Should I kill my villain early on?

[gwendy85]

Hi guys! I was wondering if you could make some suggestions as to what I should do to my villain. It's for a new MS I'm working on. I'm working on quite a few right now.


Here's the scene.


Hero wants revenge on villain, but this isn't what the story is all about. What the villain does to the hero in the past is but a piece of the story. The whole plot of the story is different, but the misdeed of the villain is needed to continue the story and warp the hero. Heck, the villain only appears a few times. (are there even different types of villains in a novel?) Of course, villain dies. I had planned on putting it in as a climax, but like I said, revenge isn't the theme of the story. It's a minor part. In the end, the hero gets arrested, though the reasons will depend on whether I kill the villain earlier or later. And the story still continues after that.


The thing is, the hero has a lady love, who will be affected by his changes.


A. If I kill the villain early on...


Lady love would have to deal with hero's changes and the fact he had killed people in cold blood. (How do women deal with that anyway? Can't tell because I never knew anyone who's ever killed)


B. If I kill the villain in the later parts (climax) and make it the reason for the hero's arrest...


Lady love deals with the arrest. But if I do this, in the earlier parts, the hero will be horribly distracted pursuing the villain that I don't think he'll be able to develop a relationship with Lady Love, considering they already had more than enough external and internal obstacles to deal with.


So, what do you think? Should I kill my villain early on (since there are still antagonists around in the form of situations and factors. Oh, and there are a few more human antagonists as well, who will make it hard for him and LadyLove to pursue a relationship)? Or should I kill my villain later, and as a climax (which I believe is the traditional way of doing things)? Does anyone even know of a novel in which the villain wasn't killed as a climax? Hmm...Eddie's Bastard comes to mind, but the villain's misdeed wasn't aimed directly at the hero.


Appreciate the input :)
Gwendy

[AdamH]

If this is a love story, kill the villain early. Unless the villain is after the Lady Love, in which case, kill him in the climax.

If this is more about the Hero and Villain than the love story, definitely kill him in the climax.

If you do decide to kill the villain early, have a climax of some kind between the Lady Love and the Hero (climaxes don't really need someone to die in it...it could be entirely emotional).

That's my POV on the matter. :)

[Riddler]

Maybe the villain dies early on, but not at the hands of the Hero. The hero could have all kinds of internal struggle for that, wondering if he would have gone through with it himself, becoming deprived of revenge, leaving the situation incomplete. It's different from the classic formulas.

[Sage]

It seems to me that the "villain" here isn't really the villain of the story you want to tell. I'm sure he's a bad guy & the hero's idea of the villain, but it seems to me that the real conflict here is man vs. himself. The true villain is the hero's own nature, & he must overcome it for the story to have a satisfactory end. Does that sound right?

Edited for comma problems.

[greglondon]

> How do women deal with that anyway?
> Can't tell because I never knew anyone who's ever killed

Do you know anyone who's fought in the military?
I've got a relative who was in combat in Vietnam,
one of my best friends is in the Navy, and
I know several friends and acquaintences who
have been in Iraq, plus I know a number of
couples where the guy is retired military and
the wife was always a civilian.

Does it have to be cold blooded murder by the hero?
Or could the villian attack and it's self defense?

If it really isn't about the hero, I don't see why it
couldn't be a tidy self-defense action and move on.

If its about the fall of your protagonist, then you
might make it murder and have all the repurcussions
that come with that.


Alternatively, why does the villian have to die?
It could be something that happened in the past,
which warped the protaganist, and the "villian"
doesn't actually appear in the story, other than
in the backstory that your characters might talk about.

[Mr. Funktastic]

From what you've given us, I'd say kill the villian early on. You could try to find some way for the lady love to be more understanding of the hero's misdeed, though the whole waiver of trust of whatnot could make an interesting little... thing? I'm at a loss for words.

Just my two cents.

[gwendy85]

If this is a love story, kill the villain early. Unless the villain is after the Lady Love, in which case, kill him in the climax.

If you do decide to kill the villain early, have a climax of some kind between the Lady Love and the Hero (climaxes don't really need someone to die in it...it could be entirely emotional).

Yup, a love story. No, the villain doesn't have connections with the lady love, and I think I'll take you up on your last suggestion :)

Maybe the villain dies early on, but not at the hands of the Hero. The hero could have all kinds of internal struggle for that, wondering if he would have gone through with it himself, becoming deprived of revenge, leaving the situation incomplete. It's different from the classic formulas.

