Essence Of: Question Thread!

[Karuka]

Ladies... Gentlemen. Cats, cads, and everyone in between! Thanks to your feedback and support, Essence Of is going forward!

Many thanks to BaBE, our prettiest plant monster, for continuing to produce this show. I'm hoping to make it bi-weekly. This thread is for our Q&A.

If you'd like to be on Essence Of or have us discuss a particular topic, please volunteer and/or make suggestions!

Episode 1: Essence of Roleplaying - co-starring BlackAndBlueEyes (http://www.althanas.com/world/showthread.php?30674-Althanas-Community-Radio-Presents-The-Essence-Of-Roleplaying)
Episode 2: Essence of Setting - co-starring Flames of Hyperion (http://www.althanas.com/world/showthread.php?30755-Essence-Of-Setting)
Episode 3: Essence of Plot - co-starring Gnarl and Root (http://www.althanas.com/world/showthread.php?30799-Essence-Of-Plot)
Episode 4: Essence of Villains - co-starring Kryos and Storm Veritas (http://www.althanas.com/world/showthread.php?30851-Essence-Of-Villains)

Episode 4 questions:
1) What do you feel makes a great villain?
2) How do you utilize villains in your stories?
3) If you write a villainous protagonist, how do you strike a balance between their actions and their palatability to your audience?

[Shinsou Vaan Osiris]

I would like to put my name forward to be a guest on the show. If you'll have me, anyway.

[BlackAndBlueEyes]

I am the prettiest plant monster? :3

http://pa1.narvii.com/5702/b033a82541bd649ebcd03f03de920e662319a239_hq.gif

[Karuka]

Check post one for questions!

[Medeia]

What is setting to you?

Setting is the time and surroundings in which your story takes place. It affects everything from mood to dialect, regional quirks, and how your characters interact with one another. It defines and gives dimension to your story, taking literature from written words, to a submersion in a character's life. Without a proper setting, personal connections and an overall feeling of empathy for your characters becomes almost impossible to create with your readers.

What is enough setting, as opposed to too much?

In my opinion, enough setting allows your readers to create a mental picture of the background you are dropping your character into without subtracting or distracting from the story itself. Too much definition becomes bulky and difficult to power through and you never want your reader to feel that way. Prime example: Robert Jordan. While I love his work, (I really do. The WoT series is and will probably always be one of my favorites.), oftentimes his descriptions of places were too detailed, and I found my interest flagging until he dug back into the story.

How do you apply setting in your own work?

I try to walk the tightrope between descriptive and abstract setting. I try to give enough so that a reader is given a good visualization of my characters' surroundings, without becoming too long-winded and blustering. It's not exactly an art I've perfected yet, but it's one I am steadily working at improving. My idea of a perfect setting would let my reader submerse themselves in my world, without ever realizing I was ever there in the first place.

[Shinsou Vaan Osiris]

What is setting to you?

Setting is a key framework and consists of an important mixture of different interconnecting catagories: time period, physical (or sometimes virtual) surroundings and culture and lore. All of these combined factors allow a person to create a setting for a story. The quality of a setting depends very much on the level of detail a person is prepared to go in to.

What is enough setting, as opposed to too much?

The key to creating a good setting is to strike a fine balance between having too much and having too little information. After all, the aim of your writing should be to pull in and engross the reader. They should be able to visualise the scene around them from the information you provide. But, and this is the hard bit, you need to tell them what's relevant. For example, when I created Telgradia, I created an entire planet. On a planet there are ecosystems, wildlife, races, religeons and cultures of which are simply too massive to explore within the writing. So, I narrowed it down to what was relevant to the story: if a character is strolling through Garah, Telgradia's capital city, I limit the information provided to what the buildings look like, what the importance is of some of the more relevant ones, and the type of people who live there. Perhaps also any recent history that has had an effect or shows a change in attitudes or lifestyles. No-one cares what type of fruit or vegetable you can find there, so only include whatever information applies.

How do you apply setting in your own work?

There's probably a bit of overlap with my second answer here, but I stick to relevant information. If I am describing a scene, I like to make sure that the reader can feel and see what Shinsou can. If there is frost on the ground, all the leaves will crunch if he steps on them. If he is having a fight in a tavern, I want the reader to visualise the chaos of bar stools shattering against people's skulls or the walls. I want the smell of beer wafting through the air, or the feeling of sticky shoes peeling off the stained wooden floors. Pull in your reader, make him or her feel like they are stood in the forest, or sat at the bar, or on the edge of that cliff. If I am describing something on a larger scale such as Telgradia, I like to open with visualisations - what is the weather like? Is it hot or cold? What do the buildings look like? What is the recent history of the place and how does that lead my character into the story he is telling? All of these things are so important and to make a good setting you need all of them in there.

