without an antagonist

[sunandshadow]

Many how-to-write books state that without an antagonist, there is no plot. An antagonist contributes to plot by causing a problem for the protagonist to struggle against and a target which can be battled and defeated decisively, making for a dramatic climax. But, is an antagonist the only way to get these things, or just the easiest?

The problem can come from other places than the antagonist. In a mystery, the problem can be generated simply by the protagonist's obsessive need to know something. In other cases the protagonist's struggle may be against himself - does this make the protagonist also the antagonist? What if you have 2 characters and each struggles both against himself and against the other character? Are they bothe protagonists? Both antagonists? Both... both? That's a formula for a romance novel, and I don't know about you, but I would feel odd calling either a hero or a heroine the antagonist. What about an abstract antagonist like a storm? Is it really legitimate to consider an abstraction a character? How do you fight back against wind and rain?

If a problem can be created without an antagonist, then that problem can also be solved without confronting an antagonist - but without a confrontation, is the solution to the problem dramatic enough to serve as the climax? Personally I believe that it is possible to use as a discovery, transformation, or decision as a dramatic antagonist-less climax.

What do you all think? Can you think of any examples of dramatic, structurally sound books or movies which don't have an antagonist?

One example that comes to my mind is the movie _The Hallelujah Trail_. The movie has several distinct factions and leaders: The colonel, his cavalry, Mrs. Massingale, her temperance marchers, newspaperman Horace Greely, Wallingham the wagon train master, his irish teamsters, Oracle Jones, his militia, two indian chiefs, and their indians. Major non-human players are a dust storm, a swamp, and exploding champagne. The problem is caused beause everybody has a strong opinion about what should be done with 40 wagonloads of alcohol. The sneaking and politicking between these several factions make for a very dramatic (and hilarious) movie, with a dramatic climax where the problem is solved when the different factions plans interact in an unexpected way which decisively removes from play the alcohol everyone was struggling over, with no final battle and no one being defeated. A wonderful movie without an identifiable antagonist. So... where can I find a how-to-write book which teaches how to write this kind of story?

[Liam Jackson]

The weather, internal demons, disease, environment, elements etc., have all served as perfectly acceptable antagonists. Such conflicts are resolved in numerous ways. Coming of age/self-realization, enduring/surviving, outwitting/coping. As for how-too books, I can't recall any, however, someone may chime in with a recommendation.

[XThe NavigatorX]

Like Liam said, I think you're missing three very important points. 1) The antagonist doesn't have to be human 2) the antagonist doesn't have to be bad and 3) the protagonist and the antagonist can very easily be the same person.

Whatever causes the problem (or whatever is keeping the person from solving the problem) is the antagonist. Person. Place. Thing. Memory. Whatever.

[XThe NavigatorX]

Damn you, Maestro! Foiled again!

[sunandshadow]

Originally Posted by XThe NavigatorX

Whatever causes the problem (or whatever is keeping the person from solving the problem) is the antagonist. Person. Place. Thing. Memory. Whatever.

That's not a useful definition of antagonist. Have you ever heard the saying, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."? If you define anything obstructing the protagonist to be the/an antagonist, you have effectively defined everything except the protagonist to be the antagonist.

For example, let's consider the famous Star Trek episode "The Trouble With Tribbles". I think it's safe to assume that Captain Kirk is the protagonist. In addition to him, in the story you have Cyrano Jones, who is illegally selling tribbles; the tribbles themselves, who eat the grain intended for the colonists, reproduce like mad, and avelanche on Kirk's head; the crew members who think the tribbles are cute and want to protect them from Kirk; and the Klingons in disguise, who poisoned the grain intending to kill the colonists, but accidentally killing the tribbles instead. All of those people/factions obstruct Kirk's mission to get the grain to the colonists in one way or another - would you really call them all antagonists?

[sunandshadow]

Maestrowork - Your conclusions are inconsistent. If the same character can be both protagonist and antagonist, and if there can possibly be two protagonists, there's no reason to conclude that both characters can't be both. If a hero and a heroine have conflicts with each other, doesn't this by definition make them antagonistic forces to each other? Perhaps it would help if you would put forth your definitions of what a protagonist and an antagonist are.


As for the example, the dust storm acts to equalize all the factions and deadlock them, but it doesn't really directly oppose anyone's goals, so I really don't think it can be considered an antagonist. The champagne and the swamp are just devices - their responses are predicted and manipulated by some of the factions, they don't act on their own or directly oppose anyone. So if you want to look for an antagonist the only choices are the various factions and the alcohol itself.

[Euan H.]

An antagonist is...

[maestrowork]

Originally Posted by sunandshadow

Maestrowork - Your conclusions are inconsistent. If the same character can be both protagonist and antagonist, and if there can possibly be two protagonists, there's no reason to conclude that both characters can't be both. If a hero and a heroine have conflicts with each other, doesn't this by definition make them antagonistic forces to each other? Perhaps it would help if you would put forth your definitions of what a protagonist and an antagonist are.

I wasn't inconsistent. In a romance, both the hero and heroine (thus their roles as hero and heroine) are protagonists because at the end, we root for them to get together and live happily ever after. It doesn't mean they don't have conflict with each other. In fact, that's part of the fun and charm of seeing the hero and heroine fight each other. For example, in "Taming of the Shrewd." They switch roles. They are antagonists to each other, and they are also the protagonist of the entire story.

The others have given you good definition of "antagonists" -- either a character or a force to hinder/stop the protagonist from getting what he/she wants.

