No 'Real' Antagonist...

The antagonist could be "self," too. The basic plots include: man vs. man (what you call the typical antagonist), man vs. nature, man vs. self.

In my novel I don't have a real antagonist either. As a matter of fact, some of my readers embrace the fact that there's no good vs. bad -- they're just people, really. But my story is basically a "man vs. self" one so you can say the real antagonist is the protagonist himself.

I think in your case, the book or the "circumstances/adversaries" in that magic world are the antagonistic elements. Maybe the whole adventure is antagonistic.

I'd say don't fret over it. As long as you have good conflicts and resolutions, I think your readers will enjoy the journey.

Christine,

Just to expand on the use of Man vs. Self as an antagonistic force, many of my short stories rely on some flaw within the protagonist that prevents him or her from achieving a goal.

Within the broader context of a novel, the writer has a mulitude of opportunities to restate that internal antagonistic force--like a dramatic Greek chorous--via various forms of narrative, i.e. dialogue, internal monologues, flashbacks, action, plot structure etc.

It's a challenging premise, but so rewarding once a writer can master it. I've been struggling with the task for three years now in my novel. I've finally waved the whte flag and have expanded my antagonistic force to also conclude Man vs Society as well.

Regarding your book, it does sound as if you will have a blend of Man vs Himself and Man vs Society too. Makes for great reading, less predictable than an out right good vs. evil premise.

Revise it till it gleams! You can never go wrong with that premise!
JAlpha

Quite a few of my favourite books have no specific antagonist. 'The Year of the Griffin' by Diana Wynne Jones has a group of mist-fit students at a wizard's university struggling against pirates, assassins, killer griffins and, most importantly, the complacency and stagnation of the teachers within the university. It's incredibly funny and inventive. And at the end we realise that in the midst of everything else they've been going through, each student has also been fighting his or her own nature too.

Ursula Le Guin's beautiful book 'The Other Wind' has no antagonist either. Each character embarks on a physical and spiritual journey and is changed by the end of it - each of them struggles against different internal and external obstacles. I'm not ashamed to say this book made me cry. Having no specific antagonist didn't make it any less wonderful a read.

So if you like the book and are confident that it has enough internal and external conflict to keep readers interested, don't worry about it.

antagonists aren't necessary. it's not that they're bad, but one certainly can get by without them.


i would name some examples, but i'm being called ot lunch.

(of cours, emy owqn writing is generally replete with antagonistic, though not always evil, figures. but that's just me.)

I have a story where the over arching antogonist is a piece of paper. The obvious protagonist is a young woman, but the underlying, real motivator of the book, is a dream. No one who's read it yet has not liked it or not understood it.

As long as the conflicts faced by your characters are based in believability (and by that, I mean the motivation behind them, not the content), then the presence or make up of antagonists is secondary.

Cheers, Lisa.