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.

[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).

[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...

[oswann]

Antagonist stops the protagonist from advancing. In whatever form this may be.


Os.

[brinkett]

I don't think in terms of antagonist - I think in terms of conflict. If you don't have conflict, the book will be a snoozer.

[Torin]

I'm with Brinkett. There has to be conflict of some kind, and I remember from school (lo these many years ago) that the three basic kinds of conflict are:

man against man (conflict with other people)
man against nature (weather, earthquakes, etc. I would also classify any other catastrophe, even if manmade, if there is no direct conflict with another human being), and
man against himself (internal conflict).

Torin

[James D. Macdonald]

Why not get a copy of Hallelujah Train by Bill Gulick and see how he did it? Used copies start around three bucks.

[Liam Jackson]

From:
http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/res...ary.Terms.html
Antagonist A person or force which opposes the protagonist in a literary work. In Stephen Vincent Benet's "The Devil and Daniel Webster," Mr. Scratch is Daniel Webster's antagonst at the trial of Jabez Stone. The cold, in Jack London's "To Build a Fire" is the antagonist which defeats the man on the trail.
See Protagonist for more information.
Return to Menu

Also from:
http://web.cocc.edu/lisal/literaryterms/a_c.htm#A
Antagonist
Antagonist "the character, force, or collection of forces in fiction or drama that opposes the protagonist and gives rise to the conflict of the story; an opponent of the protagonist, such as Claudius in Shakespeare’s play Hamlet." (Meyer). Although the antagonist often acts against the protagonist, they do not have to be a villain, they can simply just be the character acting against the protagonist.

[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.

[Liam Jackson]

This whole issue has become a matter of semantics. The folk(s) who assert "almost" no high stories employ antagonists are busy trying to redefine the traditional definition and intended purpose of the antagonist. (Including Dramatica, a self-styled "New and innovative system for writing and scripting")They seem bent on defining the antagonist as a living breathing character. If they choose to narrowly define the term by sticking to only the obvious examples, rather then encompass the full scope of the original definition, that their business. It's also an inaccurate definition. Period.

Bottom line: If the main character meets conflict, (and Forrest Gump, by the way, is loaded with them) then it's a case of protag meets antag. Conflict can be subtle, such as Gump's apparent lack of mental acumen, his largely unrequited love, etc... It can also be, and often is, the Darth Vader type, light saber and all.

However, for the sake of story, we can call the source of conflict a sabertooth snaklegaster instead of antagonist, or we can pretend there are no conflicts in the story. Never read a novel entirely devoid of conflict, and not sure I want to, provided such an animal exists.

To each his or her own. Take the useful and deposit the rest in file 13. All that really matters is telling the story.
*salute*

[sunandshadow]

Maestrowork - The initial definitions of 'protagonist' and 'antagonist' I was using are those from the Dramatica theory:

Protagonist -- [Archetype] --An Archetypal Character who represents the qualities of Pursuit and Consider -- An Overall Story Character charged with the responsibility of pursuing a solution to the story's Overall (Objective) problem. An Overall (Objective) problem does not mean it can't be personal. Rather, it means that all of the dramatically functioning characters in the story are concerned about the outcome. The true Archetypal Protagonist pursues the solution against the Antagonist. In other stories a close cousin of the Protagonist shares all the same elements except he tries to avoid the Antagonist's plan. For the Pursuing Protagonist the goal is to cause something. For the Avoiding "Protagonist" the goal is to prevent something.

Antagonist -- [Archetype] --An archetypal character who is in every way opposed to the Protagonist -- Antagonist and Protagonist are diametrically opposed. What the Protagonist pursues, the Antagonist seeks to avoid or prevent. Together, Antagonist and Protagonist form a Dynamic Pair centered around the story's Goal. In order for one to succeed the other MUST fail.

I would also like to point out that the Jarvis Method, basis for StoryCraft and NewNovelist writing software and based on Joseph Campbell's description of the Hero's Journey, says that in a romance either the hero or the heroine is the antagonist because they oppose the other's attempts to commit to a relationship.


Myself, I am still trying to decide what the most useful ways to define protagonist and antagonist would be. I don't think it's useful to define everything other than the the protagonist as the antagonist. I am leaning toward saying that 'antagonist' is just a term for a second protagonist, and there may be many protagonists in a story; a protagonist being any character who has a goal, pursues that goal, and is dynamic (changes in some way over the course of the story).

[sunandshadow]

Originally Posted by LiamJackson

This whole issue has become a matter of semantics. The folk(s) who assert "almost" no high stories employ antagonists are busy trying to redefine the traditional definition and intended purpose of the antagonist. Bottom line: If your main character meets conflict, (and Forrest Gump, by the way, is loaded with them) then it's a case of protag meets antag.

