I considered Voltaire having a general fondness for animals, and decided against it. He has a general neutrality for animals, some fondness for animals that cause problems for people—he once complimented an angry hippo—and a special place in his heart for cats.

Voltaire began in my mind as contrariness to the idea that villains with depth don't think of themselves as evil. There was a very long gap between that initial spark and him actually showing up, however, and he's gone through a lot of changes. The fact that he wound up being an immortal means there's an asterisk next to him saying he's evil, and that asterisk is "by human standards." That's effectively the rejection of the morality of others and claiming the word "evil" as a way of expressing it, which isn't exactly what my original contrariness was going for.

Which, frankly, is fine. A lot of ideas that young writers get as gut responses to being told not to do things are probably best evolved or forgotten. Good things that come from seeing it as a challenge, or getting a good idea, but contrary just for the sake of contrary? I imagine that results in far more misses than hits.

Though, to be clear, Voltaire is evil by my standards. No amount of hugs or power of friendship is going to unearth a heart of gold buried somewhere in him.

--

- Thursday EGSNP