[hoytti]

1) What is setting to you?

Setting is scenery. What is going on around your character at any given time.
2) What is enough setting, as opposed to too much?

A basic setting should include any distinguishing feature that is important to the landscape, whether it is a certain type of tree, a stange looking person, a mysterious building, a strangly shaped rock, or even a beautiful lake, as long as it can help place your character that is all that matters.
3) How do you apply setting in your own work?

I have trouble with this sometimes, I tend to want to get right to the action and skimp out on the setting, I build the setting as my character interacts with it. but since my character doesn't tend to interact wit scenery I don't usually have a setting. which I always get doct of.

[Kellai]

What is setting to you?
The “setting” provides a character with its vital context. It is the time, the place, the stage, the weather--even the flavor--by which a character gains depth and relevance. It is the backdrop in which a reader, or a viewer, can revel. As such, the setting is as vital to the overall story as the character itself is, and yet it should also never supersede either story or the character.

What is enough setting, as opposed to too much?
As others have said already, there is a fine line between “too little” and “enough,” and again between “enough” and “too much.” Additionally, depending on the world a writer is pulling from, whether it be one that is already established or one that the writer invents, that fine line is again obscured by relevancy. If, for instance, a writer is inventing a whole new world with its own laws of physics, s/he should definitely spend some time explaining them; but, s/he should do so in a way that compels the story further (rather than diverting from it). And that’s the key.

How do you apply setting in your own work?
As far as my own work goes: I tend to stay within the realm of my characters’ psyches (because role playing is my chance to explore psyches different from my own). So, depending on the character, I try to stay true to how they see the world around them. Sometimes, that means I paint a very tongue-in-cheek picture of what the character finds annoying. Sometimes, it means I have to get a little nerdier/arsty-fartsy with it. Sometimes, it’s just the necessities.

[Skie and Avery]

I find that the style I prefer to write with is more brief and introspective, so I tend to just focus on important setting details - sensory detailing that helps to create atmosphere or symbolic elements.

[The Mongrel]

Reminder to answer questions! We love answers!

[Kryos]

1) What is setting to you?

Setting is the key for any story, for without it, you only have a stream of consciousness. The setting can range from actual physical location, such as the tundra of Salvar to the towns of Scara Brae, the the situations and motivations behind character action. This differentiates how someone such as Madison Freebird would have an adventure differently in the same location than, say, Luna the Seaborn.

2) What is enough setting, as opposed to too much?

Enough setting will paint a vivid picture in the minds eye while allowing room for the reader to fill in the gaps. This is something I have always enjoyed about reading, that different people are able to have the freedom to visualize slightly different scenes even though they all understand the key elements and flow of the story.

Too much setting will bog down the pacing of the thread, and will be different depending on the setting. Walking into a new city at sunrise may have rich and detailed descriptions that allow the reader to feel awe and wonder through beautiful descriptions and more wordy techniques. In the thick of battle, brief and to the point descriptions would serve the story better.

3) How do you apply setting in your own work?

I would think that I tend to be partial to the setting of character circumstance and development. I try to illustrate motivations and progression. However, I also always try to find ways to have characters interact with the physical setting that they may find themselves in, making use of the unique features of each location. Direct, and creative/insightful, ways of interacting with setting helps weave setting throughout the story.

[The Mongrel]

Thank you to everyone who has responded thus far. Everyone else, please get your answers in by noon EST on Sunday! Essence Of's format demands prep work, and I might not see later answers in time. :)

[redford]

1) What is setting to you?
Setting is, to me, the surroundings, much like the stage upon which actors play their parts. Included in this is all that it entails, and integral part of setting is the character's relation to it. If I put a nobleman in the setting of a seedy bar that caters to drunks, there is an element of setting that is not purely the surroundings. This is an important aspect, especially when writing in first person because perception of the setting is important as well.

2) What is enough setting, as opposed to too much?
There is a fine line to walk when building a setting. Too much, and the piece becomes bulky and cumbersome. Too little, and your characters act in a void. Myself, I try to use elements of setting that invoke more than one element. Building a setting isn't so much dropping a scene on the reader so much as guiding them to it, per se. I try to describe important things, but to the appropriately imaginative reader, all I have to do is paint the world with broad strokes, and their imagination will provide the details.

3) How do you apply setting in your own work?
I try to provide as little setting as possible in my work. I attempt to give the reader a starting point, and then guide them toward a vivid mental image. I try to use descriptions that invoke more setting, and more reader immersion, something like,

"The bar wad dark, smoky, and filled with only vague whispers and the clink of liquor filled glass"

Immediately the reader is transported to a scene with this sentence. It may not be exactly what I envision, but the setting I have set up is still vivid in the reader''s mind, and that is what is important.

