"Bad guy" main character versus "good guy" main character.

[Patrick Skelton]

I typically enjoy stories with a "good guy" main character. But every once in a while, I enjoy a first-person narrative told from the point of view of a bad guy.  Like  A Clockwork Orange, for example.  However, there has to be something likable about the "bad guy" main character for me to keep reading.

My question is: In your opinion, what novels have the best "bad guy" main characters?  And what makes them so likable? 

[kCopeseeley]

Okay, this is total kid fiction, but I LOVED the Artemis Fowl books.  The main character was deliciously evil. 

I also liked George R. R. Martin's books because he took several characters I "labeled" as bad at the beginning of the series and turned them into characters I liked.  He also did that with a few of the supposedly good characters.  I love when authors play between what we perceive as good and evil.

[Harry Shannon]

Flawed people are more interesting, IMHO. Even a good character should have to struggle a bit to be good.

[Patrick Skelton]

Harry,

Agree. Perfect good guys are boring.  Just as completely evil bad guys are boring as well.  Everyone is capable of good and evil.

[mjdispirito]

As mentioned, Artemis Fowl and George R.R. Martin are great examples of some seriously flawed characters.  In the vein of Artemis Fowl is Jonathan Stroud's "Bartimaeus Trilogy".  Another great one--if you enjoy fantasy--is Michael Moorcock's "Elric" saga.  

I think it has something to do with our modern notion that everyone is messed up in some way.  There never has been a perfect good guy, even in spiritual literature.  So our common sense rejects those things.

There is a fine line, IMO, between a flawed main character and a main character who is evil.  I mean, I can't read a main character's rape of a child, for instance.  Sadistic things like that have no place in my ebookshelf.  I know it's out there, but I don't want to look over a character's shoulder while it's happening.

[kCopeseeley]

As mentioned, Artemis Fowl and George R.R. Martin are great examples of some seriously flawed characters.  In the vein of Artemis Fowl is Jonathan Stroud's "Bartimaeus Trilogy".  

Oh yeah, that is a great example!  Can't believe I forgot that one.  Demon narrator and greedy little boy. 

[Patrick Skelton]

Or how about the narrator in that movie with Denzel who turns out to be a demon?   What's it called?

Love that twist!

[zizekpress]

Or how about the narrator in that movie with Denzel who turns out to be a demon?   What's it called?

Love that twist!

You mean 'Fallen'? That was a good film...

[nogdog~6op6ou]

Roger Zelazny's Jack of Shadows has a protagonist who is probably more bad than good, depending to some degree on the reader's point of view, I suppose. But compared to his antagonists he's not all that bad, so you find yourself sympathizing with him and pulling for him to succeed, even though you feel a tiny bit guilty about it at times, such as in response to some of the draconian measures he takes to achieve his revenge.

The same can be said for Michael Moorcock's "Elric of Melnibone" books. Elric is "evil" in many ways, (heck, he facilitated the virtual annihilation of his own race), yet he does have certain strengths of character that make him the hero, even if it is an anti-hero. Also, over the complete story arc (at least the original series) you do see him evolve philosophically and to some degree morally, making for an even more compelling story. By the end when he realizes what Stormbringer is and what it does, I was crying for Elric (and Moonglum).

[bashfulreader]

In general, I really don't enjoy reading anything from the "bad" guy's perspective, but I did think of one exception:  Lestat, from Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles.  You really can't call him a nice guy, but I still loved the books.  (I find it a lot easier to handle paranormal bad guy than a real one, though.)

[JFHilborne]

Interesting question. I'm not sure which I prefer. A good guy who harbors a darker side might shatter my illusions, especially if the dark elements are revealed after I've already become vested in his character. On the other hand, a bad guy who exhibits a human side and some decency would be easier to like as the novel progresses. What if you combined the two in one novel? How would they compliment each other? Or not......

[purplepen79]

In general, I really don't enjoy reading anything from the "bad" guy's perspective, but I did think of one exception:  Lestat, from Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles.  You really can't call him a nice guy, but I still loved the books.  (I find it a lot easier to handle paranormal bad guy than a real one, though.)

The Vampire Lestat is my favorite Anne Rice book.  Lestat has an interesting personality.  I can handle reading from a villain's perspective if he or she is interesting.  Characters in general, whether "good" or "bad," have to be interesting to hold my interest!   

[Alain Gomez]

My question is: In your opinion, what novels have the best "bad guy" main characters?  And what makes them so likable? 

I really liked the evil uncle in Mysteries of Udolpho simply because I hated the good guys so much.

[patrickt]

I always wanted to be a good guy and I read books with good guys as protagonists.

