Back to Home * Romance * Paranormal * Mystery * Mainstream * SciFi/Fantasy * E-Books

Writing Workshop Presents:

The Fanatic Villain

By Bob DeFrank

Doubt leads to questioning
Questioning leads to understanding.
Understanding leads to compassion.
It is conviction that kills.

R. Scott Bakker

Awhile back I had the opportunity to view X-Men 3 (horrible, horrible disappointment, especially considering the buildup of the first two movies) and the character of Magneto (portrayed superbly in the movies by Sir Ian McKellen) got me to thinking about another
type of villain which has been used to great effect.

Someone (I'm too lazy to look up who) once said that Magneto was probably the most dangerous villain in the Marvel universe, and for more reason than his powers.

He's dangerous because he's a villain who thinks he's the hero.

He is, in short, a fanatic villain.

Now you might be asking yourself: What's the difference? What do a baddie's motivations matter when their actions are indistinguishable? Call a spade a spade.

I agree completely, and it's for the sake of accuracy that I write this article.

The fanatic villain and the archetypical may make similar plans, have similar immediate goals and cause similar pain and hardship, but they are completely different animals. In fact, they are total opposites.

The archetypical villain, as has been pointed out earlier, is characterized primarily by a complete philosophical opposition to the hero: the archetypical hero fights for others, while the archetypical villain has regard only for the self. The fanatic villain, however,
does not act for his/her own benefit but always in the service of some higher ideal. The fanatic villain is, in the strictest sense, not a villain at all. They are far more similar to the heroes in that they are capable of possessing all the same virtues as a hero, including courage, love, compassion and even that most powerful of heroic attributes: the capacity for self-sacrifice. This is because, like the hero, they see themselves as fighting for something beyond their own desires.

If the hallmark of the archetypical villain is selfishness taken to superhuman extremes, then the sign of the fanatic is the hero's convictions, most often the hero's sense of justice, taken to extremes.

The fanatic villain isn't so much a hero gone bad as a hero gone wrong. This is demonstrable by the many cases in which the hero has come close to crossing that line – much more often than those cases of a hero actively turning to evil. Some, like Batman, live perilously close to the edge on a continual basis.

'Antagonist' would probably be a more accurate definition for this type of character, but I'll continue to use 'villain' for the remainder of the article. It sounds more fun.

But back to business. I spoke of extreme convictions. Usually, these convictions take the form of an extreme prejudice either for one group or against another. The usual subjects are family, race, gender, philosophy, politics and religion.

The goal may be movement toward some ideal political or moral state to be attained in the future at the expense of the present. Fanatic villainy may also take the form of dominating others "for their own good."

In addition, fanatic villains can be group-oriented. This is true of Magneto. As has been observed, his personal magnetism is far more formidable than his power over metal.

And therein lies the greatest danger of the fanatic villain. While we are fascinated and repelled by the archetypical villain, we are often fascinated and attracted to the fanatic.

Why?

Perhaps the fanatic villain embodies something needed by people who are adrift in bad times. A sense of conviction that they lack and strength they might partake of. The fanatic villain offers people a direction. A purpose. Something to do so that they
feel as though they have some ability to affect their own fate.

Perhaps it comes down to doubt. Humans are naturally doubting creatures. Often we doubt ourselves, our beliefs, and the future. This serves a valuable purpose in our makeup: if we cannot acknowledge the possibility that we may be mistaken in our beliefs, we cannot
experience the growth that comes from self-examination and learning. But doubt offers little comfort when matters are uncertain. It can even be seen as shameful, depending on the time and the culture.

But while even heroes know doubt, the fanatic villain entertains none at all.

This is their greatest strength and their greatest weakness. Fanaticism is, ultimately, self-destructive. The problem is all the innocents that die in the meantime.

It's a staple of the fanatic villain that such characters offer quick, simple solutions to complex problems. Normally those solutions involve making some other group bloody.

Unfortunately, these easy answers resonate with people. This means that winning the conflict is a much more difficult matter than the hero simply killing the bad guy.

