I am constructing a new "bad guy" and I can't get deep down dirty enough, so I thought I would ask, who do you think of as most mean? Scrooge? Fagan? The Devil? Wicked Witch of the West?

If you've ever seen Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits, the bad guy in that is pure evil; basically, he's the devil, but he's got the whole vilain schtick going on, right down to swapping 'good' to 'bad'. Probably not quite what you had in mind, though.

The best 'nasty' characters tend to be the smooth ones, like Hannibal Lecter, or Lucius Malfoy (or maybe that's Jason Isaacs... I love his Captain Hook, too). Those who can be interesting and fascinating and seductive, even when they're committing appalling acts.

#2 Amen to that. You've almost got to love the villian to know how really horrible they are. Flat out nasty only works part of the time. It's the ones who don't always come off bad that you need to look out for.

Excellent point, and the two-faced villian goes way back in literature. Look at Cinderella's stepmother. Or Zeus- in many myths he is responsible and capable of controlling the other gods, while in others he's a lecherous adulteror.

Randall Flagg would get my vote. He's so cheerful when he kills people.

Mrs. Danvers of Rebecca is rather nasty.

#2 and #3 I agree. My favorite "evil" is the one no one can see by outward appearance or action. The victim is duped at first and then can see through, i.e. wolf in sheep clothing, but no one else can ever see a thing.

Cinderella's evil stepmother was the first villian I ever loved. The father/son Malfoy team reminded me of Cinderella's stepmother/stepsisters self-centered desires. Never had the same attachment to Snow White's evil mother or Sleeping Beauty, etc... One exception, Hansel and Gretel. But the step mother was openly mean spirited. She was a scary character.

Hannibal Lecter had a very good cover story. Randall Flagg is mean and scary, but something about him is less then human. Is he supposed to be the devil?

Hannibal Lecter is definitely in the top 10 of meanest villains. I also think Alex from Clockwork Orange (before his programming of course) is one of the most vicious baddies I'm come across in literature.

I agree with MsSolo, the smooth bad guys are the best. My vote would have to go to Mister Croup and Mister Vandemar from Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere. They're well-spoken, unemotional and have some of the best lines in the book. My favorite:
"You can't make an omelet without killing a few people."

I always considered Hannibal Lecter to be more of an anti-hero than a flat-out villain. I really like him.

#7 - Randall Flagg is a devil, I don't think he's the devil.

#9 - Croup and Vandermar, good choice!

Now I'm thinking Dr. Jeckell/Mr. Hyde.

We should consider Medea- kills her own children for spite. Hard to top that.

Miss Havisham in Great Expectations was quite the old witch.

Cathy from East of Eden. I don't think I've ever read a character as evil as her.

Steerpike in Gormenghast has to be way up there, particular to book lovers.

I don't know all of the characters discussed here, but I think death has to be feared from the mean character, is that true in all metioned here? Or does anyone disagree that death is part of the meanest person in some way or another?

Try Caleb Carr's Angel of Darkness.

thanks

Hows about Jason Compson from The Sound and the Fury. Considered to be one of the most loathed characters in literature...so critics say and I agree!

I'm not really sure if you can think at her as evil, but I always thought to May Welland in the Age of Innocence as an "evil" character: is she really ingenue? or maybe her wickness hide a dark side in her personality?

Message edited by its author, Apr 24, 2008, 7:03am.

I think this would depend on your definition of Mean. Are we talking Evil mean or just plain unworthy of respect? Personally, I find Spider of Anansi Boys as mean and horrible, but he isn't truely evil.

As for death, no, I think death does not play into the evil character's hands as much as pain and torture do. Why? Because death is a release from these character's minstrations. The longer they keep you alive the longer they can play with their prey...

Message edited by its author, Apr 24, 2008, 4:10pm.

#22 I was thinking about the fear of death, that is a torture. But in order for it to be effective they really have to prove they can kill.

As for death itself being a release, there is none greater. It is better then religion. I always call my coffin The Room Without a View, my sanctuary, where finally no one will bother me. Which makes me feel that mass graves are the greatest injustice. Even the dumbest dinosaur had a pocket of mud all his own.

And of course makes murder the greatest theft.

Right now I am most afraid of Dorian Gray.

I know a couple of people have nominated ole Randy Flagg but I think King's nastiest is Greg Stillson from The Dead Zone. That bit near the beginning about him and the dog . . .

Booksloth I came in here to put Greg Stillson in as the worst villain for just that reason. I have to skip that bit every time or it ruins the whole book for me.

I got quite fond of Randal Flagg as I read through all the books he has been in.

Anyone in a book who harms a dog like that gets a vote from me in this debate though, I can't bear it, and Greg Stillson has the blackest heart of any villian to do what he did to the one in The Dead Zone.

john d. macdonald's travis mcgee series has some real mean mothers, such as

Junior Allen

Boone Waxwell

the latter loves to inflict mental, emotional, and physical pain on everyone.but if you want downright mean, look to real life: dr. mendale of the infamous warsaw ghettos (dachau, especially), genga khan, nero and other ceasura who routinely enjlyed ripping apart chrisitians and others by horses pulling in different directions, flogging them to death and having bets on how long they could last; reviving them until their heart stopped, cutting pieces off of them, scouring their skin with knives, filleting them, roasting them over a slow fire. these great roman emperors knew no boundaries!

Joanne Harris writes some really evil villains. Zosie de l'Alba is one, but she pales in comparison with the villain of Gentlemen and Players, whom I can't name for fear of spoilers.

#27> Ooh, that makes me want to go read Gentlemen and Players! It's been sitting on my TBR pile for well over a year. But I have her latest one, a YA book, out from the library and that looks more tempting just now.

Message edited by its author, Apr 29, 2008, 5:41pm.

Two kinds of villains that I find particularly effective.

The first is a completely amoral person, who has no conscience about doing bad things. Example is Tom Ripley, from Patricia Highsmith's series of novel, beginning with The Talented Mr. Ripley. Also, the killers in In Cold Blood.

The second is a villain who has no idea that they are a villain. They think they are doing the right thing when they are doing evil things. An example would be Javert in Les Miserables.

-- M1001

#29

My vote is for your first type, the amoral person, gives me chills. Nice choices for examples.

OK that was my first impression, but as soon as I posted I thought of an example of the second type and now I have to think. IT isn't that they don't know what they are doing is wrong, but they are above the law or what they are doing is that awful. What they are doing is bad, but come on, people do worse. That kind of "has no idea they are a" villain?

Message edited by its author, Apr 29, 2008, 11:09pm.

I think some of the best evil-doers are the ones that convince legions of others to do most of their nasty work through sheer charisma. Randal Flagg is like that. Any reader can see him as evil. Yet all of his followers are enchanted by him...I suppose there's something about free will in there somewhere. That's what I think is spooky. A really evil person can use charisma to make their minions act out of their own free will. It reminds us that it could be you...and will be you given the perfect amount of persuasion.

#29 - I quite liked Tom Ripley though, in the same way I liked Randal Flagg and Hanibal Lector. But the villian I chose, Greg Stillson seems to fit this type too and I hated him right the way though the book. I loathed him. And he had the charisma mentioned in #31 too. And it isn't just because of the dog, for all his charm to the characters he couldn't charm me. Loathesome right the way through.

I remember reading Servent of Twilight by Dean Koonz and hating the woman in that, who was your second type. She was trying to kill a little boy with the aid of her religious group because she thought he was a child of the devil. That made them think everything they did to him was right and I hated those people so much. I don't think I've ever gotten fond of this type of villain.

#32 It may not be 'just because of the dog', Jody, but you and I both know that no amount of charm could ever make up for that.

#29 I have to admit to a sneaky bit of sympathy for Javert (maybe not least because Philip Quast, who sings the part on the original recording of the musical version, has a voice than could make me beg). It is because of the circumstances of his birth and the terrible life he had as a child that he can only survive by clinging on to his version of right and wrong. In fact, when he realises, because of the actions of Valjean, that there is another way and that everything he believes in might just be wrong, that the only course open to him is to take his own life. In fact, I found that part of the book (and the show) intensely moving - even more so that the many deaths of the 'goodies'.

