Looking at it from Both Sides

"Ha ha ha!" laughed the villain. "My recipe calls for only the finest baby unicorn penguins! Even though eating one will literally cause thirty atomic bombs to go off around the world, I must sate my hunger!"

Sound familiar? How about this?

"It's truly incredible." said the side character in awe. "Now that you've thrown off the shackles of eating any kind of meat, you are clearly the best of us all. Our one true God has granted you the ability to smite all of the redneck gun owners who would do nothing but overthrow society with the desire to eat all that they see because clearly they have no morals or wills of their own outside of an insatiable desire for blood!"

How about this?

Honestly, I hope not. Because if it does you very well might be reading some serious garbage.

Now, before I receive another angry e-mail claiming I am supporting some weird nuclear-penguin eating agenda, let me just say this: this was the first random example of a terrible villain and hero that came to mind. Overly psychotic, blood-thirsty monster and exemplary, pure, perfect, holy hero who could never harm another soul. With that said, do you see the problem with these examples?

In short: these characters aren't even black and white. They're at best white or black in their design. That said: let's talk characters!

What makes a good hero AND villain really interesting is their relatability. While you might be inclined to make a villain truly monstrous or a hero a shining beacon of light, I would discourage you from such writing tropes. They're rarely done right and doing so makes them confusingly evil or unattainably good. Instead, look at it from both sides. Why is the hero good? Why is the villain evil? Where did they really come from that makes them who they are?

While I'm pretty sure I've used this line before, it's still one of my favorites and is definitely worth repeating.

 "No one thinks that they're the bad guy."

With that said, consider that from the perspective of the villain. Most real people aren't going to actively make choices that are just outright evil. Example given, eating the one, lone unicorn penguin AND destroying the world via nukes linked to said unicorn penguin seems a liiiiiiiiiiittle out of realistic trains of thought for any given individual. Instead, consider the choices that got them there. Consider where they are coming from but also where are they going. There's a reason antagonists are called antagonists versus fucking-evil-bad-guys. It's because they are working opposite to protagonists. And that doesn't mean evil...just opposed.

But hey, let's apply that same logic to the heroes. Surely you've heard the 'misunderstood villain' shtick before, but what about the fact that the hero doesn't think they're the bad guy either! They're not the bad guy. Right? Riiiiight? There's no way that this guy whose a shit driver and cuts people off in traffic is bad. Or the guy who doesn't tip is bad. How about that hero who kind of hates black people. He's the good guy right? Well...he's the protagonist. And just as the villain isn't necessarily evil, the hero isn't necessarily good.

In fact, they're all just human.

Unless they're aliens.

Then fuck those guys, am I right?

PS: Sorry to all of my alien readers. I love you and couldn't help myself.

So going forward, I would encourage you to consider your heroes and villains both not as tropes, i.e. good and bad, but as people. People working towards opposite ends in opposing ways. People with goals that they want to fulfill for some reason or another. The thief who needs money. The fighter whose been misled. The princess with an addiction. The man with a mission. None of these are necessarily good or bad...it's just how you use them.

Book Review - The Antagonists: Book One

First, before we begin, allow me to say that figuring out how to rate this book was one of my bigger struggles. As a whole, I really do like the concept behind the book. It's about a young colored woman, confined to a wheel chair, down on her luck and suffering with the trials of day to day living when she meets a group of superheros. It's only after she's had a moment to deal with them that she realizes the heroes are in fact a bigoted and hateful group that use her for their own means while the villain (ahem: Antagonist) is the one who sides with her.

This is a fresh concept that I can say I've never seen before. It's fun. It's funny. It's thought provoking. I absolutely love the idea behind it and would like to see more done with it. Unfortunately, while I was hoping for an analytic examination of the superhero/villain genre along with some smart/funny commentary on social treatment of a main character that doesn't fit the "White Male Hero" trope; that was not what I got.

To begin, it's quite clear that Burgandi Rakoska is an amateur writer. I've done some quick and dirty research and I've realized that this was a book of passion. A story that she came up with out of the blue and, given drive from friends and family, was encouraged to make her idea a reality. In a way this is fantastic. Nothing good will ever come into this world without the passion to drive it. On the other, I believe she would have benefited from more writing practice.

I will start with the easy one: Formatting and Typographical errors. I won't beat the dead horse here since literally most every review talks about the excess number of formatting errors and typos, so just know that they're there.

More to the point, the book has two primary issues: Control of Time and Awkward Narrative and Phrasing. Regarding Time, it's clear that Rakoska had a number of ideas that she wanted to deliver but wasn't sure just quite how to run them together. This gives the story a bit of a "choppy" feel. You'll have this sudden speed up to one thing or another coupled with a very slow and precise detailing of another scene. Entire days are missed utilizing the 'character knocked unconscious' trope, resulting in the characters telling us rather than showing us what happened.

Couple this with the Awkward narrative and some sections of the book can be extremely difficult to get through. Again, it's clear that Rakoska had a very genuine love for and wanted to see an atypical main character. However, she begins inserting things that are just odd or don't make sense. One scene (a fight scene), out of the clear blue sky, starts talking at length about the sexuality of Merlin. In the context of the fight it might have made sense to have a one off here, but we're talking a LENGTHY discussion arguing like kindergartners. Another example has to do with no one is supposed to be able to enter Victor's home but, because of the specific wording of the spell, Minnie (the main character) is able to roll in. This is funny on it's own, but then her sister is able to run into the house later on, basically making it seem like the only people who can't enter the house are those on a casual stroll.

When all is said and done, the book has a number of fun ideas. Aside from the attempt at social commentary, the book features appearances from greats like Nicholas Flamel, the creator of the Philosopher's Stone. It has an amazing twist with one of the superheroes having a rather unexpected power. It even has a very pleasant ending that will make the toils of the book seem worthwhile.

Overall, the book has heart but is in desperate need of an accompanying editor and maybe even a second, more experienced author to help Rakoska focus her abilities and thoughts. I understand that she's in the process of creating a second entry into the Antagonists series and I'd be lying if I didn't admit I was looking forward to it. This is a series that deserves to do well, it just needs the technical delivery to get it there. Heck, if Rakoska were to re-write Book 1, I can assure you I'd be one of the first ones to pick it back up.