3 Comments
Jul 27, 2022Liked by Matthew Kressel

The best characters I've come across in fiction, for precisely the reasons you cite, were found in both film versions of "Cape Fear" and the 1957 novel that inspired them, John D. MacDonald's "The Executioners."

Expand full comment

The LotR pedant in me compels me to point out that Galadriel isn't the only one of the Wise who recognizes her own potential corruptibility. Gandalf and Elrond want nothing to do with the ring either. And Gandalf explicitly acknowledges the danger, just as Galadriel does: “I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength.” ("Ch. 2: The Shadow of the Past")

Gandalf also suffers from doubt and fatigue, and admits his own fallibility, freely talking of "mistakes" that he has made. Those are useful characteristics for rounding out a character as well (particularly when the character in question is essentially a demigod). Character development doesn't need to be Manichaean: good side, evil side. There are human flaws that we're all familiar with -- pride, irascibility, overconfidence, indecisiveness, self-doubt, laziness, etc. -- that can prevent a 'good' character from being too good to be true.

I think your description of Sauron as a force of nature is insightful. But if I remember correctly, even he began as great and wise and creative, before pride turned him into an evil force (pride was a frequent candidate for the 'hamartia', the tragic flaw that undermines a good character in Greek tragedy and sets them on course for disaster). By the time of LotR, however, that's well behind him and, as you suggest, it's not relevant to his role in the story. While I think it's essential for the 'good' characters to have moral or practical weaknesses as well as strengths, bad guys, especially the Big Bosses who are only ever seen at a distance, can get away with being more one-dimensional. Hitler loved his dog, but that didn't change anything in the stories of the millions who suffered under him or fought against him. Trying to make evil characters more "balanced" by giving them redeeming qualities can feel artificial and unconvincing: "Sure, he has a genocidal plan that will kill billions, but on the plus side, he never forgets his mother's birthday." Better to focus on making them understandable, or at least consistent: "Sure, he has a genocidal plan that will kill billions, but FROM HIS POINT OF VIEW, it makes sense."

Expand full comment