🚀 go-pugleaf

Fred Weldon writes that a story doesn't necessarily need an antagonist.

   I suppose that this is true, but ask:  What really is an antagonist?

   Does antagonist mean it is:

   - someone who opposes the protagonist?
   - someone other than the protagonist?
   - or could be the same as the protagonist?
   - someone who stirs up conflict in a story?
   - or something that stirs up conflict in a story?
   - a noun?

   Let us talk about those stories that proported to have been written
without a clearly identifiable antagonist.  Can anyone think of such a
story?  Think about the story that comes to mind, let the protagonist
talk to you about the problem they encounter in the story.  Imagine
that the protagonist (he) tells you that he has a drinking problem and
can't stop.  No matter how hard he tries, he can't seem to give it up.
Day after day he struggles with his problem, until finally he loses his
job because he was caught drinking on the job.  The job, no matter how
boring was his whole life.  He lived from the job, cared deeply about
what he did, and took solice with his miserable existence because he
had a job too go to every day.
   Now, he doesn't have a reason to get up in the morning and spends
his morning in his shorts drinking cheap booze.  The days become longer.
The televsion can't replace what he had at work and booze only prolongs
the angony.

     Fairly boring plot so far, but has anyone identified the antagonist?
Even if the story progressed to the point that he returns to work without
permission and gets into a conflict with his boss, the antagonist isn't
necessarily his boss.  Then who or what is the antagonist?  > Booze?

   I don't know if booze could be called the antagonist, but unless the
story has no conflict or element of conflict then shouldn't there be an
antagonist somewhere?  If the word antagonist is a noun, then woudn't it
be reasonable to suggest that every instigator of a conflict is an
antagonist in disguise?

   Like I said before, Imagine a story where you believe there isn't
a clearly identifiable antagonist and apply a simple test.  Look for the
conflict, if there is one, and pick out the instigator in the conflict.
That person, place, or thing may be the antagonist in disguise, but
could be cleverly hidden.  Even in a story where there is a serial
killer as the central character there could be a hidden antagonist
lurking in the shadows.  Say that the serial killer (she this time) is
the protagonist and we follow her development in the story.  From the
first murder through reconciliation (resolution/denouncement) with her
inner self.  We follow her as she denounces her actions and seeks to find
a way to end her abusive behavior.  She recognizes that what she does is
wrong and must find a way to stop.  If this story is a clearly identified
path of causual events that lead to a climaxtic closure as I suppose most
stories do, then would it not be reasonable to suggest that her victims
are the antagonists?  Even in a story where we treat the killer with such
sympathy and agree that the actions of the killer were warranted from their
point of view, wouldn't the victims then become the antagonist?

   I don't know the answer to this questions, but maybe some of you out
there do.


Keep thinking of better ways to think makes me want to think about
what it takes to think of better ways to think . . .   I think.


Jon