#33 - I do have to admit, it is mainly the dog. And I know the characters in the book were charmed by him but I just couldn't see it. I read the whole thing thinking "why can't they see he's a nutter?"

Hanibal Lector might have been fond of eating people but he had standards about manners. Randal Flagg had a hit and miss approach to fairness and sometimes he took to the underdog. Greg Stillson didn't have a single redeaming feature at all. I wonder if SK hated him as much while he was writing him as I did while I was reading him. I think he did because he didn't give him a single likable trait.

I'm probably wrong here but I always imagine I can feel what King is feeling when he writes - especially the absolute joy with which he disposes of some of his nastier characters - so I think you are probably right there. I couldn't find a single redeeming feature either. And I also happen to think that, on the general scale of things, bad manners are SO much worse than eating people:-)

Re your question about 'why couldn't other people see it' - just look at all the people who voted a second time for Tony Blair!

#1 Just thinking about Fagin, I liked him too. He was bad but he cared for his boys as well as he could and he met his fate like a man. Didn't renounce his faith when he could have saved his life by doing so.

#36 I take your point. He didn't get my vote either time because of his teeth. I never trusted his teeth from the first time I saw him baring them on TV. Ought to have been wearing a nightdress and being called Grandma.

Iago.
Lady Macbeth.
Titus Andronicus.

#38 I think you should join me when I'm asked to do jury service. I've always thought it would be dead easy - just measure the distance between their eyes - the ones with eyes too close together swing.

#39 Iago - now you're talking! Iago is one of the very few villains who really have no reason whatsoever for being evil - they just are. The fact that everyone around him seems to like him just makes him more chilling and that also has something to do with the Greg Stillson/Tony Blair effect - it's when you can see they're evil and nobody else can. Shivvvvvers!

Reply to several previous messages. I liked Tom Ripley and Javert as well. That's why I found them to be effective villains. Maybe "villain" isn't the correct word and "antagonist" is better. I find it very interesting to find myself sympathetic for characters doing bad things. It really challenges the concepts of good and evil for me, and any novel that shakes up how I think about things is a great reading experience for me.

-- M1001

#41...Javert isn't a villain OR an antagonist. He's doing his duty and as Hugo proves...duty isn't everything. Javert is stuck in one manner of thinking and in the end he realizes that the world can only exist in his way or Valjean's way. The realization that it is time for men like Valjean to take his place causes him to kill himself. ...I love Javert...he is awesome!!! Even if he is a bit obsessed...

#28 If the YA book you have from the library is Runemarks, trust me, Gentlemen and Players is SOOO much better! Once you've picked it up you won't be able to put it down.

#39 The thing about Iago is that he's far and away the most interesting character in the play. That shouldn't be an excuse for what he does, but I find it very difficult to label him 'villain' because I like him so much!

I agree, Gentelman and Players was a very good book....and we can't say much about it or else it would be spoiled....But I highly suggest it as well.

I also agree that Patricia Highsmith writes excellent evil characters too. The Ripley series is quite good.

What about the character (can't remember his name) from Bret Easton Ellis' American Psycho.

Message edited by its author, May 12, 2008, 11:57am.

#44 He was called Patrick Bateman and he was very evil and unlikable wasn't he.

I have a John Sutherland book called Where Was Rebecca Shot? that puts forward the theory that the whole of American Psycho is actually Patrick's drug fuelled halucination, all based on a scene where he seems to be wearing two ties.

It was an interesting theory but either way, Patrick was not a nice man.

#44 That would be Patrick Bateman. He's insane and has no conscience, but to me he's not a villain. Or evil. He's just a supremely cold creature. And gross. But to me villain implies some level of intellect, or at least awareness. He's oblivious.

All my villain picks are either from kids books or comics. I wonder why.

Message edited by its author, May 12, 2008, 12:07pm.

#45 You have Where Was Rebecca Shot? too? I love that book and all the other similar ones by the same author! Of course, going by Sutherland's theories in that one, Max de Winter is a bit of a villain himself (and you should hear my theories on Edward Rochester!)

#47 Booksloth - Yes it's one of my favourites and I have three others too. A few of my books are only owned by me because of Sutherland's theories that I get interested in and so had to read the book he made them from. Lolita was one, a very unpleasant book but one that I got interested in when I read what Sutherland had to say about it.

And I would love to here the Edward Rochester theories.

I'll give you those theories sometime soon when I'm not half in front of the telly! Yes, they are great books and they have prompted me to read quite a few things I might not otherwise have tried. Lolita - I'd already read that when I first came upon Sutherland - I just can't 'get' all these people who think it is a great book. To me, it's about the dirtiest, nastiest little book I've ever read, full or truly nauseating characters. I accept the fault is probably with me. I don't think I'm a prudish person (but then, none of us do, I suppose) but I thought it was just vile. A much-liked former workmate of mine has just published a mega-tome on Nabakov. I love books by people I know but I don't think I'm ever going to bring myself to read this one. Knowing the author, I'm sure it will be brilliant, but I just can't do it!

Judge Holden from Blood Meridian shook me to my core.

HAL 9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Because he's a computer, he has no feelings at all. You can't stop him. He's perfectly reasonable.

Message edited by its author, May 12, 2008, 4:46pm.

Booksloth - have you read Wide Sargasso Sea? Our Mr Rochester is not quite the victim that Jane Eyre makes him out to be! (Although my tutor at uni had to tell me off for blaming Charlotte Bronte for what Jean Rhys wrote subsequently. It was a fair cop.)

Has anyone mentioned Uriah Heep yet?

What about the selfishness for the glory of success. The feeling of god, that the character can handle anything problem that arises. I think that happens around stories with science quite a bit. My vote would be Dr. Frankenstein. He created life and how tormented that poor life became.

#52 Yes, I've got Wide Sargasso Sea. Although I read both books when I was quite young, Jane Eyre was also a uni set book for me so I'd also ready got WSS in mind while re-reading it. It felt a bit like hearing one person's version of events when you've already heard the other side and that's the one you believe. All through the course I kept thinking 'Ah yes - that's what you say, Jane, but it doesn't fit with Bertha's version.'

Okay, my Rochester theory; I can tell you what I thought pretty accurately as my copy of JE still has my pencilled comments in it. Here are a few of them:

At the end of ch19 (the one where Rochester disguises himself as a fortune-teller and Mason turns up out of the blue) I have written:

'He originally saw Jane as a potential mistress and Blanche as a status-satisfactory wife. Having had the opportunity to make comparisons he has discovered that Jane loves him and he is sufficiently flattered to consider the possibility of marrying her (this is why he tests Blanche). However, it is not until he realises the danger of exposure from Mason that he really starts to abandon his 'public marriage' plan in favour of a 'secret marriage' one. He will never get away with marrying Blanche as she is too well-connected not to eventually have Bertha's existence revealed to her. There is nobody who cares enough about Jane to look out for her best interests and he believes that her genuine feelings for him will overcome her moral sense.'

After the incident with the bridal veil (for which he tries to blame Grace Poole) , R says to Jane 'I see you would ask why I keep such a woman in my house: when we have been married a year and a day I will tell you; but not now'. Why? Because he has reasonable hopes that within a year and a day Jane will be either pregnant, or already a mother, and therefore less likely to leave him.

The speech he gives to Jane after the 'wedding' fiasco is so full of self-pity it makes me want to throw up. He even has the cheek to blame Jane for the fact that if she won't be his wife he's going to be forced to sleep with strange women from time to time! As you can see, I didn't start out with a lot of sympathy for ER.

