"I follow him to serve my turn upon him."
I'm going to take a moment here to speak a few words on the 'Bad Man' topic. I've restrained myself from pushing forward with the Talisman in order to let Cam catch up - no point in overshooting him, we're both moving forward with The Neverending Story at the same time. Also, Cam, for your SA - I recently found Watership Down in my closet.
On the subject of the "Bad Man" I will agree that King is despicably crafty and accomplished at laying out his villains. Kathy Bates, Steve Klemp, Jack Torrance, et cetera. This is true throughout the body of his work, culminating in Randall Flagg (the 'Dark Man' exemplified). Incidentally, my favourite chapter of my favourite book concerning one of my favourite figures in literature is the chapter detailing Randall Flagg on the road in The Stand. Morgan Sloat is another great example, although not so complex as Flagg or others (more simplified in the Disney sense, nasty through and through and barely sympathetic). When he is introduced, he is quickly made reprehensible and a glimpse of his past revealed to allow us to draw our own conclusions. There is a fallacy in speculative fiction that great villains can only be great if they are also sympathetic and their actions explained if not empathized. When Darth Vader (and I know I reference Star Wars often, but why shouldn't I, if we're talking about story-telling?) first entered the screen - all we needed to know about his past was that he was a Fallen Jedi. We write his story in our head - what needs to be written - and move on.
I'm older now and may be no longer the "target audience" of The Talisman, although I still find it endearing and magical. When I was younger, the character of Osmond was despicable then and despicable now although he is a thinner character these days. I am more analytical, require more explanation, and as an adult it is harder for me to take certain things at face value. When a character is as amoral as Osmond, he can be done in either one of two ways. He be done in the style of Mickey Peterson in Bronson, leave the hole where his empathy and sympathy and humanity should be act as the focus of the story (incidentally also like Patrick from King's It); or the story can focus on the construction of such a character (or the flaws in that construction). Either way, more time needs to be spend on that character. Osmond is diabolic and shit-house crazy, but really not enough time is spent inside the external performance.
Sloat is a superior example, despite being a different character.
You don't always need that internal dialogue to have a great villain. For fuck sake, Morgoth from Tolkien's mythos is never even characterized and look at the acidic impact his presence has on the series. Great villains alter the environments around them. They direct, impact, or facilitate the opposing forces which drive the plot of a story. You don't always need to be inside their heads to make the story better, but sometimes it's nice to know why they are acting on that side of the field.
The problem with the second sort of villain is that it's very hard to write about them. Outside the impact they have on the series, they are uninteresting. Why do you think there isn't a single chapter about Sauron? Why is Saruman more interesting? Nobody cares about Palpatine. Morgoth is only interesting in that his exploits are referenced, in the legendary context in which they thrive.
It is occasionally difficult to pick one of the two. I can't wait for the next "Sloat In This World" chapter.
No comments:
Post a Comment