I love the smell of desperation in the morning

A few days ago, "Amanda the Aspiring Television Writer" wrote a blog post on how to increase a character's likability (it's a great post- go read it!).

(by the way, literary agent Nathan Bransford has a post on a similar topic here: http://nathanbransford.blogspot.com/2009/02/sympathetic-vs-unsympathetic-characters.html His blog is fantastic- read it all, if you can!)

Amanda writes that understanding the reason behind a character's motivation makes that character compelling (which is even better than likability). The easier a character's motivation is to understand, she says, the more compelling that character is. So, characters fighting for survival is super compelling, because they have a primal, explicable goal.

I disagree.

It's nice to know why somebody wants something (hence the popularity of backstory), but what makes that character and his/her goal compelling, to me, is simply that the character is desperate for it.

Ex.

Field of Dreams is a great movie, with a strong narrative drive. We get hints about why the main character wants to build a baseball field (it's a way to connect with his father), but what really pulls the story forward is that the protagonist is willing to do nearly anything to get that field. He makes a fool of himself, connects with a disconnected writer, pours money into it, strains his familial relationships- anything he has to do to get that field, he does.

He's compelling, which makes him likable.

But heroes don't often want anything *that* badly- their moral limits are what make them heroes. A hero never becomes so desperate that s/he'll stoop to *anything*, because if s/he were, s/he'd eventually stoop to villainy and would no longer be the hero. Heroes can't become *that* desperate, so they are limited in how compelling they are.

The way to get around this is to make heroes desperate for multiple things, so that their desires *seem* incredibly deep, but their limits make sense. Ie, a heroine is desperate to save herself from being eaten by a monster. The heroine is also desperate for Love Interest to love her. Her desire for survival has limits imposed upon it by her desire for love, and vice versa. The dilemma is compelling, so she is, too- without becoming a villain.

Crafting a compelling villain is easier, though, because the marks of a villain are: 1. a desire so strong they are willing to do literally ANYTHING to get it, and 2. an inability to compromise. An uncompromising, desperate character is interesting because s/he's unpredictable, and because no matter what, s/he'll keep pulling the narrative along until s/he gets what s/he wants.

The construction of a villain especially interesting in television, because on television, the villain *might* go years and years (in real time!) without getting what s/he wants. The best case scenario is that over those (frustrating!) years and years, the villain's desire gets ever deeper, her/his plots grow ever more complex, and s/he becomes ever more compelling.

But dramatic tension can't usually last for years.

Some shows try to keep the villain from getting what they want, but eventually run out of credible obstacles. In this situation, the villain keeps the same goal, but her/his obstacles change. Since a character is defined by his actions, and since his actions are all *re*actions to the circumstances, ridiculous circumstances/obstacles weaken characters. This is just the story of a show/situation slowly going stale.

OR, the villain's desire may change/become vague... ie, in Heroes. *What* does Sylar want? For the past couple seasons, his quests have become more and more random, pointless, and unfocused, to the point that the character feels random and pointless- and no longer all that compelling. This is the story of a villain exploding.

In order to circumvent the problem, Buffy used a new villain every season. That led to too weak villains. How scared could a viewer be when she knew Buffy would defeat that particular season's Big Bad in episode 13/22.

Heroes also started out with the one season Big Bad technique, but couldn't get rid of Sylar when he gained such a great following. Which led to too much misplaced focus on Sylar, which led to Sylar taking over the show in a horrible, weird way- with a rash of disconnected and ridiculous storylines that didn't have to do with his original desires.

Gossip Girl has (so far) had a near-miss with a similar "villains are so much more compelling than heroes that they take over the story" problem. Chuck started out as a pretty bad villain (serial wanna-be rapist in the first episode) but he proved so interesting that he was adopted into the fold. Blaire and Serena started out as equal leads, but in the past season (season 2) Serena has become queen of the C plot, and Blaire has been A all the way. Gossip Girl is so well written, however, and the characters are all so driven, complex, and have such singular POVs, that it has room to play with its dark/light dynamics in a way black-hat/white-hat Heroes can't.

Gossip Girl also has an easier time of it because all the characters have *social* goals as opposed to concrete ones. Their goals shift organically as the power dynamics shift, and with every goal-shift, the characters run into a new range of (credible, interesting) obstacles. The stories stay fresh and the desperation stays high without forcing a final confrontation.

So: desperation is great! Especially for stand alone novels, movies, or plays. It pulls the narrative forward and makes characters compelling. But how can a character keep up that level of uncompromising intensity for *years* on a television show without turning cheesy/predictable, or loosing his/her bite?