Books with evil protagonists?

[Chrysanthus]

I'm looking for a series of books, the sort of books that, if only for the relentless clarity of the writing, the lucid, yet overwritten descriptions of the grasses, the mud, the thorns, and the very arc of the road that cuts through all that, presents a clear and episodic progress from one small terror to the next. Murders, vampires, demons, debauchery, cannibalism, diabolical secrets, and horror, horror, and MORE horror. Books that will just plain scare the **** out of me on a windy night, and yet still arouse my most primordial instincts. :P

As for the characters...

I have spent a lot of time searching for examples of fiction in which the protagonists displays the characteristics usually seen in antagonists. I do not mean the "anti-hero" who still ends up fighting for "good." I mean someone with a decidedly evil persuasion.

Now, place that character as the main, central character with the story told from his point of view.

My last read was Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles series, and I have to say that I was disappointed. There were a few instances where the characters were ruthless, powerful, and otherwise awesome (such as when Lestat first becomes a vampire in The Vampire Lestat), but other than that they were usually full of self-loathing, defeatism, guilt, nihilism, and moral reservation, which is exactly what I cannot stand. To put it simply, thy were wimps, when they should have been epic villains.

Plus, it seemed to me that the vast majority of the pages are spent exploring the very mundane, mortal aspects of their lives. The stories did not seem like they necessarily belonged to vampires, but to normal people. While there is, indeed, some literary merit to this, Rice ruined a perfectly good chance to present vampires as they should be. Not as crazed monsters and not as pathetic messes, but as perfect protagonist-villains.

Does an example of this exist or even something close to it? Have you read anything like this? I have read so much fiction in which the "good guys" win that it is not worth reading anymore. It is all just so predictable.

[hellsapoppin]

'' decidedly evil ''


Try, A Cask of Amontillado.

[islandclimber]

read 120 Days of Sodom by the Marquis de Sade.. if that doesn't terrify and disgust you I don't know what will.. It made me feel sick and nauseous..

same with "Story of the Eye" by Georges Bataille..

"Les Chants de Maldoror" by the Comte De Lautreamont is another good work with a completely evil protagonist..

[FalseReality]

I don't think there is a book that fits that description any better that Paradise Lost.

[islandclimber]

I don't think there is a book that fits that description any better that Paradise Lost.

:thumbs_up

[Geheris]

Hmm, I think that a book that fits that description would be a little hard to pitch for a modern author, unless the author was very well established.

I find it very odd that while modern video games can repeatedly present such protangonists, that modern authors, at least those who are just starting out, have to conform to what people think are 'proper' or 'acceptable.' I do believe that essentially quashes creativity.

I think that a novel can a have perfectly fine plot line, and perfectly fine artistic value quotient even with such an 'evil' protagonist.

For is not good and evil entirely subjective and based wholly on one's belief system? For is not one man's rebel another man's freedom fighter?

p.s.

"that, if only for the relentless clarity of the writing, the lucid, yet overwritten descriptions of the grasses, the mud, the thorns, and the very arc of the road that cuts through all that, presents a clear and episodic progress from one small terror to the next."

Couldn't agree more.

[Watershed]

I totally agree with you about evil characters in books. I love when the protagonists love rape and murder and haven't a bone about it.

For those moral naysayers, understand books are fantasy and therefore anything goes.

A book I chiefly admire with an evil protagonist is A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, and I will also tell you that many of Shakespeare's tragedies have main characters who are monsters, who even when they feel guilty, are still real bastards. But you should see those performed.

[islandclimber]

you love when protagonists love rape and murder without a conscience?? why?? I mean those are awful, terrible, disgusting actions.. I am just wondering what is the attraction there?? is human suffering that enjoyable?? and are real monsters really that easy to like??

[prendrelemick]

In a way perhaps we admire/envy them that are free of conscience or moral constraint. They lead guilt free lives, they dare to do what we dare not.

Do these evil protagonists know that they are evil? Satan in paradise lost doesn,t

[Quilp]

The book that I would recommend would be 'The Monk' - Matthew 'Monk' Lewis

Ambrosio is one hell of a bastard!

[DeadAsDreams]

Darkness has an attraction....

[Chrysanthus]

Thanks for all the suggestions, I'll look into them.

So far I've checked out Les Chants de Maldoror, by Lautréamont.

This stuff is awesome, very close to what I'm looking for.

Thank you.

[kelby_lake]

Lolita. Humbert's not only the protagonist, he's the narrator as well.

