To Be a Hero... Can a Villain Apply?

Hero versus villain... protagonist versus antagonist... Seems rather cut and dried, doesn't it, but is it really? But can a villain actually become a hero?

Of course he can. It's all a matter of perception.

I've recently begun watching Wolf Hall on Masterpiece Theater. For those who aren't familiar with this drama, it's the story of Thomas Cromwell, and the part he played in the events of his times, that is during the reign of Henry VIII. Of humble birth, Cromwell was taken under the wing of the great Cardinal Wolsey, and nurtured. The Cardinal's unmakiing was Henry's failure to have a son by his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. His pride - and his nation - decreed he must have an heir. Of course, his becoming infatuated with a young girl named Anne Boleyn didn't help matters any. She had spent some time in the French court, and was smart enough to realize that if she gave in to Henry - ie sleep with him - she would quickly lose his favor. But she held out and kept her eye on the prize - becoming Queen of England. For that to happen, Henry needed his first wife annulled, which would also have made any children by that union bastards. He only had the one daughter, Mary, and he was willing to have that happen in order to gain a son.

I've read a number of stories and histories dealing with this time period, and almost invariably Thomas Cromwell is painted as a villain for his part in the fall of Wolsey, the divorce of Henry and Queen Catherine, and  breaking with the Pope and the formation of the Church of England. But here he is actually the hero, the center of the story. The man himself has not changed, of course, merely how we are to perceive him.

So what does that mean for a writer? Just that the person who is the center of your story can be a villain and still be the hero. Not only the virtuous need apply.

In this story, Anne Boleyn is painted as a villainess, but if you should read or watch Anne of the

Thousand Days, you'll have a whole different picture of the woman who became Henry's second wife, mother of the greatest queen in English history, and first of his wives to be beheaded. Whereas Wolf Hall makes her out to be a calculating schemer, who was in league with her family to acquire power and wealth, in Anne of the Thousand Days, she is a young girl who becomes enamored of a handsome, virile king and spends years waiting to make him hers.


One of my favorite villains cum heroes has to be Dr. Hannibal Lecter. I've read all the books, seen all the movies, and love them. Hannibal is a serial killer, and an unrepentant one at that. He makes no bones about what he's done. Granted, he has reasons, and how he became the way he is is well told in Hannibal Rising. But the fact remains he has done things which don't exactly make him hero material. And yet that is just what he is, for he is the center of every story, even when he is not onscreen, so to speak.

What does Hannibal have that makes him so interesting, even as a villain? He's intelligent, and very charming... and manipulative as hell. As a trained psychiatrist, he has insight into how people think, how they work, and he isn't afraid to use that knowledge for his own means. Whether you like him or not, there is no doubt that he is the hero of Thomas Harris' books.

Another example of the villain as hero can be found in John Milton's Paradise Lost. I only read this poem for the first time in the last couple of years, and was instantly mesmerized. It begins in the aftermath of the great Rebellion - the attempt by a third of the Chosen to overthrow God which resulted in their being cast down to the newly created Hell. Among them is their leader, of course, Lucifer. Since history is written by the victors, and since Lucifer did not win in his attempt to wrest power from God, ergo Lucifer is the villain. And yet he is the hero, for he shines more brightly than any other character in the book, and he is certainly the most interesting among them. Compared to him, Adam and Raphael are dull and annoying, whereas Lucifer reveals himself made of sterner stuff, and also shows God in a less than flattering light.



Lucifer is portrayed as highly intelligent and brave, and unafraid to take on someone who is as powerful as he is, if not more so. Even knowing that God is all-knowing, he takes a stand for what he believes in and fights for it. Is that not the definition of a hero? And yet he has been vilified for many years.

Lucifer also features as the hero/villain of a series of graphic novels written by one of my favorite

writers, Mike Carey. And once again, the angels do not come off well at all. In Carey's version, which actually found its origins in Neil Gaiman's Sandman, Lucifer is fed up with being in charge of Hell and he's gone up to Earth and opened up a piano bar called Lux in Los Angeles. The story opens as an angel approaches him, sent by God to deliver a message - God needs a favor. Once again, there is no doubt Lucifer is a villain, but he is still the hero of these volumes.

A good hero is not perfect. He has flaws and imperfections which make him human, and place him within the understanding of the readers who might be less than impressed with someone who is without fault. At the same time, a villain can have his good points and his virtues. And be interesting enough to fill the role of hero.

Wouldn't life be dull if every character was one way or the other? It's how you handle the flaws that sets your characters apart, for good or for bad. Who doesn't love a bad boy?

I think every writer needs to make a hero of a villain at least once in his or her career. I know I intend do.

You've met him already, and he too is a serial killer. You'll be seeing him again.