[Karuka]

Ladies... Gentlemen. Cats, cads, and everyone in between! Thanks to your feedback and support, Essence Of is going forward!

Many thanks to BaBE, our prettiest plant monster, for continuing to produce this show. I'm hoping to make it bi-weekly.

If you'd like to be on Essence Of or have us discuss a particular topic, please volunteer and/or make suggestions!

Episode 1: Essence of Roleplaying - co-starring BlackAndBlueEyes (http://www.althanas.com/world/showthread.php?30674-Althanas-Community-Radio-Presents-The-Essence-Of-Roleplaying)
Episode 2: Essence of Setting - co-starring Flames of Hyperion (http://www.althanas.com/world/showthread.php?30755-Essence-Of-Setting)

Episode 3 questions:
1) How do you define plot?
2) How do you develop plots in your own stories?
3) What are the pros and cons you see in plotting (coming up with your storyline before writing your first post) and "pantsing" (writing the story and seeing where it goes)?

Episode three records on Sunday! I will be discussing plot with our very own Gnarl and Root, and we would love your input! Questions are above and in the first post. Remember, we read your answers on this podcast, and they fuel our conversation! We'd love to feature your thoughts!

[hoytti]

How do you define plot?
Plot is the story. It is what happens when, where, why, how, and to who.
How do you develop plots in your own stories?
I usually get a basic idea about what I want to happen then I let my character run the show. For example, in my current story "Disease in the City of Wishes" I know what I want Grond to do. However, how he does it is a complete mystery to me as I don't have a full plot set up for him yet. The plot builds as I go.
What are the pros and cons you see in plotting?
Pros: you know how it will go and know how it will end
Cons: you can get stuck trying to force what you have and make the story more ridged.
What are the pros and cons you see in pantsing?
Pos: you are free to do with as you wish and the story seems more realistic.
Cons: you will probably throw away 3/4ths of the material you write.

[SirArtemis]

Episode 3 questions:

1) How do you define plot?
I suppose plot to me is sort of the glue of the pieces of writing. You have the infrastructure of a story with the setting, the lore, the history, the culture. You have the characters that operate within this world, and amongst themselves, creating tension and conflict through their own emotional drive. And you have the reasons for things happening as they do with respect to all of these things. Plot is the glue that binds the reasons/motivations of the world/characters together to create an outcome, whatever that outcome may be.


2) How do you develop plots in your own stories?
Often times I try to create relationships between people and play on the motivations of characters within the world. For example, one tournament gone astray caused Artemis to try to seal away a demon, at the risk of his life, because it was the virtuous thing to do. He tried to escape Corone for his safety only to find himself in a war and found himself constantly in conflict with what to do, because he knew battle and war had no correct side - only a side that you were on. Asking questions of the characters and their motives often helps me move plot forward along the track of whatever idea/goal I had in mind that I thought was cool.


3) What are the pros and cons you see in plotting (coming up with your storyline before writing your first post) and "pantsing" (writing the story and seeing where it goes)?
I think a mix of both is the best approach. When plotting too much I feel you may restrict yourself to a very rigid and forced outcome. Then again, something that's completely freeform may lack structure and motivation and leave the reader uncommitted. Giving your reader a hook, the same hook that gave the writer the hook to write it in the first place, can help create something that evolves on its own and that the author is just as unsure of the outcome as the reader is. I know that sometimes makes things like technique difficult, like tactfully placing foreshadowing, but not necessarily. In the end, the characters are the ones who have to make the choices, and if the author tries to force their character against their nature it shows to a reader.

[Bard]

Plot is known as the foundation of a novel or story which the characters and settings are built around. It is meant to organize information and events in a logical manner. When writing the plot of a piece of literature, the author has to be careful that it does not dominate the other parts of the story. There are five main elements in a plot. The first is the exposition or the introduction. This is known as the beginning of the story where characters and setting are established. The conflict or main problem is introduced as well. The second element of a plot is known as the rising action which occurs when a series of events build up to the conflict. The main characters are established by the time the rising action of a plot occurs and at the same time, events begin to get complicated. It is during this part of a story that excitement, tension or crisis is encountered. The third element of a plot is known as the climax or the main point of the plot. This is the turning point of the story and is meant to be the moment of highest interest and emotion. The reader wonders what is going to happen next. The fourth element of a plot is known as falling action or the winding up of the story. Events and complications begin to resolve and the result of actions of the main characters are put forward. The last element of a plot is the resolution or the conclusion. It is the end of a story and ends with either a happy or a tragic ending.

