🚀 go-pugleaf

    I re-read a posting from Fred about the characters in his novel
and it got me to thinking.  I wondered about the depth of his antagonist
and had a couple of questions someone out there might want to answer.

1.)  If an antagonist is supposed to be the opposite of the protagonist,
     then if the protagonist was a jerk wouldn't the antagonist be more
     reasonable?

     -  This part I don't understand.  Is it necessary to have a protagonist
        in the story who is the reflection of good?

     -  Can't a protagonist be a jerk sometimes or should the character
        be above reproach?

2.)  Can an antagonist be anything other then the conflict in the story?

     - Or can the antagonist be in the process of change and therefore,
       expected to become something different?


I guess where I am confused is that if Fred was writing a story about
two people.  One (protagonist) person perceives a problem and the other
(antagonist) is the problem.  Who would the central character be in the
story?  I can understand if a story is based around a serial killer as
the central character, then the developing story line would have to do
with some conflict within the antagonist's personna?  The protagonist
would fall into a supporting role of (?) casual observer or ??

The idea is interesting in itself, but I wonder how it would work.  That
is, taking the three deminisional personna of a serial killer and dealing
with any aspect of humanity.  I'm trying to imagine how a serial killer
could evolve into a nice person, with doubts and fears, and troubled by
what they do.  The idea, as I've said, is interesting.  If the antagonist
evolves into a different character, then wouldn't the protagonist also
change?

The reason I asked this was because I've recently did some background on
serial killers and wondered how they evolved -- after the fact isn't as
interesting as childhood development.