However, the bit that really gets me is this. Charlotte Bronte was much too much of a lady (I am not) to make this explicit but I'm sure she knew all about it. There are hints throughout the book that Bertha's madness may be the result of syphillis, possibly inherited from her father. Assuming that his first marriage was consummated (and there is no hint that it wasn't) the chances of Rochester himself now suffering from the same disease are high. In Victorian times and before, there was a fairly commonly held belief that the cure for syphillis was to have sex with a virgin. Although Bertha and Blanche seem two of a kind in many ways (apart from the small matter of one of them being barking mad) Jane is very different indeed. R feels a powerful sexual attraction to the Bertha/Blanche type, not to the 'little mouse' type. I believe it is only when he realises Jane is in love with him that it occurs to him that she might be, not only his spiritual salvation but also, his cure. I think he changed his affections to Jane because she was innocent and available and he actually thought she might be able to cure his syphillis and save him from the fate he surely must dread most of all - becoming mad, just like Bertha.

If I were ever to write a sequel to a classic novel it would be this one (which begs the question - which book would YOU like to write the sequel to?) but I'm afraid I don't foresee a happy ending for either of them.

BTW - I hope you're all very impressed with the lucidity of my marginalia. Just out of interest, my scribbled comments in Zola's Germinal read more like this:

'Uh? Blah, blah, blah, Tosser! Guhuuuuung????? Yawhoosis?'

I like that theory, I think you've got me convinced.

I'm amazed you got all that in your margin notes. I have lots of single words with question marks in my old text books and I can't remember why I wrote half of them in there.

Poor Jane, I feel really sorry for her all over again now.

I don't know if you have started a classic sequels thread or not but I think I would pick Tender Is The Night as mine. I love that book and the characters in it, I think I'd like to see what happens to them and their families.

Okay - I'm going to start up that thread. Anyone who wants it will have to hunt for it I'm afraid as I still don't know how to do the link-thingy.

ETA - Done it - It's a thread, not a group, and it's entitled Classic Sequels and can be found in the What Are You Reading Now group

Message edited by its author, May 13, 2008, 11:31am.

Wow, Booksloth. I'm impressed by your notes! I just finished listening to JE in my car on a long road trip. As I was reading through this thread, I was thinking of Mrs. Reed as a mean character. Or the mean guy from the girls' school. The book starts out with so much cruelty, cruelty for no apparent reason.

I found ER arrogant and rude, but not necessarily mean. I guess I didn't consider all of his motives. Now I'll have to rethink it.

What I loved about the relationship between ER and JE was that they seemed so well matched intellectually. In fact, I often wondered at Jane's ability to speak the way she did when she had such little socialization as a girl.

Ah well, she read a lot! Just goes to show . . .

Booksloth--- Fabulous insights into Rochester. Personally, I hate him, and I haven't even read Wide Sargasso Sea (it's up next). I hated him when I first read the book, and again when I studied it at university. He's arrogant and selfish. And I think everything you say is true. So there, take that nasty Mr. Rochester!

And some other guys I thought were repulsive though everyone else fell in love with them - Heathcliffe and Max de Winter!

Yeah, I don't get the whole swooning-over-Heathcliffe thing. He's really a brute.

And he smells. At least, I'm convinced he does.

I really hated Heathcliffe and Max de Winter too. I've read what Sutherland has to say about them both too and like his theories.

Heathcliffe struck me straight way as going from some savage child with a hygene problem to a loutish bully.

And Max de Winter, uugh! I've always thought of him as cold and unfeeling, a very selfish man with thin lips (don't know why) that really met his match with the equally horrible sounding Rebecca and who took advantage of another orphan with nobody to speak up for her.

To be honest, I wouldn't exactly put the flags out for Mr Darcy either, though he's probably the best of a bad bunch. So who would we all fall for out of these fictional heroes? i think my choice would probably be Antonio Corelli, though I may be able to come up with a few more. can't think of a lot though. Help me out here, Jody! Surely there must be SOME decent men in fiction?

ETA _ I did have a bit of a soft spot for John Smith (The Dead Zone) but maybe a bit too much baggage?

Message edited by its author, May 14, 2008, 1:28pm.

Uriah Heep from David Copperfield always made my skin craw. He's such a toad.

Assef from Kite Runner was horrid.

what's his name from No Country really creaped me out.

#64 Booksloth, I liked Antonio Corelli too and was a bit fond of Stu Redman in The Stand. He was so practical and I liked that.

Colonel Brandon was nice I think, if I remember Sense and Sensibility properly. And I always liked George in A Room with a View until the bit in the end of my copy when he was older. I quite liked Tom from Carol Shields The Republic of Love because he wasn't perfect but is kind.

I've been seeing this thread pop up periodically and each time I try to think of who I think is the meanest character.

Today I finished Death Note Volume 2 which is actually a manga series. However, the lead character of Light strikes me as about the meanest character I've ever seen. He's an intelligent but bored teen who discovers an indiscriminant way to kill people. He starts of with criminals but then begins to rationalize the killing of other people, starting with the law enforcement agents looking into the criminals' deaths, all for the overall good of the world. It really is quite scary.

I don't think anyone has mentioned Mr. McGregor, from Peter Rabbit. After all, Peter's father was put into a pie by Mr. McGregor. My daughter was terrified of him from age 2 to about 4.

>63

We can have personal dislikes, but unless Max de Winter is a sympathetic character, the plot falls apart. We are primed by the author to believe the worst about Max de Winter -- that he harbours feelings for Rebecca. But this turns out not to be so. So he comes off well. I can't see that du Maurier could, or would want to, make de Winter unsympathetic.

#66 Oh yes - Stu was lovely! I'd forgotten about him.
#68 God yes! The first truly evil character for most of us! Which has to lead me on to Cruella de Ville, of course.
#69 I have to disagree somewhat with that as Rebecca works just fine for me (largely because of my sympathy for 'the 2nd Mrs dW') and yet I too found Max unsympathetc right from the start. I think a lot of it is a generational thing. At the time du Maurier was writing, the dark, mysterious type was considered very romantic but he just doesn't work as well for us now because we want our men to be human, not mysterious. Then again, my mum is nearer to Daphne's generation and she always hated Max too.

#70 - Cruella de Ville should go right to the top of the list of meanest characters.

#69 - I never really saw a sympathetic side to Max de Winter at all. I tried but I just couldn't get him. He seemed quite promising when they first met but his upper-class Englishness was always going to get in the way and once the holiday was over and they got back to Manderlay he pretty much abandoned Mrs dW2 to the mercy of Mrs Danvers. I forget the name of the land manager (Angus?) but he was much kinder and more generous a man with his feelings. I always hoped Mrs dW2 would run off with him instead. I love the book but think it works better for me because I see Max as a villian and an unfeeling man. I always wondered if du Maurier herself even liked him all that much.

I know the keeping her name as a secret was a big part of the book but Max's "Darling" always came across as cold rather than affectionate to me too. Like he couldn't be bothered to remember her name himself. It's something I always wonder about when a term of affection is overused because it loses it's intimacy and almost turns into a repremand at certain times.

I think the whole book has a good focus of isolation on poor Mrs dW2. She is abroad and lonely, the only young person among a hotel full of couples or rich elderly ladies, she has this brief time as being the focus of Max's attention then it's back to the isolation of Manderlay, Max is always away, Mrs D hates her, she feels that she is in Rebecca's shadow so everyone she meets is comparing her unfavourably and at the end she is whisked away abroad by Max to what I can never believe was going to be an emotionally happy life. I think he had to unsympathetic to make that work and took the book as a great warning to young girls who want to marry their 'prince' that this isn't always going to be a fairytale happy ending.

I've thought of another 'good' man though, I always loved Mr Jervie Pendleton from Daddy Long Legs.

Message edited by its author, May 15, 2008, 7:38am.

Jody - completely agree with you about Colonel Brandon. (I could never understand how he married such a twit as Marianne, until the BBC's recent production where the girl playing Marianne actually made her quite likeable in a way that Kate Winslet never did.)

Jervis Pendleton is a great choice, although I have to confess to preferring Sandy in Dear Enemy.

Re: the Max de Winter debate, I always saw him as a victim of his own stupidity. He couldn't help being a man, and as such he probably would have been taught, or at least encouraged not to show weakness to his wife.

