8 Worst Antagonist Mistakes New Fantasy Writers Make
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ค. 2024
- In this video, we delve into the 8 worst antagonist mistakes that new fantasy writers often make. We dissect each error, providing insights and practical solutions along the way.
Whether you're crafting a dark lord, a cunning sorcerer, or a complex villain with morally gray shades, this video offers valuable guidance for your own writing. Discover how to avoid common pitfalls and elevate your antagonist from a mere obstacle to a compelling force that enriches your narrative.
If you find this video helpful, please consider giving it a like, and don’t forget to subscribe to the channel for more content on storytelling, worldbuilding and fantasy writing.
#Worldbuilding #WorldbuildingAdvice #WorldbuildingGuide #WorldbuildingTips #Storytelling #StorytellingAdvice #StorytellingGuide #StorytellingTips #FantasyWriting #CreativeWriting #WritingAdvice #WritingTips
00:00 Introduction
00:47 Mistake 1
02:22 Mistake 2
03:57 Mistake 3
05:37 Mistake 4
07:09 Mistake 5
08:38 Mistake 6
10:07 Mistake 7
11:28 Mistake 8
![BOWKYLION - เจ้านายคะ (work-life imbalance) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6bFj8G2pOi4/mqdefault.jpg)
Transform Your Fantasy Writing in Just 5 Minutes a Week: Sign Up for the Tale Tinkerer Newsletter here => thetaletinkerer.com/newsletter/
When you mentioned unclear objectives, I thought about Hans from Frozen. The character kept changing, and it wasn't clear what he wanted until the plot twist at the end. The character is more fleshed out in the book that was made, and the reader can see more about his life and why he decided to do the things he did.
I agree on some points, but very much disagree on others. Complex villains and subverting cliché tropes are not inherrently better than their counterparts. On the contrary, these practices have become overused tropes of their own. What matters more than wether your villain has layers to their personality is wether their actions, phillosophy, and/or goals stand in direct conflict with those of the protagonist.
Using an example from recent time, The Spot from Across the Spiderverse is a great villain not because of his depth of character, but because he is a simple powerful threat who has a personal grudge against the protagonist and his actions and goals, moreso than just being destructive, get in the way of Miles' goals. Wether intentionally or unintentionally.
Making him a deeper character than "you hit me with a bagel and turned me into a freak! I hate you now!" Might make him a better character, but unless done skillfully is just more likely to make him a more tedious character.
TL,DR: Character depth is an accent. Don't apply too heavily.
I agree. I think many good villains didn't have complex motivations. I think that what defines if your villain is good or not is if they accomplish what you want them to accomplish.
Great comment and example given, thank you. I don't disagree. In such a case here though, there is a particular connection between the antagonist and the protagonist that makes it a bit more logical that most (if not all) moves of the antagonist are straight up obstacles for the protagonist.
The reason being that 'revenge' is a major driver, and revenge is obviously always directed at someone (or something).
As with anything I say or write - I'm just trying to provide context, inspiration and guidance based on my personal experience and preferences. It's still storytelling and art at the end, so anything can be done in countless ways and should be following whatever one needs for their own story :)
Agree on all points. And, when thinking of favorite antagonists, the morally gray ones are far more enjoyable.
I definitely need to expand my villans personalities.
In pushing through draft one I stuck to the basics for the whole cast. But, I relize how flat and one dimensional everyone is.
Before starting draft two I really need to do some character delving.😅
Having finished a full draft at all is a huge accomplishment in of itself - that should not be underestimated either :)
We should also not confuse an antagonist with a villain.
Antagonists are necessary for the plot. Villains are not. What is more impactful for one’s story, or which they want to write is up to them.
Well said. Perspective is important to each character and how characters relate to each other. Antagonism simply means being in opposition not necessarily lacking a moral compass.
Rule of thumb I like to use, your villain is always the antagonist (unless you are writing a villain protagonist), but your antagonist isn’t always a villain.
Artimes Enteri and Jarlaxle from R. A. Salvatore.
