What A Good Villain Needs

Yes, it’s another post about villains, but I do have good reasons for that. Villains are important for the quality of a story, so they should be good (at being villains, of course, they’re all evil). We all have a good idea about what makes a hero, but not about what makes a villain. There’s three basic qualities a good villain must have: opposition, motivation, and threat. Only a villain who has all three of them can really do their job in the story, so let’s take a closer look at them.

Opposition happens when the hero and the villain of a piece (or the protagonist and the antagonist, if you want to be less extreme in your word choice) are at odds about something important. Usually, they want the same MacGuffin and thus only one of them can win. Sometimes, they also represent opposite principles or ideologies, such as freedom/control or order/chaos. In a romance story, the villain/antagonist is the second person who wants the love interest. In an espionage story, the villain is the evil genius who wants the plans for the ice beam. In a superhero tale, the villain is, well, the supervillain of the week who is usually out for world domination or something similar. A good villain is in clear opposition to the hero from the very beginning, so it is clear that this is where the biggest conflict of the story comes in (and conflict doesn’t mean violence - two people wanting the same love interest also create conflict, but that conflict is rarely resolved with weapons or fists).

Motivation is the reason why the villain is doing what they are doing. We’re long past the time when a villain did evil for evil’s sake. They need a better reason than ‘I am evil’ to do what they’re doing. The audience needs to be able to understand why they’re acting that way - not to accept it or even root for them, but to understand it. Motivation doesn’t have to be complicated, for a purely evil villain who will not have a redemption arc or suchlike, something simple, such as ‘money,’ ‘power,’ or ‘world domination’ can be enough. A sympathetic villain, on the other hand, should have a motivation the audience might even support, even though their way of going about their business is wrong. A villain’s motivation is often coupled with their opposition. The second suitor in a romance story is motivated by getting the love interest, though the reason is often something like their money or simply that they are both part of an arrange marriage. They don’t have the ‘right’ reason for wanting the love interest, unlike the hero. The villain in an espionage story might truly believe than humanity is weak and needs a strong leader - and thus the villain must have the ice beam, so they can enforce their leadership. The motivation has to be understandable, it’s not necessary that the audience supports it (in most cases it’s better if the audience doesn’t support it).

Threat is made up of two components: power and competence. Threat as a such stands for how dangerous the villain is - the higher the threat level, the higher the tension, which is also important for the story. Power defines all the resources a villain has, no matter whether they are the support of the love interest’s parents, minions to do their bidding, or real superpowers. Competence defines how well the villain can use those powers. A villain who is powerful, but incompetent is not a threat, but laughing stock. A villain who is competent, but doesn’t have enough power to endanger the hero is not supporting the story enough. The ideal power balance between a hero and a villain is very unbalanced in favour of the villain, because only a powerful villain makes the much-less-powerful hero look heroic.

Once all three aspects come together, a villain can really shine. So, let’s look at a villain from recent years who really has all of their qualities together: the Joker from “The Dark Knight.”

Opposition: The Joker is the polar opposite of Batman. Batman stands for order, the Joker for chaos. Batman fights crime, the Joker is a criminal. They have instant and lasting opposition.

Motivation: The Joker wants to prove that, underneath the civilized veneer, all humans are agents of chaos. That it takes little to push them all from civilisation into anarchy - and that anarchy is the ultimate fairness, because there everyone has the same chance. (Or all of this is a bold-faced lie, since the Joker is anarchy personified.)

Threat: The Joker proves early in the movie that he’s competent - during the bank heist. He proves himself intelligent, a good tactician, but also a cold-blooded murderer. While he doesn’t have big resources, his competence shows in his use of them. Especially his skill with military-grade weaponry gives him an advantage over Batman who, as we all know, doesn’t use guns. He has both power and competence to make Batman’s life hard and challenge him.

The Joker has it all: opposition, motivation, and threat - and that is why this Joker works, whereas the version from “Suicide Squad” doesn’t work, simply because he has no real motivation. Being anarchic alone does not a Joker make…

A strong villain makes for a good hero and those three qualities make for a strong villain. What they mean is down to the kind of story you are writing, but they always must be there. As long as the villain is in opposition to the hero, has an understandable motivation, and presents a threat, you’re doing it right.