#72 - I haven't managed to track down a copy of Dear Enemy yet but now you have commented on it it's just gone up in my 'need to get now' list.

On Max de Winter --

Maybe we're talking about different things. Some readers personally like or dislike characters. But knowing that fact doesn't tell the rest of us anything about the book. It's just empty information. E.g., I don't much like Dorothea in Middlemarch, but who cares? George Eliot thought she was terrific!

So with Max de Winter. He's a victim of his first wife. Who do you really think Du Maurier wants us to root for, Rebecca or Max? Max of course! And notice how wonderful everything is when the house is gone at the end. We're supposed to like him.

#74 I always thought she wanted us to root for Mrs dW2 more than anyone else. And I've never been very good at doing what I was supposed to do ;-)

But Rebecca ended with them realising the house was on fire and the ashes blowing out to sea so nothing seemed wonderful then. And in chapter two where Mrs dW2 talks about thier life she seems a bit desperate to me. She says they are happy but they are hiding out in small hotels so they don't meet anyone they know, listening to English radio and cricket scores but exiled from the country. Max gets impatient when the English mail is delayed. They so clearly want to be back there. She even says that they are bored but boredom is an antidote to fear. It seems a sad life to me. And when she says Max is now dependent on her so she is finally bold. I always took that to mean his mind had gone in the aftermath of the house burning down and the scandal and his narrow escape from being revealed as a murderer.

And of course he did murder Rebecca, then run off abroad and come home married to a girl he knew would never have Rebecca's strength and leave her at the mercy of Mrs Danvers and her own insecurity, before the whole scandel blew up in his face again and they had to go into hiding abroad once more. I really can't see how we are supposed to like him when he struck me throughout the book as cold and selfish and ultimately jealous and angry to the point of murder, which he very ably and calculatingly covered up and did a bunk from.

The more we talk about him the less I like him again. But this is fun, a proper debate!

I'm sooo with Jody here! My feelings have always been that Ms dM actually wanted to demonstrate the dark heart that lies within so many of these handsome, mysterious strangers. I can't see any point in the book where she seems, to me, to be rooting for Max - her sympathies lie firmly with Mrs dW2, but I think she also wants her readers to ask questions about what is strength and what is weakness. Mrs2 (I'm quite happy with this nameless thing while I'm reading the book but it makes it damn hard to talk about it) is the kind of character who is seen by many of the other characters as weak, because she is quiet and does what she's told. Her one real show of 'strength' is in her decision to support her murdering husband and we then have to question whether her only apparent show of strength is, in reality, her first display of weakness. Is it stronger to go on the run with a murderer or to turn him in?

I also can't help thinking that describing a cold-blooded murderer as the 'victim' of the nasty woman who drove him to it reeks a bit of the judges who decide a woman 'deserves' to be raped if she wears a short skirt. There is, after all, only one dead body at the end of all this and it is Rebecca's. So who's the victim here? It's all very reminiscent of all the low-life who supported Lord Lucan in the killing of his nanny and the attempted killing of his wife. She didn't 'fit in' with their idea of what a wife should be so she 'deserved to die'. Nauseating!

I suppose all this is why I'm quite a fan of Beaumann's book, Rebecca's Tale, which gives Rebecca herself a voice at last. In the original, she is the only character who never gets to speak and so we only ever get one side of the story. Only really great books get people arguing like this!

Actually Booksloth you are right, there is that too. Mrs dW2 does know what Max did and chose to stay with him anyway so that's another way he is dependant on her. Keep her happy to keep her quiet.

I never thought that this was Mrs dW2's first real display of strength or weakness but I suppose it is. By keeping quiet they have to go into hiding but from now on it is on her terms. They might not acknowledge it and Max might go on behaving as he did when they first met in the hotel but underneath it all she has the power for the very first time because she knows what he did and he has to rely on her keeping quiet about it. I bet he realised that before she did though.

Had she turned him in she would have had a scandal and either a divorce or his hanging to face. Then she would either have gone back to being nobody special or always had the stigma of being a murderer's widow. She's in a much better position in excile as his wife than in England as his widow, plus he has to treat her better now.

It is a great book isn't it. I suppose that's why so many other authors have written additional books to it, to give thier ideas of what happened and why.

Message edited by its author, May 16, 2008, 11:11am.

Must admit - any sequel I wrote would have Mildred (so sick of Mrs DW40, so let's call her Mildred from now on - she seems a bit of a Mildred to me) getting her own back. I like to imagine her with her stiletto heel firmly on Max's neck in return for the coldness and bullying she's suffered from him. Surely her image of him as some kind of hero must have taken a battering? I can see how she might feel the urge to support him when she first finds out what he has done (we've all done stupid things for men, I'm sure) but when that rosy "he really loves me!" glow has worn off there must come a time when she starts to see him for what he is - a weak-willed killer. I'd just advise her to stay out of the water when he's around.

#67: I quit reading the Death Note graphic novels because I absolutely HATED Light. I really can't get into a story with a despicable, utterly unlikeable protagonist.

My advice is to create an "evil" of your own imagination. Who knows.....you may create the next all time great! Remember......one man's "Hannibal" is the others "Hero". Let you concious (or lack of) be your guide.

Patrick Hocksetter! How did I forget him when I hate him so much?

He's a young teen bully in Stephen King's IT and he does some very vile things, commiting murder when he is about six years old and then doing some very nasty experiments at the town dump.

I hated him when I first read the book and I hate him now. He has no soul whatsoever, evil through and through.

If Booksloth has read IT she will hate him for the same reason I do.

It's been a long time since I read It and, although it's starting to come back to me, I've pretty much forgotten Patrick Hocksetter. I think I'm going to have to read it again. I know there was quite a bunch of really bad guys in there but the details have faded. The murder has completely escaped me. King has a whole list of fantastically bad baddies, hasn't he? There's pretty much at least one in every book (well, I suppose there has to be or there wouldn't be much of a story). Another of my favourites is Carrie's mum.

Well it wasn't the murder that made me hate him, it was the puppy. But if you are planning a reread then then I don't want to spoil it for you. I preferred Pennywise to Patrick in that book.

Carrie's mum was a horrible woman too. His strangest villian I think though is the Buick in From a Buick 8. Even in Christine there was the ghost of the old man (I forgot his name) who sold Arnie the car. But the Buick was all on it's own as an enemy.

ETA - I just realised I said I preferred a big. mad clown who murders lots of people more than a boy who murders just one because the boy does something to a puppy too. I'm starting to worry about my priorities.

Message edited by its author, May 22, 2008, 1:34pm.

Pennywise, for me, combines my fear of clowns with my thing about villainous characters. Couldn't fail to give me the creeps when you think about it.

ETA - (And I knew as soon as you mentioned my name that there would be a dog involved. I already hate him even though I can't remember what he did to it.) SK certainly knows the best way to establish a character as an immediately loathsome person.

Message edited by its author, May 22, 2008, 2:04pm.

#83: When I was in middle school I rented the movie Radio Flyer. It was completely unremarkable and the ONLY thing I can remember from it is the piece of garbage abusive stepdad character beating the boys' German Shepherd. When I saw that scene I threw an empty plastic cup at the TV and bounced it off the corner of it (without damaging anything) and my father ended up asking me what the hell my problem was.

I took issues with Bambi and Old Yeller, too. At least now I know the fastest way to turn an audience against a character, I suppose.

Depends on your audience. I once heard about a lady who was half English, half Spanish and nearly had a complete breakdown watching Bambi. Her English half wanted to cry and her Spanish half wondered what the deer would taste like with a glass of wine.

#86 lol!

#85 Old Yeller - how sick is that? Never did understand why anyone would consider it entertainment. Speaking of Bambi, Disney sure knew how to do baddies. What about the bad lion (can't remember his name) in The Lion King?

And I've just thought of a brilliant baddie from fiction but I can't tell you about him yet as the book is my current entry on the First Lines game. Just as soon as someone guesses it (or doesn't) it's all yours.

