Badass Henchmen Who Aren't

[wicked]

This is part rant, part writing tip.

Yesterday I read a historical fantasy that came recommended to me. The beginning had me geared up for a story full of tension.
No worries there, or in this case, no hope.

The minions, who were set up right away as scary "badasses", made it seem like the heroes were truly going to be in for a struggle. They kind of had that Ring Wraith thing going on.
I was on the edge of my seat as they set out to stalk their prey. At least I was until they had their first confrontation. One of them gets taken out by a lowly gate guard. The others? They grab their fallen companion and flee.

What do they do the next time they are faced with confrontation?
They run. They do a lot of that.

They never actually come in contact with the main hero until the very end. What happens? He essentially jumps out at them and yells "Boo!", figuratively speaking. And their response? They run.

I haven't seen such ineffectual "badass minions" since my golem fell through a flaming drawbridge. As my oldest would say- "That is so lame."

Golem reference here- http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/...d.php?t=168766

At least the main antagonist maintained his "badass" status up until near the end. That is, except for the 1/3 of the middle of the book, where he conveniently doesn't seem to be in the picture while life goes on for the heroes.

So I implore you, as a reader who doesn't enjoy dissapointment, if you setup your minions to be "scary badasses", please make sure they live up to it.

[tchernabyelo]

The way you describe it makes it almost sound as if it was meant to be satirical.

What was the book? You can name names, you know

[Rob K]

That's a great point. In my latest story, my land-crushing dark knight suffers from panic attacks, and at one point he flees from an enraged squirrel. In light of your words, I'm thinking of making him a bit tougher. In the new scene, he'll actually take a swing at the squirrel with his two-handed, hope-crusher war axe before fleeing into the woods. I think, for the sake of realism, he would at least take one parting strike at his foe before dashing off to find a suitable hiding spot.

[wicked]

LOL If a character suffers from panic attacks, then they should act accordingly.
And I can think of a few squirrels whom I would flee from.


The book I read wasn't satire. The first impression of the minions was hardcore, but they had the spinal fortitude of jelly fish. I was not amused.

Brian, it was "Etruscans" by Morgan Llywelyn, and Michael Scott.
My husband liked the book, but I found it disappointing.
They had some really cool elements that they could have done so much with, but didn't.

[Rob K]

No, it's a normal squirrel he runs from. If he saw one like that, he would probably pass out or even die of fright!

On a serious note, I hear you. Some writers think that makes characters more realistic, but I don't think it does. In reality, tough characters stand their ground and aren't afraid to risk their lives.

[erazmus]

I agree. I like Bad Asses who are, well, bad. The Nazgul, The possessed giant from "The Illearth War", the Death Eaters (most of them) from Harry Potter. If they are not bad, they are just asses.

Mike

[Rob K]

If they are not bad, they are just asses.

Mike

Okay, I like it.

[tchernabyelo]

Mike - interesting you should quote the Nazgul as "bad-asses" - for me, they suffer from exactly the syndrome being described here. They seem to be very scary but five of them run away from one human (armed with a broken sword and a flaming brand) plus four hobbits. Now I accept that arguably they have "done their work" by stabbing Frodo with the Morgul blade - but really, why don't they just kill off everyone else?

[Rob K]

The Nazgul were not running away! They were...uh...simply regrouping.

[darkbow]

Villains who aren't bad asses aren't villains. They're filler for someone who is being paid by the word.

[crystalwizard]

Villains who aren't bad asses aren't villains. They're filler for someone who is being paid by the word.

oh really?

Can I ask for your definition of "bad ass" then? What does a villain have to do in order to be one?

[darkbow]

Using "bad ass" generically for villains who don't run away at the drop of a hat (or at least don't have some evil ulterior motive for doing so), not as descriptive of any particular, actual villain or group of villains.

General Woundwort was a "bad ass" villain, though he was still a rabbit.

[crystalwizard]

What about Saruman? He hid behind his orc hordes and his henchmen, but he was certainly not just a filer for someone being paid by the word

[Richard H. Fay]

Bullies can be bad-asses. They certainly can act it at times. Bullies can be villains, and villains can be bullies.

However, bullies aren't always brave. Bullies may value self-preservation over maintaining their bad-ass image. When faced with a bigger, stronger foe, bullies sometimes flee.

I think genre fiction could adapt that concept for its own use. Not every bad-ass need be as bad-assed as he/she first appears.

Plus, I think of what an old, frail evil wizard might due when faced with potential physical confrontation if their mystical powers are somehow blocked or squelched. As bad-ass as he may act at other times, in that instance, even the baddest of bad-ass wizards may turn tail and run. (And such powers may be squelched quite easily; folklore is full of things that could counter evil magic, from iron to rowan, from holy charms to protective symbols.)

[wicked]

I'm inclined to agree with Darkbow.

In this case the characters in the book were nothing more than "filler", in the sense that the author seemed to just keep them at the edge of the reader's attention until they could be conveniently dropped into the final chapter as a very minor obstacle for the heroes.
They failed miserably at being villains. They're not menacing, they're inept. They don't create any tension.
If they had actually been used the way I expected them to be in the beginning, it would have brought the book up a whole nother level.

Cowardice has nothing to do with whether or not a character can be a badass. Cowardice can be used as well as courage, if not better.

I have a character that is a coward at heart. His entire motivation is self preservation. He's killed his own men to save himself, switched sides with whatever direction the tide was rolling, and stepped back to wait it out when his allies looked like they were losing.
But he's sneaky, intelligent, manipulative, and in no way can be trusted.

I'd worry more about him as a menace than the one who kicks in a door and takes the heroes head on.

[ScrewMoonshine]

I'm most disappointed when the villain is made out to be an evil mastermind but proves to be a total doofus. Auric Goldfinger from Flemming's Goldfinger is probably the biggest culprit of this that I've seen. Flemming constantly harps about how Goldfinger is the greatest crimminel genius of all time, yet all of his actual actions belong on the blooper reel of pulp villains. My two favorites:
1.He has the opportunity to kill the only two people who can stop his plans, but keeps them alive just to take down notes that he doesn't even use.
2.His plan for breaking into a money vault? Use a nuclear bomb. (Seriously.)

Robert Orme