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]

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).

[mdin]

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.

[mdin]

Damn you, Maestro! Foiled again!

[sunandshadow]

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... (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=antagonist)

[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/resources/shakespeare/Literary.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 (http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/resources/shakespeare/Literary.Terms.html.2#Protagonist) for more information.
Return to Menu (http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/resources/shakespeare/Literary.Terms.html#1. Allegory)

Also from:
http://web.cocc.edu/lisal/literaryterms/a_c.htm#A
Antagonist
Antagonist "the character (http://web.cocc.edu/lisal/literaryterms/elements_of_literature.htm#Character), force, or collection of forces in fiction or drama that opposes the protagonist (http://web.cocc.edu/lisal/literaryterms/i_z.htm#Protagonist) and gives rise to the conflict (http://web.cocc.edu/lisal/literaryterms/elements_of_literature.htm#conflict) of the story; an opponent of the protagonist, such as Claudius in Shakespeare’s play Hamlet." (Meyer (http://web.cocc.edu/lisal/thebluesteye/works_cited.htm#16)). 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/000338.html).

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.

[reph]

Sunandsh., let's face it, not all stories boil down to a good guy and a bad guy. Hamlet is the protagonist of Hamlet. Clearly, his stepfather is a bad guy – but Hamlet is always getting in his own way, so he's his own antagonist, too.

Hamlet is a tragedy. The protagonist starts out depressed (he complains that everything is "stale, flat, and unprofitable," a good statement of how the world looks in depression), and things go downhill from there. Had it been constructed as a story of personal growth, Hamlet would have overcome his psychological difficulties and learned to act more effectively.

I think you've hit on something by identifying the heroic theories of fiction as masculine. I remember little boys playing Superman or cops and robbers; girls played jacks or jumped rope. A story is nothing without conflict, but fights aren't the only kind of conflict. Some stories rely on a conflict between opposing values, good versus good. These values may exist in different characters or in one character.

[maestrowork]

Reph is right on. You're too hung up on the Good guy/Bad guy plot and simply not understanding that as long as there are conflicts, someone or something is going to be the antagonistic force, albeit briefly. It depends on your POV characters -- your protagonists, who you want the readers to identify with. Even in a story with multiple main characters, there are still a few that the readers will identify as the "protagonists." So anything that hinders or prevents them getting to their goals (e.g. the storm in "The Perfect Storm") would be the antagonist.


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...


These are only types of stories. There are other types of stories that involve conflicts between "protagonist" and "antagonist" that do not adhere to the "hero's journey."

Like UJ said, stop the theorizing and start writing.

[oswann]

See commentary on Dramatica here (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/000338.html).

Ignore the theory. Write the book.


After it's finished I would hesitate before telling your agent you have just finished a book with no antagonist.
Os.

[maestrowork]

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.

The society is the antagonist. It doesn't matter if they're part of the society. They're struggling and fighting against it.

Also, it's a man vs. self X 4 story. Thus they each other their own antagonists, and to each other.

Pretty clear to me.

[James D. Macdonald]

After it's finished I would hesitate before telling your agent you have just finished a book with no antagonist.
Os.

By the time you've finished the book you'll know what the conflict is.

[sunandshadow]

Ignore the theory. Write the book.

I like theory. I want to understand what I'm doing, have a plan and understand the purpose of each piece and how they interact. I don't have a problem with starting stories or doing BIC - I have 4 ~60k word novel beginnings laying around, which died because of fundamental plot unsoundness. So I feel that I need to study the theory of plot and lay out an outline for my current novel project if I want to have a good chance of actually finishing the thing. Maybe after I have one complete plot under my belt I'll feel comfortable enough to go back to just writing, but right now I want to learn the principles of design for fiction and carefully design my story.

I want to have an orderly protocol for painting in the numbers and theoretical structure for laying the numbers out to be painted - if someone else can design such a system to work for a hero's journey type of story, I see no reason why I can't or shouldn't make one which will work for the kind of story I want to write.

[sunandshadow]

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.

Huh. You know, I've been playing with dramatica for 2 years but it never occured to me to make the whole family the main character. But who would be the impact character then, society? Because there aren't any other major characters...

[James D. Macdonald]

Take one of the 60K novel beginnings.

Drop two lines, type: Suddenly, without warning, a naked woman screamed!

Go from there for another 20-40K words.