Okay - someone guessed it so I can now reveal - actually I can't, because I've just realised that to name this character might will be to give away the ending of the superbly dark coming of age novel, deadkidsongs, by Toby Litt. All I will say is that this book is a true masterpiece and contains one of the vilest baddies I can think of. if you don't know who I mean, go and treat yourself to a copy. You won't regret it.

Another really terrifying villain that springs to my mind is the Un-man in Perelandra. The idea of a creature that can put on reason like a garment and use it as a weapon but discards it at will really freaks me out.

#89 - ooohh! Now I really want to read that book, it sounds good.

My vote goes to Emily Bronte's Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights. Even though he has a bit of the Byronic hero edge, he's just so single minded! He's the protaganist that I loved to hate because his passion drives him to the point of insanity.

#52: I cannot stand Mr. Rochester. He always came off as a bit of a sadist.

#90 - Jody, hope you enjoy it. I recommend reading the trilogy in order (not essential I don't think, but probably a good idea!) so Out of the Silent Planet first, then Perelandra, then That Hideous Strength. A word of warning, though - That Hideous Strength kept me awake all night. Granted it doesn't take much with me, but I feel it's only fair to warn you!

#93 Thank you, I will be looking out for that series now. Did That Hideous Strength keep you up reading or through nightmares about it though? I'm kind of hoping it was both, I love a book that can do that :-)

#94 Yes, both. I was actually in Montreal for a debating tournament, and I'd taken the trilogy with me and could hardly bear to put it down the whole time. (My team mates had a go at me for "wasting all the opportunites of being there" until I pointed out that so far they had spent every minute of our free time in the nearest shopping centre. So had I, sitting on a bench reading!)

God in Dante's Hell (Inferno).

Message edited by its author, Jun 4, 2008, 8:45am.

Wow! That IS a good one!

Capricorn from Inkheart.

#96
God isn't the meanest character even in the Inferno. The punishments portrayed in each circle are fitting I believe...at least when it comes to the concept of sins and all that.

Message edited by its author, Jun 10, 2008, 11:00pm.

Reminds me of my favourite bit in The Simpsons, where Homer refers to god as 'Oh vindictive one!' Love it!

Eruntane, so agree about the Un-man, especially his totally unfair arguments!
Other than that, Dickens' sadist adults take some beating (and give some, too!) with their pharasaic attitude and total incomprehension of the need for love. Although sometimes a little over the top, I find them v.frightening because based on fact and experience. To think that Dickens is writing to expose real attitudes and conditions of his time always makes me shudder.
I also loathe Max de W - how could he let his poor wife struggle on without any information about her life, house, anything! Mind you, she annoys me too because she never asks the most fundamental questions! Perhaps getting away from that frightful woman was enough.
Will someone please have pity on my ignorance and tell me who Randall Flagg is?

Randall Flagg is the villain in The Stand by Stephen King. He also pops up in the Dark Tower series under several different names. I'm sure he appears in other books too - someone who's read more Stephen King than I have, feel free to enlighten me!

If you liked The Cosmic Trilogy I can thoroughly recommend both The Stand and the Dark Tower series.

>101
Well, I'm back after several weeks to defend Max de Winter again! I don't think du Maurier thought deeply enough about his character even to make him one way or the other. Besides, how many us can honestly say we've never killed our first wife?

Iago is pretty high on the villain list. How about O'Brien from 1984? His villainy comes out of a sense of loyalty and duty, making it very creepy indeed. How about the general in "The Autumn of the Patriarch"? He is certainly horrible by any measure.

Message edited by its author, Jun 12, 2008, 1:19am.

102 - He is the villain in The Eyes of the Dragon too. He does some terrible things in that book. He's far too good (bad?) a villain to leave in just the one book.

I'm fascinated that so many people mention both Heathcliff and Max de Winter and nobody has yet pointed out that they were both played by the gorgeous Laurence Olivier . . . not that my opinion of their characters is at all swayed by that, oh no!

But in defense of Max (HUGE SPOILERS AHEAD), all this about killing his wife--am I wrong (did the movie change things from the book? where the heck is my copy anyway??), or didn't he simply shove her away from him and then she fell and hit her head, so her death was sort of accidental--though he did cover it up by putting her on the boat. Also, wasn't there a strong implication that she was taunting him into it (with the lie about being pregnant by someone else) because she knew she had cancer and didn't want to die the slow agonizing death, so rather hoped she could push him into murdering her?

Given all this, and the fact that she made his life hell for the duration of his marriage, I'd be inclined to cut him some slack on his treatment of Mrs de W-2nd. He loved her but didn't want her to know the awful truth about what happened to Rebecca--so much worse because during the course of the book, he didn't know about the cancer, etc., and really thought she had been pregnant.

And as for Heathcliff, he was treated like crap by everyone in his life except Cathy and her father, and then he hears the person he loves best verbally repudiate him . . .

Maybe I'm failing to see the deeper story, but, although he's later quite a stinker to what's-her-name who marries him, she really ought to have known better.

Okay, mean villains, then . . . again, I can't help thinking in terms of film: how about Robert Mitchum's Harry Powell in "Night of the Hunter"? or Mitchum, again, as Max Cady in Cape Fear?

Or, from TV, how about Gaius Baltar on "Battlestar Galactica"? Guy sells out the whole human race, for crying out loud, except for about 50K people left from the population of 12 planets--manages to escape himself and manages to evoke sympathy, become vice-president, and lead a religious movement.

One of the characteristics I find most chilling is the ability of a character to gain the hero's/heroine's trust, possibly as a rescuer from some horrific situation, and then turn out to have betrayed them. That holding out of hope and yanking it away is both mean and evil.

Message edited by its author, Jun 18, 2008, 6:08pm.

ejj - you're just too nice! I'm basing my feelings for Max on the fact that we only get to hear his version of things. Two great books that take a look from the other side are Sally Beauman's Rebecca's Tale and John Sutherland's Where was Rebecca shot? Plus, of course, the fact that being a bad wife doesn't actually entitle somebody to murder you. I think, for me, it's also that Max very quickly stopped loving Rebecca and was only 'tormented' by the possible damage to his 'family name' and fear of the neighbours laughing at him. I think I'd have been more sympathetic if he'd actually been in love with her at the point where he killed her.

As for Heathcliff, I do have some sympathy for the guy because of his past - I just can't understand why he should be regarded as this great romantic hero. Whatever his disadvantages, surely a romantic hero should at least smell good?

#106 - Gaius Balthar is a slimy piece of work but I don't think I'd call him a villain, except in the horribly misguided sense. He didn't sell out the Twelve Colonies deliberately, and although his immediate reaction when he found out what he'd done was to cover his ass, he was also pretty horrified. He has a much less gung-ho attitude to bloodshed and killing than a lot of the "good guys", and when somebody was holding a razor to his throat he still had the guts to say he was prepared to die in exchange for the sick boy's life. So although I don't actually like him, I have to stand up for him and say I don't think he belongs in this particular rogue's gallery.

#107

It's true that we don't get Rebecca's side, exactly, but Max isn't the only person whose side we get--there's the mentally challenged guy who hangs around the beach and tells the new Mrs. de W that Rebecca threatened to send him to the asylum, and the estate manager guy who intimates that she tried to seduce him.

It's also true that Max didn't want his family name tarnished--I don't really blame him for that, he wasn't being that uptight, I don't think, in not wanting his wife known as a slut! plus, of course, there was the fact that she told him she was planning to pass another man's child off as his and allow that child to inherit his family's estate--I can see that bothering him quite a lot (even though it was a lie).

Nope, I'm sticking to my guns on this one--she was a beotch! and her death was more or less an accident, even though the cover-up definitely was not.

Didn't he shoot her in the book? I can't remember, it's been ages since I read it.

He shot her, put her in the boat, took the boat out and sank it. Then he wrongly identified another body as hers and lied about it all until the storm raised the wreck of Je Reivens (sp?) and they found Rebecca's body locked in the cabin.