How to Write a Prequel

The shortest way to answer the question ‘How do I best write a prequel?’ is ‘Don’t.’ Writing prequels usually is a lot more trouble than the end result is worth, but I can see that there are some situations in which you want to write a prequel, in which you feel like you need to tell something which happened before the original story or series. In that case, there are some pitfalls you need to know about so you can, hopefully, avoid them.

1. Don’t use main characters from your original stories

It might sound strange on the first look, because the readers already know those characters and usually are invested in their fate. The problem is that the readers also know that those characters are still alive and kicking in the original stories, which are set later. That diminishes tension, because the worst things will not happen to them. If you need to have main characters from your original stories in the prequels, they should only appear for a short moment, not be involved in a major plot, only in a minor one.

The “Fantastic Beasts” series does this both well and horribly. It does this well when it comes to the lead - Newt Scamander. Newt is only ever mentioned in one capacity in the Harry Potter series to which “Fantastic Beasts” is a prequel: he wrote a book, which is a textbook at Hogwarts in Harry’s time (called “Fantastic Beasts and where to find them”). That is literally all we know about Newt outside of the “Fantastic Beasts” series. He wrote at least one book (perhaps more, but they’re not textbooks at Hogwarts), he lived before Harry’s time (otherwise he wouldn’t have had the chance to write a book which is already a textbook), and he presumably travelled quite a bit to find all those fantastic beasts he wrote about. That’s all - we don’t even know when he lived, since textbooks can have been around for a long time. Did Newt marry? Did he have a family? When and how did he die? Why did he start studying those beasts? We have no idea - at least before we watch “Fantastic Beasts.”

Now let’s look at where the series does this horribly: Dumbledore and Grindelwald. Both are in the series so far and the direction it’s going in suggests that they will play even bigger roles (though Grindelwald is already deep in the story) in future parts. The problem is that we know what will happen to them, we know Dumbledore will defeat Grindelwald in 1945 (which is still far off in the movies so far), but not kill him. We know Grindelwald will die through Voldemort’s hands in the seventh Harry Potter novel. We know Dumbledore will die through Snape’s hands at the end of the sixth Harry Potter novel. None of them is in any lasting mortal danger before that - and that diminishes tension.

2. Don’t have characters appear just for recognition value

It’s very seductive to put in characters from the original stories just for the recognition value, whether you do it to tie the stories more closely together or whether you think they will sell better this way. Characters in a story should always serve it, should be part of at least one plot arc. If they’re part of several, that’s perfectly fine, but one is the minimum. If you just put in characters for recognition and, perhaps, even change their past this way (two examples: C-3PO from Star Wars and Minerva McGonagall from Harry Potter), that will only lead to trouble, because especially fans (who are most likely to be interested in your prequel tales) are very adamant about canon, aka ‘not changing something which has already been stated.’

The problems with the two examples above? C-3PO is a regular protocol unit in the original trilogy. During the three movies, we see several other droids of the same type. The prequels turn him into Anakin Skywalker’s personal project. Did Darth Vader sell the blueprints at some point? It’s highly unlikely. As is that Owen Lars, Anakin’s half brother, wouldn’t recognize something he knows his half brother has built, yet the only thing he says about 3PO when seeing him at the beginning of “A New Hope” is ‘you’re a protocol unit.’

And Minerva McGonagall? From the data to be found in the Harry Potter novels, devoted fans have calculated that Professor McGonagall was born in 1935. The “Fantastic Beasts” series is set in the 1920s, so well before McGonagall should have been born, yet we see her as a teacher at Hogwarts in a flashback, where she taught Newt and Leta. Since Newt is already an adult in the series, that would set his time in Hogwarts even earlier than the 1920s.