Pick up the next novel beginning.

See who's in the first chapter, and where they are. From the point you left off, get those same people back to the same physical place, but in opposite situations from how they had been. Do it in 20-40K words.

Take the last two 60K beginnings.

Alternate the chapters. Chap 1, Chap 1a, Chap 2, Chap 2a, etc.

Change all the proper nouns so they match from chapter to chapter.

Now boil down the resulting mess to 80-100K words.

You will now have three novels ready to start shipping around while you're working on the theory for the next one.

Meanwhile, by reaching THE END three times, you'll have learned more about writing a novel than any theory book on the planet can teach you, or any software program will give you.

[brokenfingers]

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.

Sounds kinda like The Breakfast Club.

What I don't understand is: If they unite in the end, something must be the factor that gets them to unite. Some common conflict that will cause them to see the error of going about it alone and become one.

If there isn't, what is the dramatic factor that causes them to reach this conclusion? Do they just wake up one day and simultaneously decide:

"Hmmm, I think I'll become closer to those other three misfits and we can be like a family."

Whatever this factor is will most likely be the culprit you're looking for - the elusive antagonist.

If this factor is not there, then I can see the problem you are having with your plot.

[Lenora Rose]

I like theory. I want to understand what I'm doing, have a plan and understand the purpose of each piece and how they interact. I don't have a problem with starting stories or doing BIC - I have 4 ~60k word novel beginnings laying around, which died because of fundamental plot unsoundness. So I feel that I need to study the theory of plot and lay out an outline for my current novel project if I want to have a good chance of actually finishing the thing. Maybe after I have one complete plot under my belt I'll feel comfortable enough to go back to just writing, but right now I want to learn the principles of design for fiction and carefully design my story.

I like theory. I love theory. I don't like anything that purports to be a definitive all-encompassing all-answering theory that chokes the story I want to tell. There's a big difference between a theoretical structure and step by step instructions.

I want to have an orderly protocol for painting in the numbers and theoretical structure for laying the numbers out to be painted - if someone else can design such a system to work for a hero's journey type of story, I see no reason why I can't or shouldn't make one which will work for the kind of story I want to write.

A young painter who is trying to learn how to paint like a certain master, say Vermeer, doesn't go out and buy a paint-by-numbers set.

They go, sit in front of the original painting with a paint box, and paint the image in front of them, trying to imitate the master's strokes as closely as they can. They use their own paper or painting board or canvas. They use their own paints, their own brushes.

They get up and look at it even more closely when they just can't see what they're doing from a distance, compare stroke by stroke, the glimpses of underpainting seen when it's inches away, not just colour by colour, something you definitely can't do with a paint by numbers.

(Have you seen Amelie? The artist doing the same Renoir Painting over and over again? But he's doing it from a blank board, not a set of instructions. And it's implied that he feels he's learning something new each time, in part because he's doing it from nothing. And note also that at the end he stops imitating it at the point when he can't learn anything else new from exact copying. You can debate over and ver whenther he'd stagnated before that but needed an external push. You're here, involved in a community, you can get that external push...)

And someone trying to paint a Vermeer definitely doesn't go out and buy a paint by numbers of Van Gogh's Starry Night, which is a close analogy to what you're trying to do. Your story isn't a Heroic Journey, but it is a real story structure.

You'd probably be better off taking three or four books as similar to yours as you can find, and examining their structure directly, then shamelessly imitating the overall structure. (One way, but not the only way: Write a scene by scene summary of each, and based on those four summaries, create an overall structure which indicates at what point in each story the common threads occur. And yes, that will mean fudging a bit on the rougher fits, but you'll have a relatively strict structure.)

I will say that some very professional writers who've published books have done something not too dissimilar -- and not just ones like Terry Brooks. Jo Walton's Tooth and Claw has been hailed as highly original (And it is - go, read.) But. She's also admitted the plot & structure is a direct theft. (And no, that does not make it unoriginal. There's a line somewhere about the sum of the parts...)

Here's some more Uncle Jim Commentary that seems Relevant:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=82386#post82386

(Before you think this is the wrong post, wait until you get to the bits about "The Trojan Women" and the commentary to follow. That's the part I'm thinking about.)


And here's an old essay from Jaws:

http://savage.authorslawyer.com/storystructure.shtml

(Quick definition: IFS = Interminable Fantasy Series.)