Darn that Alfred Hitchcock anyway--after an insane search of my house for either of the two copies of the book I own, I had to resort to Wiki for the plot. Wiki explicitly says that one change Hitchcock made from the book was that in the book Maxim shoots her, whereas in the film she falls and hits her head. Which, obviously, is the version I remember, as I've seen the film much more recently that I've read the book.

Mea culpa on that, and, until I can re-read the book, I'm going to hold my tongue on defending Max.

Is it wrong to mention Voldemort since everyone seems to be naming classic villains? Because I'd say he's pretty evil. I mean the tearing of his own soul to gain immortality and power. Talk about sick. What say you?

He's in a book - you definitely get to name him! I'm not a JKR fan but I will support to my dying breath your right to be one! (Or something like that - I know I'm in the minority here anyway.)

It, from "A Wrinkle in Time." Not a person, perhaps, but that thing terrified me in grade school.

I also heartily second the votes for Iago and Steerpike.

Bill Sykes from Oliver Twist! It's been a long time since I read it and I could be thinking of the film with Oliver Reed in it, but doesn't he shoot a dog? I know he shoots Bullseye in the film but does he shoot him in the book? Definetely a meanest character candidate.

The judge from Blood Meridian.

This isn't going to be a very constructive post, and I'm witholding my 2 cents on the 'meanest character in literature' unil the end of the rant. I accidentally stumbled upon this forum while doing research on the parallels/contrasts between Jason Compson and other gothic heels, and I was flabergasted by the near illiteracy I saw displayed by one idea in particular.

Max de Winter. Really. Please; tell me everyone who gives Sutherland any creedance is toying with a new idea like a funny Christmas toy given to supplant old reliable, only to be discarded by New Year's Day. Even the novelist (and Randall Flagg doesn't really appear in anything you could call 'literature', though I am an avid fan) who seems to be everyone's hero expounds in "Bag of Bones" upon the sole character in "Rebecca" who could in any way a villain make; Danvers. Du Maurier beautifully constructs two vivid and dynamic characters for you in Max de Winter and the unnamed Mrs. De Winter, surrounding them with static allies and opposition. Yet somehow you reach the conclusion that Max de Winter is villainous?

How? Is it because he marries a depraved and evil woman for the express purpose of maintaining his fabled estate, only to lose it after committing the sin of murdering the same woman? Is it because he takes a sallow and inassertive young woman as a wife and, in sharing his tragedy with her, makes her into a strong, secure and capable matron? Is it because his suffering is self inflicted? This tale has been told a hundred thousand times or more, and du Maurier couldn't make it more plain; Max de Winter is your point-by-belabored-point tragic hero. And, no, we don't "just get Max's side of the story". Discovery of Rebecca's cruelty and depravity is first and most poignantly offered by feeble Ben and Mrs. Danvers, to be crudely confirmed by incestuous Jack squarely in the middle of Act V (in case you don't get Act V, I mean in the crescendo arc to climax).

I think to myself, in all seriousness, that only the functionally illiterate or the maliciously imaginative can perceive Max de Winter as 'mean' or villainous. Perhaps that's going too far, but when random sorcerers, (eternal shapeshifter) sorcerers and other clear tragic heroes (er, Javert and Heathcliffe) are called out as being great villains of literature alongside Max I would disagree.

Sorry for this cold blast of negativity. And I nominate Lady MacBeth as the classic villain, Nurse Ratchett as the top mind***ker and Milo Minderbender (or Mother Courage, if you prefer) as the most self-absorbed externalizing villain. So many categories, so little time.

Message edited by its author, Jul 24, 2008, 5:43am.

> 118

Thanks. I've been defending Max de Winter for months on this group. People take a like or dislike to characters for reasons personal to themselves, which is fine, even if it doesn't resound with other readers.

>119

Placing some personal prejudice against a character whose clear purpose is contrary to the reader's prejudices is tatamount to illiteracy. It's like the child who wishes damnation upon Victor Frankenstein's creation because of his acts of vengeance. A willful failure of reading comprehension on the part of the audience is just as detrimental to discussion as a person who can't even read the text, whether the reason is personal or developmental. In my opinion such prejudices cannot be reasonably justified.

#118 - And, no, we don't "just get Max's side of the story". Discovery of Rebecca's cruelty and depravity is first and most poignantly offered by feeble Ben and Mrs. Danvers, to be crudely confirmed by incestuous Jack squarely in the middle of Act V (in case you don't get Act V, I mean in the crescendo arc to climax).

That's still not Rebecca's side, it's other people talking about her. It's their opinion of her and her marriage but it isn't her opinion or her side.

I think to myself, in all seriousness, that only the functionally illiterate or the maliciously imaginative can perceive Max de Winter as 'mean' or villainous.

Not really liking being called functionally illiterate (but might take to being maliciously imaginative) just because we disagree. I think it is perhaps being a bit over the top, rude and patronising by stating that so many times and over two seperate posts.

Max de Winter shot his wife, hid her body, lied and fled abroad, married an easily manipulated young girl, virtually abandoned her on their return to England and managed to still get away with murder at the end of the book. To me those are not tragic hero actions, they are the actions of a coward and a villian.

Message edited by its author, Jul 25, 2008, 12:34pm.

>121

Yes, I don't like any rudeness, particularly when people's differences are clear and easily explained.

Some academics read literary works as if they were like any other "social fact." So a culture produces books like it produces food, music, etc., and you can therefore talk about books as if they were food, music, etc., and criticize them culturally. If a book or character goes "against the grain," you can remark on it.

But some people -- and I'm one of those -- are more interested in books as works of literary merit, rather than books as social facts. So for me, Max de Winter must be a sympathetic character, because otherwise the book would make no earthly sense, and D.du M. would have to be adjudged a rotten novelist.

Another point I failed to make earlier is that the new Mrs. de Winter is presented as young and shy and inexperienced, yes, but does she ever come across as a bad judge of character? And she loves Max passionately--not for his money and position, which intimidate her, but for himself.

As evidence for her ability to judge others, she dislikes her snobby, self-absorbed, social-climbing employer; she likes Max's sister and her husband, who seem good, honest, kind people; she likes the estate manager; she's wary (and afraid) of Mrs. Danvers, and she distrusts Jack's easy charm. Seems to me she gets it right every time.

#123 - except that love is never rational is it? I never thought I would fall for a non-reader with smelly feet and a bald bit coming through but I wouldn't part with him now ;-D

Women fall in love with the wrong man every day, if they are usually good judges of character or not. Some of them (us) even seem to pick the worst one we can find on purpose just to 'tame' them.

I always thought he was probably the first man to really show an interest in her, on paper he looked like a good catch and she got swept up into the romance of being whisked away from Mrs Whatsit and having to go to America. Woman fall in love for less all the time.

What about Briony in Atonement? She's just a child and doesn't quite know the damage she's doing, but she certainly serves as the "villain" of the story. I found it very difficult to like her while reading the book, and I purposely have not seen the movie because I don't want to spend another moment with such a selfish character.

From Notre-Dame de Paris I choose Claude Frollo.

@125
Briony is a good suggestion! Extra scary because the villain doesn't know what she's doing. Or half-knows.

See what you mean about Briony but I do think that, in order to be really evil, some of that evil at least must be premeditated (Frollo - brilliant! Probably one of the truly great villains!) I guess I'm just 'functionally illiterate' (together with being far too dumb to be entirely sure exactly what that particular expression is supposed to mean - anyone?) but Max de Winter comes close to murdering Rebecca while they are on honeymoon. His crime is premeditated by virtue of it having been in his mind on and off for the length of their marriage, even if the final act took place in the heat of the moment.

I do know (from years of bitter experience) that there are people around who believe any woman who steps out of line deserves to be murdered or, at the very least, given a good thumping. A woman who is serially unfaithful (just like a man who is the same) deserves to be divorced. She doesn't deserve to be murdered. I know I shouldn't have to explain this but apparently I do. Anyone who thinks there is something romantic about the kind of man who chooses murder over the other civilised options deserves everything they get - but I suspect they only think it's romantic when it happens in a book, not in real life - at least, I hope they do.

