Continuing on with October’s look into villains, we now observe the types of antagonists that split away from the individual human.

A group with wicked intent; a force of nature out to get the hero; a concept, as an abstract will of malevolence. All of these serve to make the hero seem much smaller than the threat they face. A bold move, as the author is sacrificing much of an antagonist’s personality for grandeur. High risk, high reward.

The Party from George Orwell’s 1984 is a prime example. There are individuals within, all who carry names and responsibilities, yet they are defined by the whole they serve. The erasure of their identity plays a double role as a way to broaden the threat beyond any one of them, while being a source of commentary on collectivism. It cements how dictatorships require the loss of self to keep people in line.

This is further emphasized with the byline, “Big Brother is Watching You.” The face on the poster is of a person, but the root of the meaning is in the cameras and monitors always surveying citizens. It takes the personal and depersonalizes it, the Party doing upon itself as it does unto others.

This also applies to hive-mind villains too, or anything that attacks as a group (like hordes of demons, or swarms of zombies). It takes the human trait of social cohesion, shows it in a darker light, all while beating us at our own game. Whether loss of identity or life, losing to society or external threats, collective antagonists portray an evil uniquely their own.

There is debate over whether or nor the wild can be villainous, if it’s merely the natural world taking its course. Even then, ‘antagonist’ is more than appropriate in Person vs Nature stories, considering it is the oldest form of conflict. Living things in a continuous struggle to stay alive, going to whatever lengths are necessary. There is never truly a winner in the game of survival, merely those who haven’t lost yet.

Stories of natural disasters are common, as are tales of vicious animals. In many of these cases, emphasizing the wild aspect lends into the unpredictability, thus making it more threatening. A good example is Life of Pi, where the eponymous hero not only has to maneuver the middle of the Pacific Ocean on a life raft, but also having to do so with an actual tiger aboard. Braving the elements, while showing an element of bravery in the face of an apex predator.

Personification of these can work if done right–though it bleeds to a hybrid of Person vs Person, so maintaining the role of nature is essentially to making it work. Too far to that side takes away from the raw destructive force of the wild, which is meant to be inhuman to show the stark contrast from us.

Yet what happens to the opposite extreme, where there is no personality to the antagonist at all? And no, I’m not talking about the Twilight villains. I mean intangible evil–fighting a very concept.

The NeverEnding Story provides a great example of an abstract protagonist. ‘The Nothing,’ an exemplification of the decline of imagination. It wants nothing, it makes no demands, it has no goals. It consumes indiscriminately. Rather than being personified, it is itself a personification, destruction incarnate.

Its lack of a body means it cannot be fought, injured, or killed. This adds into the helpless state of Atreyu, a child juxtaposed against a foe infinitely larger than him. This effectively establishes The Nothing’s threat, while beefing up the stakes as it erodes the very fictional world it takes place in.

But in the end, all fictional villains are but conceptual and intangible figures to us. We fight against abstract ideas every time we attribute one to an antagonist, creating our own battle against evil. And we learn a little more about the darker side of life each time.

The hero’s greatest teacher is not their mentor. It’s their villain. Because they put the protagonist’s actions, character, and values to the test. A well-written clash will end with the hero questioning them all, seeing enough reflected in their foe to gain the self-reflection that the enemy lacks.

What are some of your favorite examples of Person vs Society, vs Nature, or vs Concept? Of the three, which do you prefer?