Villainy

[Barry Arrowsmith]

No: HPFGUIDX 109355

Dunno about you but I'm disappointed in Voldy.
Seems to be more caricature than character.
More cardboard cut-out than cut-throat.
Which is a bit surprising; JKR's pulled off a deliciously nasty piece 
of work in Snape but seemed unable to go a step  further and produce an 
equally convincing evil mastermind.
No wonder that in her web-cast in March JKR said that his future 
appearances would be sparse and that his minions would be scuttling 
about doing the dirty work at his behest.

Most off us have read and enjoyed  the 'Evil Overlord' list - the two 
hundred plus rules on how to stay at the top (and incidentally a useful 
guide to writers on what plot elements to avoid if you want a 
believable baddy and a resolution that isn't bulging at the seams with 
cliches). Admittedly most of the rules were devised for SF villains, 
though many are applicable to Fantasy or indeed  any form of fiction 
that feature would-be global tyrants.

The problem is that most villains are set up to lose; it's a given - 
evil never triumphs, and it won't in HP either. No matter how powerful 
and intelligent, no matter that he has overwhelming technological (or 
magical) advantage and an army of ruthless killers at his beck and 
call, it makes no difference. Even if the hero has nothing but a bent 
pocket knife and a piece of string, the baddy goes down.

To do this the author must force him into committing egregious or even 
farcical mistakes. He has to - otherwise how could he  possibly lose? 
The hero may be oath-sworn, with a heart  filled with goodness and 
compassion; a song on his lips and with clean underpants and 
everything, but that doesn't stop a bullet, death-ray, AK or stab in 
the back - in RL that is - in fantasy it's a different story.

Way back before WW I,  might even have been in the Victorian era, there 
was a competition. A scenario was provided - the hero was chained hand 
and foot at the bottom of a deep, vertically sided pit with no ladder 
or hand-holds, the bottom was heaving with poisonous snakes and 
crocodiles, water was flooding in from a broken water main and a 
time-bomb was ticking. There was a prize for the best escape scenario 
submitted. The winner?
"With one bound our hero was free."

OK, HP isn't that bad, but there have been episodes where a nasty as 
truly evil as Voldy is supposed to be would walked away with a smile on 
his face and with a warm glow resulting from the knowledge of a job 
well done.

He's aware of part of the Prophecy, he thinks Harry could be his 
nemesis, he's tried to kill Harry once at GH (or at least we presume 
so) and time and again Harry falls into his clutches. What happens? 
Voldy farts around, posturing and preening and eventually falls flat on 
his face. It's almost embarrassing. He's giving evil a bad name. Why be 
frightened of the bogey-man when he's as incompetent as this?

I aired most of my gripes on the action scenes in post 108316; no point 
in repeating them, so this time I'll consider what makes an evil 
mastermind make the grade.

Firstly -  he must have ambitions that make sense.
Voldy needs to sort out  his priorities here.
He wants to be immortal. ( Why? What is the point? To any thinking 
person immortality isn't a boon, it's a curse. It might be 
understandable if he was going to do something with all that time; 
travel the galaxies, meet strange aliens, feed them to Nagini. Not this 
one -  he's staying at home.)

In PS/SS getting hold of the Stone is his priority, Harry seems to be 
an accidental stumbling block to his plan.
Thereafter he turns his attention on Harry. But if he stuck to his 
plan, gained true immortality while in the meantime avoiding young 
Potter then Harry becomes an irrelevance. And he'd save himself an 
awful lot of trouble if he stopped bashing his head against the same 
brick wall time after time.

What are his wider ambitions?  In reality we only have a vague idea, 
and that from Hagrid, " Getting  supporters.....Taking things over." A 
bit vague for a manifesto. And since I can't remember Voldy coming out 
with any of the standard give-away phrases during any 
foaming-at-the-mouth carpet-chewing episodes; it makes you wonder if 
Hagrid's to be trusted in this.

According to JKR (or so I've been told) he wants to *yawn* rule the 
world. Oh dear. No chance. In other  tales there's always this McGuffin 
thingy -  a ring, an amulet, the bicycle clips of power, that enable 
you to make others "bend to your will," whatever that  means. But it 
generally works on a wholesale basis. Wear it and whole nations grovel. 
This time there's Voldy  and a few dozen half-assed half-wits with 
delusions of adequacy who can't even subdue half a dozen school kids 
without cocking it up.

Nah. Spiteful and targeted revenge for imagined childhood slights is 
one thing -  stretching it to a lust for world domination is a bit 
much,  even in these days of ersatz pop psychology.

As presented in the books Voldy isn't a world threat, he's a local 
problem. In the 5  years covered by the books Voldy and his acolytes 
have killed about 20 (if you include the 13 Muggles). Hardly impressive 
from the most evil coterie around, is it? Voldy as a renegade in a 
small, hidden sub-section of society that works on a different basis to 
ours is fine. Expanding into the RW where RW systems and logic are our 
everyday currency is a mistake IMO.

More limited ambitions do not equate to lower levels of evil;
  there are plenty of examples in fiction and the RW, from Vlad Tepes, 
or better yet Countess Bathory (a truly breath-taking monster, 
?monstress?), and going through to the leaders of small cults. "The 
Wicker Man", anyone?

So -  an outline for an evil villain:-

Understandable and/or credible ambitions that appear  achievable.

An original motivation that rings true (animus to your father turning 
one into a world tyrant just doesn't hack it).

Intelligence in the villain predicates intelligent actions within the 
plot. For example punishing a messenger because he brings bad news is 
stupid and counter-productive. Even worse, not using a wand when you've 
got one in your hand.

Why concentrate solely on the hero? Why not knock off the hero's  
friends and supporters? That really would be evil and there are too 
many Weasleys anyway.

Nasty habits that chime with primitive personal fears. War doesn't do 
it, it's not aimed at you the reader *personally*; but imagining being 
ripped open and having your heart eaten can make your toes curl. So 
could selling Ginny to the Goblins as sushi-on-the-hoof, but 
controlling Belgium is a yawn.

Ranting and posturing is out. Cold and implacable is in.
He might be  a nutter, but if he doesn't *appear* to be reasonable 
how's he going to attract followers?

Potential problems will be foreseen and taken into account.
He's supposed to be bright, isn't he?

If he intends "taking over" he must have some idea of why he wants it 
and what he's going to do with it when he's got it. Anybody know? It 
would help greatly if the reader knew what it was that Harry was 
actually saving from his evil clutches.

If he captures or corners the hero,  expect the hero to die except in 
*very* exceptional one-off circumstances. (The conflict of wands works 
for Harry vs Voldy;  Harry also escaping the ravening horde of DEs 
doesn't wash.)

You can probably  think of more attributes  that would enhance the 
chill factor or maybe you think Voldy  is perfectly  satisfactory as he 
is. Personally I hoped for more. Bloodless deaths are bad enough when 
you're a committed FEATHERBOA.   (After all we know there are 
spells/potions that can turn folk inside-out;   why not use them?) And 
a really lip-smackingly evil villain isn't  too much to ask for, is it?

Kneasy