And, by the way, if we're getting our kicks calling other people illiterate, can I just add that a) No, it wasn't very constructive
b) When you get round to telling us all about yourself on your profile page I hope you will also include details of what gives you the last word on who else should be given 'creedence' (your spelling)
c) that's also not how you spell flabbergasted and
d) I fail to see what the second Mrs DW's complexion has to do with it. Or did you mean 'callow'? Or even, shallow?

See, we can all do it.

Do they have to be "evil" or just mean? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I thought Briony fit the category because she intentionally sets out to hurt Robbie and Cecilia - because she's jealous. She just doesn't realize, because she's a child, how much damage she can do. In a way, that makes her a very complex and human "villain." We may all be capable of what she does, and to me, the best villains are complex enough that we can see ourselves in them too. If they're too simple, or too simply defined, they're easier to dismiss. I think the thread started out with a question about how best to define a "bad guy." A bad guy who seems very human, who is maybe motivated by something we all feel at times - such as jealousy - can have a depth that a clearly evil character cannot. Just a thought:)

TamaraF

It is up to you if you are more engaged with an evil or mean character. I think the explaination of why you think the character is either evil or mean catagorizes it. It is subjective. I think single-mindedness and selfishness make for the best villains. These are the ones that can turn people into numbers. My last choice Frollo from Hunchback of Notre-Dame shows a link between being self-centered, fanatical, and insane.

#129 You're right about Briony. It's quite a while since I read the book and didn't much like it anyway so I think I'd forgotten how much of what she does is deliberate, even though she doesn't understand the consequences. I think the worst villains are always the ones who know exactly what they're doing and why, though, so I'd still put Frollo (and not just because he sounds like a hobbit) and Iago way ahead of the pack.

Wasn't there a writer (I forget who it is) who claimed he knew while growing up that he was either going to be a writer or a serial killer? Not to give anything away for those who may not have read Atonement yet, but isn't Briony a writer? Maybe it's a fine line;)

The other really mean character that comes to my mind is Cathy in East of Eden, but she's so narrowly drawn it may not count. It's easy to be evil if you're one-dimensional. Other than that, I guess I don't really read books that have "evil" characters, unless it's a fictional portrayal of Hitler or Stalin or something like that, so you guys are probably right.

Much as I revere Steinbeck (genuflects) , I would have to agree that almost any female written by him is almost bound to be evil. Lets just say it's not his treatment of women I love him for!

Last night I dreamt of Manderley...
Don't kill the author that wrote that fantastic opening phrase.

Jody - I fear it's perhaps been a little while since you read "Rebecca", and just to quickly refresh your memory, the unnamed narrator is incapable of expressing her feelings for Max until after his act of contrition, what all the contrarians are claiming to be a false confession. She doesn't know Max until he has unburdened himself of Rebecca's haunting his life through that confession, and only after that revelation can she be the supportive and loving wife she means to be. I think ejj sums it up best about the narrator's assessment; she is cowed by Rebecca's influence over Manderley from beyond the grave, is frightened by Danvers, loves Max, respects his sister, and is appalled by Jack. She gets it right every time. Of course she does; she's du Maurier's voice, and she's the one telling the story, isn't she? Or do you think the author is dead?

As to your post 121 Jody, if you read "Rebecca" as a crime story, then of course Max de Winter is a villain. But it's not drama; it's horror. It's a story about a woman who has managed to influence the affairs of her successors from beyond the grave (and just to add to the discussion, Anse Bundren from another novel about that theme is a mean-ass villain from Faulkner to toss in with Jason Compson), and how that malignant influence nearly shatters the aspirations of the narrator. Would it make more sense if we turned it over to our favorite literary cover artist and had him turn Rebecca de Winter into an actual poltergeist? Oh wait; he did that one too, jauntily referencing du Maurier's novel ad nauseum. I'm speaking, of course, of Sarah Tidwell from "Bag of Bones", SK's regeneration of "Rebecca".

In that same vein, let me point out that the murder of RDW is not justified; no one ever attempts to justify it. The sins of the pack of men who rape and murder Sarah Tidwell are visited upon them in the murder of their young. And it's clear that Max's sin is revisited on him well beyond the date of the murder, but I digress; he did not 'flee abroad' as you claim. He was not a fugitive in Monte Carlo; he was fleeing his own horror, not the frigging law. And even if he were fleeing the law (clearly not the case), so what? This is not a crime drama.

Did everyone who reads "Rebecca" as a crime story simply dismiss the final act? Putting aside the nonsensical assumption that Max lies in his confession about the events of the night of the murder, did the big payoff about RDW's short life expectancy and the fact that she was not about to give birth to an heir (not a de Winter, either) roll out of everyone's heads? I didn't think it would be necessary in my first post, and I wanted to simply ignore this little thread, but I can't help but spell the scene out (and it appears as though some of you have forgotten).

RDW, knowing she's on death's precipice (the stunning reversal, as the reader is led to believe that the doctor in London had confirmed her pregnancy), premeditates her murder at the hands of her husband. In fact, it was supposed to be a double homicide; the timing of the note she left for Jack (the cousin with whom she was committing adulterous incest, but does that need to be recalled?) in London before her hair appointment, urging him to come to Manderley on the fly, should have placed him at the estate during the same time she planned to confront Max. Or perhaps she was hoping for Jack to arrive before he could kill her. Either way, Max's murder was meant by Rebecca to happen that same evening. She had called in a knowing and willing ally whose leering animosity for Max would no doubt have caused the same murderous rage that her speech to Max was intended to cause. It was dumb luck that Jack was out on a bender and didn't arrive at his flat at all that night. Let me ask this rhetorical question: why would du Maurier devote so much time to the machinations RDW undertakes on the day of her murder if she doesn't want the reader to understand her intentions?

Let me reiterate: no one, least of all the author herself, will justify the murder of RDW. It's nonsense to moan and cry that it's chauvenism which leads a person to see Max as sympathetic and tragic. This is not about 'a women getting out of line' and being shot for it. That's so much gibberish I can hardly tolerate it. Let me pose a final rhetorical question: are we supposed to like Clytaemnestra, Orestes, Lord MacBeth, Oedipus, Othello, Javert, Captain Ahab or Max de Winter? Not at all. But a reader's distaste for the tragic errors of these characters is by no means justifiable ground to warp the intention of the literature from whence they come to being. There's a parallel in character, for instance, between Lord MacBeth and Max de Winter that is so striking it would be hard for me to believe that du Maurier didn't have MacBeth in mind when shaping Max. Would you be howling about Lord MacBeth if his lady's intent was to manipulate him into killing her instead of the king?

This is already 3x as much effort as it likely deserves. And booksloth, if you're going to rant about petty typos overlooked on a random public thread I'll pay you a nickel a word to be my proofreader, but only if you can explain why you overlooked my misspelling of 'tantamount' and my misuse of the term 'fabled' as it related to Manderley.

(edited by sheldogg due to 2 typing errors; evidently he doesn't need that proofreader after all)

Message edited by its author, Jul 31, 2008, 6:21am.

Sorry I missed those, Sheldogg, it was just getting too easy. Typos are one thing; sheer ignorance another - unless you have a habit of repeating the same typo every time you use a word, you should at least know that one of the most famous houses in literature is called Manderley, not Manderlay. Perhaps you are confusing it with Kipling's Mandalay? Where the flying fishes play? No flying fishes in Rebecca as far as I recall but maybe you have read it more recently than I have.

Humbled though I am by your generous offer, I wouldn't waste the effort of proofreading such rubbish - who would care, after all? I am flabbergasted myself at the kind of person who has the cheek to call other people illiterate (OED - 'Unable to read' my copy says - nothing about personal prejudices - I think the word you were looking for there was probably - - - - prejudice) when their own post is barely comprehensible thanks to its poor spelling and grammar.