[Jamesaritchie]

I like theory. I want to understand what I'm doing, have a plan and understand the purpose of each piece and how they interact. I don't have a problem with starting stories or doing BIC - I have 4 ~60k word novel beginnings laying around, which died because of fundamental plot unsoundness. So I feel that I need to study the theory of plot and lay out an outline for my current novel project if I want to have a good chance of actually finishing the thing. Maybe after I have one complete plot under my belt I'll feel comfortable enough to go back to just writing, but right now I want to learn the principles of design for fiction and carefully design my story.

I want to have an orderly protocol for painting in the numbers and theoretical structure for laying the numbers out to be painted - if someone else can design such a system to work for a hero's journey type of story, I see no reason why I can't or shouldn't make one which will work for the kind of story I want to write.

I like theory, as well. I've spent a bunch of time studying theory, both in college and on my own. The main thing I learned in all this study is that theory doesn't write novels, and is mainly useful in dissecting novels that have already been written and published, not in writing new one.

The hero's journey is a nice theory, but even it works best when looking back. It doesn't work nearly as well when looking ahead.

You can certainly write a novel using a paint by numbers approach. It may even be a publishable novel. But will almost certainly read the way a paint by numbers picture looks. From my experience, poor plot comes from the paint by numbers approach more often than from any other cause.

Just write the novel. Novels don't die. Not from plot unsoundness or anything else. They die solely because the writer stops working on them. Plot is the easy part. Just tell a story and the plot comes along for free. Even when plotting, you shouldn't finish with a plot, but with a story.

If I learned anything about plot from all the theory I've studied it's that plot theory doesn't make for good plots. Good story makes for good plots. Plot takes place in chapter one, and quite often in scene one. The rest of the novel isn't plot, it's the story the plot in scene one generates.

BIC really doesn't mean a thing unless you finish what you start, regardless of any perceived weaknesses. You can study theory until you die of old age, and it won't help much in writing a novel. You learn to write novels by actually writing novels, beginning to end. Writing half a novel doesn't even teach you how to write half a novel. You don't even learn how to write the opening of a novel until you've written the end.

Theory works best when looking back, not when looking ahead. So finish a novel or four, and use theory, if you much, when looking back at them. Even the hero's journey came about after someone finished a novel. And in my opinion, the number one thing the hero's journey is responsible for is a bunch of novels by new writers that look like paint by numbers pictures start to finish. Just write the novel. Just tell a story.

[SRHowen]

The thing with the plot is this--when you look at finished books you are seeing the plot how it ended up. And I think those story programs only make it look like you must have your book all mapped out to start with, you must know this guy is the good guy, you must know who the bad guy is and you must have this or that element to make a story good.

When you write plots evolve, they come into being. You may have a plot line and write from that, but most of the time plots are seen when the writer types “the end.”

It seems you may be putting too much into the idea of I have to know ver element of the story right now, and that may be why you have not finished the others, when they tried to take you away from a defined path you fought the will of the story and tried to make it turn left when it wanted to go right--stories often fizzle then.

In 8 completed novels I have had no idea where I am going to end up, I’ve had a general idea, but I can only see and state the “plot” when looking back.

Just write the book without trying to make it fit into a cookie cutter--give it permission to make odd turns, and stop thinking you need a cut and dry white hat and black hat setup.

The heros journey and man vs man are only a couple of plot bases, there are many more as have been named here.

[sunandshadow]

I think you've hit on something by identifying the heroic theories of fiction as masculine. I remember little boys playing Superman or cops and robbers; girls played jacks or jumped rope. A story is nothing without conflict, but fights aren't the only kind of conflict. Some stories rely on a conflict between opposing values, good versus good. These values may exist in different characters or in one character.

Yeah, that's what I'm coming to think - the kind of conflict I want to write isn't about fighting; I would describe it as being an imbalance between internal and external or between real and ideal; each character comes up with an idea (often wrong) about how to fix the imbalance most important to them, and then their attempts to change the imbalances interfere with each other - the end of the story is when nothing is left in imbalance. I'm not sure whether this type of a story calls for a climax at all, but people like climaxes, so I'll make an attempt to come up with one and see what happens.

