| rdfs:comment | - No work of fiction is complete without a villain of some sort. After all, if there's no villain, who will create the conflict? Who will the heroes confront in the climax? Who will sing the best songs? But sometimes, writers encounter a problem. See, sometimes... what the antagonist is doing? It's not immoral, or even illegal. At all. Like, in a sports story, the antagonist would just be the leader of the Opposing Sports Team. If, say, you're writing an inspiring story about an underdog who aspires to be a great chef, the antagonist would be a tough to please food critic, or the owner of a rival restaurant. Sure, these people's success would make the hero's life worse, but in real life, nobody would hold it against these people. That's just the way the world works. Surely these stories are
|
| abstract | - No work of fiction is complete without a villain of some sort. After all, if there's no villain, who will create the conflict? Who will the heroes confront in the climax? Who will sing the best songs? But sometimes, writers encounter a problem. See, sometimes... what the antagonist is doing? It's not immoral, or even illegal. At all. Like, in a sports story, the antagonist would just be the leader of the Opposing Sports Team. If, say, you're writing an inspiring story about an underdog who aspires to be a great chef, the antagonist would be a tough to please food critic, or the owner of a rival restaurant. Sure, these people's success would make the hero's life worse, but in real life, nobody would hold it against these people. That's just the way the world works. Surely these stories are forever bound to having both a hero protagonist and a Hero Antagonist, right? ...right? Meet the Villainy-Free Villain, the very personification of What Do You Mean It's Not Heinous?. To make sure that viewer sympathy is still squarely on the protagonist, the Villainy-Free Villain is an antagonist who compensates for his completely socially acceptable aspirations by being as much of a Jerkass about them as humanly possible. He's not a villain, but by god he sure acts like one. It's as if he doesn't care about his own well-being, but sees his actions as a wonderful opportunity to crush the protagonist's hopes and dreams. This is a clear case of Truth in Television. A person doesn't have to kill or steal to be unlikeable. If you're a complete jerk to people and rub your own victories in the faces of the people you step over, you'll still be seen in a bad light. Note that a character cannot qualify to be a Villainy-Free Villain if he participates in unethical activities. As the name suggests, this antagonist has all the aspects of the villain except the actual villainy. Also, for a character to qualify, he has to actually BE as unpleasant as a normal villain, enough so for the viewer to not sympathize with him. Otherwise, he's just a Designated Villain. On the other hand, if he is unpleasant but barely even does anything to fill the "antagonist" role, then he's a Plot Irrelevant Villain. Compare Hate Sink, who isn't the main conflict-maker but acts nasty so the audience has someone to root against. Examples of Villainy Free Villain include:
|
