Must the protagonist face the antagonist?

My antagonist is a behind-the-scenes manipulator, setting up conflicts between other characters to achieve her own ends (the downfall of her husband, the king.) Because it's a tragedy, the protagonist (the king's loyal admiral) never gets wise to this until the end of the story, when he realises that, if it were not for him, the antagonist would never have become queen.

The climax is a conflict between the proud and self-deceived admiral and the wrong guy—a set-up by the antagonist. The protagonist learns a terrible life lesson by the end. He loses the philosophical fight. The antagonist succeeds in bringing about the fall of the king, but also brings down the kingdom itself. She is forced to flee for her life with the king, the man she detests, as her only protection.

There is never actually a showdown between the protagonist and the antagonist. I feel it would cheat the tragic elements of the story; somebody would have to emerge the victor. Do you think this is legitimate? Might this be dissatisfying to the reader?

I am heartened (ahem) by the bard's King Lear, where just about everybody dies.

Do you think this is legitimate?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Might this be dissatisfying to the reader?

Click to expand...

That will depend totally on your skill as a wrtier.

>>Do you think this is legitimate? Might this be dissatisfying to the reader?<<

If it's what your story demands and you can make it work, it's perfectly legitimate. Consider, though, that a final confrontation needn't be a showdown in which one character "wins", but a coda in which you encapsulate the themes you've been following through the book. There might be some good tragic potential in a final encounter between two characters who for completely different reasons, and on opposing sides, have lost everything--and know it.

- Victoria

showdown

If you're good enough, you can get by with anything. But the reader must be satisfied with the ending. I can say this, "Everybody dies" is one of the things editors generally hate to see, and one of the things that make most editorial lists of things writers should avoid.

There can be tragedy in victory, and there's nothing at all wrong with someone winning and someone losing, It's real life.

Re: showdown

Two things to avoid are "arbitrary" and "meaningless."

(That's the classic "and they were all run over by a truck" ending, second only to the "then he woke up" ending in the list of Sucky Endings.)

The master rule is Does It Work?

Re: showdown

There must be payoff at the end of the story, something satisfying emotionally for the readers who have invested her time and emotions in your story. The question of "does it work" applies to that. A payback doesn't necessarily means triumph over evil, boy gets the girl, etc. But endings such as "everybody dies" or "it's only a dream" violate that author-reader trust and take away that emotional payoff.

Even a great tragedy should have the payoff. In Romeo and Juliet, for example. Even though both of them died at the end, but there's something underneath that is worthwhile for the readers -- that is, true love and sacrifice.

You have ask, in your final confrontation, if the protag and antag don't meet, and if nobody wins, what is the payoff? What are the lessons learn? How would your readers feel at the end -- is it a worthwhile story for them?

Re: showdown

In Romeo and Juliet, the two lovers are together forever, which solves their problem -- and their feuding families are brought together ("Two households, both alike in dignity, / In fair Verona, where we lay our scene, / From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, /Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean") which solves the over-all problem stated at the start of the play.

Now it's true that if you're sufficiently good that you can make "it was only a dream" work -- see Alice in Wonderland for an example.

The question is, are you that good?

Only writing your book can tell you that.

Re: showdown

Nor must there be an "antagonist," especially in a story of "man against self." In my book, there's no "bad guy" and some of my readers are actually delighted by that. The question is, does it work for the story. In my case, I believe it does.

Re: showdown

I agree. In my view, cut-and-dried antagonists are getting a little jaded. They probably sit around at their local Villain Lodge and cry on each other's shoulders about the appalling quality of their parts. The standardised approach always reminds me of the inevitable 'atrocity scenes' at the beginning of every bad action movie. The villians invariably rape/murder/molest/whatever some pointless characters, and that's somehow supposed to justify the hero's body count and absolve him or her from any questionable ethical or moral choices that may have been made (yawn).

Historically, the world's metaphorical-axe-weilding maniacs have always believed that they were the good guys - just look at St Dominic, Hitler, Stalin and Dubya. Some people still claim that they were.

An interesting example of life in the grey zone is Gibson's Neuromancer. His 'heroes' commited several hundred crimes in the course of their dogged pursuit of self-interest, and yet somehow managed to endear themselves to the reader. The villians and heroes we encounter in the real world are largely cast as such based solely on the vested interests and subjective judgements of the observer.