2. I start all threads, chapters, stories, what have you, by thinking of the first assumption, then take it to its logical conclusion, while holding for other guiding assumptions such as personality and the irrational rationalizations common to human kind.

3. The major strength of the plotted thread is, frankly its the way I always approach writing, which I've only attempted to not do once, which was here, and the open thread is still open, and dead as the three by five floppy. Now, I don't plot everything out completely mind, especially not with threads that I'm in with others, and especially not where I'm a supporting character, but I need to have some overarching concepts in mind for my character within the thread, and almost always do.

[Artifex Felicis]

1) How do you define plot?
Plot's a silly thing, and I usually just say it is "the things that occur in a story." Plot's also an incredibly neutral term to me, and I dislike a lot of the baggage associated. I use it as short hand for what I actually think, since it's a really pedantic difference. I do not consider nor expect the plot of any story or thread to be particularly complicated or "deep" in the sense many people talk about.

I care much more about the delivery and execution of a story than what actually happens during it, and plot's an easy way to describe it. I just make it a point to divorce the plot from its own execution, and to treat them as two different thing. A good plot is one that is well executed, and a bad plot is one that is not.

To put it another way, there's a reason why even a "tired old plot" movie like Star Wars can resonant so soundly with people, while another "bursting at the seams plot" movie like Jupiter Ascending can be mostly forgotten.

2) How do you develop plots in your own stories?
I personally often set goal posts, and work post by post to fill it in. Since I utilize a writing processor that facilitates it, my workflow often involves setting up the goal post for each segment or post, and I write within them to fill them out. Sort of a combination Flash card into full post set up.
http://i.imgur.com/qt5x4V2.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/N2cd7G7.png

3) What are the pros and cons you see in plotting (coming up with your storyline before writing your first post) and "pantsing" (writing the story and seeing where it goes)?
Depends, there's big benifets to both, so I'll focus on the two biggest cons of each method. Fully plotting out a story to its last detail often ends up making the story feel stiff and almost forced. By contrast, a fully pants'd story could end up falling apart because nothing really connects.

The big pros to both are obvious, both complete control to fully plotting everything out, or just the sheer amount of character you can get from pants-ing a storyline along. It's entirely a personal preference for what people would lean towards.

There's a good article that describes the two extremes as the Gardener and the Architect (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/749309-i-think-there-are-two-types-of-writers-the-architects).

[Storm Veritas]

Took me some time to figure out you were updating the first post here. Yeah, I'm not very bright.

Episode 3 questions:
1) How do you define plot?

Plot is the stuff that happens; the journey described in each thread/story.

2) How do you develop plots in your own stories?

If Althanas itself is an exercise in the development of the character we invent, developing the plot is planning a few brush strokes in painting the picture of the character. I usually set out for any given thread looking to develop the character, be it through a battle, a quest, or simple conversation. Each plot is the track laid to get to an end goal; even if it isn't a specific ACTION, I always need to come out with a result that sets the direction for the character to move forward from. Once the end goal is set up, then you can easily work backwards to understand interesting, reasonable, and readable steps that bring you forward to a satisfying experience.

3) What are the pros and cons you see in plotting (coming up with your storyline before writing your first post) and "pantsing" (writing the story and seeing where it goes)?

Every solo I have written is fully fleshed out prior to writing. It allows the writer to have a much better plan to avoid redundancies, drags or races forward in pacing, remain focused, and execute more seamlessly.

Conversely, I -hate- to completely plan out the entire thread in detail with a writing partner. I think it sort of stifles the creativity of each writer if they know the entirety of what their partner is going to do next; by allowing the partner to progress the story logically on their own, it forces you to pivot and create more on the fly.

The big downside to this banter is that it can stifle or kill threads, as some writers just punt if they don't like how the plot has moved and that makes me insane.

[Kryos]

1) How do you define plot?

Plot entails the events and development that takes place within a story. It is probably that which is remembered with ease down the road after the story has been read. In addition, plot is unique to and dependent upon the characters and the setting. In other words, if one started out with a specific plot in mind, but the characters or setting changed, then the resulting plot would be similar, but different.

2) How do you develop plots in your own stories?

I personally develop my plots around my characters. Here on Althanas, it is all about Kryos and his story. In general, I try to find one or two key points in their story and build "arcs" around them. For Kryos, it is all about redemption. Within this theme, there are two specific turning points that will have huge ramifications and changes that will shape his character. Thus, every thread that I do, and certainly every solo, will have progression along these arcs. This also allows flexibility in how the actual threads play out, in terms of setting, other characters, and specific ideas I want to illustrate along the way. For instance, currently Kryos is with the Dread Lord furthering necromancy. When I started, I never would have considered this or thought it would be possible, but as things played out, both in Althanas and in real life, it is super exciting for me to see.

