[Starbreaker]

Read any fantasy series, and you'll find that they fall into one of two categories. Either the villain is kept offstage, like Sauron in "Lord of the Rings" or he is brought into the story to interact with the rest of the cast like Darken Rahl in "Wizard's First Rule."

The question is, which style is better? I personally think that the villain should be brought onstage, where his depravity can be illustrated.

[Zeddicus]

Generally, I agree, though it depends on the effect the author is going for. In Tolkiens case the aloofness of Sauron added to the immortality and invincibility of his character. The inanimate image of Sauron as an eye that oversees everything makes the companions odds of failing their quest seem that much greater. The villians that are more up front in the story don't have as much of that superhuman air about them.

[This message has been edited by Zeddicus (edited November 15, 1999).]

[Dragon]

I feel that both styles are equally effective if done properly. It is nice to be able to see the enemy in all it's glory. Seeing how powerful, ruthless and ugly the bad guy is can have you wondering just how our hero is going to defeat him. After all, he's just a little orphan kid raised by goats on the side of a mountain (or something like that). But it can be just as effective to have the bad guy lurking in the shadows as our hero goes up against his evil minions. Because eventually to win, he's gonna have to go after the head honcho who has to be bigger and badder and uglier than what he's seen to get there. The mystery of the hidden character can add to the suspense. I guess my whole point to this story is that I like both styles.

[neal66]

A fantasy epic is as strong as it's villian.
If an fantasy novel has weak villian(a villian that is not very evil or is sympathetic)that weakens the fantasy novel.I like my villians depraved and nasty will no socially redeeming qualilities about them.

[DayDreamer]

i think the villans lose the 'final battles' too many times. Couldnt someone write a series where you have no i dea who is going to win? I think that would be pretty interesting.

[Emily]

Yes yes yes!!!!! That's such a weakness of the fantasy genre...has there ever been a series where the baddies actually won?

As for villains...LotR is the only series I can think of that didn't have the villain on full display.

[devorah]

While I'm can't think of any books/series where the villains win completely, I can think of a novel in which the heroine dies and the bad guys kind of win the "battle" even though the book implies that the good guys will ultimately win the "war".
The book is The Terrorists of of Irustan by Louise Marley. It may be too political or feminist for some people, and its more Sci-Fi than fantasy, but its an excellent book.

[Emily]

Devorah, thank you, I will keep my eyes open for this book. There is NO SUCH THING as being too feminist or too political!

Of course, I'm kicking myself for forgetting that WoT keeps the Dark One pretty much off-stage...though of course, in the 50 million books to come, there's every chance he'll make a personal appearance...

[Heresy]

I think villains should be seen rather than just heard.

In stories when you get 'word' of mouth reports and then the villain eventually shows up and acts/thinks entirely different, it completely takes away from the legitimate hatred/disgust of the characters who made such claims in the first place. It becomes hearsay which then reduces it all to but 'He say, She said', etc. Generally, it lowers the scale of what the villain does and points it out to just disagreements between two people.

I feel it ruins the story when you don’t see the villain and are not allowed to watch his characterization develop as well as the main. It’s actually a good book when you can see well developed characters on both ends.

[Crow]

You know, you can just start a new topic, no need to bring up 5-year-old threads on their birthdays.