Villains as Protagonists--Nothing New

After posting yesterday about what I considered a new trend--villains as the protagonists, I remembered A Clockwork Orange. In that story, an English teen gangbanger played by a young Malcolm McDowell was the protagonist. He was a rapist, a murderer, a vile person, and all things despicable. But there he was--the protagonist. Sure, he was given treatment to "cure" him of those behaviors. Meaning whenever he thought about committing a violent act or crime, he would become physically sick. And when he was released back into the world, he was no longer able to cope.

So were we supposed to feel sorry for him then? Not really. I don't think anyone did. Not me. But maybe that's the point of having a villain as the protagonist. Meaning when they get what's coming to them in the end, you don't feel sorry for them.

Another example is the movie Scarface. In Scarface, a much younger Al Pacino was the protagonist. And he was yet another drug dealer. Another murderer. Another despicable person. So in the end, when he was finally killed by rival gangbangers, no one felt sorry for him.

Is that a preferable thing? Yesterday I mentioned the protagonist Maximus from the movie Gladiator. He was a great protagonist, a good person throughout the movie. I mean here we had a great hero who led people, was loved by people, and battled the bad guys. You wanted this guy to be successful. You rooted for him to win. And when he died in the end, you were sad for him. I was, anyway. I didn't want to see him die. I thought that the movie's ending sucked for him to die.

But I didn't feel sad when Al Pacino in Scarface died in the end. He had it coming to him. He deserved to die. And I've concluded that's the point. With a villain as the protagonist, you're okay with seeing him or her die. Like Bonnie and Clyde. Come movie's end--time to die.

Villains as Protagonists?

After watching and enjoying Cable TV shows like Game of Thrones and Spartacus, I've been trying to catch up on some others that I didn't watch. I just completed the full five season run of Breaking Bad, and I'm just about finished with the second season of House of Cards. And with those latter two, I find myself confused. Why? Because it seems that the new trend is to make villains the protagonists. And here I was thinking that heroes were supposed to be the protagonists. Silly me.

When I say hero, I mean that the protagonist is supposed to be a good guy. A person with whom the audience can empathize. You know, someone who is basically a good person, someone who may not be perfect, but someone you're rooting for because you believe that he or she is doing something you can believe in, and has a goal that is something you hope that he or she can achieve.

But what is happening now? Well, in Breaking Bad, the protagonist is a manufacturer of illicit drugs. And it's one of the worst drugs out there--crystal meth. I've never tried that drug myself, but I've known people who did, and their lives were ruined as a result. It's a horrible drug. And not only that, this "hero" becomes a murderer, and is responsible for the deaths of several more people, and indirectly is responsible for the deaths of hundreds.

And still, he's the protagonist, the hero, the main character who the audience is supposed to be rooting for, empathize with, and hope he achieves his goal, which is nothing much more that to make a lot of money. And he admits in the end that he made crystal meth because he enjoyed it, made him feel alive, and he was good at it. Yeah, he was a drug dealer, basically. And a murderer. One of the worst elements of human society, and we're supposed to be rooting for this guy?

Now that I'm watching House of Cards, I'm finding out that it gets even worse! The protagonist is a conniving politician who lies, cheats, undermines his allies, and yes, even murders people. Innocent people. On top of that, he is a closet homosexual, which isn't an evil thing unto itself, but he's a married man, (to a woman, who also has extramarital affairs,) he's the vice president of the United States, and he engages in threesomes with his wife and another man? Come on. I'm supposed to be rooting for this guy? I don't want to pull for people like that. He's crooked, he's vile, he's a murderer, like I said, and he's the protagonist!

Sheesh. What happened to the real heroes? Heroes who were flawed, but basically, they were still good people who you wanted to succeed. Russell Crowe's character Maximus in Gladiator was a hero like that. Even Michael Corleone in Godfather was someone like that. Spartacus in Spartacus was a hero like that. And maybe Spartacus is a perfect example of a great hero. He was a good person, a leader with a great cause, and someone who you could look up to.

Yeah, those are the heroes that I'm used to seeing. Those were heroes I was used to rooting for. Not vile murderers, cheaters, liars, perverts, and destroyers of other peoples' lives. What is Hollywood throwing at us? I'm not sure. It's weird to say the least. The new heroes seem to be the villains. Villains as the heroes. To me, it's backward. Villains are the antagonists, not the protagonists.

I know there's the antihero. The Hulk, Wolverine, even Michael Corleone could qualify as as antihero. Antiheroes are flawed heroes who are good on the inside, but are outcasts, or act outside of the law, but not because they're evil. In fact, they are not evil. They are just different. Flawed, certainly, but they have good hearts. Good souls. Not like these new "heroes" in Breaking Bad and the protagonist in House of Cards!

Well, Breaking Bad's protagonist, it could be argued, didn't have a bad heart, but it could also be argued that his heart wasn't so good. For example, he stands by and watches an innocent girl drown to death in her own vomit when all he had to do was turn her onto her side. He also orders the murder of an innocent man to save his own skin. How good is your heart when you do things like that?