As you clearly have a direct line to the thoughts and intentions of the author perhaps you'd care to enlighten the rest of us as to where, exactly, du Maurier classifies her own novel as 'horror'? The book is a work of (non-genre) literature (whether high or low depends on the standpoint of the individual reader). Only the weakest writers (of which DdM is not one) are so unimaginative as to have characters so one-dimensional that they are always right, as you claim Mrs dW is. She is not 'the voice of du Maurier'; she is a fully-fledged character and protagonist - frequently flawed, sometimes wrong, as any good character should be.

Rebecca is a great book. I suspect even you would agree with that as I'm sure you wouldn't be wasting your valuable insights on anything less. The whole point of any great book is that different readers will have different opinions about the story and the characters (just as they do in 'real life'). That's the beauty of LT and of this thread - that we can all express those different opinions. What most of us endeavour also to do, is to refrain from calling other people illiterate or accusing them of not having read a book as thoroughly or as recently as ourselves. I suspect, as a lover of the book, that Jody has probably read Rebecca many times - I hope she will correct me if I'm wrong - at least one of them fairly recently. If that isn't the case it's probably because she has other books to read and a life to partake of. Neither of those is a sin.

And yes, actually, I DO like Othello.

#134 - Daphne Du Maurier (13 May 1907–19 April 1989)

;-)

he did not 'flee abroad' as you claim. He was not a fugitive in Monte Carlo; he was fleeing his own horror, not the frigging law. And even if he were fleeing the law (clearly not the case), so what? This is not a crime drama.

I never said he fled the law, just that he fled, as you just stated he did while explaining to me that he didn't. And I stand by it, he did flee, but I think it was so he was at a safe distance should Rebecca's body wash up and be discovered. But he came back when he thought enough time had passed that this would not happen.

I'm sorry, I didn't read the rest of your post, so I have no idea if you apologised for calling us functionally illiterate just for having a different opinion to yours. But we may as well face facts, we disagree on this, we never will agree on this, nobody really cares either way so lets just get over the fact that we love this book for different reasons and agree on just one thing - only a really great book can inspire this sort of passionate debate.

#135 Thanks, Booksloth, for standing up for Othello! He's a highly misguided character but I like him, and I'm always really sorry for him at the end of the play.

Thanks, Eruntane.

Aaaaanyway - as we were saying before etc etc etc . . . . (#116) Though I'm with you all the way when it comes to Bill Sykes I have to reveal that he doesn't actually shoot the dog in the book. It's just the kind of thing he would do and there is a point where he calls to dog to him (the dog has better sense and slinks away, only to reveal Bill's whereabouts later) where I suspect he's not planning to take him home and open a nice can of Meaty Lamb Chunks - but then that's just my interpretation. Anyhow, for now I think we'll have to stick with theft, pimping and murder to dislike him for.

Well, if Bullseye was okay in the book I can forgive him a little.

And while this thread reminds me, I have just ordered The Salesman from waterstones and am hoping it turns out to be as good as The Collector and the very evil Frederick.

Ooh-ooh! Another great book though I don't think it really fits in the 'meanest villain ' category. Or does it? Then again, maybe it does, but not the character you are probably thinking of. Hope you love it anyway. The book I'm reading at the moment (As If I Am Not There) has too many 'baddies' to name (even if they were all named in the book). Maybe the 'baddiest baddie' of all should just be War - in all books that deal with true conflict situations.

I knew there was a Faulkner character I absolutely hated. I think it was Jason Compson.

Jason Compson is easy to hate - but that damned Anse Bundren (As I Lay Dying) is unthinkably selfish and foolish in everything he does.

The Baron Vladomir Harkonnen from Frank Herbert's Dune. His cold calculating nature makes him the meanest for me. The most wicked, Father Liam Mulkerrin from Christopher Golden's Of Saints and Shadows.

Has anyone mentioned Elsworth Tooey from the Fountain Head? A divisive, manipulative _astard!

Message edited by its author, Aug 2, 2008, 7:19pm.

I have got to reread Rebecca after all of this discussion. I was about to read her first novel The Loving Spirit.

The Loving Spirit is okay but not a patch on Rebecca. I get the idea you'll love it, YA.

Shakespeare's Iago: Few top him.

#144: I second Ellsworth Toohey. There's nothing worse than a charismatic villain who has access to the popular press.

The Crooked Man from John Connolly's The Book of Lost Things was the first character to seriously creep me out since grade school. The way he preyed on children's discontent was truly disturbing, never mind the fact that he was practically everywhere. You think the main character is safe and then BAM! he shows up.

Emeril impression unintended.

Modern evil incarnate embodied in sociopathic man in Chigurh, from McCarthy's No Country for Old Men, and from 150 years ago, FINN: A novel, from Jon Clinch's eponymous book about Huck's father.

Message edited by its author, Aug 19, 2008, 1:43pm.

the meanest person is an unloving parent - if you didn't have one, make one up
an aunt or uncle or sh*tty neighbor will do

God from The Old Testament. What a petulant, spoiled, bipolar, hateful psychopath. He's far more morally wretched than any DAF Sade character.

It really depends on what type of story you are writing. Scrooge was not a bad guy, just a misguided one.

Perhaps the best thought I can give is this. The best bad guy is the one that is not seen coming. Or appears inconsistent, although its a finely sculptured ploy.

Hannible Lector is one that can get into your head. Talented, intelligent, refined and disturbed on levels I do not even want to consider. He looks human. He can hide in plain sight and no one will see it coming.

If you really want research, and can stomach it, look up information (preferably not on the various fan sites) about serial killers. Some of these killers are handsome, charismatic and evil. Heck, one serial killer listed on TruTV was a ten year old girl. Cute kid.

Guess it also depends on your type of "bad guy." Environmental, Circumstantial, or Evil?

Geoffrey Delamayn in Wilkie Collins's Man and Wife is rising up high in my list of bad guys. He's a cad, and he works out.

Mrs. Coulter from the His Dark Materials trilogy is vile.

Although protrayed as villainous, both Hannibal Lecter and Javert possessed redeemable traits. Lecter was beyond frightening, but it was obvious he drew some boundaries. In fact, he felt sympathy for Jodie Foster's character over her childhood. One who cares on some level can not be considered entirely evil (notwithstanding he engaged in cannibalism).

Javert was rigid and had tunnel-vision. Today, it would be called "my way or the highway." But again, Javert's character was somewhat redeemed at the end when he tossed himself into the river.

Ripley was evil -- crazy evil and just plain creepy to boot.

Please don't count my typos. I type fast.

I would agree with Booksloth, Greg Stillson from The Dead Zone. Lousy, manipulative, murdering Stillson.

I can't believe Dolores Umbridge has not been suggested. That old bitch.
:-)

>159 I hated Dolores Umbridge! But almost as bad was Rita Skeeter--maybe because one feels one knows people like this.

I actually found Umbridge to be very, very disturbing.

>160 & 161,
Umbridge actually bothered me more than Voldemort. That may be crazy, but she did. She was on the frontlines of torture and abuse while Voldemort always seemed to play from afar.

And the woman that played her in the movie was incredible. In a "I hate her and want her to die" sort of way of course. :-)

The Emperor Domitian (late First century CE), as depicted by Tacitus in "Agricola" has no redeeming features. In real life, however, even the "bad" emperors (of whom Domitian was certainly one) did have some redeeming feature.

Nero, it seems, was popular. Caracalla was the first to grant citizenship to all free males in the empire (3rd c. CE) Historians have not been willing to admit that he was "doing god", or even was "ahead of his time", They generally stipulate that the grant was only a ploy, and a sign that citizenship had become less, not more, important than in the past.

I remember my motherʻs saying that one character in Faulknerʻs The Hamlet was "the "most frightening": Not the ostensible villain Flem Snopes, but Ratliff the sewing machine salesman. (she didnʻt read much of Faulkner or of comparable, (if there are comparable) authors. Her tastes were definitely what came to be called "middle brow".

I couldnʻt follow her argument; I thought Ratliff was even close to r representing Faulkner himself -- someone who is aware of everything that is wrong with the local Establishment (Flemʻs Establishment in this case), and yet doesnʻt become an activist against it.

Count Fosco.