Perhaps we can addend 'Kill your villains' to the old chestnut 'Kill your heroes', or even replace it with Dominic Guzman's all-encompassing, saintly succinctness - 'Kill them all. God will know his own.'

Re: showdown

"Kill them all, God will know his own" is a quote from Arnaud-Amaury at Béziers.

Re: showdown

I would say that a final confrontation is probably a good idea.I don't know the full details of the plot, but i think i'd like to see it. I don't think there would necessarily be a winner and a loser.

They can spend the time talking, and for one reason or another be unable to fight. their confrontation could be interrupted by something. they could realize halfway through that the situation has gotten bad enough that they need to band together to survive. the queen could plead for forgiveness before killing herself, which i wouldn't count as a win for anyone.

in my book (also a tragedy), the main theme is that the conflict was totally unneccesary, since everyone involved is good. it was thus essential that there be a number of confrontations between the parties.

some of them resulted in death, but in one case, after the war is over, the king and the rebel leader's lover meet. they are both too tired to fight, so the king pardons her and takes her back to the castle. she always resents him, but they both live and each strive in thier own ways to rebuild the land.

similarly, in your story it might be that by the time of the confrontation, neither party sees the need for any mroe conflict, and so they don't press the issue.

just some ideas....

Re: showdown

"Kill them all, God will know his own" is a quote from Arnaud-Amaury at Béziers.

Click to expand...

So it was. My mistake. It is indeed attributed to the papal legate, Abbot Arnaud-Amaury. I expect young Dominic was busy perfecting the gentle art of inserting hot irons into heretical nether regions at the time

Oh, and speaking of torturers and mass-murderers, guess who's just been re-elected? :ack

Re: Synopsis

This has been a great topic for discussion and advice.

I don't know the full details of the plot, but i think i'd like to see it.

Click to expand...

Flawed, here's a brief synopsis:

The Malaccan sultan's loyal admiral, Tuah, obeys an order to kidnap a princess from neighbouring Inderapura. Teja becomes the sultan's wife, to her spite; she was betrothed to another man, Panji. When word reaches Teja that Panji wants to attack Malacca, she works surreptitiously to weaken the city. Panji never succeeds in convincing Inderapura to invade, but Teja manages to undermine Malacca's defences by pitting the sultan against Tuah, and Tuah against the captain of the guard, Jebat (this is a famous battle in Malay legend.) Then, the Portuguese arrive (actually, they return with a gripe) and batter the weakened city. Tuah's beloved Malacca falls, and Teja is forced to flee for her life with her despised husband. As they escape, Tuah realises/learns of Teja's subversion, and that ultimately it is he who is responsible for Malacca's collapse.

Re: Synopsis

umm.... thanks, but when i said "I'd like to see it", the "it" to which i referred was a confrontation between the protagonist and antagonist. this doesn't always need a winner or a loser.

SPOILERS FOR THE ANIME SHOW "VISION OF ESCAFLOWNE"

in "Visison of Escaflowne", the hero, (though not protagonist) King Van of Fanelia repreatedly confronts his enemy. (his brother, Lord Folken, who was thought dead but actually joined the enemy.)

Van is captured by his borther, and learns that his brother actually lived. Folken tries to convince Van to join him, but Van escapes.

later, while in a neutral city, they meet. Folken is surrounded by soldiers and van has been granted asylum, so Folken takes the opportunity to explain the lofty motives of the evil empire.

finally, near the end of the series, Folken sends a message to Van, asking for a meeting and promising not to harm him. Van goes to meet with Folken, and FOlken confesses his sins, explains that he has realized the emperor was wrong and offers to help. Van never forgives his brother, but doesn't kill him, and they both become integral to the fight against the empire.

END OF SPOLERS

these seem to be examples of the type of confrontation you are looking for. no one fight or even wins the argument, the characters are not reconciled, but the confrontation develops the theme and characterds of the story.

Re: Synopsis

When the antagonist is a group of conspirators, it's less clear what constitutes a confrontation. I'm thinking, for instance, of The Manchurian Candidate (first filmed version; haven't read book or seen recent film). There are other novels in which the main conflict is between two cultures. If the conflict is between the POV character and a culture/society, the character can win by escaping.