3. Do not try to force changes in the accepted lore of your stories so far

This plays a little into the other two points on the list - it’s easy to change a character’s vita by accident when you use them in the prequels and it’s easy to put in a character for recognition value, but give them another background than they originally had. For instance, there’s a small point about Luke’s uncle in “A New Hope” which conflicts with the prequels: Obi-Wan mentions that Owen is his brother, so not really Luke’s uncle. A novel which came out alongside “The Phantom Menace” clamps down on this, having young Obi-Wan think about his brother Owen and what he might be doing, but then “Attack of the Clones” came around and made him Anakin’s half brother (to explain their different last names, one might suspect). And, yes, novels which explore different parts of a movie universe are never going to be one hundred percent on the same side as the movies, but, as mentioned, it was also in a movie - and one of the original trilogy, too.

Another tricky background change is Nagini from the Harry Potter series versus the character from “Fantastic Beasts.” For those very few of you who have never had anything to do with Harry Potter, Nagini is a huge snake which Voldemort (the bad guy) keeps as his pet and which also carries one seventh of his soul. There never was a problem with that - Voldemort travelled far to get more powers and knowledge and his family is known for their ability to speak to snakes, so why shouldn’t he have picked up a huge, dangerous, and perhaps slightly magical snake at some point? But no, “Fantastic Beasts” presents Nagini as a witch who is under a curse which, on one hand, allows for her to change into a snake at will, but will, on the other hand, one day deny her the skill to change back into human form. In other words: once upon a time Voldemort’s pet snake was a human witch. That is icky, to say the least.

Prequels, if they are necessary, need to be very careful with original lore, shouldn’t use any major players from the original stories (at least in important roles), and not just throw in stuff for recognition value alone. So if you want to do any of this in your prequel story, you should think about it twice - it rarely pays off and usually isn’t worth it. If you have a character you want to bring into the story at some point, or a story set before the original stories which you think needs to be told, you can write a prequel, but be very, very careful.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm Review

Few animated movies are made in a way which makes them interesting for adults as well as children - even fewer Batman animated features can claim that. “Batman: Mask of the Phantasm” is one of those cases (“Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker” would be another). Produced by Bruce Timm and Eric Radomski, the creators of “Batman: The Animated Series” (BTAS), the movie fits into the animated series, but can also easily be watched as a standalone. It also got a theatrical release, which does say quite a lot, about the movie as well as about the series. Patrick (H) Willems has done a very good video on the movie (so I could spare myself the trouble and just ask you to watch it).

First of all, the movie has two story arcs which only blend into each other once Batman (greatest detective, remember?) puts together the pieces and realizes what it all is about in the present story arc. The past story arc, which is kicked off with the arrival of Andrea Beaumont, an old flame of Bruce Wayne, tells us something about the very early days of Bruce the vigilante - so early, in fact, that he wasn’t even Batman then, he was a guy prowling the night in a balaclava and a leather jacket.

The present story arc introduces a completely new villain, something which, so far, no Batman live-action movie has dared to do. The Phantasm has come to Gotham, it seems, to kill a host of old mob bosses. At first glance, the Phantasm resembles Batman - black and grey clothing? check; long, billowing cloak? check; dark voice from beyond the grave? you bet - but clearly is not Batman, because Batman doesn’t kill. But, as BTAS’ Batman is a vigilante and hunted by the police, the kills of the Phantasm are blamed on him, forcing him to investigate this and get to the bottom of it. And at this time, his big love from years earlier comes back to town and, for a moment, there seems to be a slight chance that Andrea and Bruce might start it off again.

The way those flashbacks are woven into the present timeline with the Phantasm chasing those mob bosses and Batman chasing the Phantasm is perfectly done, introducing us to the relationship between Andrea and Bruce through a series of vignettes which don’t show the usual, quick romance, but instead true chemistry. It’s not hard to imagine Bruce settling down with Andrea, filling Wayne Manor with the pitter-patter of little feet over time, instead of dark shadows and even darker memories. It would nip Batman’s career in the bud, because so far, Bruce Wayne is not yet Batman, but it would certainly serve to make Bruce a much happier man.

As you can see from the fact that Batman exists in the present story arc, though, it’s obvious that the romance didn’t pan out. Was it Bruce’s fault? No, after a heart-wrenching scene on the graveyard, where he begs his parents for forgiveness for giving up on his oath, he presents Andrea with an engagement ring and she accepts it. Was it Andrea’s fault, then? No, even though she runs away, she doesn’t run away from Bruce, but from the mob. From the very same mob bosses the Phantasm is going for, as it were.