Sexy Villain Sunday; Jim Profit's the Man

The definition of a villain lies in the eye of the beholder. According to Merriam-Webster, a villain is "a character in a story or play who opposes the hero."  But what if the villain is the hero? In other words, the protagonist. Does that change anything, such as the perception we have of him? Conversely, does it make the good guys the heroes? I guess it depends on your point of view.


I just finished watching the pitifully few episodes of Profit that were made. It was never picked up for a second season, and never given resolution.  At one time, shows had the plug pulled and never had the opportunity to wrap everything up in a neat little package, knowing they'd been cancelled. Hence, we left the brave castaways still shipwrecked on Gilligan's Island ('til many years later, when the miracle of TV movies rescued them at long last). The bad thing about this scenario is that we don't find out the answer to the burning questions we have regarding our favorite characters. Of course, on the other hand, some series that were allowed to do this, did it pretty ridiculously and we'd have been better served if they'd simply avoided it. One example of this is St. Elsewhere, whose resolution involved an austic boy's dream. The entire series. Seriously? That's worse than the Bobby-dream sequence season of Dallas, which was horrible too, but at least we only lost one season. In the case of St. Elsewhere, it was all in a child's head, nothing more.

Profit was the brainchild of David Greenwalt and John McNamara, produced by Stephen Cannell. The trouble with Profit is that it was ahead of its time. Cable networks weren't what they are now, and although it was picked up by Fox, it proved to be too edgy for mainstream television audiences. I'm convinced, to quote Judas in  Jesus Christ Superstar: If you'd come today, you would have reached a whole nation. Okay, maybe he was talking about Israel in 4 B.C., but you get the point. If Profit were to air now, it would be quite successful, of that I have no doubt.

The protagonist of Profit is, of course, Jim Profit, played  by the delectable Adrian Pasdar. He is the hero, but arguably he is also a villain. He will stop at nothing to get what he wants - power, wealth, control - inside of G&G, Gracen & Gracen, his employers.


****SPOILERS******  A little background first. Jim Profit was born Jim Stakowski in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His father was worse than neglectful, he was abusive. He stuck the year old child into a large cardboard box, with a slit cut out through which he could view the television; once a week he threw in food and supplies. The television was Jim's only contact with the outside world. He grew to hate it once he became an adult. He decided to make a place for himself at G&G - not surprisingly, the box was one of theirs, the only family he has really known. As the series began, Jim has just received a promotion following the death of the former VP of Acquisitions at G&G. G&G is a family-owned business. Chaz Gracen is the CEO, bumbling brother Pete is Senior VP of Acquisitions; Jack Walters is married to their cousin, and is President of Acquisitions (but not for long); Joanne Meltzer (Lisa Zane) is Jack's ex and the obsessive head of Security who is determined to destroy Jim Profit at all costs.

And then there's Bobby (Lisa Blount). We first see her in the pilot, at the end of the first hour. Jim is told he has a visitor in his office. He enters, sees her and closes the door, whereupon the woman practically throws herself into his arms and they proceed to kiss rather warmly. When they finally pull apart, she greets him with, "Hello Jimmy," and he responds with, "Hi Mom". Yeah, right. I was very amazed myself at first, until it's revealed that she's his stepmother, not his biological mother.  However, I learned when I watched the extras on the dvd that originally Bobby was his mother, and that the reason for the first rejection of the series was due to that. Fox picked it up, but before it was actually shot, they requested the change to stepmother.

Every good villain needs a sidekick, right? For Jim Profit, it was Gail Koner (Lisa Darr).  She's Jack's assistant, and a nice person. But he learns her secret (everyone has at least one) - she's skimming a few cents here and there, in order to make her mother more comfortable in the nursing home she's in. Jim thinks that's an admirable motive - as he tells her when he reveals his knowledge of her crime - and would she please do him a favor? Thus begins their relationship. Gail ends up as Jim's assistant, and he leads her down the path of... well, that's for  you to decide. Personally, if that were me, I'd have no problem doing what he asks of her. He's charming, sexy, handsome, intelligent. Did I say drop dead gorgeous?  Is Gail a good guy or bad guy? I guess that depends on how your moral compass swings. And how you view Jim Profit. In just the few episodes made, you can watch her evolution from unwilling accomplice to trusted sidekick, her dreams of being a player in this world shattered by indifferent corporate execs - until Jim Profit takes her in hand. . I like to believe that under Jim's tutelage, someday she achieved her goals. 