[fuzzyforever]

Although he's not the protagonist, Jack from William Golding's 'Lord of the Flies' is a great villain. He's a wonderful mix of childlike playfulness and psychotic evil.
Another great villain would by William Hamleigh from Ken Follet's 'The Pillars of the Earth'. William is a young, handsome Earl with a love for violence and domination.

In both cases control is the most important thing. With Jack, he is willing terrify and manipulate his own tribe to maintain his status. With William, he constantly believes that people are looking down on him, and responds by torturing people and raping their daughters while the family is forced to watch.

Both are pretty sick and are contrasted by a peaceful and thoughtful person (Ralph for Jack, Tom for William) and an intellectual (Piggy for Jack, Philip the monk for William).

[mayneverhave]

Paradise Lost, of course. Though its debatable whether Satan is the protagonist or not.

Macbeth is the protagonist of his play and is decidedly evil - though the play plays with the idea of moral ambiguity.

Also, Hamlet can be looked at as a villain protagonist. After all, he's brutal to nearly all of the other characters and murders a man and pretty much completely disregards it.

Also, Camus's "The Stranger" features a plot that involves a murder committed by the amoral protagonist and his refusal to feel bad about it.

[amalia1985]

Paradise Lost, Macbeth, A Clockwork Orange are among my favourites, and I will agree with the fellow members who said that darkness can attract us many times.

[Taliesin]

Also, Camus's "The Stranger" features a plot that involves a murder committed by the amoral protagonist and his refusal to feel bad about it.

I don't know. I don't think Meursault is evil - he was called evil and remorseless because he didn't cry at his mothers' funeral - i.e didn't act as social norms expected him to act. I didn't feel that Meursault was evil when I read "The Stranger" - somehow distant and alienated from this world, but not evil.

[kelby_lake]

I think he acted in a logical way- logic over morals.

[prendrelemick]

Shakespeare's Richard the Third, is an absolute rotter

[Kafka's Crow]

Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights. He is remorseless, spiteful, dark and evil. On the other hand his desperate love makes him one of the most admired romantic heroes in English Literature. Quite complex character indeed.

[wessexgirl]

Paradise Lost, of course. Though its debatable whether Satan is the protagonist or not.

Macbeth is the protagonist of his play and is decidedly evil - though the play plays with the idea of moral ambiguity.

Also, Hamlet can be looked at as a villain protagonist. After all, he's brutal to nearly all of the other characters and murders a man and pretty much completely disregards it.

Also, Camus's "The Stranger" features a plot that involves a murder committed by the amoral protagonist and his refusal to feel bad about it.

I don't think Macbeth or Hamlet are evil characters without conscience. Once Macbeth has started on his path of destruction and murder, he has to continue, but if he was totally amoral without a conscience, he would not be seeing Banquo's ghost haunting him. He is doomed to finish what he started, but although his deeds are horrific, we still feel some sympathy for him, the tragic flaw of ambition overriding his previous heroic status. Likewise, Hamlet doesn't start out with evil intentions. He is put in the position of seeking revenge for his father, and the innocent casualties which accrue on the way were not meant to be killed. The intent of evil is not there.

Now Edmund in King Lear is a really evil bugger. He may have cause, in his mind, but he is bad, along with Goneril and Regan. Likewise Iago, who causes mayhem and murder with not an ounce of conscience. And of course, the great Richard 111, (not the real one, but Shakespeare's creation), who sets about his murders with gusto, and even a sense of humour. His matter-of-fact "I wish the bastards dead" about his young nephews, and his elimination of former friends like Hastings without a qualm show his evil. I suppose though he does have the nightmares about his deeds before the final battle, but again, he carries on courageously with his chosen path until the end, which earns him a sort of grudging admiration.

[The Comedian]

You might want to try Alan Moore's From Hell -- the protagonist is Jack the Ripper, and, well, he's not good.

[Bellatrix]

Lolita would be my number one suggestion. Humbert is disgustingly evil, and yet the reader finds himself sympathizing with him because he narrates it.

if you're looking for plays try Equus, Alan strang is very confused but darkly interesting.
Also, Eric, featured in Gaston Leroux's Phantom of the Opera could be considered an antagonist.

Uncle Silas is supposed to be very good. and of course Dracula would be the ultimate leading villain.

Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Grey" is brilliant if you're looking for a narcissistic bastart whos concience finally catches up with him.

the thing that makes villains so interesting is that they dont think theyre evil, so in some cases you end up siding with them without realizing it.