Thinking about the kind of pretend we played as children is interesting. Mostly my sister and I played with plastic horses. The most popular story was probably the social schism/colonization one: either a group of young horses would have a fight with the leader horses and set out to make their own herd (this often involved a wagon train, an ocean voyage, or one time a spaceship to mars. ;) ) Or the scenario could happen in the opposite order - a group of horses could be sent out to explore and colonize a new area, and either they'd find natives (other horses or sometimes a clan of lions and tigers) with a foreign culture, or they'd do a Lord of the Flies and schism into two groups with different cultures. Yet another similar scenario centered around trade and diplomacy between two kingdoms.

The other major variety of plots was more domestic - everyone plants crops and goes hunting, everyone wants new clothes from the furs they hunted and fabrics they wove, everyone wants to show off at the harvest festival to impress the boy or girl they like and get married, each group/family sets up a new household or kingdom, everyone wants to be elected herd leader, every family has kids, all the kids go to school, repeat the whole social cycle with the next generation.

Now, if I look at this, all the elements of the novel I want to write are in there somewhere: a human goes to the aliens' kingdom, he has to trade his unique knowledge to get good treatment, there is a romance, there is a social schism between the new family and the traditional society, the new family wants to set up a household and have a baby, I was even considering putting a festival with costumes in there somewhere, lol. Interesting. And none of the horses ever died or tried to kill each other.

Although it worries me a bit - none of those pretend scenarios ever had climaxes, because they were never really over, just waiting for us to decide what we wanted to play next. Maybe I don't have any instinct for creating climaxes. Hmm...

[LightShadow]

conflict is the key, even if it's internal conflict.

[maestrowork]

Michael Cunningham's THE HOURS is about three women from three different times. There are no "bad guys." Most of the conflicts and struggles are internal. The common antagonist in the novel: loss of self (identity/worth, etc.). The manifestation of such: depression and withdrawal from life. At the end, these women deal with their struggles in very different ways. Each finds her own solution, with consequences.

[LightShadow]

my point exactly, but not so well put and illustrated.

[write4details]

Exactly, The whole "protagonist" theory package is not all that useful to writing (as opposed to analysis and criticism) and there are lots of stories that work without those elements.

It's interesting to see here how many people endorse that and offer the sentiments of just writing your dam story and ignoring the labels.

Intersting because I am used to posting on screenwriter forums where people get literally histerical at the idea that a movie might not have a protagonist (nevermind there is a huge argument going on about who the protagonist of "Pulp Fiction" is and somebody has just declared that the antagonist in "Die Hard" is the building itself.) The idea that buddy movies and loves stories don't fit that scheme drives them wild. Not to mention the cult of "Hero" with it's calls and shape-changers and such.

So I'm glad to see a healthy distancing from these concepts. Your story and characters are your guides here.

[oswann]

I like theory, as well. I've spent a bunch of time studying theory, both in college and on my own. The main thing I learned in all this study is that theory doesn't write novels, and is mainly useful in dissecting novels that have already been written and published, not in writing new one.

The hero's journey is a nice theory, but even it works best when looking back. It doesn't work nearly as well when looking ahead.

You can certainly write a novel using a paint by numbers approach. It may even be a publishable novel. But will almost certainly read the way a paint by numbers picture looks. From my experience, poor plot comes from the paint by numbers approach more often than from any other cause.

Just write the novel. Novels don't die. Not from plot unsoundness or anything else. They die solely because the writer stops working on them. Plot is the easy part. Just tell a story and the plot comes along for free. Even when plotting, you shouldn't finish with a plot, but with a story.

If I learned anything about plot from all the theory I've studied it's that plot theory doesn't make for good plots. Good story makes for good plots. Plot takes place in chapter one, and quite often in scene one. The rest of the novel isn't plot, it's the story the plot in scene one generates.

BIC really doesn't mean a thing unless you finish what you start, regardless of any perceived weaknesses. You can study theory until you die of old age, and it won't help much in writing a novel. You learn to write novels by actually writing novels, beginning to end. Writing half a novel doesn't even teach you how to write half a novel. You don't even learn how to write the opening of a novel until you've written the end.

Theory works best when looking back, not when looking ahead. So finish a novel or four, and use theory, if you much, when looking back at them. Even the hero's journey came about after someone finished a novel. And in my opinion, the number one thing the hero's journey is responsible for is a bunch of novels by new writers that look like paint by numbers pictures start to finish. Just write the novel. Just tell a story.



If you read nothing else on these boards, ever, remember this post.

Os.