Jim uses whomever he needs to use. He exploits the loneliness of drunken Pete's wife Nora, becomes her friend, hints at more, plans a romantic assignation, but at the last minute tells her he cares too much to do that to her.(But he manages some mighty fine manipulation in the process) When he finally kills his father - an action begun when he was fifteen  (Jim handcuffed him to the bed and set the trailer on fire, then took off), he thinks he's rid of his stepmother, but the plucky Bobby has other ideas. She's loud, brash, loose and amoral. She loves to live high on the hog but she doesn't want to do any more work than is involved in spreading her legs. And she knows the value of an audio recording. So he tolerates her, and has to give in to her demands, material and otherwise, for now. And yes, he continues to service her as well. At least he goes through the paces. You just know she broke him in, years ago. Theirs is a love/hate relationship, as much as Jim can feel love. Which isn't much.

One of the most shocking, haunting, mind blowing images you'll ever want to see occurs at the end of the pilot. Throughout the series, you see Jim at home at his computer, sitting before it in the nude. He has a secret area in his apartment, where no one is allowed, where he makes his Machiavellian plans. You might think he's attempting to wrest control of G&G, but you'd be wrong. He doesn't wish to step into the light, he chooses to remain in the shadows. To be the power behind the throne. To eliminate everyone who gets in his way. In the pilot, he gets  a program, thanks to Gail, which gives him virtual access to G&G, and everyone's files, including digital representations of everyone there. He delights in blowing up these 3-D images as he destroys each person. 

But about the image. As I said, he spends a lot of time at this computer, scheming, sitting there in the nude (if you're hoping to see something, remember - this was shown on Fox, not happening). At the very end of the pilot, when he calls it a night and retires, we see what we haven't seen before - he has THE box, there in his little sanctuary. The one he was brought up in.  (If not the very one, then the same type, we're never sure, but it's definitely a G&G box). And he curls up in it and sleeps there, every night. I'm telling you that was one hell of a surprise, and that image is indelibly burned into my brain. 






I realized while watching the extra something that probably explains at least part of my attraction to Jim Profit. It's that whole power behind the throne angle. Just like the man who's my historical crush - Cardinal Armand Jean Duplessis Richeileu. Although he virtually ruled France for many years, he was content to appear to be the king's right-hand man. Richelieu was a very complex and fascinating character. And yet if you ask most people today about him, they'll say he was a villain. Why? Most likely because Alexander Dumas painted him that way in his Musketeer books, a portrayal which has been replicated in the film versions. It's all a matter of perception.


So there you have it - Jim Profit is my modern day Cardinal Richelieu. No wonder I'm attracted to him.


Sinner or Saint?  You make the call.  There is no right or wrong. I recommend that you check out Profit - you'll be glad you did.




Until next time, take care!


♥ Julie

Not Every Character is Meant to be Loved

I find a great deal of inspiration in the programs and movies that I watch for my writing.  And I don't mean in the plots or the characters per se, but rather in the writing itself, and the development of the characters and the plots, and in the way they are utilized.  Lessons which can be translated and implemented in my own writing, lessons as valuable as any offered by a writing teaching, made more effective by the visual mode through which they are conveyed.

Point in case today - Rome.

Rome was a short-lived series which ran for two seasons on HBO, 2002 and 2003 I believe.  I only recently began to netflix it and am currently well into the second seasons.  This is a most excellent series, and it combines a number of my personal interests into one well-done and entertaining bundle: great stories, writing, acting, characters and - one of my favorites - history!  These are real people whom are often portrayed in our lackluster history classes as names and dates and deeds long dead and forgotten, but here they are given life and shown for what they really were - actual people.  This is the sin of which most history teachers, in my opinion, are guilty - not impressing that the people of today are tomorrow's historical figures; that the ones that lives before us were just like we are now, except they lived first.  But they were all human, with all the quirks and desires and foibles that people possess, and thus worthy of our interest, rather than our dismay at reading about them.

So are our characters, the ones we write about, real people - in our heads.  It's up to us to convey them as living people upon the printed page, as it is the job of historians and teachers to do the same thing with their charges, although sadly many fail to do so.  Rome does it well.  I can't possibly look at Julius Caesar the same way any more, and his murder, in the Senate of Rome by those he considered to be friends and wellwishers was never more vividly impressed in my mind, despite Shakespeare's dramatic portrayal.  Sorry, WS, but the series drove it home in a way in which the play never had.

The first season of Rome takes place during Julius Caesar's reign and ends with his assassination.  At the point where I'm at now, Octavian has become consul.  He now calls himself Caesar, having been adopted by JC before his death.  Things are a bit bleak, though.  Octavian has demanded that the Senate brand Brutus and Cassius as murderers for their actions in the death of Julius Caesar, a divisive act as many in the Senate are yet their friends (these two fled long ago, by the way, and are lurking outside of Rome, with their forces). Cicero sent word to them of what has happened, encouraging them to return with their forces to oust Octavian.  That put him in a pretty pickle - he was told they had 10 legions to his 4, and even if the numbers are exaggerated, Octavian knows his is the weaker force.  So, being the very shrewd and intelligent young man that he is, he does the only thing he can - he has to make nice with Marc Antony, who is still beloved by the common soldiers, who flock to join him.  Well played, young Octavian, well played!  For those who don't recognize him by that name, later he'll become the Emperor Caesar Augustus.  Ring a bell now?