Perhaps that is the most obvious mark of a fanatic villain. When the archetypical villain dies, his/her subjects celebrate (the Witch of the West) and pull down their statues (Palpatine, end of ROTJ) or else scatter to the four winds, since they were united only
by their own greed and the fear of their master (Voldemort and the Death Eaters, the White Witch, Sauron).

But when the fanatic villain dies, he/she is declared a martyr and the minions raise up statues and continue to conquer and kill in the villain's name, if not at his/her order.

This is the best reason a writer has for using the fanatic villain. In such a conflict, the battle is not just a physical one but a war of ideas and of philosophy.

That is the chief advantage to utilizing this type of villain. With the archetypical villain, the main character and the reader can thoughtlessly dismiss their motives and arguments, but the fanatic villains always has, at the foundation, a good and perhaps
justifiable reason for acting as they do. In that situation, the reader is challenged to seriously look at these characters and determine when and how they went wrong.

It offers the main character (and ideally the reader) the chance to walk a mile in the other guy’s shoes and to realize that the ground under their feet may not be altogether solid, and that there may be some stains on those white hats.

On the other hand, there are cases in which the hero and the fanatic have similar or even identical goals, differing only in the means. The good cop outraged by injustice yet constrained by the limits of law versus the vigilante who will stop at nothing to punish
the guilty, for one example. At such times, the fanatic villain can serve as a warning for the hero, should he or she wander too close to extremism in the pursuit of an ideal. A particularly powerful moment in any story occurs when the hero looks at the villain and
thinks – or it is in some way implied – I came close to turning out just like you.

Now, these examples presuppose that the fanatic villain will take a leadership role in the story. This is not necessarily so. Fanatic villains function quite well at the minion level, but since they work with a tremendous will and dedication of their own, they
operate best when given autonomy.

Indeed, certain serial killers could fit the mold. Individuals such as the Jigsaw killer (Saw I, II and III) Hannibal Lector (Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, Red Dragon) and John Doe (Seven) all see themselves as following a high moral code and they target their
victims from among people who, in their estimation, violate that code.

However, the charismatic aspect of the fanatic villain is never to be underestimated. The more power you give your fanatic villain, the better the story.

Finally - and I can't stress this enough - please, no ranting, raving televangelist stereotypes. The effective fanatic villain is charming, highly intelligent, even empathic.

Like the hero, the fanatic villain is capable of inspiring others.

Most ominous of all, the villain is not running a con of any kind. The most dangerous aspect of the true fanatic villains is that they are utterly sincere in their beliefs.

Consider Ma'elKoth, ruler of an imperial theocracy in Matthew Woodring Stover's "Heroes Die" and "Blade of Tyshalle." So calm and personable. So reasonable. So erudite and cultured. So charismatic. So compassionate. So sincere.

So very, very dangerous.

Stover has said that a reader once came up to him and asked, straight-out, if Ma'elKoth was supposed to be a good guy or a bad guy. The reader didn't know what to feel about him. Stover responded that that was the idea.

When you have constructed an antagonist that you yourself would follow, you'll know you've got the perfect fanatic villain.

Successful fanatic villains from literature, movie and television include:

Magneto (X-Men)
Barty Crouch Jr. (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire)
Grand Admiral Thrawn (Star Wars: Heir to the Empire)
The Yuuzhan Vong (Star Wars: The New Jedi Order)
The Others (LOST)
Ras'al Gul (Batman Begins)
Malthus the Counselor (Banewreaker)
The followers of the Authority (His Dark Materials)
The Cylons (Battlestar Gallactica)
Venom (Spiderman)
Agent Smith (the first Matrix movie. He later becomes an archetypical villain)
O'Brien and the Thought Police (1984)
The Mask Killer (The Watchmen)
Ma'elKoth (Heroes Die, Blade of Tyshalle)
Ghe (The Waterborn, the Blackgod)
Melisandre of Asshai (A Song of Ice and Fire)
The Children of Light (The Wheel of Time)
The Red Ajah (The Wheel of Time)
Hannibal Lector (Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, Red Dragon)
Jigsaw (Saw I, II and III)
John Doe (Seven)