As for the example, the dust storm acts to equalize all the factions and deadlock them, but it doesn't really directly oppose anyone's goals, so I really don't think it can be considered an antagonist. The champagne and the swamp are just devices - their responses are predicted and manipulated by some of the factions, they don't act on their own or directly oppose anyone. So if you want to look for an antagonist the only choices are the various factions and the alcohol itself.

Not true. An "antagonistic force" does not have to "actively" oppose the protagonist to become antagonistic. Anything that creates the conflict and stops the protagonist could be considered antagonists.

And in your case, perhaps these people are antagonists to each other. That's allowed. Or antagonist against themselves (Man vs. Self). But at the end, you still should have someone to root for -- the protagonists.

[maestrowork]

Originally Posted by sunandshadow

All of those people/factions obstruct Kirk's mission to get the grain to the colonists in one way or another - would you really call them all antagonists?

Yes. And sometimes the antagonists include Kirk himself. Have you ever heard the saying, "You're your worst enemy?" Many a time Spock had to save Kirk from himself...

[sunandshadow]

I posted my original post both here and at gamedev.net, and it's been fascinating how opposite the reactions are. Take a look at the first response I got there:

Estok wrote:
Almost no high level stories use antagonists. The concept of an antagonist is like the concept of having santa claus, where most of the time it is an unnecessary personification. The following is a small list of examples of stories with no antagonists. You may find villainish roles. But 'fighting the villain' is not what the story is about.


The Wedding Banquet, Finding Neverland, Hero, Memento, Catch me if you can, Forrest Gump, American Beauty, Beautiful Mind, Saving Private Ryan, Three Kings, The Aviator, ...

Finding Nemo, Kiki’s Delivery Service, Perfect Blue, Millenium Actress, Monster Inc., Tokyo Godfathers, Beauty and the Beast, Area 88, ...


The most ancient form of writing without antagonists (or even characters) is poetry. So if you know how to write a poem you will know how to write a story without any antagonist.


"An antagonist contributes to plot by causing a problem for the protagonist to struggle against and a target which can be battled and defeated decisively, making for a dramatic climax."
An antagonist is a concentration, manifestation, or personification of a set of believes or a point of view in an argument. In your statement, the Force is what causes the conflict, not the Representation of the Force. An antagonist is a choice of representation for the Force.

I don't necessarily agree with his examples - In Beauty and the Beast the enchantment transforming the beast and threatening to make the transformation permanent could be regarded as the antagonist, and then the Disney version has Gaston as a secondary antagonist. Perfect Blue has the murdurer and the crazy woman encouraging him as a collective antagonist. But Kiki's Delivery Service doesn't have an antagonist, and I don't think Forrest Gump does either, so I think some of his examples are valid.

[maestrowork]

Originally Posted by sunandshadow

In other cases the protagonist's struggle may be against himself - does this make the protagonist also the antagonist?

Yes.

What if you have 2 characters and each struggles both against himself and against the other character? Are they bothe protagonists? Both antagonists? Both... both?

In this case, you could have two protagonists whose antagonistic force is themselves. Or one can be the antagonist (against the protagonist). They can't be BOTH antagonists, though, because you have to have a protagonist to antagonize against...

That's a formula for a romance novel, and I don't know about you, but I would feel odd calling either a hero or a heroine the antagonist.

Both are protagonists, even though they have conflicts with each other.

What about an abstract antagonist like a storm? Is it really legitimate to consider an abstraction a character? How do you fight back against wind and rain?

An "antagonistic force" does not have to be a "character." A storm, for example, is the antagonistic force in a Man vs. Nature story, such as "A Perfect Storm."

If a problem can be created without an antagonist, then that problem can also be solved without confronting an antagonist - but without a confrontation, is the solution to the problem dramatic enough to serve as the climax?

There's is always conflict in drama. And there is always an antagonistic force: Man vs. Nature; Man vs. Self; Man vs. Man.

Personally I believe that it is possible to use as a discovery, transformation, or decision as a dramatic antagonist-less climax.

Sounds like Man vs. Self here.

What do you all think? Can you think of any examples of dramatic, structurally sound books or movies which don't have an antagonist?

Most drama has at least one antagonistic force. There are, of course, books and movies that do not revolve around "conflicts." But usually, they make for very dull read.

One example that comes to my mind is the movie _The Hallelujah Trail_....Major non-human players are a dust storm, a swamp, and exploding champagne.

Sounds like some antagonistic forces here.

A wonderful movie without an identifiable antagonist. So... where can I find a how-to-write book which teaches how to write this kind of story?

Perhaps they're all antagonists against each other, with no clear "protagonists." Or they are all protagonists and the antagonistic force is the "circumstances" or "situations." Something like "Deep Impact" or "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" (or the remake "Rat Race"... but those movies, actually, there is an antagonist, when you think about it. John Cleese's character in "Rat Race" is the antagonist).

[write4details]

Exactly, The whole "protagonist" theory package is not all that useful to writing (as opposed to analysis and criticism) and there are lots of stories that work without those elements.

It's interesting to see here how many people endorse that and offer the sentiments of just writing your dam story and ignoring the labels.

Intersting because I am used to posting on screenwriter forums where people get literally histerical at the idea that a movie might not have a protagonist (nevermind there is a huge argument going on about who the protagonist of "Pulp Fiction" is and somebody has just declared that the antagonist in "Die Hard" is the building itself.) The idea that buddy movies and loves stories don't fit that scheme drives them wild. Not to mention the cult of "Hero" with it's calls and shape-changers and such.

So I'm glad to see a healthy distancing from these concepts. Your story and characters are your guides here.