Protagonist and Antagonist: Definition - Writers Forum

Gilles · 04-12-2008, 11:14 AM

Because I despise the terms "good guy" and "bad guy" I have been thinking of a more accurate description of protagonist and antagonist. I would like to know if it seems right.

Protagonists and antagonists are not always good or bad. The first good example that comes to mind is "Death Note" (Couldn't think of any books.) The one I consider the main protagonist is a mass murderer killing off criminals to eliminate crime and create a perfect world. In fact I have found myself cheering for him at times. He never redeems himself; he dies thinking he is just. This is almost a perfect exaple of a “bad guy” (Though you’re the one that determines, but that would be another thread/rant.) Despite this, to me he is the protagonist.

To me, a Protagonist is the more "main" (for lack of better word) conscious being in the main conflict. "Conscious being" could mean human, android, robot, animal, even a personified rock. "Conscious" means it is able to experience conflict, that it is capable of conflict. "More main" is my sad attempt at saying the one who has more coverage in the story, it could be through narrative (though narrative doesn't determine protagonist), or the importance of the character.

The antagonist, put simply, is the main “thing” opposing the protagonist. I say “Thing” because it could be an evil overlord, rebelling robot, nature, or the protagonist himself.

So, what do you think? Is there any truth in this or am I deluded?

seigfried007 · 04-12-2008, 12:01 PM

If I'm catching your drift right, I think you're right.

Protagonist = main character
Anatagonist= Force opposing MC

Antagonist doesn't have to be a person at all--or even conscious. It can be the weather (Man Vs Nature) or even the MC (Man Vs Himself). Giving the antagonist a personification works well (reference the Matrix and Mr. Smith).

According to Webster's:

Protagonist n. the leading figure (as in a play)
Anatagonist n. an active opponent

Joe Moore · 04-12-2008, 03:50 PM

Gilles,
Here's another way to look at it. Ask the question, Whose story is it? The answer should be the protag. Who or what is the biggest obstacle in the path of the progat getting what he or she wants? That should be the antag.
Joe

Gilles · 04-12-2008, 07:11 PM

Sorry sigfread if it wasn't obvious enough. I was kinda in a rush typing it.

I just wanted to know if I was right/be corrected. It has to do with a debate me and my father had over this. It also has to do with my friend (who is also a writer) who uses "good guy" and protagonist and "bad guy" and antagonist somewhat interchangeably.

Anyways the replies have pretty much agreed with what I was saying (But not saying well apparently.)

lin · 04-12-2008, 08:20 PM

No, the answer to "whose story is it?" is Main Character.
IF there is one, rather than several characters of equal importance as so manyc stories have. (Who's the "protag" of "Gone with the WInd"? Scartlett or Rhett? Whose the big show in Romeo and Juliet, etc.)

Look up the greek. The protagonist is the one who takes action. The antagonist opposes the action. (Nobody ever seems to realize there should be a "syntagonist", in the Hegelian dialectic sense)

I would say these terms are generally useless because they are extremely limited. As much or more than "good guy", "bad guy".

Worse, they are harmful to writers, particularly young writers who think they mean something and start working around the concept.

In fact, a story doesn't really need a protagonist, the protagonist doesn't have to be the main character (you see stories in which the main is sort of carried along by a more active person, but it's still their story). A story sure as hell doesn't need an "antagonist". (Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl: where's the antagonist?)

I'd suggest leaving these terms alone, along with "character arc" and a lot of such buzzwords. What's hard to understand about "main character"? Nobody has to ask what it means, do they? In some cases there are "main characters".

Most people use this term to appear sophisticated. To me, they look like chumps for buying into it. But suit yourself.

lin · 04-12-2008, 08:25 PM

Take a look at Shakespeare. VERY hard to apply this crap to him.

Let's take "Othello". Okay, is Othello the main character? Does he set anything into motion? Does anybody oppose it?

No, Iago takes action and Othello is along for the ride. The only thing opposing the action is Desdemona. And you know what happened to her.

How about MacBeth. Is the Thane of Cawdor the Big Mac in that one? Is he the "hero"? Is he the "good guy"? Is the protagonist? Or is his crazed-bitch old lady the prime mover?

Romeo and Juliet? Assign those terms is you want to get confused.

How about Hamlet? Literatures most famous NON protagonist.

It's not a helpful concept.

(And I hope to hell nobody starts trying to answer those rhetorical questions. I've seen enough stupid screenplay forum threads go on for weeks about who the Protagonist in "Pulp Fiction" is or if the BUILDING can be the antagonist in "Die Hard" and if a guy deciding to spend more time with his family constituites "character arc".

FUCK the terminology. Write your story.

CroZ · 04-12-2008, 08:27 PM

The antagonist would act like an obstacle to the main character(s). It doesn't have to be directly opposed to the goal and it doesn't have to be a person. (I hate labels)

(Spoiler)

I loved Death Note right up until they killed L. I thought it was a cool twist but that whole child detective thing was stupid.

Gilles · 04-12-2008, 09:37 PM

lin: I'm not clarifying this so that I can apply it in story. It is just to check if my position was more accurate then that of my father even though in the end he agreed with me (For the record, yes, I can be that obsessive.) I have almost never come into a spot in writing where I asked myself "Is this a minor or secondary character?" or the like.

Mike C · 04-13-2008, 02:21 AM

It's simple. Good guys wear white hats, bad guys black. Protagonists are South American midgets originating in Protagonia, and are known for their juggling skills. Antagonists always have waxed moustaches and twirl the ends of them incessantly.

The syntagonist, obviously, plays jazz accompaniment on tenor sax.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lin

FUCK the terminology. Write your story.

Surely Lin you realise that you can't be a proper writer until you know all the terminology? Once you have all that down pat, you don't need to write, you can just talk about writing which you can do in bars with friends, which is obviously far more fun than actually doing it, which is a solitary pursuit.

seigfried007 · 04-13-2008, 08:24 AM

I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that, Mike

jon_snow · 04-13-2008, 03:34 PM

In the story I'm writing, the "bad guy" is trying to do something, and the "good guys" are trying to stop him. The "bad guy"'s actions control the story, so would that make him the protagonist? I think the best definition is that the protagonist is the main character, and the antagonist is trying to stop him.

lin · 04-14-2008, 12:35 AM

No, read my post above. You'd be a lot less mixed up to either look these words up or WAY BETTER YET stop using them.

There terms were created for analysis of what writers create, not for writers to try to use them to create their work. It's a mindfuck and not a good idea.

"Control the story"... no that would be a term known as "the author".

Mike C · 04-14-2008, 08:38 AM

And let's not forget scenarios like the movie 'Magic' where the protagonist and antagonist are the same person - the ventriloquist.

lin · 04-14-2008, 11:13 AM

Is that allowed?

Gilles · 04-14-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Is that allowed?

Is what allowed? Protagonist and antagonist being the same? Isn't that man vs. himself?