To put it simply, my plots are driven by character development. I also use a process and resources much like Artifex's example in the posts previous.

3) What are the pros and cons you see in plotting (coming up with your storyline before writing your first post) and "pantsing" (writing the story and seeing where it goes)?

Plotting: I think that it is very important to at least have a basic, skeletal idea of plot before starting any story, unless the goal is to have no plot and see where things go (which can be super fun :) ). But, having at least an idea of what is going to happen will give structure to each post and immensely help with pacing.

Pantsing: Can be super fun with the right group of people and if by yourself. It allows new avenues to be explored that wouldn't necessarily have been seen with a more structured plot, and those roads can lead to wonderful and surprising results.

In general, I think that having some plotting done beforehand, but not going overboard on either one will bring about the best results. Having that balance of structure, as well as freedom for the unexpected to happen, is the recipe for memorable, even legendary, tales.


I am looking forward to the podcast!

Edit #1 concerning the next post:

Note that I tend to take a very methodical approach to writing, and that I tend to think of my individual threads as but pieces in a much larger legendarium.

Legendarium????? That absolutely must be the coolest word I've seen in a long time.

[Flames of Hyperion]

Note that I tend to take a very methodical approach to writing, and that I tend to think of my individual threads as but pieces in a much larger legendarium.

1) How do you define plot?

At its simplest level, I define plot as an interconnected hierarchy / series of conflicts and resolutions, that together tell a story. One step in a plot takes a given set of settings and characters and transforms it into something different, with new sources of conflict and possible resolutions. The plot as a whole takes a starting set of settings and characters on a journey until a convenient ending point.

2) How do you develop plots in your own stories?

I tend to develop plots on three interconnected levels. The first is on the story level - what is the conflict in this setting, and what roles do my characters play in resolving it? The second is on the character level - what development are my characters gaining from this particular story? What is the conflict that they're dealing with, how are they going to resolve it, how are they going to change as a person afterwards, and what effect is it going to have on their relationships with other characters? And finally, I think on a meta level - how does this story fit into my world as a whole? How does it resolve previous conflicts? How is it going to affect future storylines?

Based on these three levels, I identify key events within the thread. I can then start spotting locations, supporting characters, foreshadowing, sub-conflicts, etc., weaving them together so that they follow the logic of the world and the story that I want to tell.

3) What are the pros and cons you see in plotting (coming up with your storyline before writing your first post) and "pantsing" (writing the story and seeing where it goes)?

As my personal goal is to weave everything I write into a coherent and epic overarching narrative, I've rarely if ever "pantsed" before. I've never considered rigidity an issue, because it's a natural part of my workflow to work from the "must" events downwards. If I want to rewrite a minor event, that's easy enough; if I for some reason decide that one of these "must" events doesn't work, then it's worth taking the time to rethink that thread in detail. Working this way allows me to eliminate as many inconsistencies and plot errors as possible before I start writing.

Like Storm, though, I plan a lot less when I write with a partner because I don't know their characters as well as I know mine, and some people just aren't comfortable with the amount of preparation that I'm prepared to put into a story (I don't blame them!).

It's possible that "pantsing" a thread might allow you to come up with off-the-cuff inspiration that you otherwise might not have. I generally find, though, that planning out a thread in advance actually gives you more opportunity for such inspiration because you're spending just that much more time thinking about the conflicts, the characters, the setting, the resolutions. I agree with Kryos that it might work with the right group of people, and with others that it might be more fun if you don't have a defined outcome in mind. Unfortunately or not, that's never been the case with my threads.

[Bard]

Flames I'm very glad you said that, as some people thought I was crazy when I said that when I joined.

[Karuka]

One hour left to get your answers in for this week's show!

[Kryos]

Just seconding my appreciation of Flames' answers. Hit it on the head.

[Karuka]

Episode 4 questions:
1) What do you feel makes a great villain?
2) How do you utilize villains in your stories?
3) If you write a villainous protagonist, how do you strike a balance between their actions and their palatability to your audience?

Episode 4 records in roughly a couple of weeks!

[orphans]

1) What do you feel makes a great villain?
I want to start off by saying I do not believe in "good and evil" as I feel those terms are used by where your stand in life, objective and perspective. With that said, I feel a great villain is one that is competent, methodical and perhaps one that can even inspire empathy from his/her foes. For example, Letho Ravenhart would have been as a villain during the Corone Civil War from the eyes of the Empire, yes?

2) How do you utilize villains in your stories?
Villains rarely become as such overnight and could have started out as anyone else in the world. What journey they ultimately took to get there is what defines them. As the reader, one may not see or even learn of it, but as a writer I think it is important to consider where they are coming from and have a solid understanding as to why the villain does what they do.