See a connection there? Of course you do, because (drum roll) Andrea is the Phantasm. That threw you off? Bruce didn’t fare much better.

Another thing the movie does wonderfully is making the Joker, Batman’s arch nemesis and #1 villain, a side character. One of the mob bosses goes to the Joker for protection (which doesn’t work out as expected, but what do you expect when you go to a criminally insane man who dresses up like the Joker for help?) and that brings the Joker into the mix for the final confrontation. According to Patrick Willems, the Joker only has about 12 minutes in the whole movie (I haven’t stopped times myself, but Patrick is reliable) and fully uses them without in any way overshadowing Andrea’s Phantasm. He even appears in the past story arc, but only as a low-level gangster. Seeing the Joker in a criminal gang is not a surprise and it doesn’t tell us anything about how that guy became the Joker, which is good - the Joker should stay a mystery, it goes better with his anarchic stance. In the big fight, the Joker is hunter and hunted at the same time - the same as Andrea and Bruce -, but he’s not the main person in it.

What makes “Batman: Mask of the Phantasm” such a great movie, is that it shows us a side of Bruce we haven’t seen before - Bruce on his knees in front of the gravestone of his parents in heavy rain, begging them for forgiveness, because he didn’t foresee such happiness as with Andrea when he made his oath (and, very much like Alfred in the movie, I think they would have forgiven him). It shows us the beginnings of Batman, the time when Bruce knew what he wanted to do, but not yet knew how he was going to do it - he designs and for the first time dons his costume at the end of the past story arc, after Andrea left him and he has returned to the oath and his destiny.

What also makes it such a great movie is how it plays the Phantasm against Batman, going so far as to have the police, understandably at that, first think that they are one and the same. I’m not quite sure how they got a serial killer story (for nothing else is what the Phantasm is) past the upper echelons to make this movie, but they have made it extremely well. The Phantasm doesn’t only kill with the scythe-like weapon on its right arm, but also with other means available - such as a heavy angel statue on the graveyard. Andrea wants those men dead, the way they die doesn’t matter, but she wants to do it herself. She’s been destroyed by vengeance - which is a fate Bruce could have shared, had he not made justice his real goal.

The moment Batman confronts the Phantasm and she unmasks herself, the mirror is clear - those two people who almost got married, who had such great chemistry, who seemed so destined to be together, are very much like each other. But one managed to stay ahead of their thirst for revenge and one didn’t. Batman prowls the night streets so others don’t have to suffer the same fate he has suffered. The Phantasm goes after retired mob bosses to avenge the death of her father (who was killed after they left Gotham). Her revenge has no effect on Gotham’s criminal underworld, she’s not going after men who are still doing regular damage.

For its length (a little over 70 minutes) and its limitations as an animated feature film based on a TV series for children (although BTAS was never only for children), “Batman: Mask of the Phantasm” does a fantastic job - a much better one than many live-action Batman movies. If you can find it somewhere or see it broadcasted on a station you can watch, I’d suggest you give it a go. The movie is fun, the voice-acting is perfect (the team Conroy and Hamill at its best), and the style is fitting and ageless.

The ABC of Spellcraft Review

Yes, yes, another review from me, this time for the still-running series “The ABC of Spellcraft”  by Jordan Castillo Price. I stumbled over the first book, “Quill Me Now,” by coincidence and found it both interesting and funny, so I got the other two, “Trouble in Taco Town” and “Something Stinks at the Spa,” as well. As all of the author’s books (I have by now also started the PsyCop series), the Spellcraft ones are relatively short, not really full-fledged novels which need a long time to read. They’re a quick and funny read and on some days that’s what you need.

It doesn’t hurt that the Spellcraft novels switch more or less regularly (the first one stays with one viewpoint for a bit, until the second main character really comes into the book) and allow for you to look into the minds of two very different people. Dixon, the first viewpoint character, is the younger of the two at almost thirty, and has a very positive outlook on the whole, even if his life is not all unicorns and rainbows. Yuri, the second viewpoint character, is the older of the two and has a more realistic/pessimistic outlook on the whole, since his life (as a gay man with forbidden magic in Russia) was anything but easy. Yet, over the course of the books, Dixon’s positive air and optimism rub off on Yuri as well.

