[Writing Discussion] Is it possible to write a passive villain?

[Tinkerer]

Hello, fine peoples!

 

I was actually talking with a friend the other day and this topic came up. We had been developing a story together for years and upon reflecting, we realized that a lot of our heroes in the story were much more passive than their villain counterparts.

 

Now, it might simply be because of the type of superhero/supervillain genre of story that we’re telling, but it really got me thinking. Can you truly write a “passive” villain?

 

Heroes can be written passively (both comedically and straight), and can be seen as a hero in context of the story, whether or not what they are truly passionate about (or show activeness towards) has anything to do with the story.

 

I personally think it might be possible, but I wanna hear the thoughts of other writers/aspiring writers.

[Catterjune]

I think the quote about 'all that is needed for evil to win is for good men to do nothing' could suffice.

 

A passive villain would just sit around and let people die all around them while they were relatively safe. Say, the world is flooding and a rich guy owns a boat while other folks try to sneak onto it or steal it or something.

 

I guess the problem in writing a passive villain would then be, is he really considered a villain? He's certainly the guy that gets in the main character's way in the above stupid boat example, but he worked for his boat or whatever. No reason to steal it.

 

In short, there just needs to be a shitty situation, the 'villain' needs to have some way of stopping it or ending it or saving everyone, and they just choose not to.

[Tinkerer]

I guess the problem in writing a passive villain would then be, is he really considered a villain?

 

You hit the nail on the head here.  That's very much what my friend and I realized.

 

Your point seems to be on the difference between a sin of commission (doing something wrong) vs a sin of omission (not doing something right).  A 

passive villain, then, would be a person who basically "keeps" doing sins of omission.  Interesting.

 

 

I guess the difficult part would be setting such a character up in-story.  One has to establish moral grounds (if they're different than irl ones), one has to show this antagonist acting in this dismissive way, yet has to also show that they are aware of what they are doing, else they be seen as misguided, or even a misunderstood hero.

 

Might comment more later.  Thanks for your insight!

[mitchermitcher]

I think the quote about 'all that is needed for evil to win is for good men to do nothing' could suffice.

 

A passive villain would just sit around and let people die all around them while they were relatively safe. Say, the world is flooding and a rich guy owns a boat while other folks try to sneak onto it or steal it or something.

 

I guess the problem in writing a passive villain would then be, is he really considered a villain? He's certainly the guy that gets in the main character's way in the above stupid boat example, but he worked for his boat or whatever. No reason to steal it.

 

In short, there just needs to be a shitty situation, the 'villain' needs to have some way of stopping it or ending it or saving everyone, and they just choose not to.

The thing is that in my experience, practically all villains in this category are annoying or frustrating to some degree,never engaging. It may be possible to write this kind of passive villainy and have them be fascinating but at least I've never seen one. And if they're not being expressly portrayed as villains then they plain out won't be, they'll usually only become side characters.

 

I think one interesting way to write a passive villain is to have some kind of bad event relative to the desires of the protagonist resulting from them just existing. If their opposition to the protagonist is not something  they have any control over and it's the protagonist's side who takes action first against this villain, they are then able to be passive while still having a role in the story. On the other hand that again brings us back to the question of whether they're a villain or actually the person the narrative should be focusing on in the first place.

[Catterjune]

I think it depends on how you define "passive" and how you define "villainy".

 

I'd consider Willy Wonka to be vaguely villainous. He brings these terrible children into his factory and they're killed off (in 'humurous' ways) one-by-one. He doesn't act to save them, but he built the factory, he knows what'll happen if she chews the gum or if he jumps into the TV laser but he does absolutely nothing to stop them.

 

I've never seen the Saw movies, but I belive Jigsaw just sets up elaborate traps, then kidnaps people and forces them to play his game. The protagonists could just as easily say 'No thanks' and just sit there and wait for the sweet embrace of death. As far as I know (again, never saw the movies) Jigsaw isn't moving the plot along. It's the people he kidnaps and forces to play his game.

 

So then the question is, would you consider Willy Wonka to be a villain? Would you consider Jigsaw's action to be passive? It's all ultimately a matter of perspective.

[mitchermitcher]

I think it depends on how you define "passive" and how you define "villainy".

 

I'd consider Willy Wonka to be vaguely villainous. He brings these terrible children into his factory and they're killed off (in 'humurous' ways) one-by-one. He doesn't act to save them, but he built the factory, he knows what'll happen if she chews the gum or if he jumps into the TV laser but he does absolutely nothing to stop them.

 

I've never seen the Saw movies, but I belive Jigsaw just sets up elaborate traps, then kidnaps people and forces them to play his game. The protagonists could just as easily say 'No thanks' and just sit there and wait for the sweet embrace of death. As far as I know (again, never saw the movies) Jigsaw isn't moving the plot along. It's the people he kidnaps and forces to play his game.

 

So then the question is, would you consider Willy Wonka to be a villain? Would you consider Jigsaw's action to be passive? It's all ultimately a matter of perspective.

It's been a while since I've seen or read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory so I can't make a strong argument for it, but WW bringing those kids into his factory is already a proactive narrative act. The kids, as victims I guess, react to this and therefore they are passive characters. You can consider him villainous if the story does paint him that way, but I'm pretty sure he's not passive.

 

On that other example, this Jigsaw person is also clearly a proactive rather than passive character, based on your description of this movie. The plot begins on this character's initiative by setting up traps and then forcing the main characters into their current situation, forcing them to react. The movie itself might progress by following the actions of the kidnapped characters involved, but those actions are taken in reaction to the fact that they are trapped, which means the agency is on the person who put them into that situation, making that person the non-passive character. At least that's what I was able to infer. I've not seen it either.

 

There's a difference between passivity in a narrative and real-life passivity and it's by no means something that can just be dismissed by the inherent subjectivity in fiction and art.  Otherwise you might as well not discuss this at all, it'd be meaningless.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Depends what you consider a villain.

 

In a sense a force of nature can be seen as a "villain". And also it depends on if the "villain" is someone who other people would identify as a villain or if they're someone portrayed as a villain by the narrator/main character.

 

Say, the main character is trying to bring down the cop who arrested their innocent brother and caused them to be sent to prison. The cop might not be intentionally going out of their way to be a villain and might not even realize that someone's out to get them. Hell, they may have just been doing their job and the court screwed up. But to the main character, and the perspective of the story, they're the "villain" because they're the ones that are standing in the way of the main character's goal.

 

Maybe not explaining this well, sorry.

[Tinkerer]

So I actually saw an old English professor the other day and I decided to ask him this question. His thoughts generally boiled down to:

 

"The word 'villain' is too strong. You can write a passive antagonist, but even that is less of that character being a villain and more of someone getting in the protagonist's way unintentionally."

 

The example he gave was: "boy has crush on girl, girl isn't interested." If the boy was the protagonist, then, for the most part, the girl is a passive antagonist. What might be even more direct is if the girl had a crush on someone else. The "someone else" would be an even more obvious antagonist, even if said person has absolutely no connection with the protagonist (making them potentially even more passive).

 

By nature of their passivity though, it seems fairly obvious that shifting the focus of a story even a little bit can make a passive villain into a protagonist. Writing one appears to be a challenge to stay focused.

[mitchermitcher]

It's my fault for not making a proper distinction between antagonist and villain then. If villain is a stronger, more loaded word than antagonist, then I'm not as sure it's possible. Volition to go against the protagonist/heroes or their sense of morality means they by definition are not passive.