3) If you write a villainous protagonist, how do you strike a balance between their actions and their palatability to your audience?
I would write them as I would as any other character. They have their own dreams, wishes, fears, loves, and hatreds of their own. Most villains are considered as such because their methods do not conform to society's acceptance. The path to hell is paved with good intentions. Or so they say.

[Jarilo]

In trying to answer the below questions, I decided to make a list of all of my favorite villains to try and see what common themes/traits they all shared. The list is as follows: Tywin Lannister (ASoIaF), Petyr Baelish (ASoIaF), Roose Bolton (ASoIaF), Orochimaru (Naruto), Hajime Saito (Rurouni Kenshin), Handsome Jack (Borderlands), Crowley (Supernatural), Magneto (X-Men), Q (Star Trek), the Monster ('The Deadlands'), Coyote (Native American mythos), Lady Macbeth (Macbeth).

I also spent some time delving TV Tropes Villains (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Villains), to make my answers more universally understandable.

1) What do you feel makes a great villain?
Based on the list of villains I've listed above, I tend to respond more to Affably Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil)/Ambiguously Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AmbiguouslyEvil), or the Magnificent Bastard (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagnificentBastard). Archetype-wise, that means I enjoy the Trickster (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheTrickster?from=Main.TricksterArchetype) a lot, as well as the classic interpretation of the Fair Folk (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFairFolk).

In other words, to me, "good villains" blend the lines between good and evil. They are cunning, witty, savvy, and they tend of have a sense of humor. They are charismatic and relatable, they have their own values/ambitions/loyalties, but they are also ruthless when the need arises. They are artful in their villainy, intentionally or no--sometimes even more so than a hero to his/her heroism. In terms of alignment, my favorite villains are always on the Neutral spectrum, rather than Chaotic. Absolutes are never fun.

2) How do you utilize villains in your stories?
I try to keep my villains pretty close to the aforementioned archetypes, because I think it makes for a more compelling narrative overall. As I said above, rather than an absolute Chaotic/Good character, its a lot more satisfying to "sink your teeth" into a villain that makes you question things. After all, in the real world, Good and Evil is not a binary, or an either-or. Its a spectrum, a give-and-take.

3) If you write a villainous protagonist, how do you strike a balance between their actions and their palatability to your audience?
For me, the best way to do this is always to stay as true to the character as I can. Understand what makes him/her the villainous protagonist, and write their POV accordingly. The audience, while important, is much less important than the character's authenticity.

[SirArtemis]

1) What do you feel makes a great villain?

I think the definition is a really excellent place to start: a cruel, malicious person. Someone who really creates strong emotion in the reader due to their actions, and continues to bristle the reader. The most interesting villains for me though are the ones that sort of rattle the reader, in the sense that they are the antagonist but not clearly the villain at times. Where you aren't quite sure what judgment to make of them, and you almost have to guess.


2) How do you utilize villains in your stories?

Villains to me are not often used. For me, my stories are often man vs environment or man vs self, less man vs man or anything of the sort. When I have used villains, for my character, it is anything that is strongly against the path of virtue. The one villain I created was a demon/vampire that toyed with people and consumed their lives and souls, preventing them from ever reaching the afterlife.


3) If you write a villainous protagonist, how do you strike a balance between their actions and their palatability to your audience?

I think the most interesting villains are the ones that don't go overboard, and where the villainy has suspicious hints about it. I think a good example of this was Snape from Harry Potter, where he was vilified but there were drops throughout the series about his story, that culminated at the end as him being a good guy all along. There are also antagonists that are outright likeable and not sufficiently villainous, like Owen Shaw in Fast 6. He was the bad guy, but you liked him. Then there's always the potential conversion of the villain to ally, which is always an interesting challenge for the character, author, and reader.

In the end, I think this comes down to giving the villain reasons to hate them, but also pulling out some stray strands of compassion. Can you feel sorry for the villain even if you hate him? Are they irredeemable? Do they have lapses in their sinister nature? Does their villainy not make sense? Hannibal Lecter was always a fascinating villain, but again, the line blurred between antagonist and villain.

[Karuka]

Hey everyone! We will be recording on Tuesday, March 8. I'd like to see answers by noon EST on that date so we get a chance to review and include them!

[hoytti]

What do you feel makes a good villian?
A good villian is a being that is hated with a pation. They are usually the one that is getting in the way of the hero. However they could also be someone who harms everyone around them or they could pretend to be a hero but in the end betray the hero.

How do you use villians in your story?
I mainly use villians to push my characters in ways they usually won't go.

If you write a villainous protagonist, how do you strike a balance between their actions and their palatability to your audience?
I tend to use their internal thoughts to help the readers connect to them. I also give them a good back story to catch the reader.