Dresden Files by Jim Butcher has a few, Nicodemus a fallen angel, John Marcone a mob boss, Queen Mab of the Winter Court.
Generally, as you pointed out, villans that aren't cut and dry "evil" but have a moral code. Twisted and very gray, but moral.
Not familiar with all of them. Will try to find some time to check them out somehow :)
I think having reasonable and deep motivations and not being pure evil are two different things. IMO pure evil characters can be interesting, if their character is logical.
For example, Blackbeard or Imu from One Piece both can be described as two different variations of pure evil. They are imo both interesting because of the way Oda is using them.
One of them is a foil of Luffy, but he lacks luffy's morality and emotional intelligence. He is very unpredictable though. He has his ideas, his goals, which are, in a way, very similar to Luffy's, but when Luffy is pursuing his dreams by helping others pursue theirs, Blackbeard's approach is completly selfish. It's an interesting dichotomy. Both of them grow at the same time, both of them shake the world. Blackbeard is in a way an Anti-Protagonist of the story.
Imu on the other hand is a personification of both mystery and darkness of the world. It was shown time and time again how sickening this world is. Imu is used in a way to be a figurative avatar of this darkness. He is a face that allows readers to see that all of those tragedies weren't just caused by situation that couldn't be avoided. They were results of decisions of de facto one individual. They do not need to be complex themself, they don't even need to be present. They are just a way to give the world, which is a true antagonist of this story, a face. And this makes them compeling.
I'm not really familiar with "One Piece", so I can't speak about the characters directly but you're your main argument of "deep motivations and not being pure evil are two different things" isn't something I necessarily would disagree with.
Pure evil characters can still be compelling when well-integrated into the narrative, absolutely. You can do almost anything in writing (regardless how prevalent the advice against it is) IF the execution is done well :)
So I'm not surprised if there are good examples out there. It is very easy as well though - especially as a new fantasy writer - to end up with bland and lacking villains when simply shooting for the pure evil trope.
Favorite is gotta be Darth Vader. Everyone in the Star Wars Galaxy fears him, even Palpatine to some extent.
Here is a question based on these mistakes. What if the antagonist is not the main antagonist? What if the main antagonist is a force of nature (Let's say the main antagonist that pushes the plot is the civil war currently surrounding the characters) Since they are not the one who is the main drive, yet they stand in the way of the person how does that influence them when it comes to these. Because some of these mistakes wouldn't fit a secondary antagonist considering how much must be spent on the force of nature antagonist.
From my POV, that would heavily depend on whether or not the second antagonist has any connection to the main antagonist (the civil war) or not?
The current main Antagonist I'm working with suffers from various birth defects and whose innate magical strength is often considered on the weaker side by the magic community, mostly because of its lack of power to brute force solutions compared to the other magics. The Antagonist is indebted to the true Villain of the story, as they were the only one who accepted them as they were.
The Antagonist presents a threat to the Protagonist through their mastery of Alchemy, Artificing, and Enchanting that they have acquired over their prolonged life. Their deep involvement in the formation of the current magic society offers them access to rare resources and vast networks of political influence.
Their objective is to revive the Villain back into the world and reap vengeance against those who killed his only true friend. In order for his plan to work, he has to break the Six Great Seals of the world that were placed by the gods, in order to release those who he wishes to take revenge upon.
The Protagonist suffers the misfortune of being one of the keystones required to break one of the Six Great Seals, as their innate magic links them to one the prisoners. Their failure in the hero's journey will not only result in their death, but also the collapse of the known world and the enslavement of both gods and mortals alike by the Villain.
So your protagonist dies and the bad guys win? :)
What / Who are your favorite antagonists of all time? :)
My most hated antagonist of all time is The Mule from Foundation. I have not touched that story/series in over a third of a century and just the thought of him still churns my stomach into a knot. ... My favorite is Emperor Palpatine. By the time one assembles all of his successes from the prequel series in his rise via manipulation, seeing his actual power that he keeps hidden and prefers not to use, then reigning supreme for decades, the level of arrogance and sadism on display by the end is earned. Yet for all of that success via evil, he cannot smother out the last bits of good in the heart of the one he manipulated and dominated the most, and so he falls.