Now, how he does this wooing of Antony is simple - he uses his mother, Atia, who is Antony's lover.  Today's episode ended with Octavian and Antony embracing like long lost friends.  If you'll remember your history, they will become co-consuls of Rome.  For a time, anyway.  My point here is not to give a history lesson, per se, but to talk about the characters involved.  On the surface, it would seem that Atia is a loving mother who only wishes to help her beloved son.

Wrong.  Atia is and has always been all about herself, which is evident from the beginning.  She's a very narcisstic selfish bitch who only wants what is best for herself, and to be on the winning side.  She is Julius Caesar's niece, and she does not hesitate to reap all the benefits of that relationship, nor to wield whatever power she can from the Julii name.  She treats everyone abominally.  Even Antony.  And yet  her character serves definite purpose in the plot, and that is my point.  Having people to hate is important.  So many books have villains we love to hate but actually love that having one we can unabashedly hate and despise is important.  You can't like everyone, and you shouldn't.

Then there are the other characters, the ones that different people will see differently because of their own perceptions.  Brutus - he was Caesar's friend, but he agreed to off him because he was too weak not to.  We see that he isn't a bad man, but a weak one, who has seen his own ideals for what Rome should be twisted and turned against him, until he is left with only one way to go, and so he went that way.  Marc Antony - another very selfish man, but he's more true to his own purpose, and he remained Caesar's friend to the end.  I can read  his most famous speech in Shakespeare's play now with a better understanding of what is actually happening, the cunning behind the lines which don't outwardly condemn Brutus for what he did, but there the truth is, just below the surface.  Such masterful writing, so incredibly dramatic.

There is just something about watching people we hate, getting ourselves and our emotions and our knickers all twisted as we curse them - silently or otherwise - and root for their destruction.  The important thing to carry away is that the writer, as well as the actors, have brought them to life for us and we feel.  This translates to our own writing.  Our goal is to make our readers feel for our characters - love them, hate them, everything in between.  To make our readers feel something.  If they aren't feeling, chances are they've nothing vested in the story, so why continue reading?

By creating hate for some, I think we enhance the love for our other characters, trigger a protective mantel, so to speak.  Without those villains, I don't think those feelings would run quite so deep.  In other words, there'd be no conflict, and what's a story without conflict of some sort?  True, conflict does not always have to be other people.  Remember the three basic types of conflict?  I still do, even after all these years, having learned them in grade school:

1) Man vs Man
2) Man vs Nature (or God)
3) Man vs Himself

Personally, I find that the last two only go so far to keep my interest; it's an exceptional story that can do that, especially when it's a man and some animals, such as Call of the Wild (sorry, it bored me), and while I like psychological dramas, there is just something more satisfying in pitting man against his fellow man.

It's natural to want your characters to be loved, but not all of them should be.  There will be people who don't even like the ones you'd think they would, because everyone has their own point of view, and one person's hero is another villain.  But it's all good, so don't be offended.  Hey, they read the story, didn't they?  They don't have to agree, as long as they took something away with them.  Isn't that the point?  If they care enough to feel something for your characters, then you've done something.

I have a character in a novel which I am about to submit to Silver of whom I am very fond, not surprisingly, but my daughter Sarah delights in referring to him as a douche-canoe.  But at least she remembers him.  I may complain at her characterization of him, but secretly I am delighted to know she cares that much.

There is a lot that can be done with these characters, to make them multi-layered and unexpected, at least to a degree.  At the end of today's Rome, as Atia led the reconciliation between the lover she'd not seen since he fled Rome without her and the son whom she had allowed that same lover to mistreat and abuse,as she had never been a good mother to him, I couldn't help but think that she hadn't changed - still the same selfish creature she'd always been.  Characters can and do change and evolve, and I love when that happens, but there does have to be logic involved, not just wishful thinking as in I want Character A who's always been evil to be good now - you have to know why, and show it, so we can embrace it.  But it's okay to have a serpent remain a serpent, and that's what I think Atia is and always will be, and I'll continue to despise and hate her (I'm waiting for the fallout when her daughter Octavia marries Antony, though I'm not sure if that comes out in the series or not)

In conclusion, although we love to love our villains, despite how dark we paint them, we need to have characters we'll never love, because they serve purposes too. That is a lesson we can take away from watching well-done series, which allow us to watch the character development, the interactions, and the growth.  All things we can carry back to our writing, so that we can make it come alive as much as possible upon the printed page and in the minds of our readers.

Do you know of characters you hate and could never love?  Your own or those you've seen?  Share them here!  I'd love to hear your thoughts!