So I'm just wondering why villains are becoming the protagonists. They should be the antagonists. Give me a hero I can root for. Leave the vile characters as the antagonists where they belong.

Protagonists/Antagonists

I started talking about characters last week, and I thought I'd elaborate on the main character, also known as the protagonist and antagonist. I mentioned that the reader has got to be made to care about him or her. At least that's what the writing books will tell you.

The reasoning is if a reader doesn't care about the main character, or about what is going to happen to him/her, then the book is put down and no one reads it.

So what makes sympathetic main characters? Well, they can be nice, caring, or interesting persons. In my debut novel, THE VASE, the main characters are Muhsin Muhabi and Hiram Weiss. Muhsin is a Palestinian potter, and Hiram Weiss is an Israeli college professor. Both have lost sons to the conflict in the region. But that's about all they have in common.

Muhsin is an unassuming merchant in the old city market of downtown Nazareth. All he wants to do is support his family. But scheming terrorists interfere in his life, and Weiss blames him for the death of his only son. Even though a storm of hatred and revenge swirls around him, he remains focused on running his pottery business.

Weiss is part of that storm. Absorbed with vengeance, he plans to destroy Muhsin's shop, and everyone associated with it. But with all storms, the winds settle, and vision clears. What's left of their lives is where the story leads.

Don't Forget the Strong Female

As I wait for the next phase of the editing process for my debut novel, THE VASE, I'm keeping myself busy with my fourth novel. I've outlined most of the book, and synopsized the first few chapters. So I have a very good idea where I'm going with this story. I have my main character, John Dunn, the main antagonist, Theophilus Shepstone, some supporting characters in Xegwana, Bishop Colenso, and Captain Walmsley, and of course, King Cetshwayo.

But I most certainly will not forget a strong female character. Anyone who's read any writing blogs lately knows that strong female characters are pretty much required in novels these days, and I don't just mean Chic Lit.

Nope, and if an author has any savvy in the craft of writing novels, he better not forget that fact. So, what do you do when the setting is in the 19th Century, and in Africa? Doesn't matter. You get a strong female character in there.

And I have one. It's John Dunn's first wife, Catherine Pierce. She married John Dunn at age fifteen, (he was eighteen,) and ran off with him into Zululand where they lived off the land, (and mostly John's hunting,) for two years. They returned to civilization when the Natal Border Agent, Captain Joshua Walmsley happened to run into them, and seeing their sorry state, offered to let them move in with him. (They had two sons by then.)

So they moved in with the captain and his wife, and Catherine became good friends with the older, but childless Mrs. Walmsley. Now this was an important friendship because Catherine was considered a "colored" woman, meaning she was half white and half black. And Maria, (Mrs. Walmsley,) was not prejudiced or racist in any way towards her. But Catherine did have to deal with a lot of that from the other people in the colony.

It was not uncommon for a white man to marry a black or colored woman, but it was also not uncommon for said man to abandon his black woman and colored children for a white wife to make himself acceptable into the white society. But when John Dunn faced that crossroad, he scoffed at the notion of leaving his wife and kids. To him, skin color was not a factor.

But in dealing with this issue, Catherine Pierce needed to be a strong character. Now, she didn't fight in any of the wars, but she did fight her personal war. (Racism.) And it's worth mentioning that although John never did marry a white woman, he did marry several black ones. So these will be some of the sub-plots. Yes, it's all coming together. I'm over 10,000 words into this, and only mid second chapter.

John Dunn vs. Theophilus Shepstone

I've read through THE VASE yet again, and still improved the prose even more. But I'll just wait for the editing process to begin, and go with it at that time.

Meanwhile, I am still researching John Dunn, and even though I have typed over 1500 words and the first five pages, I should wait until all my research is done before I proceed.

But I have found the perfect antagonist. Theopholis Shepstone. He was the Secretary for Native Affairs in Natal, and he didn't like Dunn's native lifestyle. You know, Dunn lived with the Zulus, and he had fifty Zulu wives. And Dunn's white wife wasn't white. I just learned she was half white, and half black.

And even though Shepstone hated Dunn, the other white men admired him and secretly wished they could live the life he was living. That's what it says in the book, The Washing of the Spears, by Donald Morris, one of my main sources of information.

Furthermore, Shepstone harbored a secret wish to become a ruler, himself, at first of a native land, but then he had his sights to become a ruler of the annexed Boer land called the Transvaal. But he needed them to want him, and he needed a conflict to make them want him. (Otherwise, if everything was hunky dory, they had no need of someone who, like Dunn, spoke Zulu and had a way with the natives.) So it was Shepstone who had a part in stirring up trouble that contributed to the war.

Yes, it sounds as if this Shepstone fellow will make the perfect antagonist for the hero, John Dunn.