stay on his shoulders, every time. Even villains need to keep their promises.

You might as well title your book "I Believe In Magic" because your antagonists assistant is incredible at escaping the punishment the main antagonist had initially set.

Of all the words existing in the vocabulary of evil, why doesn't the phrase "I quit" seem to appear. If the henchman feels abused, what better way is there than to foolishly tag along and achieve exactly nothing.

Hopefully, you took into account my previous section on villain motive. Well, if your henchman is going to remain bound to the main villain, at least insert some reason he's putting up with his master besides "Oh, it's all good and well, because we're going to rule the universe together."

Sure you are.

Likewise for your main villain. If his amazing mind can put together such a complex, important plan, he would at least have the brains to see if his henchman is actually assisting him in achieving his goals. If not, why not have his head on a platter?

Drama. Here are some things I see regularly showing through villains that absolutely need to be toned down.

Sly chuckles, evil heaps of laughter, "get him!", evil screams of "NOOO!!!", menacing grins, evil exclamations of "idiot!" to their henchman.

I'm not saying you should absolutely avoid these. It's perfectly fine to use them. Just don't cloud your novel with it so much people feel like their watching and Indian soap-opera.

Revealing the plan. Can someone clarify why half of them movies I watch show the villain revealing his plan to the trapped protagonist, or another character. This is extremely cliche and downright stupid of the villain. Maybe your villain should have a discussion that benefits him on his part, or maybe, he could go actually carry out his plan. Or maybe the villain could lie about his plan, that would make for a more unpredictable situation, since your protagonist is most likely going to make it out alive. 

Vargex The Obliterator. Seriously? Unless Vargex's parents were equally cheesy villains, their son wouldn't have this horrific name.