A Villain Without a Fourth Wall

One of the stories on which I am working is this metafiction-y piece. The antagonist of it will have knowledge that he is in a work of fiction.

So here is my question: "How do you make a villain with no fourth wall?"

Points I have considered: 1. The good guys always win and he knows it. What would motivate him now? 2. Would he alter his plans specifically to use this newfound knowledge?

PEOPLE WITH SHORT ATTENTION SPANS, STOP READING HERE.

Pre-existing examples: The only real example I've found of a villain with no fourth wall and awareness of the "Happy Ending" trope (not that I've looked particularly hard), is Ajimu Najimi from the Medaka Box manga. She tries to defeat the main character by creating another main character and having them fight. This seems overly dependent on the whims of the author, who, in the case above, would favor the one whose name is in the title.

A truly pragmatic villain would execute a plan entirely in-universe, no? But, that's just it! The universe is kind of against him. Does anybody have any input on this?

edited 11th Sep '12 6:18:16 AM by LinusEitname

I'd just like to point out that your first question isn't entirely applicable with what happened in Medaka Box, given that Medaka lost; it just so happened that Ajimu wanted to lose, and thus Medaka's defeat is her defeat as well. Not to mention that Ajimu doesn't really know about the fourth wall, she just thinks she's in a manga (she is, but she's not going by in-universe happenings... yeah it's confusing)

Anyway:

1. You have to consider what 'winning' means. Does it mean to defeat the bad guy, save a loved one, win a war or get the macguffin? Is it a touchdown victory, or a clear victory, or a pyrrhic one?

2. If the protagonists' victory is inevitable, then a smart man would craft a plan that benefits from that success.

edited 11th Sep '12 6:47:45 AM by fillerdude

Well it's not a 4th wall breaking villian but Lothor of Power Rangers Ninja Storm was Dangerously Genre Savy to the point where even the defeat of his Monster of the Week played into his parger plan. Watch it and see if it gives you ideas

Neko, I know you're a live-action sentai enthusiast, but I doubt I could become acquainted with a genre so foreign to me and then isolate a single episode.

fillerdude, thank you for explaining that story arc better. It was rather confusing. I suppose, in the case of my story, the objective is to eliminate or otherwise permanently stop the protagonists, who are the only threats to the villain's continuing rule. It's like chess: he must somehow capture the king, even though you can't actually DO that. Can the rules be changed?

I've never seen Neko's Power Rangers Ninja Storm example, but I am willing to hazard a guess that it was but one episode in a series, with Lothor retreating, cackling maniacally, while the Power Rangers (they call themselves that, right?) shake their fists and shout, "We'll get you next time!"

Doesn't Lothor lose at the end?

If you knew you were going to lose, but really needed to win and had all the knowledge of narrative convention that we Tropers know and love, what would you do?

If victory is unattainable, find a new victory, or manipulate the board and change the rules. What ever is easier for the villain. A dangerously genre savvy who knows he's gonna lose should at least make sure that his loss isn't a complete loss, and that he does win something.

edited 11th Sep '12 4:57:56 PM by Tehpillowstar

Actually its series wide, and lookie here theres a TV Tropes entry of it

Power Rangers Ninja Storm

But in short he is asked early on why they don't attack the rangers in their civilian form his response "how many times do I have to You [[The Dragon: Sargan]] we can only destroy their powers when they are in their Ranger Form."

Near the end when all his MOTW are defeated he reveals it was all part of his plan to swell the Abyss Of Evil to both super charge him and relase a army of Evil on the world. So even when the rangers are winning they are playing into his hands.

Also IF you don't want to watch all 38 episodes there is (available here http://maskedriders.info/Sources/Power%20Rangers/) Linkara hour long History of Power Rangers on it http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/linkara/hopr/30312-power-rangers-ninja-storm

edited 11th Sep '12 5:07:34 PM by NekoLLX

They set someone else up as a new villain and retire.

Hmm... Your villain could perhaps try to shift the tone of the work: arrange things such that the most viable victory costs the heroes their "king", or arrange for a perspective shift that portrays the villain as the best thing for the kingdom, thus making their continuing rule a "happy ending".

(I could even see the latter resulting in a slow, subtle Heel–Face Turn: they keep trying to make themselves indispensable and their rule desirable, which results bit by bit in their rule becoming benevolent; the conclusion of the story then involves the realisation that they have become heroes themselves, reconciling with the nominal heroes, and that a happy ending has indeed occurred.)

Otherwise they might ensure that their defeat leaves them in a position to seize power, planning for their rule to occur "between books" - after all, it's not at all unknown for the villain to take power as part of the backstory to a work, whether before the story picks up or between installments.

Maybe I'm thinking about it from an overly Watsonian perspective. Heroes win because that's what readers want. If there was a way to get readers to want the villains to win, then there wouldn't be a problem, right?

On one side, knowing that this is all the doing of the antagonist tends to cast him as "the bad guy", making it set in stone, for the reader, that this guy will not win.

On the other side, making a hero unlikable for the purpose of getting the villain to win, even if caused in-universe, simply screams, "character derailment", and causes the reader to close the book in disgust.

I was hoping for something similar to "kill the main character". I don't know a workable plan using convention to do that (besides creating some sort of Grey-and-Grey-Morality/Anti-Villain thing, where the pro- and an- get a bit ambiguous and they're both just "tagonists").

