Two questions

[georgelee5786]

I seem to perceive a trend in writing these days. Aristocrats and autocrats who serve as antagonists are portrayed as either flimsy and weak, disgusting and fat, incompetent, or overtly evil and cruel(Note I said antagonist rather than villain, as those are different things.). Am I seeing things, or is this trend actually occurring?

Secondly, what do you think of this trend? I personally dislike it. I feel like antagonists should be more interesting and less pathetic. I prefer an antagonist treated like Ozymandias from the Watchmen movie, respected and intelligent, rather than a man who wallows in agony and crying on ceaselessly when wounded, even minorly.

 

[APieceOfRock]

Sometimes just pure evil and cruelty is fine. Not everyone need a 20-page multi-layered backstory and motivation

I think if you reserve motivation and complex backstory for truly important antagonists, it'll make them stand out much more.

 

[HungrySheep]

I think it's fine for the small-time antagonists to be portrayed as pathetic, but it's more interesting for the "puppetmaster" or the really important antagonists to have depth and appear strong/competent.

 

[LowinKeshin]

Not really a fan.

 

[NotaNuffian]

Eat the Rich.

Until somehow by the power of BS you becomes one, then it is Fuck the Poor.

We all hate the privileged but yearns to become one.

We hate not the fact that they have, we hate the fact that we don't.

---

So yes, the incompetent noble as an antagonist. They do serve a simple purpose as a hate sink AND a target, the simple idea of "even this idiot can be a noble, meaning I can too!"

Also, history is plagued by stupid rich people with too much power, so it is easy to write and for lesser readers like me to get into it.

Furthermore, if you have a competent noble as an antagonist, your MC and crew will have to work harder to overcome them.

 

[Cipiteca396]