It seems to me that the "villain" here isn't really the villain of the story you want to tell. I'm sure he's a bad guy & the hero's idea of the villain, but it seems to me that the real conflict here is man vs. himself. The true villain is the hero's own nature, & he must overcome it for the story to have a satisfactory end. Does that sound right?

I've been thinking of this matter myself. The whole internal struggle thing. And I've also been thinking of the villain killed but NOT by the hero, and so the hero is left incomplete, thus, it affects his relationship with his lady love. I'll have to think about this though.

Does it have to be cold blooded murder by the hero?
Or could the villian attack and it's self defense?

It's more of an act of anger and revenge. After the villain's misdeed, the hero's life goes on a downward spiral. He is basically ruined, everything he held dear, taken from him. He sees the villain as everything that went wrong in his life so when he the chance for retribution shows itself, he goes for basic human instinct: take it.

Alternatively, why does the villian have to die?
It could be something that happened in the past,
which warped the protaganist, and the "villian"
doesn't actually appear in the story, other than
in the backstory that your characters might talk about.

The villain has to die. Because a small part of the story involves the hero sort of going after this villain. Because if he doesn't go after the villain, he won't be able to go where he needs to go. Also, the villain's misdeed happens in the middle of the story.

From what you've given us, I'd say kill the villian early on. You could try to find some way for the lady love to be more understanding of the hero's misdeed, though the whole waiver of trust of whatnot could make an interesting little... thing? I'm at a loss for words.

Yup, been thinking of this too.

Thank you so much, guys! All these inputs are very useful :) You've cleared my mind and enlighted me on a few more things. THANK YOU SO MUCH! My verdict? I think I may be going for killing the villain early on.

Really, guys, I can't thank you enough! YOU HELPED ME BREAK THROUGH MY WRITER'S BLOCK!!! Thanks :D

[Carrie in PA]

It's more of an act of anger and revenge. After the villain's misdeed, the hero's life goes on a downward spiral. He is basically ruined, everything he held dear, taken from him. He sees the villain as everything that went wrong in his life so when he the chance for retribution shows itself, he goes for basic human instinct: take it.


That's not killing in cold blood. It's not generally a good idea, but it's not cold blood. Killing in cold blood is picking some random stranger at a train station and dragging them off and murdering them. What you're talking about is more of a passionate revenge. Far more understandable (and therefore forgivable) than cold blooded killing.

[TrickyFiction]

It sounds to me like you're real antagonist is the hero's history, and not the villain.
If that's the case, then take that villain down.

Contrary opinion and personal note: half the reason I stick with books is to find out what's behind the villain. So, unless either the voice or another main-ish character is compelling enough to keep my interest, I would put a book down that lost its villain early.

[Amiton]

That's not killing in cold blood. It's not generally a good idea, but it's not cold blood. Killing in cold blood is picking some random stranger at a train station and dragging them off and murdering them. What you're talking about is more of a passionate revenge. Far more understandable (and therefore forgivable) than cold blooded killing.

I think it could be cold-blooded, depending upon the situation. If the villain is somehow rendered defenseless, or captured and immobilized or some such, then I would consider it a cold-blooded murder, or semantically speaking perhaps an execution. A little bit closer to a blurred line would be a revenge motivated assassination. If there is actually some sort of direct confrontation between the protag and the antag and the antag ends up dead - even if it's premeditated - then I would agree with you, Carrie. Then again, maybe we just have a different opinion of the definition =)

Amiton.

[PeeDee]

Really, it doesn't sound like a villian at all, but rather a catalyst.

I would off 'im early on. Kill him. How nasty you make it is up to you (I think I would go uglier than cleaner on this m'self). That way, you can have fun dealing with it.

[Carrie in PA]

I think it could be cold-blooded, depending upon the situation. If the villain is somehow rendered defenseless, or captured and immobilized or some such, then I would consider it a cold-blooded murder, or semantically speaking perhaps an execution. A little bit closer to a blurred line would be a revenge motivated assassination. If there is actually some sort of direct confrontation between the protag and the antag and the antag ends up dead - even if it's premeditated - then I would agree with you, Carrie. Then again, maybe we just have a different opinion of the definition =)

Amiton.