@@robertthomas6363What's your take on Palpatine returning in the most recent movies? :)
@@TheTaleTinkerer I have not watched them, so I don't have a legit opinion. From what I know, it looks like bad writing. How could I not want to consume more of my favorite villain? Discernment. The best place right now to find quality entertainment is with a trusted author.
@@robertthomas6363Personally, I think that Palpatine returning - especially how - was incredibly badly done, yes. So would have been interesting to hear from a Palpatine fan about this - but maybe better you haven't seen them :)
Sauron. Or, more precisely, the contrasting will and motivation between Sauron and Morgoth, too different kind of "Pure Evil", with Sauron being the genesis of the "Dark Lord trope", which is only bad because people understood LOTR only in surface.
First of all, we see Sauron's POV at exactly only one moment during the books, but it confirms what Gandalf has been saying about him throughout the books.
Sauron's mind is entirely turned to control. He has the mind of industry, of totalitarian and surnatural dominion over the minds of those he rule over. The forging of the Ring was in fact a plan to control the minds of those who would wield the Ring, and through them control all of Middle-Earth's people. And power, to him, is exactly that: Control, which brings order. Power, as a means, becomes an end in itself, and Sauron is so consumed by his lust for power that he can't even fathom the idea that the Free People of Middle-Earth might want to destroy the Ring. During all of the books, he thinks that either Gandalf or Isildur's heir might want to claim the Ring and beat him with it, taking his place. And he's afraid of that. All his thoughts are going toward preventing that. And in the end, his inhability to think like people who are free makes it so Frodo can withstand the corrupting influence of the Ring long enough for Providence to play its part.
But Sauron's lust for power is even more interesting when you put it into contrast with Morgoth.
Morgoth was Sauron's master. The literal devil: He was the greatest of the Valar, but his pride made him want to rule Arda instead of following Eru's plan. And since he couldn't, he threw a tantrum and turned to destructive (and self-destructive) nihilism. Since the other Valar's work in Arda was Eru's work, he started destroying it just for the sake of destruction.
In his pride and fall, he took with him many Maiar. Among them, Mairon, who became Sauron. Sauron, although an absolute evil himself, never came to the destructive nihilism of Morgoth, but served him, as he saw in him the greatest power there is, and saw power as a mean to bring order to the world. But as power and the will to dominate is unnatural and evil, all evil can do is destroy, corrupt and mock. It cannot create. Evil can generate the great industries of Barad-Dur and Orthanc, but that industry continuously destroys nature and can only pollute and defile.
But in the end, Eucatastrophy ensues and while those beings try to rebel against the work of Eru Illuvatar, in the end they still unwittingly serve His purpose.
What if the antagonist is a god, where the characters have little possibility to gain insight into its true motives?
Sounds like a force of nature.
As @ethancoster1324 mentioned, "Force of Nature" can be a fitting label. So could things like "Cosmic Force" or "Primordal Being".
When your antagonist is a god or a being with seemingly inscrutable motives, it presents a unique storytelling challenge. However, this scenario also offers a rich vein of narrative depth to explore. Here are a few approaches to consider from my POV:
Intermediaries: You could use characters or factions that serve or interpret the god's will. These intermediaries can provide insights into the god's motives, even if they interpret them in varied or conflicting ways.
Myths and Legends: You could introduce myths, legends, or prophecies within your world that hint at the god's past actions, desires, and potential weaknesses. This not only builds your world but also offers clues to the god's motivations.
Personal Impact: You could show how the god's actions directly affect the characters and the world. Even if the god's motives remain mysterious, the consequences of their actions can drive the story and character development.
Moral or Ethical Dilemmas: You could frame the god's actions as part of a larger moral or ethical question that the characters must navigate. This can turn the inscrutable into a profound exploration of values and beliefs.
I hope this gives some inspiration :)
Sounds a bit Lovecraftian.