[snip]

To each his or her own. Take the useful and deposit the rest in file 13. All that really matters is telling the story.
*salute*

Well, if the traditional definition and purpose don't fit what we are trying to write, it's only self-preservation to look for a different definition that works better. I agree, to each their own; my purpose in starting this thread was not to start an argument, but to find out what a variety of people think about the subject and use this info as a basis for forming my own opinion.

(And yes, I think acquiring a copy of the book version of Hallelujah Trail and analyzing it is a good idea - I have a copy of the movie, but the written version would probably be easier to analyze.)

[Liam Jackson]

Originally Posted by sunandshadow

Well, if the traditional definition and purpose don't fit what we are trying to write, it's only self-preservation to look for a different definition that works better. I agree, to each their own; my purpose in starting this thread was not to start an argument, but to find out what a variety of people think about the subject and use this info as a basis for forming my own opinion.

(And yes, I think acquiring a copy of the book version of Hallelujah Trail and analyzing it is a good idea - I have a copy of the movie, but the written version would probably be easier to analyze.)

Again, you're playing the word game. Why doesn't it fit? Are you saying there is no conflict in your story?

BTW, the hero's journey was taken from Hero with a Thousand faces in which Campbell outlined interlocking wheel of keys that purposely placed the hero in certain situations that included a "bad guy". It was not the definitive essay on antagonists, nor was it intended as such.

When you finally settle upon the definitions that work best for you, please share. I'm not interested in an arguement, either, but I am interested in knowing your conclusions. Thanks.

[sunandshadow]

I'm saying I have 4 viewpoint characters, each with their own goals, and they conflict with each other but the climax isn't about a final large conflict or any of them defeating the others, they end the book by unifying to become a family. The plot of the book could be stated as "Four misfits defy society to become a family." But the four characters are themselves part of society, so they are struggling against their own and each others' socially conditioned preconceptions of who they ought to be and how they ought to live.

If I try to take something like this and plug it into the Jarvis Method or the Dramatica theory or The Writer's Journey thay all choke on the fact that I don't have one character who is a hero and one who is an antagonist, so they're useless to me as is, and I am trying to rearrange all I have read about writing theory into a new shape which will work for me and other writers like me (women seem to want to write villain-free stories, non-heroic-journey stories more than men).

[Liam Jackson]

Now, the rain is gone!

Your'e using a protocol that is intended to reduce the writing process to a narrow, plug-in, paint by numbers method. And believe me when I say, to each his own. Some people have success with such programs, provided they want to tell a story that fits within the program's capabilities.

I'm just saying those platforms are narrow in scope for a reason. The whole notion of "plug-in" is it's greatest selling point.

The plug-in antag menu they've afforded you (other characters) doesn't come close to covering the complete spectrum of the antagonist issue. Nor was it intended to. As you describe your story, 4 viewpoints, each with a specific set of conflicts, you also describe the literal antagonist, i.e. whatever the source of the varying conflicts. I also understand the program narrowly defines antags for a reason (making the term plug-in friendly) and therefore limits your choice of antag. Not a bad thing if the story fits within the program's limitations.

Cool

[Sharon Mock]

Originally Posted by sunandshadow

If I try to take something like this and plug it into the Jarvis Method or the Dramatica theory or The Writer's Journey thay all choke on the fact that I don't have one character who is a hero and one who is an antagonist, so they're useless to me as is, and I am trying to rearrange all I have read about writing theory into a new shape which will work for me and other writers like me (women seem to want to write villain-free stories, non-heroic-journey stories more than men).

It shouldn't choke Dramatica. Dramatica's perfectly happy with having your family as objective protagonist and society as objective antagonist. (I know it gives examples of antagonist as non-personified force.) The subjective obstacle character would be one of the four family members -- the one that your main character is primarily engaged with.

In Dramatica terms, my obstacle character is the objective protagonist. So.

If your story structure is choking every system you try to fit it into, that may mean you have a more complex structure than the systems can fit. It may mean you're not being flexible enough with your definitions. Or it might mean that your structure is off -- you're reaching the climax too soon and trying to fashion a climax out of a denoument.

Not every story needs a villain. That doesn't mean your story doesn't need one.

[James D. Macdonald]

See commentary on Dramatica here.

Ignore the theory. Write the book.

[stranger]

I too, am in favour of ditching those programs or whatever they are.

But if you must have an external antagonist, it seems to be society. So you create a character to represent society-- a leader, a priest... someone who wants the status quo and will try and stop your characters or even just play on their sterotyping to prevent them from breaking free from the narrow constrains of society. This antagonist doesn't have to be a bad guy, just someone who doesn't want change.