With no one there to hate... what do? What do?

Stories that are essentially Good vs. Evil kind of require someone to be playing the Evil role.

Stories that are more intrapersonal, or Man vs. the Elements, don't necessarily need a villain.

a lot of stories don't have the hate-worthy antagonist.....

the whale in moby dick was hated by Ahab but not the reader (presumably)
The Old Man and The Sea
much of the romance genre
perhaps Lord of the Flies
A Separate Peace
Siddhartha
etc.
etc. etc.

I personally don't need to have a character to hate in the fantasy or sci-fi books I read, but I think there is some demand for it. Even in books that are "Man against Society," with no real villain, some readers like for there to be a character to pin the larger problem on. A face to act as the antagonist, so to speak. But it's not something I personally need. Perhaps I'm weird, but if I really hate someone, I don't want to read about them at all, even to see their downfall.

To be honest, I don't like books that stir up strong negative emotions in me. Or, I don't like myself when I allow myself to be manipulated that way.

One of those . Among my favourite films is Crimson Tide, where both the protagonist and the antagonist are trying to do the right thing--and it's hard to tell which is which. I tend to dislike cartoonishlike Bond-type villains who have no redeeming features and are evil 'because'.

Calliea said:

I was reading some passionate hate rants about Joffrey from the Game of Thrones last evening, and it got me to think: if people love hating on characters so much (and they do, else there wouldn't be so many hateables everywhere), what do you think of stories where there's no character that's annoying or hateable?

Click to expand...

There is ALWAYS someone who is annoying or hateable. Just because the MC likes them doesn't mean the readers will.

Even if you are talking people vs people....house of sand and fog and a bunch of other books center on two reasonably decent folks who are simply in opposition. Neither is the.devil, or the saint. They simply have opposing goals.

Buffysquirrel said:

To be honest, I don't like books that stir up strong negative emotions in me. Or, I don't like myself when I allow myself to be manipulated that way.

One of those . Among my favourite films is Crimson Tide, where both the protagonist and the antagonist are trying to do the right thing--and it's hard to tell which is which. I tend to dislike cartoonish Bond-type villains who have no redeeming features and are evil 'because'.

Click to expand...

Well, I happen to like clear cut good and bad characters and am offended by it being called "cartoonish." Personally for me, if it's hard to tell between the protag and the antag, I usually stop reading because then I don't like either character and I'm not going to invest my time in that kind of ambiguous story.
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

Calliea said:

I was reading some passionate hate rants about Joffrey from the Game of Thrones last evening, and it got me to think: if people love hating on characters so much (and they do, else there wouldn't be so many hateables everywhere), what do you think of stories where there's no character that's annoying or hateable?



I mean stories like Harry Potter, or the Game of Thrones, or what have you where there always seem to be characters to bring the other side of emotions out in the reader. There are protagonists, antagonists, people fight (whether physically or by other means), but no character is really made to be hated, be annoying, or a clear-cut bastard.

Does it take away from the reading for you? Do you miss it? Is it an element that should be present in those types of stories? What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

First 'hated' and 'annoyed' are two different reactions, generally 'annoying' is the milder of the two. Even the 'hero' can be annoying.
Joffrey in GoT is so over-the-top that he's more of a plot device than a person. (And, I suspect he's written that way to distract the reader from his parents, both of whom I loathe.)
But I don't think I need an eeeviiil villain to make a book work for me. Upthread 'Crimson Tide' was mentioned, I've got another submarine book: 'The Hunt for Red October'. No real villians, just a bunch of men on different sides.

The very nature of the human condition demands a level of vulnerability*, especially to reveal our ability (or inability) to deal with it, perhaps through avenues of strength of character and the like. All characters are, by necessity, vulnerable or flawed.

In many cases, the challenges of this very real human condition will be expressed differently by the protagonist and the antagonist.

In a nutshell, this weakness creates conflict which is often the external expression of difficulty and challenge, which makes any story compelling and believable. Of course, much of my opinion here is based on not living in a cave; instead, living in a world where security and chaos move in a perpetual dance, which I accept, though often begrudgingly. Well, admittedly, I do live in a sort of cave (my location description gives this a way), but I like to think of myself as someone who is unafraid of the chaos (sometimes) and someone who knows when to retreat into the cave ... or forest (more often).

At its most fundamental, the only conflict truly possible is the one with our own selves. This is the richest well to draw out the most satisfying conflicts. Like I said, it's from here that we have to deal with our vulnerabilities, our 'dark nature', and bring them to some external place, even if that place is simply a voice in your head or a talking cricket.

As a human species we have to deal with the notion of perfection -- use it as a benchmark of sorts -- and find ways to either honestly try and cope with this abstract notion or prove it wrong and absurd.

* I use this term broadly to connote any number of undeveloped or weak characteristics. In short, those qualities we have that manifest as shortcomings or challenges.

