🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <92322.122322KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET> KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET (Jon L. Campbell) writes:

>  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?

The antagonist need not be the "opposite" of the protagonist, merely
opposed.  The more cleanly the two are delineated, the closer you
approach to fairy tale or melodrama, but it can also heighten the
drama if done well.


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

Of course not.  There are anti-heros, who are protagonists, but less
than totally appealing (although, frankly, most anti-heroes are shown
to be good "deep down" by the end of the story).

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

Absolutely.  No.

>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?

No and yes.  If the antagonist is not in the conflict, then he or she
is not an antagonist (there is no antagonization).  But the antagonist
can definitely be part of the change and growth in a story.  It's
usually more interesting for this to be the case.

>
>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 ??

If the central character is the serial killer, the serial killer *is*
the protagonist.

>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?

Look at "Henry: Portraint of a Serial Killer" for a (relatively)
sympathetic portrayal of a serial killer.  (It's a movie.)

jas

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Sullivan             | Research Scientist et al.
jas@isi.edu (Internet)          | Information Sciences Institute
72511,402    (Compuserve)       | University of Southern California