Invincibles Versus Perishables (Villains)

As I craft a character it itches me to make him perfect. Not just the best, better than the best. I want a character so cool, ice cubes are jealous! 

Fortunately for my characters, I'm usually able to overcome this fault…until I get to the villains. Too often I find myself making them bigger and badder. The more powerful they are, the more interesting the story, right?

Wrong!

Perishable Farmboy-Orphan,
         Invincible Awesome Jedi

Oh, sure, if all your villains are weak it makes a rather boring story, but it's the same with villains as it is with good guys. You have the superheroes, the invincibles, and you have the mortals, the ordinary humans, the everyday people, the perishables. 

Main characters don't usually start as the best sword-slingers, magic users, leaders, etc., they're the farmboys, orphans, hotheaded but klutzy princesses…you get the picture. If they were all powerful and perfect, they would have no room to grow. There would be no excitement because the main character would know how to handle each situation perfectly. 

Does Aragorn seem the more logical choice of getting Frodo to Mount Doom over Sam? Perhaps. Would it have had the same result? Perhaps not. Sam is the epitome of a perishable. He's not Aragorn, he can't be Aragorn. He's just Sam, but he makes Sam count for something––by taking what few talents he does have and using them to solve the problem. Loyalty, steadfastness, and humility are what get Frodo up the mountain.

Thus we have perishables. The reader must believe that the main character can die (or fail the quest, or lose the girl, or lose the kingdom, or get locked up for a billion trillion years…) or else where is the tension? An author I love once admitted that part of the reason he had killed off his two main characters at the end of his book was because he wanted us to know that he could––and would––do it. Ever since then I've been terrified for all his main characters, and I love his books all the more (not that I'm suggesting murdering all your characters is for all situations!!). The two characters had progressed to the point of superheroism, with little––if any––room to grow, and it was time to pack them up.

So back to villains. How does all that mumbo-jumbo apply to bad-guys as well as good guys? Who's more interesting, big-bad-never-even-seen-practically-invincible-Sauron, or evil little pathetic Sméagol? Why do you think Tolkien let on that Gollum's real name was Sméagol in the first place? He wanted us to empathize with him, he wanted us to find him interesting. We see Gollum grow throughout the books alongside Frodo. The difference between the two, in the end, is that Gollum continues down his dark paths whereas Frodo makes the right decisions…barely. Tolkien wanted us to understand how easy it would have been for Frodo to slip down those same dark avenues Gollum did. Gollum––Sméagol––was once not so very different from Frodo. 

It adds tension.

Another great example is Hrathen from Brandon Sanderson's Elantris. Rising from the ashes of the country that toppled due to his work alone, Hrathen comes to Arelon to warn of impending doom should the country not bow to his religion…and he gets just as much page time––every third chapter––as Raoden or Sarene, the other two main characters. He works against the two of them, and yet you find yourself suddenly afraid for him when the situation thickens. Because you know him, you understand him, you empathize with him, and you know he's quite perishable. 

If it tortures your characters, go for it! You have to have your invincibles––the Ring wouldn't exist if not for Sauron! But, then, the ring would not have been destroyed if not for Gollum. Make them weak, make them perishable, and turn them into someone you can empathize with and understand. Someone much more interesting.

Next topic on my mind is non-character villains.