I flat out don't like books with characters who are unambiguous. Some people in the world are deep down awful people, and so of course some characters will be, and that's fine. But even the most awful person is a person. A character who does nothing but hateful things all the time isn't a person at all. And that brings up no emotions in me. If you really want me to hate a character, make him human. It's awful to watch footage of Hitler being stereotypically Hitler. It's even worse to watch footage of him playing with kids and cuddling his dog. It's awful because it's a horrible reminder that even the most evil people aren't somehow outside of humanity. That kind of evil comes out of people. It's incredibly uncomfortable to contemplate that, and so of course that's why unambiguously evil characters exist. I personally want to read people and not symbols, I read to experience the nuances of human psychology-- but I also understand why some people don't, or why some people don't always. It's difficult to live in a world that's all shades of grey; sometimes you need to imagine one that's just black and white.

quicklime said:

a lot of stories don't have the hate-worthy antagonist.....
<snip>
A Separate Peace

Click to expand...

Wait, there were a lot of people I hated in A Separate Peace.

Uhhhhhnn . . .

I think it depends on the kind of story it is. There are many different kinds of antagonists, and sometimes there isn't an antagonist at all. Sometimes the protagonist is even his or her own worst enemy and the characters who appear to be antagonists are really red herrings.

I kind of think that if you write something where no one's made to be hated, your fans will pick someone out for you anyway. No one's going to rub everyone the right way.

Explore innocence -- writer's have it in spades -- and you'll soon discover that it's tested by everything and everyone. Good and evil is one way of looking at it , but it doesn't have to be so fire & brimstone.

Sometimes we writers (artists, even) have a big responsibility in moving the story (both narrative and its form, etc.) forward on every level. In the details we explore every cog & spindle and get burnt often.

What is fiction and where is it headed?

A pure pragmatist comes often from a purely goal-oriented perspective and is not shy of pushing the system of writing to suit. The worst of them begin their writing journeys and hold on to the lure of fame & riches. He gets burned in his own private underworld, not unlike someone feeding and fanning the engine fires. Nothing wrong with it and it makes for good study.

The broader view is less concerned with the parts and more concerned with how it all comes together. This is near chaos. It's almost an inebriated state, where just holding it together is a mighty undertaking. He gets burned in the fury of the sun; perhaps, drifting in his own private limbo, not unlike someone on top of a mountain watching vistas and tracking destinations.

Fiction, like most anything, functions on so many levels. I think it's difficult for a writer to ignore the conflict between the simple act of writing for one's self and the difficult considerations of their audience. On top of that he may be compelled to take risks to move his art. The undeniable fact of any art is that it moves, and doesn't stand still for too long. Where it goes is always up for debate. Looking back we see it's true. This kind of knowledge can certainly be a burden.

So, all we really have and know is innocence. Perhaps it and its degrees is all we have to work with. And maybe it's enough. Treat it as a canvas.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Well, I happen to like clear cut good and bad characters and am offended by it being called "cartoonish."

Click to expand...

I don't think it's my fault you have contempt for cartoons .

Most of the Harry Dresden books pit Harry against some despicable "Big Bad" but there are some antagonists in those books that I can't help but like.

Mab, Johnny Marcone, Lara Raith, even Nicodemus at times -- they may be Harry's opponents, but they have their own codes of honor and far from hating them, I actually enjoy them.

In my Urban Fantasy novel, the villain is trying to save his son from an incurable disease. Now, he's willing to sacrifice 13 innocent people, and possibly unleash Hell on NYC to do it, but his motives are understandable, if his methods are suspect.

Buffysquirrel said:

I don't think it's my fault you have contempt for cartoons .

Click to expand...

I'm very doubtful you were using cartoonish in a complimentary manner.

Shadow_Ferret said:

I'm very doubtful you were using cartoonish in a complimentary manner.

Click to expand...

I was using it in a descriptive manner.

Well...it's all in how your organize a story.

There are man vs man conflicts, which are the ones you're talking about. Usually, there's someone to hate in those situations.

There's man vs society, where man goes against a socialistic issue anywhere from bullying to an oppressive government. You can usually find someone to dislike in these stories.

Man vs nature. Pretty self explanatory. In these types, there isn't really a person to "hate" per say.

And my favorite, man vs self, where the struggle is internal.

A lot of it depends on your antagonist, which can be anything from a raging storm to an evil wizard. Me personally? I like complicated stories that challenge "good" and "evil", so I'm not into a clear cut good guy vs bad guy.

Some of my favorite stories make me root for the bad guy. Others have no bad guy, just two people or groups that happen to be on opposite sides of some issue. I love stories like this.

But complete evil, despicable villains are fine, too. There are truly evil people in this world, and they know they're evil. Some are proud of it, and some even brag about it.

I'm more concerned with what the protagonist is like. he's teh one I have to relate to, not the villain.

I'd also like to point out that, though people love to hate Joffrey, he was hardly the main antagonist in ASoIaF.

Bad guys that are easy to hate are fun to write and fun to read, but complex antagonists really make you think.

Was Hannibal Lecter someone people hated? I know I loved him, as much as I feared him. Norman Bates? I actually pitied him, though I guess you could say Mother was the real antagonist in that story, and I hated her.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

Gul Dukat and Weyoun. I absolutely loved those characters and they were clear cut antagonists. I don't think you need hate to make it decent. You need excellent characterization.