[morgana]

"Dangerous liasons" has two nasty characters, especially the Marquise de Merteuil.

[dfloyd]

Disgusting, but interesting.

[mal4mac]

... Shakespeare's tragedies have main characters who are monsters, who even when they feel guilty, are still real bastards. But you should see those performed.

Why wait to see them performed? Harold Bloom recommends reading them *rather than* seeing them performed, as he reckons that finding a good performance is pretty small. Also, for groundings like me, it helps if you can stop and look up the hard words!

As with Shakespeare, one of the main strength of Dickens is the effort he puts into creating his wonderful gargoyles. Who can forget: Fagin and Bill Sikes (Oliver), Miss Havisham (Great Expectations), Wackford Squeers & Ralph Nickleby (Nicholas Nickleby), Quilp (The Old Curiosity Shop)... the list goes on... and on... Pick any novel and start reading...

"Believe this: when she [orphan Estelle] first came to me, I meant to save her from misery like my own. At first I meant no more. But as she grew, and promised to be very beautiful, I gradually did worse, and with my praises, and with my jewels, and with my teachings, and with this figure of myself always before her a warning to back and point my lessons, I stole her heart away and put ice in its place." - Miss Havisham

Of course, in Dickens, there is usually a hero who "wins out", but the evil characters are often so strong that they are equal protagonists in the novel.

[jet.thursday]

Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights. He is remorseless, spiteful, dark and evil. On the other hand his desperate love makes him one of the most admired romantic heroes in English Literature. Quite complex character indeed.

I agree, because the characters in the novel Wuthering Heights, especially the protagonists Catherine and Heathcliff, are both selfish beings,
and Heathcliff as the main character continued to become more evil until the end of his life.
It is real contrary to the usual love stories, since Catherine and Heathcliff never got together, well never as person but they did afterlife.
Heathcliff and Catherine manifest deep affection for each other but their self-pride led them to the destruction of themselves. Their blooming love for each other
has later been ruined by their selfishness and arrogance.
The love that they have then grew as hatred and worst as revenge. The couple may feel passionate towards each other but even though,
Catherine still chose pride over love and Heathcliff became ruthless.

I think novels that have selfish, evil protagonists are more realistic, they describe
the characters as a whole human being, not just the stereotype character who is always good and angelic. :angel:

[kelby_lake]

Why wait to see them performed? Harold Bloom recommends reading them *rather than* seeing them performed, as he reckons that finding a good performance is pretty small. Also, for groundings like me, it helps if you can stop and look up the hard words!


Read them AND see them performed. What may not make sense on the page makes sense in the theatre.
The BBC versions aren't half bad- they filmed every Shakespeare play.

Shakespeare's tragic protagonists aren't all evil. Actually I can't think of any of the tragic protagonists who are evil- maybe Richard III but that's a history play.

[blp]

What dfloyd said.

[Aravona]

You might want to try Alan Moore's From Hell -- the protagonist is Jack the Ripper, and, well, he's not good.

Read that then watch the film that was made to go with it and you've got you're self quite an evening of gore from Jack.

[Modest Proposal]

I don't know. I don't think Meursault is evil - he was called evil and remorseless because he didn't cry at his mothers' funeral - i.e didn't act as social norms expected him to act. I didn't feel that Meursault was evil when I read "The Stranger" - somehow distant and alienated from this world, but not evil.

Did you miss the small part where he murders someone...?

[kelby_lake]

Did you miss the small part where he murders someone...?

It was just his instant reaction. In his mind he was acting logically, unhampered by conscience.

[Modest Proposal]

It was just his instant reaction. In his mind he was acting logically, unhampered by conscience.

Have you read much of Camus's essay and scholarship work? He was opposed to Sarte's nihilism and the philosophy of the time that we shouldn't be "hampered by conscience" in our pursuits. That is why he broke with Sarte on the issue of Russian communism. Camus was a moral, liberal humanist. He was NOT excusing murder in his book by showing that his protagonist was "beyond" such questions, he was deliberately getting at what was wrong with many Europeans.

[Desolation]

American Psycho.

Also, Meursault definitely wasn't evil - he shot a man who posed a potential threat to him. Besides, the murder was simply a catalyst to show the absurdity of life, as, in the end, Meursault was executed more for drinking coffee with milk and not crying at his mother's funeral than for killing the man. Camus was certainly a moral, humanistic man, but his intention was not to show an evil man, just a man trying to deal with an absurd world.