Yuri is first introduced from Dixon’s point of view, at first glance merely the head of security of a local greeting card company (with his build and looks, Yuri certainly fits that role). It’s Dixon’s inability to let sleeping dogs lie which brings them into contact over and over again, as Yuri, who knows what’s really going on, tries to keep Dixon away from the company and its head, while Dixon first wants the promised job and then to find out what is going on there. Needless to say, Yuri fails spectacularly at scaring Dixon away - once Dixon has something in his head, he’s impossible to derail.

But what, you might wonder, is the magic mentioned above? Spellcraft is the art of working magic through words and a scrivener is the one who pens a few words, a sentence or a poem, to direct the magic in a certain way. Dixon was supposed to be a really good scrivener - he has a way with words and perfect penmanship, which is also a necessity - until his quilling ceremony (where he was supposed to get the feather needed for him to do his spellcraft work) failed and he had to look for a new job. There is, however, a second side to the spellcraft business - a seer needs to prepare the paper the scrivener uses by painting a little symbol or scene on it which serves to direct the spell. And despite his looks, Yuri is a very powerful seer who can paint the most intricate and beautiful miniatures on a slip of paper.

In the US, where the series is set, this kind of magic is legal, as long as it stays within certain perimeters (no names may be included in the wording, nobody may carry a piece of spellcraft around with them, and more). In Russia, where Yuri was born and secretly trained in his craft, it’s illegal (just as having a romantic and erotic relationship with another man). Yuri came to the US to be free to live as he wants - only to be caught in a spell and forced to work for a guy he’d rather kill than serve.

Even though “The ABC of Spellcraft” is a male/male erotica series, the actual sex is relatively understated (not because Price can’t write it - it’s a lot less tame in the PsyCop series) and the whole series is more geared towards the characters and the light-hearted stories they find themselves in - usually head over heels and completely tangled and struggling.

Once Yuri and Dixon are together, the stories take a new direction, so “Quill Me Now” serves as an origin story, whereas “Trouble in Taco Town” begins the main arc, which is finding Dixon’s uncle Fonzo who left right after the failed ceremony and worked with the bad guy from the first book on misusing spellcraft.

The focus of the series lies on Dixon and Yuri and their way through America, following the trail left behind by Uncle Fonzo’s postcards and weird, one-word spellcraft. Nevertheless, the series also introduces other characters, most prominently Dixon’s cousin Sabrina, Fonzo’s daughter. Dixon and Sabrina share the attic of Fonzo’s house while trying to get enough money together to pay off his debts, so Sabrina won’t lose her home after losing her father already. She’s Dixon’s closest confidante and best friend. His parents, on the other hand, are happy he’s found both a boyfriend and a partner in spellcraft in Yuri, surprising Yuri with their views.

Since the action is moving away from Dixon’s home in the second novel, characters stay very much one-time afterwards - the inhabitants of Taco Town will not feature in the third book and, presumably, the people from the spa in will not feature in the fourth one, either (once it’s out). Nevertheless, the characters are well-crafted and easy to imagine, making the weird happenings around them come to life.

As mentioned already, the series is not overly dramatic or dark in any way. Even Yuri’s troubles at the beginning - being forced to serve his employer because of a well-crafted and powerful spellcraft - are not used to darken the first book. Dixon’s positive outlook on life sets the tone for all three books and, over time, Yuri becomes less pessimistic as well, even improvising wellness programs and massage techniques in the third book, while pretending to be a Russian massage specialist.

The juxtapose positions of the two leads also lend themselves well to the stories - while Dixon is always prepared to assume that his uncle only meant well (and is usually proven right in the end), Yuri is always prepared to assume that the bad way the spells turned out was planned (and everyone with a disposition less sunny than Dixon’s will have to agree with him) until the big wonder happens and everything turns out well.

If you’re looking for a highly dramatic series with all the angst of not being desired by the other one, “The ABC of Spellcraft” is not for you. But if you want a nice, quick read with humour and fun characters, dive into the series and enjoy!