[Gnarl & Root]

What do you feel makes a good villain?
A good villain is one that evokes an argumentative response, or feeling of hatred from the viewer/reader.

How do you use villains in your story?
I use them to balance the story. Everyone in life sees someone as some sort of villain, not because they are evil, but because they get in the way of your own ideals. Being a villain is a readers perception of how someone influences your protagonists story in a negative way, and a good villain ruins or interrupts the bliss or goal of the story/protagonist.

If you write a villainous protagonist, how do you strike a balance between their actions and their palatability to your audience?
I like my villains to be selfish, this is because I think it's a key component in ones arsenal to be considered a villain. You look at any "evil" type character and they generally have one thing in common, they are selfish. Be it their reasoning, their goal, or their decision making. This doesn't mean to say being selfish makes you a villain, but I find it a strong way to help others take offense to your motives, as well as explain their own motives, cause who doesn't understand being selfish?

[Bard]

1. Well first, a villain, to be a villain, must provoke an emotional response, and this emotional response needs be more than merely that the character is antagonistic to the protagonist, the character must have at the core of his personality either some aspect that is either amoral or immoral.

2. I use Villains and antagonists in my stories to demonstrate the natural character of ‘mankind’ even when that might not always be humankind. Whether it is robots or AIs, or dragons, or what have you, both exist in my writings, because a lot of time people have conflicting goals and needs and wants and amoral and immoral people exist in the world. Even relatively good people have, as Yung put it “moments of immorality.”

3. Depending on what I need of that character I can do it one of two main ways, either I strive to make the reader understand why the character has become the villain, what rationalization has caused the person to come to that point (i.e. the internal rationalizations, the circumstances, the stresses, etc.), or I attempt to make the character one that one can at least suspend their disbelief over. A friend of mine calls it the Dark knight kind of villains, I either use someone like Harvey Dent, or I use the joker. The goal above all though is to make them interesting, entertaining, and to some degree believable.

[Flames of Hyperion]

A great set of questions this week - I really had to think how best to articulate my thoughts. I apologise in advance for rambling on without regard for the voices of your podcast guests. With thanks to Dawnmorrow for allowing me to bounce my ideas off her, and for adding a few well-considered points to these answers.

To answer these questions, I felt that I first had to define: what is a villain? The problem with this question is that unlike antagonists, which are defined by the plot, a villain is by definition 'evil'... but this 'evilness' is defined by the reader. A villain embodies negative attributes that we all possess within us - greed, violence, selfishness, egoism - but one person's egoism might be another person's pride, one person's selfishness might be another's right due. Depending on setting and background, and characters and their relationships, the villain of one story might for example be the anti-hero of another. One man's insurgent is another's freedom fighter, after all...

Some villains are motivated by impure and unsympathetic intention. Others can be defined by how far they are willing to go to achieve their aims, and by the methodologies they thus employ. But not all villains have both traits: a warmonger might be willing to compromise or act within the law to achieve his goal, while a templar might believe in justice but seek the death penalty for every transgression. Not all who have either are villains: a vengeant daughter may be talked down from her path, while a corrupt politician might make a deal with the mafia to limit deadly drugs on the streets.

I guess that my definition of a villain, then, is 1) that they wield enough power to affect the lives of others and 2) that if they should attain their heart's desire, then the world would become a worse place to live in for some or many of its inhabitants. ("Enough power"? "Worse place to live in"? "Some or many of its inhabitants"? I suppose at least I can come up with statistical definitions of these...)


1) What do you feel makes a great villain?

Again this is such a subjective question... it might involve contrary character attributes such as charisma or honour, thus giving the villain depth despite his 'evil' nature. The villain might have once been a hero or a victim, thus allowing readers to sympathise with his fall. Or the villain might be fully self-aware that he's doing evil for the sake of evil, and simply wants to watch the world burn - after all, black is perfectly possible even in a world of greys (but be careful not to make him/her/it a caricature!).

Let me assume that the villain is truly a villain, and that he has been treated with the same respect we afford our other characters in terms of personality, motivations, aspirations, and background. Let me assume that his plan makes sense from his perspective (my hero is wondering whether he is actually right after all), that he is competent enough to pull it off and a credible threat in his own right (my hero now fears that he's not going to be able to save the world in time), and that he's overcome a number of obstacles to get to this stage in the story (my hero may have had some successes, and other villains may have tried to hamper his opportunity, but he is consistent and determined).

What separates the best of villains from the great? In my opinion, it's their ability to manipulate the hero (and by extension the reader): to exploit his flaws, to turn him against himself. They're the polar opposite of the hero in many respects, but so nearly the same in many others - the villain is what our hero might become, or what he may have become if he took a single wrong turn in his past. And because of that, our villain knows exactly how and where they can hurt the hero the most.