[markarayner]

A lot of Chuck Palahniuk's books feature characters that are the "bad guy" in one sense or another, and I quite enjoy the approach.  Of course, the big one for me on this front is Lolita's Humbert Humbert. 

[Patrick Skelton]

Chuck Palahniuk...didn't he write Choke and Fight Club? 

[TadVezner]

Stephen R. Donaldson's "The Real Story" had a main character that surprised me, how bad he was, in every sense. We're not talking just "flawed." And yet I kept reading.

Likewise Suskind's "Perfume."

I think in every book that centers on a "bad" main character, you kinda have to have preachy, intolerant, foolish, arrogant, or otherise equally bad "good" guys to balance it out. People you're so sick of that, no matter what, the last think you want is order and peace in their universe.

[Scott B. Pruden]

Not to sound Clintonian, but it depends on what your meaning of bad is. Do you mean truly evil, a little naughty or just flawed? I believe all protagonists should be flawed in some way just to give them depth or provide a story arc for them to find some form of redemption. Make the hero flawed enough and she becomes an "anti-hero." And if your protagonist is truly bad, you're going to have to at least make him colorful enough (Hannibal Lecter, anyone?) for readers to want to follow his exploits.

[nogdog~6op6ou]

Just thought of another one: Grunts by Mary Gentle (unfortunately not enKindled). It's your stereotypical epic fantasy told from the Orcs' point of view. I thought the 2nd half dragged a bit, but the first half was wickedly funny at times.

[Steve Vernon]

People get behind bad guys and anti-heroes because secretly, deep down inside, we all figure we'd look wicked cool wearing a big black hat.


And even a white hat shows the stains...

[William BK.]

I'm not sure I mind either way. But if your bad guy or villain is the main character, I'd like to at least see him conflicted about what he's doing. If he/she is just a clone of Iago and evil without reason, then I'd lose interest.

The problem lies in defining "bad guy" here. Do we mean an anti-hero who in spite of being a total b@st@rd somehow saves the day, or do we mean the villain who actually needs to be stopped or who is successfully implementing his evil schemes? At the end of the day, I think I prefer reading the latter type of book. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't like it when a bad guy saves the world. However, I'm okay with the b@st@rd doing something totally dastardly and getting away with it...

I'm not asking for flat good and bad guys. I only ask not to be put in the position where I have to cheer the bad guy to do something good. If he's bad, I want to see him fail or achieve something evil.

[Josh_Stallings]

I agree that the definition of "BAD" and "Good" Guys and gals is hard to define.  All of Hard-Bioled crime fiction is based on anti-heros.  From Chandler on we have been writing about broken characters, trying and often failing to rise above their "badness".  I am drawn to deeply flawed people trudging to do good with in their personal moral code.  I find myself bored by pure good or pure evil.  James Lee Burke is a master of making broken heroes work, and allowing you slip you felling on who is and who isn't evil. 

[AnnetteL]

I think the reason anti-heroes work is the same reason a great good hero does: neither is totally good or totally evil.

If a "good" hero is 100% perfect, no flaws, he's more boring than dirt. He needs a weakness. (Even Superman had his Kryptonite.)

By the same token, a good anti-hero isn't all evil. There's something we can relate to--maybe it's a good quality or a motivation for being evil that we can sympathize with on some level.

Artemis Fowl came to mind for me as well--and he's a great example, because his life is so messed up that we do root for him, even if he's breaking the law. Sometimes he's being bad to outdo even worse bad guys (which is moral in its own way). Other times he's doing bad things to save his mother (who can't relate to THAT?).

Even if the bad guy isn't the main character, I like to read about bad guys who aren't all evil.

Here's an interesting one--I'm not sure if the main character is an anti-hero or not: John Cleaver from the I Am Not a Serial Killer series. He's a teen sociopath who makes up rules to do the right thing, but at the same time, he ends up doing some bad things because in those cases, it IS the right thing. But where do you draw the line, and when does a good thing become a bad thing? Fascinating and disturbing all at once. The third book in the trilogy just came out. I'm going to have to download it (and then read it during the day!).

[mjdispirito]

So what it comes down to is the defining role of "good" and "bad" characters.  Is there such a thing anymore?  Even with villains, it's important to not peg them as the typical rubbing-hands-together-while-laughing-maniacally type.  Maybe the concept of good and bad no longer holds water... ?

I also thought of Conan for another example--brutish, womanizing, given to excess, but the consummate fantasy hero.  Is he good or evil?  We can ask that question for any character: are they wholly good or evil, or a mix of varying qualities?

[DanG]

I really enjoyed Soon I Will Be Invincible which has the villian as the main character. It's not a point of view I see done enough, well enough.