Maybe someone else has an idea?

EDIT: I spent so long composing this that more people responded! That is a very good idea, Ars Thaumaturgis. It would create a sort of "Vetinari" situation. That might just help me with my second problem (letting the villain win goes contrary to the story, but now that the villain is trying to subvert it I can't just end in a cliché). If the villain can outlive the hero's journey, then both parties are happy as long as there was some sort of final tussle.

This might just work.

edited 11th Sep '12 7:10:35 PM by LinusEitname

It's a spoiler for people who haven't read the webcomic, but this particular Order Of The Stick strip might give you some ideas: Here.

Dead Pool was a villain with no fourth wall before he decided he wanted to play hero.

fillerdude, I have read Oot S extensively. Tarquin's Dangerous Genre Savvy kicks 3d6 kinds of ass. Thanatos Gambits are all well and good, but sometimes you really really don't want to die.

Vyctorian, the Deadpool example is interesting. I'm pretty sure the incident that caused his No Fourth Wall status also removed any reason for him to justify his actions. Dude can just plead insanity. I will look into it regardless.

One option is to make themselves as sympathetic as possible, and hope that the fanbase pressures the author into giving them a win or a redemption, but that's tricky and not a 100% sure thing. The more common one everyone is alluding to is to align the circumstances such that a win for the hero is in reality a win for them.

On another level, you have to think about it this way: while you the author (Linus Eitname) are consciously creating a villain with fourth wall awareness in your story, you must also be creating a "second" author beneath you who doesn't know their creation is truly aware, or if they are are perfectly willing to let events play out without undue interference. If the second author were aware of their creation's awareness and felt personally responsible they'd likely go out of their way to kill them off or force them into a Heel–Face Turn. Which while it also sounds like an interesting story (are all your creations truly alive, are they even your creations? If they are, is it your duty to make sure they all end up Happily Ever After? Is it your fault the bad guys are bad, and if so should you fix them?) It may derail what you're trying to do.

That said, and assuming that the second author will stick to "good guys win, bad guy loses", they can still use their awareness to sneak in a win, though it's highly dependent on their motivation and end goal. If they're an Omnicidal Maniac then there's really nothing they can do that won't be trumped. On the other hand, if all they want is money or an ostensibly good thing (equality for mutants, a better distribution of wealth, anti-villainy things basically) then they can either position themselves such that they oppose what they really want, so therefore the good guys take up their real cause and give him a win. So the villain might try to oppress mutants, steal from the poor, or attempt to sink a company they own secretly to ensure their success.

You could have him try to position events so he becomes more and more central and driving to the story with the intention of becoming the protagonist himself

The first thing the villain would need to do would be to find out exactly what the rules are. Are they the hero always wins? Or does the villain need to lose? Maybe whoever the audience likes wins. Ect..

After that fitting into these in a way that ensures victory shouldn't be difficult especially if the villain is pragmatic. Realistic villains aren't evil for kicks (usually) but because it is a means to an end. If they know it isn't going to work they could pick another style.

Depending on the rules the villain could ally with the hero for personal gain, engineer themselves to replace the hero or create a new more evil threat to the hero and base their plan on the hero's success against this greater evil.

Well if I were the villain do you know how I'd feel?

F**KING PISSED OFF!!!

I would hate the fact that I have no free will. I would hate the fact that just because of some arbitrary designation of "good" and "bad" every one of my plans are doomed to fail, no matter how much time, effort, blood sweat and tears I put into it. A world like that would feel me with disgust. If God Himself decreed that this was my destiny, I would stop at NOTHING to ensure I could wrap my hands around His disgusting little throat and watch the terror in his eyes as I squeeze the fucking LIFE out of him! And if I have to shatter this pathetic, worthless world into a million pieces just to have MY freedom I promise you I'll do it. You cannot stop me. You WILL not stop me! My destiny is mine and MINE ALONE!!! I refuse to be a plaything!

Actually, I'm reminded of a quote that feels quite fitting:

Some things come to mind after reading your post:

How aware is the villain of 'the outside world'? I'm going to assume that with no fourth wall, regardless of whether what you're writing is a story, or a story-in-a-story, he's aware that the world that we live in, our world, is the real world in which the author, you, write up the story. What else does he know?

Secondly, he should be aware that as a character, all of his thoughts, his plans, his motivations, are all artificial and created by you. Even the very fact that he realizes this and is angry(if he is) at you is also something you have written, rather than it being his own genuine emotions. That'd probably cause a lot of psychological trauma, if you write him that way, because even then he'd realize that the dilemma of being a fictional character is a part of his written personality as well. You can write him off as someone who doesn't think too deeply about this, but personally I think that'd be boring. You can control exactly what he realizes, and how much he realizes, and he knows this.

I have no idea how to make it work, but I hope you make it work, because it's an idea I've also contemplated for some time, and am interested to see how you handle this.

Ironically enough, the villain would still being doing exactly what the author wants them too even then. Form a twisted perspective the author of any given book is the true big bad, and the in-story Big bad is just a patsy.

Exactly, and when the audience realizes the only real villain is the author himself, then the only real solution is to not read the work, because anything that is restricted by the fourth wall becomes meaningless when there is one character who isn't, and can't do anything about not being restricted by said fourth wall.

Hence why seriously breaking the fourth wall is a pain in the ass to do.