This, to me, is a great villain.


2) How do you utilize villains in your stories?

The old adage is that the villain acts, while the hero reacts. I'm not fully convinced by this - at least, I prefer my heroes to display some initiative even when the villain is not around! - but I think that the first half at least holds true. Without my villains, I would not have an epic to tell. My antagonists catalyse conflict with my hero protagonists, but it's my villains who either drive these antagonists (i.e. as the underlying cause for their behaviour), or step in as the antagonists themselves in moments of climax.

Whenever I drop the name of one of my established villains in my stories, I want my reader to shiver and think, 'What is he going to do next? Is anybody safe?'. Hence I often use them to contrast the heroes in either methods or motives, for example to undo something that they've spent the past fifty pages working diligently towards. Or I show my villain challenging the heroes as he works towards his endgame, destroying their belief in themselves and slowly getting them to understand why he's acting as he is. Finally I like to show my villains succeed - by definition (since they're not working towards a better world for anybody but themselves!) this is often a major downer point in my plots.

One final technique that I'll mention here is what I shall now dub the 'Sliding Scale of Villainy'. For example, the Legion of Light arc of Nanashi's (Ingwe's) story begins with him as part of a volunteer expedition to retake Anebrilith, which is under siege by a group of necromancers called the Coven of Six. When the Coven is defeated or scattered, he finds himself now fighting their direct superior: the Death Knight, Maeril Thyrrian. Maeril's lieutenants include other villains, such as the wight-lord Kratos and the daemon prince Natosatael, but eventually they're defeated at the Battle of Nenaebreth... which propels Nanashi into conflict with Xem'zund himself. Even after Dawnbringers, when Xem'zund is defeated and the Death Lords diminished, Nanashi is aware that his battle hasn't ended and journeys forth once more of his own accord. This brings him back into war with his nemesis Natosatael and his old acquaintance Touma Kamikaji, with the shadows of things far greater and far worse lurking behind them. My point, I suppose, is that I never limit myself to 'a' villain. Let there be a sliding scale of villainy in which your villains have to prove themselves. Think about giving them depth with the chance to succeed against an even greater evil.


3) If you write a villainous protagonist, how do you strike a balance between their actions and their palatability to your audience?

First of all I always begin by trying to create a believable villain: a goal, a motivation, and a plan. I make them competent enough to be a credible threat to the world they're trying to change - they are villain protagonists after all, not comic relief. I round them out with some other elements of a 'great' villain above: history with mystery, sympathetic character traits with moments of 'weakness', charisma, anarchic tendencies, etc. I emphasise their belief that they are in the right (i.e. they're the hero of their own story, even if all they want to do is to see the world burn), and give them antagonists of their own (both villainous and heroic) to battle against. It's easier to do this if he's personally likeable - whether it be charisma, or gumption, or a sense of dark humour, or a hidden 'soul' factor, if I can make my readers kick themselves for loving such a scumbag - or relatable. I show him succeed, I show him fail, I give him development.

And then I write their actions strictly from their point of view. For example, a templar out to enact extreme justice at any cost might not notice that the child of his latest victim is in the crowd, so enamoured is he in the euphoria of having done something right. A mass murderer might list the sins of those he executes with every fall of his axe ("he who talks on his phone in public, she who spends a month's salary on her nails"). I suppose that this also makes it easier to depict them as interesting and likeable characters in their own right: our villain can better believe in his own charisma - and we as writers can better translate that to our readers - if he doesn't notice the people behind him staring!

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I try to make sure that my villain protagonists don't venture into anti-hero territory without proper development. As a quick rule of thumb, if their motives are impure but sympathetic, and if they get their way the world will change for the better rather than for the worse, then I consider them an anti-hero rather than a true villain. There's nothing wrong with that, or with developing a villain in this way, but I have to be aware that I'm not writing a villainous protagonist any more, which has implications for my story structure as a whole.

[Karuka]

Here's a question (or three) for everyone:

1) Is there any interest in another episode of Essence Of?

2) If so, would you like to see an episode on technique, action, or mood?

3) Who would you like to see on as a guest?

[BlackAndBlueEyes]

Action, for sure.

[Storm Veritas]

Yes.
Any of these
Someone long at the site that isn't me

[SirArtemis]

Yes,

Any,

Flames. Maybe even Dirks. I want to hear his opinion on actual writing.

[orphans]

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.


EDIT:

Yes
Action specifically!
@Gnarl - I am much too elusive and skittish to be brought on as a guest for anything! Thus I vote for Raaaaaayleigh.

[Gnarl & Root]

Yes.
Action.
Orphans :D