I suspect we pretty much agree. I'm visualizing that the villian did something heinous and evil, since it warps the hero - and the hero (it seems to me) is just waiting to spring. I'm not getting the feel of a lot of premeditation, just waiting for the right opportunity to present itself and he springs. But then I'm just making this all up since the details aren't in the OP. :ROFL:

But yes, a premeditated, plotted out execution or the defenseless villian begging for his life would be akin to cold-blooded murder.

[greglondon]

It's more of an act of anger and revenge. After the villain's misdeed, the hero's life goes on a downward spiral. He is basically ruined, everything he held dear, taken from him. He sees the villain as everything that went wrong in his life

There isn't enough information here for me to empathize.
Did the villian kill the protag's spouse or child or something?
My personal preference for stories does not usually include
characters who blame someone else for their troubles.

so when he the chance for retribution shows itself, he goes for basic human instinct: take it.

Well, see, there's a difference between the instinct and the action.
A lot of people have had thoughts of retribution.
And a lot of them have managed to not act on those thoughts.

Is this a noir story? an anti-hero?




if he doesn't go after the villain, he won't be able to go where he needs to go.

I don't understand this at all.
It doesn't matter how evil a deed the villian did to the protag,
the protag can come to terms with his past and move on
without having to kill the villian.

I understand you're presenting a condensed version here,
and maybe the full story explains it, but as it is, what you've
said here sounds like the characters are driven by the plot
that you want to to happen, rather than the plot being
driven by the characters doing what real people do.

I do life coaching and I've worked with some people that have
had some seriously horrible things happen to them in the past
and every single one of them was able to overcome it without
having to do anything to the person who did the horrible thing
to them.

It may be that the protag thinks he must do something to the villian
to move on, but there will be readers who will consider him an
anti-hero for doing that.

And it could be that your explanation here might have left out something
from the story that explains all this in a different light. I'm just replying to
what you've posted here in its condensed version.

[farfromfearless]

I'm a bit of an idealist in most things - not such a good thing in a lot of cases - but when it comes to writing I feel that deaths (in the event you do kill your villain), of incidental characters, antagonists or protagonists should have purpose. That purpose is typically a catalyst for change that urges the killer/victims (the killer can be a victim as well) toward one direction or another (this is up to you). I'm not saying there has to be a moral to the story or anything, but in life, death changes people - killing changes people - how does your character react to that? How do the people closest to your character react to the killing/death? Death without consequence is pointless in my opinion.

[gwendy85]

Okay, here's more of the scenario.

After villain's misdeed, hero gets sent somewhere to be treated, and later, (before that, he had a life) sees that in his absence, his life is like gone. Ruined. Then, he goes after the villain, whereby he still gives the villain a chance to er...how do I put this...reclaim his honor? This isn't set in contemporary times as I am partial to historicals. It was premeditated in a way that hero goes after villain, and later, more like tries to convince him into admitting the crime but villains are villains. I'm planning on having the villain retaliate, and the hero kills him, both from revenge and self-defense. But before that, I've already shown that the hero's anger has dangerous tendencies. He once almost murdered a person out of revenge but he was more calm back then and got back to his senses.

[Akuma]

(are there even different types of villains in a novel?)

Of course. To name a few...

There's your regular larger than life guys, out to destroy a mass amount of something due to an eskewed philosophy.
There's the victim villain ("Oh, God, it was never meant to be this way...!") or there's the mundane villain--just a regular joe who ain't evil, maybe just stupid or susceptable to some weakness, a guy who might hurt others around him without meaning to or knowing.

If we wanted to talk about antagonists...well, that's a ol' different bag of beans, m'am.

[badducky]

I think you are the only person who can truly answer your own question.

So, I think you should write down the pros and cons of each on a handy spreadsheet or an extra word file, and make a decision based on what you know about your story and what you will need.

Then, stick to it like glue.

Also, books are tension management exercises. With a dead villain, you will lose another source of tension. Unless you have enough tension elsewhere (which only you know), you probably should keep the evil alive a while.

But, again, only you know what your story will need, and maybe a dead villain is precisely the way to ramp up the tension.

[farfromfearless]

I'm planning on having the villain retaliate, and the hero kills him, both from revenge and self-defense. But before that, I've already shown that the hero's anger has dangerous tendencies. He once almost murdered a person out of revenge but he was more calm back then and got back to his senses.

If you're going to go to this extent then you might as well just let your MC kill the villain - the conflict and road to redemption afterward sounds more interesting and less strung out.